Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME FORUMS BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:18 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5350
Location: California
Thanks: 678
Thanked: 1376 times in 1084 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
Quote:
I do. But I have always thought that pithy quotes should be used sparingly.


So then, what would you call it when someone is certain of something which cannot be proven? I understand if you're afraid of the hotseat such a question poses.

Quote:
There is no interpretation necessary when Jesus references the Son of Man and the Pharisees prepare to stone Him. Wright claims that Jesus was not explicitly referring to Himself. Perhaps, but that is a distinction without a difference, or, for the nose bleed crowd, a parsing akin to 'it depends on what the definitiono of the word is - is.'


You might be right on this point. As I said earlier, some things can be read between the lines. However, what if the Pharisees did not prepare to stone him. Perhaps the only thing the author remembered was what Jesus said and how he said it, and misremembered anything the Pharisees did. Answering this question, either in favor of Wright or in favor of you, requires making an assumption of the truth of these constituent parts. I'm not arguing against this criticism. I'm saying that there are assumptions that you make, that we all make, that you don't realize are assumptions.

Another point on whether or not he explicitly referred to himself as the Son of Man is what Wright intended by it. As DWill said, "The point Wright makes is that the idea that Jesus was the Son of Man came only after the crucifixion, when his followers then realized that he must have been speaking cryptically of himself. It is a "postmortem identification of Jesus with the Son of Man" (310)."

So in making the inference, such as that only the Son of Man can forgive sins, and that the Pharisees had the urge to stone him, are precisely what Wright is talking about. Although Jesus never refers to himself as such explicitly in those instances, it can be seen after the fact that he was speaking cryptically of himself. Which means he is implicitly referring to himself as the Son of Man, as you point out, which also appears to coincide with what Wright is saying.



Wed Oct 13, 2010 11:09 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4944
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1081
Thanked: 1040 times in 813 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
stahwre, are you watching the "God in America" program? I'd be interested in your reaction (over in that thread). I also was wondering if you plan on following Wright through the Koran discussion. Would you have any of the same objections to Wright deconstructing the Koran as you have to him doing it to the Bible? And if not, why not?


_________________
Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance that he himself has spun.

Clifford Geertz


Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:11 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4607
Location: Florida
Thanks: 149
Thanked: 252 times in 219 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
I do. But I have always thought that pithy quotes should be used sparingly.


So then, what would you call it when someone is certain of something which cannot be proven? I understand if you're afraid of the hotseat such a question poses.


Why do you and tat insist on editorializing? That seems to become prominent when you get trapped.

Oh well, as far as my relationship with Jesus, it is certain and has been proven.

Quote:
There is no interpretation necessary when Jesus references the Son of Man and the Pharisees prepare to stone Him. Wright claims that Jesus was not explicitly referring to Himself. Perhaps, but that is a distinction without a difference, or, for the nose bleed crowd, a parsing akin to 'it depends on what the definitiono of the word is - is.'


interbane wrote:
You might be right on this point. As I said earlier, some things can be read between the lines. However, what if the Pharisees did not prepare to stone him. Perhaps the only thing the author remembered was what Jesus said and how he said it, and misremembered anything the Pharisees did. Answering this question, either in favor of Wright or in favor of you, requires making an assumption of the truth of these constituent parts. I'm not arguing against this criticism. I'm saying that there are assumptions that you make, that we all make, that you don't realize are assumptions.


Do you live in the rabbit hole. Don't you see that your entire belief system is based on denying what is before your eyes. Granted, it is prudent to be skeptical, but you are constantly lobbying for the ancient record to be questioned in favor of a new one. You argue that the authors of the Gospels had an agenda and so shaped the narrative to conform to that agenda. I submit that may be said of Wright as well, and with more to support my claim. Reason: Wright stands to make money by contriving a new interpretation of Christianity. His incentive is money. The authors of the Gospel had no evidence that their story was going to bring them anything but grief. I don't know if you are aware or not but there were many people running around in the 1st century claiming to be the Messiah. Their fate was invariably a bad one so the precedent was well established that, even before the persecutions of the Christians began, and they began very soon, life was not going to go well for the followers of Jesus. So what was their motive? Fame" - not likely; Fortune? - not only not likely but preached against by Jesus, Comfortable life? - again, not only not likely but preached against by Jesus. So, given one story from a man who stands to make money from his 'new' intreptation vs a dramatically different story from people who have not hope to benefit and whose leader extolled truth, I will side with the latter.

interbane wrote:
Another point on whether or not he explicitly referred to himself as the Son of Man is what Wright intended by it. As DWill said, "The point Wright makes is that the idea that Jesus was the Son of Man came only after the crucifixion, when his followers then realized that he must have been speaking cryptically of himself. It is a "postmortem identification of Jesus with the Son of Man" (310)."


