[jlisenbe]

1. I had posted this text. "But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God." You then asked this suitably mysterious question, "And what was Paul's (or Barnabas') REAL intent?" So here's my answer. I think it is beyond dispute that he meant that because of their stubbornness and unrepentant hearts, they were storing up wrath for themselves in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God." BTW, no serious person thinks there is any possibility that Barnabas wrote the book of Romans. Barnabas was not associated with Paul at the time this book was written. You really should have known that. Now, what was the method you employed to determine what you claimed to be the "core values" or the "genuine attitudes" of Christ?

   
   
   
   
   
   

[Wondergirl]

The author's intent was to scare the pants off the reader so that person would give up ungodly ways. Much like a parent who scolds a child for clumsiness or sloppiness with the threat, "If you don't start shaping up and do better than this, you'll end up in hell!"

[jlisenbe]

It doesn’t say that in any way.

[jlisenbe]

I leave it with you. Not interested in this type of "discussion".

[Wondergirl]

I leave it with you. Not interested in this type of "discussion".

Sure it does fit. "you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God."

What's wrong with this discussion? I have a young friend whose Christian parents scold him and threaten him with hellfire because of his clumsiness. (He has Asperger's.) They feel justified because the Bible is on their side.

[jlisenbe]

You are portraying Paul as a pitiful, lying manipulator on the level of the sorry parents you mentioned. I guess that for someone who proposes that Naomi and Ruth were lesbian lovers, perhaps that conclusion comes without much difficulty.

It's always the same situation. You don't like what Paul said so you have to come up with some scheme to change the meaning of his words. Your political and social persuasions trump the Bible. It's why you feel no need to change the Matthew texts you listed above. After all, they agree with your religious prejudices. You are completely unwilling to accept the clear message of much of the Bible, and it's why I don't like these discussions. Run into a scripture you don't like? Well, just morph it into meaning something completely and illogically different. It's a fear-driven, irrational approach which I don't believe I've ever seen before and which I care for none at all. And before you start complaining about meanness, try considering what I've said and see if it's true. There is no intent of meanness, but just of concerned honesty.

I can only hope you see the error of your approach while you still have time.

[Wondergirl]

That was the way of the ancients. Read Greek and Roman and Egyptian mythology. The penalty for wrongdoing was very dire, even death and oblivion. The Hebrews and israelites fell into line with that idea.

[Athos]

In this thread I have responded to your points, but I haven't advanced an argument

By responding to another's points, that is called making an argument.

I simply asked how you felt you could determine the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus.

Simply by reading the Gospels. It's not rocket science, but it does require some discernment.

As my summary above plainly shows , you have not been able to describe any logical method.

Your summary completely omitted the strongest logical argument of all. In the simplest terms possible, why would the Creator send his own creation to an unimaginably horrific hell for eternal torture? Why, in any world of common sense or LOGIC, would the Creator do such a horrendously evil thing? Even given the created one "sins" or disbelieves or some other infraction of your imagination, nothing could justify such a deed. A punishment in this life, a punishment in the next life that is temporary - those are logical conclusions, even tho' they are also subject to argument. But Hell as described in the Bible and as Christians have come to believe it based on Dante and others is not remotely a possibility.

you are using nothing more substantial than your own intuition and prejudices about the matter.

I've got news for you, pay attention. Our own intuition, even our prejudices if true, are part of the God-given wisdom factory we ALL have been given. It includes our brains, our experiences, our feelings, our judgements, and yes, our intuitions and biases. Your own reading of the Bible does not enter into a blank slate, it is subject to all those qualities and more that I have outlined.

That is what it means to be a thinking human being. As much as you want to get away from that fact, you can't. To continually blame me and others for using our brains to understand the Bible (or anything else for that matter) is an assertion without merit. It makes no sense at all since it can't be done.

[jlisenbe]

I've got news for you, pay attention. Our own intuition, even our prejudices if true, are part of the God-given wisdom factory we ALL have been given.

Says you.

But Hell as described in the Bible

You are finally starting to come around. Now you can say, if you want, that it makes no sense to you, but you cannot say it is not found in the Bible. And to discount it because you can't understand it is not an argument that is compelling. Truthfully, that is really your objection. The concepts of judgment and hell, found in many places in the Bible, are repugnant and nonsensical to you, and so you discount them on the basis of your own sensibilities. There is no other reason.

To continually blame me and others for using our brains to understand the Bible (or anything else for that matter) is an assertion without merit. It makes no sense at all since it can't be done.

If I had done that then I would agree with you, but I haven't done any such thing. I simply asked you to use your brain to describe how you could arrive at the "genuine attitudes" of Christ. You have been unable to provide any logical method by which you were able to reach your conclusions. To say, "Simply by reading the Gospels," is a foolish reply. Many, many intelligent people have spent their lives reading and studying the Gospels and reached completely different conclusions than yours, so that clearly is not a solution.

I'll stick with what I posted earlier.

