Ignorance and the Bible

gmark77 said:
Fascinating. You think the resurrection story has to be understood as actually witnessed as described but then nothing else in the crucifixion narrative?

You seem to specialize in cherry picking those topics in the Bible you wish to allow for discussion of.
Click to expand...
Yes, the methods of literary criticism and historical inference means by definition you have to cherry pick what is historically reliable from what is metaphorical, hyperbole, or mythic.

That's exactly what one has to do also with Herodotus' Histories and the Norse Icelandic Sagas.

Only you, fire-and-brimstone Pentecostals, and conservative Southern Baptists are treating every single word in the Bible as literal and historical fact.

I understand the motivations of Bible thumpers: a warped understanding of Martin Luther.

Your motivation is obviously to erect strawmen you can knock down, and declare victory.


Wrapping up, based on the tools of literary criticism and historical analysis, I think the life, ministry, crucifixion of Jesus are historical events, and that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the apostles came to genuinely believe they saw Jesus after the crucifixion.

^ You know who else thinks that? The great atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman.
 
Cypress said:
Yes, the methods of literary criticism and historical inference means by definition you have to cherry pick what is historically reliable from what is metaphorical, hyperbole, or mythic.

That's exactly what one has to do also with Herodotus' Histories and the Norse Icelandic Sagas.

Only you, fire-and-brimstone Pentecostals, and conservative Southern Baptists are treating every single word in the Bible as literal and historical fact.

I understand the motivations of Bible thumpers: a warped understanding of Martin Luther.

Your motivation is obviously to erect strawmen you can knock down, and declare victory.


Wrapping up, based on the tools of literary criticism and historical analysis, I think the life, ministry, crucifixion of Jesus are historical events, and that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the apostles came to genuinely believe they saw Jesus after the crucifixion.

^ You know who else thinks that? The great atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman.
Click to expand...
Appeal to authority.

You seem to wander from fallacious reasoning technique to fallacious reasoning technique
 
Cypress said:
Right, if you feel intellectually superior to religious people that's fine, and there's nothing inherently wrong with holding that opinion.

I don't really agree with it.
I don't get stressed out about the Trinity.
It's not irrational and idiotic for some people to believe in the basic NT testimony that God entered human history in the human Jesus of Nazareth, and that God's spirit guides the moral conscience. That's basically the Trinity.

As I said, there is a trail of logical inferences that leads from revelation in nature and conscience, to revelation in the testimony of the apostles and evangelists, to personal experience that suggests to me one doesn't have to be an irrational and barely sentient fool to be a Christian.
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t. The Trinity holds that they are 3 distinct entities. 3 distinct persons, if you will. Nothing about a spirit guidance of the three. It’s basically polytheism cloaked in gibberish.

Jesus never claimed he was God, nor did his followers believe him to be when he was alive. Only when he died, and messiahs aren’t supposed to do so, did the idea float that he was exalted to the right hand of God. Not the Trinity yet, however. That came much later. Always to fix a theological problem.

There’s nothing in nature that reveals a deity.
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
It doesn't bother me. This is a message board, it would get boring real fast if we agreed on everything.

It wasn't written by God.

It wasn't even dictated by God.

Even if humans are supposedly spiritually inspired, the Christian Bible is still a collection of nearly 70 books written, compiled, and edited by hundreds of authors, each written with different perspectives, different literary genres, even in different languages.

Pick up any science journal, and you will see elite scientists contradicting each other. The most famous example might be Niels Bohr contradicting Einstein.

Christians don't worship the Bible. They worship God. Even the great saint Augustine wrote 1,700 years ago that the Bible would have to be periodically re-interpreted as human knowledge increased.
Click to expand...
False equivalency on science vs the Bible. Disagreeing is not the same as an internal contradiction. Two birth stories. Four death stories. All different. They can’t all be true. So, which one, if any are?

Christians don’t worship the Bible, they merely refer to it as their Holy Book. Thumper Christians don’t reinterpret the Bible. They are steadfast in their beliefs. Nothing has been added to or subtracted from it for 1700 years or so. Only those who need to jump through theological hoops to fix their conceptual problems do the revamping. There’s never ending fixit jobs
 
gmark77 said:
That confuses me from a supposed "agnostic". I've never seen an agnostic defend the Bible as fiercely as you do!
Click to expand...
I've always pushed back against the ignorance of Biblical literalism, and resisted all attempts to treat the entire Bible as literal and factual history.

It's a collection of books of many different literary styles.

In the last few years on JPP, the most steadfast and strict Biblical literalists are the atheists.
The Pentecostals and conservative Evangelicals have not been making threads about strict biblical literalism, to my knowledge.
 
domer76 said:
No, it isn’t. The Trinity holds that they are 3 distinct entities. 3 distinct persons, if you will. Nothing about a spirit guidance of the three. It’s basically polytheism cloaked in gibberish.

Jesus never claimed he was God, nor did his followers believe him to be when he was alive. Only when he died, and messiahs aren’t supposed to do so, did the idea float that he was exalted to the right hand of God. Not the Trinity yet, however. That came much later. Always to fix a theological problem.

