927 thoughts on “What Makes Something Right or Wrong?”
I was a YEC for 20+ years and believed fully in the Fall of Man and substitutionary atonement. Having been smacked in the face with the obvious truth of evolution I cannot reconcile the concept of substitutionary atonement with the theory of evolution. What is your belief in Jesus? Do you believe he died for your sins?
Hi Dave, I sympathise with you when you say: “how difficult it is to think of a decent argument for something when I don’t actually believe in it”. So I wanted to help you a little. 🙂 For I think there are many cases where scholarship has advanced the christian religion.
Hi UnkleE, thanks for offering to help. The part I was struggling with was answering Gary’s very direct question “Why do you believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead?”. I don’t actually believe this, which makes it very difficult to think of a convincing argument for it. Of your 4 points the only one related is #4, but demonstrating that Jesus is a historical person and that the gospels contain basic historical value does not really help much with proving that a resurrection actually occurred.
But now the big bang is established and we need an explanation
Yes, I concur. And an eternal creator or an eternal multiverse are both plausible explanations. I currently see no way of objectively choosing one over the other. If this were not the case I would become a deist or pantheist right now.
The design argument has been revived due to the work of cosmologists like Rees, Davies, Susskind, Penrose, etc, and is seen by some atheists and agnostics as the most powerful theistic argument.
It is a powerful argument so long as there is no evidence of other universes. Some scientists think there is evidence of collisions from other bubble universes in the CMB. I think they were waiting for data from the Planck satellite to further this theory (which was just released in Febuary). So I’ll wait and see how that pans out. Concerning the rare earth argument you wrote “with the likelihood of zillions of planets out there, the argument is less effective” and I think this will apply to the cosmological fine-tuning argument as well if it turns out that other universes exist. If we are in a multiverse that is constantly producing bubble universes, some might collapse, some might rip apart and some might “stabilize” for a while like ours has.
Neuroscience and psychology are fairly dominated by naturalism, but this makes it difficult to explain free will, consciousness, ethics, even rationality itself.
Consciousness is a topic I’m interested in learning more about (even though I experience it everyday 🙂 ). I am currently hunting for a good book to read on this subject.
Arch, when it comes to the reasons why I have barryadamson2 as my handle: well, it is my name. My father is a very formal man when it comes to names. He is Barry Adamson, and I am Barry Adamson II. So it’s fitting to use barryadamson2. Not only this but when it comes to the internet, a quick type of my name without the suffix brings up a popular British Jazz artist, so the 2 helps make the distinction.
Wow! I go away for a couple days, and the thread has quite progressed! Been doing some work and cleaning. Last night’s adventure continues through today: the wax ring gasket on the toilet gave out so I have to repair it. Spent last night having to cut off rusty old bolts to replace them with new ones only to discover that the new ones are too small, so back at it again this morning!
Hi Ruth, I must say I don’t see how evolution affects the atonement. Can you explain how you feel about that?
I believe pretty much all the usual doctrines about Jesus, including that he died for my sins. I don’t have a problem with substitutionary atonement, but there are several atonement theories and I pretty much accept them all because I believe they all must be analogies for something that is deeper than we can understand, just like calling God “Father” is an analogy, and they all focus on a different way of seeing it.
My only “unorthodox” views about Jesus are Biblical ones – I think that he came to establish the beginning of God’s kingdom on earth, I think he taught we can have a part in that kingdom and be part of the remedy as well as the problem, that central to his purposes are caring for the poor and marginalised and acting justly and with mercy, that we should forgive everyone and love our enemies rather than blow them to pieces, and that we are called not just to believe in him but to follow him. Much modern day evangelical christianity has forgotten or downplayed those teachings of Jesus. I hold most of the evangelical teachings about Jesus plus these as well, which makes things quite different.
in regard to people like Athronges, the Sarmatian, Theudas, the Egyptian prophet, Hillel, Shammai, Choni HaMa’agel, John the Baptist or Gamaliel, do we or any scholars believe any accounts of miracles worked by or with any of them, or the Pharaohs, or the Caesars?
