Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Continued Discussion With Lnc


Ouroboros

Recommended Posts

The bible is a historical record of events, places and what people believed to be true and some parts that were added to enhance the validity of their belief. It isn't a record of the truth of those beliefs. It matters what type of truths you are addressing when looking for truth.

 

Do you believe that Jerusalem exists? How about Bethlehem? Rome? Which places mentioned in the Bible didn't exist? How about people. Did Pilate exist? How about Herod? Jesus? Paul? If you don't believe that these people or places existed, how do you explain the extra-biblical records and the fact that these places exist today and date back to those days? Which parts of the Bible, besides those parts that are already delineated in our modern translations, do you consider to be added and what is your reasoning for this belief? Do you believe that there is more than one kind of truth? Are you a postmodern?

 

And yes, mythology. Jesus used symbolism in many stories he told. Do you think there really was a podigal son? What was meant by the story of Jonah and the whale - the preconfiguration of Christ? What is meant by ressurection - being born anew? What is meant by "carry one's cross"? Literalism kills the intent regardless if it actually occured or not. That is not what is important. How do you know what kind of truth these people initially believed? Was it a objective truth or was it a spiritual truth or a little of both? Is it of utmost importance that a whale swallowed Jonah? Is it really so important that Jesus rose from the dead? What is important about these stories is that one's life can be changed or ressurected and your reward will come naturally. What do you fear other than the stories themselves?

 

Christianity contains these mythological elements:

 

Cosmogonic myths

Origin myths

Legends

Eschatological myths

 

What myths do for a society:

 

Metaphysical function

Cosmological dimension

Sociological function

Psychological function

 

Do you know the difference between symbolism and mythology? Are you saying that whenever symbolism is used that we have jumped into the genre of mythology? So, when a person tells an apocryphal story, that, to you becomes myth? Why cannot we explain truth using analogy? What if we use a true event to teach a lesson, does that make the even untrue or unreal? I am not sure where you are going with your thinking as it seems to be very postmodern in nature.

 

You have not proven anything really, you have merely made a lot of unproven assertions and drawn conclusions from them. Since you seem to be postmodern and can thereby interpret accounts to fit your understanding, please let me interpret your post by saying that I think you are saying that the Bible is true as it is interpreted at face value and leads a reasonable person to be convinced that Jesus was God, was crucified, buried and rose again on the third day to conquer sin and offer us forgiveness for our sins.

 

I think that my interpretation of your post is every bit as valid as your interpretation of the Bible. What say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 392
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • LNC

    101

  • Ouroboros

    49

  • NotBlinded

    36

  • Mriana

    34

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

And why is LNC waiting a week later to respond to my posts after I've already declared a week ago that I'm done debating with him? Is following a five page thread really so difficult?

 

1) Because there are many of you and one of me. 2) Because I have a life beyond posting to this site. 3) Because there is a whole other thread going on and I am more than a week behind on that one, so you should feel fortunate that I am able to keep up closer on this one. 4) Because I had a death in the family this week and wasn't able to do much posting. Sorry, I try to post when I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why is it the same old stuff he replies with over and over- same tune, same song and dance, worded slightly differently?

 

Generally, because people ask the same old questions, worded slightly differently of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since there could be no material explanation, we look to an immaterial entity.

 

This is where we depart. Never the twain shall meet.

 

 

Your definition of faith is specious.

 

But it is biblical...."faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that we have greater evidence that the supernatural and spiritual realm exists than evidence that it does or could not.

 

What evidence? Where?

 

Seriously. Please provide a single scrap of evidence for the supernatural and/or spiritual realm. I have seen none. Ever. Anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know? If he heard a voice, so what? What evidence (now I am replying like you do)?

 

Thanks for asking, but apparently, you didn't read the passages that I cited or you would have had your answer. Here are some of them:

 

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 1 Cor. 9:1

 

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 1 Cor. 15:3-8

 

 

Sorry, your evidence is found to be wanting....lacking....kaput.

 

So, you answer my request for evidence of your claim by saying that my evidence is wanting, lacking and kaput. But that means that you still haven't provided evidence for your claims, sorry. I, on the other hand, have, but you failed to read it, so I have posted it above in more detail.

