Continued Discussion With Lnc

[Guest Davka]

Hello Hans, my friend.

I stop by from time to time to see if the tenor of argument has changed. It doesn't much.

 

I think it is the nature of the site.....the trickle of newly hurt people that will eventually flow by. The frustration is periodically heightened through witnessing neither side changing to the degree we would hope. I occasionally poke a little harder at the veterans here in that frustration.

 

Don't let you hope spring start spitting up brine....

 

Good to see you.

 

It is a misconception that only hurt people leave Christianity. Yes, a lot of people are hurt, because - let's face it - the church hurts a lot of people. But there are a lot of us here who bear no animosity towards the Christians we've known, and who have had an overall good experience with Christianity - at least, until we started asking difficult questions.

 

I don't think many of the ex-c crowd here has much hope for change on the part of Christians who visit. It's nice when people say "I never thought of it that way," or even "you're right," but we really don't care what you believe. So long as you're not trying to control other people, you can believe whatever you choose.

 

IOW, ex-christians don't have a dog in that race. You don't have a soul to save and we all end up dead in the end anyways, so why should we obsess over your relationship (or lack thereof) with an imaginary friend?

[Guest end3]

Hello Hans, my friend.

I stop by from time to time to see if the tenor of argument has changed. It doesn't much.

 

I think it is the nature of the site.....the trickle of newly hurt people that will eventually flow by. The frustration is periodically heightened through witnessing neither side changing to the degree we would hope. I occasionally poke a little harder at the veterans here in that frustration.

 

Don't let you hope spring start spitting up brine....

 

Good to see you.

 

It is a misconception that only hurt people leave Christianity. Yes, a lot of people are hurt, because - let's face it - the church hurts a lot of people. But there are a lot of us here who bear no animosity towards the Christians we've known, and who have had an overall good experience with Christianity - at least, until we started asking difficult questions.

 

I don't think many of the ex-c crowd here has much hope for change on the part of Christians who visit. It's nice when people say "I never thought of it that way," or even "you're right," but we really don't care what you believe. So long as you're not trying to control other people, you can believe whatever you choose.

 

IOW, ex-christians don't have a dog in that race. You don't have a soul to save and we all end up dead in the end anyways, so why should we obsess over your relationship (or lack thereof) with an imaginary friend?

 

Can someone reaffirm Davka? Someone?

[Mriana]

Hello Hans, my friend.

I stop by from time to time to see if the tenor of argument has changed. It doesn't much.

 

I think it is the nature of the site.....the trickle of newly hurt people that will eventually flow by. The frustration is periodically heightened through witnessing neither side changing to the degree we would hope. I occasionally poke a little harder at the veterans here in that frustration.

 

Don't let you hope spring start spitting up brine....

 

Good to see you.

 

It is a misconception that only hurt people leave Christianity. Yes, a lot of people are hurt, because - let's face it - the church hurts a lot of people. But there are a lot of us here who bear no animosity towards the Christians we've known, and who have had an overall good experience with Christianity - at least, until we started asking difficult questions.

 

I don't think many of the ex-c crowd here has much hope for change on the part of Christians who visit. It's nice when people say "I never thought of it that way," or even "you're right," but we really don't care what you believe. So long as you're not trying to control other people, you can believe whatever you choose.

 

IOW, ex-christians don't have a dog in that race. You don't have a soul to save and we all end up dead in the end anyways, so why should we obsess over your relationship (or lack thereof) with an imaginary friend?

 

Yes, quite true. I did not leave just because I've been hurt by Xians. I left because I could not buy into the myths.

[bdp]

It is a misconception that only hurt people leave Christianity. Yes, a lot of people are hurt, because - let's face it - the church hurts a lot of people. But there are a lot of us here who bear no animosity towards the Christians we've known, and who have had an overall good experience with Christianity - at least, until we started asking difficult questions.

 

Not only do I not bear animosity, but the overall majority of the contacts on my facebook page are old friends from my Christian days - of course, only one of them knows I'm an 'ex' for what it's worth. But no, I was not hurt by the church or anyone within it, I just realized that I didn't believe any of it anymore and to continue would be to playact a lie.

