Remember when "atheist" had a negative connotation?

thejeff wrote:

Flagpole is a brother wrote:

jeff, I thought we'd already covered the friend and brother thing?

1. I never agreed with your sentiment,

2. I didn't use either word in the post you replied to, so I am not sure why you bring it up now?

jeff, Here is your recent quote "You would know, my friend :-)"

Stop it. It sounds smarmy and condescending.

Flagpole is a brother wrote:

thejeff wrote:

1. I never agreed with your sentiment,

2. I didn't use either word in the post you replied to, so I am not sure why you bring it up now?

jeff, Here is your recent quote "You would know, my friend :-)"

Stop it. It sounds smarmy and condescending.

Can you send a link to the post? I honestly don't remember it. Excellent use of the word 'smarmy", Spiccoli :-)

thejeff wrote:

I have asked Biblical scholars if certain events in the OT could similarly be allegorical. I have gotten a variety of answers, but none of the answers I have gotten lead me to believe that the Bible has made untrue historical claims.

Have you asked the people who actually study the fields of the claims that are made in the OT? I suggest you go talk to archeologists, Egyptologists, geologists, geneticists, etc. I think they have some bad news they'd like to share with you.

Ha HA,

I live in Texas, and all these ignorant rednecks thinks Ted Cruz "is the man"

He is ridiculous. If a politician in Europe would talk about God, they would be laughed at, and there is no way they would win an election.

I think you glossed over an important point I made...the whole possibility that parts of the OT ARE allegorical. :-) I am not saying they are. I am saying that it is possible, and IF they are, it in no way detracts from the Good News of the Bible.

hoho wrote:

Ha HA,

I live in Texas, and all these ignorant rednecks thinks Ted Cruz "is the man"

He is ridiculous. If a politician in Europe would talk about God, they would be laughed at, and there is no way they would win an election.

so...you think we should be more like Europe?

Flagpole is a brother wrote:

thejeff wrote:

1. I never agreed with your sentiment,

2. I didn't use either word in the post you replied to, so I am not sure why you bring it up now?

jeff, Here is your recent quote "You would know, my friend :-)"

Stop it. It sounds smarmy and condescending.

I found it. Get over it, cuz :-)

Bible is Fox News at its worst wrote:

Absolutely! Not a shred of evidence that there was a Jesus. It was an obvious retelling of earlier godmen.

thejeff wrote:

So, your stance is that Jesus historically did not even actually exist?

You reminded me of this:

thejeff wrote:

Flagpole is a brother wrote:

jeff, Here is your recent quote "You would know, my friend :-)"

Stop it. It sounds smarmy and condescending.

I found it. Get over it, cuz :-)

It seems to me that folks should be able to determine how they would like to be addressed and, in some sense more importantly, how they would NOT like to be addressed. Not affording them that common courtesy strikes me as fundamentally disrespectful.

Not Jeff But wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I found it. Get over it, cuz :-)

It seems to me that folks should be able to determine how they would like to be addressed and, in some sense more importantly, how they would NOT like to be addressed. Not affording them that common courtesy strikes me as fundamentally disrespectful.

I completely agree.

You should know that he was addressing me calling someone ELSE brother. If he asked me to not call HIM a name, of course I would honor that.

Thanks :-)

thejeff wrote:

You reminded me of this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577511/Winston-Churchill-didnt-really-exist-say-teens.html

This isn't really a fair comparison since we have direct evidence that Churchill existed. That isn't something we can say about Jesus. We've gone through that phase in this, re: the historicity of Jesus. I've read a lot about the topic, everything from Atwill's "Caesar's Messiah," which posits that the Gospels were created by the Romans in a such a way that it would embarrass the Jews, to more mainstream scholars like Bart Ehrmann, to skeptics like Richard Carrier.

I am unconvinced either way. I will say that the burden of proof has not been met. Not by a long shot.

A few problems that come to mind:

1. The Teacher of Righteousness - the teacher of the Essenes at Qumran has eerily similar sayings and characteristics to Jesus. Was Jesus created out of this composite?

2. The problem of Paul - Paul is writing less than 20 years after Jesus's supposed death, yet the guy knows a grand total of nothing about the historical Jesus. This guy is even closer in time to the event than the Gospel writers.

3. Lack of Roman records - If this guy did everything he supposed did, there would at least be *contemporary* (as in ~25 CE) records or at least correspondence. We have nothing. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Thallus....all of these writing have problems and even the earliest of these (Josephus) is decades after the fact.

5. Corroborative evidence - The Slaughter of the Innocents, the earthquake when Jesus died, the tearing of the holiest of holies...there is not one smidge of evidence (again from the time, not decades later).