If we buy the jesus miracle stuff, why not buy miracle stuff for any other person in history who had any miraculous or supernatural stuff attributed to them?
I can buy that there may have been intelligent design. I can buy that Jesus was a real guy an that he was executed.
I just dont see the possibility of intelligent design means the bible god was that designer.
I dont see how scholars agreeing that there was a real jew named jesus, who had some type of following, does anything to prove the larger than life miracle claims associated with him – especially in light of the biblical errors.
if it was down to only two choices, between atheism and belief in the bible god and jesus, then i could see where one might default to jesus – except those arent the only two choices and within christianity there are a lot of other choices to be made.
Since there are so many choices and since there have been so many misled people (who believed wholeheartedly and foolishly), and bogus religions in the past, then again, what is there? It seems it rests on scholars agreeing that jesus was probably a real guy – the rest seems like leaps of faith.
“Modern Christians just can’t imagine that the writers of the Gospels would make things up…like virgin births, men walking on water, zombies roaming the streets of Jerusalem, ascensions into outer space (or into other dimensions), etc. as part of their “ancient biographies”.
Of course not Gary. Most are trained in seminary school, and even then there is the contention of having to deal with school that rely heavily on indoctrination rather than intellectual inquiry and literary criticism. They are not trained to see literary devices, nor understand that literature is quite the complex beast when understanding it. They like things simple and easy, and the thought of challenging stories they were told as children is downright scary because it means they have to turn their whole world apart. Like the old biblical story of Samson, it would destroy everything in the temple of their mind – rebuilding might prove too costly.
Every time I encounter the fine tuning argument, I automatically think they must have somehow avoided ever hearing ofAdams’ puddle analogy or they would realize the ridiculousness of it.
I’m really enjoying the conversation and just now caught up with all the comments. I have a couple of things, real quick:
On Philo, I agree with Peter’s point, except in what it stated about Philo being in Jerusalem. Philo lived in Alexandria. He probably visited Jerusalem, but it’s hard to say how often. That being said, he was a Jewish philosopher and historian who wrote much about God and the OT, as well as the Logos, so had he known about Jesus, he probably would have been interested enough to write about him. And yes, considering some of the things that supposedly happened around Jesus’ crucifixion, it’s easy to wonder why he never mentions him.
At the same time, UnkleE makes a great point about the Jesus movement likely being very small. And since Philo doesn’t mention any of these other supposed messiahs, it may not be very surprising that he doesn’t mention Jesus. However, this point of view seems to bring up a problem in regards to the empty tomb argument. Many apologists ask why no one ever presented Jesus’ body, once his disciples started claiming he had risen from the dead. But if they didn’t really care, then why bother trying to find the body?
Amazing …..the more things change the more they stay the same and 24hrs away and unklee is back to his old tricks – the sycophant with unsubstantiated generalizations.
Luckily, you get a glimpse of the bullshit that lurks just beneath the surface when the confessions is made that naturally, he believes the character Jesus of Nazareth Nowhere died for his sins.
Considering that some of those sins are still being displayed in the manner in which he ”discusses” christianity perhaps the biblical character, Jesus needs to – in the words of James Bond – Die another day.
As I have said before, one cannot have an adult conversation with anyone who steadfastly adheres to the ridiculous belief that an horrendous human blood-sacrifice was required to absolve that person of ”sin”’..
Once again, one has to truly wonder at the motive of a classic Cherry-Picker Christian who has no interest whatsoever of pursuing truth through evidence for bringing his brand of bullshit proselytizing onto a blog that is 100% atheist.
This is what you’re going with? “The science of religion“? Talk about an oxymoron! What is it again that Nate sees in you? Clearly you take his affirmation as a carte blanche to spout nonsense.
I like unkleE for many reasons. Two of the most important are that he’s polite and he tries to be precise. We may disagree about a number of things, but I’m fine with that. I never expected everyone to agree with me anyway.
But arch, maybe we can avoid the more personal statements? All the silliness with Mike is too fresh, and I’m having flashbacks… 😉
Ark, please see my above comment to arch. Mike left a really bad taste in my mouth this time around, and I want to move the blog as far away from that as possible.
