Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Go read my blog and listen to the songs -- particularly "Don't Be Afraid."
 

The writer of Acts perpetrates a bit of legerdemain in these verses. The Temple he referred to on Mars Hill was actual a Temple to the Unknown Gods --plural. The Inscription actually read:
"TO THE GODS OF ASIA, EUROPE, AND AFRICA, TO ALL FOREIGN AND UNKNOWN GODS'”! (Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, p. 292.)
But then again, what's a little slight of hand when the Truth is at stake?
 

Naybe.

This is interesring, especially the part about God-fearers in Athens who could have erected an altar to the Jewish, who having an unspeakabl;e name and no image, was "unknown":

http://books.google.com/
books?id=2P7zSnM9BjMC&pg=
PA521&lpg=PA521&dq=
%22unknown+Gods%22&source=web&ots=
lLigq7BzT4&sig=ci2p3lZWPX
nt0kYdl1LclRNjooQ&hl=en
 

+++ Jumping in from another blog...

Erudite Redneck wrote:-
OK. Where were we. Sorry. Been Busy. :-)

Y'all come back, ya hear?


Hi Erudite,

I hadn’t forgotten about this place, I been thinking about popping over to see where we were.

Thanks again for the invite, though if I remember rightly, I still need to prove I exist?

Well, I am answering your call, does that mean anything?

The “raiding parties” I think have all gone west – but I’m still a non-believer (choosing not to use the word atheist since it caused confusion last time) who is still looking for a good argument for God.

I assume you are still being Christian-like?

Late here, must go...

Lee
 

Re, "I assume you are still being Christian-like?"

Trying.


The invite is to come back and see if there might be a way to engage the ongoing conversations, rather than to beat graven gods and dead horses. I think that was part of the problem last time. There is more than one question than "Is God?" and there is more than one argument to make than "God is."

For example; What are your thoughts on this post?
 

Naybe? You say.

P-522 of the text you cite, confirms what Erasmus said. Then on p-523 the author goes on to suggest that "God-Fearers" attached to the Jewish diaspora "may have erected" something Paul "could possibly have seen" add in some more "if's" "then's" and "somehow's" and old fashion "might of's". It is all an apologist's illusion to explain away the legerdemain. No Jew before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem would let an alter be set up on Mars Hill to his God, amongst all the other gods and would castigate and inform any such fellowtravelling "God Fearer" not to do it.
The ponderous efforts that the apologists go to prove the efficacy of the biblical text would be laughable it it weren't so sad. And it is unnecessary. The Truth does not need canards or even lies to defend it.
The Truth of the Spirit does not stand on the fallibility of a human written (and re-written) record that tries to describe and explain the indescribable or the unexplainable.

This, you, yourself have advocated.
Don't worship the book.

Sellah!
 

I don't worship the book.

But you seem to be coming at something approaching over-veneration, or over-something.

Acts says what it says -- and no more. It's perfectly acceptable, advisable even, to look elsewhere to try to determine what it doesn't say.

Paul was a rhetoritician. He probabloy was playing with words.
 

ER says:I don't worship the book.
DLJ: So said I about you.

ER: But you seem to be coming at something approaching over-veneration, or over-something.
DLJ: No comprede?

ER: Acts says what it says -- and no more. It's perfectly acceptable, advisable even, to look elsewhere to try to determine what it doesn't say.
DLJ:?

ER: Paul was a rhetoritician. He probabloy was playing with words.
DLJ: Playing with words? Playing with words to make a point that wasn't there? Humm, maybe Luke just remembered it wrong. Of course if he remembered it correctly then the point would be meaningless would it not?

Perhaps ministers, most of whom know which passages these are, should not use problematic passages to make points in their services.

You indicate that you want to be a seminarian. Thus I attempt to challenge you (with my limited ability) to be critical like one. Should I not?
 

OK. We're talking past each other or something.

All passages are problematic.

But I think I'm missing yer point or something.

You say that Erasmus says there was an altar and that it said thus-and-so. So did Jerome.

So what?

To hold Paul to precisely what Acts says he said, and no more or no less, to discount the possibility that Paul purposefully *was* yanking their chains by turning the wording singular -- that's exactly what the literalists do.

Since there were no quote marks inj the original, who knows who else Paul was quoting in this little speech besides Epiminedes?
 

Wait a minute.

If there was a TEMPLE "TO THE GODS OF ASIA, EUROPE, AND AFRICA, TO ALL FOREIGN AND UNKNOWN GODS'” that suggests more than one altar therein. Surely only of them was to a plain ol' garden-variety "unknown god."
 

OK, so we translated this passage a few weeks ago in Greek class, and my prof (who, by the way, is the chairman of the Westar Institute's Acts Seminar, but hey, you can't believe EVERYTHING he says ...) pretty much agreed with what drlobojo says. It's meant for foreigners who want to worship, but they don't find their gods in Athens, so they've got this one altar set up for them. Nicely pluralistic, in my view.

Also, let's not forget that it wasn't PAUL who said these things, but "Luke." Luke had an agenda when he was writing Acts. Always keep in mind the gospel writers' agendas when reading their works.

As far as rhetoric goes, when the Paul character says, "O men of Athens, I can see how religious you are," the word for "religious" has two meanings -- religious, and "superstitious." I theorized in class last week that Luke meant the word both ways, Paul says "I see how religious you are" in order to flatter his audience, but Luke uses the word so the reader also hears "I see how superstitious these men of Athens are." Talk about rhetoric!
 

Thank's Hapa,

If I had to settle on "ONE" point this would be it:

"Perhaps ministers, most of whom know which passages these are, should not use problematic passages to make points in their services."

For a minister to use these type passages, books,chapters, whatever,and not all are problematic, is to assume their paritioners are just simple ole don't really matter consumers of their prattle.

It is Lazy.

It is dishonest.

It detracts from the Truth.

For example any time a minister preaches from a Timothy letter, I leave. I like my fiction in the theater.
 

jeez, DLJ, as far as fiction goes, you could say that for almost the entire book!

I thought about pointing out the altar thing to the minister, but since I went to the first service and he still had one to go, I was loathe to distract. It ain't his fault that I parsed down the Greek of that text two weeks ago. Back-seat preaching and all. I'll save that for when I'm leading the Adult Bible Study class.

I'd love to preach (if I preached) on a hard text like the faux-Paul letters. All you'd have to do on those is present the sociohistorical background and say something like "See, and this is where the church started trying to get in with the Romans' good graces and stopped being so revolutionary. See what happens when church and state mix?" Meh.
 

I like that "religious" "supersitions" word play. Very cool.

Question: Would "Luke" have quoted Epiminides(sp?) ... I find it hard to believe the incidents portrayed in Acts, or Luke, were created from whole cloth. Spun, yes. Some fabrication and elaboration, OK. But total fiction? That's too much.

Said in acknowledgment that these are persuasive writings we're looking at, not "history."

Lukje? Epminides? ??? Wait: Is the Magnificat(sp?) in Luke? If so, then he was prine to quoting ohers ...

Veddy intedesting ...


BTW, I might walk out of a sermon on Revelation that didn't put it in total context.
 

Well the whole book of Acts can't be complete fiction. Apparently the sea voyage was "first hand" information. ACTs 27:17 has bewilderd Bible readers for sometime, in that it refers to the ship being "undergirded" in the storm. Now because of the reconstruction of a Greek trireme we know what that means. They must have ran a double length of cable bow to stern to keep the ship from flexing under the pressure of the waves in the storm. That is what has to happen in the modern reconstruction of the trireme.
Still Luke did have agenda when it came to the theological. Maybe that is why he wrote two versions of Acts.
 

Hi ER,

The invite is to come back and see if there might be a way to engage the ongoing conversations, rather than to beat graven gods and dead horses.

And again thanks for the invite... though if you are talking about God and the bible you know I am on the other side of the fence and we do not agree.

If you are talking about local politics or current affairs then I have little to offer since I know nothing on the subject.

For example; What are your thoughts on this post?

It started with “Lord of life”... if I continue I may be getting into a bible discussion.

OK then, but only because you asked, let’s take a quick look and speak how I see it on first inspection.

----

I’ve never been able to see how the “angry God” of the Old Testament fits in with the “all-loving” God of the New.

I have tried to discuss this topic with Christians to try and understand how they square this circle – it never makes sense to me when I hear it.

A perfect God, or an all-powerful and all-loving God just does not match the evidence seen in the world around us – it must be my tinted-glasses I'm sure.

Sacrifice – this was a major part of the OT, in particular blood, which the passage/quote highlights, and I suppose the “Big blood sacrifice” we are asked to believe in is that of Jesus...

Blood sacrifices after Jesus seem to decrease (or indeed stop) in the Christian faith, but the sacrifice of the body and mind, so that “[w]e need only serve” continues. I cannot understand why I would want to be a slave to God or indeed why God would want that either.

All this sacrifice without any evidence for the value or potential reward also seems odd – I question this - the claims made in the bible that can be tested fail, those that cannot be tested (i.e. life after death) have to be taken on faith - but why should I have this faith in something that cannot be proven?

The next part is “the God of all creation is not far from us” – this is an assumption, how to we know this – how should we know this? And who created God? It just doesn’t start to work and change my sceptical mind – sorry.

The last bit raises further questions based on my current “research” (listening to podcasts)

“In the name of Jesus of Nazareth who opened the heavens we pray”

Firstly, “of Nazareth” – I’m hearing that there is no evidence that a town called Nazareth existed until around 100-200 AD – a bit of a problem if this statement (and the bible) is to be believed?

Of course people (Christians) challenge this evidence, and I want to research it more before I place any “faith” in it. However the town of Jesus’ raising is not the only problem I have with the “historical” figure.

Have you seen the site:-
http://www.jesuspolice.com

Lastly “we pray” – and we all know how powerful prayers are? They can move mountains right? If you believe the bible, though we cannot find any evidence of the power of prayer today – in fact, if you investigate we find that the “power” of prayer is nothing more than wishful thinking and post-hoc reinterpretation.

So ER, it is an interesting thread – if you wish to discuss it, but I doubt we are on the same page. I am still looking to learn more about religion, but are you prepared to challenge your own beliefs?

Cheers

Lee
 

Oh... just started to read the comments - very interesting, I may learn something (and make myself look a fool if I comment anymore)

Lee
 

Magnificat? As in the parallel to Hannah in Samuel?

Does Lee have a few hundred cut and paste "drop ins". He never seems to follow the threads really.
 

Hi drlobojo,

Does Lee have a few hundred cut and paste "drop ins".

I wish... I had to type all that stuff myself, letter by letter using my own little brain :)

He never seems to follow the threads really.

Well, if you think about that for a second or two there is a reason.

Last night (my time) I read a comment on another blog from ER inviting me and others back here. I have not been here since January when our little “discussion” about the existence of God ended if you remember.

It was too late in the evening for me to read the latest threads and comments, so I merely acknowledged ER’s invitation.

This morning I read ER asking for my opinions on this thread, so I read merely ER’s original entry (not the comments) and wrote what I thought.

Then I started to read the comments, and noticed (and acknowledge) the great level of thought/knowledge that has gone into them.

So, sorry if you feel I should have to follow “the threads” before I comment, but I was invited to comment so I did. If you object strongly to anything I wrote them please tell me what and why – if you think I am just talking bollocks, then say so – Or just ignore me. It doesn’t matter to me.

See ya

Lee
 

Yes, I think so. The Song of Mary. Luke 1:46-55. Selective use of an O.T. passage. Which doesn't mean it's "untrue," for a hymn or chant, for some of the earliest Christian adherents.

Lee, the invite has been extended. The train is rollin'. Jump on or not.

Again: More questions that "Is God?" More answers than "God is."

The devil -- and God, I assert -- is in the details, not the grandest pronouncements and premises.

Who IS that in me looking to disparate parts for signs of the big picture?? I forgets my flosfers!
 

Short answer:

Read the damn threads. That's where most of the thinking goes on here. I throw out something and see what sticks. Sorry if that wasn't clear. :-)

What ARE bollocks anyway??
 

Hi ER,

the invite has been extended. The train is rollin'. Jump on or not.

I’ve jumped on, but whether I can hold on is another matter. It’s a fast moving and bumpy ride. It’s lunch time now... so food is needed.

Again: More questions that "Is God?" More answers than "God is."

Understood. Someone asks “why?” and the response is “because”...

Some people are happy with this, others are not.

What ARE bollocks anyway??

I though everyone knew that?

You need to watch more English movies and TV shows...

An English to American translation...

“Talking bollocks” – talking rubbish or nonsense

”bollocks up” - messed up - make a mess of.

“the dog’s bollocks” – the best it’s going to get. i.e. “That car is the dog’s bollocks” – translation, “that car is very good”.

”The dog is licking its bollocks...” – the dog is licking its testicles.

Isn’t English great?

Lee
 

(h)apa said: "It's meant for foreigners who want to worship, but they don't find their gods in Athens, so they've got this one altar set up for them. Nicely pluralistic, in my view."

That sounds nice and rather inclusive. Sort of like the "chapel" at an airport, or ER's invitation to prodigal posters.
 

Heh heh. Did the city of Athens have a tax on temples or altars? That might splain why they had such a temple for foreigners. A god tax?

Not totally removed from my own invitation to Lee! The tax I collect is comments. And my comment coffers were gettin' low!


As for the chouce of text: Was that a lectionary passage? If so, Super Preacher didn't pick it to back his sermon; he wrapped a sermon around it; and *then* maybe worked to make it fit what he wanted to say.

And the bottom line of the sermon was: No more blood for oil -- I mean, no more blood for guilt, no more blood sacrifice -- whatever else some, but not all, of the earliest Jewish Christians understood the Jesus exprience to mean was an end to that.

Since, as they interpreted the experience, Jesus was the Ultimate Sacrifice, right? No more required. No more angry God to be appeased.

Ergo, while the named gods in Athens were, I suppose, to Paul no more or less false than ever, anyone groping for THE God, as Paul understood it as a Jew, as as "Luke" meant it as a Christian apologist, likewise had no more need for an altar to any other "unknown" god.
 

Lee,
I concur; English is bang on the bee's knees.
Not being much of a theologian (and generally a non-practicing atheist), I'll try my best to explain the sacrifice thing, as I understand it.
The reason for the disappearance of (blood) sacrifice in the NT is due to the sacrifice given by Jesus, rendering moot all other sacrificial needs. The request made of Christians is not to subsequently sacrifice one's mind or body in servitude; but rather to rejoice in the salvation of forgiveness and (thus) want to life a life of faith, praise, devotion, etc.
The "service" is a response to the love of God, not a punch-clock on which the reward of salvation is earned.
 

Greek temple tax, no. Temple fees, yes.
Charges were made for water to cleanse yourself before entering, incense, perfume, candles, oils, whatever and depending on the god and the temple some fees were charged. There are some great stories about the coin operated machines that dispensed such, so that the priest didn't have to sully their hands with common commerce.

ER said:"Yes, I think so. The Song of Mary. Luke 1:46-55. Selective use of an O.T. passage. Which doesn't mean it's "untrue," for a hymn or chant, for some of the earliest Christian adherents."

Yep, dug a little deeper it was Harrah in Samuel. Got to dig some more, however the writer of Samuel might have been using an Egyptian hymn.

You know, I tell my wife that when I rework someone else's story or combine mine with another's event to illustrate something I did, or thought that I did, that I'm not really lying. I'm simply using artistic license to make it better.

If the alter of sacrifice is no longer needed, why then was martyrdom so attractive to the early church, up even until today?
 

Not totally removed from my own invitation to Lee! The tax I collect is comments. And my comment coffers were gettin' low!

So I am expected to pay my taxes now? Sounds like we should be having another “tea party” sometime soon.

However, I suppose you didn’t charge me back in January so it is the least I can do is offer some taxes now. Fill up those coffers and all that with my nonsense.

Since, as they interpreted the experience, Jesus was the Ultimate Sacrifice, right? No more required. No more angry God to be appeased.

I think the “angry” God was “re-written” for the New Testament to make him “all-loving” which was a big improvement on the Old; it still doesn’t mean anything in the bible is right though.

However don’t you just wish, as a Christian, you could reject all the murdering, raping, unjust laws and other nonsense written about in the Old Testament as I do?

One of the problems with Christianity is it is built on the foundations (of sand?) that is called the Old Testament and the cruel God described within it.

Also, how does God letting his son (himself?) get killed in a horrible fashion make God less angry?

I concur; English is bang on the bee's knees

I forgot that phrase (I don’t live in England any more so don’t hear “the Queen’s” English very often) though you can buy a beer over here called the bee’s knees come to think of it.

The reason for the disappearance of (blood) sacrifice in the NT is due to the sacrifice given by Jesus, rendering moot all other sacrificial needs.

Which is weird when you think about it – isn’t Jesus suppose to be God? Why does God need to sacrifice himself to himself? For what sin? What sin couldn’t God just forgive us for?

However it is only the “blood sacrifice” that seemed to disappear with Jesus – the sacrifice of money to the church for example to speed your time in purgatory continued for a long time well into the Middle Ages if not longer.

Not sure what is being sacrificed today... is it still money, or time perhaps?

It all comes back to sin I suppose and how you are to “get rid” of it. Not a big fan of sin really.

... but rather to rejoice in the salvation of forgiveness and (thus) want to life a life of faith, praise, devotion, etc.

As I hinted above – forgiveness for what?

Christianity (or any theistic religion really) just doesn’t make sense when you start to read the small print.

Lee
 

Lee said: "Christianity (or any theistic religion really) just doesn’t make sense when you start to read the small print."

That's that then.
 

Thermodynamics doesn't make any sense to me when you read the fine print.

Hydraulics? No sense whatsoever, to me.

German? None. Can't make heads nor tails of it, small print or large.

LOL
 

Note: The discsussion here of the efficacy of the Crucifixion is totally traditional and orthodox in scope. I mean that as a mild criticism.
 

Re, "Since, as they interpreted the experience, Jesus was the Ultimate Sacrifice, right? No more required. No more angry God to be appeased."

Those who encountered Jesus were Jews. I think his holiness so blew away their concepts of the potential for the relastionship between God and humanity that they were willing to change their religion -- that is, abandon blood sacrifice -- but unwilling to eradicate all the appearances thereof. Thus, the interpretation of Jesus as the Lamb of God, ultimate sactifice, etc., as a way to close the door on their previous religion. If they weren't Jews, I think they would have intepreted Jesus differently. Whatever the Thing was they did as an act of worship, Jesus would have been seen as the ultimate expression of that Thing. It just *happened* to be blood sacrifice because that's what the Jews did.
 

"The discsussion here of the efficacy of the Crucifixion is totally traditional and orthodox in scope. I mean that as a mild criticism."

LOL.

A little post I did a while back on substitutionary atonement (and atonement theories more generally):

http://homepage.mac.com/akiste/iblog/C227687721/E20080305140041/index.html

enjoy.
 

This stirs up an interesting musing about when "something that happens" becomes a story. Because there's truth in most fiction, fiction in most truths. S'interesting.

And it was a lecctionary passage.
http://www.ucc.org/worship/samuel/

Of course, he has his choice of which to pick from. I was actually quite surprised he preached from Acts, he usually preaches from the Gospels. And he's been known to jump the lectionary, so I guess he was good with this one.
 

Hi drlobojo,

RE: "Christianity (or any theistic religion really) just doesn’t make sense when you start to read the small print."

That's that then.

Thermodynamics doesn't make any sense to me when you read the fine print.

Hydraulics? No sense whatsoever, to me.

German? None. Can't make heads nor tails of it, small print or large.

LOL

Of course, that’s it - You must be right... I could not possible make sense of any of those examples you gave. 90 million Germans are wrong since it doesn’t make sense to me either...

OK, you right on this point and I concede that - I made a throw away comment that seemed to imply “it does not make sense to me so it be wrong” – I didn’t mean this since it is obviously a logical fallacy (but my English is lousy sometimes I admit.) I was commenting specifically on the examples I gave that do not make sense – or can you make sense of them? Do I need to repeat them or are you happy to just to ignore questions?

I suppose you could give me an explanation or description of God that does make sense?

All-loving, All-powerful and All-knowing?
A perfect being?

Take you pick... For nearly 2,000 years Christians have been making excuses for God – whenever mankind discovers something new, the bible has to be reinterpreted – another excuse is produced. It was so much easier to be a Christian before science came along.

I could start to question many stories in the bible that don’t make sense (to me at least) will you be able to explain and make sense of them for me? If not, why not? Why would God only give mankind a puzzle book as the only source of evidence on how to worship him?

The explanations in the bible are inconsistent when taken as a whole – that is what doesn’t make sense; IF the “answers” from the bible are suppose to be the divine solution for all mankind, why does it not make sense to us – mankind - God’s most important creation for who the bible was written?

This doesn’t make sense – but of course, God in His wisdom can do whatever He likes – but would it be a loving action to deceive, to give only scraps of information when at risk, so I am told, is eternal damnation in Hell if I am wrong?

Lee
 

Oh, and Hi ER... I missed your "hello" on my last comment - sorry.

Lee
 

Hi ER,

Those who encountered Jesus were Jews.

Don’t forget the Romans... though it is the Jews who get the “bad press” for some reason for the crucifixion. Something is wrong here... but I have a "theory" of course but will not change the subject.

I think his holiness so blew away their concepts of the potential for the relastionship between God and humanity that they were willing to change their religion -- that is, abandon blood sacrifice -- but unwilling to eradicate all the appearances thereof.

Do you think it anything to do with the temple worship happening at the time?

The “power” who controlled the temples, controlled the religion and the people.

Jesus could not overpower/overthrow the temples or Rome, but IF he moved the reliance away from the temples – Jesus is moving the control the rulers had over the people.

Just a thought... what do you think?

Lee
 

I would also like to add that my little “theory” above also explains why the previous messiahs failed since they probably went for direct overthrow of the temples and the ruling power by force (This was what the Jewish people were praying for after all). A small rabble of men is not going to be much of a threat to the Roman rule and will be easily crushed.

Jesus (if that was his real name) tackled the problem from the “ground up” by removing the reliance on the temples and hence the control over the people. (Once Christianity got Rome on their side in the 3rd century(-ish) the rest is history)

Of course, my theory is dependent on showing the temples had such a important part in controlling the people, but I hope this is not stretching the realms of possibilities too far?

Whoever thought history could be interesting?

Lee
 

Lee, GREAT questions.

Re, "I suppose you could give me an explanation or description of God that does make sense? All-loving, All-powerful and All-knowing? A perfect being? Take you pick..."

I'd say God is not totally knowable, by definition. But one answer is to say that God can be "seen" in God's reflection in people. Most of the world "believes" God exists, despite the advances of science and philosophy, theology and religion. I'd say that's evidence to be taken seriously. Much the same way the influence of the mere existence of a great person can be seen in other people. Not saying it's conclusive evidence, but it's evidence, despite the radically different ideas that people have about "what" or "who" God is.

Re, "For nearly 2,000 years Christians have been making excuses for God – whenever mankind discovers something new, the bible has to be reinterpreted – another excuse is produced. It was so much easier to be a Christian before science came along.


You are correct, Sir. But you've mixed up God and "the Bible." Excuses are made for the Bible; but only those who deify the Bible are troubled terribly by that. The Bible is one thing. God, I say, is another.

Re, "I could start to question many stories in the bible that don’t make sense (to me at least) will you be able to explain and make sense of them for me? If not, why not?"

Because I myself question many stories in the Bible that don;t make sense to me. That's why. (As if the Bible was one "thing."

Re, "Why would God only give mankind a puzzle book as the only source of evidence on how to worship him?"

Myself, I don't say God gave us the Bible. Many do, but I do not. The Bible, in my view, is the primary record for followers of Judaism (O.T.) and some of the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus, and how they dealt with their experience of the search for the Divine.

Re, "The explanations in the bible are inconsistent when taken as a whole – that is what doesn’t make sense; IF the “answers” from the bible are suppose to be the divine solution for all mankind, why does it not make sense to us – mankind - God’s most important creation for who the bible was written?"

Ask someone who believes that. I see the Bible as the best source for the questions that should be asked, as well as *some* answers.

Re, "This doesn’t make sense – but of course, God in His wisdom can do whatever He likes – but would it be a loving action to deceive, to give only scraps of information when at risk, so I am told, is eternal damnation in Hell if I am wrong?

No. It would not. But that assumes God is the source of the Bible. I believe the Bible is the source -- THE source -- for learning something about the search for God and the finding of God through Jesus of Nazareth (BTW: never heard any expressions of doubt about that point; something to talk about later, maybe).

Good questions, dude. My ansers should be taken as my own, not any pronouncements for all of Christianty -- ha, as if that were possible.
 

Lee,

Re, "Those who encountered Jesus were Jews. ... Don’t forget the Romans... though it is the Jews who get the “bad press” for some reason for the crucifixion. Something is wrong here... but I have a "theory" of course but will not change the subject."

You are right. Romans encountered Jesus. But it was Jews who were his intimates, and it was Jews who provide the earliest interpretations of what it meant to meet him. Maybe another time we can talk about your theory; I like the way this thread is staying sort of cohesive.

Re, "(ER said) I think his holiness so blew away their concepts of the potential for the relastionship between God and humanity that they were willing to change their religion -- that is, abandon blood sacrifice -- but unwilling to eradicate all the appearances thereof. ... (Lee said) Do you think it anything to do with the temple worship happening at the time? The “power” who controlled the temples, controlled the religion and the people"

Well, it had everything to do with that, and the Jewish concept of God and the need to satisfy or appease God, and the power structure of the leadership of Judaism at that time under Rome.

Red, "Jesus could not overpower/overthrow the temples or Rome, but IF he moved the reliance away from the temples – Jesus is moving the control the rulers had over the people."

Yes. Jesus was radical in that way.
 

Lee,

Re, "I would also like to add that my little “theory” above also explains why the previous messiahs failed since they probably went for direct overthrow of the temples and the ruling power by force (This was what the Jewish people were praying for after all). A small rabble of men is not going to be much of a threat to the Roman rule and will be easily crushed."

No problem with that here.

Re, "Jesus (if that was his real name) tackled the problem from the “ground up” by removing the reliance on the temples and hence the control over the people. (Once Christianity got Rome on their side in the 3rd century(-ish) the rest is history)."

Oh, I agree. Yeshua seems to have been all about liberty. And I agree that Constantine's "conversion" and the institutionalization of "Christianity" was about the worst thing that could have happened to the teachings of Jesus.

Re, "Of course, my theory is dependent on showing the temples had such a important part in controlling the people, but I hope this is not stretching the realms of possibilities too far?"

Nope. Although I suspect that "the people" then, as now, were more concerned about where their next meal-paycheck-house payment was coming from than about such notions in the abstract.
 

Lee,

I'll just say I agree with most of ER's answers, and I'm about as orthodox as they come. (Orthodox does not equal fundamentalist.)

Many of your questions seem to be posed from an attempt to refute fundamentalism (eg "at risk, so I am told, is eternal damnation in Hell if I am wrong....") You'll find very little fundamentalism here. :)

Hopefully some of ERs answers surprised you.
 

ER wrote:
Lee, GREAT questions.

I think I want to print this off and frame it.

Should I read the rest of your post or stop now when I am ahead.

Better read the rest of the post.

Thanks

Lee
 

Hi ER,

Read the rest of the comments... "great answers".

I hope to have time to respond to them later today - depending on how busy I am at work.

Alan wrote:
Many of your questions seem to be posed from an attempt to refute fundamentalism (eg "at risk, so I am told, is eternal damnation in Hell if I am wrong....")

Not really – the problem I have is that I do not know what form/position of Christianity this blog takes or what anyone “fundamentally” believes Christianity and God to be.

This is why I made statements like “so I am told” allowing the reader to correct me when my assumptions are wrong. If I am wrong on my assumptions, I will change them and try again.

The more we talk, the more I will understand your position here.

Hopefully some of ERs answers surprised you.

Yes some did... especially the bit about the bible just being a book written by man and not by "God's hand" (my words). If I understood this right, we may agree on something.

I'll have lunch and think about the rest.

See ya.

Lee
 

Ah, but a caveat: To say the Bible is "just a book" written by man is to go farther than I did.

I'm working on a book. When it's finished, it will be "just a book" written by man.

The Bible is more than that. It's a collection of works written by people inspired by God in their search for God, seconded by groups of people who saw something in them worth setting aside for guidance and for posterity. It's fallible, in my view, because nothing and no one is perfect, except God, by definition. But that doesn't mean it's not authoritative. And that doesn't mean it's not sacred, or sacramental.

But then I think God is using my cat to teach me lessons about God's Grace, which makes my cat a kind of sacrament, as well. Me and Saint Francis of Assisi could jam.
 

Hi ER,

Ah, but a caveat: To say the Bible is "just a book" written by man is to go farther than I did.

Sorry if I went too far... I was rushing out for my lunch.

I'm working on a book. When it's finished, it will be "just a book" written by man.

Couldn’t you claim you were inspired by God to write the book though?

Then what is the difference between an author today who was “inspired by God” to write a book and the bible itself?

The Bible is more than that.

I’m glad you said that, otherwise I couldn’t understand why you were a Christian.

It's a collection of works written by people inspired by God in their search for God, seconded by groups of people who saw something in them worth setting aside for guidance and for posterity.

I need to understand this “inspired by God” bit more it seems. So I will come back to it.

It's fallible in my view

We can agree to that...

because nothing and no one is perfect, except God, by definition.

Can I quote you on this last comment?

You have just said that God is perfect by definition.

This assumption can be explored to test its validity can’t it (but not yet, since it is off-topic I know)

But that doesn't mean it's not authoritative. And that doesn't mean it's not sacred, or sacramental.

Question for you then (and sorry I keep asking questions, but it is the only way I will learn)

How do you know when something in the bible is true and correct, or if there was “human error” involved? You must have a method to spot the difference after all you said yourself that the bible is “fallible”.

But then I think God is using my cat to teach me lessons about God's Grace, which makes my cat a kind of sacrament, as well. Me and Saint Francis of Assisi could jam.

The Egyptians liked their cats as well didn’t they – thinking they were gods (which every cat knows in true)

OK... I’ll get back to your previous comments now.

Thanks

Lee
 

Hi ER,

Back to your answers you gave me earlier. One post at a time...

Re, "I suppose you could give me an explanation or description of God that does make sense? All-loving, All-powerful and All-knowing? A perfect being? Take you pick..."

I'd say God is not totally knowable, by definition.

And a definition you gave later was that God is perfect by definition - I did ask if I could quote you :)

I could accept that God is not totally knowable, but it does raise the question how you know He is also perfect?

A problems comes to mind of course with a perfect God such as why did He make an imperfect creation? (I’m taking this off-topic again – damn.)

