Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Bart Ehrman has made his money and fame criticizing historical scholarship. That's how he sells books.

Like Lee Strobel, then?
Or any of the other numerous 'apologists' making the circuits?

a reply to: JUhrman

I can understand it since in the US there is a specific problem with Christian fundamentalism.

Yep.
That. The bolded part.

a reply to: JUhrman

as long as no one is harmed though. I understand that if fundamentalism becomes dangerous it must be dealt with. About that, I found it really fascinating that nothing is done in the US to prevent this. I understand it's part of the culture, but still, something should be done about it.

Exactly. Sorry for the tardy response - was just re-reading the thread.

There are people in the US trying to prevent it. Yes, it is dangerous.
And yes - something should be [is being] done about it.

LOL!! I just noticed that the OP left after 3 posts. Interesting.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: JUhrman

I can understand it since in the US there is a specific problem with Christian fundamentalism.

Yep.
That. The bolded part.

I'm always amazed that it doesn't bother those who believe in a literal interpretation of the whole bible (fundamentalism) that such a belief is merely a century old.

Even the early Church fathers themselves recognized the symbolic value of such stories as genesis.


Fundamentalism is more political than spiritual. It doesn't exist as an independent belief. It only exists by defining itself as against an opponent. And that opponent is modern science judged too materialistic.

Let it be reminded in this thread that Christian fundamentalism is and has always been a typically American issue and does not represent the views of the majority of the Church, which has always recognized the importance of symbols and context in the exegesis of the bible.

a reply to: JUhrman

I'm always amazed that it doesn't bother those who believe in a literal interpretation of the whole bible (fundamentalism) that such a belief is merely a century old.

Even the early Church fathers themselves recognized the symbolic value of such stories as genesis.

Muslims are morely likely IMO to have this interpretation of the Quran than Christians with their Bible.
I like the consedirations of Tertullian on the subject.

A more modern (french) writer (sometimes at the edge of Dan Brown litterature) is Pierre Jovanovic.

Fundamentalism is more political than spiritual. It doesn't exist as an independent belief. It only exists by defining itself as against an opponent. And that opponent is modern science judged too materialistic.

"The most dangerous thing for religion is when it's married to political power. When it's an instrument of political power then it betrays its own message." Rabbi David Rosen (2015 - Davos).
Personaly I think that if science was not an atheist tool, it could be helpful to clean the religions of their dogmas. One day they'll realise that at whatever scale, it's never possible to 'square the circle'.

Let it be reminded in this thread that Christian fundamentalism is and has always been a typically American issue and does not represent the views of the majority of the Church, which has always recognized the importance of symbols and context in the exegesis of the bible.

Funny thread : Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Bart Ehrman has made his money and fame criticizing historical scholarship. That's how he sells books.

Like Lee Strobel, then?
Or any of the other numerous 'apologists' making the circuits?

Lee Strobel isn't a textual critic, he is a Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist. Not even the same field of study by any stretch of the imagination. Didn't I explain this to you the last time you mentioned Strobel?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Erm, no.

considered the greatest NT scholar and textual critic of the 20th century.

By whom? Strobel? William Lane Craig? Ken Ham?

Bruce Manning Metzger (February 9, 1914 – February 13, 2007) was an American biblical scholar and textual critic who was a longtime professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor who served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. He was a scholar of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament textual criticism, and wrote prolifically on these subjects. Metzger is widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century.

Bruce M. Metzger ~ Wiki

I linked the same thing on the post you replied to, please try to follow along.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes, you have been clear that you don't like Bart Ehrman, but that does nothing to discredit his research. His arguments are solid yours is not.

Bart Ehrman does some great work, but he takes a weird left turn somewhere and gets all off track. For instance, he doesn't even seem to realize the Olivet Discourse in Matthew and Luke are different for a specific reason, one was to the people gathered around Him, spoken just outside the temple, the other is a private briefing for 4 disciples much later in the day from the mountain. Two different teachings in scope and time of day.

Simple stuff like that. And I didn't ad hom Bart Ehrman, this is the same criticism by his peers and his mentor.

WOW...
Left the internet for a few days and here it is on page 18.
Caught up on comments. I still think it's hard to debate this subject, there is no proof.
Faith and Faith alone is all there is.
If Jesus did actually come to Earth as Jesus, we would kill him again.
For all we know he has been here and been killed.

Fascinating reading all your responses peeps...

