My book report pt1

[Ryantology]

I ve said this several times now that God's love is very conditional. John 3:16 underscores this point, in that God so loved the world that He gave his only Son that who so ever Believes.... Did you see it That Who so Ever believes, is a condition. Which makes God's love conditional. Which breaks your whole argument in half.

My argument is that it is repulsive. Repeating an example of what makes it repulsive doesn't exactly have much of a negative effect on what I said.

[Drich]

But I did not expect more from you than the standard apologetic line of bullshit. You did not disappoint. Finer minds than yours have tried to gloss over the shit in your bible. They have failed. You had no chance.

If someone takes a message out of context or applies the bible in the wrong context then any defense or attention drawn to the error is considered an apologetic.

As far as being typical, why didn't Bart address these 'typical responses' if they were indeed 'typical? Why did he only address the crazy, way out there answers that rewrite the cannon of scripture? Is he being foolish or just trying to sell books to people like you? Or maybe these answers are not the typical fair he is use to seeing.

"Given" by whom? Corrupt priests looking to maximize their own power over a credulous population. "God" is always on the side of the upper classes. "Render unto Caesar," you know.

And give to God what belongs to God, again context Minnie.

---

I ve said this several times now that God's love is very conditional. John 3:16 underscores this point, in that God so loved the world that He gave his only Son that who so ever Believes.... Did you see it That Who so Ever believes, is a condition. Which makes God's love conditional. Which breaks your whole argument in half.

My argument is that it is repulsive. Repeating an example of what makes it repulsive doesn't exactly have much of a negative effect on what I said.

I'm sure inmates who have been sentenced to life think the judge who put them there is repulsive as well, but there they sit in prison anyway.

Who cares what they think because they have shown themselves not willing to be apart of society. Same thing here if you do not wish to be apart of God's society, so what. Anyone not looking to be apart of God's society will be separated from it.

[Minimalist]

If someone takes a message out of context or applies the bible in the wrong context then any defense or attention drawn to the error is considered an apologetic.

There is no context to one of your fucking gospels stating that "jesus" was born when Herod the Great was king and another stating that he was "born" when Quirinius was governor of Syria. This is simply a contradiction. Both may be, but one must be, wrong. Blow context out your ass. It is irrelevant.

And give to God what belongs to God, again context Minnie.

And if only you had evidence that your god exists and anything belongs to him. "Evidence," Drippy. Your pious blather is not evidence.

[pocaracas]

"the god of the bible"... There were religions before the bible... what god was this, back then?
The god of the torah? There were religions before the torah... what god was this, back then?
The god of Abraham? There were religions before Abraham... (What century is this guy supposed to have lived on?) what god was this, back then?

All of these titles describe the same God.

And yet, many disagree on the details... makes it all look man-made.
Why don't christians/jews/muslims get their stories straight?

So, it seems, at that time, either people really wanted to worship whatever god they came up with... or the one true god was popping up all over the place and being misrepresented by the people... or a mix of the two options.
I lean to the first option.

-Or a viable 3rd option was in the instances you just listed the 'people' were just being faithful to the understanding of God given to them. Which is all god requires of us.

How foolish is it to think any one of us has a complete understanding of God. All we are ever given is a picture and all we can ever to is be faithful to the picture(s) we are given.

Well, if I have such a picture, it is absent of any god... and works pretty well.. perhaps this is what the new pope referred to recently?

Aren't you the one who said that god is the alpha and omega, as if this god is everything.

Alpha and Omega mean beginning and end to everything. Meaning He has final say on what happens, and the power and authority to carry out whatever he wants done.

Is god the bible?... apparently, yes.

Uh, no. The bible is just a book that describes God and contains His law and the Gospel.

Is the bible god? just a piece of the guy, no?

No, The bible is an instruction manual. If your car it's owners manual? or is your owners manual your car? no the owners manual is just the book that tells you how to properly interact with your car.

god seems to be so much more than the bible, as we can see so much more than the bible around us.