“I automatically think they must have somehow avoided ever hearing of Adams’ puddle analogy” – Isn’t there something somewhere about, “eyes that cannot see and ears that cannot hear —“?
Why were the Gospels written? We have no idea. But we do know how the Church used them: as propaganda.
The Gospels were used by the early Church to establish the existence of Jesus and legitimize the claim of his resurrection; a sign from God that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and the Son of God.
The Church was not using these books as “biographies”.
The Gospels were first century equivalents to modern Chick gospel tracts: They very probably made up whatever tall tale was necessary to win a convert. Look at the Gospels. As each new gospel was written, the stories become more and more “Chick-like”, with Matthew trotting out zombies onto the streets of a major city, just as Chick has little demons on the city street corners whispering into people’s ears and causing car accidents.
Just because Jack Chick and his cartoonists might include the name of a US President; use the names of real American cities; or refer to real historical events, etc. in one of their gospel tracts, does NOT mean that the demons and their supernatural acts in the gospel tract are real. Its propaganda, folks. The historicity and veracity of the events described in the tract is not what matters. What matters is getting you to believe the spiritual (supernatural) message.
Ark, please see my above comment to arch. Mike left a really bad taste in my mouth this time around, and I want to move the blog as far away from that as possible.
Mike is a rank arsehole of the first order, but just because a person’s dialogue technique is on the other end of the spectrum does not mean the topic/belief is still outright nonsense, Nate.
Enough people have noted the condescending way in which unklee continually deals with a great many people, so my assertions are not an isolated view by any means.
While you find him polite, I think his approach is often insidious.
As his arguments all require at least one major presupposition with no verifiable evidence they do not hold water.
Furthermore, as he is unbending regarding his foundational supernatural beliefs which he tries to palm off a ”fact” …. or the most reasonable explanation of the ”evidence”, I feel no compunction to hold back and treat what he peddles with any respect.
As my father would say, he is old enough and ugly enough to defend himself if he so chooses.
But as he has mentioned, he avoids robust confrontation. It does not go unnoticed that he rather focuses on those whose arguments he can subtly belittle, make his point then run for the metaphoric hills.
Several comments back, someone mentioned why none of the contemporaries of Jesus mention him. If the events in the Gospels are true, the entire Roman empire would have been talking about Jesus. So why were Philo and others silent about him. Conspiracy?
But there is another contemporary of Jesus who also fails to mention anything about Jesus in his writings, and this contemporary is a Christian, and some would argue, the most important Christian of the early Church…Paul of Tarsus. Paul talks a lot about “Christ” but never ONCE mentions the historical Jesus of the Gospels. Not once. Paul never says anything about Jesus parents, his birth place, his hometown, lecturing the scribes in the Temple at age 12, his baptism and God’s pronouncement of Jesus as his Son. Paul never mentions even one of Jesus’ miracles; not one of Jesus’ sermons; not one of Jesus’ parables; no mention of his betrayal by Judas; no mention of the details of the Last Supper other than the Creed of the Words of Institution he had probably “received” as he had the creed he quotes in I Corinthians chapter 15; no mention of Jesus trial; no mention of the details of the crucifixion; no details of the burial of Jesus; no mention of an empty tomb; no mention details of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances; no mention of women finding the empty tomb first; and no mention of the details of the Ascension.
Not one word.
And we are asked to believe that these four first century, anonymously-written books are historically accurate “biographies”???
I just think there’s a better way to deal with it. I don’t usually find unkleE condescending, but I’m sure it happens from time to time. I can’t think of a time when I’ve seen him be outright rude or insulting, though. So I just don’t see cause to treat him that way.
If his points don’t hold water, then we just need to point it out. But much of this just comes down to how much weight we each give specific issues. UnkleE puts a lot of weight in things like cosmology and consciousness, while they don’t mean much to me. I think some of the textual problems in the Bible deal deathblows to Christianity, but he sees those as minor issues (if he sees them as issues at all). Neither of us is being dishonest — we’re just different people who see things in unique ways. To anyone on the fence, they’re probably glad to see both perspectives.