There’s nothing in nature that reveals a deity.
Click to expand...
The Trinity is three dimensions of God! Father YHWH,Son Jesus (YHWH incarnated in the flesh) and the Holy Spirit!
 
Cypress said:
I've always pushed back against the ignorance of Biblical literalism, and resisted all attempts to treat the entire Bible as literal and factual history.

It's a collection of books of many different literary styles.

In the last few years on JPP, the most steadfast and strict Biblical literalists are the atheists.
The Pentecostals and conservative Evangelicals have not been making threads about strict biblical literalism, to my knowledge.
Click to expand...
Fact from the Bible " Before Abraham I AM"!
 
Cypress said:
I've always pushed back against the ignorance of Biblical literalism,
Click to expand...

But I've noticed that it seems that the resurrection narrative has special meaning to you and you need it to be as written (even if you discount the supernatural aspects).

I'm curious why that one in particular, but not all of it, just the parts about the empty tomb. That seem especially important for you. You are more than happy to toss off the stuff about the earthquakes and the 3 hours of darkness but you seem to need the truth of the witnesses to be as advertised.

Curious.


 
domer76 said:
Hmmm.

How active does one have to be to be militant?
Click to expand...

One just needs to be an atheist around Cypress. He can't stand atheism and so all atheists are "militant".

domer76 said:
What is wrong with challenging church doctrines and institutions?
Click to expand...

That's the part that I don't understand about Cy's position. We live in a world FLOODED with religious messages all day every day. Our nation is making laws treating women as second-class citizens for religious reasons, our education system is being fucked 6 ways to Sunday often for religious reasons and Cy gets pissed when someone points out that these religions are predicated on theologically questionable grounds.

Honestly he sounds like every thumper I've ever heard post. But clearly he's not that. So why does he post the way he does?

 
domer76 said:
No, it isn’t. The Trinity holds that they are 3 distinct entities. 3 distinct persons, if you will. Nothing about a spirit guidance of the three. It’s basically polytheism cloaked in gibberish.
Click to expand...
I know that.
The Trinity doesn't bother me as much as it does you. I can't get all worked about it.

Given the totality of revelation and Church doctrine, a belief that God entered history in human form and a divine spark within us guides the conscience doesn't lead me to condemn Christians as barely sentient irrational fools. It's just not something that's going to make me irritated.

When you get right down to it, atheist explanations of reality are just as miraculous: reason and conscience comes from inanimate quarks and electrons, and the universe popped into existence by random inanimate chance.
domer76 said:
Jesus never claimed he was God, nor did his followers believe him to be when he was alive. Only when he died, and messiahs aren’t supposed to do so, did the idea float that he was exalted to the right hand of God. Not the Trinity yet, however. That came much later. Always to fix a theological problem.

There’s nothing in nature that reveals a deity.
Click to expand...
whether Jesus claimed to be God during his ministry isn't something I am going to get worked up over. Christians think he did.

It's unfathomable that atheists get stressed out about this

Obviously the resurrection sealed the deal. Jesus' brother James thought it was all bullshit, until he became convinced he saw his brother after the crucifixion. It's obvious from the epistles that the earliest Christians from the earliest days of the Church in Jerusalem thought Christ was lord.
 
Margot said:
But in spite of all you say is true, some regular people were saved because of him
Click to expand...
I have no evidence Joel Osteen is a criminal, and I don't doubt some people appreciate him.


He obviously has a taste for material wealth and luxury that doesn't seem consistent with a spiritual life.
 

Cypress said:
, a belief that God entered history in human form and a divine spark within us guides the conscience doesn't lead me to condemn Christians as barely sentient irrational fools.
Click to expand...

Now try saying it as it was actually understood by the Church: God manifested himself as himself to arrange to have himself sacrificed to himself to atone mankind to himself.

Then tell us how "rational" that sounds.

 
domer76 said:
No, it isn’t. The Trinity holds that they are 3 distinct entities. 3 distinct persons, if you will. Nothing about a spirit guidance of the three. It’s basically polytheism cloaked in gibberish.
Click to expand...
It has absolutely nothing to do with polytheism. I think you do not know what "polytheism" means.
 

Cypress said:
Christians think he did.

It's unfathomable that atheists get stressed out about this
Click to expand...

Let me help you: if someone tells me they believe Joe Smith down the street is God incarnate and he believes that our government should be more amenable to what Joe Smith wants for us I'm going to push back.

Hope that clarifies it.

Oh you think that doesn't happen today? Well just look at SCOTUS who gutted Roe v Wade because the Religious Right campaigned for 50 straight years for that very thing.

How about public education? Well, that's currently being gutted because a bunch of parents think that learning about gay people = satanism and don't want their children exposed so they demand a "voucher" for "school choice".

How about Hobby Lobby down the street? They leverage their "Christianity" to keep women from getting health coverage on their insurance plans. All while the family who owns Hobby Lobby is buying stolen antiquities for Jesus.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top