Ralph Reed rejects claim that Jesus was a socialist; Bible is not ‘a religious Communist Manifesto’

Reed had investment in Mariana Island sweat shops which forced the women who worked there to abort.

Reed walks in The Shadow of The Deceiver.  Beware of him.

Jesus was not “a Birkenstock-wearing socialist"

he wore sandals. poor ralph, no more native american tribes left for him to scam, so I guess it's back to milking the cash out of most of the tried and true gullible morons on the planet.

Isn't Ralph Reed a slimy sanctimonious hypocritical little prick. That isn't a question!

I have a problem with him from way back. How this man with his 'just so' personality and stiff 'TV' hair could coolly appear on television sets across the country, smiling 'just so,' as he would give license to his ideas of freedoms, while wielding a figurative cudgel of loaded words to bludgeon and oppress old and young homosexuals and lesbians into obscurity with no hope of ever becoming mainstream was surely diabolical. Reed is a very practiced man at what he does.

Jesus was a liberal. 

As Jesus was Gnostic and Christianity was made on his murdered/martyred bones - SWN (say what now) and throughout history (Christianity) has been used to throw stone's at one group or another, I dare say the utter hypocrisy is Standard, under the circumstances!

Church's ⛪ like liquor stores are on every corner, yet both contribute to human suffering equally.

"Socialism" like bigotry is used by those with agendas most contradictory to the teachings of the man/mythology in question and it has always struck me odd that many of the disciple's stories used by the Council of Nicea were of those who didn't understand the parables of Jesus when he was alive, so how did they obtain such 'clarity' upon his death!

Furthermore, when Jesus 'rose' they sought to stone Mary (who was also a discipline of his) simply because they were jealous & women were considered 'Chattle' only.

Religion, like politics is a device for some to use as they deceitfully see fit!

Gnosticism is more a spiritual endeavor, which (IMHO) we human beings should strive for/to!

it has always struck me odd that many of the disciple's stories used by the Council of Nicea were of those who didn't understand the parables of Jesus when he was alive, so how did they obtain such 'clarity' upon his death!

Quick answer: There are benefits to hindsight.

If only that were true in this case, putting ones spin on it & calling it clarity under the circumstances is more than a little questionable at best.

Again, disabling a person's belief as hearsay and replacing it with your own interpretation is a bit more than "hindsight," I dare say - as well!

& I was being sardonic, I find it more brazen/sincere than 'Sarcasm!'

That's "disavowing" vs "disabling" blasted autocorrect 😵

 What is this about? You're confusing me.

Bible Is Not ‘A Religious Communist Manifesto’

 word...

• Ecclesiastes 10

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.  Even as fools walk along the road,
    they lack sense and show everyone how stupid they are.

 still true to this day.

cheers

Not true, and you really think Solomon's verses can be mangled into context of modern-day politics? Now who is writing like a fool?

Not true,

tis true enough...  and in today's politics. totally on the money.

just curious... are ya gonna say jesus was nonviolent as well?

John 2:15

After making a whip out of cords, he drove everyone out of the temple with their sheep and oxen. He also poured out the money changers' coins and overturned the tables

although a slap in the face is not worthy of a violent response. have ya ever been hit by a whip?   nonviolent my ass... LOL  

Now who is writing like a fool?

any person who thinks jesus advocated for socialism and told everyone to put their faith in govt.

And, now you and that 'weapon' you possess are an example of Jesus and a whip? Exploit much? Okay, what righteous indignation do you possess that gives you any right to act violently (deadly)?

Okay, what righteous indignation do you possess that gives you any right to act violently (deadly)?

anyone who breaks into my house or my neighbors will face more than a whip. 

if I ever catch anyone harming a child?  they will not survive.

"like a muddy spring are those who give way to the wicked"  (look it up)

There is nothing wrong with our system of governance now. Of course, it can stand to be modified up and down accordingly. So I won't be distracted by your need to 'curse' something.

Please elaborate on who you think has put their 'faith' in government. Then, elaborate on how our society can be better served by the likes of you.

Please elaborate on who you think has put their 'faith' in government.

the answer is obvious but I will recant if you can show socialists/marxists do not use the power of govt to steal from others, try to silence opposing thought and take away peoples freedoms.

when did jesus tell his disciples to give up their weapons and trust govt for their safety?  NEVER

Stop it. We are not discussing defensive and protection and you know it. Your attempt at a swerve is duly noted.

when did jesus tell his disciples to give up their weapons and trust govt for their safety? 

Where did Jesus tell his disciples to go out and act offensively against government? And, here is nothing wrong with our system of governance now. Of course, it can stand to be modified up and down accordingly.

Stop it.

not a chance... 

jesus was not a liberal or a socialist. 

he only preached tolerance and restraint, but there is a limit to that. hence "the whip"

speaking of todays left... did jesus advocate for abortion as well? again,  not a chance.  

And, here is nothing wrong with our system of governance now.

agreed...

that is why we rejected the lefts attempts to fundamentally change this country into a socialist/marxist shithole and always will.

trumps federal court picks will serve this country well. 

cheers

We have had Marxist fascist government for the past 85 years.

and we stopped being free citizens with the implementation of the 16th amendment.  

125 years ago you didn’t have to ask permission from the Government to:

•    Collect rain water for your home

•    Use a transportation vehicle

•    Build a home or renovate it

•    You didn’t have to pay tax upon tax, upon tax with already taxed money including being forced to pay money that has been taxed into a government retirement system and then taxed again on that same money if you live above the poverty line

•    You didn’t have to ask permission (from the government) and pay to get married, obtain licenses, certificates or permits to fish, hunt, own a gun, become a carpenter or any other trade or profession

•    You didn’t have to ask permission to protest or redress government, or sell a product 

The government didn't pass laws and regulations saying that they not you own and control the water on your own land (put into effect by comrade Obama)

The government didn't order you to buy a commercial product under threat of penalty

The government didn't control freedom of speech 

You didn't  have your income taxed by the 16th Amendment forcibly under threat of penalty and/or imprisonment

The government didn't regulate or ban what you eat, drink, or inhale

You can virtually do “NOTHING” without being extorted by the Government and obtaining their permission first.

If you still think your “FREE” you are deluding yourself.

We live in an open air prison as subjects of the state thoroughly manipulated and controlled by the illusion of a free society.

we stopped being free citizens with the implementation of the 16th amendment.

yet today's left wanted to tax the crap out of people who did not buy health insurance... and wants to use taxes to advance their so-called democratic socialism schemes... 

• the right only gives to charity by choice.
• the left wants to force people to be charitable.

jesus never tried to force people to give to others... he only asked.  

from taxes, self-defense, all the way to abortion, todays left is on the wrong side of the fence.

Your response gives nothing to discuss. So, moving on.

We have had Marxist fascist government for the past 85 years.

Paranoid. That's all I can add. Somebody else can take offense of your 'statement.'

Then, elaborate on how our society can be better served by the likes of you.

I spent my entire life serving others in one way or another.

• first job = lifeguard
• second job = military
• third job = builder /  creating jobs and taught everyone who worked for me how to be my competitor.

that is my entire resume in full. what exactly have you done for society?

Clearly, you are out of step with time. That's all.

You misunderstand me, that word, "you" is the collective, "you." Moreover, it is your political policies, not your resume, that can shed light on anything of value to this discussion.

So what policies do you and your associates put forward in order to advance all citizens of the United States?

So what policies do you and your associates put forward in order to advance all citizens of the United States?

standing in the way of socialist/marxist pricks who want to fundamentally change our country into a third world shit-hole.

socialism does not lift poor people up it only brings everyone else down.  (see Venezuela for  recent example)

Everything I stated is fact, not paranoia 

"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to the ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers." -- Aldous Huxley, "Brave New World," Foreward, p. XV.

How would you like it if I called you, Prick? (No, I am not a socialist, neither am I a member of any mislabeling of the Democratic Party. Do carry on, nevertheless!)

I have no choice: Seriously. Your great 'learning' has driven you . . . .

The principles of liberty don’t change. You are either a free and sovereign citizen or a subject of Statist government 

Noted Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn, no stranger to the consequences of statism, wrote, "Socialism of any type leads to a total destruction of the human spirit." 

Future Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger wrote, "There is no difference in principle, between the economic philosophy of Nazism, socialism, communism, and fascism and that of the American welfare state and regulated economy." 

The conclusion of socialism by any name, once it has replaced Rule of Law with the rule of men, is tyranny.

(No, I am not a socialist, )

 and... I did not call you a prick. only the sociaists/marxists are pricks

but hey, call me anything ya like... matters not.

I'm immune to "words"  words don't hurt me one bit.

"Contrary to what leftists want us to believe, individualism does not mean looting others to satisfy one's desires. Nor does it mean unconcern for others. ... Individualism, not collectivism or altruism, is the root of benevolence and good will among men. " -- Glenn Woiceshyn,  

"State-mandated compassion produces, not love for ones fellow man, but hatred and resentment.  The breakdown of  'basic civility' and the rise of the welfare state occur concurrently." --  

"The primary goal of collectivism -- of socialism in Europe and contemporary liberalism in America -- is to enlarge governmental supervision of individuals' lives. This is done in the name of equality.   People are to be conscripted into one large cohort, everyone equal (although not equal in status or power to the governing class) in their status as wards of a self-aggrandizing government." -- George Will

"A pure democracy ... can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction.  A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party...  Hence it is that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in thier deaths." --  James Madison, Federalist No. 10

Ditto. I don't consider you a prick, it is just all too common in your ranks to hurl matter of fact accusations. BTW, it is a waste of time to keep going over certain 'narratives.'

FDRs love of Fascism

In the North American Review in 1934, the progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as “Fascist means to gain liberal ends.” He wasn’t hallucinating. FDR’s adviser Rexford Tugwell wrote in his diary that Mussolini had done “many of the things which seem to me necessary.” Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt who lived in the White House for a spell, wrote approvingly of a local official who had said, “If [President] Roosevelt were actually a dictator, we might get somewhere.” She added that if she were younger, she’d like to lead “the Fascist Movement in the United States.” At the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the cartel-creating agency at the heart of the early New Deal, one report declared forthrightly, “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.”

Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter , repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”

. In 1935 former President Herbert Hoover was using phrases like “Fascist regimentation” in discussing the New Deal. A decade later, he wrote in his memoirs that “the New Deal introduced to Americans the spectacle of Fascist dictation to business, labor and agriculture,” and that measures such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act, “in their consequences of control of products and markets, set up an uncanny Americanized parallel with the agricultural regime of Mussolini and Hitler.” In 1944, in The Road to Serfdom , the economist F.A. Hayek warned that economic planning could lead to totalitarianism. He cautioned Americans and Britons not to think that there was something uniquely evil about the German soul. National Socialism, he said, drew on collectivist ideas that had permeated the Western world for a generation or more.

