Christians, What Would Make You Leave Your Faith.

June 16, 2016

TS: I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

...

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

I think I'm applying logic here.

No, you're simply getting stuck on the fact that Christianity is bullshit.

That then isn't a recreation of the historical origins of Christianity in a naturalistic sense, where there is no mythology or spiritual aspect to it.

That's why there are secular Biblical scholars too.

I think I see where you're going there. But doesn't the bible call a person's faith and walk with God "Spirituality"
It does, that doesn't mean we accept that claim though. But dismissal is a poor form of explanation.
I guess not, but what are you left with.
Real human beings who made important writings within a historical religious tradition, whose remarks cannot be used to understand reality.
Who's remarks (The writer's of the bibles remarks.) and why are they so important?
The writers of the Bible along with the figures who their work is based upon, primarily Jesus himself.

This is important simply because of the context in which we exist. Christianity became the dominant ethical, intellectual, cultural and of course religious system in the West. Is it necessary knowledge, no. Would it be that important independent of its influence? No.

Get out of apologist refutation mode and realize that I am in no way promoting or validating the theological and metaphysical claims of the Bible, nor am I saying that they are a reliable guide to history and ethics.

It is only partially effective for history, and useless for ethics, as the helpful conclusions can be arrived at independently.

What?

June 16, 2016

TS: I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

...

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

I think I'm applying logic here.

Since so many here seem to not want to accept what TrueScotsman is pointing out about scholars..

Why not look up the facts yourself?

It only took me 30 seconds to find this one:

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

I suppose if I thought Jesus was God and/or wanted to follow him then it might be important to learn more.
But if he was merely some historical figure then why bother? Thanks for the response and the link, though.

You don't think it is important to learn about the ACTUAL history behind the origin of religion? This is important for understanding the world today, as well as seeing that there is ultimately no validity to religious claims.

If the entire thing is a human enterprise, then you're not wasting your time getting hung up on the religious metaphysics.

Well, I've been muddling through life without much historical knowledge of Christianity for a half century. Maybe I could muddle better with some historical knowledge but history is not really my thing. I wish it was. I have a couple history books I've tried to get through. Not much luck though. History probably is helpful for those with the interest and temperament for it.

Each of us is in some way, a product of our environment. Understanding history and the ideas that constitute the foundations of our language, culture and ethics are crucial to understand if one wants to be a free individual.

Hence we call college education, a liberal arts degree, liberal is derived from libertas in the Latin, which indicates that this is an education for people who value free thinking, rather than having a religion, master, or government do the thinking for you.

June 16, 2016

TS: I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

...

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

I think I'm applying logic here.

No, you're simply getting stuck on the fact that Christianity is bullshit.

That then isn't a recreation of the historical origins of Christianity in a naturalistic sense, where there is no mythology or spiritual aspect to it.

That's why there are secular Biblical scholars too.

I think I see where you're going there. But doesn't the bible call a person's faith and walk with God "Spirituality"
It does, that doesn't mean we accept that claim though. But dismissal is a poor form of explanation.
I guess not, but what are you left with.
Real human beings who made important writings within a historical religious tradition, whose remarks cannot be used to understand reality.
Who's remarks (The writer's of the bibles remarks.) and why are they so important?
The writers of the Bible along with the figures who their work is based upon, primarily Jesus himself.

This is important simply because of the context in which we exist. Christianity became the dominant ethical, intellectual, cultural and of course religious system in the West. Is it necessary knowledge, no. Would it be that important independent of its influence? No.

Get out of apologist refutation mode and realize that I am in no way promoting or validating the theological and metaphysical claims of the Bible, nor am I saying that they are a reliable guide to history and ethics.

It is only partially effective for history, and useless for ethics, as the helpful conclusions can be arrived at independently.

What?

What about the post was confusing for you? I can explain, or simplify if you need.

June 16, 2016

TS: I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

...

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

I think I'm applying logic here.

No, you're simply getting stuck on the fact that Christianity is bullshit.

That then isn't a recreation of the historical origins of Christianity in a naturalistic sense, where there is no mythology or spiritual aspect to it.

That's why there are secular Biblical scholars too.