Wright is rewritting the narrative. The chronology provided by the narrative is that Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man before the crucifixion. Wright has nothing other than his financial motivation to rearrange the narrative.

interbane wrote:
So in making the inference, such as that only the Son of Man can forgive sins, and that the Pharisees had the urge to stone him, are precisely what Wright is talking about. Although Jesus never refers to himself as such explicitly in those instances, it can be seen after the fact that he was speaking cryptically of himself. Which means he is implicitly referring to himself as the Son of Man, as you point out, which also appears to coincide with what Wright is saying.


This is the Wright trick. Ignore the narrative, make a bogus claim about it and move on. What was cryptic about Jesus saying he was the Son of Man. You have to stand on your head, in the rabbit hole with the Mad Hatter and whistle Dixie to say with a straight face that Jesus never 'explicitly' claimed to be the Son of Man. I suppose the only way to satisy you is if the Gospel said, "And Jesus said, 'Hey Robert Wright, Interbane, Geo, Robert Tulip, ... (every person who ever lived individually named) I hereby explicitly state that I am the Son of Man. He didn't do that. He didn't need to do that. What He said was enough for the Pharisees to be incited into enough of a rage that they were willing to violate one of the 10 commandments (Thou Shalt Not Murder) and stone Jesus to death.

thank you for your post.


_________________
“You cannot evade the issue of God, whether you talk about pigs or the binomial theory, you are still talking about Him. Now if Christianity be. . . a fragment of metaphysical nonsense invented by a few people, then, of course, defending it will simply mean talking that metaphysical nonsense over and over. But if Christianity should happen to be true – then defending it may mean talking about anything or everything. Things can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is false, but nothing can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is true.”
- G.K. Chesterton


Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:58 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4607
Location: Florida
Thanks: 149
Thanked: 252 times in 219 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
DWill wrote:
stahwre, are you watching the "God in America" program? I'd be interested in your reaction (over in that thread). I also was wondering if you plan on following Wright through the Koran discussion. Would you have any of the same objections to Wright deconstructing the Koran as you have to him doing it to the Bible? And if not, why not?


I am not watching God in America. I have watched such programs before and find them less than accurate.

I will follow the discussion of the Koran but I am not knowledgeable about the Koran having only read it once so I suspect that Wright will get a free pass on it since I don't think there are any Muslims on BT.


_________________
“You cannot evade the issue of God, whether you talk about pigs or the binomial theory, you are still talking about Him. Now if Christianity be. . . a fragment of metaphysical nonsense invented by a few people, then, of course, defending it will simply mean talking that metaphysical nonsense over and over. But if Christianity should happen to be true – then defending it may mean talking about anything or everything. Things can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is false, but nothing can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is true.”
- G.K. Chesterton


Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:09 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5350
Location: California
Thanks: 678
Thanked: 1376 times in 1084 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
Quote:
Why do you and tat insist on editorializing? That seems to become prominent when you get trapped.

Oh well, as far as my relationship with Jesus, it is certain and has been proven.


I am trapped? :lol:

You're obviously the one trapped, since you failed to respond to my question. Why are you so certain there are no minor gods if their nonexistance cannot be proven? (...and why do you think changing the subject to Jesus is a valid response?)

Quote:
Do you live in the rabbit hole. Don't you see that your entire belief system is based on denying what is before your eyes.


I have no clue what you're referring to. You see, you don't even know what my belief system even is. I've never spoken about my beliefs. This is a projection on your part, and nothing more.

You've gone through this charade before of questioning what possible motives the biblical authors could have had for fabricating. You list a few, then follow them up with each being unlikely for some reason or another. We could come up with many more, depending on how inventive we are. We could certainly come up with some better than the ones you've listed.