[Kuroikaze]

To endorse the supremacy of science and of rationalism leaves us with the "purposeless" world described by Bertrand Russel, "void of meaning," where there is no possibility of doing good or living a noble life.

 

I respectfully disagree. Claiming that science and rationalism are the best tools we have for understanding reality does not in any way cause the world to be devoid of meaning.

 

Take this for what it is worth, but in my opinion Christians do this because they are conditioned by their religion to think in certain ways which I find flawed. In this case Christians almost always assume that meaning and purpose must come from an extrinsic source. That in order for meaning to be "real" it must be foisted onto us from someone or something outside us. (like a god)

 

I personally find this notion laughable, meaning and purpose come from within me, and my identity as a fellow human, though I am sure this concept is quite difficult to grasp for people who tend to view everything through the lens of christian theology.

[agnosticator]

To endorse the supremacy of science and of rationalism leaves us with the "purposeless" world described by Bertrand Russel, "void of meaning," where there is no possibility of doing good or living a noble life.

 

I respectfully disagree. Claiming that science and rationalism are the best tools we have for understanding reality does not in any way cause the world to be devoid of meaning.

 

Take this for what it is worth, but in my opinion Christians do this because they are conditioned by their religion to think in certain ways which I find flawed. In this case Christians almost always assume that meaning and purpose must come from an extrinsic source. That in order for meaning to be "real" it must be foisted onto us from someone or something outside us. (like a god)

 

I personally find this notion laughable, meaning and purpose come from within me, and my identity as a fellow human, though I am sure this concept is quite difficult to grasp for people who tend to view everything through the lens of christian theology.

 

This is sooo true Kuroikaze. I thought about saying something when I read that because it is a hypocritical belief, and I get rankled when I hear it. My life has MORE meaning now than when I believed. Believing in an external "cosmic" meaning for humans is empty and irrelevant to life on earth because it's a fantasy. Even if a god exists, we have no way of knowing what meaning and purpose we are to believe and accept.

 

Sure the universe is impersonal, but meaning and purpose is a human construct.

[NotBlinded]

What? What is the matter with you? You have a huge mental block going on LNC or you are purposefully doing it. Did you not read anything I said? What do you think a myth is? Do you think it is something untrue? On what level would it be untrue? The objective? The spiritual? The psychological? The cultural? The cosmological? What level would it be true?

 

Let me say it again, "Literalism kills the intent regardless if it actually occured or not. That is not what is important."

 

It seems all that matters to you is that these people were real and did exactly what is described. The morals are only important if Jonah actually lived in the belly of the whale. That is absurd. Yes, all the people and places you name above could have existed, but you know what. It doesn't matter.

 

It's pretty obvious that you don't understand the purpose of a myth. Read a little Joseph Campbell. He will tell you we need a new myth. An ancient myth that has nothing to do with our culture or understanding of the universe is of no use to us. We can't relate to it. It doesn't mean there aren't "truths" in there, it just gets hard to recognize them when we can't relate to it.

 

Sheesh...I thought I was hard headed.

 

I do have a mental block when people make claims that are unsupported and unsupportable. You have not supported your claim, nor can you as it is not supportable by the facts. And, yes I did read what you wrote. The fact that I don't agree with you is another issue. You simply have not made a convincing case, sorry.

 

Maybe you need to define what you mean by myth, because as I understand it, myth involves a degree of embellishment of factual accounts with that which is not factual (i.e., made up or untrue), or it is fictional altogether. So, if you understand myth in some different way, please tell me. All I am saying, and I will reiterate this fact, is that the NT is not written in the genre of myth. If you believe that it is, then you need to prove that as it is not commonly understood to be the case among those who study literature. I know this as I have interacted with these experts, including two PhDs with whom I studied this summer, both of whom have an expertise in ancient literature. Both agreed that the NT is not written in the genre of myth.

 

When you say, "Literalism kills the intent regardless if it actually occured or not" should I take that statement literally? If so, would it kill the intent of the statement? Or, perhaps I can interpret it as I want to. Maybe, you need to explain whether anything should be taken literally, and if so, when and how do we know? If not, then through what grid should we interpret, or do we all interpret through our own grid?

