Fox News Goes After Pope

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

the Christian God is a vain, histrionic monster who has no qualms about torturing people for eternity.

 

You should have read the passage I posted, Philippians Chapter 2. No qualms? What about dying on the cross as a sacrifice for your sins because He loves you? What about that he knew the sins you would commit and still died?

 

 

You really want me to take the time to unravel the twisted logic of Jesus dying for my sins?

 

eh, i'll just post this instead:

[SR4]

The Jefferson Bible is fucking awesome, and I would recommend giving a copy to every Christian you know.

[LimpyLoo]

(everytime I listen to that Hitchens clip I get very sexually aroused)

[luke viia]

@smetty - awesome, I'll grab a copy or two. It can't be too long, what with the gristle removed... speaking of religious texts, I also really like a small bound copy of the "Gracian's Manual" that my mom gave me.

 

Re: the idea of the resurrection literally happening and being interpreted as "Jesus freeing you from your sins (by default)," I will admit this is one part of the scripture that I find completely ridiculous, especially when taken in a literal or historical way. I understand the idea of salvation by grace, even if I don't fully agree with it. But the idea of Christ literally rising from the dead, eh... it's so Hollywood. Zombies are ridiculous. This is actually the point of contention that caused the biggest rift between my parents and I - because I rejected the literal ascension of Christ, they used to tell me I was going to hell. I told them that was incredibly offensive, and if they believed that truthfully, then they better try their damnedest to save me, or I would be forced to believe they don't love me, because how could you tell your child he's going to hell and be OK with it? Stabbed forever with teeth? Burned alive until the end of time? I called them out and told them to respect my interpretation if they were going to demand the same of me. They did, eventually, though I still don't go to Church with them (my mom recently stopped going to Church as well, and has placed a Martin Luther statue in a wild field of ditch weed on their farm, lol). My step-dad goes to Church out of a sense of community.

 

Anyway, tangent aside, it seems to me that the "resurrection" of Christ is a much more powerful story when taken metaphorically. If he did historically exist, then the gospels and extra-canonical accounts make it clear that Christ did physically die. If he didn't historically exist, the literalist version of this story is useless and misleading to everyone. If we take a metaphorical approach to the story though, the story is meaningful even if no literal ascension happened. Joseph Campbell says it really well here IMO:

 

J. CAMPBELL: The reference of the metaphor in religious traditions is to something transcendent that is not literally any thing. If you think that the metaphor is itself the reference, it would be like going to a restaurant, asking for the menu, seeing beefsteak written there, and starting to eat the menu.

For example, Jesus ascended to heaven. The denotation would seem to be that somebody ascended to the sky. That’s literally what is being said. But if that were really the meaning of the message, then we have to throw it away, because there would have been no such place for Jesus literally to go. We know that Jesus could not have ascended to heaven because there is no physical heaven anywhere in the universe. Even ascending at the speed of light, Jesus would still be in the galaxy, Astronomy and physics have simply eliminated that as a literal, physical possibility, But if you read "Jesus ascended to heaven" in terms of its metaphoric connotation, you see that he has gone inward – not into outer space but into inward space, to the place from which all being comes, into the consciousness that is the source of all things, the kingdom of heaven within. The images are outward, but their reflection is inward. The point is that we should ascend with him by going inward. It is a metaphor of returning to the source, alpha and omega, of leaving the fixation on the body behind and going to the body’s dynamic source.

B. MOYERS: Aren’t you undermining one of the great traditional doctrines of the classic Christian faith – that the burial and the resurrection of Jesus prefigures our own?

J. CAMPBELL: That would be a mistake in the reading of the symbol. That is reading the words in terms of prose instead of in terms of poetry, reading the metaphor in terms of the denotation instead of the connotation.

[LimpyLoo]

So Luke I both really like your interpretation and also find it kinda 'spooky,' as they say.

 

 

I love Joseph Campbell and his angle on things. But if the Bible is simply metaphor--if it's no more than strictly non-literal stories--then that is a beautiful way to see the Bible (it would make me want to spend more time with it), but the thing is that would also imply that there is no actual physical God that built us in our image, there was no actual Jesus, and the Bible has nothing literal to tell us about our world, our universe, our origins, or our purpose.