But one answer is to say that God can be "seen" in God's reflection in people. Most of the world "believes" God exists, despite the advances of science and philosophy, theology and religion. I'd say that's evidence to be taken seriously.

I’ll give you that it is interesting that a lot of people in the world believe that gods exist, but I would have to challenge you on the “most” and “God” if by the capital G you mean the Christian God.

However could it not be said that most people are irrational in their beliefs and so this could explain the phenomenon of the belief in gods, Bigfoot, the loch Ness monster and alien landings?

Having a large number of people believing in the supernatural is then not surprising given mankind’s wild imagination (it could be an evolutional by-product) but the fact they do not agree is the telling factor here.

If there was an almighty God who demands worship – why don’t people believe in the same God and have the same understanding of God? Why does someone have to be told about God and Jesus to believe in Him – should it not be written into the genes using your logic?

Another interesting piece of evidence to consider here is that as people become more rational and more educated in science, the belief in gods decreases. You must have heard of the study of scientists that shows the higher up in the chain/ladder the scientist goes, the less likely they have a belief in God?

I admit the study group is small and the belief does not go down to zero – but it is interesting evidence for something to place alongside your own :)

Re, "For nearly 2,000 years Christians have been making excuses for God – whenever mankind discovers something new, the bible has to be reinterpreted – another excuse is produced. It was so much easier to be a Christian before science came along.

You are correct, Sir. But you've mixed up God and "the Bible." Excuses are made for the Bible; but only those who deify the Bible are troubled terribly by that. The Bible is one thing. God, I say, is another.

I concede of course that disproving the bible (if that was possible) does not disprove God, but it would show that Christianity has it wrong on an important level.

A problem would arise wouldn’t it if I asked why you believe in the God (the Christian God) and not, say, Allah? I assume it is based on the bible and its teachings but it these teachings have been changing for 2,000 years doesn’t this worry you that you might be wrong?

Re, "Why would God only give mankind a puzzle book as the only source of evidence on how to worship him?"

Myself, I don't say God gave us the Bible. Many do, but I do not. The Bible, in my view, is the primary record for followers of Judaism (O.T.) and some of the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus, and how they dealt with their experience of the search for the Divine.

Even if I except for sake of argument that Jesus was divine and doing great (miraculous) things 2,000 years ago, the historians writing the book years later are just men with their own biases and fallacies, listening to stories told a hundred times via word of mouth before being written down (and of course you know there are many different accounts on what happened, not every account made it into the bible for some reason)

It would also seem strange to me that this is the only record of the Son of God since it is so vague and inaccurate - am I to trust my soul based on such accounts alone?

As you can probably imagine, I find it very hard to believe in modern accounts of Bigfoot and alien landings – yet I am suppose to accept that the bible is the best account possible from a God who created the universe? Something is wrong here... surely God could have done better?

Re, "This doesn’t make sense – but of course, God in His wisdom can do whatever He likes – but would it be a loving action to deceive, to give only scraps of information when at risk, so I am told, is eternal damnation in Hell if I am wrong?

No. It would not. But that assumes God is the source of the Bible. I believe the Bible is the source -- THE source -- for learning something about the search for God and the finding of God through Jesus of Nazareth

I need to explore this further a little.

I think you are saying that God was the inspiration for the bible, but never wrote it (or have any involvement? Surely not, God must have been involved on some level)

I can handle the inspiration part, in a similar sense a poet could be inspired to write great poetry after seeing a cloud or a daffodil or something.

I think I can understand when you say the bible is the source for learning about God – but I cannot understand what was the source for the bible is, unless it is merely a history book which I doubt you would accept.

Inspiration alone doesn’t work for me. The poem inspired by clouds doesn’t help me understand a cloud does it – merely what the poet thought about clouds.

(BTW: never heard any expressions of doubt about that point; something to talk about later, maybe).

I know rather little on the subject as yet, merely heard about it on a podcast recently (though I talk to someone on a blog who has looked into this more than I have)

The podcast was an interview with a René Salm who wrote a book called “The Myth of Nazareth” – a quick Google found the web site for the book:-

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

The following web-site defends the Christian position that Nazareth existed and counters the claims made.

http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Nazareth.html

(I’ve not had chance to read either web-site since I am at work at the moment)

The subject does sound interesting, but I will be sceptical until I do further reading and research on the subject. Just because a book gets into print means nothing – I remember reading “chariots of the gods” as a child and that is just a joke.

However since you feel the bible has mistakes, would the fact the Jesus didn’t come from Nazareth cause you any problems?

Lee
 

Hello again ER,

Maybe another time we can talk about your theory; I like the way this thread is staying sort of cohesive.

Oops... I am talking way of topic as always – sorry, but I suppose this is the way conversations go sometimes with me. My mind wanders...

Well, it had everything to do with that, and the Jewish concept of God and the need to satisfy or appease God, and the power structure of the leadership of Judaism at that time under Rome.

It also means that the Jews were wrong doesn’t it and they have been worshiping God wrong all this time? Unless God changed His mind how He wanted to be worshiped?

Though that would make the bible wrong again on another count.

Oh, I agree. Yeshua seems to have been all about liberty. And I agree that Constantine's "conversion" and the institutionalization of "Christianity" was about the worst thing that could have happened to the teachings of Jesus.

I also wonder if Christians today are following more the teachings of Paul than Jesus (or “Yeshua bar Yahosef” I picked up from some web site) but again, this would be another story for another time.

Although I suspect that "the people" then, as now, were more concerned about where their next meal-paycheck-house payment was coming from than about such notions in the abstract.

I suppose this depends on who you believe – I think you are probably right about the majority, but the bible gives the impression that people should give up their jobs and their family to follow Jesus doesn’t it? That the world was about to end and all this will happen within the life time of those present and hearing the stories directly from Jesus... though again, I’m sure you will tell me I misunderstood the bible again or it is just wrong again.

(I am being to wonder where the bible actually gets anything right? Do we always have to read between the lines and ignore the actually words?)

Lee
 

BTW, a friend of mine privately objected to (ha)apa's use of the term "the Paul character" in reference to the Mars Hill story in Acts. I think I have to concur with the objection.

Even if Acts is properly seen as a "theological narrative," and not "history," per se, it does contain some history, and Paul was a real person. So, I think I agree that "the Paul character" is to be a bit too skeptical.

Maybe the difference is whether one thinks of James Michener, or Stephen E. Ambrose, or a pure fiction writer, when one thinks of "Luke" the author. My objecting friend probably thinks Ambrose; I think Michener; but neither of us thinks Acts was made up totally out of whole cloth.

Carry on.
 

Lordy, I have a busy day today. Anyone who wants to engage Lee on any of his comments, feel free. He's asking fair questions -- intrerestingly, a couple of the same ones my fundie friends ask (how do you know which parts of the Bible are "true" or whatever, and which are not, for example.

Short answer: The Bible is not all of a piece. It's a collection of different writings from different peoples in different times in different places. It's not an "it." "It" does not collapse because of "its" flaws.

As for the how-do-you-tell part: Study, medidate, pray, corroborate with those fellow seekers with whom you can, and argue with those you can't, and at the end of the day, throw your hands up to the cosmos, and your heart out to the One who at at once Visibly Absent and Invisibly Present, and go to sleep in peace.
 

I think Lee has provided his own example that helps to answer the question, "How do you know which parts are "true." He's providing evidence (I haven't looked at it, so I don't know if it's any good) that Nazareth may not have existed during the time when Jesus was alive.

So, archeology is one way that some aspects of Biblical stories can be tested. In addition to archeology, modern Biblical scholars use other contemporaneous texts, discourse analysis techniques, etc., etc., etc. All of those areas of study can and are brought to bear on the Bible. If all you're reading are the fundamentalist blogs, you probably won't hear much about that, though.

But then, I'd say if you're looking to the Bible to be some sort of history textbook, you're misusing it in the same way that those who want to use it as a science textbook are doing.

Most of the rest of Lee's questions rely on assumptions I don't make, so I wouldn't be a good person to answer them.

However, there are a couple times when he makes the assumption that either 1) The Bible is wrong, or 2) humans been interpreting it wrong. Lee, I'd suggest you contemplate another possibility: That the *characters* in the Bible were wrong, and that the Bible is accurately portraying their misunderstandings and confusion.

For example, it does seem clear that post-resurrection Jewish Christians seemed to believe that the end was nigh. You propose that either the Bible is wrong on that, or we've been interpreting it wrong. However, maybe THEY were just wrong, and the Bible is actually correct and accurately portraying what THEY thought then. As for whether the Jews were wrong about how to worship God, you might be surprised to learn that God, at least as He is portrayed in the Bible, would agree with you.
 

Hi ER,

Anyone who wants to engage Lee on any of his comments, feel free. He's asking fair questions

Glad you think they are fair, and I know I ask many questions, but they just keep popping into my head the more I think about the problem.

I don’t expect anyone here to answer all my questions (and I know they are not original) but it would be nice if a few could be challenged here – I really want to know if I am wrong, and if so why.

intrerestingly, a couple of the same ones my fundie friends ask (how do you know which parts of the Bible are "true" or whatever, and which are not, for example.

Shit, I hope this doesn’t make me a fundie... though I think it is right to question and to try and understood – surely it is the best way to get at the truth.

Short answer: The Bible is not all of a piece. It's a collection of different writings from different peoples in different times in different places. It's not an "it." "It" does not collapse because of "its" flaws.

Though the bible is suppose to be inspired by the same unchanging and perfect God right?
(OK, I added the unchanging bit – but only because that is what I think some Christians believe, no one is telling me remember so I just have to keep guessing)

It we get 100 people to describe a football match they just watched – the accounts will be different in style and probably on many points, yet they should all agree on the key points such as venue, teams, players and final score you would surely agree. Where there is disagreement, there should be enough information in the 100 accounts for the reader to be pretty confident on what actual happened. This is after all what historians do every day – its their job to interpret accounts like these.

I’m not sure the bible is that consistent though to give us much confidence that they all saw the same thing and are preaching the same message... just an opinion.

As for the how-do-you-tell part: Study, medidate, pray, corroborate with those fellow seekers with whom you can, and argue with those you can't, and at the end of the day, throw your hands up to the cosmos, and your heart out to the One who at at once Visibly Absent and Invisibly Present, and go to sleep in peace.

I’ve with you on the study, corroborate and the arguing... as for throwing out my heart – well, I want to be sure I am throwing it at the right god.

At the moment I can “sleep in peace” knowing that I am not following a false god.

Thanks

Lee
 

Hi Alan,

I think Lee has provided his own example that helps to answer the question, "How do you know which parts are "true." He's providing evidence (I haven't looked at it, so I don't know if it's any good) that Nazareth may not have existed during the time when Jesus was alive.

I am exploring the evidence the best I can in the time that I have – that’s all.

For the record, I am rather sceptical about this particular book myself. I mean, surely the Christians would not make such a mistake as placing Jesus in a town that didn’t exist. It doesn’t make sense. Though if they did, what does this say about the bible story?

This is why I gave two links – one FOR, one AGAINST. I’m sure there are more in this.

To be honest, the fact that this research against the town of Nazareth isn’t making major headline news is one bit mark against it.

However researching the truth is important I feel.

So, archeology is one way that some aspects of Biblical stories can be tested. In addition to archeology, modern Biblical scholars use other contemporaneous texts, discourse analysis techniques, etc., etc., etc. All of those areas of study can and are brought to bear on the Bible.

I agree to all this... lets look at the evidence that we have and see what it means.

Look at the evidence as a neutral though – like a scientist – whatever the evidence shows I should (and will) accept it.

If all you're reading are the fundamentalist blogs, you probably won't hear much about that, though.

I spend little time on fundamentalist blogs, and I mentioned earlier here, if someone rejects the empirical evidence provided by science and holds onto their faith that the world is 6,000 years old – there isn’t much of a debate to be had.

Oh we can have some fun poking holes in their ideas, but at the end of the day – what’s the point.

With their God, the universe can be as large as it is and STILL be 6,000 years old. God could make the Earth “look” 4.5 billion years old with our “atheist science” methods when really it is only 6,000 years... I cannot debate with such faith (or is it delusion?)

No, I am far more interested how the Christian God fits in with modern science and learning - with a 13.5 billion year old universe and the evolution of life occurring over 4 billion years on Earth. Many Christians think this is not a problem, and I want to understand why and how since for me it causes a problem with the bible account. Just another opinion.

But then, I'd say if you're looking to the Bible to be some sort of history textbook, you're misusing it in the same way that those who want to use it as a science textbook are doing.

I think it is valid to test the claims in the bible – don’t you? Why am I “misusing” it?

Claims like Jesus walked on water, change water to wine, came back from the dead and other miracles are rather difficult to test 2,000 years after the event – but this is what is written in the bible.

Can we trust the bible to be an accurate account of these miraculous events? Well, let’s test what we can... history and archaeology is one method. (The only method really since all the evidence for Christianity is all in the past.)

If the bible comes through such testing and passes with flying colours – great – it means we can trust the bible account on things that can be tested. This makes it a “good eye witness” to the miraculous claims it reports – it means our “faith” in the bible account can be strong.

If however it fails on what can be tested... then why should I trust this “eye witness” called the bible with those claims that cannot be tested? This would not make sense.

If the bible fails on what can be tested, why trust it on what cannot be tested?

That is my simple sound-bite of a question here.

Most of the rest of Lee's questions rely on assumptions I don't make, so I wouldn't be a good person to answer them.

Please can you tell me which assumptions I made on this thread that you don’t believe are true – just so I do not waste time mentioning them again.

So you don’t think God is perfect by definition?
(A simple yes or no is all I am after here – any debate would require another thread and a desire to enter into a long discussion that has been raging for 2,000 years or more)

However, there are a couple times when he makes the assumption that either 1) The Bible is wrong, or 2) humans been interpreting it wrong. Lee, I'd suggest you contemplate another possibility: That the *characters* in the Bible were wrong, and that the Bible is accurately portraying their misunderstandings and confusion.

You right I didn’t think of that one – not sure what you mean to be honest.

Are you telling me Jesus was wrong? What about the other prophets in the bible – were they wrong too? If you are saying they were just misquoted, that how can would be sure which quotes are true, and which are false?

I can accept that the people writing at the time misunderstood what they were seeing and interpreted the events wrong right from the very beginning – no problem with that BTW.

For example, it does seem clear that post-resurrection Jewish Christians seemed to believe that the end was nigh.

This was what Jesus was preaching before the crucifixion according to the bible.

You propose that either the Bible is wrong on that, or we've been interpreting it wrong.

Well, when 100 years passed and no end of the world was seen – it does suggest one of these doesn’t it?

However, maybe THEY were just wrong, and the Bible is actually correct and accurately portraying what THEY thought then.

But the prophecy for the end of the world came from Jesus himself – if how this message was recorded in the bible is wrong, how can you be so sure that anything else written is any more valid? (I’m repeating myself – sorry)

As for whether the Jews were wrong about how to worship God, you might be surprised to learn that God, at least as He is portrayed in the Bible, would agree with you.

I’m not surprised that this is the Christian interpretation, but I would like to know where in the bible it actual says the Jews were wrong in their method of worship. The God of the Old Testaments seemed very happy with the blood sacrifice, but this all stopped with Jesus
(Hey, we are back on topic)

Thanks

Lee
 

Unfortunately Lee, you have a habit of asking about 100 questions in a single comment, and I'm sorry, but I don't have the time nor quite frankly the inclination to answer them all. So, I hope you'll understand if I pick the "low hanging fruit". :) Now, typical "blog comment fashion" would be to read more into that than is necessary. I hope, in good spirit, you won't do that, but will understand that, well...I have a life and will answer some but not all of your questions and that you'll not try to read into that more than the fact that I do indeed have a life. :)

You write, " mean, surely the Christians would not make such a mistake as placing Jesus in a town that didn’t exist. It doesn’t make sense. Though if they did, what does this say about the bible story?"

I'd say it doesn't say much at all, actually. Who cares. He's "Jesus of Galilee" in other parts of Scripture. Surely you acknowledge that Galilee existed during his time. What does that make of your argument? (I'm guessing not much, because for you, like for me, it probably doesn't matter that much.) You might be interested to know that the Bible says that Jesus says, quoting the Old Testament, that the Messiah would be a Nazarene. Well, who cares? Except that a Nazarene is NOT actually someone from Nazareth, but a member of a particular sect. (This has been debated for some time.) So, is the Bible inaccurate on the first count (a Nazarene?) or on the second (from Nazareth?) Who cares?

"It doesn’t make sense. Though if they did, what does this say about the bible story?"

I find many of Aesop's fables to be enlightening, whether or not they actually happened. I don't need there to have been an actual "Boy who cried Wolf" or a Scorpion and a Frog to have existed for the lesson to be important. Now I'm not equating Jesus with a fable, but I am saying that the myth is indeed very powerful whether or not that myth is based in real events.

I don't believe that God created the world in 6 literal 24 hour periods to believe that God created the world (please, for the love of God ... heh ... let's not get off on that topic, eh?)

"But the prophecy for the end of the world came from Jesus himself"

Actually it comes from Scriptures written well after his death by people who were probably not actually His disciples. The Gospel of Mark, for example, was not written by Saint Mark. I'm surprised you didn't know that. The Gospels, as we know them today were, as is acknowledged by most Biblical scholars, written between 70-100 years after Jesus's crucifixion.

"I would like to know where in the bible it actual says the Jews were wrong in their method of worship. "

Oh there are so many...here are JUST A FEW:

Psalm 50: "I shall teach transgressors Your ways, and the ungodly shall turn back to You. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, 0 God, the God of my salvation, my tongue shall joyfully declare Your righteousness. Lord, open my lips, and my mouth shall declare Your praise. For if You had desired sacrifice, I would give it; you do not delight in burnt offerings. A sacrifice to God is a broken spirit; God will not despise a broken and a humbled heart. Do good in Your good pleasure to Zion; and let the walls of Jerusalem be built. Then You shall be pleased with a sacrifice of righteousness, with oblation and whole burnt offerings. Then they shall offer bulls on Your altar."

Psalm 40: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire...burnt offering and sin offering You have not required."

Isaiah 1: "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? says the Lord. I am full of the burnt offering of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lams, or of he-goats."

Amos 5: "I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them."

Jeremiah 6: "For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them...concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice."

Proverbs 21: To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.

Hosea 6: "For I desired Mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

Read the Bible, Lee...you might be surprised at some of the things it actually has to say, rather than what you've been told it says.

Understanding that the Bible is the working out of a people's understandings of God rather than a strict rule book would be, in my eyes, a sign of faithful maturity.
 

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the in-depth reply, not read it all yet, but wish to comment on your first and very valid point.

Unfortunately Lee, you have a habit of asking about 100 questions in a single comment, and I'm sorry, but I don't have the time nor quite frankly the inclination to answer them all. So, I hope you'll understand if I pick the "low hanging fruit". :)

I know I ask too many questions, it is a really bad habit I have and I keep apologizing for it (just still cannot stop myself it seems.)

I just hope you do not feel I am trying to overwhelm you all with questions here merely to say “See, they cannot answer all my questions so I must be right” – this would be a fallacy on my part if this was my reasoning – it is not.

No, I merely ask questions as they come to me – I like to think it shows I am thinking (or shows my ignorance) - I know you will not have time to reply to them all (Hey, I doubt I would have time to read all your responses if you did I ask so many questions.) but I hope you think about the questions and tackle the interesting ones.

As for “low hanging fruit” - well, if they were the only one your tackled you should be asking yourself why you avoid the difficult ones. It is not a problem for me.

I have no problems which questions you choose to answer here, if any. I am merely discussing religion and nothing more. I’ve no axe to grind and just wish to learn.

I’ll get back to the rest of your comments now.

Cheers

Lee
 

Egad. Here goes. And I'm pickign and choosing for the sake of time and because some of this is old ground I'm, frankly, nopt interested in going over again ...


Re, "(ER said) I'm working on a book. When it's finished, it will be "just a book" written by man. (Lee said) Couldn’t you claim you were inspired by God to write the book though? Then what is the difference between an author today who was “inspired by God” to write a book and the bible itself?"


About 1,700 years of other people agreeing that the other writings were inspired by God in a Big Way, as opposed to my own very real, but personal, belief that I am, in fact, inspired by God. It's not just the authors' alleged claims that make the Bible important, but the fact that many others at who followed them agree.


Re, "ER said) The Bible is more than that. (Lee said) I’m glad you said that, otherwise I couldn’t understand why you were a Christian.

Well, then, you need to do a lot mroe thinking and research about why people say they are Christians!


Re, "(ER said about the Bible's fallibility) because nothing and no one is perfect, except God, by definition. (Lee said) Can I quote you on this last comment? You have just said that God is perfect by definition. This assumption can be explored to test its validity can’t it (but not yet, since it is off-topic I know)."

The premise cannot nbe tested, actually. How could it? Alas, "perfect" is a form of Christian jargon, actually, since the definition of "perfect" is debatable. I shou;d have said, instead, "because no one and nothing is God except God."


Re, "(ER said) But that doesn't mean it's not authoritative. And that doesn't mean it's not sacred, or sacramental. (Lee said) uestion for you then ... How do you know when something in the bible is true and correct, or if there was “human error” involved? You must have a method to spot the difference after all you said yourself that the bible is “fallible”."

I answered this in a previous comment as far as I can.


Re, "(ER said) But then I think God is using my cat to teach me lessons about God's Grace, which makes my cat a kind of sacrament, as well. Me and Saint Francis of Assisi could jam. (Lee said) The Egyptians liked their cats as well didn’t they – thinking they were gods (which every cat knows in true)"


Yes, and they very well may very well have experienced God in a way that Gopd meant for them. Cats ARE cool. :-)


Re, "Back to your answers you gave me earlier. One post at a time... (ER said) I'd say God is not totally knowable, by definition. (Lee said) And a definition you gave later was that God is perfect by definition - I did ask if I could quote you :) I could accept that God is not totally knowable, but it does raise the question how you know He is also perfect?"

Answered above.

Re, "A problems comes to mind of course with a perfect God such as why did He make an imperfect creation? (I’m taking this off-topic again – damn.)"

Oh, yeah, way beyond the scope of this thread. Sorry.


Re, "(ER said) But one answer is to say that God can be "seen" in God's reflection in people. Most of the world "believes" God exists, despite the advances of science and philosophy, theology and religion. I'd say that's evidence to be taken seriously. (Lee said) I’ll give you that it is interesting that a lot of people in the world believe that gods exist, but I would have to challenge you on the “most” and “God” if by the capital G you mean the Christian God."

I didn't day the Christian God. I meant monotheism, but I could be wrong.

Re, "However could it not be said that most people are irrational in their beliefs and so this could explain the phenomenon of the belief in gods, Bigfoot, the loch Ness monster and alien landings?"

Wel, sure. But rationality versus irrationality is a whole other discussion -- and a very old one -- as well. Something else we can look into later, perhaps. In the meantime, in case you're wondering, I don't necessarrily accept rationality as a benchmark for whether someone, or his or her ideas, should be taken seriously. It depends on whether one things rationality itself is part of the Creation or part of humankind's response to the fact of the Creation -- but way beyond the scope of this humble thread, in any case.

Re, "Having a large number of people believing in the supernatural is then not surprising given mankind’s wild imagination (it could be an evolutional by-product) but the fact they do not agree is the telling factor here."

The fact that we do not do agree is an annoyance, but it say nothing about what IS or what IS NOT.


Re, "If there was an almighty God who demands worship – why don’t people believe in the same God and have the same understanding of God? Why does someone have to be told about God and Jesus to believe in Him – should it not be written into the genes using your logic?"

Not using my logic, not anything I've said. You might be confusing me with someone else.


Re, "Another interesting piece of evidence to consider here is that as people become more rational and more educated in science, the belief in gods decreases. You must have heard of the study of scientists that shows the higher up in the chain/ladder the scientist goes, the less likely they have a belief in God? I admit the study group is small and the belief does not go down to zero – but it is interesting evidence for something to place alongside your own :)"

My answer would be this: It is very hard for anyone, as they become more educated, whether in science or not, to continue to believe in God. So? I am well-educated, yet I believe. Again, so? Whatever is what YOU think, not what others think.


Re, "I concede of course that disproving the bible (if that was possible) does not disprove God, but it would show that Christianity has it wrong on an important level."

Yes. Christianity has had many things wrong on many levels. Thankfully, Chrisianity is not a matter of believing the right things, despite what my stupid fundie brethren think.


Re, "A problem would arise wouldn’t it if I asked why you believe in the God (the Christian God) and not, say, Allah? I assume it is based on the bible and its teachings but it these teachings have been changing for 2,000 years doesn’t this worry you that you might be wrong?"

I do not worry about being wrong because faith in God has jack shot to do with being right. ... It's late here; forgive my testiness.


Re, "Even if I except for sake of argument that Jesus was divine and doing great (miraculous) things 2,000 years ago, the historians writing the book years later are just men with their own biases and fallacies, listening to stories told a hundred times via word of mouth before being written down (and of course you know there are many different accounts on what happened, not every account made it into the bible for some reason)."

Yes.


Re, "It would also seem strange to me that this is the only record of the Son of God since it is so vague and inaccurate - am I to trust my soul based on such accounts alone?"

The assertion that Jesus is "the Son of God" is a specific claim that I don't profess to understand. WTH does that mean? I don't know. But no, hell no, you are not to trust your soul to thopse accounts. As I say to my fundie friends: If the only Jesus you know is the one you've read about, then all you know is a story. To "know Jesus" is very mystic and mysterious.


Re, "As you can probably imagine, I find it very hard to believe in modern accounts of Bigfoot and alien landings – yet I am suppose to accept that the bible is the best account possible from a God who created the universe? Something is wrong here... surely God could have done better?"

You are confusing me with someone else here.

Re, "since you feel the bible has mistakes, would the fact the Jesus didn’t come from Nazareth cause you any problems?"

Not necesarrily. But probably. On the other hand, words are tricky. People in histiory used to come from this place before it was known as Oklahoma City. And after the city was founded -- over night, in 1889 -- those people could rightly say to have come from Oklahoma City. So, phth. No controversy, no harm, no foul, no nothing.

Re, "I also wonder if Christians today are following more the teachings of Paul than Jesus (or “Yeshua bar Yahosef” I picked up from some web site)"

Some Christians wonder the same thing.


Re, "the bible gives the impression that people should give up their jobs and their family to follow Jesus doesn’t it?"

Yes.

Re, "That the world was about to end and all this will happen within the life time of those present and hearing the stories directly from Jesus... though again, I’m sure you will tell me I misunderstood the bible again or it is just wrong again."

Well, dang it, there's no reason to get snotty. ("I'm sure you will tell me ..." STOP THAT SHIT; just shoot straight; I'm shooting as straight with you as I know how.)

I have no problem with the idea that Jesus was an honest apocalypticist, but was wrong. He sure seemed surprised, and anguished, on the Cross when he prayed for God to stop that madness ("let this cup pass from me") and God did not stop the madness. Your concept of Jesus as Superhero is something you got somewhere else, not from me.


No mas. No more miles of questions. Keep yer powder dry, Lee. I've spent more than an hour on this on an extemely busy day. It's fun, and good comes from it, but I can't deal wuth a zillion questioms every time. :-)
 

Hi ER,

I've just finished a reply for Alan and about to post when I noticed a long post from your good self.

Jumping to the end for now...
No mas. No more miles of questions. Keep yer powder dry, Lee. I've spent more than an hour on this on an extemely busy day. It's fun, and good comes from it, but I can't deal wuth a zillion questioms every time. :-)


I really must stop asking all these questions... I'm sorry, as I have just explained to Alan I hope in my earlier post.

It is just me thinking aloud...

I fear now whether I should post my reply to Alan, since I ask further questions.

OK - here is what I do.

I'll post it since Alan was kind enough to reply to me, but I do not expect a reply from anyone -merely hope that it is read.

Seems fair since I too have just spend an hour writing?

Cheers

Lee

+++++++++++++

Hello again Alan,

Who cares. He's "Jesus of Galilee" in other parts of Scripture. Surely you acknowledge that Galilee existed during his time. What does that make of your argument? (I'm guessing not much, because for you, like for me, it probably doesn't matter that much.)

Not heard anyone challenge Galilee :)

I am not resting my argument on this Nazareth point (or indeed making as an argument), merely showing it as an example on how we can test the bible.

Though it seems if it is wrong it is not important to you and it certainly doesn’t change things for me.

Maybe you are right, since after all “we all know” the accounts written down in the bible happened long after the actual events and have been copied and retranslated many times.

You are not a fundamentalist and so the 100% accuracy isn’t important – I can agree to that logic.

You might be interested to know that the Bible says that Jesus says, quoting the Old Testament, that the Messiah would be a Nazarene. Well, who cares? Except that a Nazarene is NOT actually someone from Nazareth, but a member of a particular sect. (This has been debated for some time.) So, is the Bible inaccurate on the first count (a Nazarene?) or on the second (from Nazareth?) Who cares?

I heard about the Nazarene (Long hair and all that I believe) and it could be understandable if the bible scribes 100 or so years after Jesus’ crucifixion got confused with the town of Nazareth and this Nazarene cult.

However, as for “who cares?” Well, so long as you have the means to read the bible knowing what is true, what was interpretation, and what was just clearly a mistake – then no problems. However the question remains – how do you do this with any confidence?

Personally interpretation of a book is that, personally, another person may not agree and read it differently.

I find many of Aesop's fables to be enlightening, whether or not they actually happened. I don't need there to have been an actual "Boy who cried Wolf" or a Scorpion and a Frog to have existed for the lesson to be important. Now I'm not equating Jesus with a fable, but I am saying that the myth is indeed very powerful whether or not that myth is based in real events.

First you say you are “not equating Jesus with a fable” but then say “I am saying that the myth is indeed very powerful” – this is a little confusing for me.

Yes the stories are very powerful, but are they based on true events or merely fables –is this not an important question to ask?

You know of course a lot of Jesus’ teachings can be found in other work hundreds of years and thousands of miles away from Israel – the “golden rule” is a bit of a classic so it is not if you can say that it is the teachings themselves that prove the story true and from the Christian God because they don’t. (Not that you have said this of course and I suppose it could be claimed that these other people in history were speaking to your God)

So which is it? Are the stories about Jesus fables or true accounts? (I’m repeating myself, sorry - I think you have already said they are both – I just need a little help understand this point of yours - I don't understand yet)

I would have no problem if you said that the bible story about Jesus was a fable, but this isn’t the normal belief of a Christian is it? Christian’s (I thought) believe the accounts are true events (crucifixion and resurrection and all that), if not, they would be merely believing a myth (or dare I say fairy-tale)?

The many moral teachings of Jesus do seem very good, but they are not unique to Jesus as I said, and for the Christian the story of Jesus has to be more than just a fable hasn’t it?

Or is God just deceiving us (or teaching us via these cryptic messages?)