For example, think about this: "So what was their motive? Fame" - not likely; Fortune? - not only not likely but preached against by Jesus, Comfortable life? - again, not only not likely but preached against by Jesus."

If they made the story up, that necessarily means they made up the part about Jesus preaching such things. This is horrible reasoning on your part Stahrwe, you're better than this.

Let's pretend there are far better reasons the ancient authors would not have fabricated the bible. The statistics are the same as a group of people playing the lottery. Let's say there are 200 people who have purchased a lottery ticket. One guy, John, is very unlikely to be the winner. At the same time, Mary is also unlikely to win. We could go through the entire roster and make that claim for each and every one.

But what matters is the combined sum of "what-if" scenarios. In the lottery scenario, it is guaranteed that some person will win. In your contrived responses to how unlikely each given motivation is, you are speaking for individual cases rather than the sum of it's parts. If you list a couple dozen possible motivations, and follow each one with an "unlikely because...", the end result is that it is very likely at least one of the roster of motivations is true, despite the unlikelihood of each of them individually.

There are two factors that can be considered which tip the scales even further here. One is our present day observation of people who fabricate stories. We know men make up stories all the time, nonstop, which they themselves believe to be true. The second is, if the biblical texts weren't fabricated, we are lead to believe some ridiculous conclusions that don't match up with conventional wisdom. In logic, this is similar to disproving a negative. The conclusion is that given all available observation and reasoning, the bible is fabricated.

Quote:
You have to stand on your head, in the rabbit hole with the Mad Hatter and whistle Dixie to say with a straight face that Jesus never 'explicitly' claimed to be the Son of Man. I suppose the only way to satisy you is if the Gospel said, "And Jesus said, 'Hey Robert Wright, Interbane, Geo, Robert Tulip, ... (every person who ever lived individually named) I hereby explicitly state that I am the Son of Man.


Despite your venomous response, Wright is correct and you are wrong. It must be frustrating for you not to be able to reference some translation guide and change the meaning of "explicit" so that you can rationalize yourself into being right.



Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:00 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4607
Location: Florida
Thanks: 149
Thanked: 252 times in 219 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
Why do you and tat insist on editorializing? That seems to become prominent when you get trapped.

Oh well, as far as my relationship with Jesus, it is certain and has been proven.


I am trapped? :lol:

You're obviously the one trapped, since you failed to respond to my question. Why are you so certain there are no minor gods if their nonexistance cannot be proven? (...and why do you think changing the subject to Jesus is a valid response?)


More editorializing. We can be certain there are no minor gods as there is no way to define what a minor god is. If something cannot be defined it cannot exist. Pretty simple really. When was the last time you shaved?

Quote:
Do you live in the rabbit hole. Don't you see that your entire belief system is based on denying what is before your eyes.


interbane wrote:
I have no clue what you're referring to. You see, you don't even know what my belief system even is. I've never spoken about my beliefs. This is a projection on your part, and nothing more.


Got me didn't you. Projection? really?

interbane wrote:
You've gone through this charade before of questioning what possible motives the biblical authors could have had for fabricating. You list a few, then follow them up with each being unlikely for some reason or another. We could come up with many more, depending on how inventive we are. We could certainly come up with some better than the ones you've listed.


Please do so.

For example, think about this: "So what was their motive? Fame" - not likely; Fortune? - not only not likely but preached against by Jesus, Comfortable life? - again, not only not likely but preached against by Jesus."

interbane wrote:
If they made the story up, that necessarily means they made up the part about Jesus preaching such things. This is horrible reasoning on your part Stahrwe, you're better than this.

Let's pretend there are far better reasons the ancient authors would not have fabricated the bible. The statistics are the same as a group of people playing the lottery. Let's say there are 200 people who have purchased a lottery ticket. One guy, John, is very unlikely to be the winner. At the same time, Mary is also unlikely to win. We could go through the entire roster and make that claim for each and every one.

But what matters is the combined sum of "what-if" scenarios. In the lottery scenario, it is guaranteed that some person will win. In your contrived responses to how unlikely each given motivation is, you are speaking for individual cases rather than the sum of it's parts. If you list a couple dozen possible motivations, and follow each one with an "unlikely because...", the end result is that it is very likely at least one of the roster of motivations is true, despite the unlikelihood of each of them individually.