As another example, the archaeology about Nazareth is a huge issue with you. I know it doesn’t carry as much weight with unkleE, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s being intellectually dishonest. Even though I’m an atheist, the Nazareth thing isn’t as important to me either. I think it’s interesting, but I think there are bigger issues.
Ultimately, I don’t like chiming in about tone or treating everyone like we’re in preschool. It’s demeaning and distracting. At the same time, I want this blog to be a place of open discussion where all viewpoints are welcome. As long as someone politely defends their position, they can comment as much as they like. I don’t want it to devolve into personal attacks. Say what you want about a position, but let’s be respectful of individuals.
And hopefully, this doesn’t need to be said, but I’ll say it anyway. I hope that nothing I’m saying here gives you the impression that I don’t want you (or arch) around. You’ve been very kind and supportive of me ever since we first “met,” and you have a lot of good information to offer. My blog has been made better by your presence, so please continue to hang around! It’s just that all the stuff with Mike has reminded me of how important civility is to me.
Anyway, I’ll step down from the podium now and let things get back on topic.
And why didn’t Saul of Tarsus go visit Jesus, Mother? He had every opportunity, did he not? He supposedly spent three years in Ephesus and Mary apparently lived just up the road, yet he felt no inclination to visit the mother of the Creator of the Universe?
And even if Paul didn’t have time to visit the Mother of God during one of his visits to Ephesus, why doesn’t he mention stopping off to have a short chat with John the Apostle? Not important to the story?
Hmmm.
So it’s important to point out that Peter was a Jew-schmoozing schmuck, but no time to mention learning about the historical Jesus from the “beloved disciple” or the Mother of God. These omissions fit right in with the theory that Paul had started his own religion and was on the outs with the Apostles and the (Jewish) Church.
“Mike left a really bad taste in my mouth this time around” – I can’t imagine it being much worse than the one Unk leaves in mine – he’s what Brandon will be like when he grows up, and that is NO compliment.
Finding Truth 
I was a YEC for 20+ years and believed fully in the Fall of Man and substitutionary atonement. Having been smacked in the face with the obvious truth of evolution I cannot reconcile the concept of substitutionary atonement with the theory of evolution. What is your belief in Jesus? Do you believe he died for your sins?
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE, thanks for offering to help. The part I was struggling with was answering Gary’s very direct question “Why do you believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead?”. I don’t actually believe this, which makes it very difficult to think of a convincing argument for it. Of your 4 points the only one related is #4, but demonstrating that Jesus is a historical person and that the gospels contain basic historical value does not really help much with proving that a resurrection actually occurred.
Yes, I concur. And an eternal creator or an eternal multiverse are both plausible explanations. I currently see no way of objectively choosing one over the other. If this were not the case I would become a deist or pantheist right now.
It is a powerful argument so long as there is no evidence of other universes. Some scientists think there is evidence of collisions from other bubble universes in the CMB. I think they were waiting for data from the Planck satellite to further this theory (which was just released in Febuary). So I’ll wait and see how that pans out. Concerning the rare earth argument you wrote “with the likelihood of zillions of planets out there, the argument is less effective” and I think this will apply to the cosmological fine-tuning argument as well if it turns out that other universes exist. If we are in a multiverse that is constantly producing bubble universes, some might collapse, some might rip apart and some might “stabilize” for a while like ours has.
Consciousness is a topic I’m interested in learning more about (even though I experience it everyday 🙂 ). I am currently hunting for a good book to read on this subject.
LikeLike
Arch, when it comes to the reasons why I have barryadamson2 as my handle: well, it is my name. My father is a very formal man when it comes to names. He is Barry Adamson, and I am Barry Adamson II. So it’s fitting to use barryadamson2. Not only this but when it comes to the internet, a quick type of my name without the suffix brings up a popular British Jazz artist, so the 2 helps make the distinction.
