Top Biblical Scholar Bart D. Ehrman Leaves Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

That depends upon what you might mean by that. But either way, I think Orwell and I are saying essentially the same thing:





Most common among religionists, I suspect.



Such as?



"We" who, and why waste time judging people anyway?



I personally believe all "positions" are damnable.



Your defense of that kind of integrity within religion surprises me a bit, yet I acknowledge and respect it at face value.



As an example: How would whatever I might think on the matter affect you?

Well, right, but Orwell's point is only valid if the belief doesn't have a belief that "Nobody who believes may stop believing". If that is the case for A, then any person switching from A to B or C or D or Z disproves A. They don't prove B, C, D, or Z, and if A didn't contain that belief then the switch would prove nothing. However, if the belief has within it "nobody who believes may stop believing", then ANYBODY who stops believing disproves the belief.


I already brought up the claims when you attacked me, and brought up two different claims. I am not interested in repeating myself.


Surely you are joking when I use "we". The "we" I used is a generic "we" as in the group of people so interested.

Why waste time? Because
a) It is good to get rid of falsified claims from discourse so that way they no longer trouble anybody or come up in future arguments.
b) It is interesting to the people who engage in these kinds of discussions
c) Because truth is important to most people, so identifying falsehood would be the same
d) Because many people think that conservative Christianity is a belief that is harmful.


Is that your position on the matter?


Well, a former anything is more credible. It still doesn't make the matter truer, or anything else like that, but honestly, a former XYZ is going to be more credible on the issue of XYZ hopefully than another person. (obviously holding everything else constant)


Very easily. When you think something, you may write things down, such as on a forum, and these things will tend to cause a reaction. This reaction can be anger, frustration, time wasted on a response, enjoyable dialog, modification of ideas, or even agreement. I like agreement, enjoyable dialog, and modification of ideas, but I don't like anger, frustration, or time wasted. So, the thoughts of others are relevant.

Apology accepted. I tend to think that in most arguments in life that most of the escalate far beyond what they need to due to miscommunication. Not in all instances of course, as sometimes there are more legitimate reasons for people to get angry at another, but it seems that in more abstract argumentation that people often get angry due to their being multiple possible, and reasonable, interpretations of what another says and when an incorrect interpretation is selected then how people react depends upon their view of the implications of such an interpretation. Perhaps I'm writing too much, but anyway thanks for diffusing this potentially heated argument.

Yeah, the original series seemed kinda hokey to me. The Next Generation, even in the first two seasons which are often considered the worst, seemed more serious as if they were actually on a Naval vessel and had some degree of discipline rather than seeming more like clowns in space. Seasons three and four are the best in my opinion, and a few episodes of five and six. Season seven got into some weirdness with the Navajo/Traveller dude and Wesley but they ended it fairly well bringing it in full circle in reference to the first episode.

Well the problem with arguing by the actions of others has been around for a while though. Some people use David and Solomon as an excuse for being polygamous, and other things justifying their actions and desires on the basis of the example of other fallen men of the past. This case is only a variation of the much older, "he did it too."

I do not attack people, but now that it seems you are far more sensitive than I would have imagined, I will watch to be even more sure I do not.



No, just a belief.

The best way to deal with the problem of wasting time on a response is to not waste time on a response. As for the anger and frustration other peoples opinions may cause you, you might want to consider why they provoke these emotions. Leejosepho's point that they have no effect on your life is valid unless you are concerned with the effect they have on his life. Why should that concern you?

If I might butt in ...

In a much different setting well prior to my being here at WP, I used to do a lot of intentional "boat rocking" to try to encourage people to get off the so-called "gunwale" and "come all the way in and sit all the way down." Overall, that was a good thing and definitely helpful for all of us there together in that particular "boat", yet some people did still hear anything challenging to their own personal beliefs, perceptions or whatever else -- old and dysfunctional ideas or ways -- as a personal attack. So, there is a fine and difficult balance in need of consideration when/while people are yet leaning or depending upon things that are just not getting a given job done, and I do admit to often falling short along that particular line.

I am confused. Whenever a person attempts to confront my position, I usually say "they are attacking my position" and this can include even efforts such as questions that I don't regard as attempts to elaborate on an idea so much as to discredit it. I don't see this as strange. It is a use of language.

