jakejonesiv

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: You're making my sides hurt!

Gamera

You clearly haven't read any postmodern scholarship and so cannot make an informed evaluation. Nothing worse than knownothingism.

Regrettably the postmodern scholarly output is voluminous and I can't go into here. I just assume educated people were aware of it. What's your excuse.

Gamera

[QUOTE=jakejonesiv;3843550]

I think it's closer to Bultman, but we're in the same realm of discussion.

Quote:

My only contention is that you can't make the one do service for the other. The profound meaning that Christ in the New testament have for me does not, however, allow me to say what probably happened in the past."

That's fair enough. But I wasn't saying that. I think there is sufficient purely imperical evidence that Jesus was an historical figure who made the claims that the texts said he made. But that's secondary or tertiary to me.

First I disagree. The Christian scriptures have as much or more credibility than the sparse writings on Socrates, yet I presume you think he was an historical figure. There have been many discussions of the comparison with most reasonable people concluding they are probably on par with one another.

Second, I'm a little dubious of the word "credibility" in the historical context. It seems a bit naive. Every writer has an agenda. The result is never the experience of the facts (which are infinite and subjective in any case), but rather a work that has a purpose. All texts have an agenda. To say that some are more "creidible" is really just saying that you agree with the agenda, isn't it? Otherwise, you're stuck with the naive position that some writers write "pure" unadulterated history, outside the influence of political and cultural forces, which I submit is an impossible assumption.

I think faith is a difficult word. I prefer "acceptance" which is I think the intent of the gospel.

Hence this translation:

1 Timothy 1:15 - The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of sinners;

I'll get back to it shortly.

To say the least. Please elaborate how secular histories are more "reliable" than religious histories. Seems to me they are simply the result of a different agenda.

No offense taken, but I think you are profoundly wrong. Is this opinion based on your reading of Foucault, etc, or is this merely hearsay. My experience is that most critics of postmodernism rarely have read the scholarship.

I don't think they are the same. They both have the same ontological status as personages in a text. The gospel text is simply more profoundly meaningful than Socratic texts, which are somewhat humdrum.

Thanks for these insightful observatives and questions

Johnny Skeptic

The Gospel message most certainly depends lock, stock, and barrel upon the existence of Jesus, and the belief in Jesus. Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 1:20-21 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Mark 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

1 Corinthians 15:14-18 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Johnny: Now will you dare to argue with Paul and claim that heaven is not a place, and that there is not life after death?

You cannot possibly have a relationship with someone who does not exist. It is a fact that God does not wish for everyone to know that he exists, and what he wants them to do with their lives. It all gets down to trust. Without more information that I have at this time, I will not trust any being who says that killing people is wrong, but hypocritically kills people himself, who makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, punishes people for sins that their grandparents committed, reference Exodus 20:5, told Jews to kill any Jew who kills a Jew, but told Jews to only punish a Jew who kills a slave, reference the Old Testament, killed Ananias and Saphira over money, reference the New Testament, kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout and faithful followers, and babies, and innocent animals, allowed hundreds of millions and frequently distributes tangible benefits to those who are not in greatest need, while frequently withholding tangible benefits from those who are in greatest need, giving many people the impression that God indiscriminately distributes tangible benefits without any regard whatsoever for a person’s worldview.

Trust must be EARNED, not merely DECLARED in ancient texts. The simple truth is that there is not any particular tangible blessing that a Christian can expect to receive from God. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Christians have died of starvation. Would you call food a necessity of life?

The actions and allowances of the God of the Bible indicate that if he exists, at best, he is bi-polar and mentally incompetent. No mentally competent being helps AND kills people, including some of his most devout followers, and babies, and innocent animals.

Do you have excellent evidence that God told the truth when he (supposedly) said that Christians will go to heaven? Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." Logically, a commitment like that would not be possible without excellent evidence that it is much more probable that God is not a liar than that he is a liar. You do not have anywhere near that kind of evidence. If God is a liar, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, it would be impossible for anyone to discover that he is a liar with a reasonable degree of certainty if he did not want anyone to know that he is a liar. One of the perks of being omnipotent and omniscient is that you can accomplish whatever you wish to accomplish. You believe the powerful good and evil supernatural beings exist. If they do exist, your problem is that you do not know which group is most powerful, which group tells the truth, and which groups tell lies.

Regardless of what heaven is, or how a person gets there, there is not sufficient evidence that the Bible tells the truth about heaven, and about a lot of other issues that I could bring up.

If the God of the Bible exists, he might have answers to a lot of questions that rational minded and fair minded people would accept, but based upon the information that we now have, rational minded and fair minded people have only two choices, to conclude that the God of the Bible does not exist, or that if he does exist, his character is suspect, and he must be rejected.

By the way, I can't wait to see you and rhutchin get into a squabble. He is an inerrantist, and you are about as far away from being an inerrantist as a Christian can get. Are you aware the rhutchin believes that professing Christians like you will probably go to hell?