I’m confused as I said – I am not use to this type of thinking I am sorry.

I don't believe that God created the world in 6 literal 24 hour periods to believe that God created the world (please, for the love of God ... heh ... let's not get off on that topic, eh?)

I have been assuming everyone here on this thread believes in the theory of evolution and the Big Bang model as the best current explanation of the observations around us – never have I suggested that anyone here believed what a classical fundamentalist does, I merely pointed out why I cannot debate with one. There is a difference.

I hope my assumptions are correct BTW since this evolution and Original Sin problem is a big hurdle for me and I’ve not been able to get over it. I would love to learn how someone does.

Actually it comes from Scriptures written well after his death by people who were probably not actually His disciples. The Gospel of Mark, for example, was not written by Saint Mark. I'm surprised you didn't know that. The Gospels, as we know them today were, as is acknowledged by most Biblical scholars, written between 70-100 years after Jesus's crucifixion.

I’ve never troubled myself with the actual names of the authors of the Gospels, this is not important to me – but yes, I did know that they were written long after Jesus’ death. You say 70-100 years, I’ll accept that for the originals, but I believe you will be struggling to find original copies from that period and are really talking around 200 years for hard Gospel copies (but I’m no historian and probably wrong)

Plenty of time for the story to change a little I am sure you would agree. So knowing what “really” happened is difficult. (Odd for the most important book about God?)

The problem is these are the only accounts you have of the living Jesus and his teachings – and you only have copies from around 150-200 years after the event. Paul never met the living Jesus either, and this forms much of the Christian teachings (I believe he only claims to have met the spirit of Jesus).

If you cannot trust the Gospels, then what does the Christian have to believe?

It sounds like you maybe believe in a theistic God and feel the bible is the best account of God’s interactions with mankind – yet you also seem to be saying the bible was merely written by men making their own mistakes – “inspired” by God I am sure you will say, but human errors are free to creep in all the same as I think you admit.

So maybe you feel the truth is somewhere in the book, but you have to dig them out somehow?

Am I close, or WAY off target?

Read the Bible, Lee...you might be surprised at some of the things it actually has to say, rather than what you've been told it says.

Thanks for the bible quotes, I will try and also read them in context to get a better understanding of their meaning.

And yes, you are right – I do probably need to read the bible more.

I am coming to this bible study late, I didn’t pick up a bible to read until I was 17 or 18 years old, and still only read it as a “hobby” for personal pleasure and not as a matter of life and death. It’s a very big book, so I just pick-off chapters that are presented to me both by the faithful and the atheist. I like to think I am reading the highlights... the best bits.

Understanding that the Bible is the working out of a people's understandings of God rather than a strict rule book would be, in my eyes, a sign of faithful maturity.

This would explain why the understanding has evolved... but leaves the question why God doesn’t want to give a definitive answer.

Jesus is suppose to be that definitive answer, but you imply I cannot trust the bible or gospel accounts on what he said or did (they need to be interpreted at least).

The only evidence for the Christian faith is the bible, and if you cannot trust that – what do you have?

I feel I am digging myself into a hole of confusion – my ignorance is just so great.

Thanks for your time

Lee
 

Hi ER,

Egad. Here goes. And I'm pickign and choosing for the sake of time and because some of this is old ground I'm, frankly, nopt interested in going over again ...

No problems with that – I repeat myself a lot, sorry (Shit I say sorry a lot – how English of me)

About 1,700 years of other people agreeing that the other writings were inspired by God in a Big Way, as opposed to my own very real, but personal, belief that I am, in fact, inspired by God. It's not just the authors' alleged claims that make the Bible important, but the fact that many others at who followed them agree.

Using this logic the Koran is also true, inspired by God and important.

There is a logic fallacy going on here I think.

Well, then, you need to do a lot mroe thinking and research about why people say they are Christians!

I agree, and the best way I can research this is to ask people like your good selves here on this blog.

You guys certainly have a different flavour of Christianity than what I am use to.

RE: You have just said that God is perfect by definition. This assumption can be explored to test its validity can’t it (but not yet, since it is off-topic I know).

The premise cannot nbe tested, actually. How could it? Alas, "perfect" is a form of Christian jargon, actually, since the definition of "perfect" is debatable.

You are right the “perfect” is debatable, which was my point when you used it as a definition for God. It would open a whole new debate, so let’s only go there if you want it to.

I shou;d have said, instead, "because no one and nothing is God except God."

This doesn’t tell me much though does it :)

I wonder if the universe could be defined as some form of god – probably by some. Though of course this wouldn’t be a theistic God.

Oh, yeah, way beyond the scope of this thread. Sorry.

I know, and agree – but it is interesting to think about it :)

RE: I’ll give you that it is interesting that a lot of people in the world believe that gods exist, but I would have to challenge you on the “most” and “God” if by the capital G you mean the Christian God.

I didn't day the Christian God. I meant monotheism, but I could be wrong.

My point remains though - it not that people believe in gods (or monotheism) it is that the majority don’t agree on a particular god or religion and that humans have a history of believing in the irrational (as the examples I gave showed I hoped).

Also, as I said, there is a study that suggests that as learning in critical thinking increases, especial in the sciences, the belief in the irrational decreases and the believe in theistic gods.

So my main point will be this:-

All the evidence should be looked at before a conclusion is made. I don’t think you have evidence for a single God, I think you have evidence that mankind naturally believes in the irrational and is scared of “bumps in the night” and other unknowns

Wel, sure. But rationality versus irrationality is a whole other discussion -- and a very old one -- as well. Something else we can look into later, perhaps.

Oops, I already addressed this above – I was jumping ahead it would seem. That’s the problem when I respond point-by-point as I am reading.

At least you get the feel of a “real” debate/discussion.

In the meantime, in case you're wondering, I don't necessarrily accept rationality as a benchmark for whether someone, or his or her ideas, should be taken seriously. It depends on whether one things rationality itself is part of the Creation or part of humankind's response to the fact of the Creation -- but way beyond the scope of this humble thread, in any case.

Thanks for the response, and since it is way beyond the scope of this thread, I will say nothing further unless you want a new thread on the topic :)

Re: "Having a large number of people believing in the supernatural is then not surprising given mankind’s wild imagination (it could be an evolutional by-product) but the fact they do not agree is the telling factor here."

The fact that we do not do agree is an annoyance, but it say nothing about what IS or what IS NOT.

It says nothing about God, more about the make-up of mankind. Where I see the behaviour of mankind due to evolutional traits, you see God.

Maybe we are both seeing what we want to see? So we will have to agree to disagree I think for now – it’s another thread, and another topic.

Re: "If there was an almighty God who demands worship – why don’t people believe in the same God and have the same understanding of God? Why does someone have to be told about God and Jesus to believe in Him – should it not be written into the genes using your logic?"

Not using my logic, not anything I've said. You might be confusing me with someone else.

I am easily confused I admit.

However I thought you were claiming that the fact people believe in gods was evidence FOR God.

My question was that if this was truly evidence for God, then why can’t people agree? The “written into the genes” was commenting the claim I thought you were making that man is predisposed to believe in God for some reason, I took this to imply “how man was made”. If mankind was predisposed to believe in God due to his/her making, they God should have been sure to make them all believe in the same God

Sorry for the confusion – I misunderstood what you were claiming.

My answer would be this: It is very hard for anyone, as they become more educated, whether in science or not, to continue to believe in God. So? I am well-educated, yet I believe. Again, so? Whatever is what YOU think, not what others think.

I was clumsy with my words again.

I was merely pointing out a study that seemed to show a pattern that the more educated in the sciences and rational thinking someone becomes, the less likely they are to believe in God.

I did point out that this belief does not go to zero.

You can be bloody intelligent and believe in God.

You can be bloody stupid and be a non-believer.

I did not mean to confuse intelligence with belief – I wasn’t saying that.

There are many different forms of intelligence anyway, and how do you measure it? I for one am crap at English :)

Yes. Christianity has had many things wrong on many levels. Thankfully, Chrisianity is not a matter of believing the right things, despite what my stupid fundie brethren think.

I wonder what makes Christianity though if not the bible?

I think if you try and read the bible literally (as our fundie friends do) they are missing out on a lot. The theory of evolution and the Big Bang model explain an amazing universe – why make the universe and God so small? Only a fundie could answer that.

I do not worry about being wrong because faith in God has jack shot to do with being right. ... It's late here; forgive my testiness.

That’s confusing for me... “faith in God has jack shot to do with being right”?

So you can have faith in God and be wrong about God?

The assertion that Jesus is "the Son of God" is a specific claim that I don't profess to understand.

You and me both...

WTH does that mean? I don't know. But no, hell no, you are not to trust your soul to thopse accounts. As I say to my fundie friends: If the only Jesus you know is the one you've read about, then all you know is a story. To "know Jesus" is very mystic and mysterious.

I would say your fundie friends only know a story of a story...

This “mystic and mysterious” stuff cannot be learnt over a blog so I will just have to believe you...

You are confusing me with someone else here.

I am still learning of your beliefs, so yes – I was confusing you with somebody else. Your beliefs are very different to the Christians I met on blogs, forums and my everyday life (and no, I don’t just talk to fundies)

On the other hand, words are tricky. People in histiory used to come from this place before it was known as Oklahoma City. And after the city was founded -- over night, in 1889 -- those people could rightly say to have come from Oklahoma City. So, phth. No controversy, no harm, no foul, no nothing.

I think you have just saved me buying and reading a book :)

It’s not important for either of our beliefs, but it is still interesting since the bible talks of a large town doesn’t it where Jesus was raised? No matter – it could still be a silly atheist trying to sell a book with no substance.

Well, dang it, there's no reason to get snotty.

Oops – I didn’t mean to, just how I talk and write, I better change my style if it comes across as snotty.

I have no problem with the idea that Jesus was an honest apocalypticist, but was wrong.

Jesus got it wrong? Now I think I can agree with you here, but I am surprised I am hearing this from a Christian I don’t mean telling you.

He sure seemed surprised, and anguished, on the Cross when he prayed for God to stop that madness ("let this cup pass from me") and God did not stop the madness. Your concept of Jesus as Superhero is something you got somewhere else, not from me.

You’re right – my knowledge of Christianity is very different from yours. The Old Church Of England didn’t say Jesus was just a man, but something more than that. (Hence the Son of God question earlier)

No mas. No more miles of questions. Keep yer powder dry, Lee. I've spent more than an hour on this on an extemely busy day. It's fun, and good comes from it, but I can't deal wuth a zillion questioms every time. :-)

Trying to keep the powder dry sir! I hope I mean more comments than questions this time.

Thanks for the detailed response, and I will try and reduce the number of questions in future posts, but it is not easy not to ask a question when I either don’t understand or disagree.

Cheers

Lee
PS
Have I paid enough taxes yet?
 

Just passing through on my way to work -- the actrual workplace today -- and then to another busy day, BUT:

Re, "Paul never met the living Jesus either, and this forms much of the Christian teachings (I believe he only claims to have met the spirit of Jesus)."

Incorrect. Paul claimed to have encountered the Risen Christ.


And, if the Bible were the only evidence for Cristianity, we'd be sunk. But it's not. And we've gone around this mulberry bush a time or two, and I don' really ant to statrt again. But Creation itself is testament to God; and the Church itself, as effed up as it is, is testament to Christ, and the Bible corroborates a bunch of Jews' encounter with said Divine, Jesus of Nazareth. The devil, s they say, is in the details, though.

From earlier, Lee, you remark that if I thought the Bible was just a book written by man, and i suggested that youi expand your notions of why people are Christians. I mean to relate this:

The other day at church, one of the lay leaders (an everyday member who signed up to say a few words), said, among other things, "Now, I don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God," etc., etc.

And it shocked by former fundamentalist-leaning sensibilities. A first. And then I thought: "What the hell does that mean anyway? 'Son of God'" It's an example of a profound concept boiled down to a kind of church jargon that is used as a litmus test by some people to "test" thge validity of the faith of others.

Hogwash. Keep that crap away from me. The lay leader may not believe that Jesus was "the Son of God." Whatever. He is nonetheless trying to follow Jesus's, his clearest teachings, I mean; he is in fellowship with a bunch of other people who attest to allegiance to Jesus, and he puts his faith to his hands and feet in trying to help others -- all the while trusting in God, the One who is Visibly Absent, yet Invisibly Present, to handle the details. I personally am at battle with anyione who insists that being a Christian is summed up by a list, even a short one, of beliefs! That man is a Christian. There is one "requirement" to "be a Christian" -- allegiance to Jesus, his example, his messages -- as far as we can discern and understand them -- and a lifetime of working that out in one's mind and heart, and working it out through one's hands and feet.

One other point: A time or three, you've seemed incredulous at the idea that "God" would make things so difficult, that he's being ornery or something by not just coming clean and making it all perfectly clear.

I think you've probably read enough science fiction to have thought about how difficult it might be for different intelligent species to communicate. I imagine you also know it is impossible for, say, a bunch of ants, as full of instinct and whatever else they have, to understand you when you talk to them -- all they seem to do it react, really. And, while you may not have been around cattle much, mama cows do know their calves bawling and vice versa, but they don;'t really communicate in much detail, as far as we can tell.

Al of which is to say, perhaps clumsily, that the demand that God "be clear and "come clean" is, well, a kind of hubris, I think. "God is Still Speaking," is a slogan of my denomination, the United Chuch of Christ. It is meant, I think, to declare that the Bible, while the best start, is not the end all-be all of "God's Word," and it suggests that God is still speaking because we are still learning to understand God -- so vast is the chasm between the Creator and the creation.
 

"As for “low hanging fruit” - well, if they were the only one your tackled you should be asking yourself why you avoid the difficult ones. "

See this is exactly the sort of comment I was expecting, which is why I wrote, "Now, typical "blog comment fashion" would be to read more into that than is necessary. I hope, in good spirit, you won't do that, but will understand that, well...I have a life."

"Personally interpretation of a book is that, personally, another person may not agree and read it differently. "

Well, yeah, of course. So? That is one reason we have so many different denominations of Protestants, and one reason (though by no means the only one) we have Protestants and Catholics. And, of course, this isn't only true of the Bible. It's true of any text. Multiple interpretations hardly make our US Constitution less important or less reliable.

"Yes the stories are very powerful, but are they based on true events or merely fables –is this not an important question to ask? "

I find it interesting that you write "merely" fables. I find nothing "mere" about either fables nor myths. Any student of history can tell you the importance of fables and myths in shaping real historical events and real historical people, sometimes in immensely powerful ways. How many crucial historical figures have changed history because they were living up to a particular mythology? (Alexander the Great comes to mind as just one example.)

"So which is it? Are the stories about Jesus fables or true accounts? (I’m repeating myself, sorry - I think you have already said they are both"

Nope, I didn't say they were fables. I believe in God, the Eternal Spirit, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and our Father, and to his deeds I testify: He calls the worlds into being, created me in his own image and sets before me the ways of life and death; He seeks in holy love to save me from aimlessness and sin; He judges men and nations by his righteous will declared through prophets and apostles. And I believe in Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth, our crucified and risen Lord,he has come to us and shared our common lot, conquering sin and death and reconciling the world to himself. --- From the statement of faith of the UCC -- see ER, I used to be a Congregationalist. ;)

I believe that none of that is a fable. It's true.

"Christian’s (I thought) believe the accounts are true events (crucifixion and resurrection and all that), if not, they would be merely believing a myth (or dare I say fairy-tale)?"

Again, that "mere" myth you keep referring to has completely reshaped a good chunk of the planet in a myriad of ways. That "mere" myth along with a very small number of other "mere" myths is believed by about 90% of the population of the planet. You have an interesting definition of "mere". ;) That's like those who claim that evolution is "merely" a theory. Sure it is, if by "merely" you mean it's completely changed biological and biochemical research, paleontology, archeology, and nearly every other science (except perhaps particle physics.)

Many Christians believe that the crucifixion and resurrection actually happened as they are recorded. Of that group, a small minority believe that one MUST believe those things are literally true in order to be called a Christian. Those are the fundamentalists. However, other Christians believe the resurrection is a particular way of writing about an experience that cannot be described in any other way -- that it's an allegory or a metaphor, but not, as you would say "merely" an allegory or a metaphor.

Who cares? To be a Christian requires only to proclaim Jesus is Lord and to follow His commandments.

"Or is God just deceiving us (or teaching us via these cryptic messages?)"

I don't see what's either deceitful nor cryptic about "Love your neighbor as yourself." or "Thou shalt not kill." Seems pretty clear to me, and any honest examination of human society throughout history can demonstrate why those commands are important for organizing human communities. So then, they are not deceitful, they don't tell us things that are untrue (as if we'd all be better off if we killed people whenever we wanted?) Nor do I, for one, find 4 or 5 word commandments all that cryptic.

You keep mentioning that many Biblical commands aren't unique to the Bible. I honestly have no idea why that makes any difference at all. Many of the ideas contained in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence did not originate with those documents, but had been swirling around for years even centuries. Does that mean those documents aren't important, useful, or historic? I honestly don't get the point you're making there.

I think the fact that most societies (all?) have some sort of rule about not killing other people for the hell of it hardly makes the Bible less believable. It would be much less reliable if the Bible did NOT contain such an admonition.

"The only evidence for the Christian faith is the bible, and if you cannot trust that – what do you have?"

No idea, but since my faith is not based on the Bible, I'm afraid I can't answer your question. That would be, to use a ten cent word: Bibliolotry: the turning of the Bible into an idol. You may recall that most of us Christians are pretty much against idol worship -- except for the fundies, they're the masters of it. :)

"I cannot trust the bible or gospel accounts on what he said or did (they need to be interpreted at least)."

Meh. So? I can't think of a text written at any time, in any place, by anyone (human or divine) that doesn't require interpretation. Heck, I've got a bumper sticker hanging over my desk here. 7 words. "Honk if Pluto is still a planet." Even that text contains a great deal of meaning, relies on a particular context (the demotion of Pluto), a particularly succinct style of writing, a particular historical context (in 10 years, it would make little sense, but in 10 years it will have preserved a particular way people felt about the demotion of pluto, so it's meaning will change over time), a particular intertextuality (ie. the knowledge that bumper stickers often have this "honk if" sorta phraseology), a knowledge of what bumper stickers are for would also be helpful to understand it, and the fact that it's on my desk where there are no horns to honk is also interesting. You can even guess something about me from it's placement on my desk: I'm a sciencey sorta guy, probably. I'm also apparently not the kinda guy who puts bumperstickers on my truck.

Below that bumpersticker there is a form laying on my desk. At the top it says "Dissertation Committee Form". It mostly contains a bunch of empty lines. Now, in order for this form to have any meaning, one must understand the basic style of forms, ie. they ask for information, and you fill in that information on the lines provided. In this case, one would have to know what a Dissertation Committee is, what it is used for, why it is important. One might also make some guesses about me, given that this form was found on my desk. It might help first to know what a "dissertation" is. One would have to know what the word "Chair" means in this context (ie. A person heading the committee, not a platform with 4 legs that one sits ones ass on.), one would have to know what a "cognate member" was, and who might be qualified to be such (rules that themselves require some interpretation.)

And you're hung up on the fact that reading the Bible requires interpretation?
 

I would have to agree with Hapa that in Acts, in that it is written after the fact and with an agenda, that Paul is a "character". When we are reading his letters, his actual letters, then he is not. But when we crosss the line into a narative about Paul, then he becomes a character. In the very same way Jesus is a character of the Gospels. Each Gospel gives a different slant as to whom he was and depict that character.

Lee, sometimes trying to get understanding out of your writting is akin to getting a drink out of a fire hose. The water is there, but you may lose your teeth getting a drink.
 

Ok, I’m reply to the personal comments first, before I look at the arguments made, they take more time.

RE: As for “low hanging fruit” - well, if they were the only ones you tackled you should be asking yourself why you avoid the difficult ones.

Alan wrote:
See this is exactly the sort of comment I was expecting, which is why I wrote, "Now, typical "blog comment fashion" would be to read more into that than is necessary. I hope, in good spirit, you won't do that, but will understand that, well...I have a life."

I was in good spirit, you read over if far too quickly. We have lives to lead and writing essays in reply to questions on blogs has to be a low priority for all of us. So I did understand what you were saying.

My point was merely for you to check your reasons for selecting the “low hanging fruit”, nothing more. If the reason is due to time (or interest) – no problem. I’m sorry if I sounded too serious :)

drlobojo wrote:-
Lee, sometimes trying to get understanding out of your writting is akin to getting a drink out of a fire hose. The water is there, but you may lose your teeth getting a drink.

I try my best, and that is all I can do. Interesting analogy BTW

Maybe it is just my poor English, or maybe it is just an American/English Language/cultural thing – no, it is probably me just being crap since you are not the first American to complain or highlight the issue.

If it makes you feel any better, I have to try hard to sometimes to understand what is being said here because the style of writing is not what I am use to. This isn’t a criticism, I actual like the different styles – especially ER’s colourful use of the English Language at times, I think the avatar is perfect to help me understand how something is being said.

And of course, the view of Christianity here is very different to what I came across in the UK, so this takes me time to understand.

Cheers

Lee
 

Hi ER,

Thanks again for your time given to reply.

Re, "Paul never met the living Jesus either, and this forms much of the Christian teachings (I believe he only claims to have met the spirit of Jesus)."

Incorrect. Paul claimed to have encountered the Risen Christ.

I think actually we agree on this point, but I was not being clear enough with my usage of words (I am a non-believer after all).

According to Paul, he only met Jesus after the crucifixion – do we agree?

My point being that the Jesus BEFORE the crucifixion isn’t the same Jesus AFTER the crucifixion or am I mistaken again on your views on Christianity and who or what Jesus is/was?

I have to admit I don’t know what you actually think of Jesus, who he was and what the resurrection meant to both the man known as Jesus and what God was showing His creation.

I will have to go back a little to something you said to highlight something of what I mean.

You wrote:
I have no problem with the idea that Jesus was an honest apocalypticist, but was wrong. He sure seemed surprised, and anguished, on the Cross when he prayed for God to stop that madness

Well, if Jesus was wrong, then he cannot be God can he? (Which some Christians believe) A similar point could be made about being “surprised” – this is not all knowing, and so cannot be God.

This is fine, since you have already said Jesus wasn’t “the son of God”, but it leaves the question unanswered to who or what Jesus is/was.

Do you see Jesus as another prophet, a bit like Moses? He was recorded as performing miracles (or at least having God do miracles through Moses or something)

Back on track... more on this later.

And, if the Bible were the only evidence for Cristianity, we'd be sunk. But it's not.

Well I disagree of course :)

And we've gone around this mulberry bush a time or two, and I don' really ant to statrt again.

Fair enough... if we keep going around in circles we get dizzy and fall over.

But Creation itself is testament to God;

The argument from design fails I feel – but it would be a long discussion.

and the Church itself,

And what about the mosques or other “holy” buildings that are not Christian?

Your argument fails again I feel on these facts that you ignore.

I would (and have) agued that the only evidence for Christianity is in the past - at the time of the bible.

After that? Nothing... if you want to claim “believers” as evidence, I will point you to a billion Muslims – believers in the supernatural is not evidence for Christianity nor evidence for what they believe in.

I mentioned before that many people believe in Bigfoot, fairies, alien landings and importantly gods – people believe in many crazy things. (I for one believe there is no god, and you think I am crazy for that :)

None of this is evidence for Christianity.

Another time perhaps – we could be getting dizzy again around this mulberry bush.

The other day at church, one of the lay leaders (an everyday member who signed up to say a few words), said, among other things, "Now, I don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God," etc., etc.

And it shocked by former fundamentalist-leaning sensibilities.

And it would shock me if I heard such a statement in a Christian place of worship – it goes against what I thought I understood to be the “Christian belief” – though being wrong is nothing new for me.

And then I thought: "What the hell does that mean anyway? 'Son of God'" It's an example of a profound concept boiled down to a kind of church jargon that is used as a litmus test by some people to "test" thge validity of the faith of others.

Hogwash. Keep that crap away from me.

No problem - The trinity certainly doesn’t make any sense to me, the Father, son and holy ghost and all that - but you would not be surprised at that.

The lay leader may not believe that Jesus was "the Son of God." Whatever. He is nonetheless trying to follow Jesus's

I’ve asked this question above and said I would come back to it – who or what is Jesus then, and what does the resurrection mean?

What did it mean to Jesus, what is the difference between Jesus who walked around teaching for 30 years before the crucifixion to the “risen Jesus’ Paul met on his road trip? Basically, what was the difference between Jesus BEFORE the crucifixion and AFTER? It’s confusing – I could handle the idea of “son of God” better, at least I have been taught about this idea at school a long time ago.

his clearest teachings, I mean;

Which of Jesus’ teachings were unique to him? I pointed out before I think that much of what Jesus said, the good bits on how we should live our lives, the “golden rule” and all that, have been said before by other people.

This shows then, I think, that Jesus’ teachings in of themselves were not that special. (I mean here the fact that men who did not know God came to the same conclusions not that the ideas themselves where not good.)

The teachings of Jesus does NOT prove Christianity (or God).

he is in fellowship with a bunch of other people who attest to allegiance to Jesus, and he puts his faith to his hands and feet in trying to help others -- all the while trusting in God, the One who is Visibly Absent, yet Invisibly Present, to handle the details.

Erm... change the name “Jesus” to “Mohammed” or “Hara Krishna” and this would sound similar to other religions I’ve heard so much about.

Can you see the problem here?

I personally am at battle with anyione who insists that being a Christian is summed up by a list, even a short one, of beliefs!

There must be something that makes a Christian different to say a Muslim... this would form part of the list you don’t like.

That man is a Christian. There is one "requirement" to "be a Christian" -- allegiance to Jesus, his example, his messages -- as far as we can discern and understand them -- and a lifetime of working that out in one's mind and heart, and working it out through one's hands and feet.

See, we do have short list that shows the difference between Christian and Muslim – I knew you could do it.

“his example” – didn’t Jesus tell his followers to leave their family and jobs to follow him, because the world was about to end... is this a good example? Since it didn’t happen, it sound bad.

“his messages” - you have already said Jesus was wrong on at least one important matter and since Jesus never thought it was a good idea to write anything down himself – you do only have hearsay and other peoples interpretations.

One other point: A time or three, you've seemed incredulous at the idea that "God" would make things so difficult, that he's being ornery or something by not just coming clean and making it all perfectly clear.

It has to be more than 3 times - You are being too kind :)

I think you've probably read enough science fiction to have thought about how difficult it might be for different intelligent species to communicate.

Captain Kirk never had a problem and he wasn’t a god :)

Am I to believe that the creator of the universe, life and rather importantly mankind – does not know how to communicate clearly with his creation?

OK, I don’t know how to “talk to the animals” like Dr Dolittle, but I am not claiming the powers of a god, and certainly not claiming to be God.

So is this lack of communication a limitation on your “perfect” God?

Al of which is to say, perhaps clumsily, that the demand that God "be clear and "come clean" is, well, a kind of hubris, I think.

This depends on your definition of God of course and His purpose for creation.

If God is to be thought as all-loving (which use to be a Christian idea) and our lives has a reason and purpose that was devised by God, then He has to be clear if the price for not following is great.

If it doesn’t matter what we do or believe (well, if God doesn’t want to be clear, this is implied) then we might as well be talking about a deistic god and not the Christian God.

So I am clear then, what do you think happens to believers and non-believers of Jesus when they die? (My point being - is there a reason for God to be clear?)

Thanks

Lee
 

Hoo boy. Long day. Tornados in the vicinity tonight. I'm pooped. I shall return Friday, and answer some unanswered comments. :-)
 

Hi ER,

Tornados in the vicinity tonight.

That doesn't sound good.

I shall return Friday, and answer some unanswered comments. :-)

What do you mean? It is Friday, it has been all day - another 2 hours and I clock off work and get ready for the weekend.

The beauty of living in Australia...

See ya

Lee
 

Hi Alan,

RE: "Personally interpretation of a book is that, personally, another person may not agree and read it differently."

Well, yeah, of course. So? That is one reason we have so many different denominations of Protestants, and one reason (though by no means the only one) we have Protestants and Catholics. And, of course, this isn't only true of the Bible.

You forgot of course to mention all the other religions when writing your list, Muslim, Jew, Hindu and the rest.

And all this from the “One True God”?

This is the problem I have... too much interpretation and no form of empirical evidence is presented to be able to find which one is correct.

It's true of any text. Multiple interpretations hardly make our US Constitution less important or less reliable.

Is anyone claiming this document was inspired by God or is the work of God?

Having multiple interpretations from a man-made (and inspired) document isn’t that surprising. We are only talking monkeys, so what do you expect?

RE: "Yes the stories are very powerful, but are they based on true events or merely fables –is this not an important question to ask? "

I find it interesting that you write "merely" fables.

It shouldn’t be that interesting – a fable just isn’t reality. That is all. Hence “merely a fable” oppose to “true events” seems fair to me.

I merely (there’s that word again) rate “true events” higher than “fables” (or myths)

This does NOT mean I do not think fables or myths have not been important in the history of mankind merely (shit I cannot stop myself now) that they are not 100% true by definition – they may teach a “valid“ moral or teaching, but the events described within the fable or myth are fiction, a story even if it is based on some real even.

For example, the movie Braveheart is considered by many to be a great film – but it is a myth in the sense that although it is based on some truth much of it is a pack of lies (and being English I hate the movie).

If you based your history on Braveheart (or any movie really) you are basing it on fiction and any conclusions you make will be flawed. You know this of course.

RE: "So which is it? Are the stories about Jesus fables or true accounts? (I’m repeating myself, sorry - I think you have already said they are both"

Nope, I didn't say they were fables.

Sorry about that, you are right – on second reading you said they were a myth I think and not a fable (though to me the words are interchangeable.)

“I am saying that the myth is indeed very powerful whether or not that myth is based in real events.”

I believe in God, the Eternal Spirit, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and our Father, and to his deeds I testify:

This thread can get very confusing for me – I’m sorry, did you just say “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” – doesn’t this imply then that Jesus is the “Son of God”?

ER is arguing against this idea – or does this statement just mean that we are all the “Son of God”... I can understand that better, but a lot of Christians will be against this argument.

He calls the worlds into being, created me in his own image

Now, I know you are a believer in the theory of evolution, can you please explain this statement you quoted that God “created me in his own image”

I thought I evolved from slime or something? This isn’t actually in God’s image is it?

Oh, and this “image” business cannot mean that I look like God, since this will imply that God looks like a talking monkey – so is it the mind that we are talking about?

I told you I don’t understand how evolution and Christianity fits together... it must do since you believe in both.

He seeks in holy love to save me from aimlessness and sin; He judges men and nations

Excellent, this answers a question I put to ER. There is a penalty for not following God correctly. Our lives would be aimless and sinful.

