Continued Discussion With Lnc

[Guest Davka]

Apparently, you are not familiar with science as we know much more about the universe than that it is "complex". We also know that it is finely tuned to support advanced life and that this fine tuning cannot be explained by mere chance alone.

 

First of all, insulting me is not a particularly Christian way to answer my post.

 

Secondly, you are flat-out wrong. Your supposed "facts" are from psuedoscience, a.k.a. Creation Science. I read all that stuff years ago, and continued to read more in order to verify what I was told by Christians. The truth? There is no "fine tuning," and yes, it can be explained by chance alone.

 

I suggest you take a class in astrophysics, or just read "A Brief History of Time."

 

 

You also are apparently not familiar with Occam's Razor as you have misrepresented it. Occam's Razor, looks for the most parsimonious explanation, that is, the simplest explanation that has both explanatory power and scope.

 

Again, insults are not helpful. And I have not misused Occam's Razor at all. The simplest explanation is that matter always was. Positing a "god" who created matter and then declaring that this "god" always was merely removes the explanation by one step, and introduces the possibility of an infinite regression. Occam's Razor would not allow for such a convoluted explanation when a simpler one will do.

 

If you posit that the universe has always existed, you are arguing against the best scientific understanding and also arguing against logic.

 

Wrong on both counts. Next?

 

You have not explained the mind by simply saying it is a function of the brain's complexity, you have merely said that the brain is complex. If you believe that the mind is reducible to brain activity, then you have removed freedom of will from man and are also arguing against yourself as you apparently chose to post this message, or was it merely a product of evolution? Also, simply using the term evolution is not an explanation. So, do you have free will or not? If so, please explain how from an evolutionary naturalistic framework.

 

Quantum uncertainty would make for an interesting framework for what we call free will. The universe is not so mechanistic as you seem to believe it to be.

 

Regarding morality, you have a number of major issues to address. How do we know what will lead to the survival of the species in the long run?

 

Logic.

 

Is morality simply relative based upon your view (it seems so)? If so, how do you judge whether someone has done something detrimental to survival since you cannot see into the future?

 

All ethics are situational. Even Christian ethics are situational.

 

Example: it is wrong to lie. But Corrie ten Boom lied to save the lives of Jews from the Nazis. The situation changed the ethical rule.

 

How do you judge whether something is detrimental to species survival? Logic and reason. Study basic evolutionary theiry, it's not so difficult to understand.

 

What if a government gains power and says that for the ultimate survival of the species a certain race of people should be eliminated and gave scientific data to support their claim, would you follow and obey?

 

I don't play absurd "what if?" games. What if Thor appeared in your bedroom and told you that Jesus was a fraud, and you had to obey Thor instead? See how absurd it is to pose those kinds of questions?

 

Part 2 will follow.

[Guest Davka]

Part 2

 

Fine tuning - this is not a debated point in the scientific community. Even Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusionadmits that the universe has the "appearance" of design.

 

Apparently you don't understand what is meant by "the appearance of design." The reason the use the word "appearance" is specifically to underscore the fact that it was not designed.

 

Remember the puddle analogy? How it fits the hole perfectly, so perfectly that the hole must have been designed for that specific puddle? That's similar to the appearance of design: life as we know it fits the universe perfectly. That doesn't mean that the universe was designed for life, it means that this kind of life was the most optimal to fill the niche in this kind of universe. For all we know, there are an infinite number of possible universes which could each support an infinite number of "perfectly fitting" forms of life.

 

 

So, I don'tknow what you are reading that would indicate that the universe is notfinely tuned, but maybe you can start with someone like Paul Daviesfrom Arizona State in his book Cosmic Jackpot. This cannot bechalked up to mere coincidence as you claim, you just need to read upon this field before making these types of statements.

 

I imagine that I've read far more than you have on the subject, since you seem to be stuck where I was about 10 years ago. Keep reading. And read some non-Christian sources, along with some books refuting the Christian claims.

 

Resurrection- please, again read up in the field before making these ludicrousstatements. There is all kinds of evidence outside of the NT that Ihave posted in the past.

 

I'd love to see a single post regarding this "evidence." Since I've only been here for 2 months, I haven't read all your past arguments. Please indulge me by providing a single piece of extra-Biblical evidence for the resurrection. All I've ever seen are references to what the early Christians believed. If you know of another source, please enlighten me.