LikeLike
Wow! I go away for a couple days, and the thread has quite progressed! Been doing some work and cleaning. Last night’s adventure continues through today: the wax ring gasket on the toilet gave out so I have to repair it. Spent last night having to cut off rusty old bolts to replace them with new ones only to discover that the new ones are too small, so back at it again this morning!
LikeLike
Hi Ruth, I must say I don’t see how evolution affects the atonement. Can you explain how you feel about that?
I believe pretty much all the usual doctrines about Jesus, including that he died for my sins. I don’t have a problem with substitutionary atonement, but there are several atonement theories and I pretty much accept them all because I believe they all must be analogies for something that is deeper than we can understand, just like calling God “Father” is an analogy, and they all focus on a different way of seeing it.
My only “unorthodox” views about Jesus are Biblical ones – I think that he came to establish the beginning of God’s kingdom on earth, I think he taught we can have a part in that kingdom and be part of the remedy as well as the problem, that central to his purposes are caring for the poor and marginalised and acting justly and with mercy, that we should forgive everyone and love our enemies rather than blow them to pieces, and that we are called not just to believe in him but to follow him. Much modern day evangelical christianity has forgotten or downplayed those teachings of Jesus. I hold most of the evangelical teachings about Jesus plus these as well, which makes things quite different.
LikeLike
“I don’t see how evolution affects the atonement. Can you explain how you feel about that?”
I don’t see how it doesn’t affect the atonement. Are the wages of sin not death?
LikeLike
in regard to people like Athronges, the Sarmatian, Theudas, the Egyptian prophet, Hillel, Shammai, Choni HaMa’agel, John the Baptist or Gamaliel, do we or any scholars believe any accounts of miracles worked by or with any of them, or the Pharaohs, or the Caesars?
If we buy the jesus miracle stuff, why not buy miracle stuff for any other person in history who had any miraculous or supernatural stuff attributed to them?
I can buy that there may have been intelligent design. I can buy that Jesus was a real guy an that he was executed.
I just dont see the possibility of intelligent design means the bible god was that designer.
I dont see how scholars agreeing that there was a real jew named jesus, who had some type of following, does anything to prove the larger than life miracle claims associated with him – especially in light of the biblical errors.
if it was down to only two choices, between atheism and belief in the bible god and jesus, then i could see where one might default to jesus – except those arent the only two choices and within christianity there are a lot of other choices to be made.
Since there are so many choices and since there have been so many misled people (who believed wholeheartedly and foolishly), and bogus religions in the past, then again, what is there? It seems it rests on scholars agreeing that jesus was probably a real guy – the rest seems like leaps of faith.
LikeLike
“Modern Christians just can’t imagine that the writers of the Gospels would make things up…like virgin births, men walking on water, zombies roaming the streets of Jerusalem, ascensions into outer space (or into other dimensions), etc. as part of their “ancient biographies”.
Of course not Gary. Most are trained in seminary school, and even then there is the contention of having to deal with school that rely heavily on indoctrination rather than intellectual inquiry and literary criticism. They are not trained to see literary devices, nor understand that literature is quite the complex beast when understanding it. They like things simple and easy, and the thought of challenging stories they were told as children is downright scary because it means they have to turn their whole world apart. Like the old biblical story of Samson, it would destroy everything in the temple of their mind – rebuilding might prove too costly.
LikeLike
Sorry, that was supposed to read: “Most are NOT trained in seminary school…”
LikeLike
When you’re done there, you’re welcome to pop over and fix my lawnmower.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Arch,
Every time I encounter the fine tuning argument, I automatically think they must have somehow avoided ever hearing ofAdams’ puddle analogy or they would realize the ridiculousness of it.
LikeLike
I’m really enjoying the conversation and just now caught up with all the comments. I have a couple of things, real quick:
On Philo, I agree with Peter’s point, except in what it stated about Philo being in Jerusalem. Philo lived in Alexandria. He probably visited Jerusalem, but it’s hard to say how often. That being said, he was a Jewish philosopher and historian who wrote much about God and the OT, as well as the Logos, so had he known about Jesus, he probably would have been interested enough to write about him. And yes, considering some of the things that supposedly happened around Jesus’ crucifixion, it’s easy to wonder why he never mentions him.