 

It it's just poetry then all of the claims Christianity has put forth would just blow away like dust.

[luke viia]

Yeah, pretty much, haha. His interpretation is a pretty devastating attack on literalism.

[sheatheman]

 

 

 

the Christian God is a vain, histrionic monster who has no qualms about torturing people for eternity.

 

You should have read the passage I posted, Philippians Chapter 2. No qualms? What about dying on the cross as a sacrifice for your sins because He loves you? What about that he knew the sins you would commit and still died?

 

 

You really want me to take the time to unravel the twisted logic of Jesus dying for my sins?

 

eh, i'll just post this instead:

 

 

I quite enjoyed his naughtiness there. Gave me some good laughs, especially when the host reads Romans 1:20 and asks "does that sound like you?" and he responds, "no it sounds like St. Paul." hahaha.

 

But he doesn't go into the twisted logic of it really, he just says "I don't want it. I would have tried to stop him." The reason he does a number on the host is because he is good at astounding with his answers, not really because he is taking Christianity down logically. He's funny though.

 

Jesus unquestionably existed historically. We shouldn't question that. And I believe it literally, the he rose from the dead, because the bible says that is what we have to believe. It's hollywood because hollywood emulated it, lol. If Jesus isn't God and didn't rise from the dead, then everything is in vain, just as Paul says in Corinthians. Jesus rose to show that he was God. Why do you think the early church was such a powerful movement? If he didn't rise from the dead, then lots of people in Judea suddenly lost their minds and started a church for nothing at all and sold all their possessions just cuz. The apostles took their belief that Jesus rose to their deaths.

[chenGOD]

So Luke I both really like your interpretation and also find it kinda 'spooky,' as they say.

 

 

I love Joseph Campbell and his angle on things. But if the Bible is simply metaphor--if it's no more than strictly non-literal stories--then that is a beautiful way to see the Bible (it would make me want to spend more time with it), but the thing is that would also imply that there is no actual physical God that built us in our image, there was no actual Jesus, and the Bible has nothing literal to tell us about our world, our universe, our origins, or our purpose.

 

It it's just poetry then all of the claims Christianity has put forth would just blow away like dust.

All of the claims? Every single one of them?

 

Also, Hitchens is an irredeemable asshole.

[sheatheman]

Don't you guys understand that Jesus is beyond science during the ascension? It's literal in a way we cannot understand. Maybe science could explain a fraction of it, but not for another few millennia of research. Maybe after quantum physics is a basic as geometry. Use your imaginations please.

Are all of Jesus' healings metaphorical too? It takes the steam out of Jesus' entire ministry and is just a tool to try and take power from God. If he wasn't actually healing people, there would be no followers. The reason people try so hard to create a way that they can believe in Jesus is because it is written on their hearts. All or none sounds too severe. But Jesus says it both ways, those who are not for me are against me, and those who are not against me are for me. Not being against Jesus doesn't mean being alright with his teachings, it means following his commandments.

[luke viia]

How is everything "in vain" if Christ didn't literally rise? His message still stands, though yes, Paul's letter to the Corinthians loses much of its potency. That's a non-issue for me, as I do not believe in the infallibility of the canon. Extra canonical or "apocraphyl" scriptures cannot be ignored with any intellectual honesty; to do so is to have blind faith in the power structure of the church elders, something Jesus himself warned against. As a corollary to this, if extra-canonical texts have legitimacy, then the canon has no more legitimacy than the books which were omitted or literally banned by the early (3rd-5th century) Church, and it is unreasonable to attribute extra importance to them just because they were chosen by men.

[luke viia]

Don't you guys understand that Jesus is beyond science during the ascension? It's literal in a way we cannot understand. Maybe science could explain a fraction of it, but not for another few millennia of research. Maybe after quantum physics is a basic as geometry. Use your imaginations please.