This means God should be clear about His message... if not His “Holy love” isn’t that great for us is it?

And I believe in Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth,

So the town of Nazareth would be important then to maintain this statement if not your faith in Jesus.

our crucified and risen Lord,

You know, I’ve not questioned yet on this thread the evidence the Christian has for either of these points – another time perhaps :)

conquering sin

Is that the sin we get from evolution? A little unfair to hold that against us isn’t it? We didn’t ask to be made this way.

I believe that none of that is a fable. It's true.

Well, I can challenge some of these points, and ask you why you think they are true but I doubt either of us have the time for such a discussion.

RE: "Christian’s (I thought) believe the accounts are true events (crucifixion and resurrection and all that), if not, they would be merely believing a myth (or dare I say fairy-tale)?"

Again, that "mere" myth

See earlier comments...

has completely reshaped a good chunk of the planet in a myriad of ways.

And? Belief in a myth doesn’t make the myth true.

That "mere" myth along with a very small number of other "mere" myths is believed by about 90% of the population of the planet.

I’ve discussed this line of argument before... hey ho.

90% of the population do not believe Jesus came back from the dead and all that... so you are not answering the question I made against Christianity.

So using your logical (fallacy) then of numbers and percentages to make an “argument”.

“More people do NOT believe that Jesus Christ came back from the dead – therefore Christianity is wrong.”

Well, that seems to wrap up this argument then doesn’t it? No, it’s complete rubbish I hope you agree. It is a logical fallacy.

You have an interesting definition of "mere". ;) That's like those who claim that evolution is "merely" a theory. Sure it is, if by "merely" you mean it's completely changed biological and biochemical research, paleontology, archeology, and nearly every other science (except perhaps particle physics.)

That is one “mere” theory we can agree on :)

Oh... but where does Adam and Eve with Original Sin come in the theory of evolution? If there was no Original Sin, why did Jesus have to die on the cross?

I know, I know... another stupid question I keep repeating.

Many Christians believe that the crucifixion and resurrection actually happened as they are recorded. Of that group, a small minority believe that one MUST believe those things are literally true in order to be called a Christian. Those are the fundamentalists.

The whole hours of darkness, earthquakes and dead saints rising up and making themselves known... yeah, hard to believe that isn’t it – I mean, surely some “heathen” historian would have recorded those events down and thanked/blamed Zeus or Jupiter or something. These fundamentalists have a problem since the historical record doesn’t support their claims/beliefs.

However, other Christians believe the resurrection is a particular way of writing about an experience that cannot be described in any other way -- that it's an allegory or a metaphor, but not, as you would say "merely" an allegory or a metaphor.

The resurrection is now an allegory or metaphor for some Christians – it is hard to keep up with the different flavours of belief.

However, you believe it happened right... it was a real event? Not an allegory or metaphor.

You wrote:-
RE: “our crucified and risen Lord”
I believe that none of that is a fable. It's true.

To be a Christian requires only to proclaim Jesus is Lord and to follow His commandments.

What does it mean to be “Lord”?

And what actually are Jesus’ commandments... I remember something about me having to hate my father and mother for some reason so I could follow Jesus – my memory must be wrong.

Oh, and then there is someone that Paul said about

"For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, 'You must love your neighbour as yourself.'"

On another blog a Christian quoted that to me, I debated that such a commandment (law) is wrong if it is backed up with any form of punishment (if it is not backed up with a penalty then what is the point of the law?)

It is fine as a guide or “rule of thumb” but man cannot live their lives 100% to this law/commandment at all times – that is my challenge against this law being just. As a law, it condemns mankind to failure and a lawbreaker. Not a nice law.
(Also, isn’t this Paul dictating what Christian should do rather than Jesus?)

I don't see what's either deceitful nor cryptic about "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Oh – I got ahead of the discussion, see above.

It is not deceitful nor cryptic, but as a law it is wrong. As a guide, or “Golden Rule” I’m all for it.

However picking a couple of “clear” examples from the bible doesn’t explain why the overall message from the bible isn’t clear.

A common question I like to ask a Christian is “How do you get into heaven?” The bible is not very clear on this, and I would have thought for a Christian it is an important message. (And yes, I have already quote mined the bible to find the contradictions and vagueness in the bible on this point so I leave it for a question to the reader to answer)

or "Thou shalt not kill."

Did mankind already know about this law before the Jews walked all that way to some mountain for Moses to tell them that “God said” that killing is bad?

I also think it is rather telling that this isn’t higher up on the list of 10 commandments list – shouldn’t it be number 1 or 2? (Maybe 1 should be “Thou shalt not hurt anyone” or something)

No, God in His wisdom thinks praising him and not false gods and the like was more important than hurting people... nice and wise that, look after number 1 first, is there a hidden moral in that somewhere?

Seems pretty clear to me, and any honest examination of human society throughout history can demonstrate why those commands are important for organizing human communities.

Of course, this is why it doesn’t need a God to be told that. We agree.

You keep mentioning that many Biblical commands aren't unique to the Bible. I honestly have no idea why that makes any difference at all.

You are right I do keep mentioning this.

The point I am trying to make is that you do not need a God to come to these conclusions... evolution theory seems to explains many of them rather nicely.

So such laws or commandments in a book cannot be used as evidence for God or the validity of Christianity.

OK, it is not an argument you are making directly yourself, but you are claiming, are you not, that such laws came from God and not mankind. This is why I mention it.

Many of the ideas contained in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence did not originate with those documents, but had been swirling around for years even centuries. Does that mean those documents aren't important, useful, or historic? I honestly don't get the point you're making there.

Who is claiming these documents where not written by man without any guidance from God? Is anyone using these documents as evidence for the Christian God?

I think the fact that most societies (all?) have some sort of rule about not killing other people for the hell of it hardly makes the Bible less believable. It would be much less reliable if the Bible did NOT contain such an admonition.

Well since “civilised” men wrote the bible, we would expect such a law.

I never said it makes the bible less believable, only that such laws does not prove the bible was written by God (or inspired by God). Man could have written them on his own.

If we agree to that, then we no need to mention it again.

RE: "The only evidence for the Christian faith is the bible, and if you cannot trust that – what do you have?"

No idea, but since my faith is not based on the Bible, I'm afraid I can't answer your question.

Isn’t it?

How do you know about Jesus then if it did not come from the bible?
(Even if you never read the bible yourself, the person telling you the story of Jesus did.)

Where are these great stories about Jesus’ that are NOT in the bible but are accepted as “true” by the Christian Community?

Your faith in God might not come from the bible, but I didn’t say that – I am talking about your Christianity faith here.

That would be, to use a ten cent word: Bibliolotry: the turning of the Bible into an idol. You may recall that most of us Christians are pretty much against idol worship -- except for the fundies, they're the masters of it. :)

LOL - I am looking forward to telling a fundie that they worship an idol called the bible.

I guess on a similar note, you must feel the same about those who “worship” the cross – another idol isn’t it?

Or that the Roman Catholics practice praying to the Virgin Mary as odd? (All those statues in churches are weird.

Another weird “offence” to me by the Roman Catholics is the idea of saints – it seems rather pagan to me... worshiping many gods, a god for healing, a god for animals etc etc. Doesn’t make sense if you read what the bible says... but hey, that is why the “church” spilt 500 years ago I guess.

I can't think of a text written at any time, in any place, by anyone (human or divine) that doesn't require interpretation.

I was thinking about the type of interpretation that can result in more than one meaning which cannot be determine via empirical or rational methods which is correct.

Science and maths then, I think, would be a good examples of what I mean as something that isn’t open to interpretation. (Of course, you need to understand the language first, but I wasn’t talking about that)

Make any more sense?

Heck, I've got a bumper sticker hanging over my desk here. 7 words. "Honk if Pluto is still a planet."

I go for “minor planet”... sorry, we even disagree on astronomy it seems.

What was that phrase I heard once – “if you could move Pluto to the orbit of the Earth it would have a tail like a comet... and this not how a planet is suppose to behave.”

And you're hung up on the fact that reading the Bible requires
interpretation?

You have won me over on one of my previous objections now... now my only objection is that interpretation of the bible can give multiple conclusions with no method to confirm which is valid.

Thanks again.

Lee
 

Lee, if you'd like to pick one point I've made and discuss that, great. But what you've done here is classical "fisking". Not interested in that.

Do you have A particular point you'd like to discuss? I'd be happy to.

I'll will address some of your more outlandish comments, though.

At the same time when I wrote: "It's true of any text. Multiple interpretations hardly make our US Constitution less important or less reliable."

You responded: "Is anyone claiming this document was inspired by God or is the work of God?"

Huh? If you aren't willing to reason by analogy, then I'm going to find it very, very difficult to have any sort of conversation with you.

You do not acknowledge that any (every) text (Bibles, Constitutions, Bumperstickers, and even simple forms) requires interpretation? Wow, I don't know how to respond to that except to say that your interpretation of most of what I write seems to be completely wrong most of the time. You've proven my point while simultaneously denying it. Ironic, dontcha think? ;)

"Is that the sin we get from evolution? A little unfair to hold that against us isn’t it? We didn’t ask to be made this way."

If you're just out to make snotty comments about something I didn't say, feel free. I've said nothing about my beliefs about evolution, or sin, or Original Sin. So, if you want to debate what you think I believe rather than what I actually believe you'll have to do that alone, I'm not interested in participating in that.

"The resurrection is now an allegory or metaphor for some Christians – it is hard to keep up with the different flavours of belief."

That's your problem, not mine. It really isn't that complicated. I'm simply telling you some of the variations in what some people believe. Take it or leave it.

"It shouldn’t be that interesting – a fable just isn’t reality. That is all. Hence “merely a fable” oppose to “true events” seems fair to me."

You seem to be holding quite firmly to what is often called the "correspondence view of reality". I'm not really that strict of a realist. Though there are some real problems with postmodernism, it's pretty clear that modernism wasn't a whole lot better. I prefer post-positivism. Perhaps these are ideas you should research more thoroughly as they've been around for quite a long time.

You can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositivism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

"Sorry about that, you are right – on second reading you said they were a myth I think and not a fable (though to me the words are interchangeable.)"

You misunderstood and/or I wasn't clear. I do not believe that either.

I wrote what I believe is true. Hope that clarifies things for you.

"This thread can get very confusing for me – I’m sorry, did you just say “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” – doesn’t this imply then that Jesus is the “Son of God”?

ER is arguing against this idea – or does this statement just mean that we are all the “Son of God”... I can understand that better, but a lot of Christians will be against this argument."

Lee, just FYI. I hate to confuse you even further, but I am not ER. I'm a totally different guy. I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Now, like ER, I agree that it is difficult to have much understanding about what that means (or the more difficult to understand appellation "Son of Man") But if you're going to converse with the both of us, you'll have to understand that we're not actually the same person, nor do we necessarily hold all of the same beliefs.

Yet he's a Christian and so am I.

Hope that clears things up for you.

You wrote, “More people do NOT believe that Jesus Christ came back from the dead – therefore Christianity is wrong.”

Um, again you're arguing against something I never wrote. I DID NOT argue that Christianity was right because some percentage of people believed it. I DID NOT argue that belief in any God or gods was correct because 90% of the planet believes it. I simply made the point that calling these beliefs "mere" myths was puzzling because, myth or not, there is CLEARLY NOTHING *MERE* ABOUT THEM.

These "mere" myths of yours have changed the world. My point was that with 90% of the world believing them, they're not so "mere". My point was that since one of those beliefs has been one of the foundations of much of western civilization, it's not so "mere."

So please stop thinking that you're arguing against some list of 20 talking points you keep hearing from other Christians. It's gotten WAY beyond annoying. Read what I write, or don't. It's your choice, but I'm not really that interested in continuing a conversation where the part I play is to simply remind you that I'm not a fundamentalist, and where everything I write is seemingly intentionally misconstrued by you into one of your prepackaged stupid Christian talking points for you to knock down.

So again, Lee...If you'd like to pick a point to discuss one at a time, rather than fisking my comments phrase by phrase, then great! You do know what fisking is, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking

My favorite line of that article is this: "Andrew Orlowski in The Register commented that "Many of today's debaters prefer 'Fisking'—line-by-line rebuttals where facts are dropped like radar chaff—to rational debate or building a coherent argument."

Let's try for debating real points and building coherent arguments, not debating whether or not Jesus actually lived within the city limits of Nazareth or not. I still haven't had a chance to read the info you provided there, but will it make you feel better if I concede, for the purposes of this discussion that Nazareth did not exist in the time of Jesus? Can we move on from that now and discuss something interesting and important?

I don't think it's unreasonable to try to pick one point and discuss it. Do you? Perhaps we should start with the interpretation of texts because ironically you appear to be every much of a "literalist" as some fundamentalists I've met. :)
 

OK, Friday. As mch as I have time to work ib betqween goofing off and goofing off on my birthday. :-)


Re, "(ER said) About 1,700 years of other people agreeing that the other writings were inspired by God in a Big Way, as opposed to my own very real, but personal, belief that I am, in fact, inspired by God. It's not just the authors' alleged claims that make the Bible important, but the fact that many others at who followed them agree. (Lee said) Using this logic the Koran is also true, inspired by God and important. There is a logic fallacy going on here I think."

Never read the Koran. But since I don't worship the Christian Bible, I'm sure not going to worship it. Or denigrate it. It is important, obviously. And I'm sure it has some truth in it. So, where's the fallacy?


Re, "You guys certainly have a different flavour of Christianity than what I am use to."

Flavors. Plural. I speak only for myself. DrLobo, too. (H)apa, too. Alan, too. Others, as well. BUT, I'd say that all of us are part of the same fellowship, i.e., "Christian," although even that has different meanings to each of us. Especially, the resident heretic, DrLobo. :-)


RE, "(ER said) Alas, "perfect" is a form of Christian jargon, actually, since the definition of "perfect" is debatable. (Lee said) You are right the “perfect” is debatable, which was my point when you used it as a definition for God. It would open a whole new debate, so let’s only go there if you want it to."

Withdrawn. Sub "only God is God; all else is not-God, by definition (assuming God as Creator).


Re, "(ER said) I should have said, instead, "because no one and nothing is God except God." (Lee said) This doesn’t tell me much though does it :)"

Nope. :-)


Re, "I wonder if the universe could be defined as some form of god – probably by some. Though of course this wouldn’t be a theistic God."

Could be. Goog;e "God's Debris" and read it. Free online by Dilbert creator Scott Adams. Very interesting and very cool.


Re, "My point remains though - it not that people believe in gods (or monotheism) it is that the majority don’t agree on a particular god or religion and that humans have a history of believing in the irrational (as the examples I gave showed I hoped)."

Granted. Not a problem if one believes that rationality itself is part of the Creation, therefore a gift from God.

Re, "Also, as I said, there is a study that suggests that as learning in critical thinking increases, especial in the sciences, the belief in the irrational decreases and the believe in theistic gods."

I assume you meant to say "decreases" at the end there. That begs the question: Belief in theistic gods is irrational? Not necessatrily. In fact, I'd say not even. If survival is the highest aim of man, and if man sees faith in a theistic god as increasing his chance for survival, it is utterly rational to believe so. Maybe wrong in the end. Certainly not irrational.

Re, "So my main point will be this:- All the evidence should be looked at before a conclusion is made. I don’t think you have evidence for a single God, I think you have evidence that mankind naturally believes in the irrational and is scared of “bumps in the night” and other unknowns."

Bring me all the evidence and I'll look at it. :-) Hoot.

Re, "In the meantime, in case you're wondering, I don't necessarrily accept rationality as a benchmark for whether someone, or his or her ideas, should be taken seriously. It depends on whether one things rationality itself is part of the Creation or part of humankind's response to the fact of the Creation -- but way beyond the scope of this humble thread, in any case."

Oops. :-)

Re: "It says nothing about God, more about the make-up of mankind. Where I see the behaviour of mankind due to evolutional traits, you see God."

What I see is a dichotomy, straining. The make-up of mankind says oodles about God, as well as evolution.

Re: "If there was an almighty God who demands worship – why don’t people believe in the same God and have the same understanding of God? Why does someone have to be told about God and Jesus to believe in Him – should it not be written into the genes using your logic?"

I think it IS written into the genes, although the Scriptures call that "within the heart of man." It's real poetic that way. :-)

Re, "(ER said) Yes. Christianity has had many things wrong on many levels. Thankfully, Chrisianity is not a matter of believing the right things, despite what my stupid fundie brethren think. (Lee said) I wonder what makes Christianity though if not the bible?"

What makes Christianity is Jesus Christ.

Re (ER said) I do not worry about being wrong because faith in God has jack shot to do with being right. ... It's late here; forgive my testiness." (Lee said) That’s confusing for me... “faith in God has jack shot to do with being right”?

That should have been "jack shit," not jack shot."


Re, "So you can have faith in God and be wrong about God?"

Yes.

Re, "ER said) I have no problem with the idea that Jesus was an honest apocalypticist, but was wrong. (Lee said) Jesus got it wrong? Now I think I can agree with you here, but I am surprised I am hearing this from a Christian I don’t mean telling you."

The tenet of the faith is that Jesus was/is "without sin." That doesn't mean Jesus was "perfect." In fact, the Bible quotes Jesus himself as protesting when some of his followeres called him perfect, saying there is none perfect "but God in heaven."

Re, "Have I paid enough taxes yet?"

Good start. :-)
 

Hi Alan,

Thanks again for your response.

Lee, if you'd like to pick one point I've made and discuss that, great. But what you've done here is classical "fisking". Not interested in that.

Never heard of the term before as you may well imagine, so thanks for the link… erm, seems my writing style is considered “poor form”. OK, I will try and change it a little for your good self since I want to keep it interesting for us both.

I will point out though all you have actually done here is attacked my style and not the argument – this could sound a lot like the logical fallacy of the “ad hominem”… however, since you are merely stating you think my style is boring and not making any argument we can both forget about it.

I use the “point by point” style for two reasons, one it ensures I do not miss any points (so I cannot be accused of avoiding a question/issue) and two, it also means I do not have to worry about my poor grammar as much since I do not need to concern myself that the whole 1,000 words flow nicely together.

Basically, for me, it is quicker.

It is also the common style of reply on blogs as you know (one that ER here is rather happy with himself it seems) – highlight point to be addressed and comment… so I’m sorry if some journalist don’t like it, maybe his arguments were just crap and he didn’t like to see his errors highlighted point by point and so he used the logical fallacy of the “ad hominem”… Who knows and who cares… though your criticism of me (or observation of you like) seems odd, since you also like to use the “highlight point, then discuss” – the only difference is you (due to time restrictions no doubt) only pick certain points and ignore (miss) many more. Is that the only difference between a good reply like those from yourself and mine that is "fisking"?

So what it really seems then is your criticism is more about the fact that I comment on each and every point you make – sorry for being too thorough, I will save time now, miss bits of you reply to be more brief. (Just please do say I am avoiding any points you make)

So now coming to your next question, I have no particular point to discuss here – just the belief in Christianity as a whole. I was invited here to make comments, which I am doing (paying my taxes with a smile). Any discussion normally flows into other points and I quite like that.

Though of course we cannot discuss too many things at once since we will probably end up forgetting what it was we were discussing in the first place, so I’ll agree – lets keep it simple. As for which topic, well if we are only doing one, lets pick one that interests both of us.

On the Jesus of Nazareth thing, I already said that I am not that interested to discuss that further here since it is not an important point for anybody it would seem – not even myself.

I will continue to research for my personal interest, I have even asked a fellow blogger for some interesting links on the subject, here they are for your information.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael
/jesusrefutation.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org
/chr_jcpa5.htm

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
/surfeit.htm

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
/nazareth.html

Can we say no more on the subject now? It is getting rather dull you will agree.

On the “interpretation of documents”, well that could be interesting for a little while, but you seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. It is not that a situation, event or document requires interpretation – everything does to some degree, but more if something can be interpreted in more than one way – How do you determine which one is “correct”?

So talking about bumper stickers or forms is just missing the point I think. Now if you want to discuss how we test the different interpretations of the bible I am more than happy to learn from you guys here – this is really my point – care to discuss?

On the evolution issue – well, this I would personally find more interesting and would like to explore it with you as I have asked before.

The reason for my interest to discuss this with you is that you are not a “fundamentalist” YEC nutcase (Oh, and how many times do I need to say that I do not think you are not a fundamentalist? You accuse me of calling you a fundamentalist so many time but I haven’t, not once made this accusation. I may make a comment on some part of the Christian doctrine that you have not expressed any views yet – and since I chose the classical interpretation you may not agree with it. This is not me calling you a “fundie” though – you really have a chip on your shoulder about this for some reason. I’m sorry about that)

You imply I am attacking a straw man on this evolution point, and you would of course be right because you have said nothing on the matter, other than you agree with it. So, again, I have to questioned the “classical” Christian position – I have to until I am told your own.

It also seems that some of my humour is lost in translation again, based on your remark that I am being “snotty” – I do not mean to be, it is just my style - so can we forgive and forget?

Oh, and thanks for the philosophy links – as you can tell I’m not very good at it. I am trying to improve thanks by commenting on blogs that know a lot more than me on the subject. It’s interesting stuff.

Lets skip over the “mere” discussion, since enough has been said already. I think I understand where you are coming from and so we are really only talking about writing styles again and not discussing the argument itself. Lets move on…

On the Jesus, “Son of God” discussion – again lets leave it.

I am interested with those (i.e. ER) who state that Jesus wasn’t Son of God since this is very different position to the classical version of Christianity I was taught.

I know you are not ER, but for some crazy (and invalid) reason I thought you agreed on the important Christian teachings and I thought Jesus being the “Son of God” was one of them – yet again, my mistake.

I guess it all comes down to that interpretation point again I have been making (how do you decide who’s interpretation is right if the beliefs are contradictory – I guess this is how new churches evolve, it is a human thing)

Can Jesus be both the “Son Of God” and not the “Son of God” at the same time? (Probably a False Dichotomy you will tell me) and no doubt Quantum mechanics will save the day anyway with the duality of Jesus (and maybe ER could explain this one to me at a later time) So both you and ER can be right and wrong at the same time – no problem with me. Lets leave this discussion alone as well.


OK… where does that leave us?

To do a little more “fisking” to finish off.

I don't think it's unreasonable to try to pick one point and discuss it. Do you? Perhaps we should start with the interpretation of texts because ironically you appear to be every much of a "literalist" as some fundamentalists I've met. :)

OK, lets this be the one for now (hopefully afterwards we can talk about evolution and Christianity for my education)

How do I test any interpretation of the text to ensure it is correct, especially if two or more seemingly contradictory positions can be found?

Over to you….

Thanks

Lee

PS
Happy Birthday ER... I'm all out of time for now - I'll come back to you comments later, thanks again for them.
 

"How do I test any interpretation of the text to ensure it is correct, especially if two or more seemingly contradictory positions can be found?"

When I figure that out I'll let you know. Clearly no one has figured that out, since there are many interpretations of many sections of the Bible. For example, while Protestants and Catholics agree on a great many things, we also disagree on a great many things.

But I don't really get too hung up on whether or not my interpretation is correct. I think it is, obviously, or I wouldn't hold the beliefs I do. But whether or not someone else's interpretation differs from mine generally doesn't matter to me that much.

So, for example, while I believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin, others believe that's an allegory, and others believe it is simply an attempt by the Gospel writers to "fulfill" predictions made by Jesus in the OT. But as long as they're not out to make me believe what they believe then I can't say I really care. We're not saved by "correct" beliefs anyway, and nearly anyone, even most fundies, would agree with that.

Now, I have plenty of reasons for believing what I believe, and I think that those reason can be backed up with evidence both secular and sacred. But, just as scientific data can often be interpreted in multiple ways, so can religious evidence.

Your question, ""How do I test any interpretation of the text to ensure it is correct, especially if two or more seemingly contradictory positions can be found?" is a great one, and it can be asked of nearly any important text, the US Constitution for example. Liberal Ruth Bader Ginsberg certainly interprets the Constitution different from ultra-conservative Antonin Scalia.
 

Re, from Drlobojo, "When we are reading his (Paul's) letters, his actual letters, then he is not. But when we crosss the line into a narative about Paul, then he becomes a character. In the very same way Jesus is a character of the Gospels."

Yes, I agree. But, I think that, while they had agendas, the writers were doing o more than people today do when they paraphrase someone's thinking in any history (or other) narrative. The "sin" is not theirs, for "making up quotes"; it's *ours* for not accepting that "making up quotes" was not then seen as the violation of narrative writing that it is today; likewise, we're wrong to give such weight to such quotations and exactitude, in fits of "presentitis," to try to find such "accuracy" that the writers never intended!
 

Hi ER,

Re, "(ER said) About 1,700 years of other people agreeing that the other writings were inspired by God in a Big Way, as opposed to my own very real, but personal, belief that I am, in fact, inspired by God. It's not just the authors' alleged claims that make the Bible important, but the fact that many others at who followed them agree. (Lee said) Using this logic the Koran is also true, inspired by God and important. There is a logic fallacy going on here I think."

Never read the Koran. But since I don't worship the Christian Bible, I'm sure not going to worship it. Or denigrate it. It is important, obviously. And I'm sure it has some truth in it. So, where's the fallacy?

The logical fallacy comes in if you used the argument that because many people follow a book it must be true (i.e. inspired by God as you are arguing).

The “holy” book known as the Koran would highlight the errors in this logic, unless of course they are both inspired by God, but then you have the problem that they disagree?

Flavors. Plural. I speak only for myself.

Yep - you are all different in your views about Christianity, and each one of your flavours is different to the one I was exposed to.

It means whatever I argue against, it will probably be a straw man argument for at least someone here. Oh well... plenty of straw where I come from.

Withdrawn. Sub "only God is God; all else is not-God, by definition (assuming God as Creator).

Fair enough – no more mention of a perfect God, erm... it does mean you don’t know much about your God though doesn’t it? Sure you don’t want to be a deist?

RE: This doesn’t tell me much though does it :)

Nope. :-)

I’ll have to explore the bible and see what it has to say about God then I guess... another time.

Re: "I wonder if the universe could be defined as some form of god – probably by some. Though of course this wouldn’t be a theistic God."

Could be. Google "God's Debris" and read it. Free online by Dilbert creator Scott Adams. Very interesting and very cool.

I’ll take a look – though I have read a Scott Adams book once (a Dilbert one of course) and at the end it had some very strange ideas about “wishing” things to happen, a little like the book “the secret” – I hope he is not becoming some crazy nutjob.

Granted. Not a problem if one believes that rationality itself is part of the Creation, therefore a gift from God.

I don’t think I can argue against that, give me time (though I’m thinking the theory of evolution may have something to say about this and so it would be a simpler explanation) – Also, it is a claim on your part and I suppose I would be right in asking for you to show how it must be this way?

Interesting stuff

That begs the question: Belief in theistic gods is irrational? Not necessatrily. In fact, I'd say not even. If survival is the highest aim of man, and if man sees faith in a theistic god as increasing his chance for survival, it is utterly rational to believe so. Maybe wrong in the end. Certainly not irrational.

Good point. (Have you read Dan Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell” by any chance?)

Belief in the irrational may have had a benefit in the past, given some people an evolutional advantage as you rightly point out.

A simple example of this would be the belief in a witchdoctor when his “treatment” is/was the only form of “medication” available.

Someone who truly believes in the treatment will have a better placebo effect than someone who does not believe. If nothing else – it is the belief that is important here for the placebo to work.

However, with my example, you should be able to see this belief has it limits. Today the rational mind (in science) has invented medicines that actually work. Go to your doctor and not only will you get the placebo effect for free but also you will be getting the medicine that has been proven to work.

Belief now in the irrational witch doctor is a disadvantage.

It could be argued that religion may have been an advantage for a race/group of people.

Has religion become a disadvantage today though?

Maybe ask the question again in 10 or 20 years time – a simple example again would be that science is being attacked in America and the rest of the world (if the news is to be believed) and the teaching of evolution especial (due to religious belief) is being affected badly.

I wonder where the next generation of doctors will be coming from, and the next great leap in medicine science, if children are not being taught clearly what is right in science and biology.

An interesting topic, but I am going off on a tangent again – sorry.

Bring me all the evidence and I'll look at it. :-) Hoot.

Of course you will never get “all the evidence” since new evidence can come in at any time to change things.

However no available evidence should be ignored – this is my point. This is why I presented some more “facts”/evidence for you to think about.

Oops. :-)

Is that the start of a Britney song? Hope not.

Re: "It says nothing about God, more about the make-up of mankind. Where I see the behaviour of mankind due to evolutional traits, you see God."

What I see is a dichotomy, straining. The make-up of mankind says oodles about God, as well as evolution.

Did I make a false dichotomy? Wouldn’t be the first time (or the last)

If you take the premise that their truly is a God, then of course the make-up of man says “oodles about God” but it doesn’t prove God.

Evolution is a more interesting point of discussion for me though here.

Evolution is a rather wasteful process that has in it a great deal of suffering – “the survival of the fitness” means you are standing on dead bodies all the way down.

What does this tell you about your God?

Re: there was an almighty God who demands worship – why don’t people believe in the same God and have the same understanding of God? Why does someone have to be told about God and Jesus to believe in Him – should it not be written into the genes using your logic?"

I think it IS written into the genes, although the Scriptures call that "within the heart of man." It's real poetic that way. :-)

OK, nice poetry, but the main points I made above have not been addressed.

People do not know about Jesus unless they are told about him. People don’t think of the one Almighty God unless told about him. If it is written in the genes, it is not read by everybody, and understood differently by those who try.

What makes Christianity is Jesus Christ.

And what can you tell me about Jesus Christ that you did not get from the bible?

If Jesus Christ is so important, why is the history record so very sparse (apart from of course the “holy” writings, but they cannot be used for evidence for themselves. They cannot even agree and the bible, as you know, is a group of books brought together by committee where many books were rejected for no rational reason. No that is wrong, the reason they were selected were that they just so happen to be what they believed in at the time and their sword was bigger)

That should have been "jack shit," not jack shot."

I liked the shot idea... I was thinking of bourbon

Re, "So you can have faith in God and be wrong about God?"

Yes.

That could cause a problem... Why doesn’t God want to be clear about his message? If the penalty for not following God is great, then shouldn’t a loving God have a duty to explain the rules to us? (However, who said God had to be loving?) Sorry, I’ve asked this once before didn’t I – I’m repeating myself again.

The tenet of the faith is that Jesus was/is "without sin." That doesn't mean Jesus was "perfect." In fact, the Bible quotes Jesus himself as protesting when some of his followeres called him perfect, saying there is none perfect "but God in heaven."

That’s interesting – I can accept the “without sin” since this would make the perfect blood sacrifice (back on topic at last)

But didn’t Jesus also say he could forgive sins? I thought only God could do that? (I’m probably wrong again) And what about all those miracles? The bible isn’t saying Jesus was just “without sin” now is it?