In 1973 one of the most distinguished American historians, John A. Garraty of Columbia University, created a stir with his article “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression.” Garraty was an admirer of Roosevelt but couldn’t help noticing, for instance, the parallels between the Civilian Conservation Corps and similar programs in Germany.”

cato

Chomsky on America's Ugly History: FDR Was Fascist-Friendly Before WWII

George Kennan, later famous as one of the architects of post-war policy, was actually the American Council in Berlin up until Pearl Harbor. He was sending back reports which are public, which were qualified. He said we shouldn't be too harsh in condemning the Nazis since a lot of what they are doing is kind of understandable and we could get along with them and so on and this is one strain and a major one. But there was also plenty of criticism and condemnation. But the general attitudes were fairly mixed. 

At the Munich Conference late 1938, Roosevelt sent his most trusted adviser, Sumner Wells, to Munich and Wells came back with a pretty positive report saying we can really work with Hitler, this conference opens the possibility of a period of peace and justice for Europe and we should work out ways to interact and deal with him. That was late 1938! And so it was quite a mixed story. 

alternet

it is just all too common in your ranks

just my ranks?  LOL  don't be a hypocrite. 

the "basket of deplorables ring any bells?

have you actually forgotten the daily cries from the left that "trump supporters are stupid morons?

Rule of Law

Define this, in your opinion. Please. Moreover, these are old tired matters that 'loop' incessantly on NT. I loosely know what comes next. . . .

I CAN'T I JUST CAN'T take you serious anymore. I'm sorry.

“Our System Is Not Socialism, but Participatory Fascism

Robert Higgs  •  Tuesday October 30, 2012  

I continue to encounter many discussions in which the author or speaker bemoans the economic order’s drift toward socialism or, in some cases, its actual existence as such. If this characterization were simply a matter of linguistic imprecision, it might not matter much. But it is much more than a matter of terminology, because one’s understanding of the nature of our current economic order hinges on how we characterize it.

Socialism is a system in which all the major means of production are owned and operated by the state. Except perhaps for small firms or farms, all productive enterprises are state enterprises. All natural resources belong to the state. All resources are allocated and employed as the state dictates, insofar as its dictates can actually be carried out in practice (all such systems display much slack between orders given and actual conduct on the ground, owing to corruption and attempts to “fix” flaws embedded in the state’s overall plan).

Obviously the economic order that prevails in the economically advanced countries is not socialism. Indeed, these systems are commonly called capitalistic or market-oriented, notwithstanding the many types of government intervention that pervade their markets—various taxes, subsidies, direct government production, and regulations galore. Some people refer to these systems as “mixed economies,” which at least helps us to recognize that they are not market economies in any pure sense, not even in an approximate one. But in calling them mixed economies, we gain no insight into their nature or operation.

For thirty years or so, I have used the term “participatory fascism,” which I borrowed from my old friend and former Ph.D. student Charlotte Twight. This is a descriptively precise term in that it recognizes the fascistic organization of resource ownership and control in our system, despite the preservation of nominal private ownership, and the variety of ways in which the state employs political ceremonies, proceedings, and engagements—most important, voting—in which the general public participates. Such participation engenders the sense that somehow the people control the government. Even though this sense of control is for the most part an illusion, rather than a perception well founded in reality, it is important because it causes people to accept government regulations, taxes, and other insults against which they might rebel if they believed that such impositions had simply been forced on them by dictators or other leaders wholly beyond their influence.

For the rulers, participatory fascism is the perfect solution toward which they have been groping for generations, and virtually all of the world’s politico-economic orders are now gravitating toward this system. Outright socialism is a recipe for widespread poverty and for the ultimate dissolution of the economy and the disavowal of its political leadership. Socialism is the wave of the past; everywhere it has been tried seriously, it has failed miserably. Participatory fascism, in contrast, has two decisive advantages over socialism.

The first is that it allows the nominal private owners of resources and firms enough room for maneuver that they can still innovate, prosper, and hence propel the system toward higher levels of living for the masses. If the government’s intervention is pushed too far, this progress slows, and it may eventually cease or even turn into economic regress. However, when such untoward conditions occur, the rulers tend to rein in their plunder and intervention enough to allow a revitalization of the economy. Of course, such fettered economies cannot grow as fast as completely free economies can grow, but the latter system would preclude the plunder and control that the political leaders now enjoy in the fettered system, and hence they greatly prefer the slower-growing, great-plunder system to the faster-growing, no-plunder one.

Meanwhile, most people are placated by the economic progress that does occur and by their participation in political and legal proceedings that give them the illusion of control and fair treatment. Although the political system is rigged in countless ways to favor incumbent rulers and their key supporters, it is far from dictatorial in the way that Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany was dictatorial. People therefore continue to believe that they are free, notwithstanding the death of their liberties by a thousand cuts that continues day by day.

Participatory fascism’s second great advantage over socialism is that when serious economic problems do arise, as they have during the past five years, the rulers and their key supporters in the “private” sector can blame residual elements of the market system, and especially the richest people who operate in that system, for the perceived ills. No matter how much the problems arise from government intervention, it is always possible to lay the blame on actors and institutions in the remaining “free enterprises,” especially the biggest bankers and other apparent top dogs. Thus, fascistic rulers have build-in protection against popular reaction that the rulers in a socialist system lack. (Rulers under socialism tend to designate foreign governments and capitalists and domestic “wreckers” as the scapegoats for their mismanagement and inability to conduct economic affairs productively and fairly.)

Americans do not like to admit that they live in a system that is most accurately characterized as participatory fascism. They insist that fascism requires death camps, goose-stepping brown shirts, comical yet murderous leaders in funny hats, and others hallmarks of the fascism that operated in Germany and Italy between the world wars. But fascism takes many specific forms. If you wish to see the form that it has increasingly taken in the economically advanced countries during the past century, just look around you.”

blog.independent

Post all the links you wish, this little gem will remain laughably absurd:

LFOD @11.1.11 ⇨ We have had Marxist fascist government for the past 85 years.

Get a grip.

I will give you the small “l” libertarian definition 

“The Rule of Law. Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that “people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything.” Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.”

I am not calling you "Stupid morons." And it is time to realize that liberals don't all speak the same.

And it is time to realize that liberals don't all speak the same.

it is also time to realize anyone who advocates for the destruction of our country via socialism is a prick who gets no respect from me ever.

I'm glad to hear your not a socialist. that means you have brains. 

perhaps one day the sane people on the left (of which there are many) will kick the socialist bs from their party and policies.  the sooner that happens, the better for everyone. 

cheers

Okay, let's begin: What do you have against libertines and hedons being, and I quote: "Free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others."?

What harms is it costing you and yours?

As a nation, we do need better capitalism. And, MEBall, chauvinism needed to die out of our country. Let it RIP!

our country has a long history of telling socialists/marxists to fuk off. its a time honored tradition that is not going away any time soon. (free speech is all about telling people/govt to fuk off like that.)

I look forward to the future split of the democrat party once the sane democrats get tired of the socialist bs ... may take 20yrs or more... but it will happen.

do ya think the socialists will move to the green party or start another party instead?

or perhaps the sane democrats will start a new party?   

no matter what happens it will be fun to watch.

cheers

Unlike, I have a firm grip on facts of history, political science, and economics.

your derision of the facts reflects on you, not me.

Fascism and Nazism parallels to Democrats welfare State ideology

History is a great teacher for those who are willing to study it.   A look back at the welfare state policies of Mussolini and Hitler, they are virtually identical to those of the modern Democratic Party

Social Welfarism and Public Works

Both National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy were welfare states that spent heavily on public works. A former school teacher, Mussolini’s spending on the public sector, schools and infrastructure was considered extravagant. Mussolini “instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivalled in modern Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools, railway stations and orphanages; swamps were drained and land reclaimed, forests were planted and universities were endowed.” ^[255] As for the scope and spending on social welfare programs, Italian fascism “compared favorably with the more advanced European nations and in some respect was more progressive.” ^[256] When New York city politician Grover Aloysius Whalen asked Mussolini about the meaning behind Italian Fascism in 1939, the reply was: “It is like your New Deal!” ^[257]

By 1925 the Fascist government had “embarked upon an elaborate program” that included food supplementary assistance, infant care, maternity assistance, general healthcare, wage supplements, paid vacations, unemployment benefits, illness insurance, occupational disease insurance, general family assistance, public housing, and old age and disability insurance. ^[258] As for public works, “the Mussolini’s administration “devoted 400 million lire of public monies” for school construction between 1922 and 1942, compared to only 60 million lire between 1862 and 1922. ^[259]

Hitler and the German National Socialist spent large amounts of state revenues for a comprehensive social welfare system to combat the ill effects of the Great Depression, promising repeatedly throughout his regime the “creation of a socially just state.” ^[260] In 1933, Hitler ordered the National Socialist People's Welfare (NSV) chairman Erich Hilgenfeldt to “see to the disbanding of all private welfare institutions,” in an effort to socially engineer society by selecting who was to receive social benefits. ^[261] Under this state-operated welfare structure, Nazi administrators were able to mount an effort towards the “cleansing of their cities of ‘asocials.’” ^[262] Nonetheless, the NSV instituted expansive programs to address the socio-economic inequalities among those deemed to be German citizens. Joseph Goebbels remarked about the merits of Hitler’s welfare state in a 1944 editorial “Our Socialism,” where he professed: “We and we alone [the Nazis] have the best social welfare measures. Everything is done for the nation.” ^[263]

^{en.m.wikipedia}

You completely put the statement out of context. It was saying that libertarianism doesn’t mean “do whatever you want with no limitations”.  It wasn’t in the context you attempted to place it in

I have a firm grip on facts of history, political science, and economics.

The problem is your interpretations.   Your absurd declaration …

LFOD @ 11.1.11  ⇨  We have had Marxist fascist government for the past 85 years.

… demonstrates this.

I cannot comment on what you wrote, since I do not 'follow' it as is.

What do you have against libertines and hedons, 'pursuing happiness in their own ways.'?

What harms is it costing you and yours?

You are aware that you can purchase guns that aren't semi-auto rifles, right? Or are you suggesting that they are the only kind of gun for sale in the USA? 

I made copy of that

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

--Matthew 19:24

In reply to CB @ 1.1.313

Since the 1.1 thread is insanely big, I am posting here and collapsing 1.1 thread (for me) so that the article will load much, much faster.   The performance improvement by closing down thread 1 and clearing the tracker is substantial.

Since you have the past referenced Dr. Ehrman with respect, here is his view of this commonly held position:

Sometimes, the differences among the Gospels are far larger and fundamental. Let me give just one example that I explain at length in my recent book How Jesus Became God (HarperOne, 2015). In the Gospel of John — just to stick with this account — Jesus spends almost his entire preaching ministry explaining who he i s. This does not happen in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. In those Gospels, Jesus rarely speaks about himself, except to say that he must go to Jerusalem to be rejected by the Jewish leaders, crucified, and then raised from the dead. In those earlier Gospels, Jesus spends the bulk of his time preaching that God’s Kingdom is soon to arrive, and explaining both what the kingdom will be like and what people must do in preparation for its appearance.