 

I do believe, for example, that it matters whether Jesus lived or not. If he lived, was God as he claimed, died on the cross to pay for sins, and rose again to display victory over sin and death, then I can be redeemed from my sin (and so can you). If Jesus was purely a mythical figure, and therefore, wasn't God, didn't die on the cross, didn't rise again, then I am lost in my sin (and so are you). It does matter whether this is a real or mythical account.

 

What does Joesph Campbell believe that this new myth will do for us that the old myths could not? Why does he believe that we need a new myth? Why does he believe that a myth will have any real impact on us when the the other myths did not? Just curious. Sorry to be so hard-headed, but truth matters in my book. Myths alone are not enough for me.

That's fair. Myth is a story that could be true or false or a little of both. They have elements that are shared such as a hero and the quest undertaken. Jesus was a savior hero not much different than other myths. Myths have people that undertake a journey in order to learn something about themselves and their place in society. Mythological symbols may change, but the psychological, social, etc impact they have on the person and society are pretty much the same. Myths are meant to point to truths inside a person, not to the outside world. This is why a new myth is needed. The myths of 2000+ years ago do not relate us to ourselves in our society. They were for a different time.

 

Here is an excerpt from a Joseph Campbell interview. He says these things much better than I can. Mythic Reflections

 

Tom: What does myth do for us? Why is it so important?

 

Joseph: It puts you in touch with a plane of reference that goes past your mind and into your very being, into your very gut. The ultimate mystery of being and nonbeing transcends all categories of knowledge and thought. Yet that which transcends all talk is the very essence of your own being, so you're resting on it and you know it. The function of mythological symbols is to give you a sense of "Aha! Yes. I know what it is, it's myself." This is what it's all about, and then you feel a kind of centering, centering, centering all the time. And whatever you do can be discussed in relationship to this ground of truth. Though to talk about it as truth is a little bit deceptive because when we think of truth we think of something that can be conceptualized. It goes past that.

 

Tom: Heinrich Zimmer said "The best truths cannot be spoken. . . "

 

Joseph: "And the second best are misunderstood."

 

Tom: Then you added something to that.

 

Joseph: The third best is the usual conversation - science, history, sociology.

 

Tom: Why do people confuse these?

 

Joseph: Because the imagery that has to be used in order to tell what can't be told, symbolic imagery, is then understood or interpreted not symbolically but factually, empirically. It's a natural thing, but that's the whole problem with Western religion. All of the symbols are interpreted as if they were historical references. They're not. And if they are, then so what?

 

Tom: Let's go carefully here. What are you calling a symbol?

 

Joseph: I'm calling a symbol a sign that points past itself to a ground of meaning and being that is one with the consciousness of the beholder. What you're learning in myth is about yourself as part of the being of the world. If it talks not about you, finally, but about something out there, then it's short. There's that wonderful phase I got from Karlfried Graf Durkheim, "transparency to the transcendent." If a deity blocks off transcendency, cuts you short of it by stopping at himself, he turns you into a worshipper and a devotee, and he hasn't opened the mystery of your own being.

 

Tom: You once called that the pathology of theology.

 

Joseph: That's what I would call it.

 

Tom: Walter Huston Clark says the church is like a vaccination against the real thing.

 

Joseph: Jung says religion is a defense against the experience of god. I say our religions are.

 

Tom: What do you do, then, if the experience is not to be found in religion?

 

Joseph: You find it in mysticism and get in touch with mystics who read these symbolic forms symbolically. Mystics are people who are not theologians; theologians are people who interpret the vocabulary of scripture as if it were referring to supernatural facts.

 

There are plenty of mystics in the Christian tradition, only we don't hear much about them. But now and again you run into it. Meister Eckhart is such a person. Thomas Merton had it. Dante had it. Dionysus the Areopagyte had it. John of the Cross breaks through every now and again and then comes slopping back again. He flashes back and forth.

 

I think Joyce is full of it. And Thomas Mann had it in his writing, though it isn't as far out as Joyce. It's strange how after Mann's death it disappears and you don't get it any more.