Also, don't be so quick to dismiss the NT aseven skeptics don't do that.

 

That statement makes no sense. Of course skeptics dismiss the NT as a historically accurate document. If they did not, they wouldn't be skeptics.

 

Sorry, you need to read more and be betterinformed before passing such sweeping judgments. You have arguedagainst science, philosophy, and history, not against me in this post.

 

Again, I am convinced by all your arguments that I am the better-read of the two of us. I sincerely doubt that you can provide a single argument which I have not seen before - and, in all likelihood, believed.

 

Until I kept reading, that is. And broadened my scope beyond those who preach to the choir.

[Neon Genesis]

I've come to think LNC is sincere in their concern about 'our souls' and all that; I've gotten angry when LNC is condescending to some of the members here, treating them like reactionary idiots who had never researched any of this for themselves. I do sort of wish I hadn't been as harsh as I was but I also don't think it was undeserved - on a forum as impersonal I lose track of the fact that I am talking to people. I think LNC would do better if he/she was less haughty with their presentations.

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.

[Auracle]

 

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.

 

While at the same time, anyone who asks him for evidence is told to "go check my earlier posts."

[NotBlinded]

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.

Again, something that has nothing to do with reality. In reality people fall silent because it's like talking to the wind and the words are soaring so far over their heads that it's futile to continue speaking. Brainwashing idiots.

[LNC]

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

 

Can you point me to the full interview text so that I can read the whole thing rather than just your quotes? That would be helpful to get everything in proper context.

[LNC]

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

 

Wow, that is an interesting take on Galatians, I am not sure that I have heard anyone expound it that way - very creative. Unfortunately, you have missed the message of Galatians almost completely. Yes, there was a group of people in the region Galatia (and elsewhere, for that matter) called Judaizers. These were people who believed that one had to still follow the law even after Jesus' death on the cross. This wasn't a new movement as they are written about quite widely in Acts. They were following Paul around and causing disturbances nearly everywhere he went. It was the reason for the meeting in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.

 

What you got wrong is that these people were turning on Paul, it was much more serious than that, they were turning on Jesus and adding works on top of his finished work on the cross. Paul was upset in this letter because some in the Galatian churches (Galatia was a region and not a town) were associating with the Judaizers, including Peter. This is to what Paul was responding; however, it shows more about the human heart than it does about Paul. We want to control our destiny as a people, including our salvation. Even though it is offered as a free gift, people continue to reject that offer and try to earn it for themselves, forgetting or not realizing that a person cannot earn their own salvation.

 

Paul tells of his own trip to Jerusalem, fifteen years after his original trip, to make sure that he was not preaching the wrong message or preaching in vain. It would have done these Galatians good to be as diligent as Paul. Nowhere does Paul tell the Galatians to obey his commands, he always encourages people to follow Christ as he was. Paul never says that he is their gospel, the gospel is the good news of Jesus, not of Paul. Again, you have missed the mark by quite a wide margin in your understanding of Galatians. You may want to reread the whole letter and try to understand it in context. It is a rich letter, and one of the earliest, if not the earliest.

[LNC]

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.

 

Corrie ten Boom had a tremendous testimony for what the Lord did in her life and through her family in Holland. However, Corrie was not a biblical scholar, so I would not rely on her for precise theological definitions.

 

Matter came to be from an immaterial and eternal cause, since matter is not self-created (logically impossible), nor did it just pop into existence (logically improbable), nor does it make sense that it has existed from eternity past (also logically problematic, if not impossible).

[LNC]

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.

 

Although, as I have shown in the verses that I presented, that is not how Paul described it. So, your speculation is just that, and also unsupported by evidence. In what way was Paul's claim self-serving. It certainly did him no favors to follow Christ as he explains in 2 Corinthians 11:22ff. So, please explain to me how you see Paul being self-serving in his claim.

 

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.

 

Regarding 1 Cor. 9, let me also refer you to 1 Cor. 15 where Paul goes into more detail on the resurrection. However, let's discuss what Paul is saying here. I don't know how you can say that Paul is speaking of a vision here as he says that he has seen Jesus. He says nothing about Jesus appearing to him, that is your interpretation, but not in the text. Also, you fanciful description of Paul as some sort of salesman is quite imaginative. When Paul says that he became all things to all people, it was not saying that he was putting on a show, but making certain cultural adaptations so as not to offend those to whom he was addressing. He took the Nazarite vow to be able to speak to the Jews. He adjusted for the Gentiles. However, he was not being deceptive or patronizing in doing this.

