(August 24, 2019 at 11:44 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: To your second post, that the Bible has glaring contradictions in it, means little.

Okay so if you’re now confessing that there are two contradictory ways in the NT for how Christians ought to be and live, how did you then go about suggesting one way is authentic but the other way isn’t?

Other than by resorting to confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance?

I'm not doing this with you guys anymore. You keep dancing around the point and trying to get into the weeds and I'm not falling for it.

Multiple major institutions have cited the decline in Biblical literalism and the rise of secularism.

Less and less people taking the Bible literally is apparently only news to you two. Or maybe it's the apologetics that are clouding your vision.

Have a good one.

(August 24, 2019 at 11:54 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: And your theory that Early Christians were these mild-mannered moderates who took an allegorical interpretation of the Bible is not supported by history.

Yea it is, people in the ancient world, including historians didn’t even view history the way we moderns view history.

They didn’t even view the purpose of historical accounts were to pass on literal chronological accounts of historical figures, but served to convey lessons and meanings, for the purpose of learning how things ought to be.

The reason why people in our age place such a high value on literalism is the result of the scientific age, that elevated this idea. But this is rather foreign to the ancient world, or at least not as nearly important.

---

(August 24, 2019 at 11:57 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: I'm not doing this with you guys anymore. You keep dancing around the point and trying to get into the weeds and I'm not falling for it.

Multiple major institutions have cited the decline in Biblical literalism and the rise of secularism.

Less and less people taking the Bible literally is apparently only news to you two. Or maybe it's the apologetics that are clouding your vision.

Have a good one.

Biblical literalism, is a modern phenomenon , that’s been in decline, it’s this decline that the surveys show.

---

(August 24, 2019 at 11:54 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: You and acrobat seem to post at the same times too. Interesting.

Yes, you caught us red handed. Me and Belaqua are the same person, but we just post back and forth between both accounts for giggles.

(August 24, 2019 at 11:54 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: And your theory that Early Christians were these mild-mannered moderates who took an allegorical interpretation of the Bible is not supported by history.

Let us remember the Inquisition.

I have no such theory. They were not mild-mannered moderates. I have never said they were. They were, as I have said, more comfortable than we are with non-literal texts. 

The Inquisition was begun in 12th century France. Nothing like it was known among Early Christians. So you're about 1000 years off here. 

Quote:you're not even reading what I'm actually saying to you

On the contrary. If you look back at today's posts, you'll see that I have responded to nearly every sentence you wrote.

---

(August 24, 2019 at 11:57 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: Multiple major institutions have cited the decline in Biblical literalism and the rise of secularism.

Asserted without evidence.

Quote:Less and less people taking the Bible literally is apparently only news to you two. Or maybe it's the apologetics that are clouding your vision.

Or maybe it's the fact that I have pointed to facts, and you keep pointing to... nothing.

(August 22, 2019 at 9:15 am)ronedee Wrote: Not really. With the proper application of Christ, there is still Hope for mankind. aka LOVE

Ah, the archetypal cafeteria Christian.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/reco...d-god.aspx

Fortunatianus, a Catholic bishop from 4th century Italy, wrote a commentary on the gospels, which you can read here. Reading through the text, you can clearly see that even back then, they understood what symbolism was. No shit, Sherlock... right? Well, they, or at least this Catholic Bishop, also took many parts of the Bible quite literally, even saying that the Gospels were actual records of history. Biblical literalism is not at all a modern phenomenon. His work did seem to focus on allegorical interpretations of the Bible, but certainly wasn't discounting literal ones.

There's also the case that some verses cannot be interpreted in any sort of allegorical way, as we've already seen with the likes of Deuteronomy. Remember, this is a part of the Christian Holy Book, right? Why would it be included it if does not apply to modern Christians? Remember, Jesus came to "fulfil" the law, not destroy it. And even in Isaiah 42:21 it says “The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will MAGNIFY the law, and make it honourable.”

Even if we look at the extremist behaviors of killing heretics and stoning adulterers as "NOT REAL Christianity," today's Christians are STILL bad Christians.