In John, however, Jesus’s preaching is almost entirely about his own identity. Here he makes the most breathtaking claims about himself, repeatedly claiming to be God , to the dismay of his Jewish listeners who regularly take up stones to execute him for blasphemy. You don’t find anything like that in the public ministry of Jesus in the other Gospels. But here in John, Jesus says such things as “Before Abraham was, I am” (Abraham lived 1,800 years earlier! John 8:58); “I and the Father are one” (10:30); “If you have seen me you have seen the Father” (14:9). Here, Jesus speaks of the glory that he shared with the Father before the world was created (17:5).

These are spectacular passages, all of them. But did the man Jesus, during his life, actually say such things about himself? Here is a point worth considering. The other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are all considered to be based on earlier sources. Scholars call these earlier sources Q (a source used by both Matthew and Luke for many of their sayings of Jesus), M (a source used just by Matthew), and L (a source used just by Luke). All of these sources were written much earlier than John, much nearer the time of Jesus’s public ministry. What is striking is that in precisely none of these sources or Gospels does Jesus make the exalted claims for himself that you find in John. You will not find these claims in Mark, Q, M, L, Matthew, or Luke.

But these would be the most amazing things that Jesus ever said. Did all six of these earlier authors simply decide not to mention that part? All of them?

So, here is the question. If the historical Jesus actually went around claiming that he was God on earth, is there anything else that he could possibly say that would be more significant? That would be the most amazing thing he could conceivably say. And if so, it would certainly be what someone who was recording his words would want their readers to know about him. If that’s the case, how do we explain the fact that such sayings are not found in any of our earlier sources? It’s not simply that one or the other of them chose not to give these sayings. Precisely none of them give them. But these would be the most amazing things that Jesus ever said. Did all six of these earlier authors simply decide not to mention that part? All of them?

The more likely explanation is that Jesus did not actually say such things. Otherwise, they would have been reported. When Jesus says these things in John, it’s because John is putting these words on his lips. You may certainly think that the words of Jesus in John are theologically true, that in fact Jesus was God on earth. But historically, these are probably not things Jesus himself actually said.

Lots of people over time have applied logic to the Bible;  it is called 'blblical scholarship'.

But historically, these are probably not things Jesus himself actually said.

It is informative to know that Dr.Ehrman considers Jesus to have lived. Though, only as a mortal man.

1. Does Dr. Ehrman dispute John the Apostle's book and label the same a liar? 
2. (One more thing. I don't recall and may be you do.) Does Dr. Ehrman deny the supernatural statements found in the New Testament?

It is informative to know that Dr.Ehrman considers Jesus to have lived. Though, only as a mortal man.

Yes Dr. Ehrman has concluded that their probably was a human being (not divine) who was the inspiration for the stories of Jesus.  

Does Dr. Ehrman dispute John the Apostle's book and label the same a liar? 

Your words are emotional, not analytical.   I will not put words in his mouth, but it seems to me that Dr. Ehrman does not hold 'John' to be credible.   The article I linked explains why.

Does Dr. Ehrman deny the supernatural statements found in the New Testament?

Too vague to comment on.   What supernatural statements do you have in mind?

Dr. Ehrman does not hold 'John' to be credible.

What supernatural statements do you have in mind?

We call Donald Trump a liar - because it is factually proven to be so. Dr. Ehrman "does not hold 'John' to be credible"? Is this Dr. Ehrman's words or words you are putting in his mouth? Does Dr. Ehrman offer an opinion on why he thinks John the Apostle is not believable?

All of them found in the NT - does Dr. Ehrman accept any of them. If so, and you know it, share it, please..

I just told you that I was not going to put words in his mouth.   I even carefully worded my comment in anticipation of the misrepresentation factor.  Note what I wrote:

TiG @15.3.1 - ... but it seems to me that Dr. Ehrman does not hold 'John' to be credible ...

Yet still, amazingly, you actually come back with:

CB @15.3.2 - Dr. Ehrman "does not hold 'John' to be credible"? Is this Dr. Ehrman's words or words you are putting in his mouth?

Clearly it takes no advanced reading skills to see that I presented my opinion.  Clearly what I wrote was not a quote or paraphrase from Dr. Ehrman.   No way you could confuse what I wrote with a quote or paraphrase.   So when I explicitly announce that I am not going to put words in his mouth, how on planet Earth could anyone think that I was putting words in his mouth?   What does the phrase 'it seems to me' translate in your lexicon?   For most people it means:  'this is my personal opinion' or 'this is my analysis'.

All of them found in the NT - does Dr. Ehrman accept any of them. If so, and you know it, share it, please..

Wonderful, you have narrowed it down to the entire New Testament (which is where we started).   Get serious and maybe someone will have a discussion with you.

I don't give two cents if you have a discussion with me about a topic you 'dropped' into (yet again) on a pretext of aiding the article. Why not give aid and leave off your continuous answers which do not advance a discussion u started. That is, spend less time being 'combative' and more time being considerate and we can accomplish much.

I don't give two cents about any opinion of Dr. Ehrman you put forward. Inform me what Dr. Ehrman has articulated in his writings. And when I ask for a clarification, it would be like to get a courteous reply - on a thread you begin and dropped yourself into @15! Dr. Ehrman seems to be saying John The Apostle is a liar. I wish to know:

Does Dr. Ehrman dispute John the Apostle's book and label the same a liar? 

The possible answers are: "Yes" or "No." There is no room for  "it seems to me.'

Now remember manners and properly answer the question from your knowledge of Dr. Ehrman's statements. Moreover, do so without another distraction, sir!

... a topic you 'dropped' into (yet again) ...

I know people have explained this to you before; I certainly have many times.  This is an open forum.   We all are free to comment and can REPLY on any comment (note how the REPLY button is purposely available on every comment).   If you want to have a private conversation where nobody else can participate then use private notes or chat.    If you are commenting in the comment section then you should expect that others will participate.   If this concept is still unclear then maybe ask Perrie or another moderator to break it down for you.

  Inform me what Dr. Ehrman has articulated in his writings . 

How is that possible without me giving my opinion ?   Think about that for a moment and try to figure out what you want.

I don't give two cents about  any  opinion of Dr. Ehrman you put forward. 

     Then why are you asking me questions about Dr. Ehrman?   If you genuinely want to know the man's positions go read his books, watch his videos, peruse his blogs.  If you ask another member, you are asking for that member's opinion .   You do not realize that?   The only person who can factually state what Dr. Ehrman holds true is Dr. Ehrman.  Everything else is opinion.   Now if you do not care about his positions ( which I am sure is the case wherever you disagree with him ) then feel free to not participate.   Participating with venomous meta on a foundation of projection is not helpful.

Does Dr. Ehrman  dispute  John the Apostle's book and label the same a liar? 

It seems to me that Dr. Ehrman does not hold 'John' to be credible.   The article I linked explains why.

The possible answers [ to the above 'liar' question ] are: "Yes" or "No." There is no room for  "it seems to me.'

Wrong.   ' Did you stop beating your wife? ' is a form of question that will not get a yes or no from me.   Pregnant questions (e.g. dispute of an entire book vs. disputing select parts) will also not get a yes or no from me (and likely anyone else who understands the English language).

It is obvious when an individual is asking questions with indignation.   This is how I deal with indignation.   

 Then why are you asking me questions about Dr. Ehrman?

@15. Er, you collapsed a large thread and INSERTED  a new discussion addressed to moi. Did this escape your notice?

Did it escape your notice that you did not start, and continue to have not started, a thread with my last comment to Nerm which apparently was the 'trigger' for you to INSERT Dr. Ehrman into this discussion? 

Now, you appear to want to discuss me, and not the question I asked,

Does Dr. Ehrman dispute John the Apostle's book and label the same a liar? 

I should go read your link? You brought it in here; you read it (obviously enough to think it matters), and share the 'hot' points, [lease. How about that?

Sadly, Nerm . . .hasn't gotten 'down' here—yet. Could you have left him a 'lead,' by chance where he could find me/us?

It's kind of a 'takeover' of the discussion in a manner I have not seen before on any comment board. But, tootles. We're off your topic.

Did one is the topic of @15:

Does Dr. Ehrman deny all supernatural statements found in the New Testament?

Please reply. (If you wish. If it is related to the topic @15 I will reply accordingly - if I wish.)

This all started with this exchange:

Nerm @ 1.1.233 ⇨ IMO some of the New Testament is not morally correct .

CB @ 1.1.241 ⇨ What is morally incorrect in the New Testament? Please give example/s.

TiG @1.1.1.244 ⇨ How about this?:   Romans 1:24-28   New International Version (NIV)

²⁴    Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. ²⁵    They exchanged the truth about God for a lie,and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.Amen.

²⁶    Because of this, God gave them over to  shameful lusts .Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. ²⁷    In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another  . Men committed  shameful acts with other men , and received in themselves the due penalty for their error .

²⁸    Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

I gave you a direct answer to your question.   A single example that consisted entirely of quoting scripture.   I did not weigh in, I just delivered the scripture.   In response to a quote from the Bible you went directly to this:

CB @ 1.1.246 ⇨  What is your issue with this? And, why do you keep pushing homosexuality in the Bible  into my face ? By now, you have heard ever 'mode' I take regarding my  states of existence . So, what is it to you that Paul considers some form or all forms of homosexuality as immoral? ...

The obvious question now is if the Bible is correct in portraying homosexuality as 'shameful' and 'unnatural' and thus immoral.   Is homosexuality immoral as Paul suggests or is this an example of an incorrect moral assessment by the New Testament (the challenge you raised)?

( much emotional venom spewed and then we come to this )

Nerm @ 1.1.312 ⇨ Jesus saw himself as distinctly separate from God ; Jesus saw himself as human.

CB @ 1.1.314 ⇨ Please, elaborate on this.

Here is where I provided TiG @ 15 showing an excerpt from a well renowned biblical scholar, Dr. Bart Ehrman, who (as you know) supports the idea that Jesus was likely a real person and weighs in on the question of whether or not Jesus considered himself to be divine.

( much more emotional venom spewed )

So there are two points raised and addressed.   The NT deems homosexuality shameful and thus we have an example of the NT getting morality wrong (at least one would expect that you would consider that to be a mistake).    Second on the question of Jesus considering himself divine, biblical scholars (with Dr. Ehrman as the example) show this as one or many cases of embellishment.   Where later books make claims not made by the earlier (more original) books.   As Dr. Ehrman points out in the excerpt I provided:

TiG @ 15 ⇨ So, here is the question.  If the historical Jesus actually went around claiming that he was God on earth, is there anything else that he could possibly say that would be more significant?  That would be the most amazing thing he could conceivably say. And if so, it would certainly be what someone who was recording his words would want their readers to know about him.  If that’s the case, how do we explain the fact that such sayings are not found in any of our earlier sources?  It’s not simply that one or the other of them chose not to give these sayings. Precisely none of them give them. But these would be the most amazing things that Jesus ever said. Did all six of these earlier authors simply decide not to mention that part? All of them?

Is it possible for you to weigh in on the content with thoughtful commentary?

Does Dr. Ehrman dispute John the Apostle's book and label the same a liar? 