 

The reason that Paul knew that he didn't see a vision of Satan is that Satan wouldn't tell Paul to go out and preach the gospel or write a significant number of letters that would eventually be a part of the NT. It seems that if it were Satan that Paul saw, the results would have been significantly different.

 

 

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.

 

Regarding Paul's travels to Jerusalem, you are making the assumption that Paul went immediately to Jerusalem, how do you get that from Acts 9? Just because it follows in the record right after Paul's conversion account, doesn't mean that he went immediately from Damascus to Jerusalem. This point is not disputed among scholars if you care to check it out.

 

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.

 

Again, you make the straw-man argument that Paul was some type of salesman, therefore we cannot trust him. That argument does not work since you have misunderstood what Paul was saying. Can you tell me where you get the idea that the Messiah was going to lead the people in compliance to the law? Do you know what the purpose of the law was? Do you know the standard that Jesus set for the keeping of the law? Check out Matthew 5:48 from the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." That is the standard that Jesus set, a standard that only he could meet.

 

Paul explains, "yet we know that a person is not justified [1] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." (Gal. 2:16) He goes on to explain, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." (v. 22) Finally, Paul explains the true purpose of the law, " So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith." (Gal. 3:24)

 

So, if Jesus was strict about us following the law in order to be saved, as you seem to imply, then no one will be justified since no one has lived a perfect life apart from Jesus. Thankfully, we are not justified by works of the law, but by faith in the one who fulfilled the law. Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt. 5:17) The only way that the law, which requires perfection could be fulfilled is by and through Jesus, and his death and resurrection.

[LNC]

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.

 

I am not sure why you say that I am unable or unwilling understand what others say, did I not ask you questions of clarification? Does that not indicate a willingness on my part to try to understand your point of view?

 

You say that one can shift his or her point of view, yet you also say that it happens for no known reason, and still you seem to judge me for being unwilling to understand because you say I am stuck in my worldview. Maybe, according to you, I am unable to understand since it appears that I cannot "shift" my worldview since you say it happens for an unknown reason.

 

You also speak of looking "beyond all means of understanding" which to me appears to be appealing to some irrational means of viewing the world and I am not sure how one does that, nor do I think that I want to do that as I believe we have been given rational minds for the purpose of using them. However, I am not sure exactly what you are really asking with your two questions at the end of that paragraph, so maybe you could rephrase them.

 

Now, you say that you left Christianity based upon evidence, which seems to contradict what you just suggested that I do in looking beyond all means of understanding. So, I am confused now as to which approach you are really suggesting. Maybe you could explain this extraordinary evidence that led you away from Christianity.

 

I guess that if God is everything, as you say, then I don't really have to worry, since I am a part of everything. However, one problem ensues here in that everything also includes evil, which means that evil would be a part of God or God a part of evil.

 

As for the idea of God being a judge, yes, I do see that God is a judge and that justice is a part of our universe as evil is a part of our universe and the existence of evil demands justice. Now, I don't attend a church in which the pastor dons a robe, and I would say that the majority of churches in the U.S. would be similar in that regard.

 

In regard to your discourse on language (in which you used language), I wonder if your post reflects the fragmentation that you discuss. In other words, there is no way to convey that language reflects fragmentation other than to use that very language, which means that the message is part of the problem. I don't think we will escape that problem as language is necessary in the conveyance of the ideas.

 

Regarding the Chinese, I would say that this view is not shared by all Chinese people as Christianity is experiencing its greatest growth in China. I have visited there twice to adopt my two daughters, and don't think that anyone that I met there expressed or shared such a belief that you conveyed. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist there, but the Chinese people are not a monolithic people, just as Americans are not.

 

I do believe that you are making assumptions about my posts that do not reflect the reality of them. Sorry, but I would prefer to examine ideas and worldviews for veridicality rather than try to look beyond all means of understanding. I think it is too dangerous to suspend our rationality, if that is what you are suggesting, and correct me if I have interpreted your statement incorrectly.

[LNC]

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.