So again would it not stand to then reason God is not the bible, and the bible is not God?

So the guy is only the start and the end, but nothing in between?
How did it manage to contact anyone in this between? And have those people write about it.... and many others write about the same, but differently.... and then others chose what's in accordance to some view and compile it in a book...
It seems the guy is in between a lot... or rather, was!
Sort of makes it sound a lot like those people made it up....
Twice in one post!

If you look at the bible's NT as an accurate representation of the events (as many do) then you arrive at Bart's conclusion.

how so?

If you take all of it literally... like Bart claims to have done in his youth.

If you look at the bible's NT as a work of fiction, even if based on some real elements, then you couldn't care less that the differences are irreconcilable... it's fiction, written by several authors, it's expected... Ask any fiction writer, specially those who write several books to cover one story, like Harry Potter, or the Song of Fire and Ice... it's a nightmare making everything fit together nicely.
I'd be very surprised if no differences were to be found in such a huge tome.

but these are not the objections Bart brings up.

Of course not. He is working under the assumption that the text is a "reliable" (?) account of the events.... with multiple accounts of the same event by multiple authors.
Given the importance of the message, he'd expect it to be pretty darn consistent and self-attesting...
My "if", on the other hand, assumes it is a work of fiction right off the bat.

His primary reasoning centers around that each book was written in such a way as to be completely oblivious to anything else written, which is why there are continuity issues.
However the only way this all works is if you assume as he does the writters all had the same modern understanding as to how to write a unified account, and simply failed at coming up with a consistent story.

He assumes they all had witnessed the events or had access to reliable witness accounts...

But what if.... what if they all shared the same backstory, like we do with star wars, and made up a few details here and there to make it fit, in their own minds. They then wrote it down, according to their understanding of the events.

Now you're just adding to the cannon. I have to admit, it does make sense!
See how easily it can be done?

So, you are saying my reconciliation of Bart's book "makes sense?"

Yes, some things do make sense, within the context of the story.
The problem we have is that your mind attributes this context to our reality... while being absent of any hints of such a connection, except for a few episodes which can be explained as psychological or random in nature.
And, as such, it isn't credible as a means of connecting the story with reality.

[Drich]

Well, if I have such a picture, it is absent of any god... and works pretty well..

Define 'works.' Works as in this life but not the next?

perhaps this is what the new pope referred to recently?

Perhaps.

So the guy is only the start and the end, but nothing in between?

No. First word Final say.

how so?

If you take all of it literally... like Bart claims to have done in his youth.

Read what I wrote again I did not ask when I ask How. I am asking you to explain the conclusion you believe Bart came to.

Of course not. He is working under the assumption that the text is a "reliable" (?)

No he is not.

account of the events.... with multiple accounts of the same event by multiple authors.
Given the importance of the message, he'd expect it to be pretty darn consistent and self-attesting...

If it were to fit his standard then someone else would simply scream copy.
As all the books were copied from one another.

How can you pretend to argue Bart's position when you don't seem to understand it?

He assumes they all had witnessed the events or had access to reliable witness accounts...

No he says the oppsite repeatedly. That the bible is a compliation of many unknown authors and sources.

But what if.... what if they all shared the same backstory, like we do with star wars, and made up a few details here and there to make it fit, in their own minds. They then wrote it down, according to their understanding of the events.

Then if God makes no changes to that story that is what He must judge and hold us accountable to.

Yes, some things do make sense, within the context of the story.
The problem we have is that your mind attributes this context to our reality... while being absent of any hints of such a connection, except for a few episodes which can be explained as psychological or random in nature.
And, as such, it isn't credible as a means of connecting the story with reality.

Again my experiences were meant for me alone. If you want such a connection God says all you have to do is A/S/K for yourself, and He will make that connection for you.

---

If we are done here with the OP discussion I will post part 2

[Faith No More]

---

That wasn't really the relevant part to what I was talking about. Why you decided to break that off is beyond me.