 

Agnosticism is a statement about KNOWLEDGE of god, NOT belief: Humans don't have knowledge that god exists or god does not exist. That is the agnostic stance about god's existence. Edited to add: Yes, there is the possibility god could exist, we just don't know. There is also the possibility god does NOT exist.

 

Right, so my point still stands. Again, you make unsupported statements. Maybe you need to define what you mean by knowledge as that seems to be the point of confusion. Do you believe that we don't know or can't know. I believe that we can and that I do know that God exists. But again, maybe you need to define what you mean by know.

 

I was referring to your belief about a perfect earth and the garden of eden existing.

 

And, how do you come to the idea that the Bible teaches that the earth and the garden were perfect? I don't see that in the Bible.

 

So you don't remember my views from previous posts? I'm not going to elaborate again, so here's an outline:

1.Heaven/hell

2.Sin/salvation

 

Yes, but I still don't see how that makes your point. People live eternally in both heaven and hell. Sin has been overcome by Jesus' death and resurrection, which allows us the opportunity to live eternally with God. I don't see that as being anti-life. I simply see it as people choosing to reject the offer of eternal life with God.

 

Why don't you get the point of that post?

 

I thought I did.

 

You are the one who is "uninformed". Again, I believe it was Mriana that posted just one example of what scientists are discovering about non-human animal minds. It was how they have "thoughts about their thoughts". PAY ATTENTION!

 

The human mind and morals differ from other animals, but they are RELATED. The difference is, simply put, a difference of degree.

 

I read that evidence and it didn't even give evidence toward that conclusion. Did you actually read the article? I also posted an article in which a major research said that it is not possible to prove that. Did you read that article? I am doing a fair amount of research in this field, so I believe that I am doing more than just paying attention, thank you very much.

 

If you believe that the difference between animal minds and human minds is merely a difference of degree, then maybe you could explain the other differences that I pointed out and tell me why there is no technological advance among non-human animals? I am finishing up a book written by an evolutionist and that is his conclusion, not just mine. You have to explain these things, not just make assertions to fit your paradigm. Show me some evidence that will stand up. Besides, Paul Ehrlich points out more differences between humans and animals than he points out similarities.

 

The whole point is: NOBODY HAS KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. So, god is a mystery. A lack of knowledge doesn't mean possession of it! You are the one asserting what god is like. I was describing how your view looks to me.

 

That is a statement of knowledge and you must back that up with evidence. In fact, it is a universal statement that only requires one person with knowledge in which to refute it. Prove to me that I cannot have the knowledge of God that I claim to have. You say that we cannot have knowledge of God, so you must give arguments, reasons, or evidence as to why your statement is true and my knowledge is false. So far, you have given an assertion and assertions alone have no evidential value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since there could be no material explanation, we look to an immaterial entity.

 

This is where we depart. Never the twain shall meet.

 

 

Your definition of faith is specious.

 

But it is biblical...."faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible!"

 

If you can explain how matter came to be, then I am interested in hearing your explanation.

 

Repeating your definition does not make it any more valid or biblical, sorry. Also, putting quotation marks around it doesn't add any credibility either. BTW, you didn't cite from where you are quoting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that we have greater evidence that the supernatural and spiritual realm exists than evidence that it does or could not.

 

What evidence? Where?

 

Seriously. Please provide a single scrap of evidence for the supernatural and/or spiritual realm. I have seen none. Ever. Anywhere.

 

Please read my posts as I have given this evidence in other posts. Origin of the universe, existence of morality, existence of the mind, fine-tuning of the universe, resurrection of Jesus...I could go on, but I will leave it here for you to address these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it logically follow that I am being TOLD what to believe? Does that mean that you are being TOLD what to believe when you read a book or listen to a lecturer, or do you choose what to believe and what not to believe? Why would you deny me the freedom to choose what to believe? We have eyewitness accounts which are supported by other evidence.

 

You can believe whatever you want, but I'm wondering if you thought through what you've been told and read for yourself or just accepted them on "faith". And no, we do not have eyewitness accounts supported by evidence either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that we have greater evidence that the supernatural and spiritual realm exists than evidence that it does or could not.

 

What evidence? Where?