You suggest that people ought to have a relationship with God, but how can that be God's intention since he has deliberately withheld knowledge of his specific existence and will from hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing the Gospel message? It is quite strange that you are trying to spread a message that God does not have any interest in spreading himself.

Consider the following post that I just made at the GRD Forum:

No more than you are 100% sure that the God of the Bible exists.

Well, if God has provided an amputee with a new arm or leg, I have failed to see it, AND SO HAVE YOU, and apparently everyone else in the world as far as ALL world media sources are aware. World media are in all countries, you know, and they make their money by reporting news that is interesting to people. According to the New Testament, the Pharisees acknowledged that Jesus has supernatural powers, but they claimed that his powers came from Beelzebub. So, both sides acknowledged that Jesus had supernatural powers. Today, both sides do not acknowledge that God has supernatural powers, either because God does not exist, or because God does not wish to reveal his supernatural powers to both sides. It is a question of intent. If it is God’s intent to clearly demonstrate that he has abilities that are far beyond the abilities of humans, he could easily prove that by showing up and creating a large building in New York City in front of the world media and an audience of one million people. Almost everyone in the world would agree that at least one being in the universe has abilities that are far beyond the abilities of humans. That would not prove that that being was a God, or specifically the God of the Bible, but at least we would have a lot more to go on regarding the possible existence of a God than we do now.

I am not aware that animals have violated eternal law. Are you? Higher animals feel physical and emotional pain, and according to animal researchers, some higher animals are self-aware. As far as I know, dinosaurs were killing each other prior to the creation of man. What is your opinion on this matter? According to the Bible, everyone has violated eternal law (Romans 3:23 says “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”), so you will no doubt use that Scripture to justify God doing whatever he wants to anyone, including injuring and killing some of his most devout and faithful followers, making people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, and punishing people for sins that their grandparents committed, reference Exodus 20:5. Even in the New Testament, God killed Anania and Saphira over money. The texts say that as a result, fear spread among the people.

It is my position that no being has the right to punish people who would accept him if they knew that he exists. Some skeptics find the Gospel message to be appealing, and they would accept it if they had better evidence that God exists. If Jesus returned to earth and healed all of the sick people in the world, just like Christian doctors are trying to do, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. This makes sense because modern magicians would not have any trouble at all going to some remote jungle regions in the world and convincing at least some of the natives that they had supernatural powers, and were Gods. If the magicians were able to heal all of the sick natives, that would make it even easier for them to convince the natives to worship them as Gods.

Humans have always placed great importance on good physical health, and if ANY being showed up and healed all of the sick people in the world, people all over the world would rejoice with few if any exceptions. If ANY being showed up and healed all of the sick people in the world, if he started a new religion, it would probably quickly become the largest religion in human history.

Humans typically appreciate beings who are concerned with their spiritual AND tangible needs. God is concerned with humans’ tangible needs only to the point of frequently distributing tangible benefits to those who ARE NOT in greatest need, while frequently withholding tangible benefits from those who ARE in greatest need. This indicates that God does not exist, that he is apathetic and inconsistent about humans’ tangible needs, or that he has gone out of his way to make it look to many people that tangible benefits are distributed entirely according to the laws of physics.

Many non-Christians are wonderful, loving people. It would be out of character for them to reject any human or God who was able to demonstrate that he is loving. Actions are a much better indicator of a person’s heart than beliefs are. The same goes for a God. The Bible is just words. Actions are much more convincing than words are. We must compare what copies of copies of ancient Bible manuscripts say with the world that we live in today. If the Bible is true, then there ought to be plenty of TANGIBLE confirmations that it is true. What tangible confirmations do you have that a loving God is consistently active in the world today? What tangible benefit can you ask God for and expect to receive? If God does not exist, then it is to be expected that the only benefits that would be available to believers would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits. If he does exist, and if he is loving, it is to be expected that he would be compassionate about our spiritual needs AND our tangible needs.

There is more than enough evidence for people to reject God pending the disclosure of more evidence than we have today. There are not any known reasons why God’s refusal to provide us with more information than we have today benefits him or mankind in any way.

Do you have excellent evidence that God told the truth when he (supposedly) said that Christians will go to heaven? Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." Logically, a commitment like that would not be possible without excellent evidence that it is much more probable that God is not a liar than that he is a liar. You do not have anywhere near that kind of evidence. If God is a liar, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, it would be impossible for anyone to discover that he is a liar with a reasonable degree of certainty if he did not want anyone to know that he is a liar. One of the perks of being omnipotent and omniscient is that you can accomplish whatever you wish to accomplish. You believe the powerful good and evil supernatural beings exist. If they do exist, your problem is that you do not know which group is most powerful, which group tells the truth, and which groups tell lies.

Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. How did he know that? Why can’t God be masquerading as an angel of light too?