Interbane, I am surprised at you. In my state we have a lottery where millions of people participate and on a given draw there are many instances where no one wins. Since you didn't stipulate a continuing game, I can envision such a result in your lottery where there is no winner proving you wrong. But perhaps you meant that there were only 200 tickets sold and someone is guaranteed to win the prize. In that case I would not describe the chances of an individual winning as being unlikely, I would characterize them as 1 in 200.

Wright's theory of gaming is that as society becomes more complex the probability of a non-zero sum outcome increases. What he fails to appreciate is that Christianity is predicated on an increasingly simple society implying a zero-sum outcome. Everyone who plays wins, those who don't play lose. Have you shaved yet?

interbane wrote:
There are two factors that can be considered which tip the scales even further here. One is our present day observation of people who fabricate stories. We know men make up stories all the time, nonstop, which they themselves believe to be true. The second is, if the biblical texts weren't fabricated, we are lead to believe some ridiculous conclusions that don't match up with conventional wisdom. In logic, this is similar to disproving a negative. The conclusion is that given all available observation and reasoning, the bible is fabricated.


I presume you are referring to Wright when you say that men make up stories all the time, correct? The reason Wright does so, is that there is a personal benefit to him (sells books, makes money, gets famous). On the other hand he might be disinclined to make up stories if the consequences were ridicule, torture, and crucifixion. With few exceptions the disciples all met brutal deaths for their support of Christianity.

Quote:
You have to stand on your head, in the rabbit hole with the Mad Hatter and whistle Dixie to say with a straight face that Jesus never 'explicitly' claimed to be the Son of Man. I suppose the only way to satisy you is if the Gospel said, "And Jesus said, 'Hey Robert Wright, Interbane, Geo, Robert Tulip, ... (every person who ever lived individually named) I hereby explicitly state that I am the Son of Man.


interbane wrote:
Despite your venomous response, Wright is correct and you are wrong. It must be frustrating for you not to be able to reference some translation guide and change the meaning of "explicit" so that you can rationalize yourself into being right.


you think this was venomous? I thought it was cute.

I don't believe I ever changed the meaning of explicit I merely pointed out that the distinction which is so critical to Wright was lost on the Pharisees. I find that rather amusing.

Where is that razor anyway?

thanks for the post.


_________________
“You cannot evade the issue of God, whether you talk about pigs or the binomial theory, you are still talking about Him. Now if Christianity be. . . a fragment of metaphysical nonsense invented by a few people, then, of course, defending it will simply mean talking that metaphysical nonsense over and over. But if Christianity should happen to be true – then defending it may mean talking about anything or everything. Things can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is false, but nothing can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is true.”
- G.K. Chesterton


Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:49 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5350
Location: California
Thanks: 678
Thanked: 1376 times in 1084 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
You're a riot! I'm not sure why I try... you are way beyond help. :chef:

You want a razor, it all boils down to two competing explanations. Either most of our modern knowledge is wrong, or some time in the past some people fabricated the Bible.

It cannot be put more simply, and the disjunction is almost infinitely disproportionate. If you should be certain of anything, it is that the bible is fabricated. Think on this next time you hope to invoke parsimony.



Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:02 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I brake for bookstores!

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3141
Location: NC
Thanks: 1039
Thanked: 1114 times in 837 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
stahrwe wrote:
Because Abram/Abraham is the central common ancestor for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. His story is also the story of the emergence of monotheism from polytheism.


stahrwe wrote:
I found the entire book a contrivance of lightweight speculation. That might have been acceptable except the Wright did not even address the elephant in the tent. His entire premise was that monotheism evolved out of polytheism as a result of some sort of conscious process by auhors and editors. Why, and how is never explained. What Wright ignored was the very specific call of Abram out of Ur back in Genesis. Ur was polytheistic and Abram (later changed to Abraham) had relatives back in Ur who remained polytheists. This call explains very neatly the emergence of monotheism and the ongoing struggle the Jews had with polytheistic tendencies without the rampant speculation that Wright engages in often in such extreme ways as to discredit himself.


I had to do some digging for Stahrwe's explanation of the transition from polytheism to monotheism. I guess this it it.

Gee, I don't know. I feel a little let down. This is supposed to "very neatly" explain the emergence of monotheism. This is supposed to be the elephant in the tent? Seriously?