Re, "Have I paid enough taxes yet?"

Good start. :-)

I will have to start paying less, I’ve not got the time for all this. It is very interesting and all but my time is disappearing...

You not getting rid of me yet, but my comments have to be shorter.

I'll be back with a response to Alan shortly.

See ya

Lee
 

Re, "According to Paul, he only met Jesus after the crucifixion – do we agree?"

Well. I would say Paul only met Jesus after the Resurrection, which WAS after the Crucifixion, so, yes, we do agree.


Re, "My point being that the Jesus BEFORE the crucifixion isn’t the same Jesus AFTER the crucifixion or am I mistaken again on your views on Christianity and who or what Jesus is/was?"

I'd say that Jesus after the Resurrection, to use a crude example, was the same as before the Resurrection in roughly the same way that a butterfly is the same as a ... larva.

Re, "(ER said) I have no problem with the idea that Jesus was an honest apocalypticist, but was wrong. He sure seemed surprised, and anguished, on the Cross when he prayed for God to stop that madness. (Lee said) Well, if Jesus was wrong, then he cannot be God can he? (Which some Christians believe) A similar point could be made about being “surprised” – this is not all knowing, and so cannot be God."

Well, we have not started a discussion about whether Jesus is/was God."

Re, This is fine, since you have already said Jesus wasn’t “the son of God”, but it leaves the question unanswered to who or what Jesus is/was."

I don't think I said that at all. I did not say Jesus is not the Son of God; I said I accepted the declaration by a fellow Christian that he did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and I declared my own view that the phrae "Son of God" is meaningless jargon for many people. and I confessed that thAT I don't personallly inderstand the claim.

Re, "(ER said_ And, if the Bible were the only evidence for Cristianity, we'd be sunk. But it's not. (Lee said) Well I disagree of course :)

I don't see how.

Re, "(ER said) But Creation itself is testament to God; (Lee said) he argument from design fails I feel – but it would be a long discussion.

Ah, there is only one way that an argument can fail: it fails to convince the one hearing the argument. The fact that you are not convinced really says nothing about the argument's viability or effectiveness, unless one judges arguments *only* by their effectiveness, which is a pretty weak wa to judge an argument, isn't it? I mean, the argument against U.S. slavery was valid long before it became effective.

Re, (ER said) "And the Church itself" ... (Lee said) And what about the mosques or other “holy” buildings that are not Christian?

What about them?? I've said nothing about them.

Re, "Your argument fails again I feel on these facts that you ignore. I would (and have) agued that the only evidence for Christianity is in the past - at the time of the bible. After that? Nothing... if you want to claim “believers” as evidence, I will point you to a billion Muslims – believers in the supernatural is not evidence for Christianity nor evidence for what they believe in."

My "argument" fails you. Not a huge failure. Just one of billions.

Re, "I mentioned before that many people believe in Bigfoot, fairies, alien landings and importantly gods – people believe in many crazy things. (I for one believe there is no god, and you think I am crazy for that :) ... None of this is evidence for Christianity. ... Another time perhaps – we could be getting dizzy again around this mulberry bush."

Then, slow down and think, and just react.


Re, (ER said) "The other day at church, one of the lay leaders (an everyday member who signed up to say a few words), said, among other things, "Now, I don't believe that Jesus was the Son of God," etc., etc. And it shocked by former fundamentalist-leaning sensibilities." (Lee said) And it would shock me if I heard such a statement in a Christian place of worship – it goes against what I thought I understood to be the “Christian belief” – though being wrong is nothing new for me."

Ha. It's a good thing that you think of "being wrong" as an oppotunity to learn.

Re, (ER said) "The lay leader may not believe that Jesus was "the Son of God." Whatever. He is nonetheless trying to follow Jesus's ..." (Lee said) I’ve asked this question above and said I would come back to it – who or what is Jesus then, and what does the resurrection mean? What did it mean to Jesus, what is the difference between Jesus who walked around teaching for 30 years before the crucifixion to the “risen Jesus’ Paul met on his road trip? Basically, what was the difference between Jesus BEFORE the crucifixion and AFTER? It’s confusing – I could handle the idea of “son of God” better, at least I have been taught about this idea at school a long time ago."

I'm not sure. I'm 44, and I've been consciously, daily, working on it for 35 years. And I'm not sure about answers to some of your questions.


Re, "ER said) his clearest teachings, I mean; (Lee said) Which of Jesus’ teachings were unique to him? I pointed out before I think that much of what Jesus said, the good bits on how we should live our lives, the “golden rule” and all that, have been said before by other people."

I don't think I said they were unique. I thonk I meant to suggest that they were worth following.

Re, "This shows then, I think, that Jesus’ teachings in of themselves were not that special. (I mean here the fact that men who did not know God came to the same conclusions not that the ideas themselves where not good.)"

Oh, of course, I think that that actually lends credence to the teachings! LOL! It's not true because Jesus said it; Jesus said it because it's true.

Re, "The teachings of Jesus does NOT prove Christianity (or God)."

What? The teachings of Jesus prove the teachings of Jesus were the teachings that Jesus taught. Jesus taught some things about God; I agree with them. WTH do you think one is supposed to do with Jesus's teachings if one is trying to follow Jesus?

Re, "(ER said) is in fellowship with a bunch of other people who attest to allegiance to Jesus, and he puts his faith to his hands and feet in trying to help others -- all the while trusting in God, the One who is Visibly Absent, yet Invisibly Present, to handle the details. (Lee said) Erm... change the name “Jesus” to “Mohammed” or “Hara Krishna” and this would sound similar to other religions I’ve heard so much about."

Then pick one. Or not.


Re, "Can you see the problem here?"

No.


Re, "(ER) I personally am at battle with anyione who insists that being a Christian is summed up by a list, even a short one, of beliefs! (Lee) There must be something that makes a Christian different to say a Muslim... this would form part of the list you don’t like."

Um, "allegiance to Jesus" is not a list any more than a point is a line.

Re, "(ER) That man is a Christian. There is one "requirement" to "be a Christian" -- allegiance to Jesus, his example, his messages -- as far as we can discern and understand them -- and a lifetime of working that out in one's mind and heart, and working it out through one's hands and feet. (Lee) See, we do have short list that shows the difference between Christian and Muslim – I knew you could do it."

No. Not a list. An item. Not a line. A point.

Re, "his example” – didn’t Jesus tell his followers to leave their family and jobs to follow him, because the world was about to end... is this a good example? Since it didn’t happen, it sound bad."

You're assuming the admonition to leave one's family, etc., was tied to the apocalypticism, and it might have been, buit I don't know that. LOL! Besides thast, if you get hit by a truck and killed tonight, these days will have been your apocalyptic days; Jesus seems to have known that he was gonna meet his end soon, which may have been the source of his apocalyptic world view. Really: Get a diagnosis that your're going to die within 30 days or so and see how "end-of-the=wor;d" your outlook becomes. ...

Re, "his messages” - you have already said Jesus was wrong on at least one important matter and since Jesus never thought it was a good idea to write anything down himself – you do only have hearsay and other peoples interpretations."

Ah, for him to have been wrong about upcoming facts of history has nothing to do with the remarks he made about eternal (or timeless) truth.

Re, "Am I to believe that the creator of the universe, life and rather importantly mankind – does not know how to communicate clearly with his creation?"

Yes. Make a baby. Communicate with him or her.

Re, "So is this lack of communication a limitation on your “perfect” God?"

No. A limitation on us as God's babies.

Re, "So I am clear then, what do you think happens to believers and non-believers of Jesus when they die? (My point being - is there a reason for God to be clear?)"

Not sure. But you have a non sequiter there. What I think happens to people when they did has nothing whatever to do with whether God has "reason" to be clear.

I think that whatever happens to people, it will be good, and the main message of Jesus is to start right now with it, by being good to one another. :-)

But I could be wrong.
 

Re, "The logical fallacy comes in if you used the argument that because many people follow a book it must be true (i.e. inspired by God as you are arguing)."

But I did not. I think I suggested that the fact that many people believe in God is evidence that God exists. Not proof. Come ON!

Re, "The “holy” book known as the Koran would highlight the errors in this logic, unless of course they are both inspired by God, but then you have the problem that they disagree?"

I've never read the Koran. I know nothing about the Koran. Sorry.

Re, "Flavors. Plural. I speak only for myself.

Yep - you are all different in your views about Christianity, and each one of your flavours is different to the one I was exposed to."

Good! Then you really are learning. Excellent.

Re, "It means whatever I argue against, it will probably be a straw man argument for at least someone here. Oh well... plenty of straw where I come from."

Huh? That sounded some kind of grumbling in yer head that should never have gotten to yer typing fingers. ? Do you see that no one is "against" you? .. You might be bored.


Re, "(ER said) Withdrawn. Sub "only God is God; all else is not-God, by definition (assuming God as Creator)." (Lee said) Fair enough – no more mention of a perfect God, erm... it does mean you don’t know much about your God though doesn’t it? Sure you don’t want to be a deist?"

I don't know much, true. Maybe I am a deist. Here's a great question: Was Jesus a deist? One could make such an argument from Scripture.

Re, (ER said) Granted. Not a problem if one believes that rationality itself is part of the Creation, therefore a gift from God. (Lee) I don’t think I can argue against that, give me time (though I’m thinking the theory of evolution may have something to say about this and so it would be a simpler explanation) – Also, it is a claim on your part and I suppose I would be right in asking for you to show how it must be this way?"

Not a claim. A musing. Besides, the assertion that rationality itself is part of Creation, as I have mused, does not nullify the assertion, or claim, or whatever, that rationality is a result of evolution! LOL.


Re, "(ER said) That begs the question: Belief in theistic gods is irrational? Not necessatrily. In fact, I'd say not even. If survival is the highest aim of man, and if man sees faith in a theistic god as increasing his chance for survival, it is utterly rational to believe so. Maybe wrong in the end. Certainly not irrational. (Lee said) Good point. (Have you read Dan ennett’s “Breaking the Spell” by any chance?) (ER: no)

Re, "Belief in the irrational may have had a benefit in the past, given some people an evolutional advantage as you rightly point out. A simple example of this would be the belief in a witchdoctor when his “treatment” is/was the only form of “medication” available. Someone who truly believes in the treatment will have a better placebo effect than someone who does not believe. If nothing else – it is the belief that is important here for the placebo to work. However, with my example, you should be able to see this belief has it limits. Today the rational mind (in science) has invented medicines that actually work. Go to your doctor and not only will you get the placebo effect for free but also you will be getting the medicine that has been proven to work."

Um, belief in the irrational "works" today, too. There are people who hang on to life, when they'dd really rather rive under a gas truck, or jump off a clifff, purely because of their irrational belief that God loves them, that things will be better in the afterlige tjhan they are now, and, irrationally, out of sheer habit. They survive, I mean. Which, again, is the ultimate aim of evolitionary advancement, unless I've missed something fundamental about the survival of species. How ironic, of it turned out that belief in God, in the face of science, wound up being the main selection that caused humankind to progress.


Re, "(ER said) Bring me all the evidence and I'll look at it. :-) Hoot." (Lee said) Of course you will never get “all the evidence” since new evidence can come in at any time to change things. However no available evidence should be ignored – this is my point. This is why I presented some more “facts”/evidence for you to think about."

I'm ignoring nothing. You 've presented nothing I haven't pondered before.


Re: "Evolution is a rather wasteful process that has in it a great deal of suffering – “the survival of the fitness” means you are standing on dead bodies all the way down. What does this tell you about your God?"

Well, it tells me, if I want to be rude, that God can be a real ass, or arse as you probably prefer, by my own standards.


Re: "(ER said) I think it IS written into the genes, although the Scriptures call that "within the heart of man." It's real poetic that way. :-)" (Lee said)K, nice poetry, but the main points I made above have not been addressed."

Bullshit. I've now addressed mops of yer points. For you to dismiss a poetic account is to show yer own bias: You appear to be a science fundamentalist. A want-to-be rationalist. Which mean you're limiting yourself to only certain kind of evidence. Which is to seek to bolster a point, not to seek truth.

Re, "People do not know about Jesus unless they are told about him. People don’t think of the one Almighty God unless told about him. If it is written in the genes, it is not read by everybody, and understood differently by those who try."

A fundamentalist Christian could not have said that better. I disagree with the premises whatever the source.


Re, "(ER) What makes Christianity is Jesus Christ. (Lee) And what can you tell me about Jesus Christ that you did not get from the bible?"

LOL. You are sounding like a fundamentalist Christian again. ... I profess that I have been enveloped in Christ's love and peace whe alone, I profess that His presence at times has been more real to me than your presence now; I profess that I hasve sensed Him laughing at my angst in the same way I dismiss my dogs' desperate diplays of hunger when it's only been a few hours since I fed them last; I profess the awareness of His presence as real as the changes in barometric pressure before either a low-pressure or high-pressure weather system comes through.

Re, "If Jesus Christ is so important, why is the history record so very sparse (apart from of course the “holy” writings, but they cannot be used for evidence for themselves. They cannot even agree and the bible, as you know, is a group of books brought together by committee where many books were rejected for no rational reason. No that is wrong, the reason they were selected were that they just so happen to be what they believed in at the time and their sword was bigger)"

What do you mean the historical record is sparse? Are you serious?


Re, "(Lee said) So you can have faith in God and be wrong about God?" (ER said) Yes. (Lee said) That could cause a problem. (Well, if it's a problem for you, shou;d deal with it. It really is not a problem for me.

Re, "(ER said) The tenet of the faith is that Jesus was/is "without sin." That doesn't mean Jesus was "perfect." In fact, the Bible quotes Jesus himself as protesting when some of his followeres called him perfect, saying there is none perfect "but God in heaven." (Lee said) That’s interesting – I can accept the “without sin” since this would make the perfect blood sacrifice (back on topic at last)"

Exactly.

Re, "But didn’t Jesus also say he could forgive sins? I thought only God could do that?"

Yes. He did. I think the point he was making, actually, is that "forgiveness," if only so many words, was nothing comapared with healing someone by loving them unconditionally. I freely afmit aht that is probably a minority, and perhaps, unorthodox if not heretical vew. But I could be right.

Re, "And what about all those miracles?"

WTH about them? Yes, I'm getting testy again, because you're unloading all your talking points and personal pet peeves and routines, and I'm tired. WHAT ABOUT THE MIRACLES??
 

Hi ER,

Just about to drop in a post for Alan, and I notice a response from yourself.

I've not read the post yet (but thanks again for the reply) just scrolled down to the bottom and saw this...

RE: miracles of Jesus

WTH about them? Yes, I'm getting testy again, because you're unloading all your talking points and personal pet peeves and routines, and I'm tired. WHAT ABOUT THE MIRACLES??

Oops... sorry, I merely was trying to have a discussion but I get carried away sometimes, I don’t mean to raise a hundred questions, but it just happens.

All I was trying to do was question a point you made about Jesus and show that the bible stories make claims that Jesus was more than just a man - the forgiveness of sins and the performance of miracles etc. I guess what I am trying to work out is, in your view, if Jesus isn't/wasn't the son of God - what was he?

Just a quick sentence on the matter – just trying to learn.

Lee
 

Hi Alan,

I’m stuck how best to respond – I want to use the “point-by-point” method so I can be clear which point I am referring to, however I do not want to appear to be “fisking” or whatever it was called.

OK – I’ll try my best to be clear.

interpretation

I think interpretation gets more important depending on what it is that is being discussed (or interpreted)

The law is a fine example – the police are not normally open to ideas about interpretation when you run a red light or are speeding, the interpretation here is rather important – it is clear and not open to debate.
(Though a law can be changed of course, but not just because you ran a red light)

On the other extreme - poetry - and what the author “meant” when he wrote “wandering like a cloud” or whatever, is open to interpretation but not important at all in my view. Whatever is good for the reader is fine... nothing rests on the interpretation.

So with regards to interpretation of the bible, I guess it comes down to how important having the correct “answer” is. The problem here though even this “importance” is open to further interpretation.

An atheist would say it has no importance what so ever – Bible or Koran – both should be read as poetry only – a guide at best.

A Muslim or Christian will of course have a different view.

How could a Christian convince a Muslim that the bible should be considered important, and the Koran is only poetry? (No need to answer, it is just a question to prove a point) That is a challenge – and the fact it is a challenge suggests to me (not that this matters) that whoever wrote the bible was far from perfect since they have left so much open to interpretation.

You made a comparison between Catholic and Protestant.

I could of course mention the all too obvious and point about the history of violence that has occurred since the time of Henry VIII onwards due to these little “interpretation differences” of the bible – all I can say is I’m glad it is not as bad today (though walk the wrong streets in Belfast not so long ago and you have better have the correct bible in your pocket)

However, you have said that you are not too worried about your interpretation of the bible, so long as “they're not out to make me believe what they believe”.

So if people keep their religion to themselves you are happy – at last we can agree on somewhere.

Maybe we should stop here?

‘We're not saved by "correct" beliefs anyway’ is another interesting point made. So how are we “saved”? (and saved from what?)

By our deeds? How would you know this, and what deeds should we perform anyway?

If it is from the bible you got your information, then again it is back to the interpretation of the text – the problem is, can two Christians agree?

Let’s do a very quick test– Please try and answer the question – “What do I need to do to be saved – and saved from what?”

I assume both you and ER will agree but remember you are talking to an idiot like me who has not been raised by the church, so you have to be clear and precise.

Any answer like “follow Jesus” I will have to ask, how do I follow him?
“Love Jesus with all your heart” and I will ask how am I to love him since I’ve never met him – does he like flowers or chocolate? (The wife likes both)

I hope it will not be “Seek and you will find”... riddles are not very helpful and gets me back to the interpretation problem again.

You get the point; Look forward to the answer.

Oh, and your last point about the US Constitution being open to interpretation – again I will point out it was written by man, for man and does not claim to be written by (or inspired by) God – a big difference than the claims of the bible.

Also, if I am not mistaken, the US Constitution can be changed (or have amendments) Are you able to change the bible with amendments in your church?

Cheers

Lee
 

Two points in one comment, but at least you're narrowing things down a bit Lee. :)

On interpretation Lee wrote, "I think interpretation gets more important depending on what it is that is being discussed (or interpreted)"

I think interpretation gets more difficult depending on the importance of what is being written. I also think interpretation is more difficult depending on the genre of the text. Laws are a very different genre from historical texts, which are very different from poetic texts, which are very different from allegorical texts. The Bible, as you surely know, contains all those sorts of texts, written by different authors in different times. It's no surprise to me then that interpretation can be difficult. And, given the importance of the topics: how to live with other people, what is right and wrong, the beauty of creation, the nature of love, political intrigue, international relations ... well, it's hardly surprising that there are multiple interpretations.

"that whoever wrote the bible was far from perfect since they have left so much open to interpretation. "

So? No one here is arguing that God put pen to paper and wrote the Bible out longhand on yellow legal pads. I don't even think the fundies believe that.

I wonder if you have ever written something, say for example, a blog comment, in which you thought you were making a point very clearly, and yet some guy across the planet reading it had no clue whatsoever about what you were writing. :) Whose fault then is the misunderstanding? Yours? His? Both? Or is it not a fault at all? Is it actually a fundamental part of language that symbols and referents do not always match up exactly for each speaker and hearer? Is it a fundamental part of language that everything we hear is interpreted through the lens of our experiences and, since each person is different, we all interpret language differently?

I believe there is no way to communicate in human language that does not require interpretation by the hearer/reader. You see this as imperfect. So? No one here is arguing that humans are perfect, nor that human language is perfect at communicating concepts such as right, wrong, love, death, consciousness.

I guess I'm still not understanding your point. So the Bible requires interpretation ... so what? So does everything else.

In your second point, Lee asks how we are saved: "By our deeds? How would you know this, and what deeds should we perform anyway?" and you ask, "and from what?"

No, we are not saved by our deeds.

We aren't saved by what we do, nor are we saved by believing the correct doctrine. So, the interpretation thing isn't a problem now is it? Nothing we do can save us ... there is no heavenly tote board on which we get gold stars for our good deeds and black marks for our bad deeds and as long as the gold stars outnumber the black marks we go to heaven. Nor is God's great and miraculous mind reading device checking to make sure we believe all the right things on some list somewhere.

Salvation is a gift. We're saved because God wants to save us. See, no riddles. Nothing confusing.

Save us from what? From ourselves.
 

Amen, Alan.

One other note, the U.S. Constitution does refers to Blessings, which at the time were understood to be from God, not just good luck, as is generally the sense that "blessings" has today:

The Preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
 

Errata: Re, "Today the rational mind (in science) has invented medicines that actually work. Go to your doctor and not only will you get the placebo effect for free but also you will be getting the medicine that has been proven to work."

Uh-huh. Do you actually keep up with the news of medicine? Going to a doctor stteped in pharmacology is only slightly removed from going to a shaman. I am astounded that you would make such an assertion.
 

So much is written here over night, I don’t really have the time to respond in the detail I feel I need – I will try but this comment will have to be short, I want to get back to what ER wrote yesterday.

Oh, and sorry for the “fisking” in advance then - time is short :)

Hi Alan,

Two points in one comment, but at least you're narrowing things down a bit Lee. :)

I am trying to change my style based on your responses...
I could of course had made two separate comments with one point in each – it amounts to the same thing.

well, it's hardly surprising that there are multiple interpretations.


I just wish we had a way to know which is right given the level of importance. We are now going around in circles I think... I am obviously not making my argument clear.

I wonder if you have ever written something, say for example, a blog comment, in which you thought you were making a point very clearly, and yet some guy across the planet reading it had no clue whatsoever about what you were writing. :)

BINGO!!! Happens all the time it would appear – see above :)

The big difference though, if I am not being clear in my responses, you could ask me to re-phrase or question me about certain key points.... just like we are doing.

Shame God couldn’t think of that... an appearance from Jesus/God today would be a lot different than 2,000 years ago – more people will believe as a result.

If God wishes to save ourselves from ourselves (or whatever) then maybe God could consider the new media and the scientific method that we have today to evaluate miracle demostrated.

I have already conceded (I thought) your point that everything requires some level of interpretation –I guess I am just not being clear. You have won that point, but it wasn’t one of my making (just me being unclear).

My question was if interpretation gives more than one possible conclusion, how do you determine which is right?

You are interpreting the bible one way or another and you have interpreted every other “holy” text ever written (since you have rejected them all apart from your own) so I am just wondering how you did that? I cannot see how you can do it, and therefore I see interpretation is a problem – a problem a loving God doesn’t have to make. Yet you don’t see the problem, so we are talking in circles around this point.

One last question then on the topic, since for me it is related to the importance of interpretation - How do you convince a believer of another faith (i.e. Muslim) that your interpretation of their text and your own is correct – i.e. they are wrong and you are right? If you still think interpretation isn’t important, why are you not a Muslim or a Jew?

I am repeating myself again... sorry.

Regarding my “2nd point” - “What do I need to do to be saved – and saved from what?”

Your response was:-
No, we are not saved by our deeds.

We aren't saved by what we do, nor are we saved by believing the correct doctrine. So, the interpretation thing isn't a problem now is it? Nothing we do can save us ... there is no heavenly tote board on which we get gold stars for our good deeds and black marks for our bad deeds and as long as the gold stars outnumber the black marks we go to heaven. Nor is God's great and miraculous mind reading device checking to make sure we believe all the right things on some list somewhere.

Salvation is a gift. We're saved because God wants to save us. See, no riddles. Nothing confusing.

Save us from what? From ourselves.


Thank you very much for your reply - I would like to discuss your response in detail later if you like since I feel it is very interesting, however what you wrote wasn’t the point of me raising it, my question was testing whether two Christians agree on important doctrine – I therefore require ER (or another Christian) to comment on this question and your response.

Thanks

Lee
 

Hi ER,

I don’t really want to get into a discussion about the US Constitution; it was a point Alan raised, not me.

I will then try and make this my last comment on the subject – unless you really wish to start a new thread on the matter, though being English by birth and not living in America – I don’t know much about it’s history or, with the greatest respect, have that much interest in it. I probably have as much interest as you have in the Magna Carta of 1215 or the English Civil War of the 1640’s.

Anyway, for the shake of argument...

You wrote:-

the U.S. Constitution does refers to Blessings, which at the time were understood to be from God, not just good luck, as is generally the sense that "blessings" has today:

The document clearly writes “Blessings of Liberty” and NOT Blessings of/from God... I think the writers were being clear on whatever blessing's are, they are not from God but from liberty, whatever that is. (Maybe it is a bit like the phrase “Thanks goodness” just a phrase). The point though is the word “God” could have been included with ease, yet it is missing – you have to ask yourself why? Did they just forget or were they making a point?

Also the preamble states “We the People of the United States” No mention of God again where it could easily have been written if it was deemed important.

OK – that’s my two-cent worth on the subject (isn’t interpretation fun? Lucky for us we can agree we are only talking about a man-made document)

I did a quick google on the subject to see what the “popular” opinion is.

Here’s a couple of links for your reading. Not read them all myself, as I said, it is not my history so I don’t know much about it or have much interest.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

Lee
 

Erm, the links looked like they got cut off.

Here they are again.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/
review/summer97/secular.html

http://www.nobeliefs.com/
Tripoli.htm
 

Eratta 2: Re,"I guess what I am trying to work out is, in your view, if Jesus isn't/wasn't the son of God - what was he?"

Well, I think that saying Jesus was the "Son of God" was a wonderful way for some of the earliest believers to proclaim that Jesus was Divine and, as such, am unusually clear sort of channel to God God's self.

Myself, I lean more these days toward the concept of Christ as the most deliberate expression of the Logos.


What must I do to be saved, you ask.

The stock answer is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

It would be nigh impossible, in my view, for any kind of Christian to answer that very differently. But, figuring out how to do that, day to day, minute by minute, IS the Christian life -- that, and loving God, and others, and ourselves as part of the Creation.

One point, though" "believe" in that sense means "trust" -- and one can do that without having exausted the "evidence."

It's a very radical thing to do, this "trusting" Jesus. It is not, really, for the faint of heart.

It takes balls.
 

Hi ER,

Uh-huh. Do you actually keep up with the news of medicine? Going to a doctor stteped in pharmacology is only slightly removed from going to a shaman. I am astounded that you would make such an assertion.

Well, if I am ill – I will be going to the doctor and not the shaman thanks. :)

Is that keeping up with the news of the progress of medical science for the last 100 years?

Those who chose the shaman over the modern doctor will have an evolutional disadvantage i.e. they will die much earlier and so will their children.

You may want to say “one step removed” but there is a big difference in that step.

You could argue that some witchdoctors might be giving their patients some leaf or weed that happens to have a chemical that actually helps – true, I will concede that point. However much of their treatment in history is more about the placebo effect than actual medical benefits. Hence the power of belief is very important.

That is why I gave the example. Let’s face it; if the shaman’s treatment worked, they could prove it and they will be called the “modern doctor”... they fail the testing.

If you wish to argue this point further, then great – but once again we are off on a tangent. Not that this bothers me in anyway.

Lee
 

Eratta 3: Re, "(since you have rejected them all apart from your own)"

Alan, have you rejected, out of hand, the scriptures and writings of all other religions? I haven't seen you do so. .. I have not, myself. ... Could be that Lee has jumped to a conclusion! LOL
 

Lee, ol' boy, you appear to assume that because some, if not most, Christians believe that God shut up when the Canon was formed that we all do. What of "God is still speaking" -- the slogan, snf the heart and soul, so to speak, of my own denomination, suggests that God is quiet? Nothing.
 

Another point:

You're looking to be convinced by evidence. It will never happen, mainly, in my view, because the Gospel is not something thast one is convinced of. It is something that one is sold on. If you're not sold on it, it says no more about the value or validity of the Gospel that the fact that I could wear myself out trying to get you to agree with me that Dodge trucks rule when you really prefer, say, a Volvo. You just prefer a Volvo.

If you ultimately prefer something instead of Jesus -- even if it's nothing -- it's cool with me. I've shot as straight with you as I know how. It's your call! :-)
 

Hi ER,

Thank you for responding to my question on Jesus – now I just have to work out how it is to mean the same as what Alan believes.

I better start by getting a better understanding of what you wrote first – then I may question Alan if he is open to it.

Well, I think that saying Jesus was the "Son of God" was a wonderful way for some of the earliest believers to proclaim that Jesus was Divine and, as such, am unusually clear sort of channel to God God's self.

OK, I’ll take the short-hand if you like.

You disagree of course with many Christians on the “Son of God” part, but you know this and so let’s ignore that for now. It is clearly not important to you.

So what do you mean by “Jesus was Divine” – do you mean Jesus was God or not? Maybe a part of God? Was Jesus an angel or something? Or a man inspired by God – a prophet perhaps?

I know you must think I am being stupid here, but I just don’t know what you mean – any more than when someone says Jesus was the “Son of God”.

RE: Logos.
The definition I have is:-
Jesus Christ, so named in St John's Gospel, as the word of God, the personification of the wisdom of God, and divine wisdom as the means for human salvation

So Jesus is the word of God? Does this mean that Jesus didn’t actually exist in human form or does it mean something else?

I think I prefer the “Son of God”... at least I know what a son is, and have a bit of an understand what a God is.

You got me all confused again.

What must I do to be saved, you ask.

The stock answer is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

And I had thought both you and Alan would respond this way – yet you didn’t.

Alan stated that it has nothing to do with what you believe or do. I guess I need to dig deeper into what Alan actually meant, but on face value it looks like you differ.

However, this isn’t important, it was not my intention to try and divide you guys, you already know that you differ on many points. Just trying to prove a point. That half of Christianity disagrees with the other half.

I merely wish then to use this as an example – a talking point. (Unless someone can explain how you both believe the same thing?)

Such differences, on key issues, shows to me that being a Christian is different for person to person. (I think you will agree to that?)

Which means each person is interpreting the information from the bible differently; interpreting their feelings differently and have no way to ensure they are correct, why they are correct, and why the other person is wrong.

(Warning: Big leap of faith and logic now...)

This shows to me then that religion, belief in God is a “human thing” since there is little uniformity on the key doctrines/issues which I would have expected IF God existed and it mattered how you follow Him. If it mattered what you believed of course (which Alan has already stated that it doesn’t, so why believe in anything? Go for the religion that has the most tax breaks?)

Your next point regarding “how to do that” is where the "devil in the detail" highlights further my above points.

Oh, and BTW, you also didn’t say what you would be saved from.

Onto your last point...

It's a very radical thing to do, this "trusting" Jesus. It is not, really, for the faint of heart.

It takes balls.

The bible agrees with you on this point... you know of course there is a verse that states if you truly believe in God you can eat poison and survive? That would take balls indeed to test that... (I wonder if this “balls” test is why there are no women priests?)