 

Tom: To quote your own words again, "A myth is the dynamic of life. You may or may not know it, and the myth you may be respectfully worshipping on Sunday may not be the one that's really working in your heart and the one that's out there in the view of your religious instructors."

 

Joseph: Yes. I would say that's a proper statement, and I would say it again.

 

Tom: How do you unite those two dynamics?

 

Joseph: By placing the emphasis on your own inward dynamic and then filtering out of the inheritance of traditions those aspects that support you in your own inward life. This means not being tied to this, that, or another tradition, but letting the general comparison . . . See, I'm very much for comparative studies of mythology. I think one of the problems today is that society has moved into a multicultural relationship that renders archaic these culture-bounded mythological systems - like the Christian, the Jewish, the Hindu.

 

By getting to know your own impulse system and its images and the things you really are living for, and then to get support for - you might say - universalizing and grounding this personal mythology, you can find support in the other mythologies of mankind.

 

Tom: What are the purposes of myth?

 

Joseph: There are four of them. One's mystical. One's cosmological: the whole universe as we now understand it becomes, as it were, a revelation of the mystery dimension. The third is sociological, taking care of the society that exists. But we don't know what this society is, it's changed so fast. Good God! In the past 40 years there have been such transformations in mores that it's impossible to talk about them. Finally, there's the pedagogical one of guiding an individual through the inevitables of a lifetime. But even that's become impossible because we don't know what the inevitables of a lifetime are any more. They change from moment to moment.

 

Formerly, there were only a limited number of careers open to a male, and for the female it was normal to be a mother or a nun or something like that. Now, the panorama of possibilities and possible lives and how they change from decade to decade has made it impossible to mythologize. The individual is just going in raw. It's like open field running in football - there are no rules. You have to watch everything all the way down the line. All you can learn is what your own inward life is and try to stay loyal to that.

 

I'm going to yank this part out and address it separately:

 

I do believe, for example, that it matters whether Jesus lived or not. If he lived, was God as he claimed, died on the cross to pay for sins, and rose again to display victory over sin and death, then I can be redeemed from my sin (and so can you). If Jesus was purely a mythical figure, and therefore, wasn't God, didn't die on the cross, didn't rise again, then I am lost in my sin (and so are you). It does matter whether this is a real or mythical account.

It really doesn't matter because the story isn't being related to your own inward salvation now. It is a postponement of what can happen to you now. We can all die to our "sins" right now, on our own cross right now. These symbols are supposed to relate you to an inward experience. Taken outwardly, you will live your life being lost in your sin waiting for a day in the future sometime. Jesus was pretty much about getting one to understand the inner peace in the present. This can't happen if you turn the symbols outward. You never get to experience your own salvation; you await a savior from the outside.

 

This is why I say it doesn't matter if the stories happened or not. Especially if they are taken to heart so to speak. But, one has to be able to relate to the story if any "Aha" moment is going to happen. The story can be the same, but with different props. Ones more suitable to our time. Star Wars was writen based off of Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces. This story is futuristic, but it has many of the same elements of myth. Now, if we can find one in between somewhere.

 

Just google Christian mythology and you will be able to see the elements that are common in myths appearing in Christianity also.

[Saviourmachine]

Self-appointed experts on various sides of an issue (with supposed degrees in the field under discussion) quote popularized positions that are a decade or more out of date. Causality (and time?) crosses the singularity, by the way, according to work both before and since the turn of the century. Inflation is speculation and eternal inflation is speculation on speculation. The 'Bang' is more likely cyclic, ending in a crunch; at least that's the recent theory.

 

Apart from the recreational arguments though, i still see some honest questions and answers. Helpful, human stuff springing from what looks like genuine desire for truth. You almost get the impression that some of the folks here want to be larger than their own belief systems. To endorse the supremacy of science and of rationalism leaves us with the "purposeless" world described by Bertrand Russel, "void of meaning," where there is no possibility of doing good or living a noble life. Yet having adopted that position, so many here, yourself included Hans, live otherwise, hoping to do good, to live nobly, to walk graciously with their fellow man.