I think I see where you're going there. But doesn't the bible call a person's faith and walk with God "Spirituality"
It does, that doesn't mean we accept that claim though. But dismissal is a poor form of explanation.
I guess not, but what are you left with.
Real human beings who made important writings within a historical religious tradition, whose remarks cannot be used to understand reality.
Who's remarks (The writer's of the bibles remarks.) and why are they so important?
The writers of the Bible along with the figures who their work is based upon, primarily Jesus himself.

This is important simply because of the context in which we exist. Christianity became the dominant ethical, intellectual, cultural and of course religious system in the West. Is it necessary knowledge, no. Would it be that important independent of its influence? No.

Get out of apologist refutation mode and realize that I am in no way promoting or validating the theological and metaphysical claims of the Bible, nor am I saying that they are a reliable guide to history and ethics.

It is only partially effective for history, and useless for ethics, as the helpful conclusions can be arrived at independently.

What?
What about the post was confusing for you? I can explain, or simplify if you need.

Simple is good, then I got to get back to the topic of my original post.

June 16, 2016

TS: I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

...

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

I think I'm applying logic here.

Since so many here seem to not want to accept what TrueScotsman is pointing out about scholars..

Why not look up the facts yourself?

It only took me 30 seconds to find this one:

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

I suppose if I thought Jesus was God and/or wanted to follow him then it might be important to learn more.
But if he was merely some historical figure then why bother? Thanks for the response and the link, though.

You don't think it is important to learn about the ACTUAL history behind the origin of religion? This is important for understanding the world today, as well as seeing that there is ultimately no validity to religious claims.

If the entire thing is a human enterprise, then you're not wasting your time getting hung up on the religious metaphysics.

Well, I've been muddling through life without much historical knowledge of Christianity for a half century. Maybe I could muddle better with some historical knowledge but history is not really my thing. I wish it was. I have a couple history books I've tried to get through. Not much luck though. History probably is helpful for those with the interest and temperament for it.

Each of us is in some way, a product of our environment. Understanding history and the ideas that constitute the foundations of our language, culture and ethics are crucial to understand if one wants to be a free individual.

Hence we call college education, a liberal arts degree, liberal is derived from libertas in the Latin, which indicates that this is an education for people who value free thinking, rather than having a religion, master, or government do the thinking for you.

Well that's probably where we diverge. You went with the liberal arts degree. I got my masters in information technology management.

June 17, 2016

By the way Iron horse, I do appreciate you making more of an effort lately to honestly interact with people here. It's a refreshing change.

Now answer BAA's questions!

Ironhorse,

Perhaps you'll answer my question to you from post # 54 if The Prof asks you...?

Oh wait... he did that yesterday.

I might have spoken too soon.

June 17, 2016

TS: I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

...

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

I think I'm applying logic here.

Since so many here seem to not want to accept what TrueScotsman is pointing out about scholars..

Why not look up the facts yourself?

It only took me 30 seconds to find this one:

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

I suppose if I thought Jesus was God and/or wanted to follow him then it might be important to learn more.
But if he was merely some historical figure then why bother? Thanks for the response and the link, though.

You don't think it is important to learn about the ACTUAL history behind the origin of religion? This is important for understanding the world today, as well as seeing that there is ultimately no validity to religious claims.

If the entire thing is a human enterprise, then you're not wasting your time getting hung up on the religious metaphysics.

Well, I've been muddling through life without much historical knowledge of Christianity for a half century. Maybe I could muddle better with some historical knowledge but history is not really my thing. I wish it was. I have a couple history books I've tried to get through. Not much luck though. History probably is helpful for those with the interest and temperament for it.
Each of us is in some way, a product of our environment. Understanding history and the ideas that constitute the foundations of our language, culture and ethics are crucial to understand if one wants to be a free individual.

Hence we call college education, a liberal arts degree, liberal is derived from libertas in the Latin, which indicates that this is an education for people who value free thinking, rather than having a religion, master, or government do the thinking for you.

Well that's probably where we diverge. You went with the liberal arts degree. I got my masters in information technology management.

It was just a helpful example, to illustrate my point.

June 17, 2016

Ironhorse,

Is your mind open to the possibility that there exists evidence that falsifies Christianity?