Today's Christians

-Work on the sabbath
-Sleep in
-Commit gluttony
-Are guilty of pride
-Are guilty of adultery by simply THINKING LUSTFULLY of another person
-Churches use modern devices to gain followers/members, things that would be considered heresy in the days of Early Christianity (rock n' roll or "Christian rock," pretty girls leading youth groups, using movies, phones, tablets and social media to promote Christ)
-are far less modest than in the past


The list goes on and on. Bad Christians. Bad, naughty Christians!

This isn't even a debate guys. Times have changed. Christianity isn't what it used to be.

If you have some evidence that Christianity has somehow stayed the same over 1000s of years, I'd love to read it. Until then, you have nothing to say that's worth reading.

You are both known for being inherently slippery around here and are constantly called out for it. I'm not falling for your nonsense. Good tries though.

---

Let us too keep in mind that Jesus says "eye for an eye" is still in effect for those who sin against god. Read Matthew 24:48-51

The Bible is a complicated work, filled with a beautiful number of contradictions. No surprise there. Even when there are as many different interpretations of the Bible as there are Christians, we can assume most christians are getting it wrong.

So, most Christians are still bad Christians. And thank god for that.

(August 25, 2019 at 3:48 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: Reading through the text, you can clearly see that even back then, they understood what symbolism was. 

Yes, that's certainly true.

Quote:Well, they, or at least this Catholic Bishop, also took many parts of the Bible quite literally

Right. If you look at what I said yesterday, you'll see that I've acknowledged this. 

The Bible is an anthology of different texts, which are read in different ways.

Quote:There's also the case that some verses cannot be interpreted in any sort of allegorical way, as we've already seen with the likes of Deuteronomy. 

That's what I said yesterday.

Quote:Today's Christians 

-Work on the sabbath
-Sleep in
-Commit gluttony
-Are guilty of pride
-Are guilty of adultery by simply THINKING LUSTFULLY of another person
-Churches use modern devices to gain followers/members, things that would be considered heresy in the days of Early Christianity (rock n' roll or "Christian rock," pretty girls leading youth groups, using movies, phones, tablets and social media to promote Christ)
-are far less modest than in the past


The list goes on and on. Bad Christians. Bad, naughty Christians! 

I'm sure there are many Christians who are guilty of these things. 

As I said yesterday, the use of modern media is not heresy. Heresy is opinions which go against orthodoxy. If you express orthodox opinions on a smart phone or if a pretty girl sings orthodox opinions with her electric guitar while vaping, it might be distracting, it might be laughable, but it's not heresy. These words have meanings -- you can't just use them to mean whatever you want.

Quote:Times have changed. Christianity isn't what it used to be. 

If you have some evidence that Christianity has somehow stayed the same over 1000s of years, I'd love to read it. Until then, you have nothing to say that's worth reading. 

I have already said that. Christianity has changed a great deal. There have always been different kinds of Christians. 

You seem to think you can determine who is a Real Christian and who isn't. I think that, because there have always been different kinds, and because ideas evolve, there is no such thing as a Real Christian. Unless you believe in a magical Jesus who sits in the sky holding Real Christianity in his mind. (I don't believe in this.)

Quote:You are both known for being inherently slippery around here and are constantly called out for it

Yesterday you made dozens of unsupported assertions, refused to acknowledge that you hadn't supported anything, and when you couldn't go on any longer you typed a bunch of insults and ran away. I have consistently said what I think, what I hold to be supported by history, and have asked for evidence to be presented against me. 

Who is slippery?

Quote:Let us too keep in mind that Jesus says "eye for an eye" is still in effect for those who sin against god.

In the Old Testament, the lex talionis is a way of preventing the escalation of feuds. If someone harms you by killing your cow, and you respond by killing all his cows and also his family, violence escalates. Eye-for-an-eye holds the punishment within limits. 

Jesus doesn't say this is still in effect for those who sin against God. For one thing, it is impossible to damage God, so a punishment in kind is nonsense. 

Quote:Read Matthew 24:48-51

I did. What point do you want to make here? 

Are you reading it as an allegory? 