It seems to me that Dr. Ehrman does not hold 'John' to be credible.   The article I linked @ 15 explains why.

Does Dr. Ehrman deny all supernatural statements found  in  the New Testament?

Too vague to comment on.   What supernatural statements do you have in mind?

The obvious question now is if the Bible is correct in portraying homosexuality as 'shameful' and 'unnatural' and thus immoral.   Is homosexuality immoral as Paul suggests or is this an example of an incorrect moral assessment by the New Testament (the challenge you raised)?

"Now"? Homosexuality is part of the 'law of the land.' I am happy and appreciative about this. Paul wrote his "address" to Romans in the Church there, not to general roman society. It is a distinction worth keeping in focus.

Questions:

1. Twenty to ninety years ago in the United States was homosexuality moral or immoral?
2. What does homosexuality now have to do with anything Paul was writing about 2000 plus years ago in Rome?

Here is where I provided TiG @ 15 showing an excerpt from a well renowned biblical scholar, Dr. Bart Ehrman, who (as you know) supports the idea that Jesus was likely a real person and weighs in on the question of whether or not Jesus considered himself to be divine.

Yes (dryly) you did conveniently. And yet you persist in not answering any questions about Mr. Ehrman's views on the supernatural acts in the Bible.   If you are going INSERT yourself into the discussion then at least properly participate, in my opinion. That's all.

"Now"? Homosexuality is part of the 'law of the land.' I am happy and appreciative about this

Does this mean that you recognize that the New Testament's portrayal of homosexuality as 'shameful' and 'unnatural' and thus immoral is an example of the New Testament being wrong about morality?   

Twenty to ninety years ago in the United States was homosexuality moral or immoral?

Most people considered it immoral as you go back in US history.   Correlates with a greater reliance on the Bible.   Why do you ask?   That is, what point are you trying to make?

What does homosexuality now have to do with anything Paul was writing about 2000 plus years ago in Rome?

The point I made is not about homosexuality but rather morality per the Bible.   The example was about homosexuality, the point is morality.   So if you have a point make it because I am not going to just answer questions unless related to a point you have made.

And yet you persist in not answering any questions about Mr. Ehrman's views on the supernatural acts in the Bible.

     I have answered your questions 4 times.    Do you think this sealioning is in some way advantageous?     I recommend that you cease the Pee Wee Herman tactics and make a point.  Take a stand:  make a specific point rather than engage in near nonstop complaint meta.

Most people considered it immoral as you go back in US history.   Correlates with a greater reliance on the Bible.   Why do you ask?   That is, what point are you trying to make?

Define "most."

There were a number of factors which determined homosexuality to be immoral, including religion, culture, law, and the medical profession (science).

Why do I ask? To read your answer. The point is - homosexuality is currently the law of the land in the U.S. and 'resistance' and rollback is still possible as laws affirming (protecting) homosexuality are not in the U.S. Constitution. So enlightenment is as enlightenment goes.

Does this mean that you recognize that the New Testament's portrayal of homosexuality as 'shameful' and 'unnatural' and thus immoral is an example of the New Testament being wrong about morality?   

We know that Paul had a negative view of same-sex relations in regards to temple sex and related fornication (of any kind). Whether it ever crossed the mind of Paul that homosexuals might get married, construct a family unit, and have long-lasting life relations—the New Testament text is opaque. Can you clear it up for us, Tig?

Do you know that Paul was against same-sex homogeneous relations like heterosexual marriage? Or, can you clear up if Paul was writing to a heterosexual population alone? 

Any clarity you can provide on what Paul actually meant can go 'eons' forward in enlightening the spiritual community. If you are unsure, well don't go beating up on yourself about it. (Smile.)

Case in point, JBB!  Deflection.

On the other-hand, maybe Tig does not KNOW how Dr. Ehrman's views the supernatural aspects in the New Testament.

Define " most ."

It is an English word that most everyone understands ( oops, I used 'most' again without defining it ).    Best way to learn the meaning of the word is to go to a dictionary.   Here is what Oxford offers:

Greatest in amount or degree.    [ and, more to my usage: ]    The majority of; nearly all of.

The dictionary even offers an example:  " ‘ most oranges are sweeter than these’ "

Why do I ask? To read your answer.

The word ' most ' is indeed mysterious, my bad for not breaking it down.

The point is - homosexuality is currently the law of the land in the U.S. and 'resistance' and rollback is still possible as laws affirming (protecting) homosexuality are not in the U.S. Constitution. So enlightenment is as enlightenment goes.

So your point is something entirely different from what we were discussing.   Now you wish to discuss modern views on homosexuality.   Did you notice that we were discussing an example in the New Testament where it fails to get morality correct?   

We know that Paul had a negative view of same-sex relations in regards to temple sex and related fornication (of any kind).

Yes indeed.   The passage certainly indicates that.

Whether it ever crossed the mind of Paul that homosexuals might get married, construct a family unit, and have long-lasting life relations—the New Testament text is opaque. Can you clear it up for us, Tig?

Why are you asking me to explain what was in the mind (i.e. read the deceased mind) of an ancient man?   The point is that he provided a fine example of the New Testament getting morality wrong.   Watching you react to this is interesting.

Do you know that Paul was against same-sex homogeneous relations like heterosexual marriage? Or, can you clear up if Paul was writing to a heterosexual population alone? 

Reading the mind of a long dead ancient man is not, best I can tell, possible.   I certainly have no such skills.   What I can do, however, is read passages from the New Testament that show harsh disapproval of homosexuality.   Now if you consider homosexuality immoral (which of course I expected that you would not) then you would agree with Paul's words.   If, however, (as I would expect) you do not consider homosexuality immoral then clearly Paul, and by extension the New Testament, got it wrong.

Any clarity you can provide on what Paul actually meant can go 'eons' forward in enlightening the spiritual community. If you are unsure, well don't go beating up on yourself about it. (Smile.)

What is funny is that you think asking me to explain what was in the mind of a dead ancient man is somehow a rebuttal.   I made no claim about what was in Paul's mind, I simply quoted you scripture.   Apparently you are ignoring the words and doing everything you can to deflect from the obvious fact that the New Testament, with one example, has been shown to get morality wrong.

Do you really want JBB to weigh in on that?     

More deflection. You deserve an award of some kind!   "Most" people would agree that the definition called for is in relation to the context of your statement. No matter, nevertheless.

Why not? You're churning out a series of deflection comments - somebody should take stock of it.

Watching you react to this is interesting.

Watching your reaction is quite interesting, too.

R eading the mind of a long dead ancient man is not, best I can tell, possible.    I certainly have no such skills.   What I can do, however, is read passages from the New Testament that show harsh disapproval of homosexuality.   Now if you consider homosexuality immoral (which of course I expected that you would not) then you would agree with Paul's words.   If, however, (as I would expect) you do not consider homosexuality immoral then clearly Paul, and by extension the New Testament, got it wrong.

Just continue to disregard everything in context in my messages about this above. One may conclude that you are trying your skills at deciding what Paul meant about homosexuality, when others find the passages opaque. But, carry on please. . . .

The remainder of that comment was simply you deflecting with (again).  Dr. Ehrman has fallen by the wayside, and he can't get up!

CB @ 1.1.241   ⇨   What is morally incorrect in the New Testament? Please give example/s.

Let's try another passage from the New Testament given you cannot handle an example based on homosexuality:

Matthew 15

15  Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,   ²  “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”    ³  Jesus replied,   “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?   ⁴  For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ ^{[ a ]}   and ‘

Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death .’ ^{[ b ]}  

⁵  But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’   ⁶  they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.   ⁷  You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

Jesus ostensibly affirmed this rule of God from the OT.   Is it morally correct to kill an individual who curses their parent?    

You're churning out a series of deflection comments - somebody should take stock of it.

Some folks are.  We notice, for example, that when TiG addresses homosexuality in the NT, which has been the topic for quite a few comments, you deflect to the present.

An interesting dynamic.   On several occasions I have put forth passages from the Bible and let the words do all the talking (I do not interpret, just quote).   The reaction (from several devout Christians) has consistently been to argue that the words mean something entirely different, that they are out of context or that the words actually do mean what they say and that the meaning is God's will (no matter how outrageous: imagine arguing that slavery can be moral).    

First time I did this was with this passage which illustrates the Bible's failure to teach the immorality of owning another person as property (indeed, it embraces slavery):

Exodus 21:20 ☞ ²⁰ “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, ²¹ but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

How odd that the Bible still reflects the morality of ancient men yet God is, per some believers, using the Bible to communicate objective morality even today.

It is trivially easy to offer passages from the OT that show that the OT is a horrible guide for morality and clearly is nothing more then the work of ancient men whose mores and values naturally permeate their writings.    The NT, however, is focused more on love and peace yet clearly it is also not the source for objective morality.   Not only does the NT fail to correct the moral failures of the OT (e.g. never does the NT condemn the practice of slavery), the mores and values of the ancient men who penned the NT still come through (women as resources, homosexuality as deviant and shameful, death penalty for cursing parents, etc.).

One thing that I have found to be entirely predictable is that some will engage in outrageous intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to defend passages as the divine word of a perfect God or to deflect away from the blatantly obvious fact that the Bible is merely historical fiction penned by ancient men and not divine truth.   It is as if they presuppose the Bible as divine truth and attempt to adjust reality around that presupposition.   Seems to me a healthier approach would be to recognize the Bible as historical fiction and base one's religious beliefs on what we know today.  

Let's try another passage from the New Testament given you cannot handle an example based on homosexuality

Let's stop right there. Humbly, because all of this type of so-called 'delivery' about homosexuality can send the wrong messaging, I will take for granted that I have FORGOTTEN more about the Bible and homosexuality through practice of both, than you know or care to know about either of them. You probably can not dispute that. Less showboating please could aid in moving this discussion along.

 Is it morally correct to kill an individual who curses their parent?    

When? "Then" or "Now"? The distinction will speak volumes.

I am not sure what you are noticing better than me (maybe you can point to it?), as I am engaged in the discussion.

Furthermore I could be wrong, but aren't you one in the 'school of thought' that homosexuality practiced in Rome was about temple (cult) practices?

I will take for granted that I have FORGOTTEN more about the Bible and homosexuality through practice of both,

Your evasive writing replete with vagueries contradicts your claim.   

Less showboating please could aid in moving this discussion along.

Do you ever take note of what you write?   The level of projection (routinely) is funny to behold.   For example, you just wrote a comment with nothing but showboating while accusing me of doing the same, yet the comment I wrote @15.3.21 (the one to which you replied) was content on the topic of NT morality.   

It is trivially easy to offer passages from the OT that show that the OT is a horrible guide for morality and clearly is nothing more then the work of ancient men whose mores and values naturally permeate their writings. 

Maybe you should be hearing from supporters of Judaism on this. Jewish people lived under the Torah and its ceremonial, civil, and moral laws - not Christians.

When? "Then" or "Now"? The distinction will speak volumes.

What does the scripture say?    I am not going to interpret it for you since you 'do not care 2¢' about my opinion.   Further, it is clear this is the beginning of another deflection on a biblical passage that you simply cannot explain.