Please answer truthfully.

Thanks,

BAA.

June 17, 2016

TS: I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

...

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

I think I'm applying logic here.

Since so many here seem to not want to accept what TrueScotsman is pointing out about scholars..

Why not look up the facts yourself?

It only took me 30 seconds to find this one:

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

Qadeshet looked it up, and then refuted himself while simultaneously denying any of its validity.

There is a difference between "Jesus of Nazareth" found only in the Bible until after the 1st Century, and "a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based". I have already granted the second possibility. Assuming "Jesus of Nazareth" existed implies accepting some form of the Bible Jesus. I have no problem with the idea of some " historical preacher" who may have existed. Nowhere in the quote does it say "Jesus of Nazareth". Your claim was that "Jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed.

June 18, 2016

Ironhorse,

Is your mind open to the possibility that there exists evidence that falsifies Christianity?

Please answer truthfully.

Thanks,

BAA.

(Bump!)

June 18, 2016

Ironhorse,

Is your mind open to the possibility that there exists evidence that falsifies Christianity?

Please answer truthfully.

Thanks,

BAA.

(Bump!)

See post #253 Trust Yourself

June 18, 2016

ironhorse, posted today, 09:43 AM

I don’t blame God for any of this. This is the way it is in this world.

Finally, you agree with all us poor Atheists! We don't "blame" your god either. When you look at the World, "the way it is", an All Knowing and All Powerful god cannot exist. If any god exists, it either doesn't care about all the unnecessary evil and suffering, is not able to do anything about it, or it must be evil.

Ironhorse, I too am very sorry to hear once again about your children. I don't remember whether I knew about your bronchiecstasis. What a hard row to go down in all of those things.

In #18, from which qadeshet quoted the above, you also said, "God did not ordain this," i.e. an alligator killing a two-year-old child.

I must join qadeshet in noting that you have "solved" the classic Problem of Evil by denying that God is all powerful. That's what it means to deny that some event occurs that God does not "ordain."

This is what I suspected, and it's why a while ago I said that you apparently worship a finite, struggling God. There are systems of religious belief that are compatible with what you express here, including most polytheisms. Classical Christianity is not compatible with the stance you have taken. You are witnessing to your faith in something other than the God of classical Christianity.

OR -

you are using the word "ordain" wrongly. To say that God ordains event P is to say that God, the First Cause of all that is, set in motion the chain of causes that leads to effect P. Since the Christian scriptures also give us an all-knowing God and a God whose will is sovereign, it also gives us a God who decides on the chain of causes that without fail (because God KNOWS the outcome) produces effect P.

If your God is NOT the first cause of all that is, then you're not worshiping the God of the Nicene Creed but some lesser god. You are on here as a witness to some other faith than the faith that was once for all handed over to the saints.

Thank you ficino for your kind remarks concerning my family and condition.

I read your comments on the issue at hand. You have admitted I am definitely not a Calvinists, so I don’t know if we can ever fully agree.

At this point I don’t understand why you think Classical Christianity is not compatible with my stance. Hopefully we can discuss that later on.

I recently replied to BBA's comments on this in "testimonials" Post #25. I posted a link that gives more detail.

June 18, 2016

ironhorse, posted today, 09:43 AM

I don’t blame God for any of this. This is the way it is in this world.

Finally, you agree with all us poor Atheists! We don't "blame" your god either. When you look at the World, "the way it is", an All Knowing and All Powerful god cannot exist. If any god exists, it either doesn't care about all the unnecessary evil and suffering, is not able to do anything about it, or it must be evil.

Ironhorse, I too am very sorry to hear once again about your children. I don't remember whether I knew about your bronchiecstasis. What a hard row to go down in all of those things.

In #18, from which qadeshet quoted the above, you also said, "God did not ordain this," i.e. an alligator killing a two-year-old child.

I must join qadeshet in noting that you have "solved" the classic Problem of Evil by denying that God is all powerful. That's what it means to deny that some event occurs that God does not "ordain."

This is what I suspected, and it's why a while ago I said that you apparently worship a finite, struggling God. There are systems of religious belief that are compatible with what you express here, including most polytheisms. Classical Christianity is not compatible with the stance you have taken. You are witnessing to your faith in something other than the God of classical Christianity.