 

Can you give me your scientific basis for such a belief? I would also be interested in how you make it work logically. From what I have read of science, your view is not supported by the best scientific understanding. I have read Davies, Guth, Borde, Vilenkin, Hawking, and others, and don't find your view to be supported by them. But if you have data and research to support your view, I would be interested in reading it.

[Mriana]

Don't forget these from Galatians 1:

 

mwc

 

Wow, that is an interesting take on Galatians, I am not sure that I have heard anyone expound it that way - very creative. Unfortunately, you have missed the message of Galatians almost completely.

 

Oh brother. So you are going to tell mwc what you believe it means. MWC doesn't have to get the same "message" out of it as you do.

 

Edited to make post shorter

[centauri]

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.

 

Although, as I have shown in the verses that I presented, that is not how Paul described it. So, your speculation is just that, and also unsupported by evidence. In what way was Paul's claim self-serving. It certainly did him no favors to follow Christ as he explains in 2 Corinthians 11:22ff. So, please explain to me how you see Paul being self-serving in his claim.

You have not shown that Paul encountered anything more than a vision of something he assumed was Jesus, so your speculation that he did is just that, and also unsupported by evidence.

Paul expected big rewards in the afterlife for his work.

Paul deemed himself equal to the Apostles despite not having witnessed the resurrected Jesus in physical manifestation nor having been instructed by him while he was on earth.

 

centauri:

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.

 

LNC:

Regarding 1 Cor. 9, let me also refer you to 1 Cor. 15 where Paul goes into more detail on the resurrection. However, let's discuss what Paul is saying here. I don't know how you can say that Paul is speaking of a vision here as he says that he has seen Jesus. He says nothing about Jesus appearing to him, that is your interpretation, but not in the text. Also, you fanciful description of Paul as some sort of salesman is quite imaginative. When Paul says that he became all things to all people, it was not saying that he was putting on a show, but making certain cultural adaptations so as not to offend those to whom he was addressing. He took the Nazarite vow to be able to speak to the Jews. He adjusted for the Gentiles. However, he was not being deceptive or patronizing in doing this.

So according to your interpretation, Paul says he saw Jesus but Jesus didn’t appear to him.

The story in Acts defines the encounter with Jesus as a vision of light.

Now, if you want to deny the story in Acts as being accurate that’s fine.

And no, it doesn’t take much imagination to see Paul as a salesman who would mold himself in a form that would better able him to sell the product.

Between declaring that the law was not binding and then relenting and keeping parts of it, Paul’s message was to spread a new religion based on faith in a human sacrifice, decorated with inconsistency in its practice.

 

The reason that Paul knew that he didn't see a vision of Satan is that Satan wouldn't tell Paul to go out and preach the gospel or write a significant number of letters that would eventually be a part of the NT. It seems that if it were Satan that Paul saw, the results would have been significantly different.

That assumes Paul was writing valid theology, which is unproved.

If Satan was trying to undermine God, then he would tell Paul to preach a replacement theology rather than keeping the mandates and commands God instructed his people to observe.

Or perhaps God sent Satan to deceive Paul, as a test for his people, to see how many of them would remain true to the faith rather than being seduced by a counterfeit one.

[centauri]

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.

 

Regarding Paul's travels to Jerusalem, you are making the assumption that Paul went immediately to Jerusalem, how do you get that from Acts 9? Just because it follows in the record right after Paul's conversion account, doesn't mean that he went immediately from Damascus to Jerusalem. This point is not disputed among scholars if you care to check it out.

I’m sure you have hundreds of scholars to support anything you write, but they’re not here right now.

I got the idea that Paul went to Jerusalem and met with the apostles right after the Damascus events by reading the text.

But it seems you would like me to believe that there are three years of an Arabian hiatus somewhere in between verse 25 and 26.

Perhaps Luke should have put a note into Acts saying "see Galatians for more information".

Acts 9:22-28

But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:

But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.

Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.

And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.

 

In Acts 22, Paul was in a trance and was told to get out of Jerusalem.

No mention of a three year trip to Arabia prior to coming to Jerusalem.

Acts 22:11-18

And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.

And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,

Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.

And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.

For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;

And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

 

In Gal 1, Paul declares that he did not meet with any disciple or Apostle until his three year sojourn to Arabia had concluded, a three year sojourn completely absent in Acts 9 and 22.