Are all of Jesus' healings metaphorical too? It takes the steam out of Jesus' entire ministry and is just a tool to try and take power from God. If he wasn't actually healing people, there would be no followers. The reason people try so hard to create a way that they can believe in Jesus is because it is written on their hearts. All or none sounds too severe. But Jesus says it both ways, those who are not for me are against me, and those who are not against me are for me. Not being against Jesus doesn't mean being alright with his teachings, it means following his commandments.

 

 

Interestingly, the various (almost 40 iirc) "Commandments of Jesus" in the canonical gospels - which are great moral guidelines - do not include anything about believing in the resurrection literally. Go figure, haha.

 

As for that first part, dude. Dude. It's not as if science has washed its hands clean of teleportation or life extension; many in the scientific community are actively trying to get those things to be realities, and they have run into physical / thermodynamic issues thus far that suggest that physically resurrecting after 3 days of gruesome, hot torture, and then teleporting oneself around to ones friends, is, well, totally not possible without some pretty righteous technology. The fact that you would accept that idea uncritically and encourage the rest of us to "use our imaginations" (regarding scientific principles allowing resurrection and physical transporation to heaven) with such confidence says that you are (by the orthodox, literalist accounts) being a "good christian," but as Limpy was saying earlier ITT, consequently and unfortunately that is mutually exclusive with being critical or rational.

 

Many gnostic texts, as well as the Koran, assert that Christ did not literally rise. The Koran actually says they didn't even kill Jesus, that Jesus "likeness" only was killed (I do not take this to mean an imposter, but a "shell" of his true spiritual self, his physical body).

 

 

"And for their saying, 'Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.' Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt concerning him: No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they did not really slay him, but God took him up to Himself. And God is Mighty, Wise!" (Sura 4:156).

 

Likewise in the gnostic texts, there's a different interpretation:

 

"And I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there punished me, yet I did not die in reality but in appearance, in order that I not be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. . .For my death, which they think happened, happened to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. Their thoughts did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the rulers and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance." (The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, pp. 469-470, The Gnostic Bible, edited by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer)

 

Alternatively, in The Vision of the Cross (The Acts of John),

 

"And when He was hung on the tree of the cross, at the sixth hour of the day darkness came over the whole earth.

"And my Lord stood in the midst of the Cave, and filled it with light, and said:

"'John, to the multitude below, in Jerusalem, I am being crucified, and pierced with spears and reeds, and vinegar and gall is being given Me to drink. . .

"'But this is not the cross of wood which thou shalt see when thou descendest hence; nor am I he that is upon the cross — whom now thou seest not, but only hearest a voice.

"'I was held [to be] what I am not, not being what I was to many others; nay, they will call Me something else, abject and not worthy of Me. . .

"'Thou hearest that I suffered; yet I did not suffer: that I suffered not; yet I did suffer: that I was pierced; yet was I not smitten: that I was hanged; yet I was not hanged: that blood flowed from me; yet it did not flow: and in a word the things they say about Me I had not, and the things do not say those I suffered.'"

 

Paul, just fyi, is regarded by many scholars to be in cahoots with the 1st century orthodox church in Jerusalem, that is, he may have been a Pharisee in a dogmatic sense. Puts a weird spin on his teachings when you try to keep that in mind.

 

Here's a great page on gnostic interpretations of the resurrection, based on Elaine Pagels book "The Gnostic Gospels": http://adifferentstateofblack.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/the-gnostic-gospels-part-2-the-controversy-over-christs-resurrection/

[SR4]

cant tell if trolling....

[sheatheman]

@ luke viia (kindly)

 

Then entire gospel is based upon Jesus' death AND resurrection. You have to throw it all away if you don't accept both. There is no hope in Christ if he did not rise from the dead. It is a fundamental precept of Christianity. I wasn't saying that Corinthians would have less power, I should have quoted it: 1 Corinthians 15:14 "If Christ is not risen, then our teaching is in vain, your faith is in vain."

 

The gnostic gospels are named such because they make the assertion that Christ did not rise and contradict scripture. Giving those as evidence of any kind is like quoting from Christopher Hitchen's book. I reject them completely, as do bible scholars.