This is hardly better than goddittit. The answer to everything.

One of these days, Stahrwe's going to come out and say, nah, just pulling your legs guys. I just know he is.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:17 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4607
Location: Florida
Thanks: 149
Thanked: 252 times in 219 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
geo wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
Because Abram/Abraham is the central common ancestor for Jews, Christians, and Muslims. His story is also the story of the emergence of monotheism from polytheism.


stahrwe wrote:
I found the entire book a contrivance of lightweight speculation. That might have been acceptable except the Wright did not even address the elephant in the tent. His entire premise was that monotheism evolved out of polytheism as a result of some sort of conscious process by auhors and editors. Why, and how is never explained. What Wright ignored was the very specific call of Abram out of Ur back in Genesis. Ur was polytheistic and Abram (later changed to Abraham) had relatives back in Ur who remained polytheists. This call explains very neatly the emergence of monotheism and the ongoing struggle the Jews had with polytheistic tendencies without the rampant speculation that Wright engages in often in such extreme ways as to discredit himself.


I had to do some digging for Stahrwe's explanation of the transition from polytheism to monotheism. I guess this it it.

Gee, I don't know. I feel a little let down. This is supposed to "very neatly" explain the emergence of monotheism. This is supposed to be the elephant in the tent? Seriously?

This is hardly better than goddittit. The answer to everything.

One of these days, Stahrwe's going to come out and say, nah, just pulling your legs guys. I just know he is.


Not exactly. Let's suppose for a moment that Abram only thought he heard God's call to leave Ur and relocate to Palestine and to worship only Him. Abram, believing he had been called left his homeland and did as he thought he had been instructed. This included his renouncing the polytheism he had been a part of while in Ur. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Either way Wright sacrifices his credibility by ignoring the story of Abram in Genesis.


_________________
“You cannot evade the issue of God, whether you talk about pigs or the binomial theory, you are still talking about Him. Now if Christianity be. . . a fragment of metaphysical nonsense invented by a few people, then, of course, defending it will simply mean talking that metaphysical nonsense over and over. But if Christianity should happen to be true – then defending it may mean talking about anything or everything. Things can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is false, but nothing can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is true.”
- G.K. Chesterton


Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:29 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I brake for bookstores!

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3141
Location: NC
Thanks: 1039
Thanked: 1114 times in 837 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
Interbane wrote:
You're a riot! I'm not sure why I try... you are way beyond help. :chef:

You want a razor, it all boils down to two competing explanations. Either most of our modern knowledge is wrong, or some time in the past some people fabricated the Bible.


I keep saying the ultimate litmus test is the age of the earth. For Stahrwe's literal interpretation of the Bible to be true means that almost every educated person on the planet is wrong about the age of the earth. All of modern science is wrong. The geologists, the biologists, the paleontologists, the archaelogists, the astronomers, the physicists, the geochemists, not to mention all those scientists at NASA. Not just a little wrong. Wrong by 4.5 billion years! The basis for almost all of empirical science over the last 130 years is flat out wrong.

Because it says so in the Bible! :lol:


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:37 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4607
Location: Florida
Thanks: 149
Thanked: 252 times in 219 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
geo wrote:
Interbane wrote:
You're a riot! I'm not sure why I try... you are way beyond help. :chef:

You want a razor, it all boils down to two competing explanations. Either most of our modern knowledge is wrong, or some time in the past some people fabricated the Bible.


I keep saying the ultimate litmus test is the age of the earth. For Stahrwe's literal interpretation of the Bible to be true means that almost every educated person on the planet is wrong about the age of the earth. All of modern science is wrong. The geologists, the biologists, the paleontologists, the archaelogists, the astronomers, the physicists, the geochemists, not to mention all those scientists at NASA. Not just a little wrong. Wrong by 4.5 billion years! The basis for almost all of empirical science over the last 130 years is flat out wrong.

Because it says so in the Bible! :lol:


This is classic Turtle, when your arguments fail you resort to the irrelevant. We are dealing with the story of Abram here as an explanation for the transition (not evolution) he made from polytheism to monotheism. The age of the earth has nothing to do with this discussion except to serve as reassurance to you that you can dismiss my critique.