OR -

you are using the word "ordain" wrongly. To say that God ordains event P is to say that God, the First Cause of all that is, set in motion the chain of causes that leads to effect P. Since the Christian scriptures also give us an all-knowing God and a God whose will is sovereign, it also gives us a God who decides on the chain of causes that without fail (because God KNOWS the outcome) produces effect P.

If your God is NOT the first cause of all that is, then you're not worshiping the God of the Nicene Creed but some lesser god. You are on here as a witness to some other faith than the faith that was once for all handed over to the saints.

Thank you ficino for your kind remarks concerning my family and condition.

I read your comments on the issue at hand. You have admitted I am definitely not a Calvinists, so I don’t know if we can ever fully agree.

At this point I don’t understand why you think Classical Christianity is not compatible with my stance. Hopefully we can discuss that later on.

I recently replied to BBA's comments on this in "testimonials" Post #25. I posted a link that gives more detail.

Ironhorse,

I see that you've already finished trying to be a... little more ...precise and clear with your words.

How do I know this?

Because you didn't even make the effort to check what you typed before you posted it.

My handle is BAA.

'nuff said?

June 19, 2016

Thank you ficino for your kind remarks concerning my family and condition.

I read your comments on the issue at hand. You have admitted I am definitely not a Calvinists, so I don’t know if we can ever fully agree.

At this point I don’t understand why you think Classical Christianity is not compatible with my stance. Hopefully we can discuss that later on.

On "free will", there are two theological perspectives I can think of now. There is a third perspective, not theological, that holds that free will is an illusion because all our choices are determined by causal events that have gone before, which can in theory be predicted. But I don't "go there."

1. Ability. The NT is clear that the unregenerate man has not the power to make a saving act of faith. God must first implant grace, which alone can awaken the sinner to repentance. And God chooses to implant grace in some and not in others (e.g. not in Esau). I leave it to you to think this over or to check out the relevant verses. Even Catholics hold this.

2. Necessary causes. If you hold, as Christians do, that every event must have a cause, you trace the steps backward to before creation when God set up the entire course of history that He would kickstart into motion. If you claim that event X was not planned by God before the foundation of the world, you are a heretic. I leave the research to you, if this isn't obvious. You could start with St. Thomas Aquinas - no Calvinist he, living centuries beforehand.

I think you are confused about what God cannot do. Theologians and philosophers who believe in God agree that God cannot do anything that entails a contradiction. E.g. to the person who sneers, can there be something so heavy that God cannot pick it up, the answer is, You don't know what you're talking about. There is no X, such that X is able to be picked up and not able to be picked up by the same agent under the same set of relations.

But discussions of events in history are not like this. Take an event: Judas betraying Jesus. Is there a chain of causes going backwards toward creation that does not end in God as first cause?

If you say, Yes!, then you are setting up some realm over which God is not sovereign. You are pushing some other religion, not Christianity.

I can't go into any more detail, for time presses, and my years draw close to their end.

At the least, since you don't seem to know any theology in a serious way, you should abstain from making pronouncements about what true/genuine Christianity entails.

Henri Bergson pushed the idea of a finite, struggling god. Perhaps you'll find the philosophy of Bergson congenial. It's not the faith of the ancient creeds.

June 19, 2016

ironhorse, posted today, 09:43 AM

I don’t blame God for any of this. This is the way it is in this world.

Finally, you agree with all us poor Atheists! We don't "blame" your god either. When you look at the World, "the way it is", an All Knowing and All Powerful god cannot exist. If any god exists, it either doesn't care about all the unnecessary evil and suffering, is not able to do anything about it, or it must be evil.

Ironhorse, I too am very sorry to hear once again about your children. I don't remember whether I knew about your bronchiecstasis. What a hard row to go down in all of those things.

In #18, from which qadeshet quoted the above, you also said, "God did not ordain this," i.e. an alligator killing a two-year-old child.

I must join qadeshet in noting that you have "solved" the classic Problem of Evil by denying that God is all powerful. That's what it means to deny that some event occurs that God does not "ordain."