Gal 1:15-20

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

 

Paul doesn’t mention anything about the threats to his life and swears he didn’t see any apostles except Peter and James.

[Franko47]

(LNC)

 

 

As for the idea of God being a judge, yes, I do see that God is a judge and that justice is a part of our universe as evil is a part of our universe and the existence of evil demands justice.

 

 

WHY ?

 

 

This is a recurring theme among many of my Christian friends; I'm often intrigued by this notion that in the first place "evil" can even be defined (since everything is dependant upon context; everything...) and that somehow there is a one-way street where all humans must be punished for "wrongs", yet no reward for "rights" or living a generally ethical and moral life. (thus proving in the end that God does not give a hoot about morality at all)

 

Who cares about wrongs committed thirty years ago that are actually quite frivolous ? Why would a God care about that ? Sounds a little OCD to me, and I contend that such an obsession is just that; an irrational obsession with what is considered "imperfection".

 

Philosophically, an act can be described as evil, of course, but only occurs as action or lack of action. There is no such thing as something just being "evil" as an object, thing, or action without context. Even killing is sanctioned if the context is acceptable, such as capital punishment, and of course, warfare. Religion even allows for killing innocent people, if again the context is justifiable, and termed "collateral damage".

 

This is where religions have always failed; they will sanction war, slavery, rape, oppression and brutality by justifying "context". There are some exceptions; such as pacifist religious groups, but they are quickly pounced on by the powers of the dominant theology.

 

It must be hard sometimes to keep trying to defend these strange theologies and God-beings and their deceptive ways; methods that are so transparantly human-created.

 

"Thou shalt not kill" is the most redundant commandment of them all. There really wasn't even much point in God bringing it up.

 

Was there ?

[centauri]

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.

 

Again, you make the straw-man argument that Paul was some type of salesman, therefore we cannot trust him. That argument does not work since you have misunderstood what Paul was saying.

It’s not a straw man argument, as Paul confesses his desire to appeal to a wide audience by role-playing, which is a standard tool used by salesmen.

And Paul contradicts God with his gospel, so there is no reason to trust him.

It is you that doesn't understand so your objection does not work.

Can you tell me where you get the idea that the Messiah was going to lead the people in compliance to the law? Do you know what the purpose of the law was? Do you know the standard that Jesus set for the keeping of the law? Check out Matthew 5:48 from the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." That is the standard that Jesus set, a standard that only he could meet.

The idea that a king messiah, the progeny of David, would lead the people into great compliance with the law comes straight from the Bible.

Ezek 37:24

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

 

Jer 33:15

In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.

 

Do you know what the purpose of the law was and that the law was not too difficult to obey?

As for your claims about Jesus, they’re irrelevant as he wasn’t the expected king messiah.

 

Paul explains, "yet we know that a person is not justified [1] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." (Gal. 2:16) He goes on to explain, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose." (v. 22) Finally, Paul explains the true purpose of the law, " So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith." (Gal. 3:24)

And Paul contradicted God, who declared that repenting and keeping the law would provide salvation, which one does for themselves, not via faith in a pagan human sacrifice.

Righteousness is through the law, not faith in a pagan humans sacrifice.

Paul was promoting a replacement theology, which is why Paul’s musings mean nothing to me.

 

So, if Jesus was strict about us following the law in order to be saved, as you seem to imply, then no one will be justified since no one has lived a perfect life apart from Jesus. Thankfully, we are not justified by works of the law, but by faith in the one who fulfilled the law. Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt. 5:17) The only way that the law, which requires perfection could be fulfilled is by and through Jesus, and his death and resurrection.

Jesus implies it in Matt 5:18-20.

And if Jesus is God, then he declared hundreds of years before Paul came along that repenting and keeping the law were the keys to salvation.

God declared over and over that his people were to keep the law and not deviate from it.

The NT character called “Jesus of Nazareth” didn’t live a perfect life.

And contrary to your assertion, a person doesn’t have to be perfect to be saved, nor do they have to be perfect to keep the law.

Jesus didn’t fulfill the law nor the role of king messiah, so the preaching slogans displayed here are empty.