_________________
“You cannot evade the issue of God, whether you talk about pigs or the binomial theory, you are still talking about Him. Now if Christianity be. . . a fragment of metaphysical nonsense invented by a few people, then, of course, defending it will simply mean talking that metaphysical nonsense over and over. But if Christianity should happen to be true – then defending it may mean talking about anything or everything. Things can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is false, but nothing can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is true.”
- G.K. Chesterton


Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:00 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I brake for bookstores!

Gold Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3141
Location: NC
Thanks: 1039
Thanked: 1114 times in 837 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
stahrwe wrote:
geo wrote:
Interbane wrote:
You're a riot! I'm not sure why I try... you are way beyond help. :chef:

You want a razor, it all boils down to two competing explanations. Either most of our modern knowledge is wrong, or some time in the past some people fabricated the Bible.


I keep saying the ultimate litmus test is the age of the earth. For Stahrwe's literal interpretation of the Bible to be true means that almost every educated person on the planet is wrong about the age of the earth. All of modern science is wrong. The geologists, the biologists, the paleontologists, the archaelogists, the astronomers, the physicists, the geochemists, not to mention all those scientists at NASA. Not just a little wrong. Wrong by 4.5 billion years! The basis for almost all of empirical science over the last 130 years is flat out wrong.

Because it says so in the Bible! :lol:


This is classic Turtle, when your arguments fail you resort to the irrelevant. We are dealing with the story of Abram here as an explanation for the transition (not evolution) he made from polytheism to monotheism. The age of the earth has nothing to do with this discussion except to serve as reassurance to you that you can dismiss my critique.


On the contrary, all of your arguments are based on the literal truth of the Bible. You are saying here that a story from the Bible explains the transition from polytheism to monotheism. You are basing your claim on the infallibility of the Bible. But for the Bible to be literally true, the earth needs to be 6,000 years old. The earth is very obviously not 6,000 years old, so there goes your argument in a puff of smoke. The Bible cannot be literally true. There is no reason to continue.

Check and mate.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:25 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4607
Location: Florida
Thanks: 149
Thanked: 252 times in 219 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
geo wrote:
Interbane wrote:
You're a riot! I'm not sure why I try... you are way beyond help. :chef:

You want a razor, it all boils down to two competing explanations. Either most of our modern knowledge is wrong, or some time in the past some people fabricated the Bible.


I keep saying the ultimate litmus test is the age of the earth. For Stahrwe's literal interpretation of the Bible to be true means that almost every educated person on the planet is wrong about the age of the earth. All of modern science is wrong. The geologists, the biologists, the paleontologists, the archaelogists, the astronomers, the physicists, the geochemists, not to mention all those scientists at NASA. Not just a little wrong. Wrong by 4.5 billion years! The basis for almost all of empirical science over the last 130 years is flat out wrong.

Because it says so in the Bible! :lol:


stahrwe wrote:
This is classic Turtle, when your arguments fail you resort to the irrelevant. We are dealing with the story of Abram here as an explanation for the transition (not evolution) he made from polytheism to monotheism. The age of the earth has nothing to do with this discussion except to serve as reassurance to you that you can dismiss my critique.


geo wrote:
On the contrary, all of your arguments are based on the literal truth of the Bible. You are saying here that a story from the Bible explains the transition from polytheism to monotheism. You are basing your claim on the infallibility of the Bible. But for the Bible to be literally true, the earth needs to be 6,000 years old. The earth is very obviously not 6,000 years old, so there goes your argument in a puff of smoke. The Bible cannot be literally true. There is no reason to continue.

Check and mate.


Are you really Tat?
In tournaments, the victor never announces Checkmate, the vanquished opponent conceeds. I await your laying your king on its side.

We are dealing with a story on its merits. Wright did not introduce the creation story in connection with Abram, and you are not examining the merits of my beliefs, it is correctly stated that we are comparing two narratives:

1) The story from the Bible which involves a very simple, straightforward move. And, you will note that I did not even insist that it was an actual call from God, only that Abram believed it to be. He reacted to the call and viola you have monotheism.

or

2) a convoluted story of shadowy conspirators who are unnamed and whose motives are unknown someone how deciding to move a system of belief off on track and onto another with no real concept of how to do so.

In any other context, you would be arguing for #1, while we know what #2 is.