This is what I suspected, and it's why a while ago I said that you apparently worship a finite, struggling God. There are systems of religious belief that are compatible with what you express here, including most polytheisms. Classical Christianity is not compatible with the stance you have taken. You are witnessing to your faith in something other than the God of classical Christianity.

OR -

you are using the word "ordain" wrongly. To say that God ordains event P is to say that God, the First Cause of all that is, set in motion the chain of causes that leads to effect P. Since the Christian scriptures also give us an all-knowing God and a God whose will is sovereign, it also gives us a God who decides on the chain of causes that without fail (because God KNOWS the outcome) produces effect P.

If your God is NOT the first cause of all that is, then you're not worshiping the God of the Nicene Creed but some lesser god. You are on here as a witness to some other faith than the faith that was once for all handed over to the saints.

Ficino, remember ironhorse's profound observation? "I don’t blame God for any of this. This is the way it is in this world." It was obvious, to both of us, that our friend ironhorse is not talking about the god of Christianity, but perhaps the stupid god who didn't even know that Adam and Eve had eaten the Fruit until he found them wearing fig leaves and hiding in the bushes. "Hey Adam, who told you that you were naked?" And it was the Ehohim who cast A&E from the Garden. The Elohim were the 7 gods of the Babylonian Pantheon, not Moses' god Yahweh. If you follow the character of the god throughout the Bible, it seems to become more and more powerfull. Here's what happens by the time we get to the Book of Revelation.

Revelation 20:15

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

The Book of Life, also called the Book of the Lamb, was written before the foundation of the World. Now, by the time this was composed, god is All Knowing. That is the only way your name could be found in a Book composed before the World began. In order for me to be born, my entire line of Ancestors must have been foreknown. If my great great great Grandmother had been eaten by an alligator, then I wouldn't be here. So ironhorse, if you don't blame God for the death of this little girl, then your god is not All Knowing. If you want to believe in a stupid god, that's fine. Perhaps your god is the one taught to you in Church?

TS: I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

...

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

I think I'm applying logic here.

No, you're simply getting stuck on the fact that Christianity is bullshit.

That then isn't a recreation of the historical origins of Christianity in a naturalistic sense, where there is no mythology or spiritual aspect to it.

That's why there are secular Biblical scholars too.

TrueScotsman, can you now see what a bald statement like "'Jesus of Nazareth' certainly existed" actually accomplishes? A Lurker or Guest, perhaps just beginning to doubt, will nod and think "See, even Atheists know that Jesus existed." And when a True Believer like ironhorse quotes you as his authority, you should really be worried.

TS: I respect facts and substantial arguments using logic and reason. Even if Christianity is bullshit, it should be represented honestly and accurately, without appealing to fallacious reasoning.

...

To rephrase then, Bullshit should be represented honestly and accurately. One should not try to destroy Bullshit using some other bullshit. :-)

And so if Christianity is Bullshit then bible scholars are people who are very knowledgeable about Bullshit.

I think I'm applying logic here.

Since so many here seem to not want to accept what TrueScotsman is pointing out about scholars..

Why not look up the facts yourself?

It only took me 30 seconds to find this one:

"Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand."

http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

Ironhorse, Truescotsman is the only one here who doesn't seem to know that the Bible, like the Odyssey and the Epic of Gilgamesh, is a Literary creation. Did Arthur really pull the Sword from the Stone? Did Harry Potter really exist? I would like to you think some more about your earlier profound statement. And I am sincere about this.

"I don’t blame God for any of this. This is the way it is in this world."

When we look at the World, the way it actually is, there is no need to insert an imaginary "god", Nature does a fine job on Her own. Ironhorse, you tell us that nothing will ever change your mind. Thats fine, really, but I would like you to try this simple thought experiment.

It is a fine sunny day in in May. Suddenly, from out of nowhere, a 100 foot figure, magically appears on the White House lawn. He's dressed in a flowing white robe and looks a lot like Charlton Heston playing Moses. In a loud booming voice he procalims " I am Zeus and you stupid morons are really pissing me off. Bow down and worship me or I'll zap you all with my Thunderbolt." Helicopters appear and start blasting away but Zeus merely laughs. Lightning bolts are flying everywhere. Oh shit.

What do you do? I already know the answer, but I would like you to tell us.