Are you a poet?

 

Purpose is not defined by the origin of your mindset, be it god or evolution. It is defined by yourself my fellow.

 

My expertise is in evolutionary robotics and although it's hard, gradually we get more grips upon what it means to be purposeful for a robot. An artificial amygdala might give rise to affective mechanisms, artificial basal ganglia might perform action selection, depending on both an affective and cognitive context. Look at "global workspace theory" by Baars or the implementation by Shanahan how this is currently done. There is the RobotCub, a robot that is supposed to be a 2 year old kid. You might be void of context or purpose if you don't have a god in your life. But even a robot is not that lost...

[bdp]

LNC said:

 

I do believe, for example, that it matters whether Jesus lived or not. If he lived, was God as he claimed, died on the cross to pay for sins, and rose again to display victory over sin and death, then I can be redeemed from my sin (and so can you). If Jesus was purely a mythical figure, and therefore, wasn't God, didn't die on the cross, didn't rise again, then I am lost in my sin (and so are you). It does matter whether this is a real or mythical account.

 

 

 

...or, option C, 'sin' is a mythical concept. The accounts of 'Jesus' only matter if 'sin' is real. I don't lose any sleep over any of it.

[NotBlinded]

 

I do believe, for example, that it matters whether Jesus lived or not. If he lived, was God as he claimed, died on the cross to pay for sins, and rose again to display victory over sin and death, then I can be redeemed from my sin (and so can you). If Jesus was purely a mythical figure, and therefore, wasn't God, didn't die on the cross, didn't rise again, then I am lost in my sin (and so are you). It does matter whether this is a real or mythical account.

 

 

...or, option C, 'sin' is a mythical concept. The accounts of 'Jesus' only matter if 'sin' is real. I don't lose any sleep over any of it.

Yikes! bdp...I didn't say that. That was from LNC inside my post. :

[Mriana]

Crap. I hate when that happens. This was in response to notblindedbytheblight's loooong post about Joseph Campbell.

 

I must admit, I not only agree with Joseph Campbell on many things, but I appreciate a lot of what he said. BTW, I do believe he died not too long ago. Anyway, I think the most profound thing he said was when he was talking about the Gnostic tradition, in which "we are all Christ crucified". Those 5 words are symbolic for how humans treat each other every day. Not that each and everyone of us finds someone to "crucify", but there is always a person or a group of people who are being persecuted, discriminated against, or what have you on a daily basis by other humans. I really like how Campbell sheds light on the myths and brings them into focus. However, I think we also need to rid ourselves of myths and come up with new stories about life in this century. I think Dr. Seuss did well with stories such as the Lorax. Not that they all have to be children stories, but I'm giving a bit of an example of what our modern literature with some sort of moral should be, instead of the tired old myths that mean nothing to us in today's society, because as Campbell says, they are holding us back... about 2000 years.

[bdp]

 

I do believe, for example, that it matters whether Jesus lived or not. If he lived, was God as he claimed, died on the cross to pay for sins, and rose again to display victory over sin and death, then I can be redeemed from my sin (and so can you). If Jesus was purely a mythical figure, and therefore, wasn't God, didn't die on the cross, didn't rise again, then I am lost in my sin (and so are you). It does matter whether this is a real or mythical account.

 

 

...or, option C, 'sin' is a mythical concept. The accounts of 'Jesus' only matter if 'sin' is real. I don't lose any sleep over any of it.

Yikes! bdp...I didn't say that. That was from LNC inside my post. :

 

...sorry...sometimes editing quotes completely flummoxes me.

[mwc]

Not really. Recording would imply a first-person historical narrative. We don't have that. We have third- and fourth-hand accounts, written decades after the events they purport to describe. It would be better to say that it is "claimed" that many saw the risen Christ.

Don't forget that these are the same set of people that saw Moses and Elijah:

Mark

9.4 And there appeared to them Eli'jah with Moses; and they were talking to Jesus.

And likewise the other synoptics.