Do you have a situation in mind where you would find it morally correct to kill an individual because she cursed a parent?   In general, how likely do you think there will be conditions where killing the individual would be moral vs. immoral?   IMO, I cannot think of any situation wherein an individual should be killed simply because she cursed a parent.   Amazing that you think such a condition might exist.

Evasive, my foot. I don't respond to nonsense you promote in the manner you specify and I'm the problem. Laughing preposterous. Are we STILL spinning our wheels on @ 15 ? My goodness - this thread is a trial from hell.

Oh, and notice that "I" am not playing at "victim-hood", while you throw shade at me each chance of an opening. Not being personal, indeed! Your slights are meant to injure-good thing I have a suitably appropriate mind and spirit to withstand incoming.

That is all you have?   Cherry-pick a single sentence and pass the buck?

Then why are you replying?   You are not providing any thoughtful content so why are you here?

Let's maintain a high standard please. (Come UP HERE.)

My apologies, you have me at somewhat of a disadvantage seeing as I can't stoop that low. Come UP HERE!

You are not adverse to asking Jews on NT about Jewish "matters" of concern to you located in the Old Testament, are you?

I already pointed it out. Your failure to admit to it is not my problem.  Anyone following the conversation can see it.

As far as homosexuality in Rome being a "cult" practice, I can't recall ever having specified that it was limited to such.

No one in modern times should kill anybody over a curse words.

It is probable that the Jewish nation did not follow this law with the "intensity" you intend anyway. After all, the nation was small then as now and these were their children whom they loved as we do ours in modern times.

Observe the lawyers - Ancient Israel has lawyers too - of our day who can plead cases and get sentences mitigated or removed. Besides, the cursing offender/s would have had to appear before the court in Ancient Israel. It is highly probable that only the worse offenders, those worse case individuals who would not take it back, would not make amends, and who were incorrigible felt the full weight of this moral law.

You can always ask a Jewish member on NT about it for another perspective, dimension, and for the record.

Certainly, you know the law in all eras has 'gray areas.' Case in point, in your scriptural offering there, Jesus is upbraiding some of the nation's lawyers because they were using the law in a manner which "cursed" the parents - through a manner which allowed their children to not 'honor' the parents with appropriate material and paternal care. Or words to that effect.

No one in modern times should kill anybody over a curse words.

This means more than mere curse words.   Cursing a parent in this context means to belittle and/or hold in contempt.    So you recognize that even with that meaning, killing an individual for cursing a parent is immoral.

Thus another example of the NT getting morality wrong.   Do you recognize that?   It is immoral to kill an individual for merely cursing a parent.

Certainly, you know the law in all eras has 'gray areas.'

This is not about analyzing the adjudication of ancient law, this is about a statement from Jesus regarding killing an individual who cursed a parent.   Jesus supports the ancient law.   His support is a moral statement from God.

So if a child discovers this passage in Sunday School would you tell her that this passage does not really mean what it states and that Jesus really was never in favor of killing anyone, ever, simply for cursing a parent?    Would that be misleading the child?    Why not?

Sandy, please. Nice discussing this with ya! "Anyone" is a large category. How can I be so blinded and I am on the 'front-line' of this discussion taking the 'heat' and 'arrows'? On the other-hand, you do have benefit of the stands and balcony seats! 

May be it was Mocowgirl or someone else on your 'side' in these situations. One thing I am secure in knowing is that in support of 2015 same-sex marriage, you were definitely NOT stating that homosexuals in a loving relationship was what Paul dealt with in Romans 1.

Any-who, "Howdy, up there!"

 Jesus supports the ancient law. 

Of course Jesus supported the ancient law of Israel wholly when it was properly executed! This must go to your 'blind faith' complaint against faithful people. You may know that Jesus also stated:

Mark 2: 27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

What does this mean? It means for our purposes that the moral law is a guide and was not designed to be a life-time burden or stricture, for which no other reprieve to turn to.

That if a law was written on the books, therefore, 'swish' any and all misfits discovered were cut down right where they stood. It's an easy visual, but does it convey the truth of what happened? Probably not! Ancient Israel had a court system and more importantly, God had instructed the Hebrew nation to have compassion. But, I digress.

Your tone signifies that you openly hold the Old Testament in contempt - so why do you bother to try to discern its ancient practices and rituals?  You are only "in it" for purposes of destroying faith today. Hey! Maybe you will accept an answer from a Rabbi. Ask a Rabbi why don't you:

Was Ancient Israel a moral (good) nation or an immoral (corrupt) one?

So if a child discovers this passage in Sunday School would you tell her that this passage does not really mean what it states and that Jesus really was never in favor of killing anyone, ever, simply for cursing a parent?    Would that be misleading the child?    Why not?

First, If the Jewish people were concerned about how some modern atheist  would reduce down the complexity of how their culture managed their systems, they would not have written it down in a book. You think? Note: There were atheists and 'critics' in and surrounding the Israelites on all sides. So, you can extrapolate from there. . . .

Second, Children in Sunday School may or not be told about the true meaning of death and dying from a failure of up-keeping the moral law in the Old Testament (depends on who is speaking). Kids are not dumb: they put "two and two together" and understand what it implies—if not the methods of carrying it out. It teaches children that life is not some simplistic undertaking. That there are consequences for incorrigibility written into law.

Lastly, for the day to day operations of this particular law in Israel society, you should consult with a Rabbi on ancient Judaism.

How can I be so blinded and I am on the 'front-line' of this discussion taking the 'heat' and 'arrows'?

Because you're entrenched in a position.

I don't see how whether the relationships Paul "dealt with" (and why were those relationships his to "deal with", if he was not in one of them?) were loving or not have anything to do with same-sex marriage in 2015.  Same-sex relationships have been common for millennia.  I'm going to assume that, like heterosexual ones, some were loving, and some were not.  Some may have involved ritual sex (as there have also been heterosexual sexual rites), and some were just...people having the sex they wanted to have.

It seems to me that Paul, as well as other supposed authors of scriptures, views homosexual sex as immoral.  I disagree, as I assume you do, as well.

Of course Jesus supported the ancient law of Israel wholly when it was properly executed!

Indeed, what else would he do?   He would have not known any better given he was raised Jewish and was a product of the times like everyone else.   However, God most certainly would know better and would not be held to the mores and values of ancient men.   God certainly would know that slavery was immoral, that homosexuality is not immoral and that it is immoral to kill an individual merely for cursing her parents.   

That is the problem with using the Bible as a moral guide;  it is the mores & values of ancient men — not the objective morality of the grandest possible entity.

Your tone signifies that you openly hold the Old Testament in contempt ...

Adjust your tone-meter.   The Bible is one of the greatest classic works of humanity.   My position is that it is historical fiction; not the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God.   I have no contempt for historical fiction.   

Was Ancient Israel a moral (good) nation or an immoral (corrupt) one?

Morality is subjective.   They thought they were moral.   By our standards many of their practices would not be considered moral.   This is obvious, right?

First, If the Jewish people ...

You cannot just pass the buck because Christianity includes the Old Testament as part of the Christian Bible.    And Christianity has its own system of interpretation of same which is, in my opinion, far less sophisticated than that of Judaism.   I am not talking to a Jew right now, I am talking to a Christian.   So, yet again, deflecting to Judaism is not cutting it.

Children in Sunday School may or not be told about the true meaning of death and dying from a failure of up-keeping the moral law in the Old Testament (depends on who is speaking). Kids are not dumb: they put "two and two together" and understand what it implies—if not the methods of carrying it out. It teaches children that life is not some simplistic undertaking. That there are consequences for incorrigibility written into law.

So what would you tell the Sunday school girl?    Your answer to my question did not appear in the above.

Lastly, for the day to day operations of this particular law in Israel society, you should consult with a Rabbi on ancient Judaism.

Read this:

TiG @15.3.38 ⇨ This is not about analyzing the adjudication of ancient law, this is about a statement from Jesus regarding killing an individual who cursed a parent.   Jesus supports the ancient law.   His support is a moral statement from God.

So clearly I am not interested in adjudication of ancient law at the moment.   When I am interested I certainly would contact a Rabbi.   In the past I have contacted Enoch, for example, on questions of Judaism.   Now, again, I am speaking with you about the NT (and sometimes the OT) from the Christian perspective.   The little girl in Sunday school is not studying Judaism, she is studying Christianity.    See?

I disagree, as I assume you do, as well.

Would he say that homosexual relations are moral?

Would he recognize that the Bible (and thus God as defined by the Bible) deems homosexual relations to be immoral?

In my observation of Christians in general, the cognitive dissonance resulting from the Bible seems to be resolved by ignoring the actual words in the Bible and holding a much more abstract (and much more pleasant) interpretation that 'just must be true'.   Basically, 'God would never really do that' and 'you are reading that wrong' kind of stuff.    It is a 'pay no attention to the actual words' approach where the believer holds true to the feelings that have been taught by Christian authorities and overlooks the inconvenient passages in the Bible.

It seems to me that Paul, as well as other supposed authors of scriptures, views homosexual sex as immoral . 

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Opinions can and do 'wobble' back and forth over time, too. (Smile.)

Because you're entrenched in a position.

Actually, I am not entrenched in a position. That is the point I am making to Tig. I have heard all the arguments- some not valid and some valid- over twenty five years, and I have heard them from different churches, different pastors and leaders, and scriptural analyses. You might say, it's important to me and mine. The only think that is clear about Paul's view of homosexuality that 'triangulates' today is he is ambiguous about the act as a cult practice of prostitution (to other gods) or as fornication, or as a way of life. No clear answer is forthcoming, because Paul and other first century church fathers perished with the clarification.

Also, there is this to consider. Salvation/grace by faith alone. 

Therefore, you can not affirm the question either, unless you clarify what others (in and out of the homosexual interested community) can not, once and for all.

Ultimately, it is God that does the 'saving' of souls anyway - at any time - according to God's prerogative (grace).

And yet, there are atheists, as is typical in Sandy's and Tig's comments) that are 'hung up' on the Bible and other religious rituals and attitudes. Interesting and at the same time alarmingly disturbing.

The Bible, unbeknownst to an outsider of the faith, has a practical application mode.  You might call it the aim high and hit your best mark matrix. After all, Christian living by faith is designed to teach people information about themselves they otherwise would not bother to know. And, to do so over a lifetime: A marathon and not a sprint.

It is a 'pay no attention to the actual words' approach

Exemplified by Cal's response to me @15.3.44

God most certainly would know better and would not be held to the mores and values of ancient men.   God certainly would know that slavery was immoral, that homosexuality is not immoral and that it is immoral to kill an individual merely for cursing her parents.    That is the problem with using the Bible as a moral guide;  it is the mores & values of ancient men — not the objective morality of the grandest possible entity.

And now you profess to know the mind of God? Does this mean you will humble yourself, prostrate, and worship next? What is the meaning of this? Have you found God (though God is not far from anyone who seeks God)? Has God 'spoken' and given you the above revelation?