[oddbird1963]

LNC's approach to dialog:

 

1. Declare the other person's ignorance. "You misinterpret . . . ." "You misunderstood . . ."

 

2. Invoke the bandwagon fallacy. "I don't know of any scholars who interpret it that way." "I've never heard it expounded that way before." "All credible scholars believe like I do. . ."

 

3. Engage in circular thinking and interpret all passages of scripture from your own a priori Christian theological position.

 

4. Repeat # 1 or tell the other person to read some book, re-read some post or go back a read a passage.

 

By the way, the singularity as the beginning state of the universe is a prediction of General Relativity. You know, the one developed by Einstein and supported over and over by observation and experimentation.

 

According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. - Wikipedia "Singularity."

 

And "Energy = mass times the speed of light squared?" - Puhleeze! You ougtha' know this by now!

 

 

This brings us to:

 

5. Demand data, titles or passages when refuted or at least to uninformed to rebut.

[Neon Genesis]

OMG, Galatia was a region, not a town! I never knew that before! OMGGG! Why does LNC act like we've never read all this crap he's telling us before and that he's saying something somehow radically new to us? Does anyone else find LNC to be obnoxiously patronizing? He treats us like 1st graders in his posts.

[Ouroboros]

OMG, Galatia was a region, not a town! I never knew that before! OMGGG! Why does LNC act like we've never read all this crap he's telling us before and that he's saying something somehow radically new to us? Does anyone else find LNC to be obnoxiously patronizing? He treats us like 1st graders in his posts.

He's been like that since day-1, last year, when he first came on the scene. Even if he is not a professional troll, he sure does act like one. He is baiting for response, and when he gets one, he gets all worked up for being treated the same way he treats others. He's one of those "Christians" who wants to be treated better than he treats others. The Fake Gold Rule.

[NotBlinded]

I am not sure why you say that I am unable or unwilling understand what others say, did I not ask you questions of clarification? Does that not indicate a willingness on my part to try to understand your point of view?

Yes, it does indicate a willingness, but I'm not sure of your motives for this willingness. From other posts, it appears that you are just wanting to argue, but I could be wrong.

 

You say that one can shift his or her point of view, yet you also say that it happens for no known reason, and still you seem to judge me for being unwilling to understand because you say I am stuck in my worldview. Maybe, according to you, I am unable to understand since it appears that I cannot "shift" my worldview since you say it happens for an unknown reason.

Here is where the willingess comes in. You can try to shift your point of view by reading opposing views and reading them without an argumentative mind. A questioning mind yes, but not an argumentative one.

 

Then, as with myself, something shifts inside of you and then understanding comes with such a force that is causes one to tremble. It did with me anyway. I said, oh my god, that is what they are trying to say. I would read many paragraphs over and over and say, I just don't understand what this person is saying. Then once I did, the entire thought process of the person writing would become clear as to before, it made no logical sense. It's one of what is true to the inner reality of the person vs how the person interprets concrete reality. Symbolism vs concretness. I know there are better words, but I can't think of them right now. I apologize.

 

Edit: Ohh...I thought of some words. Explicit vs implicit knowledge and the other important one: Tacit knowledge. Yet, I don't even know if those are the right words to use.

 

You also speak of looking "beyond all means of understanding" which to me appears to be appealing to some irrational means of viewing the world and I am not sure how one does that, nor do I think that I want to do that as I believe we have been given rational minds for the purpose of using them. However, I am not sure exactly what you are really asking with your two questions at the end of that paragraph, so maybe you could rephrase them.

It's absolutely not irrational. It's an understanding of how our inventions shape our thought processes. I'll try to rephrase those questions.

 

Is their understanding of nature congruent with the way their society is structured?

Our society is very individualistic. It gives the notion that we exist apart and separate from nature and I think much of it has to do with the second question.

 

Does their language reflect a fragmented view of reality that sees things as separate or one that reflects unity?

This is huge in understanding how we view reality. Our language creates "ghosts" as in the "It" that is doing the raining. There are some languages that uses verbs to express reality more so than nouns. Our language requires something to set this "It" into motion or to change positions. Meaning, that it is static to it's core. Can you see how this would jump across into religion to where a "God/It" is required to give life or motion to us?