Because you worded your response in such a way as to be in error of the biblical accounts being discussed.

I just was pointing out that you claimed that they were relaying the tales differently. I said "different message," which may not have been technically correct, but my intention was that they were telling the message in a different manner. Regardless, your rebuttle wasn't really relevant to the point at hand.

Then please restate you objection using technically correct terms, as I have answered your rebuttal as it currently reads. If you still seek a response.

Here you are simply saying that the discrepancy at hand is proof that the standard of judgement is false. The claim is that the sequence of events do not agree. Your defense is that on of them isn't chronological. The proof you offer of your defense is the very discrepancy in question, which leaves you going in circles. You must demonstrate that one is not intended to be chronological without referencing the discrepancy...

The money changers incident is recorded in all 4 gospels. Three of the four place the account at the end of Jesus' Ministry. John places it at the beginning. Which makes John's account not a chronologically correct account. But again who says it has to be.

Your working off the idea that there is a right and wrong way to write a gospel as is Bart. The fact that 3 of 4 record the account at the end of Christ ministry says this happening happens at the end of his ministry. John has it first. No matter the reason it does not make John's account any less factual. It only states that his account is not Chronologically correct. Now if you like Bart says John's account must be in chronological order then the burden of 'proof' rightly and logically shifts to you, to provide evidence that John had to write to that given standard.

...which you attempt to do here, but simply state that the bible was not compiled in order. The problem is that how the bible was compiled has no bearing on each individual author's intention.

Maybe it is better you do not understand my meaning. I was alluding to the fact that the books of the bible did not come with Book Name, Chapter denotations, or verse indexing. These were added much later to aid study. These accounts were written out line one long story or letter. It was up to those who compiled the bible without the aid of BCV to ensure continuity. Meaning if the monk or scribe who was incharge of the book of John pre BCV saw that John's account was indeed out of order, and there was a continuity problem it would have been changed. Again with out any way on indexing or separating one passage from another it was left up to the pastors who were given these letters and books to simply know (oral tradition) what order the story was meant to be relayed. Once the bible was compiled all of that was lost.

Except it's not as though there is simply a discrepancy in what types of beings were present. They can't even agree on the number of beings, so your argument about labels isn't relevant.

Again no. If a average guy sees two beings and is not in the know of what an actual angel is, and one speaks revealing himself as an angel of God then the average joe may simply assume the other guy is an angel as well. When technically only the guy who speaks is the actual 'messenger.' Just like above when you were describing a 'different message' and I corrected you and said they are speaking the same one. You may not have been technically correct, but you point was still made if you can over look the technical descrepency or simply do not know of the technical descrepency.

One Gospel writer may look at two guys being there and because even just one of them held the message of God he assumes the other guys was an angel as well. (He may well have been.) while someone like me may look at the same two guys (They could have been symeese twins joined at the Hip) and because only one spoke while the other did not, I would only have identified one angel. Because only one held the message of God and only one spoke.

I only like fujis.

You know they come from brazil right?

---

Okay, Drich, I'm going to bow out here, as we're getting out of my league, and I don't have the energy to dig deeper into this. I was just trying to explain why I found your explanations inadequate.

One question, though. What's wrong with fujis coming from Brazil?

[pocaracas]

Well, if I have such a picture, it is absent of any god... and works pretty well..

Define 'works.' Works as in this life but not the next?

"next life"? what is that?

how so?

If you take all of it literally... like Bart claims to have done in his youth.

Read what I wrote again I did not ask when I ask How. I am asking you to explain the conclusion you believe Bart came to.

I think I'm not making it clear whether I mean the Bart before or after becoming atheist/agnostic.

Nonetheless, he says so many times that it wasn't the biblical inconsistencies, nor the unreliable historicity of the bible's text that made him lose his faith.... they helped, but were not the deciding factors. He also says repeatedly that he teaches all that's in that book in a seminary course, where most of the students (if not all) are christians and remain christians after taking those classes.