Gamera

History isn't experience or fact or the experience of facts. History is a body of written texts. That's all it is. When addressing those texts we aren't experiences facts but a text and what it means.

That's true of every text. Texts are texts. Historical texts are just texts. One's confrontation with an historical text is no different than one's confrontation of a literary text. You have to interpret it and you derive meaning from it.

So, to suggest that there are two types of texts -- one type that is "factual" and "credible" and others that are "non-factual" is to establish a false distinction that has no epistomological support. When you're reading a history, you aren't experiencing the facts of the past -- your reading a text, just like any other text.

Now, different texts have different agendas, and we must discern the agenda as part of understanding the meaning of a text. However, the idea that historical texts are without agenda and merely present facts is pure fantasy. They are generated because there was an agenda -- usually political, sometime religious, often institutional relating to legitimizing a particular group or party.

This is what Foucault and the post structuralists have abundantly shown over and over again, debunking the naive traditional view of historiography. I refer to the Birth of a Clinic, Discipline and Punish, the History of Sexuality, etc.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;3845098]Well I happen to agree with you, but a lot of Christians I know don't.

Your view of Christianity is simply too narrow and proscriptive.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;3845098]
Rubbish. People live their whole lives in relation to literary figures. Indeed, many people find literary figures more meaningful than their family.

That's because TEXTS ARE MEANINGFUL. And Jesus exists in a text.

Your critique of the OT is naive. You keep assuming that a TEXT is a person. It's not. It's a TEXT, and it has purposes, some of them contradictory, and so the productive reader reads the text to derive meaning, not consistency. You never seem to ask, what's the purpose of this depiction of God. You keep asking Is this what God is like, missing the point of the TEXT.

Texts aren't trustworthy. They're meaningful. Again, stop deluding yourself and just see what you're doing -- you've got a TEXT in front of you, not God and not facts and not actual events.

That assumes the purpose of the OT is to show the personality of God. Where did you get that crazy idea?

Since I"m not intersted in trust (whatever that means), the answer is no. I read the scriptures to get meaning, not truth, which is an artifact of a certain kind of historical thinking, not an absolute.

I'll go further. There is no evidence. What does that have to do with the meaning of how the texts address the idea of heaven?

Who knows if he exists. I'm interested in the meaning of the text, not in proving the existence of God, which as far as I can tell is a virtually meaningless endeavor.

I suggest that people should contemplate the meaning of their existence, which the gospel provides a radical ocassion to do.

I don't and moreover I don't care, since I don't know God. I know a text about God in which God is an actor that evinces certain purposes. And it is those purposes I'm interested in, not apodictic truth, which in the end is rather useless.

Johnny Skeptic

No, your view is simply too narrow and proscriptive. You claim that God wants to have a relationship with people, but this can't be true because he has allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without telling them about it. It appears that God reveals the Gospel message to people only through human effort, which is exactly what rational minded people expect would be the case if he does not exist. What this means is that if no human wanted to tell people about the Gospel message, no one would ever hear about it. How utterly absurd.

We are still waiting for you to tell us why God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, punishes people for sins that their grandparents committed, reference Exodus 20:5, killed Ananias and Saphira in the New Testament over money, and injures and kills some of his most devout and faithful followers with hurricanes, and babies, and innocent animals. Assuming that the God of the Bible exists, possibly his worst atrocity against humanity is his refusal to reveal himself to some people who would accept him if their knew that he exists. Some skeptics find the Gospel message to be appealing, but are not certain that God exists.

Gamera

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;3842582]I don't. I have a text that has language in it that's meaningful. That's enough to keep me occupied as opposed to useless epistomological speculation. How do you know what Lincoln said. You don't.

Yep, I have a real good idea, having read much of the scholarship. How is that relevant to the meaning of the text?

Whether they did or didn't, that has no impact on what the texts mean. Frankly what an author thinks a text says is by definition wrong, since meaning happens upon reading, not upon writing. Read Foucault's "What is an Author?"

Yep, nothing in this language requires heaven be a place. And besides Paul says a lot of things in a way for his culture to understand which may not apply to us.

Fortunately, the meaning of a text isn't ever dependent upon "proof.' Indeed it's hard to understand what you even mean by that. The issue isn't how many times he mentioned it, but what the texts mean by it. It appears to me that hell is a condition based on the texts. But if you want to believe it's a place, that's OK with me.

What makes you think God kills anybody? Do you have "proof" of that? And what form would that "proof" take?

Interesting indeed. Why some texts are meaningful in some culture and not others is a source of wonder. I suspect that it has to do with how power gets displaced in a particular culture. But everybody has a choice to oppose how power attempts to control them. And one way is to reject the dominant discourse. Indeed, that's exactly what the gospels did in the context of the Roman empire!

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Would you like to debate the myth of the global flood at the Science and Skepticism Forum? If 95% of the world's leading geologists said that there was not a global flood, would you admit that the Bible is not inerrant? You do pay attention to what scholars say, don't you?