 

I'm going to paste an excerpt from a book that I just ran across online. The Tao encounters the West: explorations in comparative philosophy

 

 

 

 

The question of being is one of extreme importance, because, whether we are aware of it or not, many of our views on other aspects of the world are dependent on our views on this issue. As a matter of fact, every person, philosopher or nonphilosopher alike, has some view on it, even though most people hold their views tacitly. People who hold different perspectives on this issue hold fundamentally different worldviews. Their worldviews can be so radically different that they hardly share enough common ground to convey to each other their positions on related issues.

 

My focus in this chapter is on the issue of being as identity, that is, the question of what an existent can be said to be. I believe the dominant view on this issue in the East and West are quite different, and that many other disparate views are consequences of this fundamental difference. For this reason it is crucial that we recognize their dissimilarities if we wish to understand both sides and their perspectives on many other issues.

 

Roughly speaking, the dominant view in the West has tended to see the world as consisting of basic elements or "bricks" (e.g. atoms) that are extended in space and make up the world largely through spatial organization. From this perspective, change is merely in appearances and the world is static at a fundamental level. The philosophical focus within this assumption is usually on identifying the basic elements or fundamental bricks, and then explaining how change is possible in a world of these mostly static elements (e.g., in Descarte's view). In contrast, many Eastern philosophers believe that the fundamental element or elements in the world are more subtle and formless. For these philisophers the fundamental nature of the world is change. The static is found merely in the appearance of a world that is essentially dynamic. One of their challenges here is to account for apparent constancy amid change.

 

In the Chinese tradition, the so-called "five elements..." namely, metal, wood, water, fire, and earth, are not understood as five static "bricks," but as dynamic principles that are agents themselves. The five elements may be reminiscent of the ancient Greek philosopher Empedocles' "four elements," namely, water, air, fire, and earth. They are, however, in fact very different in that Chinese "five elements" are not inertial matter that has to be activated from without by some external principles as Empedocles' "four elements" are. The Han Confucian Dong Zhongshu (179 - 104 BCE) said "xing zhe xing ye," that is "xing" means "acting" or behaving." Therefore, "wu-xing" can be better translated as "five agents" or "five operations."

 

The "five elements" are believed to be five types of qi (chi). The Chinese believe that the fundamental element or material of the world is qi, which have been appropriately translated into English as "energy-force." Unlike atoms, in Chinese philosophy qi in intangible, dynamic, and yet forms the myriad of things in the world. This concept of something intangible as the foundation of reality may appear to many Westerners incomprehensible. Fortunately, modern physics has provided a useful instrument for making sense of this concept. Qi is not exactly energy in modern physics, but if one can comprehend how, at the fundamenatal level of the world, energy, which is intangible and dynamic, is equivalent or convertible to matter, one has a good analogy to work with in comprehending the Chinese qi." pp 12 - 13

 

Now, you say that you left Christianity based upon evidence, which seems to contradict what you just suggested that I do in looking beyond all means of understanding. So, I am confused now as to which approach you are really suggesting. Maybe you could explain this extraordinary evidence that led you away from Christianity.

It wasn't extraordinary evidence that led me away it was the lack of it. The claims made by literalists demand extradordinary evidence.

 

I guess that if God is everything, as you say, then I don't really have to worry, since I am a part of everything. However, one problem ensues here in that everything also includes evil, which means that evil would be a part of God or God a part of evil.

That is right superfically. Can you with limited vision know what evil is? Does good ever come from evil? I'm not saying or endorsing evil, I'm only asking how we can really know. I don't know the biological state of the brain of someone that does something evil. I can only judge my little spot of reality just as the cells of the body fight infections, I will fight evil when I perceive something that I believe to be wrong. I can't really blame evil acts just as the cells of the body that fight infections. It makes the body stronger. So yes, on a greater scale, the apparent oppossing forces of good and evil are actually one. Just as when you try to remove the south pole of a magnet. It will remain because it is one.

 

As for the idea of God being a judge, yes, I do see that God is a judge and that justice is a part of our universe as evil is a part of our universe and the existence of evil demands justice. Now, I don't attend a church in which the pastor dons a robe, and I would say that the majority of churches in the U.S. would be similar in that regard.

Wow, even my Unitarian Church minister wears a robe! I mostly agree with everything you said after the "God is a judge" part but in context to my above paragraph.