_________________
“You cannot evade the issue of God, whether you talk about pigs or the binomial theory, you are still talking about Him. Now if Christianity be. . . a fragment of metaphysical nonsense invented by a few people, then, of course, defending it will simply mean talking that metaphysical nonsense over and over. But if Christianity should happen to be true – then defending it may mean talking about anything or everything. Things can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is false, but nothing can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is true.”
- G.K. Chesterton


Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:41 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5350
Location: California
Thanks: 678
Thanked: 1376 times in 1084 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
Quote:
This is classic Turtle, when your arguments fail you resort to the irrelevant.


You left my arguments completely untouched and only criticized trivial, unrelated points. It doesn't matter if no one wins in "real" lotteries, that's completely irrelevant to my point. It doesn't matter if you refer to low odds as 1 in 200 or "unlikely". Saying that men were brutalized for being Christians serves no purpose. (Would YOU suddenly stop believing even if you were threatened with brutality?) You think your apoplectic replies when shown unequivocably to be wrong are cute.

You did absolutely nothing to any of my arguments, you just posted a bunch of garbage that touched on ancillary, non-critical points to make yourself feel better. It's not worthy of a reply from me. If that appears to you as turtling up, then so be it.

Quote:
Let's suppose for a moment that Abram only thought he heard God's call to leave Ur and relocate to Palestine and to worship only Him.


Yes, let's start all our arguments with assumptions. :mrgreen:

Quote:
The age of the earth has nothing to do with this discussion except to serve as reassurance to you that you can dismiss my critique.


The age of the Earth has EVERYTHING to do with this discussion. You're appealing to parsimony to justify your methods of interpretation. What you fail to realize when discussing the motive that ancient scholars had for fabricating the bible, you're completely ignoring a required conclusion. If they did not fabricate the bible, most modern human knowledge is wrong. The age of the Earth is the most clear cut example. Dozens of fields of study from different locations, including different groups of people, and entirely different methods, have individually corroborated the Earth's age. The procedures and background of which are built upon a pyramidal structure of knowledge so vast and all encompassing that you're truly an idiot to think the entire scientific community is that perfectly and totally deluded. Experiments that are routinely re-created hundreds of times across the globe must ALL BE SIMULTANEOUSLY WRONG... but not only that, they must be wrong in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY!!! The only answer to which is that EVERY ONE of these scientists are working in concert to further a massive conspiracy that is so complicated and all encompassing that the dangers of Nuclear War pale in comparison to the dangers it poses. They must somehow know, out of a pool of hundreds of millions, which people will eventually turn into scientists in the near future, and recruit them to their cause before any damaging experiments are done that would possibly unravel the conspiracy.

You're right about one thing though. We can dismiss the critique of anyone who is deluded enough to believe such nonsense.



The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
geo
Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:43 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Masters


Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 467
Thanks: 25
Thanked: 29 times in 28 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 13 - How Jesus Became Savior
This is just one of the many arguments that you cannot win with the Bible, sorry. If one man created the earth he ought to at least have a deed or something that could be found indicating his ownership.



Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:42 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:


BookTalk.org Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Featured Book Suggestions
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
    

Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.

Featured Books

Books by New Authors



Booktalk.org on Facebook 



BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSBOOKSTRANSCRIPTSOLD FORUMSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY

