No Longer A Christian
- Thread starter Granite
- Start date
- Status
wickwoman
New member
Dear B Christian K:
I am disappointed at your tone. And, I only expect to see the laughing ridiculing smiley from Billy Bob. Not you.
I started to read the Da Vinci Code, but I don't usually read fiction and I thought it was a little hokey. Thanks for your concern.
As for where I get information, I am not a Biblical scholar, obviously. However, I don't think I've tried to make an appeal from a scholarly standpoint. My appeal was common sense. And, you've pretended to miss the point altogether.
On the subject of the Nag Hamadi texts, I've read both of Elaine Pagels' books on the subject. It is well documented and I believe the author had no ulterior motives in writing it.
The early Christians who won the battle for who got to be called "Christian" consisted of, among others, leaders who tried very hard to gather together Christians who were quite scattered and diverse in beliefs and geographically. Early Christians, as we know were tortured and driven into hiding. And, those who led them, did what they did to form a cohesive group with a common goal.
Some scholars say the Gospel of Thomas was written in about the same time period as John. Some say that John was written with refuting such ideas as contained in the Gospel of Thomas in mind. As for whether there are mentions of time and place, I don't think it matters. The information I'm looking for such as is found in the Gospel of Thomas is common to all the sacred texts of the worlds religions. Example: "If you bring forth what is in you, what you bring forth will save you." This very theme can be found in the Bhagavad Gita, Buddhists texts, the Upanishads, and others. It's not a new idea. That's what holds water with me. Repetition of a common theme, consistency. A theology that actually reflects the truth I already know in my heart.
The four gospels, along with the canon of truth were sanctioned and chosen early on by church leaders such as Iraneus and when the Nicene creed was adopted, it included wording chosen by such early leaders that had been circulating around the early Christians for a long time.
As I said, I am not a scholar. But, ask youself this question. Am I entitled to get proof as to whether your theology is worthy of my attention by your behavior? Because I do. And Granite does or did. And, when I open myself up to you, because of your kind gestures, or when you hand me an olive branch and then turn around and ridicule and make light of what I find important or try to make me look stupid and silly by accusing me of getting my information from works of fiction, do you think it reflects positively on your philsophy? This is behavior expected of others on the board and it's not painful coming from Billybob. But, when I expect something more of you, it's a real slap in the face. I'll be sure not to let it happen again.
This is another way I judge philosophies. Words mean nothing to me. I want truth. I can't remember even once being judged by Purex or being made to feel stupid. I can't remember even once being laughed at by Balder. What does that mean to you?
I am disappointed at your tone. And, I only expect to see the laughing ridiculing smiley from Billy Bob. Not you.
I started to read the Da Vinci Code, but I don't usually read fiction and I thought it was a little hokey. Thanks for your concern.
As for where I get information, I am not a Biblical scholar, obviously. However, I don't think I've tried to make an appeal from a scholarly standpoint. My appeal was common sense. And, you've pretended to miss the point altogether.
On the subject of the Nag Hamadi texts, I've read both of Elaine Pagels' books on the subject. It is well documented and I believe the author had no ulterior motives in writing it.
The early Christians who won the battle for who got to be called "Christian" consisted of, among others, leaders who tried very hard to gather together Christians who were quite scattered and diverse in beliefs and geographically. Early Christians, as we know were tortured and driven into hiding. And, those who led them, did what they did to form a cohesive group with a common goal.
Some scholars say the Gospel of Thomas was written in about the same time period as John. Some say that John was written with refuting such ideas as contained in the Gospel of Thomas in mind. As for whether there are mentions of time and place, I don't think it matters. The information I'm looking for such as is found in the Gospel of Thomas is common to all the sacred texts of the worlds religions. Example: "If you bring forth what is in you, what you bring forth will save you." This very theme can be found in the Bhagavad Gita, Buddhists texts, the Upanishads, and others. It's not a new idea. That's what holds water with me. Repetition of a common theme, consistency. A theology that actually reflects the truth I already know in my heart.
The four gospels, along with the canon of truth were sanctioned and chosen early on by church leaders such as Iraneus and when the Nicene creed was adopted, it included wording chosen by such early leaders that had been circulating around the early Christians for a long time.