At the same time, UnkleE makes a great point about the Jesus movement likely being very small. And since Philo doesn’t mention any of these other supposed messiahs, it may not be very surprising that he doesn’t mention Jesus. However, this point of view seems to bring up a problem in regards to the empty tomb argument. Many apologists ask why no one ever presented Jesus’ body, once his disciples started claiming he had risen from the dead. But if they didn’t really care, then why bother trying to find the body?
LikeLike
Amazing …..the more things change the more they stay the same and 24hrs away and unklee is back to his old tricks – the sycophant with unsubstantiated generalizations.
Luckily, you get a glimpse of the bullshit that lurks just beneath the surface when the confessions is made that naturally, he believes the character Jesus of
NazarethNowhere died for his sins.Considering that some of those sins are still being displayed in the manner in which he ”discusses” christianity perhaps the biblical character, Jesus needs to – in the words of James Bond – Die another day.
As I have said before, one cannot have an adult conversation with anyone who steadfastly adheres to the ridiculous belief that an horrendous human blood-sacrifice was required to absolve that person of ”sin”’..
Once again, one has to truly wonder at the motive of a classic Cherry-Picker Christian who has no interest whatsoever of pursuing truth through evidence for bringing his brand of bullshit proselytizing onto a blog that is 100% atheist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like unkleE for many reasons. Two of the most important are that he’s polite and he tries to be precise. We may disagree about a number of things, but I’m fine with that. I never expected everyone to agree with me anyway.
But arch, maybe we can avoid the more personal statements? All the silliness with Mike is too fresh, and I’m having flashbacks… 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark, please see my above comment to arch. Mike left a really bad taste in my mouth this time around, and I want to move the blog as far away from that as possible.
Thanks 🙂
LikeLike
“I automatically think they must have somehow avoided ever hearing of Adams’ puddle analogy” – Isn’t there something somewhere about, “eyes that cannot see and ears that cannot hear —“?
LikeLike
Why were the Gospels written? We have no idea. But we do know how the Church used them: as propaganda.
The Gospels were used by the early Church to establish the existence of Jesus and legitimize the claim of his resurrection; a sign from God that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and the Son of God.
The Church was not using these books as “biographies”.
The Gospels were first century equivalents to modern Chick gospel tracts: They very probably made up whatever tall tale was necessary to win a convert. Look at the Gospels. As each new gospel was written, the stories become more and more “Chick-like”, with Matthew trotting out zombies onto the streets of a major city, just as Chick has little demons on the city street corners whispering into people’s ears and causing car accidents.
Just because Jack Chick and his cartoonists might include the name of a US President; use the names of real American cities; or refer to real historical events, etc. in one of their gospel tracts, does NOT mean that the demons and their supernatural acts in the gospel tract are real. Its propaganda, folks. The historicity and veracity of the events described in the tract is not what matters. What matters is getting you to believe the spiritual (supernatural) message.
LikeLike
Interesting point, Gary.
Honestly, Matthew’s gospel has so many issues…
LikeLike
Mike is a rank arsehole of the first order, but just because a person’s dialogue technique is on the other end of the spectrum does not mean the topic/belief is still outright nonsense, Nate.
Enough people have noted the condescending way in which unklee continually deals with a great many people, so my assertions are not an isolated view by any means.
While you find him polite, I think his approach is often insidious.
As his arguments all require at least one major presupposition with no verifiable evidence they do not hold water.
Furthermore, as he is unbending regarding his foundational supernatural beliefs which he tries to palm off a ”fact” …. or the most reasonable explanation of the ”evidence”, I feel no compunction to hold back and treat what he peddles with any respect.
As my father would say, he is old enough and ugly enough to defend himself if he so chooses.
But as he has mentioned, he avoids robust confrontation. It does not go unnoticed that he rather focuses on those whose arguments he can subtly belittle, make his point then run for the metaphoric hills.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Several comments back, someone mentioned why none of the contemporaries of Jesus mention him. If the events in the Gospels are true, the entire Roman empire would have been talking about Jesus. So why were Philo and others silent about him. Conspiracy?