BOOK FORUMS FOR ALL BOOKS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
Oliver Twist - by Charles DickensSense and Goodness Without God - by Richard CarrierFrankenstein - by Mary ShelleyThe Big Questions - by Simon BlackburnScience Was Born of Christianity - by Stacy TrasancosThe Happiness Hypothesis - by Jonathan HaidtA Game of Thrones - by George R. R. MartinTempesta's Dream - by Vincent LoCocoWhy Nations Fail - by Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonThe Drowning Girl - Caitlin R. KiernanThe Consolations of the Forest - by Sylvain TessonThe Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion: The Mormons - by David FitzgeraldA Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - by James JoyceThe Divine Comedy - by Dante AlighieriThe Magic of Reality - by Richard DawkinsDubliners - by James JoyceMy Name Is Red - by Orhan PamukThe World Until Yesterday - by Jared DiamondThe Man Who Was Thursday - by by G. K. ChestertonThe Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven PinkerLord Jim by Joseph ConradThe Hobbit by J. R. R. TolkienThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas AdamsAtlas Shrugged by Ayn RandThinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel KahnemanThe Righteous Mind - by Jonathan HaidtWorld War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max BrooksMoby Dick: or, the Whale by Herman MelvilleA Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer EganLost Memory of Skin: A Novel by Russell BanksThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. KuhnHobbes: Leviathan by Thomas HobbesThe House of the Spirits - by Isabel AllendeArguably: Essays by Christopher HitchensThe Falls: A Novel (P.S.) by Joyce Carol OatesChrist in Egypt by D.M. MurdockThe Glass Bead Game: A Novel by Hermann HesseA Devil's Chaplain by Richard DawkinsThe Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph CampbellThe Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor DostoyevskyThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark TwainThe Moral Landscape by Sam HarrisThe Decameron by Giovanni BoccaccioThe Road by Cormac McCarthyThe Grand Design by Stephen HawkingThe Evolution of God by Robert WrightThe Tin Drum by Gunter GrassGood Omens by Neil GaimanPredictably Irrational by Dan ArielyThe Wind-Up Bird Chronicle: A Novel by Haruki MurakamiALONE: Orphaned on the Ocean by Richard Logan & Tere Duperrault FassbenderDon Quixote by Miguel De CervantesMusicophilia by Oliver SacksDiary of a Madman and Other Stories by Nikolai GogolThe Passion of the Western Mind by Richard TarnasThe Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le GuinThe Genius of the Beast by Howard BloomAlice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Empire of Illusion by Chris HedgesThe Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner The Extended Phenotype by Richard DawkinsSmoke and Mirrors by Neil GaimanThe Selfish Gene by Richard DawkinsWhen Good Thinking Goes Bad by Todd C. RinioloHouse of Leaves by Mark Z. DanielewskiAmerican Gods: A Novel by Neil GaimanPrimates and Philosophers by Frans de WaalThe Enormous Room by E.E. CummingsThe Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar WildeGod Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher HitchensThe Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama Paradise Lost by John Milton Bad Money by Kevin PhillipsThe Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson BurnettGodless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan BarkerThe Things They Carried by Tim O'BrienThe Limits of Power by Andrew BacevichLolita by Vladimir NabokovOrlando by Virginia Woolf On Being Certain by Robert A. Burton50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. HarrisonWalden: Or, Life in the Woods by Henry David ThoreauExile and the Kingdom by Albert CamusOur Inner Ape by Frans de WaalYour Inner Fish by Neil ShubinNo Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthyThe Age of American Unreason by Susan JacobyTen Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson & David HabermanHeart of Darkness by Joseph ConradThe Stuff of Thought by Stephen PinkerA Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled HosseiniThe Lucifer Effect by Philip ZimbardoResponsibility and Judgment by Hannah ArendtInterventions by Noam ChomskyGodless in America by George A. RickerReligious Expression and the American Constitution by Franklyn S. HaimanDeep Economy by Phil McKibbenThe God Delusion by Richard DawkinsThe Third Chimpanzee by Jared DiamondThe Woman in the Dunes by Abe KoboEvolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie C. ScottThe Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael PollanI, Claudius by Robert GravesBreaking The Spell by Daniel C. DennettA Peace to End All Peace by David FromkinThe Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey NiffeneggerThe End of Faith by Sam HarrisEnder's Game by Orson Scott CardThe Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark HaddonValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergThe March by E. L DoctorowThe Ethical Brain by Michael GazzanigaFreethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan JacobyCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared DiamondThe Battle for God by Karen ArmstrongThe Future of Life by Edward O. WilsonWhat is Good? by A. C. GraylingCivilization and Its Enemies by Lee HarrisPale Blue Dot by Carl SaganHow We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael ShermerLooking for Spinoza by Antonio DamasioLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al FrankenThe Red Queen by Matt RidleyThe Blank Slate by Stephen PinkerUnweaving the Rainbow by Richard DawkinsAtheism: A Reader edited by S.T. JoshiGlobal Brain by Howard BloomThe Lucifer Principle by Howard BloomGuns, Germs and Steel by Jared DiamondThe Demon-Haunted World by Carl SaganBury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee BrownFuture Shock by Alvin Toffler

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOur Amazon.com SalesMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism BooksFACTS Book Selections

cron
Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2014. All rights reserved.
Website developed by MidnightCoder.ca
Display Pagerank