 

Many people make the claim that the bible contradicts itself, but that is an uninformed claim which, once explored, will prove false.

 

Many people say the bible has been translated so many times that it's hard to know what was originally written. That is false. All who have ever translated the bible have done so from the original texts. Seminary students study ancient hebrew, greek, and aramaic.

 

People say that a group of elders chose which texts to include and which not to, and this means the bible is a man made document and should be treated more like beautiful poetry than anything else. This completely dismisses the idea of divine inspiration and that God would want the bible to be a perfect reflection of his will.

 

And again, the science thing. If God created cells, created our bodies, created the laws of physics, then he can control them. You're just not getting that it is not irrational in the least to to believe that God is outside of the law of nature because he created it. What's irrational is to believe that He cannot bend what he created to his will. If that is too much for you, then fine. But it isn't too much for me. This doesn't devalue science in any way. Many of the greatest scientists throughout history were christians. Everyone conveniently ignored my Francis Collins bit. I think God wants us to figure things out. He wants us to be artists too.

 

You also ignored my question about Jesus' healings being simply metaphorical. They are the main reason people followed him wherever he went. Would people have really traveled miles and miles on foot so that they could be metaphorically healed? Did the paralyzed man that Jesus healed in Mark chapter 2 get up and walk metaphorically? Did he thing, "Man, I'm still a quadriplegic, but Jesus really took that away as a mental obstacle and I'm thinking of opening my own business now!" If his healings were metaphorical, no one would have followed him. And if they were not metaphorical, then how do you explain it in a way that is any less irrational than believing Jesus rose from the dead? When Jesus rose Lazarus from death, was that just a metaphor? No, I don't think so.

 

Either dismiss Jesus AND his teachings as lies from a crazy/evil person, or follow him. Those are the options. Sure, you can try to apply the moral teachings of Jesus to your life, but you would be ignoring the greatest commandment which is to love God. The reason the gnostic gospels exist is so we can make Jesus an honorary member of the hall of great spiritual leaders and thereby completely dilute his teachings, when the truth is that he makes claims about himself that none of them make.

 

Oh, and Paul WAS a pharisee. He persecuted Christians for a living. I mean, that's the basis of his whole teaching, using his experience as Pharisee to write. Are you talking about something else?

 

Why am I spending my time writing this? Well, the second greatest commandment is love your neighbor as yourself. I would want someone to tell me.

[poblequadrat]

i'm not a christian

 

saint paul was kind of a cool guy though? bit pushy though, i bet the greeks were fucking fed up with him

[poblequadrat]

Also: my opinion on christianity is that the idea of an universal church is cool, but I don't care about the christian narrative on time. I do not believe time was created by anything, nor do I believe time will end forever, and I don't think this narrative does anything for christianity, even though it's supposed to be its main point. I mean universalism is one of the best inventions ever but a true church can't be built on the promise of salvation and the establishment of a mythical time where there was an original sin, etc.

 

I do believe every particular time can end, though, and maybe this sort of ontology can learn something from christianity.

[luke viia]

Appreciate the thoughtful post, shea. Bit by bit,

 

@ luke viia (kindly)

 

Then entire gospel is based upon Jesus' death AND resurrection. You have to throw it all away if you don't accept both. There is no hope in Christ if he did not rise from the dead. It is a fundamental precept of Christianity. I wasn't saying that Corinthians would have less power, I should have quoted it: 1 Corinthians 15:14 "If Christ is not risen, then our teaching is in vain, your faith is in vain."

 

I'm sure you gathered this already, but I am not a Christian, so I do not have to throw anything away. I'm actually not a Christian in part because I dislike the idea that I must accept broad and sweeping narratives like this uncritically. Paul and I do not agree on what makes a Christian, and I do not award him any authority over me in his ability to decide what that term means. I would align myself with Jesus if he were alive, not with an Apostle, a Church, or any institution's decrees about his teachings. Christian literally means "follower of Christ" and not "follower of The Bible," and that is how it should be IMO.

 

The gnostic gospels are named such because they make the assertion that Christ did not rise and contradict scripture. Giving those as evidence of any kind is like quoting from Christopher Hitchen's book. I reject them completely, as do bible scholars.