As for what I present? Umm.... it is possible that I am more sensitive than you imagine, really though, it seems more likely that I am just more invested in these processes and how they work than you are. A person who is invested will always be more bothers than somebody who isn't, and there is that tendency of people to react strongly to the wrongnesses of others.

After all, just look at this xkcd comic:


Now, you might not understand the mentality, but I think a lot of people can get into that mindset.



No, just a belief.[/quote]
Right.... and honestly I am going to have to disagree.


No, it isn't the best. As for the consideration of why, I think I've considered it enough. I have no problems with the fact that I can get frustrated, I dislike it when it happens, and I know I am better at handling some of it than some people are, as some people get really bothered by persistent disagreement and the failings of others in these affairs.

Once we get into questioning emotional responses on a logical level, I start finding questions in the methodology. The reason is that emotional responses are not more logical than other emotional responses. Some are more consistent with the expectations and norms for something, as a person who gets rage at having a birthday cake seems strange, while one who is delighted seems less strange, the issue is that neither response is necessarily more rational than the other, unless one buys into a form of teleological reasoning about emotions, which I tend to distrust.

As it stands though, I really don't actually think what I wrote is strange, I am just, well, strangely enough rejecting the notion of an isolated individualism to point out that I am impacted by the ideas of others, so I don't see how that makes me over-sensitive, except in the eyes of somebody who is explicitly or implicitly accepting that isolation. As it stands, it is kind of obvious that people can say things that amuse a person, that disgust a person, or that frustrate a person, and this happens very often in the actions we see on this forum. People can be amused by the comments made that are funny in some form or fashion. People can be disgusted by "pig ignorance" or crass notions(some of ruveyn's come to mind), and people can be frustrated by the inability of some people to really engage a point or to recognize something that is true on a matter. You may see this as strange, but I don't see this as strange.

Sure, but that does mean the writer has intended to amuse, disgust or frustrate, nor even that the writer is in any way responsible for *any* kind of reaction unless a true offense has actually been committed. Otherwise, censorship and PC would reign sovereign over all.

I never said anything about intentions. As for responsibility, that's a more difficult thing. One can be responsible for a non-intended result if that person was acting recklessly in those actions. That being said, I said nothing about censorship. Just because something is an issue doesn't mean that the best way to handle the issue is so heavy-handed. A lot of behaviors are best handled through social interactions, particularly given that political efforts have their own problems.

Of course you can butt in; this is a public forum, if I wanted a private conversation with AG I would have sent him a PM.


I am an aspie AG, I got used to being isolated a long time ago; I still don't like it, but I have come to accept it.

There was a time when I too was bothered by other peoples opinions. I stopped letting them when I realized there was only so much I could do about it and I was only frustrating myself by taking it personally and I don't like that any better than you do. I will point out flaws in peoples logic or identify assumptions they are taking to be facts, but if they will not listen to me I just shake the dust off my feet and move on.

It is not that I thought what you wrote was strange and I agree that you handle it better than many, but wouldn't you like to handle it even better than that?

Oops.

Last edited by leejosepho on 22 Jul 2010, 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ah, I am talking more of a social theory than a set of personal relations. You see, there is a common social theory that does attempt more atomism, and it is usually based somewhat about classical liberal and economic reasoning, and the former is usually what people respond to most. Sometimes this idea is sort of blinding to individuals as well and that's REALLY what I was trying to get at, just making sure that nobody was blinded by a particular social theory.


Not really... I mean, I dislike being agitated, but I prefer being a person who could be agitated. I mean, think of it this way: nobody likes suffering, but it is even less human in their eyes to be unable to suffer, or to not suffer when it seems that one should.

Professor Ehrmann is correct. The concept of the Trinity and Jesus as God in the flesh are creations of the centuries after Christ's death. Where he is mistaken is in believing that these concepts exist in the Bible.

Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God, not God himself (Matthew 16:16). One cannot be both father and son. The word trinity does not occur in the Bible nor does the concept clearly appear.

Compare these:


& when John had tried to worship an angel









In a hyperliteral sense of the words, you are right, however Jesus would be God in human flesh and in that manner would Jesus be the Son of God, and as per as direct contradiction of your words:

Son of God => God.

At least that's what I've concluded by reading the Gospel Book of John.