 

These are the same guys that went preaching with nothing really to preach:

6.12 So they went out and preached that men should repent. 6.13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.

Of course that was essentially the purpose of Elijah in the guise of JtB but we'll ignore that. The important thing to note here is this is the opportunity for the apostles/disciples to establish churches. To go out and preach. To do all those things that they can only do after he died. Well...no. Here's their chance to do it before all that. Right now.

 

And as to seeing dead folk? Well, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that old Elijah and Moses were stiffs by now. Oh, they didn't eat any fish or do any finger poking (that we know of) but they were so convinced they were going to build booths for them. I guess they thought they needed little houses. Maybe not. They didn't seem to say "G-g-g-hosts!" like Shaggy and Scooby or wonder how "jesus" was cavorting with spooks. No. "Jesus" was "transfigured" and not into a ghost. So if the disciples could see magical beings once, and never mention it or remember it again apparently, then why not the second time? The post-resurrection time? Seems such sightings weren't unique after all. Though the way they reacted you'd think they'd never saw him transfigured before.

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

Crap. I hate when that happens. This was in response to notblindedbytheblight's loooong post about Joseph Campbell.

 

I must admit, I not only agree with Joseph Campbell on many things, but I appreciate a lot of what he said. BTW, I do believe he died not too long ago. Anyway, I think the most profound thing he said was when he was talking about the Gnostic tradition, in which "we are all Christ crucified". Those 5 words are symbolic for how humans treat each other every day. Not that each and everyone of us finds someone to "crucify", but there is always a person or a group of people who are being persecuted, discriminated against, or what have you on a daily basis by other humans. I really like how Campbell sheds light on the myths and brings them into focus. However, I think we also need to rid ourselves of myths and come up with new stories about life in this century. I think Dr. Seuss did well with stories such as the Lorax. Not that they all have to be children stories, but I'm giving a bit of an example of what our modern literature with some sort of moral should be, instead of the tired old myths that mean nothing to us in today's society, because as Campbell says, they are holding us back... about 2000 years.

Oh, I so agree with you.

 

Sorry about the length...I can get long "winded".

[NotBlinded]

 

I do believe, for example, that it matters whether Jesus lived or not. If he lived, was God as he claimed, died on the cross to pay for sins, and rose again to display victory over sin and death, then I can be redeemed from my sin (and so can you). If Jesus was purely a mythical figure, and therefore, wasn't God, didn't die on the cross, didn't rise again, then I am lost in my sin (and so are you). It does matter whether this is a real or mythical account.

 

 

...or, option C, 'sin' is a mythical concept. The accounts of 'Jesus' only matter if 'sin' is real. I don't lose any sleep over any of it.

Yikes! bdp...I didn't say that. That was from LNC inside my post. :

 

...sorry...sometimes editing quotes completely flummoxes me.

No problem. Now I have to go look up flummoxes...

[LNC]

The 'Easter morning' accounts in 'the gospels' are NOT eyewitness accounts but hearsay, and these hearsay accounts speak ONLY of the discovery of an empty tomb - NOBODY in the 'gopsels' witnesses any 'resurrection.'

 

On what basis do you consider John's account to be hearsay? I agree that they don't directly witness the resurrection; however, they do see more than the empty tomb, they also see the risen Jesus. It is easy to surmise a resurrection has happened when the witness sees the risen Jesus who also claims that he rose from the dead, so I don't necessarily see a problem with the fact that they did not directly witness the event itself.

[LNC]

I don't recall any legitimate logical fallacies being proposed,

 

maybe you can refresh my memory and explain why you believe the fallacy that you are proposing is a legitimate application. I have found that some have mistakenly proposed logical fallacies as did Davka with his reference to Occam's Razor. However, he misstated the fallacy and also misapplied it, so I don't consider that to be a legitimate use of the fallacy, nor did it refute my argument in light of the misrepresentation and misapplication. However, if you have others that you would like to propose, we can discuss them.

 

It's simple really, every single line is causing you to respond. "refresh my memory", "if you have others that you would like to propose, we can discuss them"...on and on and on forever RAMEN.

 

Only a prick talks like this. Kill the thread. Kill the troll.