Quote:The Bible is a complicated work, filled with a beautiful number of contradictions. No surprise there. Even when there are as many different interpretations of the Bible as there are Christians, 

We covered this yesterday. 

The Bible is not a text to be read like a science book or journalism. There is not a single correct way to read it. Much of it consists of puzzles and challenges. We have to do the work ourselves, and this is what's good about it. We have to think hard, and work on being moral. 

Quote:we can assume most christians are getting it wrong. 

You have shown us that you believe yourself to be the arbiter of who is a Real Christian and who isn't. So I'm sure you can determine who is getting it wrong. 

Quote:So, most Christians are still bad Christians. 

In your humble opinion. 

But please note that it is traditional in Christianity for its adherents to confess to being bad Christians. They know that they fall short. They actually agree with the judgment you have passed. 

True, there are also many arrogant Christians. In my opinion, they shouldn't be arrogant. But criticizing the arrogant is built deeply into Christianity. Dante, for example, sees pride as the worst sin, because it provides the mental justification for committing all the others. (Lust, for him, is the least bad.) 

So basically what you've done here is to repeat what you said yesterday, as if you hadn't read anything I'd posted at all. I appreciate that you link us to Fortunatianus -- it's the first time you've tried to back up anything. But please notice that what you've supported is exactly what I said yesterday.

@Belaqua

You have not disproved any of my claims nor have you said anything worth addressing. You keep just repeating that I'm not the arbiter of determining who is Christian and who isn't, but I never claimed to be. I've simply observed a separation from what once was to what is now. A change in methods of worship, beliefs and behaviors requires a change in the name of said believers. Christians are no longer Christian.

We have gone from stoning adulterers and burning heretics and exiling pagans to now politely disagreeing with one another on the internet. Times have changed. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about this. I know you're not the most particularly intelligent individual on here, but wow.

That you're going to sit there and try to say that the Christians of today are like the Christians of then is insane. So I hope that's not what you're claiming. Whatever the case may be, certainly Christians today are nothing like what they were then. So whatever your view of what a Christian is today, it's certainly vastly different from what it was then. End of story. Not sure how you could even argue otherwise.

You want to paint this as impossible to define, and it isn't. You don't want this conversation to exist for some reason. I'm unsure why. You want the idea of "good" or "bad" Christians to be impossible to pin down and that's simply not the case. There are people who follow the teachings and people who do not. And considering most people couldn't tell you a single Bible verse from memory, let alone actually claim to be knowledgeable in its teachings, most people are bad Christians.

You want so bad for this not to be true, and I'm really curious as to why. You really do seem like you're a christian pretending to be an atheist on an atheist forum. It's very bizarre. This isn't the first time someone's noticed this, either.

Until you have something worth reading, the conversation's over.

(August 25, 2019 at 11:33 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: You keep just repeating that I'm not the arbiter of determining who is Christian and who isn't, but I never claimed to be.

Good! This is progress! I am glad that you are going to stop telling us who is a Real Christian and who isn't. 

Quote: I've simply observed a separation from what once was to what is now. A change in methods of worship, beliefs and behaviors requires a change in the name of said believers. 

Nope, you said that the change was from Real Christians to not Real Christians. 

Quote:Christians are no longer Christian. 

Oh, you were doing so well.

Christians are Christians. They are different kinds of Christians. There has never been a single type of Christian, and you cannot tell us which kind is real and which isn't. 

Quote:We have gone from stoning adulterers and burning heretics and exiling pagans to now politely disagreeing with one another on the internet. 

Not so politely, it seems to me. But OK. 

As I pointed out yesterday, one of Jesus's most famous messages is that we shouldn't stone adulterers. So I'm not sure why you bring this up as an example of change. 

It's true things have changed. Why do you think that the old ways were Real Christianity and the new ways aren't? Maybe both ways are just different kinds. Unless you, again, feel you have the right to judge. 

Quote:Times have changed. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp about this. 

It's not hard to grasp. I agreed with you on this yesterday. It's true. Everybody knows it. But what does this mean? Does it mean that the old ways are Real Christianity and the new ways aren't? Prove it. 