Quick Google search later...

Jesus said (so Mark tells us)

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe: In My name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into Heaven, and sat at the right hand of God.
And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the Word with signs following. Amen.
Mark 16:16-20

Of course, both you and Alan have said before that the bible can be and is wrong in many parts so no doubt this just another bit of the bible that is just plain wrong. A forgery as I have heard before. Yet it got into the bible some how? If this nonsense got in, what about the rest?

No problems – it isn’t my source of belief, and I think both you and Alan would like to claim it is not the source of your own belief as well – yet neither of you have told me where, if not from the bible, you got to learn about Jesus? How do you know what you should or should not do in the “eyes of the LORD” if not from the bible?

Have to go... I really wanted to address the points you made to me yesterday. This discussion is racing away from me... you have already made further comments.

Cheers

Lee
 

Hi ER,

Alan, have you rejected, out of hand, the scriptures and writings of all other religions? I haven't seen you do so. .. I have not, myself. ... Could be that Lee has jumped to a conclusion! LOL

I did not say “out of hand” but unless you both wish now to call yourselves Muslim and not Christian, you have both rejected the Koran as well as all the other gods that have gone before.

Surely you don’t follow false gods? (I’m sure I read a law about this in the bible somewhere...)

So if you feel I am jumping to conclusions, please explain why I am wrong on my points above.

Thanks

Lee
 

Hello again ER,

I really need to get some lunch, but hey ho.

Lee, ol' boy, you appear to assume that because some, if not most, Christians believe that God shut up when the Canon was formed that we all do.

Surely not another difference in the interpretation?

What of "God is still speaking" -- the slogan, snf the heart and soul, so to speak, of my own denomination, suggests that God is quiet? Nothing.

If God is still talking today, then you will be able to show evidence for divine knowledge given to a believer alive today? (You made the claim, it is testable, so back it up)

So you believe God is still talking? Well I guess if you believe in the power of prayer you will.
(You know this has been tested of course – can you guess the results?)

So ask yourself, which is more likely? God provides no divine knowledge today or God is not talking today? There are more opinions of course, so feel free to insert your solution.

Thanks

Lee
 

Last one before lunch... it has to be.

You're looking to be convinced by evidence.

Don’t we all?

Up until now I have been merely trying to piece together the information (evidence) provided to me on this thread and see if the story/claims make sense of the world around us.

Many of your responses raise further questions either because I didn’t understand or that I required further clarification on some points. Sorry about that :)

I have not been too demanding, I feel, on the evidence front up until now, merely taken what you have already accepted. The difference being though that I am challenging what has been presented. I am a sceptic.

Evidence for me is rather important, but we went down this path the last time I was on your blog when I may have “demanded evidence” too strongly, and so I have not opened up this line of inquiry with any vigour.

I will point out though that we all require evidence in our every day lives, so it is not much of a requirement on my part if I was to ask for it I hope.

It will never happen, mainly, in my view, because the Gospel is not something thast one is convinced of. It is something that one is sold on.

Interesting use of words... “sold on”.

I often use analogies based on the magician or a salesman or a con-man to highlight some points of mine about religion. “Sold on” would be a key part of my argument. It is interesting then that you also use it.

If you're not sold on it, it says no more about the value or validity of the Gospel that the fact that I could wear myself out trying to get you to agree with me that Dodge trucks rule when you really prefer, say, a Volvo. You just prefer a Volvo.

I like the Dodge trucks – they are HUGE, just I cannot afford the petrol.

My personal opinion changes nothing of course – I hope my arguments mean a little more though, but when something is unknown, it is unknown.

Both to the believer and non-believer.

However, make a testable claim and the test fails, I personally would accept the results of that test.

If you ultimately prefer something instead of Jesus -- even if it's nothing -- it's cool with me. I've shot as straight with you as I know how. It's your call! :-)

Thanks.

I think you know which side of the fence I am on :)

I would love there to be an all-powerful and all-loving God with a heaven for everyone... just I don’t see any evidence for it – either empirically or logically.

So I will only believe in what I have good reason to believe in.

No matter how hard I look, I cannot see good evidence or good reason in any theistic religion. (And yes, I did say "good", and I know that means I am rejecting some evidence as being "bad")

We both try and do the best that we can in the life that we lead, and do a little “good” when and where we can.

If you are happy for me to going down my path, I have no problem with your path.

I only “dislike” religion when it interferes with other peoples beliefs, and affects other peoples lives. I think we can both agree on that?

You know I’m not here to convert anyone (that would be impossible on a blog anyway), but I do like a good discussion – which I hope you agree is what we have been doing these past few days.

If this is rounding up our conversation here – that is cool with me. It’s been fun.

If you want (or feel like) further discussions on religion, you could always pop over to the blog where you found me last – it could do with a good theist to debate with. They never hang around for long – get bored I guess.

Thanks once again for the invite back to your blog.

See ya for now... it really is lunch time – I have to buy a mother’s day card.

Lee
 

Too much to go into but I'll address a couple things:

"Of course, both you and Alan have said before that the bible can be and is wrong in many parts"

I'm not sure I actually said that.

" How do you convince a believer of another faith (i.e. Muslim) that your interpretation of their text and your own is correct – i.e. they are wrong and you are right?"

Why would I want to do that?

"Just trying to prove a point. That half of Christianity disagrees with the other half."

That's a point? If so I'd say it's an incredibly weak one, and you didn't have to prove it to us...we already knew it. In fact, anyone who is aware that there are Catholics in the world as well as Protestants would know that. It's sort of like trying to prove that oxygen is necessary for human life. I suppose you could prove that if you wanted to, but I already believe it. Big deal.

"This shows to me then that religion, belief in God is a “human thing” "

Um...well, yeah. But I wouldn't confuse religion with "belief in God." Two completely different things in my mind. But why would it be a problem for religion to be a human thing? Are humans bad? Wouldn't it be amusing if this Christian has a higher view of humanity than the humanist? Actually, now that I think about it, it wouldn't surprise me at all. :)

"I will point out though that we all require evidence in our every day lives"

Actually I believe most people do not make evidence-based decisions. If they did there would be no overweight doctors who smoke. ;)
 

"How do you convince a believer of another faith (i.e. Muslim) that your interpretation of their text and your own is correct – i.e. they are wrong and you are right?"

As I think more about this question, I think it exposes an enormous difference between us Lee. Or at least what I perceive to be an enormous difference, based on what and how you write.

You want to debate, prove, convince. I'm not interested in any of that. I don't need to prove to people that I'm right. I don't really sit up late at night thinking, "Oh my God, somewhere, someone is writing something wrong on the internets! I must correct them!"

Meh. Who cares? Either I'm not so insecure as to need some sort of external validation that I'm right, or I'm not so faithless as to believe that God won't do something if He wants to, or I'm not so naive to believe that I can convince anyone. Or, I just don't really care. Call me a jerk, but my monkey-sphere* is full, so trying to convince some complete stranger that they're wrong about something that in no way affects me seems like a waste of time -- especially when that very same stranger couldn't care less about me either.

I'd rather be watching LOST.

That doesn't mean I don't engage in debates. I'm more than happy to open a can of whup-*ss on some fundie nutjob Bibliolater who dares tell me that I'm not a Christian and I've done so several times. But in those cases, I'm still sure that I'm not going to convince them of anything. More like putting them on notice that they don't get to spread their lies without people hearing the other side. They hate that sort of light.



*Note: for info on the term "Monkey-sphere" see:

http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html
 

Howdy, Lee:

Re, "You disagree of course with many Christians on the “Son of God” part, but you know this and so let’s ignore that for now. It is clearly not important to you.

Well, I disagree only with those who say that I must agree that Jesus is the "Son of God," but mainly because the phrase is unclear. In fact, it doesn't make sense to say on one hand athat jesus is Jesus, but that Jesus is God, yet that Jesus is the Son of God. As I said, I just thionk it's a an attempt to state something profound about Jesus's relationship to God the Father-Mother-Creator. I do not disagree with the idea, just the choice of words, and that not much. BUt it IS important.

"So what do you mean by “Jesus was Divine” – do you mean Jesus was God or not? Maybe a part of God? Was Jesus an angel or something? Or a man inspired by God – a prophet perhaps?"

My answer is a mix of "yes," and "I don't know." Also, a mix of the following basic dictionaty definitions of "divine":

""the unmerited love and favor of God toward mankind
divine influence acting in a person to make the person pure, morally strong, etc.

the condition of a person brought to God's favor through this influence

a special virtue, gift, or help given to a person by God

of or like God or a god

given or inspired by God; holy; sacred

devoted to God; religious; sacrosanct

having to do with theology

supremely great, good, etc.


RE: "Logos.
The definition I have is:-
Jesus Christ, so named in St John's Gospel, as the word of God, the personification of the wisdom of God, and divine wisdom as the means for human salvation ...
So Jesus is the word of God? Does this mean that Jesus didn’t actually exist in human form or does it mean something else?"

Yes, Jesus is the "Word of God." Sophia, in certain strains of the Jewish tradition. "Logos" in Greek, and in strains of the Greel tradition. And, but of course, Jesus did not exist in human form until he existed in human form.


Re, "I think I prefer the “Son of God”... at least I know what a son is, and have a bit of an understand what a God is."

Work on it.


Re, "(ER said) What must I do to be saved, you ask. The stock answer is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." (Lee said) And I had thought both you and Alan would respond this way – yet you didn’t. (ER said) Silly of you to think that, but I understand why you did."


Re, "Alan stated that it has nothing to do with what you believe or do. I guess I need to dig deeper into what Alan actually meant, but on face value it looks like you differ. ... However, this isn’t important, it was not my intention to try and divide you guys, you already know that you differ on many points. Just trying to prove a point."

Not divided. Point unproven. Hey, we're all doing this in a hurry.


Re, "That half of Christianity disagrees with the other half."

No shit. It's worse than that. I'd say that most Christians disagree with nost other Christians. Your point being? I'd also say that most Americans disagree with most other Americans on ... well, most everthing .. except one fine point: We're all Americans. This expectation of agreement boggles my mind.


Re, "Bbeing a Christian is different for person to person. (I think you will agree to that?) ... Which means each person is interpreting the information from the bible differently; interpreting their feelings differently and have no way to ensure they are correct, why they are correct, and why the other person is wrong."

I would agree with that. Manby other Christians would not.


Re, "(Warning: Big leap of faith and logic now...) ... This shows to me then that religion, belief in God is a “human thing” since there is little uniformity on the key doctrines/issues which I would have expected IF God existed and it mattered how you follow Him. If it mattered what you believed of course (which Alan has already stated that it doesn’t, so why believe in anything? Go for the religion that has the most tax breaks?)"

That is not an unrational conclusion.


Re, "Oh, and BTW, you also didn’t say what you would be saved from."

Oh, I had previously said "Amen" to Alan on this point, which, among other things, means "I agree." Sorry I didn't make it explicit. I would, however, add that we are saved from separation from our Creator, but I am almost positive that Alan meant that, too, since, I think he and I agree that in this discussion there are really only two selves: God and our own. So, to say that we are saved FROM our ourselves means that we are saved TO God.


Re, "Quick Google search later ...
Jesus said (so Mark tells us) .. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe: In My name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." ... So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into Heaven, and sat at the right hand of God.
And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the Word with signs following. Amen.
Mark 16:16-20 ... (Lee again) Of course, both you and Alan have said before that the bible can be and is wrong in many parts so no doubt this just another bit of the bible that is just plain wrong. A forgery as I have heard before. Yet it got into the bible some how? If this nonsense got in, what about the rest?"

I am not prepared to say that that is wrong. I was no there. The writer wrote to a certain people in a certain circumstance. I'll make the same point with you that I make with other fundamentalists: The writings i the Bible were written to, and for, specific people in specific circumstaances; most of the writings in the Bible were not written for me, or to me, in, in suburban Oklahoma City in 2008. It cracks me up that you, and Christian fundies, want to either hold the Bible out as something to be venerated to the point of worship (idolatry), or dismiss it entirely.


Re, "No problems – it isn’t my source of belief, and I think both you and Alan would like to claim it is not the source of your own belief as well – yet neither of you have told me where, if not from the bible, you got to learn about Jesus? How do you know what you should or should not do in the “eyes of the LORD” if not from the bible?"

"Do" has nothing to do with it, I'd say, because there is nothing we can "do" to ne saved -- and theree is nothing we can fail to do that will have us damned. These dichotomies of yours are tiresome, and they reflect a lack of deep thinking on these things (not to be too rude, just a little, ha.)

Re, "This discussion is racing away from me... you have already made further comments."

Then, RUN.
 

Re, "(ER said) Alan, have you rejected, out of hand, the scriptures and writings of all other religions? I haven't seen you do so. .. I have not, myself. ... Could be that Lee has jumped to a conclusion! LOL (Lee said) I did not say “out of hand” but unless you both wish now to call yourselves Muslim and not Christian, you have both rejected the Koran as well as all the other gods that have gone before. Surely you don’t follow false gods? (I’m sure I read a law about this in the bible somewhere...)"

Conclusions are being jumped like grasshoppers!


Hoo hoo!

Here is something I adhere to:

xxx

Walking fully in the path of Jesus, without denying the legitimacy of other paths God may provide humanity;

Matthew 11:28-29; John 8:12; John 10:16; Mark 9:40

As Christians, we find spiritual awakening, challenge, growth, and fulfillment in Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection. While we have accepted the Path of Jesus as our Path, we do not deny the legitimacy of other paths God may provide humanity. Where possible, we seek lively dialog with those of other faiths for mutual benefit and fellowship.

We affirm that the Path of Jesus is found wherever love of God, neighbor, and self are practiced together. Whether or not the path bears the name of Jesus, such paths bear the identity of Christ.

We confess that we have stepped away from Christ’s Path whenever we have failed to practice love of God, neighbor, and self, or have claimed Christianity is the only way, even as we claim it to be our way.
xxx

NOw, most fundies and traditionalist Christians disagree with that. Too bad.

For more on the "Phoenix Affirmations" go here:

http://www.crosswalkamerica.org/?tabid=56
 

Re, "(ER said) What of "God is still speaking" -- the slogan, snf the heart and soul, so to speak, of my own denomination, suggests that God is quiet? Nothing. (Lee said) If God is still talking today, then you will be able to show evidence for divine knowledge given to a believer alive today? (You made the claim, it is testable, so back it up)"

My testimony is evidence, which you continue to confuse with "proof." It's up to you to decide whether my testimony is credible -- and I admit that it's not, not without divine intervention (but I secretly believe that the brush against yout face that you feel, but don't feel, are startled by, but then dismiss as the breeze, is God God's self whispering to you, "Keep asking. Keep asking even if you're pretending. Keep coming to yoir conclusions. Perservere in your fight. Keep messing with Me. You are you, and, as such, you are mine already. Ha."


Re, "So you believe God is still talking? Well I guess if you believe in the power of prayer you will. (You know this has been tested of course – can you guess the results?)"


You are being too literal again.

:-)
 

So this thread isn't dead yet?

Excellent - just need time to response to everything.

I'll respond to Alan quickly first before reading ER's post.

+++++++

Hi Alan,

A few bullet points if I may to yours.

RE: "Of course, both you and Alan have said before that the bible can be and is wrong in many parts"

I'm not sure I actually said that.

Then I apologise – I thought both you and ER were “happy” that the bible was written by men (although inspired by God of course) and that men make mistakes.

So do you agree with the Mark 16:16-20 I quoted? Many think it is a “forgery” – added later and that Jesus never said it. Is this an example of a bible mistake and hence wrong?

RE: "Just trying to prove a point. That half of Christianity disagrees with the other half."

That's a point? If so I'd say it's an incredibly weak one, and you didn't have to prove it to us...we already knew it.

Didn’t I say just that in my original comment? We are agreeing with each other again – no argument here.

The point was to have an example that could be discussed. I did go on and make an argument based upon it as you know.

RE: "How do you convince a believer of another faith (i.e. Muslim) that your interpretation of their text and your own is correct – i.e. they are wrong and you are right?"

Why would I want to do that?

This would depend if you wanted to show to yourself that what you believe is true. It is a personal choice thing I guess.

My reason for raising the question is that I think you cannot do it (without a very large stick.)

Yet if the bible and Christianity is true – you should be able to do it I would have thought (and hoped).

If you think I am wrong here, then please explain why.

I feel your failure (if that was the outcome) would show that Christianity isn’t based on evidence but mainly faith – and the problem with faith is that a person can come to completely different conclusions that cannot be rationally argued against.

This is why there are both Muslims and Christians in the world – faith is not a good method to determine “truth”, if it was surely everyone would believe in the One True God.

I suppose if you like you could try and argue that both Muslims and Christians believe in the same thing (God?) yet since they clearly disagree on so much you would have a problem convincing a Christian that they are really a Muslim and vice versa. Which is again, was my point.

RE: "I will point out though that we all require evidence in our every day lives"

Actually I believe most people do not make evidence-based decisions. If they did there would be no overweight doctors who smoke. ;)

I think there is a logical fallacy happening again here.

If there was an overweight doctor who smoked it would not prove my argument wrong - you could have shown a person who has chosen to ignore the evidence that smoking is bad for your health for some reason (which I would claim would be evidence based again).

Maybe this doctor “knows” (via some form of evidence it is assumed) that there is a heaven and since he believes God never said it was a sin to be overweight or a smoker continues with the pleasures of rich food and Cuban cigars.

So what has your point proven again? Evidence is still used. (I never said it was good evidence, or the “right” decision was made based on the evidence)

I could make a similar argument for an atheist doctor choosing, based on the evidence of no after life – that you might as well enjoy this life. Evidence again.

Though you may have a point that I should “tone down” my original comment though, maybe to say that I believe most people use evidence in their every day lives in making their decision.
(How good the evidence is of course we could debate)

Is that better?

You want to debate, prove, convince.

You would be right, but I am only trying to convince myself – not others. I’m not preaching to anyone – just talking.

I want to make sure that I am not deluding myself.

That doesn't mean I don't engage in debates. I'm more than happy to open a can of whup-*ss on some fundie nutjob Bibliolater who dares tell me that I'm not a Christian and I've done so several times. But in those cases, I'm still sure that I'm not going to convince them of anything. More like putting them on notice that they don't get to spread their lies without people hearing the other side. They hate that sort of light.

We might not be very different you and I.

Phew... need to take a break.

Back later.

Lee
 

Re, "(ER said) You're looking to be convinced by evidence. (Lee said) Don’t we all?"

What? No. Hell no. LOLOL. You have been presented with loads of evidence. But you remain unconvinced. It happens all the time, you know. Juries are crazy about ignoring the best evidence and coming to their own conclusions -- and that, really,is what this discussion, such as it is, is all about. Whether you accept the evidence, I and others, are presenting. You are free to reject it.

Re, "Up until now I have been merely trying to piece together the information (evidence) provided to me on this thread and see if the story/claims make sense of the world around us."


Hmmm. Whether it all makes sense is an interesting way to look at it.

Re, "I have not been too demanding, I feel, on the evidence front up until now, merely taken what you have already accepted. The difference being though that I am challenging what has been presented. I am a sceptic."

As am I. I am extremely skeptical of the motives of one who holds himself out as an atheist, or a nonbeliever, and yet seems to give a damn about any of this.


Re, "Evidence for me is rather important, but we went down this path the last time I was on your blog when I may have “demanded evidence” too strongly, and so I have not opened up this line of inquiry with any vigour. I will point out though that we all require evidence in our every day lives, so it is not much of a requirement on my part if I was to ask for it I hope."

As I said, I, and we, are presenting evidence, yet you reject is. If you're confident in that, then, by all means, rock on, dude.


Re, (ER said, about someone being "convinced" by the Gospel) It will never happen, mainly, in my view, because the Gospel is not something thast one is convinced of. It is something that one is sold on. (Lee said) Interesting use of words... “sold on”. I often use analogies based on the magician or a salesman or a con-man to highlight some points of mine about religion. “Sold on” would be a key part of my argument. It is interesting then that you also use it."

Ooooh, there is a fine, fine line between being a good salesman and being a bullshit artist, I agree.


Re, "Make a testable claim and the test fails, I personally would accept the results of that test."

Hmmm. I didn't mean to make a testable claim. If I did, I hereby withdraw it.
 

Hey, Lee! Are you going to respond to my new post, which even calls you out in the headline, or not?

There is a reading assignment. And it's fairly lengthy, for teh Internets.

But come on. Don't be a puss. :-)
 

Hi ER,

Hey, Lee! Are you going to respond to my new post, which even calls you out in the headline, or not?

Shit - I didn't see it because I have this thread as a favorite so jump right here.

Sorry about that... OK, I'll take a look.

Lee
 

"This would depend if you wanted to show to yourself that what you believe is true. It is a personal choice thing I guess."

And why would I be so concerned about someone else's opinion? Seriously, I'm not getting this point at all. You're saying that it is necessary that I rely on someone else to tell me whether what I believe is true or not? You're joking, right?

"Yet if the bible and Christianity is true – you should be able to do it I would have thought (and hoped). "

Again, you haven't answered WHY I would want to do that.

And of course you realize that, applying that same standard to your claim, that God does not exist seems to put you in an interesting situation. That is, if that claim were true, then I'd say your inability to demonstrate to me that your beliefs are correct is supposedly (according to your argument anyway) evidence that your beliefs are not correct.

So either a) your beliefs are wrong, b) you're terrible at convincing me of something, or c) your claim that if more people believe it, it must be true is illogical. I'll take Option C. ;)

But again, just to emphasize, you haven't provided any reason why I would be motivated to prove to a Muslim or Jew that I'm right. (Nor have you convinced me why I must believe that I'm right about everything I believe. I think I'm right, that doesn't mean that I am, now does it?)

You've provided possible motivations of why you seem to have a need to convince people that they're wrong, but none that I find convincing. Keep trying though. :)

"This is why there are both Muslims and Christians in the world – faith is not a good method to determine “truth”, if it was surely everyone would believe in the One True God. "

Did anyone here make that argument, other than you? Not that I saw.

Basically this is just a continuation of your logical fallacy above: that people automatically believe the truth when they hear it. ROFL. Again, you're joking right? Your inability to convince me of "the truth" as you see it pretty much puts a big ol' coffin nail in that argument. :) (The entire Bush Administration puts another one in there...)

"I believe most people use evidence in their every day lives in making their decision. "

You believe that. I think there is very, very little evidence of it. And they certainly don't seem to rely on evidence in many of their most important decisions.

"If there was an overweight doctor who smoked it would not prove my argument wrong - you could have shown a person who has chosen to ignore the evidence that smoking is bad for your health for some reason (which I would claim would be evidence based again).

Um...duh. Obviously they're ignoring the evidence, refuting your claim that people make evidence-based decisions.

"Maybe this doctor “knows” (via some form of evidence it is assumed) that there is a heaven and since he believes God never said it was a sin to be overweight or a smoker continues with the pleasures of rich food and Cuban cigars."

LOL. I have to say Lee, that for someone who claims to argue rationally, using evidence, you certainly do an abominable job of it. LOL

Let me explain... In this day and age, most doctors have been well informed of the clinical studies which demonstrate conclusively that smoking is harmful. It's about as clear as science can be, which is to say, not 100%, but pretty dang close. In addition, many doctors have probably had personal experience seeing first hand the effects of smoking on their patients. The same is true for obesity. Believe it or not Lee, there is actually plenty of good peer-reviewed clinical evidence that smoking and obesity are bad for you. And yet, there is out there, some proportion of doctors who ignore all that evidence, evidence THAT THEY KNOW BETTER THAN ANYONE, and they continue to smoke, continue to overeat.

It is one example of a way in which otherwise completely rational, educated people do not make evidence based decisions.

It's an example, Lee. Much like the analogy I used before that you also didn't seem to get. Are you really that literal about everything? :) I could give about a zillion more examples, but as always, you ignore any evidence you don't agree with. :) Because you're no different than anyone else. Like most people, you don't make evidence-based decisions either. You use evidence when it suits you, ignore it when it doesn't. That's fine, it's not a criticism, because I'm sure I do the same thing. The only difference is that I recognize that I do it too. ROFL
 

Yay! I got the 100th comment! w00t!
 

BTW, Lee... Just to provide some evidence that people do not make evidence-based decisions consider:

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/why-superstition-is-logical/index.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

You may also want to look at the work of a rather famous guy named Stanley Milgram.

See? Actual studies to support my claim. Even you've gotta love that. ;)
 

Hi Alan,

Thanks for the comments - I've got two busy threads to debate on now thanks to ER opening a new thread just for me.

I will really have to learn how to be brief on both and not write my usual essays and this means the point by point style has to used – sorry.

First I better read you comments then pick the low hanging fruit - hope you don't mind :)

Back later.

Lee
 

Hi ER,

Just read your “recent” comments, since I would to explore your new thread you created for me a little more, I will have to be brief, which means I am not going to have time to comment on every point, if you think I missed something important – just tell me, and I will go back to it.

Of course by me not replying to a comment does not mean I agree or disagree with your comment – just that I don’t have time to comment further myself. The same can be said for all of us here so I know we can agree to that :)

RE: Mark 16:16-20

I am not prepared to say that that is wrong. I was no there. The writer wrote to a certain people in a certain circumstance.

Well, since it was said by Jesus (according to the bible) you could test it – eat some poison. It will test your faith on what Jesus said which is the point of the verse isn’t it?

If you don’t believe in the verse, then you either don’t have faith in the bible or Jesus I think or I don’t understand the passage, don’t suppose you could explain it to me :)

I'll make the same point with you that I make with other fundamentalists: The writings i[n] the Bible were written to, and for, specific people in specific circumstaances; most of the writings in the Bible were not written for me, or to me, in, in suburban Oklahoma City in 2008. It cracks me up that you, and Christian fundies, want to either hold the Bible out as something to be venerated to the point of worship (idolatry), or dismiss it entirely.

Firstly, I don’t dismiss it entirely, just the bits that are questionable and have not been proven :)

Of course I don’t take the bible literally (Well, no more literal than Harry Potter) – I reject most of the bible as you know as wishful thinking or mere delusion on the part of the writers – however I do wonder why you don’t take it literally or reject it like me? You most therefore know some verse or passage that explains why certain bible verses are to be taken as metaphor and others as fact?

I once heard a Christian explain in a podcast lecture why Genesis 1 and 2 should be taken as metaphor and not fact.

The reasoning, paraphrased by me, was that it was so “obviously” wrong according to modern science that it HAS to be a metaphor simply because it is wrong and God could have made the passage perfect if he wanted to, but choose to be misleading for some reason. (Similar arguments were made for the flat Earth described in the bible.)

It made no sense to me...

My question is where in the bible does it say that it was just a metaphor? For 1500 years and more, before science came along, God was happy for us to believe this nonsense, this untruth – why? God not proud of His creation?

The bible being wrong is not evidence of God being clever, wrong is wrong. Also, if it was to be a metaphor, why could it be closer to the truth that science shows?

BTW My question about Original Sin and evolution is still unanswered which isn’t unrelated to my point here.

If Genesis is just a metaphor, what about Original Sin and the reason why Jesus/God had to die on the cross for our sins – the ultimate blood sacrifice and all that.

This is why I don’t believe Jesus and his original followers thought Genesis was just a myth or just a metaphor – they truly believed it as fact. Maybe this isn’t a problem for you, but it confuses the hell out of me.

These dichotomies of yours are tiresome, and they reflect a lack of deep thinking on these things (not to be too rude, just a little, ha.)

Fair enough let’s move on, but I am trying to think, this is why I am talking to you guys here.

Conclusions are being jumped like grasshoppers!

I would like to say assumptions, not conclusions - and when I am wrong, just tell me why... then I will change my assumptions to fit the facts better.

While we have accepted the Path of Jesus as our Path, we do not deny the legitimacy of other paths God may provide humanity.

OK, but I thought the Christian says the “only” way is to believe in Jesus... my mistake.

We confess that we have stepped away from Christ’s Path whenever we have failed to practice love of God, neighbor, and self, or have claimed Christianity is the only way, even as we claim it to be our way.

Interesting stuff, and as you said most “traditionalist Christians” would disagree, so I wonder, of course, how you know they are wrong and you are right? Does it matter if you are wrong? (A reoccurring question)

RE: If God is still talking today, then you will be able to show evidence for divine knowledge given to a believer alive today? (You made the claim, it is testable, so back it up)

My testimony is evidence, which you continue to confuse with "proof." It's up to you to decide whether my testimony is credible -- and I admit that it's not, not without divine intervention

Evidence for what should be the question... and yes, without divine knowledge it isn’t evidence for anything but the wisdom and dreams of a fellow human being.

but I secretly believe that the brush against yout face that you feel, but don't feel, are startled by, but then dismiss as the breeze, is God God's self whispering to you, "Keep asking. Keep asking even if you're pretending. Keep coming to yoir conclusions. Perservere in your fight. Keep messing with Me. You are you, and, as such, you are mine already. Ha."

I thought it was the forest fairy that brushes your cheek?

Seriously though, you are seeing evidence and interpreting to mean what you what it to mean.

It is as if you are hearing the thunder and saying it is evidence for God moving his furniture around (that is what my mother use to tell me anyway)

Another example would be that a lot of people look up in the night sky and see an alien invasion fleet... others see the planet Venus low against the horizon.

How do we test who is closer to the truth?

This is why I am questioning and looking at the evidence.

You say I am ignoring your evidence, untrue, I am merely testing your evidence. The same way you would test my evidence if I made the claim I have 3 magic beans I wanted to sell you for $100,000 :)

Re, "(ER said) You're looking to be convinced by evidence. (Lee said) Don’t we all?"

What? No. Hell no. LOLOL. You have been presented with loads of evidence. But you remain unconvinced.

See above :)

It happens all the time, you know. Juries are crazy about ignoring the best evidence and coming to their own conclusions -- and that, really,is what this discussion, such as it is, is all about. Whether you accept the evidence, I and others, are presenting. You are free to reject it.

Yep...

As am I. I am extremely skeptical of the motives of one who holds himself out as an atheist, or a nonbeliever, and yet seems to give a damn about any of this.

Sceptical is good.

My motives? I have explained this already. It is a personal interest in trying to find the truth (or as close to it as possible in this rather complex universe)

I also find discussions and debates interesting - plus I like learning about science, history and philosophy along the way – all of which have been improved while I have been debating this topic of religion on blogs like this.

What other motive could I have? To try and convert you? To what and why?

I think we both agree that a person should be free to believe whatever they like so long as it doesn’t affect anybody else’s beliefs.

If you think that by discussing my views here I am affecting your right to have your own beliefs, then I will stop talking – I only converse with those who want to talk and think.