 

Seriously. Please provide a single scrap of evidence for the supernatural and/or spiritual realm. I have seen none. Ever. Anywhere.

 

Please read my posts as I have given this evidence in other posts. Origin of the universe, existence of morality, existence of the mind, fine-tuning of the universe, resurrection of Jesus...I could go on, but I will leave it here for you to address these.

 

None of those are evidence for anything other than a very complex universe. Occam's razor dictates that we accept the most logical explanation, and that is NOT an invisible man in the sky.

 

Origin of the universe? No more difficult than the origin of God: the Universe always was.

 

Existence of the mind? I already explained this as a function of brain complexity, which is a result of evolution.

 

Existence of morality? It's a mechanism for the survival of our species. A species which had no equivalent of a "moral code' (i.e. don't harm others of your species) would die out unless it reproduced at a much faster rate than we do.

 

Fine-tuning of the universe? Says who? A given set of parameters works for the universe as we know it. We have no idea how many possible sets of parameters might also work. Coincidence is evidence of nothing.

 

Resurrection of Jesus? No evidence. Nothing outside the New Testament suggests that this ever occurred. One would expect such a momentous event to be recorded in more than one place.

 

Sorry, no evidence yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that we have greater evidence that the supernatural and spiritual realm exists than evidence that it does or could not.

 

What evidence? Where?

 

Seriously. Please provide a single scrap of evidence for the supernatural and/or spiritual realm. I have seen none. Ever. Anywhere.

 

Please read my posts as I have given this evidence in other posts. Origin of the universe, existence of morality, existence of the mind, fine-tuning of the universe, resurrection of Jesus...I could go on, but I will leave it here for you to address these.

 

That's not evidence. One does not need a god to have morality. As for the mind, evolution has an explanation for that, as well as the other things, except the resurrection of Jesus, because that is a myth, just like all other dying and rising gods. Dying and rising god motifs are called katabasis stories and that is exactly what the Jesus resurrection story is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please read my posts as I have given this evidence in other posts. Origin of the universe, existence of morality, existence of the mind, fine-tuning of the universe, resurrection of Jesus...I could go on, but I will leave it here for you to address these.

 

There is nothing to address, we have already explained why these arguments are not convincing to us. Clearly they are convincing to you, but it is not our fault that you cannot understand that they all contain logical fallacies. We have explained our point of view on this a dozen times but you are interested in listening, just preaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That scholars are not all on the same page with Bart Ehrman, and for good reason.

That wasn't really the point of what I posted but...

 

Since you brought it up why don't you point out where in that interview I should specifically be looking. Go ahead and use my original quotes and then compare/contrast them here with the relevant bits from the interview so that I can clearly see what it is you wish me to see in regard to the above statement and why it matters.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for asking, but apparently, you didn't read the passages that I cited or you would have had your answer. Here are some of them:

 

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 1 Cor. 9:1

 

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 1 Cor. 15:3-8

Don't forget these from Galatians 1:

6 I am surprised that you are being so quickly turned away from him whose word came to you in the grace of Christ, to good news of a different sort; 7 Which is not another sort: only there are some who give you trouble, desiring to make changes in the good news of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, were to be a preacher to you of good news other than that which we have given you, let there be a curse on him. 9 As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man is a preacher to you of any good news other than that which has been given to you, let there be a curse on him.

 

10 Am I now using arguments to men, or God? or is it my desire to give men pleasure? if I was still pleasing men, I would not be a servant of Christ. 11 Because I say to you, my brothers, that the good news of which I was the preacher is not man's. 12 For I did not get it from man, and I was not given teaching in it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

How could they so quickly turn from someone who was so important as Paul? That seems strange. "Surprising" even. Nothing a curse won't fix.

 

So where did Paul get his mojo? From a revelation of course. How's that for trumping those others. Where did they get their info? Probably from "men." Yuck. Not from the head cheese himself. So now they have some inferior message and they're going to get cursed if they come around again. A double whammy from Paul.

 

I imagine that those other guys are probably saying "We're total frauds. Only Paul is the real deal. We surrender to his super powers." Or not. Probably not. But Paul's message survived so I guess that makes it legit? That must be so. I guess if Commander Todd's message would have made it then we'd be singing his praises. But he didn't. Darn the luck. He wasn't adopted by Marcion and co-opted by the orthodoxy. If only.

