Chris Weimer

We have some who argue that all of early Christianity is one large conspiracy, one who constantly employs logical fallacies to deny the existence of every human being (though he refuses to apply it to anyone else but Jesus Christ), one who claims to be the messiah, one who believes the KJV is the written inspired word of God free of all error, and many, many who refuse to even bother learning about the text.

The few with whom I wish to dialogue (except now...I cannot produce much of my theory, some of which I'm saving for eventual publication, the rest of which would consume too much of my time...but I promise to address some of it soon), are rarely on board, and they spend a good bit of time, and I am not free of this, addressing these nutjobs instead of making gains. Whatever happened to spin's theory of two hands in John? It got overlooked amidst the ramble of the mythical Jesus. Or the impossibility of Noah's Ark. Or these amateurs who love to ramble on and on about either how the Bible is perfect or how the Bible is entirely worthless, the former arguing that it's free of any flaws, the latter arguing that it's full of contradictions left and right.

OLD NEWS.

Can't we move on?

Toto

I know how you feel. Michael Shermer has some good thoughts.

Larsguy47

Interesting, but one factor I think has to be considered is perhaps the difference in perception of things. Some people will look at a variety of vegetables laid out in a salad buffet and marvel at God's handiwork. They just preceive the magnificence of the artistic message of the wonder of food and it's delicious and nutritious variety. Someone else, thinking more on the other side of the brain, simply doesn't connect to that.

So I think the more "artistic" a person is the more prone they are to believe in miracles and the Bible and God. But for those who are less "artistic" perhaps more "scientific" tend not to see the art in the bigger picture. They see everything separately.

The Creation concept is like a fine tapestry made for hanging on a blank wall. Some walls have hooks and some don't.

LG47

Chris Weimer

Yeah, I'm familiar. I think the best cure is one I started to adopt earlier - put them on ignore.

spin

There is a solution: an on-invitation sub-forum.

Chris Weimer

I doubt that such a thing would be implemented here. Besides, why then bother if there are alternative venues? When it very first started, spin, you knew you were invited.

Ted Hoffman

Because BC&H does not discriminate.
There is already XTalk and Jim West's Biblical studies. Both are very good forums for people with a historicist bent and those that like "scholars only" type of discussions.
But then again, Gibson still comes here. BC&H and its nuts still has its attractions. Them most important being that there are no sacred cows and no idea is placed on a pedestal for everyone else to recite.
It is often said that people who either believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God are fundamentalists and so are those who treat the NT as pure fiction. Those two camps are generally regarded as domains of nutcases. And those who pride themselves as being levelheaded and balanced often dubiously identify themselves as occupying the middle ground and are quick to distance themselves from black-and-white mentality. Such individuals often say that, for example, the miracles are invented and events, speeches and ideas borrowed from the OT are likely to be inventions. These same people are often willing to admit that, for example, Jesus invaded the temple and was crucified. They often occupy this vaunted middle ground position and regard it as a mark of scholarly tentativeness and judiciousness.
But what if its just empty hype? I have been wondering what exactly is wrong with regarding the whole of Mark as fiction? Which parts are clearly historical and why?
And if you dont regard some parts as historical? Why exactly is the other guy who regards it as entire fiction a nutcase?
Is it purely a matter of taste? And I am not talking about nutty theories like the NT being based on a typology of Roman Titus and mountainman's Eusebian story. Forget the theory. Just look at Mark, you are armed with Biblical literary critical tools (like narrative and redaction criticism) and a good knowledge of mythical hero archetypes and a history of early Palestine.

Help me understand because I think there is too much pigeonholing and categorization of ideas to allow free inquiry. Why is the idea that the entire Mark is fiction too nutty?

RED DAVE

As a creative writer, an artist, I say to the above: BULLSHIT!

I yield to no one in my aesthetic/poetic appreciation of the Universe, which you can, if you like, call spiritual. However, this does not lead me to accept nonsense for history or science.

I'll go out on limb a little and say that my enthusiastic appreciation of the Universe is part of the Universe and reflects something of its nature. But this is by no means a one-to-one correspondence. Auschwitz and blue jays are both part of the Universe and its history.

RED DAVE

Vampyroteuthis

Most modern veggies are the work of human seed and plant selection and are quite far from their original ancestors.

Hooey! My husband and I do freelance graphic design and since I have FINALLY taken the time to actually begin educating myself about evolution I have found the world to be a much more wonderful and beautiful place. I find it so much more beautiful now that I understand how everything we see came into being over millions of years of step by step changes.

When I first started to understand ToE and realize it was true, I was sad for a while and then it struck me just how beautiful everything still is regardless if we all die and never continue on. Everything we see today started millions of years of ago as an entirely different thing than it appears today and I find that so utterly amazing. Far more so than a god with a magic wand.

RED DAVE

Hymn to Intellectual Beauty
By Percy Bysshe Shelley (an atheist) (1792–1822)

RED DAVE