Your beliefs about Christianity seem like a rather good form of Christianity – you don’t accept the bible just because someone tells you that the bible is true – this is good - I wish more people had your ideas from what little I have learnt of them, unlike the fundies, who are trying to stop evolution being taught in schools – this is an example of the type of interference I dislike. I hope you can convert these people to your way of thinking :)

Hmmm. I didn't mean to make a testable claim. If I did, I hereby withdraw it.

I’m not sure that you did, you are being careful about that... as this comment shows :)

Phew... I’m done.

Just Alan’s comment to respond to now.

So much for being brief?

Lee
 

Hi Alan,

Thanks again for your responses, how do any of us find the time?

Glad you do though.

RE: "This would depend if you wanted to show to yourself that what you believe is true. It is a personal choice thing I guess."

And why would I be so concerned about someone else's opinion? Seriously, I'm not getting this point at all.

I said “show to yourself”... I think this is the point you are missing.

It is not about convincing others or having a concern what other people opinions are – I am talking about a way to test your own beliefs.

And of course you realize that, applying that same standard to your claim, that God does not exist seems to put you in an interesting situation.

My “claim” is a simple one... there are as much reason and evidence to believe in the Christian God as the Muslim God, as Zeus, as Woden, as the invisible blue unicorn etc etc.

That is, if that claim were true, then I'd say your inability to demonstrate to me that your beliefs are correct is supposedly (according to your argument anyway) evidence that your beliefs are not correct.

I cannot demonstrate that any of the gods I mentioned exist or that they don’t – this is the point.

Given the choice of 1,000 gods that their believer’s claim is the “One True God” - I select the one that can prove itself over the others or none at all.

If the Christian cannot show their God is “more right” than the Muslim God – then I do not chose the Christian God – there is no reason too is there?

Also, lets not forget, I can investigate the likelihood of a god by testing any claims made by the followers. If they do not pass close inspection – i.e. no good evidence FOR the claim, or that there are evidence AGAINST the claim – then it suggests that the person’s god doesn’t exist and they are as deluded as the believers in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and alien landings.

BTW - Do you make any claims about your God?

If you don’t, then no problem, I’m sure your church does :)

So either a) your beliefs are wrong, b) you're terrible at convincing me of something, or c) your claim that if more people believe it, it must be true is illogical. I'll take Option C. ;)

You forgot d) All of the above

Oh, and when have I said c) ?

The majority could hold the correct view or they may not. However it isn’t the fact that it is a majority opinion that would make it right. This would be a logical fallacy if such a claim was made. You know this.

But again, just to emphasize, you haven't provided any reason why I would be motivated to prove to a Muslim or Jew that I'm right.

I’m not here to convince you of that – it is up to you to perform that test for yourself and for your own reasons (or not if you like)

As for motivation, well... you might not want to try it, since it may cause a problem in your faith in Jesus Christ – and I’m not sure if you are suppose to test your faith and God.

The reason I think you will have a problem is that you will not be able to make a good argument for your Christian God over Muslim. If you could, if such an argument existed – why would all these different religions exist? After 2,000 years people are still debating.

So, if you cannot give good reasons for your belief, then it is good reason to doubt your belief.

You've provided possible motivations of why you seem to have a need to convince people that they're wrong, but none that I find convincing. Keep trying though. :)

A need? Interesting... I just like the conversation. I commented to ER about people being free to believe what they like – I will not repeat myself more than I have. I am merely arguing my position, just like you are of yours. It is fun learning I find.

RE: "This is why there are both Muslims and Christians in the world – faith is not a good method to determine “truth”, if it was surely everyone would believe in the One True God. "

Did anyone here make that argument, other than you? Not that I saw.

Correct – I was making a statement that you are free to challenge :)

Basically this is just a continuation of your logical fallacy above: that people automatically believe the truth when they hear it.

I made a logical fallacy?

Can you quote my words please so I can correct myself?

We are all rushing to type something, so I could have easily have made a mistake.

If I made a logical fallacy, I will of course retract it.

RE: "I believe most people use evidence in their every day lives in making their decision. "

You believe that. I think there is very, very little evidence of it. And they certainly don't seem to rely on evidence in many of their most important decisions.

Maybe you right... I could be won over on this point :)

Um...duh. Obviously they're ignoring the evidence, refuting your claim that people make evidence-based decisions.
I was poor with my English – my point is they are not ignoring the evidence, but putting my value to one form of evidence than another.

LOL. I have to say Lee, that for someone who claims to argue rationally, using evidence, you certainly do an abominable job of it. LOL

I don’t remember making that precise claim – I do try and argue “rationally using evidence”, but nobody is perfect I am told :)

Let me explain... In this day and age, most doctors have been well informed of the clinical studies which demonstrate conclusively that smoking is harmful. It's about as clear as science can be, which is to say, not 100%, but pretty dang close. In addition, many doctors have probably had personal experience seeing first hand the effects of smoking on their patients. The same is true for obesity. Believe it or not Lee, there is actually plenty of good peer-reviewed clinical evidence that smoking and obesity are bad for you

Agreed – I never said otherwise :)

And yet, there is out there, some proportion of doctors who ignore all that evidence, evidence THAT THEY KNOW BETTER THAN ANYONE, and they continue to smoke, continue to overeat.

My challenge was merely that some may not be ignoring the evidence as you put it, but are “weighing up” the evidence taking into account the “big picture”.

It is one example of a way in which otherwise completely rational, educated people do not make evidence based decisions.

That is your assertion. You may be right for some people.

Have you ever asked the smoking doctor why they do it?

An example to show you where I am coming from....

My step father smokes, and once told me of the time he went to the doctor and they told him to stop smoking and cut back on his drinking.

His response was “Do you know anyone who has come in here who will not die of something?”

He is still happily smoking and drinking – knowing that we are all going to die so you might as well enjoy life (Oh, and he is a Christian BTW in case you wanted to say it is the typical atheist outlook or something)

My step father has looked at the evidence, and chosen. He is not ignorant of what smoking or drinking is doing to his body, merely knows the evidence of human’s morality.

It's an example, Lee. Much like the analogy I used before that you also didn't seem to get. Are you really that literal about everything? :)

I try and read the black and white...

I have no problem with analogy or your example – does my example help explain my position better?

I could give about a zillion more examples, but as always, you ignore any evidence you don't agree with. :)

Are you blaming the sceptic for not believing your evidence?

Because you're no different than anyone else. Like most people, you don't make evidence-based decisions either. You use evidence when it suits you, ignore it when it doesn't.

Now we are talking...

I try not to ignore the evidence, but how I interpret and act on the evidence may be different to yours.

I eat and drink too much (don’t smoke though) and yes I know this is not good for my health... my philosophy had been that I could die tomorrow in a car accident so enjoy today... maybe I should take another look at the evidence. Yes, I think you are right.

Thanks...

That's fine, it's not a criticism, because I'm sure I do the same thing. The only difference is that I recognize that I do it too. ROFL

You have got me thinking you are right... you see why I like talking on these blogs. My views and opinions change.

Lunch time

Thanks

Lee

PS
What does ROFL mean?
 

Hello again Alan,

Glad your last response was short.

BTW, Lee... Just to provide some evidence that people do not make evidence-based decisions consider:

OK – you got me, I think I begin to see the weakness in my claim.

I know of course people have superstitions and the example of setting the watch on the flight is a good one. This wasn’t the argument I was making, but as you rightly point out, I forgot all about superstition – silly me.

I will still change my watch to the local time of my destination though – I’m not superstitious, or more correctly, I try and use evidence and reason to fight my natural superstitious. i.e. By what mechanism would me not changing the time on my watch affect the outcome of the flight? (None known) Even IF a mechanism was known, what about the 300 other passengers on the flight? We had to make sure we all agreed NOT to change our watches AND, if someone did change the time, stone them to death for putting at risk the flight – which would be a problem if this person was the pilot, though it might prove the point.

This shows I need to look into superstition more – is it (as I was originally claiming) the miss understanding of the evidence and the acceptance of one evidence over another. i.e. positive reinforcement - when the outcome confirms your predetermined views and you ignore/forget all the times when the outcome goes against your view. (The umbrella is an example of this as the article stated)

Interesting stuff. I like, and thanks again. I need to think about this some more.

Lee
 

Lee, we're still all over the place, but I've tried to divide this up into some reasonable parts:
----------
On converting people....

"So, if you cannot give good reasons for your belief, then it is good reason to doubt your belief."

Ah, once again you expose your biases not mine, by changing the subject. First you're talking about trying to convert Jews and Muslims, but now you're talking about whether or not I have good reasons for my belief.

Two entirely different matters. I'd wager that if I walked into a tea house in Iraq and started trying to convert people, their major problem with my conversion attempts would not be whether or not I had good reasons for my beliefs. ;)

You continue to claim that if I'm right I should be able to convince people of that, yet you still offer no evidence that people accept the truth when it is presented to them. Nor again, do you offer any reason for why I would want to convert anyone.

And even if I did attempt to convert people, why would this be a valid way to "test" my beliefs as you say? 90% of folks on this planet have some sort of belief in a higher being etc. Now since they're all at least as delusional as I am, why would they be good people to ask whether or not I'm right? ;)

Your claim is that, since there are many untestable ideas about various Gods, there's no reason to distinguish between them. Then you claim that the only way I can demonstrate the "truth" of my beliefs is by convincing others that I'm right. Yet, that would be pretty tough when you've already defined out of existence any way to distinguish between these beliefs.

A tidy little package of atheism, wrapped up in a pretty red logical fallacy bow. :)

Yet the bigger problem that you haven't addressed is that, just because I can *convince* people I'm right doesn't make me right, does it? Let's say I could go out and convince the entire world that my beliefs in God are right. They all convert to Christianity, of the specifically Presbyterian sort. Would that make us all right? Would that mean we've found the "truth"?

You're still relying on that same logical fallacy without admitting it.

Also, you claim you don't want to convert anyone. Great. Why should I?

You claim that my lack of interest in converting people may be due to "As for motivation, well... you might not want to try it, since it may cause a problem in your faith in Jesus Christ – and I’m not sure if you are suppose to test your faith and God."

Yet here I am, chatting away with you. Problems with my faith in Jesus Christ: zero.

----
Random aside....

Who says you're not supposed to test your faith? Faith gets tested all the time in this world. More random assumptions ... I'd really love to know where you got your bizarre ideas about religion. Not even the fundies would say we're not supposed to test our faith.

Someone once said that the opposite of faith is not doubt, the opposite of faith is certainty.

-------
On evidence....

"My step father has looked at the evidence, and chosen. He is not ignorant of what smoking or drinking is doing to his body, merely knows the evidence of human’s morality."

LOL. Excellent. You've defined your terms in such a way so as to preclude any other option. If people make a decision based on evidence then, according to both of us, they're making an evidence-based decision. If they ignore the evidence, according to you, they're still making an evidence-based decision. ;) Nice work. But I'm not buying it. Surely you know that's a logical fallacy.

"This wasn’t the argument I was making, but as you rightly point out, I forgot all about superstition – silly me."

Superstition is just one way in which people make decisions based on something other than evidence. (People use the term pejoratively, but if Skinner was right, intermittent reinforcement has sort of hardwired superstition into our brains.) The classic studies by Stanley Milgram demonstrate that sometimes people also make decisions based on blind submission to an authority figure, even without any sort of coercion. Surely you'd agree, even without my citing studies, that people also make decisions out of loyalty to a person, loyalty to a country, friendship, love, "gut instinct", self-interest, altruism -- all of which may or may not be decisions they'd make if they only looked at the "evidence." And then there are plenty of situations in life in which a person makes a decision without any real evidence to guide them because none exists.

I'm pretty convinced that people (including you and me) really aren't as rational as you seem to believe.

"Are you blaming the sceptic for not believing your evidence?"

You seem to have a different definition of "sceptic" than I do. ;) Willy-nilly throwing out evidence (ie. the example of the fat smoking doctor) so that you can make a circular argument (everyone makes evidence based decisions even when they don't) isn't skepticism.

-----
Clearing up another faulty assumption...

"BTW - Do you make any claims about your God? If you don’t, then no problem, I’m sure your church does :)"

I've made plenty of claims about my God already. But what do the claims of my church have to do with anything? Sorry to repeat this again, but you seem to have very mixed up ideas about faith, religion, and the Church. They're three very different things.
-------
"What does ROFL mean?"

Roll On Floor Laughing. :)
 

Lee, we're still all over the place, but I've tried to divide this up into some reasonable parts:

Sorry about that.... and thanks.

My brain doesn’t work linear, it hardly works at all, and so when it does it is all over the place.

Back later - work to do :)

Lee
 

RE: Mark 16:16-20 (ER said) I am not prepared to say that that is wrong. I was not there. The writer wrote to a certain people in a certain circumstance. (Lee said )
Well, since it was said by Jesus (according to the bible) you could test it – eat some poison. It will test your faith on what Jesus said which is the point of the verse isn’t it?"


Um, I am not one of those people, and I am not in that circumstance. Hello? And if you think that I am supposed to believe that that verse, and every other verse in the Bible, is to be taken as if it were written to me, now, in Oklahoma, USA, in 2008, then -- ha -- that is one MORE thing that you share with fundamentalists! Holy crap, you need to get out more. There are a whole bunch of perfectly different takes on Scripture that are far from fundalamentalism.


Re, "(ER said) I'll make the same point with you that I make with other fundamentalists: The writings i[n] the Bible were written to, and for, specific people in specific circumstaances; most of the writings in the Bible were not written for me, or to me, in, in suburban Oklahoma City in 2008. It cracks me up that you, and Christian fundies, want to either hold the Bible out as something to be venerated to the point of worship (idolatry), or dismiss it entirely. (Lee said)
Firstly, I don’t dismiss it entirely, just the bits that are questionable and have not been proven :) ... Of course I don’t take the bible literally (Well, no more literal than Harry Potter) – I reject most of the bible as you know as wishful thinking or mere delusion on the part of the writers – however I do wonder why you don’t take it literally or reject it like me? You most therefore know some verse or passage that explains why certain bible verses are to be taken as metaphor and others as fact?"

No. See my comment elsewhere. The Bible is not a single piece of writing to be taken or rejected as a whole.


Re, "I once heard a Christian explain in a podcast lecture why Genesis 1 and 2 should be taken as metaphor and not fact. The reasoning, paraphrased by me, was that it was so “obviously” wrong according to modern science that it HAS to be a metaphor simply because it is wrong and God could have made the passage perfect if he wanted to, but choose to be misleading for some reason. (Similar arguments were made for the flat Earth described in the bible.) It made no sense to me..."

Ha. A better reason to see Genesis 1 and 2 as metaphor, or myth, is that there actually are two differeent accounts of Creation in the first two chapters of Genesis and they contradict one another.


Re, "My question is where in the bible does it say that it was just a metaphor? For 1500 years and more, before science came along, God was happy for us to believe this nonsense, this untruth – why? God not proud of His creation?"

Um, once AGAIN, you are sounding like a fundamentalist! To equate the Bible with God is idolatry. ... Man, either the Church of England has ben taken over by fundamentalist biblical literalists, ot you've stumbled in to a rare nest of them in the UKm or ... I don't know what.

Re, "The bible being wrong is not evidence of God being clever, wrong is wrong. Also, if it was to be a metaphor, why could it be closer to the truth that science shows?"

(Spit-take of a dirty martini! Ouch! Thanks!) "Wrong is wrong is one-half of a false dichotomy, the kind of faux logic BS that my BS detector was just MADE for. You don't see me claiming "right is right" do you? LOL. ... Science shows truth? Are you serious? LOLOL. Science, one, is a method, not an end. Two, it's uncovers facts, not "truth." And three, if you're asserting that science is to be accepted as a better way to "the truth" than philosophy, or religion, or tea made from boiled tea leaves, then you've just declared your own faith. Pthth. :-)


Re, "BTW My question about Original Sin and evolution is still unanswered which isn’t unrelated to my point here."

Whew. That really is a whole other issue, even if it is loosely related, which I dispute, since Original Sin is a major interpretational issue, not simplyu a matter of whether "the" Bible is "right" or "wrong." ... Hrm. The original post *was* about the need for sacrifice, wasn't it? Oh, well. The thread has spun out of control, almost.


Re, "If Genesis is just a metaphor, what about Original Sin and the reason why Jesus/God had to die on the cross for our sins – the ultimate blood sacrifice and all that. ... This is why I don’t believe Jesus and his original followers thought Genesis was just a myth or just a metaphor – they truly believed it as fact. Maybe this isn’t a problem for you, but it confuses the hell out of me."

Well, what the original followers of Jesus -- or even Jesus himself -- thought about the theology behind Creation has nothing to do with what I think about the theology behind Creation, because I don't think the theology behind Creation, OR EVEN THEOLOGY BEHIND EXACTLY WHO JESUS IS/WAS has anything to do with the foundational messages of Jesus himself! Which are: Love God. Love Others. Love yourself.


Re, (ER posted) "While we have accepted the Path of Jesus as our Path, we do not deny the legitimacy of other paths God may provide humanity." ... OK, but I thought the Christian says the “only” way is to believe in Jesus... my mistake."

Actually, if in some unfathomable mystical way Jesus Christ met some requirement of God, expressed by his earliest followers as a need for a blood sacrifice, then I think that virtually everyone is covered, whether or not they "believe" or have even heard the name of Jesus. I am not quite prepared to say that even those who consciously and deliberately reject Grace and Christ ae covered -- eh, but, the other day, when I was feeling particularly Jesusy, I declared that the Devil himself might be worn down by God's love after a zillion years or so, the utter relentless of God's love being utterly relentless.


Re, "(ER posted) We confess that we have stepped away from Christ’s Path whenever we have failed to practice love of God, neighbor, and self, or have claimed Christianity is the only way, even as we claim it to be our way. ...
Interesting stuff, and as you said most “traditionalist Christians” would disagree, so I wonder, of course, how you know they are wrong and you are right? Does it matter if you are wrong? (A reoccurring question)"

No one is right. "There is none righteous, no not one," is not believeably true because it is on the Bible; it is in the Bible, as an assertion of God's cosmic relationship with man, because it seem plausible -- obvious, actually, to anyone who knows very many people. Even Mother Teresa, it turns out, doubted her holy backside off -- yet she persevered in her faith, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, in doing good especially the most marginalized of society.


Re, "Lee said) If God is still talking today, then you will be able to show evidence for divine knowledge given to a believer alive today? (You made the claim, it is testable, so back it up) ... (ER said) My testimony is evidence, which you continue to confuse with "proof." It's up to you to decide whether my testimony is credible -- and I admit that it's not, not without divine intervention. ... (Lee said) Evidence for what should be the question... and yes, without divine knowledge it isn’t evidence for anything but the wisdom and dreams of a fellow human being."

OK. Fair enough.


Re, "(ER said) But I secretly believe that the brush against yout face that you feel, but don't feel, are startled by, but then dismiss as the breeze, is God God's self whispering to you, "Keep asking. Keep asking even if you're pretending. Keep coming to yoir conclusions. Perservere in your fight. Keep messing with Me. You are you, and, as such, you are mine already. Ha." ... (Lee said) I thought it was the forest fairy that brushes your cheek?"

The forest fairies are God's children, too.


Re, "Seriously though, you are seeing evidence and interpreting to mean what you what it to mean."

As are you.


Re, "It is as if you are hearing the thunder and saying it is evidence for God moving his furniture around (that is what my mother use to tell me anyway)"

My mom told me it was "tater wagons." (Potato wagons. Wagon loads of potatos rumbling over wooden bridged in the sky. Helped me sleep. Our moms were kind!)


Re, "Another example would be that a lot of people look up in the night sky and see an alien invasion fleet... others see the planet Venus low against the horizon. ... How do we test who is closer to the truth?"

Well, I don't. Scientific truth is not my obsession. You've presented science as a kind of foundational faith. Um, I have one. I USE science; I don't let it use me any more than I let religion, or philosophy, or boiled tea leaves use ME.


Re, "You say I am ignoring your evidence, untrue, I am merely testing your evidence."

You have done nothing of the sort! You've questioned me, you've challenged my faith (weakly, sorry!), you've answered my assertions with your own. But you have tested jackshit.

Re, "you would test my evidence if I made the claim I have 3 magic beans I wanted to sell you for $100,000 :)"

No. I'd ignore you utterly. I certainly would not make a hobby out of blogging and chatting about magic beans, messing with people who claimed to have planted magic beans, seen them grow and harves them. I'd give about as much of a damn about 'e, as I give the supermarkeet tabloids.

Which raises a question: Why do yoy give a damn about my magic beans? I mean, I know I went and got you after five months. But you came easily.

What IS it about my magic beans that fascinate you?? Is it that they might actually grow?? LOLOL.


Re, "If you think that by discussing my views here I am affecting your right to have your own beliefs, then I will stop talking – I only converse with those who want to talk and think."

LOLOL. Um, do I look like I'm shying away from you? You think you haved something I don't?

Bring. It. On.

Don't play the blog martyr.


Re, "Your beliefs about Christianity seem like a rather good form of Christianity – you don’t accept the bible just because someone tells you that the bible is true – this is good - I wish more people had your ideas from what little I have learnt of them, unlike the fundies, who are trying to stop evolution being taught in schools – this is an example of the type of interference I dislike. I hope you can convert these people to your way of thinking :)"

Working on it.


Re, (ER said) Hmmm. I didn't mean to make a testable claim. If I did, I hereby withdraw it. (Lee said) I’m not sure that you did, you are being careful about that... as this comment shows :)


Damn straight. We're not talking about anything that is testable. WTH part about "faith" do you not understand yet? It's a lot more complicated than "I believe" -- and I hope you get that, if nothing else, from hanging around here. :-)
 

Re, "Also, lets not forget, I can investigate the likelihood of a god by testing any claims made by the followers. If they do not pass close inspection – i.e. no good evidence FOR the claim, or that there are evidence AGAINST the claim – then it suggests that the person’s god doesn’t exist and they are as deluded as the believers in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and alien landings."


Actually, no. One can test a god only by the claims made by that god. One can only test a god's followers by those followers' claims.


But I freely admit that the closest any of us can get to the claims made by God are through God's followers. And God's followers are terrible conduits for God's messages! Unfair, you say? Pissy of God? Mayhap. Take it up with God. ... Oh, be ware that most Christians and other God followers have been at it for quite a while. .. Hrm, I'm 44, and I've been at this for 36 years now. Better get after it! ... Hee hee. I think you ARE after it, Lee, and so you are closer to God than any asshole fundamentalist who thinks he has all the answers. ... Sorry to freak you out, Lee, but the fact that your're fighting-arguing-thinking so hard about all this is the best evidence (to me) that God God's self is at your elbow now, just out of youur consciousness, laughing at how close you are to God. :-) Hee hee.
 

Alan! I loves me this graf! And I am proud of the Skinner reference, amnd Dr. ER, whose doc is in experimental psych., would be wowed by it. :-) Bravo:

"Superstition is just one way in which people make decisions based on something other than evidence. (People use the term pejoratively, but if Skinner was right, intermittent reinforcement has sort of hardwired superstition into our brains.) The classic studies by Stanley Milgram demonstrate that sometimes people also make decisions based on blind submission to an authority figure, even without any sort of coercion. Surely you'd agree, even without my citing studies, that people also make decisions out of loyalty to a person, loyalty to a country, friendship, love, "gut instinct", self-interest, altruism -- all of which may or may not be decisions they'd make if they only looked at the "evidence." And then there are plenty of situations in life in which a person makes a decision without any real evidence to guide them because none exists."

:-)
 

Hi Alan,

RE: On converting people....

Ah, once again you expose your biases not mine, by changing the subject. First you're talking about trying to convert Jews and Muslims, but now you're talking about whether or not I have good reasons for my belief.

I’m not asking you to go out and try and convert people (especial those who are drinking tea in Iraq) – it was more a ‘thought experiment’ asking how you would do it. I just would be interested to know. I think you will not be able to give a good argument or reason (or evidence) for your belief that was better than the ones they already have for belief in Allah or whatever.

I don’t see this as being two separate issues, but the same one – however, happy to disagree with you.

You ask why would trying to present an argument for your position to an already ‘deluded’ person would be a test for anything?

Well, many times in debates like this I am told by the theist that I just don’t accept the same type of evidence, the same type of reasoning, and the same type of argument that they have come to use to find their God. This argument (or is it logical fallacy?) cannot be said about a fellow theist – this was my reason for asking the question..

You mention that I have not given any “evidence that people accept the truth when it is presented to them” so are you claiming that all Muslims and Jews are merely delusional in their beliefs? If so, I could agree with you there :) The question could then be why do people believe what they do? A question far too large for such a thread, so let’s not even try.

On the validity of such a test though, asking if you could present a good argument for your position to a fellow theist – of course it doesn’t prove the victor is right, but it would certainly show they were on to something (i.e. “more right”).

The problem though is I doubt there would be a winner – this is my point. Both theists have no more reason for believing what they do over the other. You could prove me wrong.

Your claim is that, since there are many untestable ideas about various Gods, there's no reason to distinguish between them.

I thought I said there were many gods and was asking how I distinguish between them? No matter.

My point about testable claims was relating to the fact so many claims made in the bible that are testable fail, so why trust the claims that are not testable. Seems reasonable to me, why do you think otherwise?

Then you claim that the only way I can demonstrate the "truth" of my beliefs is by convincing others that I'm right. Yet, that would be pretty tough when you've already defined out of existence any way to distinguish between these beliefs.

A tidy little package of atheism, wrapped up in a pretty red logical fallacy bow. :)


Firstly, I didn’t say it was the only way – God could do that for you with a miracle or you could present evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law... should be simple enough. However we have been down this path before, this is why I am not asking for it. So please don’t use this strawman.

Secondly, how have I “defined out of existence any way to distinguish between... beliefs”? I have asked you to argue for the differences, show how one (i.e. yours) is right using the arguments and evidence that both theist’s would deem valid. I wish to be an observer seeing how you would convince a Muslim that the Christian belief is right. So, you accusation is false it seems to me.

Oh, and where did I mention atheism? (I was trying to be careful and not mention it.)

So I think it is you who has written a nice little logical fallacy here; do you want that little red bow you gave me – I think you could make better use of it :)

Let's say I could go out and convince the entire world that my beliefs in God are right. They all convert to Christianity, of the specifically Presbyterian sort. Would that make us all right? Would that mean we've found the "truth"?

Nope... but I would still like to see you try :)

Your failure, should it happen, might demonstrate something though...

You're still relying on that same logical fallacy without admitting it.

I know the logically fallacy you are making here, you are arguing against one I never made.

A great big strawman with a giant red bow coming right up sir :)

You claim that my lack of interest in converting people may be due to "As for motivation, well... you might not want to try it, since it may cause a problem in your faith in Jesus Christ – and I’m not sure if you are suppose to test your faith and God."

Yet here I am, chatting away with you. Problems with my faith in Jesus Christ: zero

Firstly, in case I have not been clear - You are not talking to a fellow theist.

My comment was questioning the reason why you do not want to discuss/debate your believes with a fellow theist of another faith. You may be happy to reject me and my claims because you feel I reject your type of evidence, logic and reasoning – but could you say the same for a fellow (non-Christian) theist?

Also, as you know, not all of my questions are being addressed (how could they I ask so many and you don’t have time to answer all of them I know - I’m truly honoured how many you do tackle though, so thanks).

You did mention once that you will only tackle the “low hanging fruit”, could this be one of the reasons why your faith in Jesus isn’t challenged? Maybe an unconscious selection is occurring on your part? I don’t know... I hope you don’t take offence at this comment. None was intended.

RE: Random madness...

I'd really love to know where you got your bizarre ideas about religion.

From my big book of crazy religious ideas of course... maybe I should stop reading it :)

Also, I was given a Watchtower magazine this morning getting on the train – it has lots of good ideas in that I am sure we can agree.

RE: Evidence

Nice work. But I'm not buying it. Surely you know that's a logical fallacy.

It does start to look rather circular now you come to mention it.

Tails you lose, heads I win

Oh well... it sounded good at the time. You win.

I'm pretty convinced that people (including you and me) really aren't as rational as you seem to believe.

You are probably right – the trick is to try and test ourselves to ensure that we are doing the best that we can.

OK... that’s one comment covered. I doubt I’m going to have the time to address every other point in this level of detail. I don’t have the time.

Can we start afresh? I’ve created too many questions for me to address. My own fault of course.

Cheers

Now onto ER's comments... maybe tomorrow.

Lee
 

"On the validity of such a test though, asking if you could present a good argument for your position to a fellow theist – of course it doesn’t prove the victor is right, but it would certainly show they were on to something (i.e. “more right”)."

You have a very, very, very peculiar idea of what is "right." Apparently something is "right" if you can convince a majority of people that you're right. Thus Dick Cheney was right apparently, Iraq was indeed responsible for 9/11 since he's done an outstanding job of convincing a significant minority of the US population that's the case. Or at the very least, according to your own words, he's "more right" than those who say that Iraq had nothing to do with it.

Convincing people of anything is not at all an indication that someone is "more right" than anyone else.

It's funny, I don't mean to be rude Lee, but your fantasies about how the world works and how people operate are nearly ... well ... religious. You believe people are mostly rational and are prone to making evidence-based decisions. That's a position you must be taking on faith, because there is very little evidence for it. You believe that what is "right" is what the most people believe in.
("of course it doesn’t prove the victor is right, but it would certainly show they were on to something (i.e. 'more right.'") You believe that those who know the "truth" can convince others of that truth. None of those propositions are defensible with anything resembling real evidence (certainly not with evidence that you, yourself would accept.) Thus I have tested your claims and found them wrong. You will now reject them, right? ;)

"Secondly, how have I “defined out of existence any way to distinguish between... beliefs”? I"

Because they're all equally wrong, according to you. So then the only way to see what is "more right" is by convincing others. In other words, truth, to you apparently, is a democratic game of voting. Whoever has the most votes is "more right."

Wrong. Again, I find it ironic that you continue to attempt to find logical fallacies in what I write, but you can only do so by arguing against things I don't believe. However, when I actually use what you have said and point out the logical fallacies, you refuse to acknowledge them. Where's your rationality now? Seems like you're holding pretty tightly to this package you've created ... almost like a statement of faith. ;)

I'm not taking your words out of context, I'm not putting words in your mouth. Here again, is what you wrote:

"of course it doesn’t prove the victor is right, but it would certainly show they were on to something (i.e. “more right”)."

Yet, you wrote, "I know the logically fallacy you are making here, you are arguing against one I never made."

Wrong. You said convincing Muslims and Jews that Christianity is "right" would show my faith to be "more right". Those are your words. That's your argument. You are arguing that if more people believe something then it is right, or at least "more right."

Wrong.

That's a logical fallacy, one from your very own words. You know this already, because it is one that you've already argued against. Remember up above when you made the straw man argument, accusing me of believing that since 90% of the world is theistic, then we must be right? (A claim I never made.) Well, you're making precisely the same argument, that if I can convince more people that Christianity is right, then it must be "more right" than Islam or Judaism. It is the same logical fallacy.