People prove negatives all the time. Being asked to produce an early manuscript with text missing would certainly demonstrate that the text was not in the original documents. It's done all the time, so I think you don't understand the concept. Besides, providing a manuscript with the statements missing would be positive evidence that the statements are missing. So if a man is accused of slander and the defense produces a video of the conversation in question which proves that the supposed statement did not happen, then they are providing evidence concerning a negative.

To sum up, the question concerned how to distinguish the supposedly genuine attitudes of Jesus from the non-genuine. Here are the arguments put forward in response.

1. It was suggested that in the parables of Christ, as well as the Sermon on the Mount, a person sees an overwhelming preponderance of teaching on, "compassion, love of neighbor and enemy, reconciliation, helping those in need, and forgiveness." That was shown clearly to not be true simply by quoting from several places in the Sermon on the Mount where judgment and hell are referred to as well as other topics not pertaining to love and compassion. The same is plainly true of the parables. So that argument fell by the wayside.

2. Next is the argument, actually first mentioned by me, that if "non-genuine" statements of Christ were added in later centuries, then those statements would be missing from the early manuscripts. That is clearly not the case, so argument 2 bit the dust.

3. A third argument alleged that beliefs in hell and in having a love of your enemy cannot both be true. Now first of all that is nonsense, but even if it wasn't, how would a person know which belief was genuine? Couldn't it be just as possibly true that the teaching on hell was genuine and not the love of enemy? (Note: I'm not suggesting that's the case. I accept both and see no reason not to.)

4. A final argument, and by far the worst, was the suggestion that Jesus and the disciples wanted people to go to hell. Even if it was true, it would not solve the problem of figuring out how to distinguish the genuine from the non-genuine, but it is clearly not true. First of all there is no evidence at all to support that idea. Even worse, the fact that Jesus issued so many warnings plainly indicates He was not willing to stand by and watch that happen without giving warning. In similar fashion, if my wife and I are driving along and see a sign which reads, "Speed Zone Ahead", and I say to her, "Wow! Those state highway people WANT me to get a speeding ticket," she is going to reply, "Don't be stupid. They are WARNING you to slow down so you will NOT get a ticket! If they wanted you to get a ticket, they would not put up the sign." So argument 4, which wasn't pertinent to begin with, also crashes and burns.

One other argument has been put forward. It has been suggested that the text simply doesn't mean what it says. To adopt that position renders all of the Bible to be without meaning. One person might say that agape means unconditional love while another person could say the writer was actually talking about the love of ice cream and a third person could say the author was REALLY referring to racial hatred. And even the very statement that, "The text does not mean what it says," could be taken to REALLY mean, "The text DOES mean what it says." It also falls by the wayside.

[Athos]

The concepts of judgment and hell, found in many places in the Bible, are repugnant and nonsensical to you, and so you discount them on the basis of your own sensibilities. There is no other reason.

I discount them because they ARE repugnant and nonsensical. Who in their right mind thinks they are NOT repugnant and nonsensical? What other reason do you want? You believe in them because they are written in a book. Who has the better reason?

If I had done that then I would agree with you, but I haven't done any such thing.

You have consistently accused me and others of using our brains instead of believing in the Bible. You use different language but that is essentially what you charge us with.

I simply asked you to use your brain to describe how you could arrive at the "genuine attitudes" of Christ. You have been unable to provide any logical method by which you were able to reach your conclusions.

I gave you the best logical argument you will ever hear - the relationship of the Creator with his creature. Bible stories pale in comparison to the logic presented, the Bible being a document of persuasive love and not a philosophical statement.

To say, "Simply by reading the Gospels," is a foolish reply.

It is the definitive reply to your confusion. Thinking it is a "foolish reply" says volumes about you.

Many, many intelligent people have spent their lives reading and studying the Gospels and reached completely different conclusions than yours.

True believers will rarely examine their religions. Religions are accepted without question, or very minor questions, by adherents. It's the nature of religion. Historically, you will find that most religions fade over time and ultimately concentrate at their core when that core guides adherents to ethical and decent life styles. When the religion never reaches that essential core, it disappears entirely.

One other argument has been put forward. It has been suggested that the text simply doesn't mean what it says. To adopt that position renders all of the Bible to be without meaning.

Wrong again! Adopting that position renders SOME of the Bible to be incorrectly understood. Outside of true believers, you won't find many in this day and age who believe every jot and tittle written in the Bible. Very few believe in talking snakes as you do.

One person might say that agape means unconditional love while another person could say the writer was actually talking about the love of ice cream and a third person could say the author was REALLY referring to racial hatred.

That's why discussions take place - to get to the truth of a matter.

[jlisenbe]

You have consistently accused me and others of using our brains instead of believing in the Bible. You use different language but that is essentially what you charge us with.

Not really true. I have said that you are drawing conclusions from the Bible that are unwarranted. In other words, you are using your brain inefficiently. Consider, for instance, your continued idea about the supposed impossibility of proving a negative, an idea which has been completely refuted and is actually very easy to refute. Or your contention that you have some means of determining the "genuine attitudes" of Jesus, but being unable to describe any rational means of doing so other than reading the Gospels which is no solution at all as I show clearly below. My real contention is that you are forcing your own beliefs into the Bible. Your beliefs come from you, and not from the Bible. Perhaps we agree on that?