Did God specifically tell you that Jesus is not the Son of God?

And yet, there are atheists that are 'hung up' on the Bible and other religious studies. Interesting and at the same time disturbing.

I've told you before that I was raised in the church.  I've read the Bible multiple times through.  Even the boring chapters about who begat whom.

What's wrong with exploring beliefs other than one's own?  When I was a Christian, I was also very interested in Greek and Roman mythologies, and read the Quran out of curiosity.  I hardly think I was alone in that, or that it was in any way "disturbing".  I find it "disturbing" that anyone would think that one could not or should not be interested in any worldviews other than one's own.

The only think that is clear about Paul's view of homosexuality that 'triangulates' today is he is ambiguous about the act as a cult practice of prostitution (to other gods) or as fornication, or as a way of life. No clear answer is forthcoming, because Paul and other first century church fathers perished with the clarification.

Do you consider the work of Paul to be the work of a man or do you consider what he wrote to be the word of God?   When Paul writes, do you consider his words to be fact or the opinions (or even fiction) of an ancient man?   Seems to me you recognize that Paul, and other authors, cannot be taken as surrogates for God.   In which case, the entire Bible logically would be recognized as the words of men with no way of discerning divine truth from proclaimed truth by mere human beings.

You and Tig (I suppose) need , as in demand , all the world's Christians take the Bible literally, in a 'wooden' literal fashion?

The Bible is literature with wisdom imbued into it. Take the wisdom and use it constructively . HINT: Do not reduce life to an 'Ag' lifestyle in order to plant mustard seeds to grow up as trees for birds to nest in: (That's NOT what the parable is or means to happen.)

Matthew 13: 31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: 32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs , and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

You and Tig (I suppose) need , as in demand , all the world's Christians take the Bible literally, in a 'wooden' literal fashion?

Nope.  I am aware of parables and allegories.  There is no need to insult me by assuming otherwise, especially when admonishing others not to "stoop".

I am also able to distinguish between allegories and instructions to stone people found guilty of certain "sins".  And I don't try to sugarcoat the bad stuff by telling myself "they didn't really tell people how to go about owning slaves" or "they didn't really just say to kill a woman for being raped in a populated area because she didn't call for help."  Because they did say that, Cal.  

'hung up' on the Bible

Well then I suppose I should explain my position to you.   As I see things, the Bible claims to be the divine word of the grandest possible entity — the singular first cause — an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, perfect creator of everything.   It is difficult to imagine a more grandiose claim.   Given the magnitude of the claim, one would expect persuasive supporting evidence if not proof.   Yet there is zero evidence that supports the biblical claim of divinity and substantial evidence to the contrary (key being the Bible is demonstrably errant).

I see a world circa 2019 where people actually conduct their lives based on the influence of the Bible and other 'holy' books such as the Qur'an that are taken by the believers to be divine.   In the worst cases, history (and the present) shows this leads to irrational violence.   Think of modern day terrorism and its little brother bigotry.   Think of the Reformation and the Crusades.   Throughout history religious differences brought on by different interpretations of these 'holy' books have encouraged and exploited the natural irrationality of human beings.   

Religions (and thus the 'holy' books) are also a profound affront on critical thinking.   I give you the Young Earth Creationists as my prime example since ~10% of Americans buy that nonsense and think dinosaurs coexisted with human beings.   But next to them we have Flat Earthers who focus on global conspiracy theory — holding that all of science is trying to trick them,   But when you break it down, they are ultimately biblical literalists.

So yes, I am in that sense hung up on the Bible (and other 'holy' books taken as divine by their followers) and on the religions based on these books that keep people thinking in terms suitable for ancient iron-age men and not modern human beings.

And now you profess to know the mind of God?

Faux obtuseness.   I am going by the Christian definition of God as omniscient and perfect.   By that it is safe to say that God knows morality best.   Right?   See?

You and Tig (I suppose) need , as in demand , all the world's Christians take the Bible literally, in a 'wooden' literal fashion?

One thing that the Young Earth Creationists get right is this:   they state that if one does not take the words of the Bible seriously —as written— then how can anyone consider the Bible to be the divine word of God?   

There are so many interpretations of the Bible it is actually laughable — and everyone thinks their particular interpretation is the divine truth from God.   The way you seem to approach things is to take your beliefs and conjure up interpretations of biblical passages to fit same.   I am not saying that is what you do, I am saying that is how it appears to me.   So if a biblical passage does not match your beliefs you appear to interpret the problem away (and there is no limit, apparently, on how ridiculous the interpretation can be).

So what is the purpose of the Bible if it is merely a lump of clay that can be molded to mean whatever one wishes it to mean?

We have been off topic for almost a week with hundreds of off-topic comments.   In effect this seed is just a carcass.   If you are now concerned about staying on topic you probably ought to lock the seed.

The Bible is one of the greatest classic works of humanity.   My position is that it is historical fiction; not the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God.   I have no contempt for historical fiction.

Really, you don't. You do not BELIEVE in a God or any other supernatural thing. Of course, you opine that the Bible is fiction. Without any material evidence - you are 'lost' to the spirituality of the Bible. Just like every other unbeliever: you are just yourself - a natural man without any spiritual anchoring.

It is definitly clear nothing supernatural or spiritual has ever occurred in your life, yes? Moreover, surely you think the Old Testament is offensive (historical fiction). Now thou protesteth too much! You wrote above:

@15.3.23 to Sandy: It is trivially easy to offer passages from the OT that show that the OT is a horrible guide for morality and clearly is nothing more then the work of ancient men whose mores and values naturally permeate their writings. The NT, however, is focused more on love and peace yet clearly it is also not the source for objective morality.   Not only does the NT fail to correct the moral failures of the OT (e.g. never does the NT condemn the practice of slavery), the mores and values of the ancient men who penned the NT still come through (women as resources, homosexuality as deviant and shameful, death penalty for cursing parents, etc.).

Translation: The Jews who penned the Bible were corrupt and unprincipled men who PRETENDED to be inspired, were abusive of the females that raised up CHILDREN to fill the Jewish nation, disapproved of what modern civilization just  RECENTLY ALLOWS for homosexuals and could decide to take back, and what's worse the same writers 'dreamt up' an imaginary so-called "Being" and gave the thing a label as their 'G-d.'

Tig, what is there - there in your view to not find contemptible about such historical fiction? One could be forgiven why you take any of what you can only imply to be, "poorly crafted historical fiction' serious enough to routinely write about!

 By our standards many of their practices would not be considered moral.

Why would the Ancient Israelites give a damn about 'our' modern standards which are only being realized after their passing away? Please elaborate on the anachronistic lack of understanding in that remark!

Do not pass it off that God words are for all times, because if you believed that God could give an order which will stand for all times, it must signify you against all non-spiritual lack of evidence believe God does exist! Which you most certainly can or will not do!

Of course, you opine that the Bible is fiction.

Based on the evidence, it is far more likely to be historical fiction than fact.  

It is definitly clear nothing supernatural or spiritual has ever occurred in your life, yes? 

I would bet that nothing truly supernatural has ever occurred in your life either.

Translation: The Jews who penned the Bible were corrupt and unprincipled men who PRETENDED to be inspired, were abusive of the females that raised up CHILDREN to fill the Jewish nation, disapproved of what modern civilization just  RECENTLY ALLOWS for homosexuals and could decide to take back, and what's worse the same writers 'dreamt up' an imaginary so-called "Being" and gave the thing a label as their 'G-d.'

The biblical authors were men of their time.   They engaged in marketing and succumbed to political pressures akin to modern human beings.   They had different moral views and that did indeed include misogyny.    They also were naively bigoted (in reference to sexual orientation and other things).    And, yes, just like modern human beings they certainly were capable of dreaming up fiction for their causes.

Tig, what is there - therein your view to not find contemptible about such historical fiction?

There is no contempt from me for the ancients.  They were products of their time.

Why would the Ancient Israelites give a damn about 'our' modern standards which are only being realized after their passing away?

You are confused.   Yet my statement is very clear and I am not sure how to break it down.   You are reading the exact opposite sense of what it actually says.   Odd.   'By our standards ...'.   The ancients would not care (or know) but God would.   (hint)

Please elaborate on the anachronistic lack of understanding in that remark!

Okay, you inexplicably cannot comprehend what I wrote.

Do not pass it off that God words are for all times, because if you believed that God could give an order which will stand for all times, it must signify you against all non-spiritual lack of evidence believe God does exist! Which you most certainly can or will not do!

If God exists then God would not want to steer His people the wrong way.   Right?    Do you agree?   And certainly God is sufficiently powerful to communicate with ancients and all those after.   Right?   So God clearly could have provided a Bible for modern people (or some other method).    Why would God leave His people to think that the moral lessons in the Bible are appropriate moral guidance for modern human beings?

Why would God leave people to think that He holds homosexuality immoral, slavery moral and killing a person for cursing a parent moral?   Just a few examples.

It's very late. Good night. 'Sleep tight.' My doctor has been telling me to sleep more hours for beauty-sake! (Smile.) Out.

One thing that the Young Earth Creationists get right is this:   they state that if one does not take the words of the Bible seriously —as written— then how can anyone consider the Bible to be the divine word of God? 

How convenient that you 'support' the Young Earth Creationists when it conveniently suits a personal running narrative. But, if one is being fair, one can appreciate that Young Earth Creationists are not the only Christian "denomination" to consider.

But, let's not start 'barking' up that trail.

Don't let the interpretations trip you up. Our faith system is old, Tig. Of course, it will show age over 2000 years. Guess what? It will likely expand more in another 100 years, or contract in on itself, to a more condensed set of denominations. Either way, it should not concern you as long as you are an atheist. Just see them and forget them - if you want. Or, join!

What is the purpose of the Bible if it is merely a lump of clay that can be molded to mean whatever one wishes it to mean?

The Old Testament is a reference book now for Christians to look back on; the New Testament is a guide. That is, first a tutor and now liberty to live life 'graduated,' respectively.

It is definitly clear nothing supernatural or spiritual has ever occurred in your life, yes? 

I would bet that nothing truly supernatural has ever occurred in your life either.

Has anything supernatural or spiritual ever occurred in your life? You answer deflects in both categories. That's all.

The biblical authors were men of their time.   They engaged in marketing and succumbed to political pressures akin to modern human beings.   They had different moral views and that did indeed include misogyny.    They also were naively bigoted (in reference to sexual orientation and other things).    And, yes, just like modern human beings they certainly were capable of dreaming up fiction for their causes.

The biblical authors were men of their time pressed into service of a higher calling. They were not special men, any more than Abraham was special when 'called out.' What they were, was tasked to perform awesome unheralded jobs which excluded their personal experiences, and in some cases their human traits and characteristics. Often unpleasant task (as we can read), the men did all that was asked of them and what they could do.

Tig, you can sit back in the comforts of 21st century science and gripe all you wish about their 'offerings' to the world. Science is not a bad business to luxuriate in. Not bad at all!

But science does not "do" what you are attempting to make it do in opposing spirituality and faith. But, I digress.