"You mention that I have not given any “evidence that people accept the truth when it is presented to them” so are you claiming that all Muslims and Jews are merely delusional in their beliefs? If so, I could agree with you there :)"

First Lee, it's rude to answer a question with a question. But perhaps I wasn't clear. So I'll ask again, please provide me evidence that most people routinely accept the truth when it is presented to them.

Second, yes, Lee, you hit the nail on the head, you've got me! That's exactly what I'm saying. Jews and Muslims are delusional. Feh. :P Again, notice how you put words in my mouth to try to argue against something I haven't said. I have tried very hard to be respectful enough not to do the same to you.

Again, demonstrate, using evidence that you would accept (ie. court of law evidence, scientific studies) that people routinely accept the "truth" when it is presented to them in matters of faith and belief. I think, given that most of the world is "delusional" according to you, you've got an immensely difficult row to hoe. But good luck with that. :)

But, on second thought, I appreciate your help in this debate! Since you define Muslims and Jews as "delusional", you have just made your argument superfluous. If they're delusional, by definition, they wouldn't accept the truth of Christianity even if I presented it to them. ;) And even if they did accept it, it doesn't change the fact that they're still delusional, and so it still means nothing. Thanks! :)

(Note to readers, I think calling Muslims and Jews delusional is insulting, and I don't believe it. But apparently Lee wants to make straw man arguments here, trying to make it seem as if I do believe that. I've simply used Lee's poor arguments to demonstrate why, even if that were the case, it still doesn't work for him.)

"My comment was questioning the reason why you do not want to discuss/debate your believes with a fellow theist of another faith."

Ah, see there's the problem. You haven't given me a reason. It's your claim that I should do so. Back it up. I have made no claim that I should try to convert and/or debate my beliefs with Muslims or Jews. I can't see any reason why I would want to do so.

I drink gin, not vodka. I can't think of a reason why I would want to convince anyone else that gin is superior to vodka. I drive a Ford truck, not a Dodge or a Chevy. I can't think of any reason why I would want to convince anyone else that Ford is superior to the other automakers. I wear glasses, not contacts. I can't think of any reason why I would want to convince anyone else that glasses are superior to contacts.

Do you think by my refusing to debate people over the relative merits of gin that I'm afraid that vodka drinkers will sway my allegiance? Or could it be that I don't care? Do you think my refusal to debate contact wearers is actually evidence of my lack of self-esteem? Or could it be that I just don't care? Do I really need to "test" my glasses-wearing-ness against contact-wearers in order to show that wearing glass is OK for me? Or could it be that I really just simply do not care? I can think of a zillion more examples where my particular beliefs about a zillion other topics has no impact on what others believe and vice-versa. So why is my faith any different?

So first,
1) you need to provide reasons why I need to convince others I'm "right." It's your claim, back it up.
2) you need to provide reasons why I should even believe with 100% confidence that I'm absolutely "right."
3) you need to provide reasons why matters of theistic faith are a special case that I must debate in order to show that I'm right, as opposed to say, gin drinking or Ford truck driving.

"You did mention once that you will only tackle the “low hanging fruit”, could this be one of the reasons why your faith in Jesus isn’t challenged? Maybe an unconscious selection is occurring on your part? I don’t know... I hope you don’t take offence at this comment. None was intended. "

Meh...maybe no offense was intended, maybe it was. Seems like a stupid thing to say if you don't mean it. In the US, people do this little gag all the time, "I'm not questioning Senator Obama's patriotism, but..." And then they go ahead and question his patriotism. "It probably isn't for me to judge and I don't want to be mean, but .... isn't Auntie Bertha a little too fat to be wearing that dress? It looks like two pigs wrestling under a blanket." As long as you say the first part, you can try to send the message you don't really mean the second part -- even though you do.

I think I've done more than tackle the "low-hanging fruit" here. I've challenged your apparently deep-seated understandings of what is right, and what is wrong (ie. the more people one can convince that one is right, the "more right" one is, a logical fallacy you refuse to acknowledge.) I've challenged your understanding of the inherent rationality of human decision making based on evidence. I've tackled matters of the problems with interpretation of texts including your rather naive notions of literal readings of texts.

Truth, evidence, interpretation. Seems like these are the very things that undergird your arguments every time you make them. And I've answered them nicely, I think.

So much for my unconscious unwillingness to challenge my faith in Jesus Christ. ;) I've answered your questions on these topics clearly and forthrightly.

So just to reiterate, when you get the time, could you please start answering some of my challenges to your faith? Quid pro quo. ;)

1) Please provide me evidence that most people routinely accept the truth when it is presented to them. (I've even attempted to make this one easier by using minimizers like "most" people and "routinely" accept.)
2) Provide a claim, and evidence for that claim, that demonstrates how, if more people believe something, it is therefore "more right." Use only evidence that you yourself would accept.
3) On testing claims with other theists:
a) Provide reasons why I must convince others I'm "right."
b) Provide reasons why I should even believe with 100% confidence that I'm absolutely "right" in the first place.
c) Provide reasons why matters of theistic faith are a special case that I must debate in order to show that I'm right, as opposed to say, gin drinking or Ford truck driving.
d) Provide reasons for why testing my beliefs on other "delusional" people is any sort of valid test in the first place.
 

"Alan! I loves me this graf! And I am proud of the Skinner reference, amnd Dr. ER, whose doc is in experimental psych., would be wowed by it. :-) Bravo:"

Thanks ER. Not bad for just a dumb chemist eh? That Liberal Arts education does come in handy once in a while. ;)
 

Thanks Alan for your comments… it’s a long one and will take time to read, let alone reply – looks like you have given me some challenges as well. Should be interesting.

However I want to reply to ER first and I don’t know how much time I will have for posting over the weekend. We will see.

Lee
 

Hi ER,

RE: Mark 16:16-20

And if you think that I am supposed to believe that that verse, and every other verse in the Bible, is to be taken as if it were written to me, now, in Oklahoma, USA, in 2008, then -- ha -- that is one MORE thing that you share with fundamentalists! Holy crap, you need to get out more. There are a whole bunch of perfectly different takes on Scripture that are far from fundalamentalism.

Where in the bible does it say this verse is wrong? Jesus said this according to Mark – this is my point. You are choosing to interpret the bible how you want it to read without any justification

RE: Genesis 1 and 2

Ha. A better reason to see Genesis 1 and 2 as metaphor, or myth, is that there actually are two differeent accounts of Creation in the first two chapters of Genesis and they contradict one another.

Good point – and I know that (I use it to argue with fundie Christians but they say they are telling the same story without contradiction – though “we” both know they are wrong in any factual sense. )

Um, once AGAIN, you are sounding like a fundamentalist! To equate the Bible with God is idolatry. ... Man, either the Church of England has ben taken over by fundamentalist biblical literalists, ot you've stumbled in to a rare nest of them in the UKm or ... I don't know what.

The Church of England just seems to believe what they want to believe – without reason in my view. Ask no questions, and they will tell you no lies.

It is true though that most people I have come across in my everyday life that will talk about their religion are the hard-case fundie nutjobs... so yes, I suppose my view has been tainted a little. However I am here trying to learn more, forgive me for my mistakes, no offence is meant.

Though you have to admit for a fundie it is easy, they just have to believe in the bible – I’m still trying to find your justification for your interpretation of the bible.

You cannot reject the bible, since it is the source of your Christianity (unless you can tell me another source you learnt about Jesus) however, by what authority do you reject some passages as nonsense, some as metaphor, and keep some as truth? If the bible is said to be inspired by God, I don’t know how you do it. This is the bit that confusing me – I am missing the important link in the logic. (And looking over at Billy’s blog, I’m not the only one confused.)

(Spit-take of a dirty martini! Ouch! Thanks!)

Sorry

Science, one, is a method, not an end.

Agreed.

Two, it's uncovers facts, not "truth."

Agreed on the facts... but what is “truth” when it is in quotes? When I use it, I mean something vague and that the facts are pointing to or as being as close to the truth as we have so far

And three, if you're asserting that science is to be accepted as a better way to "the truth" than philosophy, or religion, or tea made from boiled tea leaves, then you've just declared your own faith. Pthth. :-)

I have faith in scientific method? I like to say I have belief in the method, I could be shown wrong.

The original post *was* about the need for sacrifice, wasn't it? Oh, well. The thread has spun out of control, almost.

Sorry, you let a madman like me guide you wrong – of course it is going to go out of control.

Well, what the original followers of Jesus -- or even Jesus himself -- thought about the theology behind Creation has nothing to do with what I think about the theology behind Creation, because I don't think the theology behind Creation, OR EVEN THEOLOGY BEHIND EXACTLY WHO JESUS IS/WAS has anything to do with the foundational messages of Jesus himself! Which are: Love God. Love Others. Love yourself.

So you don’t care what Jesus or his original followers thought? Love Others, Love yourself – makes sense, but I don’t see the need for the first one.

I’m running out of time now… have to jump some comments. Tell me if I miss anything you want me to discuss further.

The forest fairies are God's children, too.

If you have forest fairies you don’t need God… forest fairies created themselves and the universe around them. They created you and your belief in God :)

Re, "Seriously though, you are seeing evidence and interpreting to mean what you what it to mean."

As are you.

Agreed – but I am doing the best I can to test myself to ensure I am heading in the right direction.

You have done nothing of the sort! You've questioned me, you've challenged my faith (weakly, sorry!), you've answered my assertions with your own. But you have tested jackshit.

Fair enough – I think I am questioning and that is a form of testing. No matter.

Re, "you would test my evidence if I made the claim I have 3 magic beans I wanted to sell you for $100,000 :)"

No. I'd ignore you utterly. I certainly would not make a hobby out of blogging and chatting about magic beans, messing with people who claimed to have planted magic beans, seen them grow and harves them. I'd give about as much of a damn about 'e, as I give the supermarkeet tabloids.

Fair enough… maybe if I try and sold you the beans when you were younger it would have worked.

Which raises a question: Why do yoy give a damn about my magic beans? I mean, I know I went and got you after five months. But you came easily.

I have answered this before.

I enjoy the debate, the discussion and I learn things.

You and Alan are very good at correcting my woolly thinking and I change it when I am shown wrong.

You might have noticed I don’t jump up and down about evidence as much as I did the first time around. This is because you and Alan corrected me (though it is still important to me, so you still have more work to do on me it seems)

What IS it about my magic beans that fascinate you?? Is it that they might actually grow?? LOLOL.

Why is physics interesting?

The magic beans may grow in someone’s mind, but I’ve never seen a real beanstalk grow as the book describes :)

Re, "If you think that by discussing my views here I am affecting your right to have your own beliefs, then I will stop talking – I only converse with those who want to talk and think."

LOLOL. Um, do I look like I'm shying away from you? You think you haved something I don't?

Bring. It. On.

Don't play the blog martyr.

I was trying to be polite, not a martyr. I enjoy our little discussions.

Damn straight. We're not talking about anything that is testable. WTH part about "faith" do you not understand yet? It's a lot more complicated than "I believe" -- and I hope you get that, if nothing else, from hanging around here. :-)

So faith is what you have when you don’t have evidence? That old chestnut… Then I need good reason to have faith.

Actually, no. One can test a god only by the claims made by that god. One can only test a god's followers by those followers' claims.

True… if God doesn’t make Himself known – how would we know Him? So I will test the claims of the followers then… the best that God offers.

But I freely admit that the closest any of us can get to the claims made by God are through God's followers. And God's followers are terrible conduits for God's messages! Unfair, you say? Pissy of God? Mayhap. Take it up with God. ...

God is doing a crap job getting His message out then… we may agree again.

Oh, be ware that most Christians and other God followers have been at it for quite a while

For nearly 2,000 years some would say :)

. .. Hrm, I'm 44, and I've been at this for 36 years now.

8 years old when you found God?

You are right though, you have been looking into this for longer than I have.

For the first 16 years of my life – nothing – no searching. Then a couple of years looking – found nothing. Now the last year or so talking on blogs… still nothing.

There is a pattern…

Sorry to freak you out, Lee, but the fact that your're fighting-arguing-thinking so hard about all this is the best evidence (to me) that God God's self is at your elbow now, just out of youur consciousness, laughing at how close you are to God. :-) Hee hee.

Fighting? I’m just taking an interesting… gives me something to talk about.

I am glad that I am giving you more faith in your belief – at least I am not wasting my time and some good is coming from it. Maybe I’m some weird preacher man for God – how strange for a non-believer doing the work of your God :)

Lee
 

Hi Alan,

My time has run out now, so I will not be able to get back to you today – it is Saturday and the wife wants to go out.

I’ve just read your last post and it seems I am doing a very poor job explaining myself. I do apologise. A lot of what you say I agree with, yet you have the impression that arguing against it – my English must be very bad.

I will try and answer your points in time and hopefully you will see better where I am coming from.

Have to go now.

See ya

Lee
 

Hi Alan,

Thanks again for your thoughtful replies. As always you get me thinking, but I think you are misunderstanding me on some points – my fault I am sure by not being clear…

You have a very, very, very peculiar idea of what is "right." Apparently something is "right" if you can convince a majority of people that you're right.

Nope – that would be a logical fallacy, so we actually agree.

Convincing people of anything is not at all an indication that someone is "more right" than anyone else.

Of course not, the church has been doing that for years :)

However, if you are following the scientific method, then please tell me why it wouldn’t be getting you closer to the “truth”? That was my only point.

It's funny, I don't mean to be rude Lee, but your fantasies about how the world works and how people operate are nearly ... well ... religious.

If I have fantasies about the world that are naive, than maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong but it is interesting that you compare such naive fantasies to religion – you have a view of religion that may agree with mine after all.

I just try and follow the scientific method the best I can, I muck up along the way I know, and this is why I debate on blogs like this with people like you – you can correct my silly thinking and put me right again.

You believe people are mostly rational and are prone to making evidence-based decisions.

I’ve already conceded this point – many people are superstitious as you rightly pointed out.

That's a position you must be taking on faith, because there is very little evidence for it.

My position has changed, my “faith”, if that what it was, must have been weak. (And can evidence change someone’s faith position? Maybe I didn’t have faith in it at all)

You believe that what is "right" is what the most people believe in.

I’ve never thought that, and have repeated many times now that holding such a position is a logical fallacy – how can I be any clearer?

If I made an argument that makes such a logical fallacy, tell me and I will retract it very quickly.

You believe that those who know the "truth" can convince others of that truth.

No, I merely thought that if they are holding a rational position they should be able to explain it to others - Provide an argument that convince others.

However, talking to you now I can see the fallacy in this - I’m trying to make such an argument with you but clearly by you not being convinced by my argument doesn’t make you or me right or wrong.

Still – worth a try though :) and I thought I was so close on this one… oh well

Thus I have tested your claims and found them wrong. You will now reject them, right? ;)

Nope – just retract this line of argument.

You can see why I like talking to you :)

I find it ironic that you continue to attempt to find logical fallacies in what I write, but you can only do so by arguing against things I don't believe.

Did you write this Alan or did I? :) It seems we are both rather good at writing logical fallacies from time to time.

However, when I actually use what you have said and point out the logical fallacies, you refuse to acknowledge them.

See above – you are wrong on that point at least. I am happy to say I am wrong when I have been shown to be so.

Where's your rationality now?

In a little box in a cupboard under the sink :)

That's a logical fallacy, one from your very own words. You know this already, because it is one that you've already argued against.

Already conceded – you don’t need to rub my nose in it :)

First Lee, it's rude to answer a question with a question. But perhaps I wasn't clear. So I'll ask again, please provide me evidence that most people routinely accept the truth when it is presented to them.

Sorry if I appeared rude… I’ll tackle this question later since you were kind enough to group all your main questions together.

Second, yes, Lee, you hit the nail on the head, you've got me! That's exactly what I'm saying. Jews and Muslims are delusional. Feh. :P Again, notice how you put words in my mouth to try to argue against something I haven't said. I have tried very hard to be respectful enough not to do the same to you.

Sorry Alan, I was just trying to read what you wrote. No offence meant. This interpretation isn’t easy is it :)

You did write though:-
“Now since they're all at least as delusional as I am, why would they be good people to ask whether or not I'm right?”

Guess I missed your joke there – but I did ask you a question to clarify this.

”so are you claiming that all Muslims and Jews are merely delusional in their beliefs? If so, I could agree with you there :)"”

And I guess you missed my little joke also… shall we call this one a draw and put it down to interpretation? :)

But, on second thought, I appreciate your help in this debate! Since you define Muslims and Jews as "delusional", you have just made your argument superfluous.

I thought that was your definition? Or was it Richard Dawkins?

So I assume then you think that Muslims and Jews are not delusional and have rational arguments and evidence for their position? So long as we are clear.

If they're delusional, by definition, they wouldn't accept the truth of Christianity even if I presented it to them. ;)

As I said before, I was not asking for you to actually talk to any Muslim or Jew. The idea was for a thought experiment, for you to present me the argument that you could (if you wished) use to convince a Muslim or Jew they were wrong.

But you raised a very good point.

What would/could I present to you (evidence or argument) that would make you think you might be wrong about this Christian idea?

Or are you certain that you are right – if so, what makes you certain?

If you cannot present anything that would make you change your mind, would that make you delusional or 100% right (Oh, and so I don’t make a false dichotomy) or something else, please explain?

(Note to readers, I think calling Muslims and Jews delusional is insulting, and I don't believe it.

You are trying to turn a simple off the cuff remark into something rather more than what it was.

I apologise if my little remark caused so much offence, and I am sorry that I thought that your remark stating that Muslims and Jews were “all at least as delusional as I am” meant you would not be offended by such a joke as mine.

But please, don’t make me into a monster for it – I doubt anyone here could be classified as an angel (whatever that is)

Meh...maybe no offense was intended, maybe it was. Seems like a stupid thing to say if you don't mean it.

I meant the question, but no offence was meant to be taken from the question. Make sense?

We are discussing religion here after all; some people get offended by the very idea of questioning religion. I’m glad you are not one of those.

So my question was an innocent one… just wondering why some questions are answered and others are not.

At the start of our discussion you mentioned it was due to time constraints – I’ve no problem with that. Yet it is clear, whether you really had the time or not, you have been kind enough to give me a lot of your time in answering my questions. So, the time part of your reason doesn’t seem to be the main reason then – can you see my point?

Sorry, still being clumsy.

"It probably isn't for me to judge and I don't want to be mean, but .... isn't Auntie Bertha a little too fat to be wearing that dress? It looks like two pigs wrestling under a blanket." As long as you say the first part, you can try to send the message you don't really mean the second part -- even though you do.

Sorry, I see your point… I was clumsy as always, but I am interested in your response, how else am I to learn if I do not ask questions?

I think I've done more than tackle the "low-hanging fruit" here. I've challenged your apparently deep-seated understandings of what is right, and what is wrong (ie. the more people one can convince that one is right, the "more right" one is, a logical fallacy you refuse to acknowledge.)

Yet I have pointed this logical fallacy out to you when it was first used here, and have stated many times now that for anyone to make such a claim would be making a logical fallacy.

When you have clearly explained any logical fallacies I have made, I have thanked you and retracted my argument. Dare I mention the straw in this comment of yours now?

So much for my unconscious unwillingness to challenge my faith in Jesus Christ. ;) I've answered your questions on these topics clearly and forthrightly.

I have already thanked you for “opening my eyes” and changing my woolly logic – you have engaged deeply in our discussions. I do not deny that.

Yet… some interesting questions remain unaddressed. I merely would like to discuss them further with you and learn some more… or is evolution and Christianity a stupid thing to question?

So just to reiterate, when you get the time, could you please start answering some of my challenges to your faith? Quid pro quo. ;)

No problem – I’ll give it a go. I thought I was trying to address every question – didn’t know I missed any before.

Of course, I do not claim I can answer all of them.

1) Please provide me evidence that most people routinely accept the truth when it is presented to them. (I've even attempted to make this one easier by using minimizers like "most" people and "routinely" accept.)

I thought I answered this – no wait, we were talking about evidence before, you have changed it now to truth.

The problem I have is are you actually able to present truth to someone? (We could end up going down the philosophy road if we are not careful here.)

For example, could you tell me the truth about the colour red please?

You could start to quote wavelengths at me, but this still wouldn’t be truth would it? Since we would need somehow to have to agree where in the wavelength red begins and ends… (and understand wavelengths…)

So to your first point…. please rephrase the question, as it stands I cannot start to answer it (or was this your point?)

2) Provide a claim, and evidence for that claim, that demonstrates how, if more people believe something, it is therefore "more right." Use only evidence that you yourself would accept.

I have already said that it is a logical fallacy to say that just because more people believe in something it is true.

I think we are agreed on this point.

3) On testing claims with other theists:
a) Provide reasons why I must convince others I'm "right."

I’ve already addressed this question – you need only create a thought experiment, you don’t actually have to go out there and try and convert anyone. I am merely looking for your method how you would do it, if you chose to do it.

Why would you want to do it?

Only if you wanted to test that your belief in Christianity was based on sound arguments, logic and evidence. I think it would be a good technique to test yourself – but it is a choice thing as I have said.

b) Provide reasons why I should even believe with 100% confidence that I'm absolutely "right" in the first place.

You shouldn’t – the best you can do is play with probabilities.

You cannot 100% disprove God, or indeed prove God as you know. Just look at the likelihood of what looks like being correct.

c) Provide reasons why matters of theistic faith are a special case that I must debate in order to show that I'm right, as opposed to say, gin drinking or Ford truck driving.

On this, you tell me – you are the theist not me.

Is it more important that you have chosen the correct truck or the correct religion?

I’ve never heard of any holy truck (or transportation) wars, but I can name a few religious ones if you like :)

This suggests that throughout history people have a concern about their religion, and not about their method of transport. Not a reason as such, just trying to show the difference between religion and truck debate.

Does the type of truck someone drive ever affect their views on what should be taught in a classroom? Don’t think so… but you could prove me wrong.

If you are actually asking why you personally should provide such reasoning for your belief – well, on a blog like this – you don’t need to if you don’t want, only if you wish me to accept any of your claims.

If you don’t want me to accept any of your claims (if indeed you have made any), and since we are only having a friendly conversation, it is up to you. Another choice thing again.

It would be the same if you wanted me to accept the claim that Ford trucks were better than Dodge – I’ll say prove it, give me your reasons, show me the evidence.

d) Provide reasons for why testing my beliefs on other "delusional" people is any sort of valid test in the first place.

It is merely a way to test your ideas… can you think of a better way – then please tell me.
(Oh, and if the phrase “delusional” offended you so much, why do you keep using it?)

OK Alan… I have at least tried to address your questions, even if I have not answered them 100% to your liking no doubt.

Fancy doing a few sentences about my evolution, Original Sin, Jesus’ crucifixion and an all-loving, all-powerful God (or however you wish to define your God, I don’t think you said)

Many thanks

Lee
 

Well the concept that "resurrection" did not mean the same thing to Jews or Gentiles of the first century that it does today is a certain fact. That what it meant started to change by the middle of the 2nd century is also a fact. That it came to mean resurrected in a corporeal body is definitely a church dogma developed by the 4th century.
Clement and Irenaeus believed resurrection to be something along the order of "reincarnation" or "transcendental". A lot of the "resurrection" material according to textual critics is third century alterations and addition. Much of it, Acts, and Hebrews example, is hearsay completely, and not of a direct Apostolic tradition.

And or course there is the need for early Christianity to compete with the other God-man resurrections such as Attis, and Osiris, and Orpheus, and Diogenes, and Mithra, and so on and so on.

Still, I believe in the resurrection sort of Irenaeus like.
Still I believe that Jesus is an Avatar (Son) of the pre-existent unknowable-dazzling-darkness referred to as God.

As for magic? Everything is magic until you know the secret and then it is contemptuous.
 

"Only if you wanted to test that your belief in Christianity was based on sound arguments, logic and evidence. "

Oh well there's the problem. My beliefs are faith based.
 

Let me phrase that differently. My beliefs about God, Jesus, etc...are faith based.

And, like everyone else on this Big Blue Marble, most of my beliefs are probably actually based on whim and caprice, though, like everyone else on the planet, I am able to successfully convince myself most of the time that isn't the case. ;)
 

Hi Alan,

Oh well there's the problem. My beliefs are faith based.
...
Let me phrase that differently. My beliefs about God, Jesus, etc...are faith based.


And is faith alone a good method to understanding the world around us? Probably not I’m sure you will agree. You must draw a line somewhere then so the where and why questions come to mind.

And, like everyone else on this Big Blue Marble, most of my beliefs are probably actually based on whim and caprice, though, like everyone else on the planet, I am able to successfully convince myself most of the time that isn't the case. ;)

Now we really are moving into philosophy – Sounds like we are moving into Popper territory – how do I “know” the sun will raise tomorrow? Do I have faith or belief that that sun will raise?

Let’s not go there just yet – I would still like your views on evolution, Original Sin and Jesus’ crucifixion. Can you please just spare a few moments thinking and writing about it?

Cheers

Lee
 

Allow me to moderate:

I think the invitation to address those things has been previously offered. No hounding, please.

This has been a wonderful discussion, and it's that: a discussion. The second hint of it becoming anything approaching an inquisition, it starts losing my interest. The repeat of that invitation was the first hint. Alan may accept it or decline it as he sees fit. It IS a huge triumvirate of a tangent.

The chair has ruled.
 

Hi ER,

Allow me to moderate:

Thanks for stepping in.

I think the invitation to address those things has been previously offered. No hounding, please.

My apology – my interest in the topic might have become over powering there, I didn’t mean to seem to be ‘hounding’ anyone, just really interested in the input from any of you guys on the topic.

Sorry.

This has been a wonderful discussion, and it's that: a discussion.

It has, and I thank Alan and you greatly for it... I’ve been corrected on many things.

The second hint of it becoming anything approaching an inquisition, it starts losing my interest. The repeat of that invitation was the first hint. Alan may accept it or decline it as he sees fit.

Agreed. It is should a friendly discussion and I try my best to keep it that way, but if (and when) I get out of line, just shout at me – no offence will be taken on my part. I need a good kicking sometimes

Nobody wants an inquisition here at any rate.

It IS a huge triumvirate of a tangent.

Only a little bit off tangent surely? Just kidding – it would be a whole new can of worms, but an interesting topic to be taken up at some point I hope. Though no more about it from me.

The chair has ruled.

I respect the chair.

Lee
 

Hi Alan,

Take the discussion on this thread in the direction you want, or close it at anytime.

Sorry if it seemed I was hounding you or anything or if it got a little ‘heated’ there in the debate – Oops.

Have I’ve eaten enough humble pie?

Pie... that’s a good idea – lunch time :)

Lee
 

Maybe one at a time. New post!
 

"And is faith alone a good method to understanding the world around us?"

Alone? No. But then neither is science alone. And those aren't the only two choices either.
 

Correct – I use the scientific method and Ockham’s razor… seems to be OK.

Lee
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

And using those alone, you've found true love? :)
 

And using those alone, you've found true love? :)

Well, I found a lovely wife and have a lovely son… not sure how I did it, but I think evolution has a lot to say about it. How else could it work?

As for ‘true love’, could you please define it so we can investigate this idea further?

Cheers

Lee
 

"I think evolution has a lot to say about it."

Wow, what an incurable romantic. ;)
 

Re, "As for ‘true love’, could you please define it so we can investigate this idea further?"

What is that odd symbol at the end of that sentence? Wow. There it was again. There is a period, but then a line that starts to go up, but then veers to the right, makes a curve, and then comes down and makes a hook.

Now, I know that some people, but not all, call it a "question mark." I know that is it useful, because I see it used all the time.

Others use it difreently. They put it at the end of certain kinds of sentences, buit they also invert it and put it at the beginning of those sentences?

I'm sure that lots of people are comfortable using it, without really understanding everything that it means, and implies. But I need to know if it's true.

Hss it been tested? MY GOD THERE IT IS AGAIN. Even I use it. Is there evicence that it really represents what those who came up with it meant for it to represent? SHIT. IT KEEPS POPPING UP.

How did Darwin changed that concept -- No, ha ha, wait.

I wonder how Darwin changed it all. I wonder if people, now, in the age of science and reason, can simply rely on such a thing without it having been vetted by the scientific community -- and those of us who rely solely on the scientific community's efforts.

I'm so confused. I'm sure you all know more. I'm just here to learn!

Cheers.

--ER


:-)
 

Hi Alan,

RE: "I think evolution has a lot to say about it."

Wow, what an incurable romantic. ;)

Doesn't make me wrong, but I could be.

Luckily the wife seems happy with the chocolate and flowers I purchase from time to time and the hugs and kisses I give for free :)

Is this ‘true love’ or evolution in action?

Lee
 

Hi ER,

Yes you do sound confused but I will not be much help to you on understanding of the English language and the use of the humble question mark. There you are on your own.

Not sure how questioning the question mark helps us understand what ‘true love’ is though – maybe you can explain your point a little further? (Oops, a question mark – it must be catching this questioning question mark condition of yours)

I'm sure that lots of people are comfortable using it, without really understanding everything that it means, and implies. But I need to know if it's true.

What do you need to know is true, the question mark or the question?

How did Darwin changed that concept

Is anyone claiming or arguing that Darwin change the use of the English language and the use of the humble question mark? Confused indeed. Neither is anyone arguing that Darwin changed 'true love', until some defines it, how will we know.

I wonder how Darwin changed it all.

Who said Darwin did? If it was not Darwin, it would have been someone else – history shows this.

I wonder if people, now, in the age of science and reason, can simply rely on such a thing without it having been vetted by the scientific community -- and those of us who rely solely on the scientific community's efforts.

Even before Darwin people knew evolution and change occurred in animals, Darwin merely gave a workable and testable explanation via natural selection. I am missing your argument here - sorry.

I'm so confused. I'm sure you all know more. I'm just here to learn!

I could repeat this statement as my own.

Lee
 

LOL. Lee, either you didn't get the joke, or evasion and subterfuge are such habits that you can't help yourself. :-)
 

Hi ER,

LOL. Lee, either you didn't get the joke, or evasion and subterfuge are such habits that you can't help yourself. :-)

I saw in your style that you were being humorous, but I didn’t understand the joke.

Sorry.

As for “evasion and subterfuge”, I don’t see how I was being anymore evasive than your actually reply.

I ask for a definition of ‘true love’ from Alan since he said I haven’t ‘found’ it. How does Alan know what I haven’t found if he cannot define it or at least know it when he sees it?

What I got instead was a ‘joke’ about question marks for some reason with a hint of questioning about evolution. I’m happy to smile at the humour and I even tried to address your serious points the best I could.

Maybe I should have just laughed at the joke the best I could and walked away.

Lee