It is the definitive reply to your confusion. Thinking it is a "foolish reply" says volumes about you.

It is foolish for the reason I gave you. Many millions of intelligent people have read and studied the Gospels over the centuries and reached different conclusions from yours. In fact the reading of the Gospels would result in many people completely disagreeing with you. You and I have read and studied the Gospels (I guess you have.) and yet have reached completely different positions.

True believers will rarely examine their religions. Religions are accepted without question, or very minor questions, by adherents. It's the nature of religion. Historically, you will find that most religions fade over time and ultimately concentrate at their core when that core guides adherents to ethical and decent life styles. When the religion never reaches that essential core, it disappears entirely.

Do you get to decide what that "essential core" is, or what an "ethical and decent life style" is? Aren't we right back to the question I asked at the beginning?

Wrong again! Adopting that position renders SOME of the Bible to be incorrectly understood. Outside of true believers, you won't find many in this day and age who believe every jot and tittle written in the Bible. Very few believe in talking snakes as you do.

You missed the point. The passage quoted from Romans was morphed into a meaning far removed from the clear intent of the text. It was on the level of me saying that your REAL meaning was that everyone believes in talking snakes.

[Athos]

Completely untrue. I have actually said your conclusions are illogical. It is foolish for the reason I gave you. Many intelligent people have read and studied the Gospels for decades and reached different conclusions. untrue.
You missed the point. The passage quoted from Romans was morphed into a meaning far removed from the clear intent of the text. It was on the level of me saying that your REAL meaning was that everyone believes in talking snakes.

None of this is worth replying to. Try again. Or try reasoned analysis instead of deny, deny, deny. You'll feel better.

[jlisenbe]

None of this is worth replying to.

I understand. You have no answers. This was especially troublesome for your position. "Many intelligent people have read and studied the Gospels for decades and reached different conclusions." There really is no rational answer you can give for that. I guess you could say, "All those millions of people are wrong and Athos is right."

This was also a real problem for you. "Do you get to decide what that "essential core" is, or what an "ethical and decent life style" is? Aren't we right back to the question I asked at the beginning?"

[Athos]

I understand. You have no answers.

More denial.

I gave you the best answers you will ever get. Denying them doesn't speak well for you.

But I understand why you deny them.

[jlisenbe]

I gave you the best answers you will ever get.

Then your case is lost.

It's funny to me that you somehow think that YOU have the "best answers" anyone could ever supply. I really doubt that. A little arrogant, perhaps?

Perhaps you missed this.

This was especially troublesome for your position. "Many intelligent people have read and studied the Gospels for decades and reached different conclusions." There really is no rational answer you can give for that. I guess you could say, "All those millions of people are wrong and Athos is right."

This was also a real problem for you. "Do you get to decide what that "essential core" is, or what an "ethical and decent life style" is? Aren't we right back to the question I asked at the beginning?"

[Athos]

g?"[/QUOTE]

[Wondergirl]

"Many intelligent people have read and studied the Gospels for decades and reached different conclusions."

...far different conclusions from those of JL and his fellow literalists."

[jlisenbe]

Reading between the lines, I know that WG actually means that she agrees with me completely.

[Wondergirl]

Reading between the lines, I know that WG actually means that she agrees with me completely.

At times, you and I agree. But not all the time. (You're being sweet because you've missed arguing with me and want more fun than with just Athos, right?)

[Athos]

It's funny to me that you somehow think that YOU have the "best answers" anyone could ever supply.

What I said was -- I gave you the best logical argument you will ever hear - the relationship of the Creator with his creature. Bible stories pale in comparison to the logic presented, the Bible being a document of persuasive love and not a philosophical statement.

As usual, you have rephrased what I wrote so that the meaning is slightly changed. Don't you realize that others here see your attempted tricks and read you accordingly?

"Many intelligent people have read and studied the Gospels for decades and reached different conclusions.(than you - Athos - have)" There really is no rational answer you can give for that.

I gave you the best rational answer you will ever get. Since you don't seem to understand it, I'll try a second time to explain it.

All those millions who have read and studied the Gospels (and the Bible) came from a point of view of accepting the Gospels in advance. In other words, they brought a bias in favor of what was already presented in the Gospels. That can't be denied.

Only in modern times, have the Gospels began to be read and studied with a non-biased critical eye. Some have been Christians and some have been non-Christians.

The modern readings include many questions including the clearly absurd notion of a hell as described as infinite torture. This last I explained to you previously in my observation of the Creator and his creation which you have notably failed to answer.

This was also a real problem for you. "Do you get to decide what that "essential core" is, or what an "ethical and decent life style" is?

Lol. Not a problem at all. The essential core of religions is quite similar - living an ethical and decent life. The Golden Rule. Love your neighbor. I don't know why you consider that fact of life a mystery.

Aren't we right back to the question I asked at the beginning?

Yes. You always return to the beginning. You have no option but to do that. Repeating the same questions shows that you need answers again and again. The answers are starting to sink in and make you think. Little by little, when our beliefs (yours and mine) are challenged by the truth (ours), the truth has a way of nibbling away at the shell of untruth.