The biblical authors were authentic men who wrote under inspiration. You can not prove differently, despite 'famed' historians who write and sell books to the mass market while ignoring the spiritual and supernatural nature of the writings they undertake to profit off of.

So yes, to a naturalist, the supernatural and the spiritual is bunk. But, really, who is forcing any naturalist to dwell overlong on the subject matter anyway?

It will likely expand more in another 100 years, or contract in on itself, to a more condensed set of denominations. Either way, it should not concern you as long as you are an atheist.

First, please don't take this as any sort of attack on your belief or faith. It is not. I merely want to point out that it seems folly to base your faith on a book that has been reinterpreted to fit every age for the last 2,000 years and you rightly point out will likely be interpreted to fit whatever society we may see in next 100 years. If the bible is absolute objective divine truth, then it should be unchanging as would a "perfect" God. If God changes to fit the people of a specific age, then it was never perfect but merely adapting to the environment instead of a being so confident in its truth that the environment would adapt to it. Therefore, while the bible contains many wisdoms, the whole, as cobbled together by a group of believers selected by a Roman Emperor several hundred years after its last pages were supposedly written, may not represent any sort of complete divine wisdom on which to base ones faith. If you do, then you likely have had to rationalize why some parts are valid and others no longer applicable. I doubt you believe in stoning disobedient children to death or support invading a neighboring country and taking non-believers as slaves, or even the putting to death of men who lie with men.

So it seems to me, that while one can appreciate the wisdoms contained within the bible, there is no reason one must accept it or defend it cover to cover. There are wisdoms in the Koran, but there are also demands for violence against non-believers, just like the bible. The same is true of virtually every ancient religious document. So why get so fixated on defending the indefensible parts or trying to explain it away to others? You're the only one you need to convince. Your faith should never be conditional on what other people think of it, believe if you want, accept what parts of the bible you like and discard what parts you don't like. Just don't try to convince everyone else that your selective reading is the "right" way proving your faith the "right" faith. Just embrace it as your something that is yours and yours alone. No one really shares the exact same faith even if you've been going to the same Church listening to the same preachers your whole life, you'll have multiple understandings of the same teachings making every believer unique.

The substance so far from the above long winded argument seems to be hinging on some desire to make others agree with a specific interpretation of the bible. This is the same debate that has fractured the Christian faith into more than 2,000 disparate factions over the last 1,700 years, all claiming to know the "right" way to interpret the bible. I doubt those fractures would be solved any time soon here, so I recommend simply accepting that others will always have different interpretations of ancient scripture and trying to claim some interpretations are "wrong" or "right" isn't actually changing anyone else's mind.

There is no contempt from me for the ancients.  They were products of their time.

Tig, you wrote with deliberate purpose to Sandy: "It is trivially easy to offer passages from the OT that show that the OT is a horrible guide for morality and clearly is nothing more then the work of ancient men whose mores and values naturally permeate their writings."

You can not be double-minded about this: Either the ancient men did write an immoral set of guiding books and are solely responsible for the content which is contemptible in their time, or they wrote a moral book which set standards you can agree with.

You have already admitted the ancient men wrote  an immoral guide and whom you imply had NO CONTACT WHATSOEVER with a spirit God. Own your (purpose) words and the meanings you invoke. Do not equivocate. You unquestionably are implying Moses and other Prophets of Old are liars. If you are not, then acknowledge that you accept they are telling the truth about God.

The OT is demonstrably (having just done so) a horrible guide for morality and clearly is nothing more then the work of ancient men.   That is (to me) an obvious conclusion based on the facts.   You presume that a critical analysis means that I hold the ancient men in contempt.   I told you that I do not, that they were products of their time.   Now you are arguing with me about my own position?   

One can be critical of an ancient system without holding the ancient people in contempt.  You no doubt are critical of the way in which people were treated in biblical times.   Right?   Does that mean you hold the ancients in contempt?  

See?    This stuff is not that difficult to understand. 

Actually it is you that is confused. On one hand you insist that there is no evidence of the God you, on the other-hand attempt to invoke in a haphazard defense of your stance. Don't be double-minded. Furthermore, since you are FULLY PLAIN that you have NO EVIDENCE of the existence of any spiritual entity whatsoever, how do you conclude that such an entity can be of a moral disposition that agrees with your concepts of morality?

That's babble. @15.3.59 it's '[dreamt] up fiction for their causes,' and now they are @15.3.69 "products of their time." TiG, which is it?  Were the Israelites fiction writers or people recording the times in which they actually lived?

Actually it is you that is confused.

More Pee Wee Herman crap: ('I know you are but what am I?').

On one hand you insist that there is no evidence of the God you, ...

Yes there is no evidence supporting the God of the Bible.   I challenge you to provide evidence that the God of the Bible exists.   As you fail, contemplate why you fail.

... on the other-hand attempt to invoke in a haphazard defense of your stance.

Another basic concept that I and others have explained to you many times.    Here, does this ring a bell?   There is no evidence that Voldemort existed yet somehow we are able to speak of the character and make critical analysis of the character as portrayed in the book.   Same with Darth Vader, the Wizard of Oz, Pinocchio, etc.   I have never known anyone else who was unable to comprehend critical analysis of a fictional character.   When non-believers speak of the God of the Bible they are speaking about the character as defined by the Bible.   There is no presupposition that the character actually exists.

Furthermore, since you are FULLY PLAIN that you have NO EVIDENCE of the existence of any spiritual entity whatsoever, how do you conclude that such an entity can be of a moral disposition that agrees with your concepts of morality?

We have been talking about the morality of the Bible and the God it defines based on the words contained within it.    Hello?   

Were the Israelites fiction writers or people recording the times in which they actually lived?

The ancient writers, based on biblical scholarship and the lack of evidence of the God character and many of the events described (e.g. the Exodus) clearly engaged in fiction.    They also wrote about actual events.   That is why I called the Bible 'historical fiction'.   Look, here is a quote:

TiG @15.3.23 ☞ One thing that I have found to be entirely predictable is that some will engage in outrageous intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to defend passages as the divine word of a perfect God or to deflect away from the blatantly obvious fact that the Bible is merely historical fiction penned by ancient men and not divine truth.   It is as if they presuppose the Bible as divine truth and attempt to adjust reality around that presupposition.   Seems to me a healthier approach would be to recognize the Bible as historical fiction and base one's religious beliefs on what we know today.  

There were also no doubt many scribes who totally believed the Bible divine and were doing their best to translate and copy without error.   So, in short, the ancient men who produced the Bible did write some fiction, did write historical truths (as they saw it) and most (probably) just participated in copying and translating while inadvertently introducing errors and mistranslations.

This is not complicated yet you continue to ask questions that I am confident you and pretty much any other thinking adult can easily figure out.    I have yet to see the advantage of the intellectually dishonest tactic of faux obtuseness so why do people play this childish game?  

Day to day obstruction of this kind actually reminds me a lot of the Trump Administration. Do but "Don't say.

When non-believers speak of the God of the Bible they are speaking about . . .

. . . Nothing. You can not treat fiction as though it is real and offer critical analyses of it. You can do 'fakery' all you want. 'Voldemort' and your other movie characters are in the fantasy and fiction category. It speaks volumes that you consider the Bible to be fantasy and fictional, and yet you do 'deep dives' and spent a disproportionate amount of time disputing a fantasy. It is plain 'as day' that you take the Bible seriously enough to divest it (a fantasy) of its 'fan-base'—if you can, that is.

On one hand you insist that there is no evidence of the God you, on the other-hand attempt to invoke in a haphazard defense of your stance. Don't be double-minded. Furthermore, since you are FULLY PLAIN that you have NO EVIDENCE of the existence of any spiritual entity whatsoever, how do you conclude that such an entity can be of a moral disposition that agrees with your concepts of morality?

You can not treat fiction as though it is real ...

You can not treat fiction as though it is real and offer critical analyses of it. You can do 'fakery' all you want. 'Voldemort' and your other movie characters are in the fantasy and fiction category. It speaks volumes that you consider the Bible to be fantasy and fictional, and yet you do 'deep dives' and spent a disproportionate amount of time disputing a fantasy. It is plain 'as day' that you take the Bible seriously enough to make infinite attempt at divesting it (a fantasy) of its 'faith-base'—if you could, that is. "Many people," to use an overused expression could say you treat this "undertaking" of yours like a job—with Word 'macro' recorded responses.!

 I challenge you to provide evidence that the God of the Bible exists. 

A toothless challenge, seeing that Christian believers' for over 2000 years "walk by faith and not by sight." 2 Corinthians 5:7. Moreover, Moses spoke with God face to face and you discount his entire written testimony as fiction-fantasy-delusion-lie! Apparently you need your own face to face 'meeting' with God to believe, yes? As I walk by faith, sorry I can't help you with that!

I have yet to see the advantage of the intellectually dishonest tactic of faux obtuseness so why do people play this childish game?  

Yes you do have a problem with victim status and personal insults, while claiming to be 'above' it all. Well, I won't stoop that low for ya! COME UP HERE!

Writing craftily guarded comments does not hide the facts that - you do not accept anything SUPERNATURAL happened to Moses, or any other prophets or apostles in the Bible. Indeed, as you have lay out many past arguments, you do not think anybody wrote the truth about Jesus! If you accept that the Jesus in the Bible lived at all!

I n which case, one can ask: What sentences in the Bible you accept as historical or accept as fiction. Inquiring minds would like to wonder about it, and I am sure the answer will not be forthcoming—for obvious reasons!

Writing craftily guarded comments does not hide the facts that - you do not accept anything SUPERNATURAL happened to Moses, or any other prophets or apostles in the Bible.

Do you expect anyone to take anything you write seriously when you engage in nonsense such as stating not only the obvious, but the very point I made?   ( Pretending, it would seem, that you were issuing a rebuttal. )

What I am observing from you is as silly as this:

• X:  The Earth is spherical in shape and approximately 4.55 billion years old
• Y:  Writing craftily guarded comments does not hide the facts that - you do not accept that the Earth is flat and is 6,000 years old.

Yes, 'Y', that is quite true.   I do indeed not accept flat Earth claims nor do I accept young Earth claims.  Neither have evidence for and both have absolutely profound evidence against.

Untrue. I have never considered the earth to be 4.55 billion years and your audacity to call me a Young Earth Christian highlights desperation coming out. In my opinion, you NEED me to be a Young Earth Christian. (I am not.)

In addition, I am not willing to jump on your 'tour' of those Word 'macro' recorded responses you keep for deflection.

Look up the word analogy.

Non-sequitar.

I have no frickin idea what you are going on about in this comment. Sorry, but I can not even 'start' with it. So I won't go any farther on it.

. . . TiG quipped.

Well, if you are looking for me to hop on that 'see-saw' on a thread with 500 + comments already, Nope I won't do it. This article would instantly become the article from Hell!

Say something nice once or twice about the good people who follow the Bible ("The Good Book.") Please proceed. . . .

When you finish try to realize and understand that the Bible did not cause good people to display irrational violence. Many of these good people state that the Bible saved them from irrational violence.