 

The whole idea that Paul couldn't hang onto this group even with his ultra-relaxed rules of no circumcision, no food restrictions and no following the law pretty much at all even with his direct chats with sonny god seems to indicate that his authority wasn't quite as established as people today wish it to be. He had to keep putting people in line even though they weren't expected to do much at all except "believe" a simple story. The simple story you place in front of us. They apparently couldn't do that even with all the "evidence" that supposedly existed at the time.

 

Why did none of them simply send envoys to Judea to check the story and with the results being "Paul is telling the truth!" A simple solution. But letter after letter goes out telling them to simply obey his commands. That he has the inside story on these things and not to trust the other traveling salesmen. An odd thing considering they kept going to the Jews that would have simply traveled to Jerusalem during one of the festivals during their lives. It would be easy to confirm the stories then. Again, this doesn't appear to happen. We have silence. We have no place to turn. So we have to wonder why the evidence for the events are to be found in the scripture, the prophets and the writings rather than in Jerusalem. "If you doubt me you may seek the truth in Jerusalem with the other apostles" would be a fine answer but sharing is a problem with Paul. He says so at the start of Galatians. "I am your gospel."

 

Oh well, I'm wasting my (virtual) breath. I'm quite certain any number of scholars think any number of ways on this and so it is of no value. I'm also quite certain that any number of scholars also think any number of ways on lots of things and therefore any discourse on any subject is useless. We should be silent and simply await the decrees to be handed down from on-high so that we might repeat them ad nauseum.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since there could be no material explanation, we look to an immaterial entity.

 

This is where we depart. Never the twain shall meet.

 

 

Your definition of faith is specious.

 

But it is biblical...."faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible!"

 

If you can explain how matter came to be, then I am interested in hearing your explanation.

 

Repeating your definition does not make it any more valid or biblical, sorry. Also, putting quotation marks around it doesn't add any credibility either. BTW, you didn't cite from where you are quoting.

 

Corrie ten Boom explains Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, 1Corinthians2:5, and Hebrews 11:1, in that one sentence quoted.

 

And you could explain how matter came to be?

 

I am not responding to the previous post #107, because what evidence and argument I would present, and what evidence and argument you would present, would not be convincing to either of us. Any discussion would go round and round, pointlessly. Sure, I read what you have presented, but I am not convinced. Maybe if it was another topic it would be a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Paul didn't base his faith on evidence, but a vision! When did he see christ risen? How is religious "faith" the same as having trust that my eyes see my friend sitting across the table from me? I trust my senses that he is there. I base that on all the evidence of my existence here on earth. This is not religious faith, but ordinary trust in reality.

 

Paul explains a few times of his encounter with the risen Jesus. Gal. 1:11-17; 1 Cor. 9:1, 15:8-11 and other passages.

Paul's encounter was only with a vision that he assumed was Jesus.

There is no confirmation from those with him as they didn't see anyone.

There is no confirmation that it actually was Jesus other than Paul's self-serving claims.

1 Cor 9:1 is simply a claim by Paul that "Jesus" appeared to him.

Paul wants his experience of a vision to be just a good as seeing the genuine article, thereby validating his version of the gospel.

Paul in 1 Cor 9, also declares that he is a salesman, pretending to be whatever he thinks his audience will find appealing in order to sell his message.

Your evidence of Jesus appearing to Paul rests solely on the assertion of a salesman.

 

Since Paul describes his encounter as a revelation involving light, and claims that Satan also appears as an angel of light(2 Cor 11:15), why should it be automatically accepted that Paul saw Jesus?

It's also quite possible that Paul saw Satan, posing as Jesus, playing on Paul's ego.

 

In Gal 1:17 Paul claims he went to Arabia immediately after his vision and did not go to Jerusalem until three years later, which manages to undermine the stories in Acts 9:25-30 and Acts 22:14-21 where he does go to Jerusalem very soon after his vision, with no Arabian sojourn taking place prior to that.

 

1 Cor 15:8-11 is more of the same evidence by assertion, courtesy of Paul, a self confessed salesman that wanted to be recognized as an authority equal to the Apostles(2 Cor 11:5), and actually accused Peter of not walking upright in the Gospel(Gal 2:11-14}.