Quote:That you're going to sit there and try to say that the Christians of today are like the Christians of then is insane.

It would be insane if I had ever said anything like that. I have been clear that they aren't. Things have changed. Things have changed. 

Quote:Whatever the case may be, certainly Christians today are nothing like what they were then

Mr. Ego, I would like to assert that Christians today are different than they used to be. DIFFERENT. I think you agree.

Quote:So whatever your view of what a Christian is today, it's certainly vastly different from what it was then. End of story. Not sure how you could even argue otherwise.

I have not argued otherwise. I have said that Christians then were different from Christians today. DIFFERENT. 

How do you determine that they were Real then and not real now? Yes, they were different. Maybe they are more real now.. because the original message of Christ took some time to figure out. I don't know. How do you determine which is real? 

Quote:You want to paint this as impossible to define, and it isn't. 

No I don't. You made that up. 

Different kinds of Christian each defines it differently. There are a lot of definitions. But since I am not a Christian, and I certainly don't know the mind of God (since there is no God), I am unable to say which kind is Real. 

We can say they are different. They are DIFFERENT!!! Why do you say one kind is real?

Quote:You want the idea of "good" or "bad" Christians to be impossible to pin down and that's simply not the case.

No I don't. I think that I can pin down which are the good ones ACCORDING TO ME. Or I can pin it down if I apply the rules of a particular sect -- say, the Cathars. But I don't have the confidence, as you do, to say what Real Christianity is, and which groups meet that. 

Quote:considering most people couldn't tell you a single Bible verse from memory, let alone actually claim to be knowledgeable in its teachings, most people are bad Christians.

Excellent! Finally, the definition you're using to determine who is a good Christian. They have to know a single Bible verse from memory, and then they're a good Christian. I guess you can use that standard if you want. It's not the one that any Christian group I know of would use. But you're the boss.

Quote:You want so bad for this not to be true, and I'm really curious as to why.

I want so bad for what to be true? That what you're saying is not historically accurate? Granted, your claims have slipped around a little bit. First you were saying that the earliest Christians were the most literal, and that this declines in a linear fashion. Now you seem to have quietly dropped that claim -- for the best, since it isn't supportable. 

What I want is this: to make sentences that are historically accurate.

Quote: You really do seem like you're a christian pretending to be an atheist on an atheist forum. 

The odd thing is that if I say, "It's important for us to make historically accurate sentences, because even if we hate Christians we should still speak truly," people assume I must be Christian. As if atheists don't care about what's true. 

But this is not true. Some atheists want to say accurate things, as much as is humanly possible. 

Quote:Until you have something worth reading, the conversation's over.

That's fine. You have made so many unsupported assertions that you must be tired.

---

Once upon a time there were only a few breeds of dogs. They were a lot like wolves, but they were dogs. There were only a few types.

Then people bred the dogs. More and more breeds. Big ones, small ones. But look! They are all Real Dogs. They are different, yet they are Real Dogs.

Unless someone wants to say that a Grand Basset Griffon Vandeen is not really a dog. That the only Real Dogs are the original, wolf-like dogs. Because that person feels qualified to determine what is a Real Dog and what isn't, even though he disagrees with all the dog experts. Such people may exist!

Quote:

(August 26, 2019 at 4:45 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(August 25, 2019 at 11:33 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: You keep just repeating thayt I'm not the arbiter of determining who is Christian and who isn't, but I never claimed to be.

Good! This is progress! I am glad that you are going to stop telling us who is a Real Christian and who isn't. 

Quote: I've simply observed a separation from what once was to what is now. A change in methods of worship, beliefs and behaviors requires a change in the name of said believers. 

Nope, you said that the change was from Real Christians to not Real Christians. 

Lol, I like how Ego subtlety dropped his original claim, the point you and I have been arguing against.

It’s from Christians today aren’t real Christians, to Christians are different today than during the inquisition, or when Christianity was a State enforced religion. Well no duh.

In regards to his new argument, atheism & antitheism, have a far worse of a record, when tied to the State, than Christianity by far.