You've "asked biblical scholars" questions, but you say nothing what those questions were and what they said in response, and you continue to depend on the literal truth of every story in the bible. How strong is the possibility that some parts of the old bible are allegorical? And why do you nonetheless continue to believe that none of them are?

You keep saying this is a good discussion, and that people are asking good questions, but your own contributions to it are increasingly weak, and your answers to the many "good questions" wholly selective and evasive. I'm beginning to fear that you just like the attention. If you're actually trying to shore up the credibility of bible-based Christianity, perhaps even with the intent of gaining a few new believers, you're not doing such a great job. Quite the opposite, in fact. I expect you've done rather a lot to create more atheists, and confirm others in their view that there's not much to see in the whole Christianity thing, which you make look like an elaborate and willful kind of stupidity, devoid of any social redeeming quality beyond, perhaps, politeness. There's not even a trace of the beauty one sometimes finds in genuine, tragic expressions of religious faith and wonder. Again, I think only of more sophisticated Ned Flanders when I hear you speak about your faith.

thejeff wrote:

Not Jeff But wrote:

It seems to me that folks should be able to determine how they would like to be addressed and, in some sense more importantly, how they would NOT like to be addressed. Not affording them that common courtesy strikes me as fundamentally disrespectful.

I completely agree.

You should know that he was addressing me calling someone ELSE brother. If he asked me to not call HIM a name, of course I would honor that.

Thanks :-)

No, that WAS me. I used the above name hoping you would click with the previous threads about Flagpole annoying people with that tendency. Don't be like Flagpole.

The fact that you then called me cuz kind of killed your point above anyway.

Imagine if Jesus was just a satirical piece of Roman literature.

Kind of like Rexxing being a real guy after letsrun archives are unearthed

a few thousand years from now.

I am sorry you feel that way.

There is a big difference between me not answering your question and you not liking or accepting my answer.

1. Pain and suffering are relative. What seemed horrible to us as three year olds isn't so bad now. What seems horrible now won't compare to what hell will be like. Yes, it is that simple. Cancer and ebola are horrible. Hell will be infinitely more so.

2. I didn't see a need to cite specific questions I have asked about sections of the OT possibly being allegorical; I was simply trying to relate to you be acknowledging that I have had some of the same questions that you have. Mine is not a "blind faith". Is it possible that Creation, Noah's Ark, and the Tower of Babel are allegorical? Yes. Are there circumstances in which those events could possibly be interpreted as literal? Actually, yes. I have no idea which is true, but more importantly, it doesn't matter, because neither affect the central message of the Gospels.

3. My dad looks just like Ned Flanders. True Story.

4. Thanks for calling me "polite". I will tell my mom that she and Ned did a good job :-)

Flagpole is a brother wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I completely agree.

You should know that he was addressing me calling someone ELSE brother. If he asked me to not call HIM a name, of course I would honor that.

Thanks :-)

No, that WAS me. I used the above name hoping you would click with the previous threads about Flagpole annoying people with that tendency. Don't be like Flagpole.

The fact that you then called me cuz kind of killed your point above anyway.

If you want to have an adult conversation, please use the same handle. Thanks :-)

thejeff wrote:

Flagpole is a brother wrote:

No, that WAS me. I used the above name hoping you would click with the previous threads about Flagpole annoying people with that tendency. Don't be like Flagpole.

The fact that you then called me cuz kind of killed your point above anyway.

If you want to have an adult conversation, please use the same handle. Thanks :-)

Well you do seem to be quite child-like so.....

Flagpole is a brother wrote:

thejeff wrote:

If you want to have an adult conversation, please use the same handle. Thanks :-)

Well you do seem to be quite child-like so.....

It seems to me that insults do not enhance the conversation.

thejeff wrote:

2. I didn't see a need to cite specific questions I have asked about sections of the OT possibly being allegorical; I was simply trying to relate to you be acknowledging that I have had some of the same questions that you have. Mine is not a "blind faith". Is it possible that Creation, Noah's Ark, and the Tower of Babel are allegorical? Yes. Are there circumstances in which those events could possibly be interpreted as literal? Actually, yes. I have no idea which is true, but more importantly, it doesn't matter, because neither affect the central message of the Gospels.

3. My dad looks just like Ned Flanders. True Story.

4. Thanks for calling me "polite". I will tell my mom that she and Ned did a good job :-)

Is there any way to determine if the stories are allegorical simply by examining the text itself? If not what is your method to determine if the stories are allegory?

From my viewpoint, it looks like one big no-lose situation you have to set up to maintain your beliefs. You say the entire Bible must be correct, so instead of concluding if the stories are true or false like you normally would, you switch the categories to true or allegorical. You set your claims in unfalsifiable terms so that there is no possible way for your beliefs to be in danger.