Cheers

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes, you have been clear that you don't like Bart Ehrman, but that does nothing to discredit his research. His arguments are solid yours is not.

Bart Ehrman does some great work, but he takes a weird left turn somewhere and gets all off track. For instance, he doesn't even seem to realize the Olivet Discourse in Matthew and Luke are different for a specific reason, one was to the people gathered around Him, spoken just outside the temple, the other is a private briefing for 4 disciples much later in the day from the mountain. Two different teachings in scope and time of day.

Simple stuff like that. And I didn't ad hom Bart Ehrman, this is the same criticism by his peers and his mentor.

I would like to know why you think that is important... or why it would be important to Dr. Ehrman considering he isn't a Christian any longer so he would have little to no interest in what would be considered prophecy by Christians

a reply to: shauny

Hi, new guy here, lol! Greetings and great topic. You are a smart dude! I love these kind of debates. It seems really hard to get into it with some, without them going into hysterics about how religion has destroyed the world. Hmm maybe, but I just want to talk about what you posted on and that is logic and theology.

Just to touch first on the "Atheism as a religion" question. I believe Atheism in itself is not a religion, however, it is made into a religious type cult by some. When an atheist cannot have a logical discussion on logic in theology but can only spout uneducated information from sources of science and say they have read the Bible but only for the purpose of discrediting it. Then we have the term "Religiously atheist". Just my 2 cents on that, I have no doubt that is going to piss off a couple people. lol Also...as a Christian, I will admit that many Christians and other Non-Christian believers ARE guilty of this same mentality and behavior. I would also say I was lying if I said that I have never been guilty of it myself. However, I do admit it, and I strive to balance logic with my faith.

Having said that we have to understand that there are many things that may SEEM illogical about the stories in the Bible, but there are MANY things that ARE quite logical, without the need for deep study and understanding. Yet WITH study and understanding some of the things once thought illogical can be seen to be logical after all. For example I will address a bit of the Noah story. For fear of taking up a whole page of ATS real estate I will try my best to keep it short. Also just want to say. I am no expert, only relaying what I have learned on the subject.

The Boat: As you mentioned already, so no need for me to repeat, the dimensions of Noah's ark as stated in the Bible. It IS a pretty huge boat. Although, Noah's ark has never been discovered, we will assume for the sake of argument it existed. Or not. I can not address that it did, since we don't have it. I will point out, though, that many ships have sunk to the bottom of the ocean and never been seen or discovered again.
You mention millions of species but that is not actually the case. Scientifically it is more in the thousands. As in there are many types of k9, many types of feline, many types of horses, many types of birds...and so on. When the Bible states "Two of each animal, male and female, after it's kind" this is what is meant. Using this logic it becomes clear that the the dimensions of the ark COULD support the amount of animals needed to replenish the earth after the flood.
The Ark has been a focus for scientific research and was found to be a sound design that could withstand some nasty weather and waves. (You will have to do your own research. I don't want this to be too long LOL)

The Animals: Kangaroos are marsupials. There are many classes of marsupials that could have led to this breed and others because of the genetic DNA coding for each KIND. I am not a geneticist or an expert on marsupials, so will stop there.
To address the living situation on the boat during their stay, there are numerous logical ways this could have been achieved and there are more supernatural ways. I will list a couple.
1. Noah could have separated the animals into different living quarters where certain animals would not be prone to eat the animals they were staying near.
2.(I feel is most likely and is demonstrated in Russel Crowe's movie "NOAH") Sedation of the animals so that they would sleep through out their journey. This would keep them docile enough not to eat each other and also to not be spooked by the moving waters.
3.Supernatural: God commanded the animals to behave. (not a popular Idea with non believers but nothing much in the Bible is )

And finally the Flood Story: The Flood has been written about in our oldest texts from the Sumerians to the Egyptians to the Israelite, going back at least 3000 yrs before B.C. It is not that illogical to consider this a consensus rather than a retold myth. We may not have concrete proof that a massive flood engulfed the world but what we DO have are curious implications. I will list small examples that others can look into on their own and count or discount their validity.
1. Although Bill Nye will say that fossils from lower lifeforms eg. shellfish, bottom feeding fish. Have never been found the exact opposite is true. We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all continents. We also find depictions of death scenes imprinted in the layers that implicate that something hit so fast the animals didn't even have time to finish swallowing their lunch or birthing their offspring.
2.We find the rapid burial of animals and plants that testifies to a cataclysmic event and the rapid laying of sediment.
This rapid laying of sediment covers VAST areas. Across continents even and in between.
3.Some say the tectonic plates and the phenomena of continental drift supports how a massive flood could have spilled over the continents and was drained through the cracks in the ocean floor.