I find it somewhat hard to believe that Paul, who counted circumcision as having no value(Gal 5:6), was personally instructed by Jesus, who stated that the law, (including circumcision) was to be followed (Matt 5:18-20).

The expected king messiah was to lead people into great compliance with the law, and Paul undermined it by teaching against circumcision, against the food restrictions, and the observation of the sabbath day.

And if Jesus is God, which you seem fond of repeatedly asserting, then this is straight from the mouth of Jesus:

Gen 17:10-14

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

 

Jesus seems pretty strict about wanting his rule followed.

Along comes Paul, claims to see Jesus, and proceeds to give the opposite message.

Evidence from Paul for seeing Jesus is of very dubious value.

He could just as easily have encountered Satan, or had a "new age" revelation that so many modern spiritual gurus claim to have.

Visions, trances, and seeing Jesus in dreams is not solid evidence any more than the encounters new age gurus have when they channel characters like Sananda, Metatron, Jesus, the Hathors, Ashtar Command, Zetas or their spirit guides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biblical texts cannot prove this event, so why should we waste our time further trying to get this point across?

It isn't possible because LNC is judging his worldview against others without trying to step out of his own. He is both the judge and the advocate. He can't really gage another's view without actually trying to shift the way he thinks about things. He can't do this because he doesn't recognize there are other ways of seeing things. He's trapped. We all are to some degree, but to be so entwined in one's belief, it's hard to gage the truth of another's. He's seeking absolute truth, somewhere, somehow.

 

I don't know what you mean by stepping out of one's worldview. How does one do that, and have you done that? If so, please explain how you did that and when. Just because a person cannot step out of his or her worldview, which I don't think is logically possible, doesn't mean that one cannot consider evidence objectively. You make a lot of assumptions about me and you have never, to my knowledge, even met me. How do you do that? What if I were to say that same about you, would you consider that fair?

I do this based on your inability or unwillingness to understand what others are saying. I hope you did notice that I said that we all are trapped in our own world view to some degree. That degree matters on how much one can shift their view in order to view reality with a different outlook. This happens for no known reason. Call it the grace of God if you will, but that is a clumsy way of saying it. It just happens when one is willing to look beyond all means of understanding, which includes language, the structure of the society that speaks it as in is it a society that has a king or is it a democracy? Is there understanding of nature congruent with the way their society is structured? Does their language reflect a fragmented view of reality that sees things as separate or one that reflects unity?

 

Yes, this did happen to me and I probably need to back up a little. When I left Christianity, I did so based on evidence against it and the lack of it. But, I was still basing my understanding within the framework of my worldview. I would read things and listen to people speak and I was like you. I heard what they said but couldn't understand what they were talking about. Then something happened that allowed what I heard and what I read to be understood in a new light. I understood what was meant by extrodinary evidence (that took a lot of explaining on the parts of others before this happened!).

 

Then another shift happened. I could now look at reality with a new insight that allowed me to view things in a more unified way. I never for the life of me considered that God could be everything. I thought that God was either like a potter that sculpted non-living clay or that he didn't. My view of the clay being non-living didn't change. God either was the ruler and creator or it wasn't. This understanding is based on the way our culture (and others) is. If you look at a church, you see something that resembles a courtroom. Even the preacher or priest wears robes like a judge. Our language reflects this as in saying things like the "law" of nature as if there has to be a lawgiver. Also in the very structure of grammar itself. Read David Bohm's view, and others, on how our language presupposes a fragmented universe.

 

If you look at Chinese culture, it can be seen, from what I understand, as having a view of nature as of itself. There is nothing that causes things to behave the way they do. They are animated of their own accord. You could say that the breath of life that God breathed into the clay never left the clay. Their children wouldn't ask where they came from, they would ask how they grow. One view has life coming from somewhere else as in being put here by God the other view has them coming from the earth as a flower blooms spontaneously. I don't think we were put on this earth, I think we grew out of it.

 

I apologize for making assumptions, but I can recognize what is happening by all your posts, LNC (unless you are doing it on purpose). Yes, I get frustrated many times because I can now see that there are other ways of viewing reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can explain how matter came to be, then I am interested in hearing your explanation.