Critical thinking should tell you to ignore Young Earth Creationists and the horse they rode in on. And if you feel the same critically about all people of faith, well ign— . . . .

God's morality, Man's morality, or TiG's morality?

You of all people can not know God's moral stance according to any Faith, as you profess little to no faith. So what is this 'exercise' about?

God is Perfect, because God is the believers' only model of the Divine. In the mind of the faith, God has no other beside God. That is, there is no thing to COMPARE GOD TO. Certainly not mankind's puny morality which spans nothing but known 'spectrums' of this single planet!

If the bible is absolute objective divine truth, then it should be unchanging as would a "perfect" God. If God changes to fit the people of a specific age, then it was never perfect but merely adapting to the environment instead of a being so confident in its truth that the environment would adapt to it.

Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 13:12   For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Man has not SEEN the perfection of God. Puny and slow of understanding as humanity are-heck, it can barely stand up to receive the knowledge found in the world over eons - incrementally fed it.

Blah! Mankind, even its people of Godly faith, humbly I submit, can not imagine the encompassing state of  (true) Perfection, which is God.

If you do, then you likely have had to rationalize why some parts are valid and others no longer applicable. I doubt you believe in stoning disobedient children to death or support invading a neighboring country and taking non-believers as slaves, or even the putting to death of men who lie with men.

Not sure how what I do, which by the way is make my life endurable, livable, and not insufferable, after all, as a homosexual Christian on a spiritual journey,  I would be stressed out every day if I tried to be - well you - a heterosexual who has a proper mate if that is the case.

You really should ask me about my beliefs and practical day-to-day applications derived from the pages of the Bible before assuming that for me it is one way or the other. For example: —No, I shall not go into it here. It never comes up in routine discussion around here. But, maybe you are the one to bring it up and out.

Stoning? In America? Preposterous. Slavery? In American prison systems yes it is. Men who lie with other men? Let them do so - until and unless they are convicted to not do so. What the harm in that? It's there soul and every 'soul' has to sat on its own pedestal before God for a Yea or Nay. And I wholeheartedly agree only God (in Christ) can judge correctly the heart of an individual.

Isn't it quoted: God looks on the heart?

The substance so far from the above long winded argument seems to be hinging on some desire to make others agree with a specific interpretation of the bible.

Forgive me, but I have no clue as to why you are addressing me about 'long winded argument' when this 'thread' generated @15 through TiG and his ofttimes diatribes against religion, faith, and God.

Thus, I can not accept your premise. I do not promote any one become anything. I simply stand up for my strong beliefs and faith similar to how strong atheists stand up for their acceptances in science and logic—all which can change the instance new information is discovered.

Nope.

I'm responding to your insulting assumption.  If you didn't want to talk about it, you shouldn't have brought it up.

No point trying to use reason with someone who insists that one must believe in a character to analyze or judge it.   

You're being combative. This article is reaching it end. Why start a new 'round' of topics? Incidentally, you are not always right with your 'message' or timely with your comments.

Yeah, still 'hanging on' the Christians and other religious folks with that 'peculiar' soapbox of yours, are you?

You mean I can't say that Emperor Palpatine is evil, since I believe, based on scads of evidence, that he was only a character in a very unevenly-written movie series?

You're being combative.

You seem to have an interesting definition of "combative".

I'm not right in my belief that today's morality and that of the Bible are different?  Not right in my belief that the Bible condones slavery, but not homosexuality?

And I wasn't aware that we're being clocked with regards to our comments.  Puts those of us with jobs at a disadvantage.

Nope, since you do not believe he exists it is impossible for you to apply reason, based on how the character is defined by the screenplay, to make any analysis.   Unless you believe Palpatine exists you are intellectually hobbled.

Worse, if you cannot tap into ‘the force’ you cannot possibly understand what people who think they can actually tap into ‘the force’ know.     See, your problem is that you reject ‘the force’ but if you open yourself to it you will gain universal enlightenment and finally understand.

Your job has nothing to do with your timeliness to comment, I'm sure. You have my answer to you - accept it or not, Sandy. Our time here is better spent not in bickering for bickering sake!

Of course, today's morality in the United States is different from that in Biblical times. Why wouldn't it be? It's called growth and development and refinement.

. I am confident all religious books are in the fantasy section of your library.

Your job has nothing to do with your timeliness to comment, I'm sure.

You don't like that when you called for others to observe the deflections occurring in this conversation, I pointed out yours.  Tough.  That's a risk you run when you participate in a public forum.  Others will have opinions about your comments, and they may express them, whether you like it or not, and at times you may or may not like, too.

It's called growth and development and refinement.

And subjective morality, fortunately independent of scripture.

I am not laughing. I am NOT laughing. I M NOT LAUGHING!!!

Wrong.   I just told you that I consider the Bible historical fiction.   A very easy thing to remember yet you come back with 'fantasy' and then apply it to all religious books.  

How I would classify a book depends upon the book.   Most would likely be historical fiction.

Importantly, for the 'fiction' to be changed to 'fact' there would need to be persuasive evidence that the fiction was indeed fact.   Getting to 'divine fact' would required substantially better evidence (given the grandiose nature of the claim).   Until then, it is fiction - especially if the evidence thus far strongly suggests that it is fiction.

What's in a word anyway? /s

It is is fiction as far as you are concerned; the supernatural aspects written down in the Bible are fantasy in your view, yes?

What's in a word anyway? /s

It all depends on whether the interlocutor is interested in thoughtful discussion.

It is is fiction as far as you are concerned;  ...

Do you not understand what the term 'historical fiction' means?

... the supernatural aspects written down in the Bible are fantasy in your view, yes?

They are unevidenced.   Until there is convincing evidence that something extraordinary has happened, rational minds tend to be skeptical.

We're done here. This is just repetition.

and on that note,

including the absence of the seeder

the article is locked

How come you can discuss any other topic honestly, capably and cordially and yet whenever the topic turns to faith you become evasive, vague and obstinate? I know TiG can be relentless and difficult but when it comes to scoring you guy's perpetual debate regarding the validity of your supernatural beliefs he has outscored you on points by about a thousand to one. We get it. You feel very strongly about your beliefs and are emotionally driven to represent for Jesus. I just do not believe you are particularly good at it. Maybe you are just too emotional about your personal beliefs to effectively communicate them without being so, um, pissy...

We do agree though that Ralph Reed is a pompous little twitt. I always believed Ralphy Boi just might have been a goddamn clone of Pat Robertson bred in an illicit bio lab somewhere for Pat to harvest body parts from. That would explain greedy lying olde Pat living to be olde as Methuselah. Pat and Ralph have made gazillions blaming everything from Ebola and AIDS to hurricanes and earthquakes on "The Gays". I do not think that is fair or something Christ would say though many christians would probably disagree...

Sorry for butting in but as TiG explained everyone is free to jump into any discussion on these boards...

Tig butts in all the time. I do too. My 'complain' is not that he enters the open discussion, but that IT IS PLAIN THAT THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT FAITH ASKED TO A PERSON WHO CARES ABOUT FAITH. Tig has accomplished two things in short order. 1.) He changed the tenor of my question to Nerm. Not  sure Nerm would have tried to 'pigeon-hole' the Christian-homosexual about Romans 1 on homosexuality. 2. He has questioned the Biblical text on its authenticity and that of its writers. Nerm and I were not having either of these 'discussions.'

Faith is personal for those who live and practice, 'living by faith.' Tig being "relentless" is a convenience he can have in this day and age, because largely he is operating on a solid ground on logic and reason, I on faith and reason (from the scriptures), on the areas we rub each other the wrong ways on.

I get that.

However, it is not my responsibility or obligation to let the natural order exclude the spiritual order (of existence) which Tig does not or can not acknowledge. Though, he is clearly 'fond' of putting spirituality and holy books down.

Being particularly "good at it" humbly may come with practice. JBB, I'm working on it. Who knows? How long has Tig been in the 'trenches' working on his debate skillset?

More importantly, you may not be aware, or you may not care (I do not have the luxury of not caring), but Tig is SILENT when it comes to writing about his "darlings" in logic and reason—watch closely, you may observe that Tig is heavy-handed and relentless in wanting to steer and nail the discussion to the 'religion-side.'

For example, he will keeps referring me to some READ off-site. Well, I shoot back Tig, you read it: tell me the relevant point or points.

Lastly, I asked Tig a relativity 'soft-ball' set of two questions:

Does Dr. Ehrman dispute John the Apostle's book and label the same a liar?  Does Dr. Ehrman deny all supernatural statements found in  the New Testament?

Apparently, we have found SOMETHING Tig can't answer - or, it follows the observation that I made earlier that it takes the focus off the "religion-side." That is, it does not put a spotlight on the Bible, but on the critical  professor.

Lastly, I asked Tig a relativity 'soft-ball' set of two questions:

Does Dr. Ehrman dispute John the Apostle's book and label the same a liar?  Does Dr. Ehrman deny all supernatural statements found in  the New Testament?

This is now the 4th time I have given you my answers.   You are engaging (again) in sealioning.   Bad form.   I recommend you not do that.   If you do not like the answers given then find another angle.  The same questions will yield the same answers:

Does Dr. Ehrman dispute John the Apostle's book and label the same a liar? 

It seems to me that Dr. Ehrman does not hold 'John' to be credible.   The article I linked @  15  explains why.

Does Dr. Ehrman deny all supernatural statements found   in   the New Testament?

Too vague to comment on.   What supernatural statements do you have in mind?

And, as I noted earlier, it is silly asking another member about Dr. Ehrman.  Anyone other than Dr. Ehrman can only offer their opinion and you asserted that you do not care about my opinion.   So this should be obvious to you, if you want to know what the man thinks do not ask others, go directly to the source.   Dr. Ehrman has written several books, appears in many online videos, has his own blog, etc.   Since you are sealioning these questions it would be well advised for you to do some research and find out what Dr. Ehrman says.   If you find something interesting then provide a quote and make a comment,   If not, then your questions have no real point (which I figure is the case).

Your comment @ 16.1 is yet another perfect example of making the other person the topic.   

If you cannot respond without your emotions guiding your hand then it is best to not respond at all.

 You are engaging (again) in sealioning. 

You are engaging in deflection . This thread has apparently ran its course, because Dr. Ehrman is clearly without a 'sponsor.' That's all.

Dr. Ehrman is clearly without a 'sponsor.'

So you do not care 'two cents' about my opinion and you think it would be wrong from me to 'put words in Dr. Ehrman's mouth' yet you literally insist that I be his sponsor?   To speak for him?  

Fascinating.

This thread is stumbling along, gasping for air. . . .

Nerm, if you can find this and care to continue. . . .

1.1.313 CB replied to  Nerm_L @ 1.1.312   2 days ago

1.1.314 CB replied to  Nerm_L @ 1.1.312   2 days ago

Unfortunately today's Marriage or marriage seems to be more about a legal way to satisfy lust .

Please define, lust , in context of your statement.

This article has slowed to a crawl in loading. . . .   In the words of Dayton, Ohio citizens, "Do something."