stephan huller

http://youtu.be/1b-GC_BK798

hiero5age

Yes, there are a few, but it's a very elite club.

Toto

I guess your point here is what Strobel says about Secret Mark being a proven forgery?

http://www.jesusgranskad.se/strobel2.htm

http://www.jesusgranskad.se/theodore2.htm

stephan huller

No, its not that we disagree on this issue. Andrew Criddle doesn't think it's authentic and I respect him beyond compare. It's just the delivery of the message with respect to all the discoveries associated with the Nag Hammadi documents etc. Anything which contradicts the assumptions of some stupid 65 year old guy sitting on his porch somewhere in the Midwest.

He starts off with that ridiculous smile which is supposed to signal to the imbeciles that even though none of them are going to know how to make heads nor tails about what he is going to be talking about for the next five minutes that they can just 'trust' him' and open their minds to absorb his drivel. "It's all so simple." Really? That's why there's a thing called academic debates and discussions - precisely because it's not that simple to figure out what these texts are saying.

And then he launches into his 'explanation' of the Gospel of Mary:

That's supposed to tell the morons that the text is so late that its worthless. Really? I bet if someone discovered a second century Christian text tomorrow it would have a value ten times Lee Strobel's net worth.

Then he continues with his 'explanation'

That's like describing the Pentateuch as:

Or like describing DaVinci's Last Supper as:

But it's that annoying smiling white guy selling home insurance delivery that drives me to distraction.

stephan huller

And I'd even go so far as to say that at least Catholics and Jews have a more respectable attitude towards new discoveries. If you pulled one of the street and asked them 'are the Nag Hammadi texts important?' or 'are the Qumran texts significant finds?' the traditional religionist (if he was honest) would shrug his shoulders and say:

but I don't care about it anyway because

Now I am sure the atheists here will condemn both groups equally but I don't because on a certain level successful married life resembles the attitude of members of traditional religion.

If you're sitting around thinking too much about being married chances are it's not going to last. On some level Heidegger's principle that we only become aware of things when they're broken also applies in reverse - when we start thinking about stuff they break, or perhaps, things can't function properly when we become conscious of them.

Sad but true my friends.

And in case anyone is wondering I think I spend so much time analyzing this stuff to distract me from my marriage

Toto

You would probably have liked him better when he was a drunk. But Jesus saved him from alcohol.

hylidae

He doesn't like impertinent women trying to get around The Rules.

He's flirting with humiliating hypocrisy. If he were actually known by anyone besides religious apologists, it might be fun to watch him go down in flames.

stephan huller

that's what it is! The Glen Beck alcoholic turn around. I am not a drinker so I might say things that offend those that do but alcoholics even after their recovery mistake 'alcohol' as the cause of their misfortune. It clearly comes down to a personality defect (I know this because I accidentally watch Dr. Drew when my wife is flipping through the channels trying to spot celebrities).

What drives me to distraction is the attempt to make everything 'simple.' The origins of Christianity are not simple. I am not a smart person but let's suppose I am of average intelligence. I haven't figured things out. There's just so much to go through and sort together.

The smiley face that says just close your eyes and ignore all this evidence WITH A GOOD CONSCIENCE - this is reprehensible. You don't care about the Gospel of Mary, Secret Mark - that's cool. You think its a fake and have arguments for forgery or conspiracy - that's cool.

You want to play smiley face evangelist sanctioning that everyone can be willfully ignorant, dismissive of all evidence that contradicts their inherited presuppositions and be sanctioned by a God that is supposedly truthful and of the truth - you're the biggest asshole in the world.

Why? Because even if we dispute the existence of God we can't deny the value of truthfulness. Being dishonest is human; encouraging intellectual dishonesty with a good conscience is execrable.

Bullmoose Too

Leonard Peikoff instantly came to mind. But that is more political then religious.

aa5874

You mean you need a PhD to understand the doctrine of the Church and to understand the Jesus story?

The Gospels were supposedly for even the illiterate. Jesus in the NT was NOT known to have been schooled. See John 7.15

The Jesus story is REMARKABLY easy to understand.