But there is another contemporary of Jesus who also fails to mention anything about Jesus in his writings, and this contemporary is a Christian, and some would argue, the most important Christian of the early Church…Paul of Tarsus. Paul talks a lot about “Christ” but never ONCE mentions the historical Jesus of the Gospels. Not once. Paul never says anything about Jesus parents, his birth place, his hometown, lecturing the scribes in the Temple at age 12, his baptism and God’s pronouncement of Jesus as his Son. Paul never mentions even one of Jesus’ miracles; not one of Jesus’ sermons; not one of Jesus’ parables; no mention of his betrayal by Judas; no mention of the details of the Last Supper other than the Creed of the Words of Institution he had probably “received” as he had the creed he quotes in I Corinthians chapter 15; no mention of Jesus trial; no mention of the details of the crucifixion; no details of the burial of Jesus; no mention of an empty tomb; no mention details of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances; no mention of women finding the empty tomb first; and no mention of the details of the Ascension.
Not one word.
And we are asked to believe that these four first century, anonymously-written books are historically accurate “biographies”???
Seriously?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of Paul, Gary, Nan has just put up a post on him –
https://sayitnow.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/think-you-know-paul-the-apostle-think-again/
LikeLike
Hi Ark,
I just think there’s a better way to deal with it. I don’t usually find unkleE condescending, but I’m sure it happens from time to time. I can’t think of a time when I’ve seen him be outright rude or insulting, though. So I just don’t see cause to treat him that way.
If his points don’t hold water, then we just need to point it out. But much of this just comes down to how much weight we each give specific issues. UnkleE puts a lot of weight in things like cosmology and consciousness, while they don’t mean much to me. I think some of the textual problems in the Bible deal deathblows to Christianity, but he sees those as minor issues (if he sees them as issues at all). Neither of us is being dishonest — we’re just different people who see things in unique ways. To anyone on the fence, they’re probably glad to see both perspectives.
As another example, the archaeology about Nazareth is a huge issue with you. I know it doesn’t carry as much weight with unkleE, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s being intellectually dishonest. Even though I’m an atheist, the Nazareth thing isn’t as important to me either. I think it’s interesting, but I think there are bigger issues.
Ultimately, I don’t like chiming in about tone or treating everyone like we’re in preschool. It’s demeaning and distracting. At the same time, I want this blog to be a place of open discussion where all viewpoints are welcome. As long as someone politely defends their position, they can comment as much as they like. I don’t want it to devolve into personal attacks. Say what you want about a position, but let’s be respectful of individuals.
And hopefully, this doesn’t need to be said, but I’ll say it anyway. I hope that nothing I’m saying here gives you the impression that I don’t want you (or arch) around. You’ve been very kind and supportive of me ever since we first “met,” and you have a lot of good information to offer. My blog has been made better by your presence, so please continue to hang around! It’s just that all the stuff with Mike has reminded me of how important civility is to me.
Anyway, I’ll step down from the podium now and let things get back on topic.
[rant=off]
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
And why didn’t Saul of Tarsus go visit Jesus, Mother? He had every opportunity, did he not? He supposedly spent three years in Ephesus and Mary apparently lived just up the road, yet he felt no inclination to visit the mother of the Creator of the Universe?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I never thought of that, Ark. Very good point.
And even if Paul didn’t have time to visit the Mother of God during one of his visits to Ephesus, why doesn’t he mention stopping off to have a short chat with John the Apostle? Not important to the story?
Hmmm.
So it’s important to point out that Peter was a Jew-schmoozing schmuck, but no time to mention learning about the historical Jesus from the “beloved disciple” or the Mother of God. These omissions fit right in with the theory that Paul had started his own religion and was on the outs with the Apostles and the (Jewish) Church.
LikeLike
“Mike left a really bad taste in my mouth this time around” – I can’t imagine it being much worse than the one Unk leaves in mine – he’s what Brandon will be like when he grows up, and that is NO compliment.
LikeLiked by 1 person