Of course not. He is working under the assumption that the text is a "reliable" (?)

No he is not.

Before deconverting, yes....
and he found that the book is not as reliable as he had been led to think.

account of the events.... with multiple accounts of the same event by multiple authors.
Given the importance of the message, he'd expect it to be pretty darn consistent and self-attesting...

If it were to fit his standard then someone else would simply scream copy.
As all the books were copied from one another.

How can you pretend to argue Bart's position when you don't seem to understand it?

errr... he says repeatedly in the book that all that he wrote there has been known for decades if not centuries... It's been taught in seminaries all over the world for years and years.
What is it that I don't understand?

He assumes they all had witnessed the events or had access to reliable witness accounts...

No he says the oppsite repeatedly. That the bible is a compliation of many unknown authors and sources.

Again, my fault for not pointing that this was his starting position in "life".
And then discovers, after careful examination, that it doesn't work that way... and then he claims what you just said.

But what if.... what if they all shared the same backstory, like we do with star wars, and made up a few details here and there to make it fit, in their own minds. They then wrote it down, according to their understanding of the events.

Then if God makes no changes to that story that is what He must judge and hold us accountable to.

It seems you missed the part where the "backstory" is fictional (like star wars)... and gets built upon, like you did earlier with R2D2.

Yes, some things do make sense, within the context of the story.
The problem we have is that your mind attributes this context to our reality... while being absent of any hints of such a connection, except for a few episodes which can be explained as psychological or random in nature.
And, as such, it isn't credible as a means of connecting the story with reality.

Again my experiences were meant for me alone. If you want such a connection God says all you have to do is A/S/K for yourself, and He will make that connection for you.

I'm not so sure it was any god who claimed that, see?...
I'm more inclined to think it was someone who understood how the human mind works, how it can convince itself of anything, provided it accepts a bit of it.
Belief in gods was nothing new when those texts were written, so it's very likely that such knowledge had arisen and been common among those in the know... as min says, the powerful, the priests, those looking to control the masses and remain in power through those masses.

If we are done here with the OP discussion I will post part 2

Fast reader, go on.

[Drich]

One question, though. What's wrong with fujis coming from Brazil?

nothing, there just not Fujis. Fujis were developed in fujisaki Japan, and while that particular hybrid can be grown just about anywhere, they have a had time replicating the taste and texture of the Japanese grown apple. (They are about 4.00 dollars each from Japan.) They have a very light sweet crisp almost pear like texture. Most other varities vary from very sweet to a mealy like texture.

[Cinjin]

Don't you just hate it when people start using your own tricks. Sucks don't it?

The thing with a 'trick' is there is always a way it is done. To show you how he did his 'trick' is no big deal to me.

Meh, we point out yours all the time and it changes nothing. You still blather on about how your interpretations are somehow more correct than others. Blah blah blah ... same ole same ole.

[Ryantology]

I'm sure inmates who have been sentenced to life think the judge who put them there is repulsive as well, but there they sit in prison anyway.

People don't usually get sentenced to life in prison by judges who can make up whatever laws they want arbitrarily, nor does it happen for thoughtcrimes or for merely refusing to submit mind and body to the judge. There are exceptions, and they are horrible places I'd never want to live.

Who cares what they think because they have shown themselves not willing to be apart of society. Same thing here if you do not wish to be apart of God's society, so what. Anyone not looking to be apart of God's society will be separated from it.

There's a huge difference between not wanting to be a part of society and actively causing damage to it. If you don't want to participate in secular society, you have options to limit that participation to varying extents without bringing down retribution upon yourself. God doesn't permit mere non-participation. According to Christianity, if you don't submit, you are considered evil and he is going to punish you in whatever brutal ways evangelists can concoct in order to change your mind. It's not love. It's extortion of the worst kind, and that extortion is the nucleus of the Christian belief.