 

In regard to your discourse on language (in which you used language), I wonder if your post reflects the fragmentation that you discuss. In other words, there is no way to convey that language reflects fragmentation other than to use that very language, which means that the message is part of the problem. I don't think we will escape that problem as language is necessary in the conveyance of the ideas.

Of course my post reflects the fragmentation that I discuss. Yes, language is a very large problem, but if you can understand that it is, you can look past it in order understand differently. Again, check out the book by the physicist Daivd Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order.

 

Regarding the Chinese, I would say that this view is not shared by all Chinese people as Christianity is experiencing its greatest growth in China. I have visited there twice to adopt my two daughters, and don't think that anyone that I met there expressed or shared such a belief that you conveyed. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist there, but the Chinese people are not a monolithic people, just as Americans are not.

Good for you!

 

I thought individuality in China was a relatively recent Western trend? When I went to college, cheating wasn't seen as cheating by the Chinese people I went with. They saw it as cooperation. But, I wasn't in China, just with the Chinese that were here to go to college. I can't really say what it is now.

 

I do believe that you are making assumptions about my posts that do not reflect the reality of them. Sorry, but I would prefer to examine ideas and worldviews for veridicality rather than try to look beyond all means of understanding. I think it is too dangerous to suspend our rationality, if that is what you are suggesting, and correct me if I have interpreted your statement incorrectly.

It's not suspending rationality...it's expanding it. And the varidicality will change based on one's understanding of reality within their worldview. When waves and particles are seen, they are seen as measurements of reality. But, what is the real reality of them? Do they move of their own accord or is there a mover? We keep looking for the cause of the stuff in the pattern of the stuff. I say, good luck because the cause and the effect are one. In other words, the effect is in the cause, it's just our perception of time (which is a measurement) that causes us to see these as separate events. This causes us to look for a mover.

 

I'll try a little harder to have more patience with you until I can honestly see whether you are being disingenuous or not. I hoped I answered some of your questions more throughly.

[Auracle]

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

 

Can you point me to the full interview text so that I can read the whole thing rather than just your quotes? That would be helpful to get everything in proper context.

 

You ARE kidding, right, LNC???

 

May I direct your attention to post #68 in this thread:

 

I saw the response you got from LNC and it made me think of an article I came across on some recent reading. I'll post a couple of bits here for you:

 

**Quotes removed for brevity**

 

Anyhow, I think this sheds a little light on things. It probably won't help any but like I said it came to mind when I read all this.

 

mwc

 

Thanks for posting this. I might also recommend an interview with an important figure in the debate, Daniel Wallace from Dallas Theological Seminary, another important figure in the study of textual criticism, you can find the interview here.

 

So..YOU post a link to an interview for mwc to read, which s/he did. Then mwc asks you what the relevance of said interview was, to which you ask for mwc to point YOU to the full interview text for context???

 

What a fucking joke!!!

 

Oddbird has got you pegged!

 

[agnosticator]

Corrie ten Boom had a tremendous testimony for what the Lord did in her life and through her family in Holland. However, Corrie was not a biblical scholar, so I would not rely on her for precise theological definitions.

 

Matter came to be from an immaterial and eternal cause, since matter is not self-created (logically impossible), nor did it just pop into existence (logically improbable), nor does it make sense that it has existed from eternity past (also logically problematic, if not impossible).

 

Corrie's view was a lot closer to what the new testament said than you are.

 

Matter (the mass of the universe) came from decaying bosons. One type of high energy bosons were photons which spontaneously decayed into particles such as protons. Another example is gamma rays which decay and produce electrons. Quantum fluctuations also produced particles that exist in a vacuum or empty space (energy does exist in nothingness). That's the simplified explanation. So matter is self created. Beyond this energy existing, nobody knows. Eternal cause? The energy could have been eternal. But it doesn't have a mind!

[Mriana]

OMG, Galatia was a region, not a town! I never knew that before! OMGGG! Why does LNC act like we've never read all this crap he's telling us before and that he's saying something somehow radically new to us? Does anyone else find LNC to be obnoxiously patronizing? He treats us like 1st graders in his posts.

 

Oh don't you know, non-theists have never read the Bible or if they have they haven't read in ages, so they forget. "Have you read the New Testament lately?"

[LNC]

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.

[LNC]

Which places mentioned in the Bible didn't exist?

 

Sodom and Gomorrah, for starters.

 

And how do you know this?