 

Easy. Matter always was. It has always existed, in one form or another.

 

Remember, energy = mass (matter) times the speed of light squared. Matter, heat, light, energy - all different forms of the same thing. As far back as we've been able to figure thus far, all matter/energy/light was compressed into a singularity about 13 billion years ago. Before that, who knows.

 

It's no mystery. You don't need to invent a god who "always was" in order to explain a Universe that always was.

 

The Universe is uncreated existence. There is no god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bible is a historical record of events, places and what people believed to be true and some parts that were added to enhance the validity of their belief. It isn't a record of the truth of those beliefs. It matters what type of truths you are addressing when looking for truth.

 

Do you believe that Jerusalem exists? How about Bethlehem? Rome? Which places mentioned in the Bible didn't exist? How about people. Did Pilate exist? How about Herod? Jesus? Paul? If you don't believe that these people or places existed, how do you explain the extra-biblical records and the fact that these places exist today and date back to those days? Which parts of the Bible, besides those parts that are already delineated in our modern translations, do you consider to be added and what is your reasoning for this belief? Do you believe that there is more than one kind of truth? Are you a postmodern?

 

And yes, mythology. Jesus used symbolism in many stories he told. Do you think there really was a podigal son? What was meant by the story of Jonah and the whale - the preconfiguration of Christ? What is meant by ressurection - being born anew? What is meant by "carry one's cross"? Literalism kills the intent regardless if it actually occured or not. That is not what is important. How do you know what kind of truth these people initially believed? Was it a objective truth or was it a spiritual truth or a little of both? Is it of utmost importance that a whale swallowed Jonah? Is it really so important that Jesus rose from the dead? What is important about these stories is that one's life can be changed or ressurected and your reward will come naturally. What do you fear other than the stories themselves?

 

Christianity contains these mythological elements:

 

Cosmogonic myths

Origin myths

Legends

Eschatological myths

 

What myths do for a society:

 

Metaphysical function

Cosmological dimension

Sociological function

Psychological function

 

Do you know the difference between symbolism and mythology? Are you saying that whenever symbolism is used that we have jumped into the genre of mythology? So, when a person tells an apocryphal story, that, to you becomes myth? Why cannot we explain truth using analogy? What if we use a true event to teach a lesson, does that make the even untrue or unreal? I am not sure where you are going with your thinking as it seems to be very postmodern in nature.

 

You have not proven anything really, you have merely made a lot of unproven assertions and drawn conclusions from them. Since you seem to be postmodern and can thereby interpret accounts to fit your understanding, please let me interpret your post by saying that I think you are saying that the Bible is true as it is interpreted at face value and leads a reasonable person to be convinced that Jesus was God, was crucified, buried and rose again on the third day to conquer sin and offer us forgiveness for our sins.

 

I think that my interpretation of your post is every bit as valid as your interpretation of the Bible. What say you?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which places mentioned in the Bible didn't exist?

 

Sodom and Gomorrah, for starters.

Davka, what the hell is wrong LNC? Is he computer program or something? The founder of the tower babble? What? I don't recall ever running across someone so, so, well, sheesh, I can't even think of the words to describe his posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Centauri,

You have a lot of patience. Mine ran out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can explain how matter came to be, then I am interested in hearing your explanation.

 

Easy. Matter always was. It has always existed, in one form or another.

 

Remember, energy = mass (matter) times the speed of light squared.

 

Why didn't I remember that? :Doh: Thanks Davka.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Centauri,

You have a lot of patience. Mine ran out.

It's all part of the strategy to keep pounding various Christian(or Habermas) talking points until they become reality and accurate history.

I once saw a pastor tell his flock that if they would preach the Gospel(or talking points) into the faces of unbelievers over and over, the unbelievers would eventually fall silent due the the Holy Spirit "convicting" them of their sins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once saw a pastor tell his flock that if they would preach the Gospel(or talking points) into the faces of unbelievers over and over, the unbelievers would eventually fall silent due the the Holy Spirit "convicting" them of their sins.

 

Looking back, I think I was overly indoctrinated and bible-obsessed, but this is really immature. They are like kids who won't stop pestering adults until they get their way!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.