 

Every single line? I asked that person to refresh my memory as a nice way to say that they actually hadn't shown that why they believed I was committing a fallacy, not because I forgot that they did. I find it nicer than saying more directly that the person never backed up his/her claim.

 

You sound like you have a violent and mean streak in you, or are you just using hyperbole?

[LNC]

I still question LNC's sincerity. For example, LNC claims to be able to prove that Ehrman is wrong about the resurrection of Jesus and it's really a historical fact yet why doesn't he contact Ehrman himself and prove it to him if he's really sincere? You can email Ehrman from his official site. I've even done it myself to ask him a question and I actually got a response back very quickly from him. Ehrman has said in Jesus Interrupted that he follows the facts where they lead him, so if LNC has undeniable proof that the resurrection of Jesus is real, I'm sure Ehrman would love to hear from him and would gladly reconvert if LNC could prove it's true. That LNC does not contact Ehrman himself when anyone easily can and spends his time harassing atheists on the Internet instead makes me question his sincerity and I have to side with AM that he's likely here more so to reinforce his own convictions than to win our souls, especially since he keeps repeating questions we've already answered and just twists everything around out of context to suit his arguments.

 

I don't believe that it is necessary for me to tell this to Bart Ehrmman as it has been done by the likes of Dan Wallace and others who are more closely credentialed to him than am I. I have found that he has not regarded their arguments, which I find to be sound and challenging, so I doubt that he would consider it coming from me. I never claimed to be able to prove anything, but merely to give evidence that I believe would lead person to more reasonably conclude that Jesus rose from the dead, than that he didn't. I believe the concept of proofs are better suited toward mathematics than to history. The best we can do with history is examine the evidence and make inferences to the best explanation.

 

The problem is that we all bring presuppositions with us when we examine the evidence, and if one has, a priori, limited a possible explanation due to a predetermined condition, then they will close off one or more possible explanations because of that. I believe that the Jesus Seminar, Bart Ehrman and others have done this in regard to possible supernatural explanations and therefore, will not come to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead because they have closed off that possibility. The question that must be asked is whether there is a valid basis to exclude that possibility, and I don't believe there is.

 

Now, I would suggest that you also represent my position correctly as well in that I don't ever claim that any evidence is undeniable, only that it has a probability factor attached to it and I believe that the evidence for the resurrection is strong enough to bring a person to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead.

[Ouroboros]

And these...all made me think of this thread:

Just a pointer:

 

Consider the main purpose of the website. It's primary goal is to encourage and support those who are Ex-Christians. Sure, we also will entertain "ecumenical" acitivies to some degree, but since this is a community where Ex-Christians go to find a safe-haven, the responsibility to take the first steps to reconciliation, understanding, bridging the gap, and overcome differences, to Christians, is not the Ex-Christians who consider this place an oasis, but rather the visitors/guests who come and want to understand our views. Christians who come here to preach, and "educate" us, are nothing but trying to shoot fish in a barrel. We are all here, gathered, and it's easy for the cheap apologists to find easy targets here. It's not right. If they come here, they have to take the first step to understanding, not us.

[bdp]

The 'Easter morning' accounts in 'the gospels' are NOT eyewitness accounts but hearsay, and these hearsay accounts speak ONLY of the discovery of an empty tomb - NOBODY in the 'gopsels' witnesses any 'resurrection.'

 

On what basis do you consider John's account to be hearsay? I agree that they don't directly witness the resurrection; however, they do see more than the empty tomb, they also see the risen Jesus. It is easy to surmise a resurrection has happened when the witness sees the risen Jesus who also claims that he rose from the dead, so I don't necessarily see a problem with the fact that they did not directly witness the event itself.

 

If John saw nothing then it's hearsay.

 

Well, it's all fiction anyway, but I'll humor you. Possibility A: hallucination. Possibility B: they really did actually see 'Jesus' ("swoon" theory if you will). Possibility C: they saw an imposter.

 

And, again, the idea that anyone saw a 'risen Jesus' is hearsay.

 

btw, I don't see how I could have presuppositions about all this when I once believed in it myself.