 

The gnostic texts are named as such because they came from self-identified "Knowing" religious scholars, ie "Gnostics." Not because they contradict scripture. They are scripture.

 

Many people make the claim that the bible contradicts itself, but that is an uninformed claim which, once explored, will prove false.

 

IMO, there is no issue with the Bible contradicting itself, as it was written over hundreds of years by many men. Feel free to "prove" it false that the Bible has absolutely no contradictions though, SR4 would surely get a kick out of the backflips you'd be doing.

 

Many people say the bible has been translated so many times that it's hard to know what was originally written. That is false. All who have ever translated the bible have done so from the original texts. Seminary students study ancient hebrew, greek, and aramaic.

 

My grandfather was a Lutheran pastor and would disagree with you; they study those languages so that they can interpret the ancient text and not the "King James Version" exclusively, so yes, it is hard to know what is originally meant in the biblical scriptures, or those men wouldn't be studying ancient tongues to get to the bottom of it.

 

People say that a group of elders chose which texts to include and which not to, and this means the bible is a man made document and should be treated more like beautiful poetry than anything else. This completely dismisses the idea of divine inspiration and that God would want the bible to be a perfect reflection of his will.

 

It's the other way around, actually - the idea of divine inspiration completely dismisses the fact that the bible was compiled by a group of elders at a number of high councils, often for specific political reasons. I will not be told "what God would want," but you are free to believe whatever you think is in God's "wants."

 

And again, the science thing. If God created cells, created our bodies, created the laws of physics, then he can control them. You're just not getting that it is not irrational in the least to to believe that God is outside of the law of nature because he created it. What's irrational is to believe that He cannot bend what he created to his will. If that is too much for you, then fine. But it isn't too much for me. This doesn't devalue science in any way. Many of the greatest scientists throughout history were christians. Everyone conveniently ignored my Francis Collins bit. I think God wants us to figure things out. He wants us to be artists too.

 

I didn't mean to ignore your Francis Collins bit. I made a similar point about my own professors. And I understand that it seems reasonable to believe a creator would be able to 'bend the laws' to his will, but you have no evidence for that, only the 'divine authority' of the bible, which I do not respect in the way you do. There is no reason for a nonbeliever to take seriously the claim that God is above physics; I am agnostic, so I do not hold myself to the contradictory idea that God is separate from his creation.

 

You also ignored my question about Jesus' healings being simply metaphorical. They are the main reason people followed him wherever he went. Would people have really traveled miles and miles on foot so that they could be metaphorically healed? Did the paralyzed man that Jesus healed in Mark chapter 2 get up and walk metaphorically? Did he thing, "Man, I'm still a quadriplegic, but Jesus really took that away as a mental obstacle and I'm thinking of opening my own business now!" If his healings were metaphorical, no one would have followed him. And if they were not metaphorical, then how do you explain it in a way that is any less irrational than believing Jesus rose from the dead? When Jesus rose Lazarus from death, was that just a metaphor? No, I don't think so.

 

I think they are metaphors, or exaggerated for the sake of the story of Jesus as Messiah. And yes, people would travel miles and miles to be metaphorically healed. They still do it.

 

Either dismiss Jesus AND his teachings as lies from a crazy/evil person, or follow him. Those are the options. Sure, you can try to apply the moral teachings of Jesus to your life, but you would be ignoring the greatest commandment which is to love God. The reason the gnostic gospels exist is so we can make Jesus an honorary member of the hall of great spiritual leaders and thereby completely dilute his teachings, when the truth is that he makes claims about himself that none of them make.

 

No, those are not the options. No, I would not be ignoring the commandment to love God, because I have not accepted the Biblical God literally, but figuratively. You cannot rightfully say you know the "reason" the gnostic gospels exist, outside of the reason that people wrote and hid them. He is speaking directly in those texts with the same authority that he is speaking with in the canonical texts. The instant that you find a real, substantial difference between the canonical texts and the non-canonical ones, I will begin to take seriously the claim of divine inspiration. Otherwise, it was political inspiration, and I am not swayed.