I will admit that there are plenty of supernatural events in the Bible that I would be hard pressed to try and explain logically and with Science. I do believe in the supernatural however and somethings I can only attest to my belief in the power of our lord. I hope this doesn't mean I can't be considered to be a logical person.

Great Topic Shauny!!!!!

a reply to: Akragon

I would like to know why you think that is important... or why it would be important to Dr. Ehrman considering he isn't a Christian any longer so he would have little to no interest in what would be considered prophecy by Christians

That's not what I meant. Dr. Ehrman is a NT textual critic. He thinks the two accounts are contradictory, and doesn't realize they are two different teachings by Jesus on the same day.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

that doesn't make sense at all... Why would they be on the same day when Matthew was probably actually present on said day, and Luke wasn't even around at all?

also I don't recall him ever saying the accounts are completely contradictory... he does say there are contradictions but some of it obviously lines up

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Dr. Ehrman is a NT textual critic. He thinks the two accounts are contradictory, and doesn't realize they are two different teachings by Jesus on the same day.

And you think you know better. Right?
How on earth can he not realize this, but you do?

To what do you attribute his ignorance?

a reply to: Kusinjo

Although Bill Nye will say that fossils from lower lifeforms eg. shellfish, bottom feeding fish. Have never been found the exact opposite is true.

That's a bit of strawman argument, as Bill Nye never said you don't find fossils from "lower lifeforms". What he has said is this:

You hear a lot about the Grand Canyon I imagine, which is a remarkable place, and it has fossils, and the fossils in the Grand Canyon are found in layers. There is not a single place in the Grand Canyon where the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another. In other words, when there's a big flood on the Earth, you would expect drowning animals to swim up to a higher level. Not any one of them did, not a single one. If you could find evidence of that my friends, you could change the world.

And this:

You find down low what you might consider as rudimentary sea animals. Up above, you’ll find the famous trilobites; above that you might find some clams or oysters, and above that you'll find some mammals. You never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with the lower one. You never find a lower one trying to swim its way to a higher one. If it all happened in such an extraordinarily short amount of time, If this water drained away just like that, wouldn't we expect to see some turbulence? And by the way, anyone here, really, if you can find one example of that anywhere in the world, the scientists of the world challenge you, would embrace you, you'd be a hero. You would change the world. If you could find one example of that anywhere. People have looked and looked and have not found a single one.

So if you went out and could find some out of place fossils like he's describing, you'd actually have some evidence for a global flood. But no one has.

a reply to: shauny

If Jesus did actually come to Earth as Jesus, we would kill him again.

Welcome back, you thread-neglecter! LOL!
Just kidding.

People are trying right now to kill , or impeach , or overthrow , or silence - the very, very few people who truly uphold the ACTUAL teachings of Jesus. An end to war and violence, greed, and oppression. Same thing Buddha taught. Confucius. Krishna.

"Treat others as you would like to be treated, and share with those who are in need.'

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Lee Strobel isn't a textual critic, he is a Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist. Not even the same field of study by any stretch of the imagination.

Preposterously irrelevant.
What did Lee do - transport himself back 2000 years and ask around for himself?
A 'journalist' writes the news and commentaries on the news. If there hasn't been any 'news' on a topic for two thousand years, then he is relying on old texts, other people's impressions and opinions, and adding his own op-ed to the subject.

That, dear NuT is not JOURNALISM.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That, dear NuT is not JOURNALISM.

And? I didn't say it was!

He was a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist before being an author. I don't remember which paper though, maybe Boston Globe or Chicago Tribune. Anyways, Strobel is irrelevant to our discussion, you are the only one talking about him.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

And you think you know better. Right? How on earth can he not realize this, but you do?

I never said I myself figured it out. But I have read from scholars, exegetical commentators, and far more relevant textual critics who have.

One account is a teaching Jesus made to the public right outside of the temple, the other is an explanation He gave to the 4 apostles who asked Him some different Qs later that day on the mount of Olives itself. One deals with the end of the age primarily, and the other briefing deals primarily with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Bart missed this. That's why I refer to Bart's mentor instead of Bart, Dr. Bruce M. Metzger. Bart teaches at UNC Chapel Hill, the late Dr. Metzger taught at Princeton.