[Guest Davka]

LNC, I explained to you why Occam's Razor applies to the origin of the Universe. Yet you simply ignored my explanation and continue to repeat that I am incorrect in pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument.

 

What's up with that?

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Occam's razor. . . is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily"or, popularly applied, "when you have two competing theories that makeexactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

 

Theory # 1 - The Universe exists, and always has in one form or another.

 

Theory # 2 - The Universe requires a creator. The creator exists, and always has in one form or another.

 

Hmm.

 

Unnecessary multiplication of entities - check. Two theories with the same predictions (i.e. "the Universe exists today, and a Big Bang can be extrapolated from available evidence"), one simpler than the other - check.

 

How again is this a misapplication?

 

And Paul, are you getting class credit at Biola for your discussions with us? Because if you are, you should be getting a "C" for the quality of your arguments.

[Ouroboros]

Why does this safe-haven allow Christian participation?

A good question, which I don't have a good answer for.

 

The first step to reconciliation, understanding, and overcoming differences--if that is what I want--is always my responsibility.

If that's the goal of your conversation and participation, yes. But then, how about ex-Christians on this site who doesn't want reconciliation or make peace with Christians or Christianity? Should they leave? If the purpose of the website is to "fix" Ex-Christians so they are more accepting and approving of Christianity, then why have this website? There are so many of that kind out there anyway, there's no need to add another one.

 

 

If the Christians truly want to influence and exchange with us, they would indeed take the first step by endeavoring to honestly understand us. Your analysis of LNC's impersonal, read-to-respond approach inspired me to post these thoughts, hence your thought listed among them. I also found a message in them personally. How about you?

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

I started to debate him about a year ago, and it took me until recently to give up. I've seen the same pattern in his arguments, over, and over, and over, and over again. So it took me a long time to get to this point. Some of the arguments I see floating around exactly at this moment, are pretty much the same ones I, and many others, brought up 9 or 10 months ago. There's no resolution to the debate with him. He won't give up until he has converted you to his side.

 

Another thing, it's nothing wrong with you trying to converse with him. But don't expect me, or anyone else, to fall into the same activity.

[NotBlinded]

He won't give up until he has converted you to his side.

I quess he'll be here until hell freezes over huh?

 

I like to see some Christians here because I learn a lot from what they put forth. It causes me to research and that is always good. What isn't good is when there is no trying on their part to understand what others are saying. I do try to understand what they are saying when it isn't so confounded that I can't wrap my mind around it. I've noticed sometimes that LNC's objections are pretty much just dismissing in an absurd way. It could be that I don't understand what he's saying, but the sentence is something like this, If it's green then how are we to know it's green if the greeness isn't a given? Not that exactly, but that's how I read it sometimes. I don't know...

[Ouroboros]

I like to see some Christians here because I learn a lot from what they put forth. It causes me to research and that is always good. What isn't good is when there is no trying on their part to understand what others are saying. I do try to understand what they are saying when it isn't so confounded that I can't wrap my mind around it. I've noticed sometimes that LNC's objections are pretty much just dismissing in an absurd way. It could be that I don't understand what he's saying, but the sentence is something like this, If it's green then how are we to know it's green if the greeness isn't a given? Not that exactly, but that's how I read it sometimes. I don't know...

Yes, I agree.

 

I compare my discussion with LNC to the ones I've had with Abiyoyo, End3, and BuddyFerris, and with them, I've had shouting-matches as well, but... with the difference is that I have actually learning things, and at times even admitted they were right and I was wrong, and I've been able to do that because they have done the same to me. They have admitted me being right too. It's about reciprocation. Many times we just don't understand each other, and we leave it at that. But what I find difficult with LNC is that we are stuck in one spot, and it's the same spot we started on when he came here a year ago. 11 months, and nothing has changed.

[Guest Davka]

Even LNC serves a purpose, IMO - he reminds me of why I walked away. He epitomizes compartmentalized thinking, cognitive dissonance, and plain old-fashioned stubbornness. These are the foundations on which orthodox Evangelical Christianity is built, and the reason that I simply could not remain any longer.

 

LNC is the perfect antidote for feelings of nostalgia for the church.