 

Oh, and Paul WAS a pharisee. He persecuted Christians for a living. I mean, that's the basis of his whole teaching, using his experience as Pharisee to write. Are you talking about something else?

 

Nah, same Paul. And you're right, he was a Pharisee (I looked up the quote in Acts after you posted). Thanks.

 

Why am I spending my time writing this? Well, the second greatest commandment is love your neighbor as yourself. I would want someone to tell me.

 

Likewise. I do not intend to try to take your beliefs from you or to make you agree with me, just so that's clear. It is important to see the arguments both sides promote, though, that's why I'm here. So thanks.

[LimpyLoo]

 

Jesus unquestionably existed historically. We shouldn't question that.

 

 

haha good one brah

 

There are no comtemporary accounts of his existence. No extra-Bible verification either.

 

We should indeed question that.

[sheatheman]

Thanks for the bit by bit. If you are agnostic, believing that we can't know, why are you so interested in gnosticism and it's pursuit of secret knowledge? Seems like a contradiction to me.

[luke viia]

I am agnostic because I have not yet been convinced that I know whether there is a God or not, or what God's nature might be if such a "thing" exists. It's a journey, not a contradiction.

[sheatheman]

 

 

Jesus unquestionably existed historically. We shouldn't question that.

 

 

haha good one brah

 

There are no comtemporary accounts of his existence. No extra-Bible verification either.

 

We should indeed question that.

 

 

 

See Josephus for one of the most universally accepted extra-biblical verifications of Jesus' existence. You're wasting your time questioning that, trust me.

 

Also, contemporary accounts? Con-temporary meaning current, meaning no one has written in the bast 10 years that they saw Jesus getting a chai latte? No, probably not.

 

 

I am agnostic because I have not yet been convinced that I know whether there is a God or not, or what God's nature might be if such a "thing" exists. It's a journey, not a contradiction.

 

Has your search led you to Aquinas? What about Lewis?

 

Now we should collaborate on a bro hug track.

[LimpyLoo]

If you are not sure whether God exists or not, you by definition do not believe in God. Ergo you're an atheist, brah.

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

Jesus unquestionably existed historically. We shouldn't question that.

 

 

haha good one brah

 

There are no comtemporary accounts of his existence. No extra-Bible verification either.

 

We should indeed question that.

 

 

 

See Josephus for one of the most universally accepted extra-biblical verifications of Jesus' existence. You're wasting your time questioning that, trust me.

 

 

Yeah you are probably aware of how controversial that is and to say it's "universally excepted" would be a flat-out lol of a lie. In my humble view it's pretty clear that the references were added later.

[luke viia]

 

I am agnostic because I have not yet been convinced that I know whether there is a God or not, or what God's nature might be if such a "thing" exists. It's a journey, not a contradiction.

 

Now we should collaborate on a bro hug track.

 

 

Haha, I'm into it. I actually do really dig your tunes, I'd be honored to do something creative with you.

 

Limpy - http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist The title doesn't matter too much to me I guess, though.

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

I am agnostic because I have not yet been convinced that I know whether there is a God or not, or what God's nature might be if such a "thing" exists. It's a journey, not a contradiction.

 

Now we should collaborate on a bro hug track.

 

 

Haha, I'm into it. I actually do really dig your tunes, I'd be honored to do something creative with you.

 

Limpy - http://www.diffen.com/difference/Agnostic_vs_Atheist The title doesn't matter too much to me I guess, though.

 

 

Luke, I am well aware of the difference between agnostic and atheist.

 

An atheist is someone who does not believe that God exists. An agnostic doesn't know whether God exists.

 

 

How can you believe in something that you're not sure exists? I'm not sure whether leprechauns exists, but regardless I believe in them...? It is not logical. Agnostic Theism is nonsensical.

[luke viia]

Well like I just said, the title doesn't matter that much to me... My position, without formalizing it, is that I do not have sufficient knowledge to support or deny the existence of a diety which is poorly defined in most cases anyway.

 

Smetty once raised the case for Ignosticism; perhaps that is a better term for my position.