As I said, I am not a scholar. But, ask youself this question. Am I entitled to get proof as to whether your theology is worthy of my attention by your behavior? Because I do. And Granite does or did. And, when I open myself up to you, because of your kind gestures, or when you hand me an olive branch and then turn around and ridicule and make light of what I find important or try to make me look stupid and silly by accusing me of getting my information from works of fiction, do you think it reflects positively on your philsophy? This is behavior expected of others on the board and it's not painful coming from Billybob. But, when I expect something more of you, it's a real slap in the face. I'll be sure not to let it happen again.
This is another way I judge philosophies. Words mean nothing to me. I want truth. I can't remember even once being judged by Purex or being made to feel stupid. I can't remember even once being laughed at by Balder. What does that mean to you?
Last edited:
Mr. Coffee
New member
This isn't a hermeneutic of embarrasment. There's a case for using larger and smaller numbers. Eleph has a variety of meanings within the text and it looks just like alluph. There is further evidence within the text to support the smaller numbers given above: at the first battle of Ai, the loss of a mere 36 men caused the hearts of the people to "melt and become as water" (Josh 7.5). But, again, there's a good archaeological and historical case for large numbers during the conquest here.
Last edited:
BChristianK
New member
Well, I don’t know of any other appropriate response than just to laugh.
You quite welcome, and I wouldn’t be concerned about you reading the Davinci Code as much as I am concerned with your method of biblical interpretation.
Ok, then what part of appealing to consequences, which is a logical fallacy, is common sense? Do you think common sense is illogical?
No, I think I am just done avoiding it. I have tried gently to nudge you toward a responsible hermeneutic of the bible for some time now, I drew the line when you used Romans 10 to promote a heresy condemned by John in 1 John. Now, I am more concerned with people who read your posts who are being misled by your musings.
Pagels has popularized the whole “root for the underdog� strategy of textual legitimization. Pagels has certainly created some sympathy for the concept that the boorish church fathers arbitrarily tossed out manuscripts they didn’t think would fit in with their agenda. Pagels' appeal is primarily to provoke sympathy for the Gnostics, as if it were “unfair� that the underdog’s gospels didn’t get into the cannon.
This line of argument only begs the question, in my view, it was absolutely right for those such as Irenaeus to actively pronounce Gnosticism as condemnable and heresy. The manuscripts that were appropriated for the purposes of perpetuating that heresy were rightly discluded.
But this whole sideline argument is really peripheral to the heart of our discussion, isn’t it? If you want to become a Gnostic, and teach Gnosticism, then base your arguments, such as the one you made in “What’s wrong with annihilation� from the gospel of Phillip or the gospel of Thomas. But don’t pull Pauline texts out of context and appropriate them for your own use when it is simply clear that they don’t say what you want them to say.
Again, if you want to go Gnostic, then go Gnostic. But realize that that the apostle John condemned Gnostic principles as heretical and urged those who followed Christ not to listen to them and I will be reminding the readers of your threads that it is heretical, condemned and basically, the wrong choice.
Some do, I wouldn’t be surprised if John wasn’t writting to discount an early form of proto-gnosticism. I am pretty sure that 1 John was a condemnation of any early Gnostic ideals. However, I would have a hard time believing that the gospel of john was a polemic against proto-gnosticism. As to whether or not the Gospel of Thomas played some special role in evoking a response in the form of an epistle is speculative and If you want to argue an early date for the gospel of Thomas, I'll discuss that with you. I’ve heard all the arguments for and all the arguments against, and the evidence is strongly against, lets just say that there is significant evidence that much of the GOT was redacted from Matthew or even Luke (the last of the synoptics to be written, around 60 A.D at the earliest). But you could make an intelligent argument for an early date. Regardless, the GOT is so haphazard and non-contextual that it doesn’t really espouse a distinctive theology in and of itself. And if it is true that John wrote 1 John to deal not only with proto-gnostic teaching, but also the Gospel of Thomas, then that is all the more reason to reject it as a reliable source of theology.
Yea, it pretty much does, since that it was constitutes context, if we can’t validate objective elements such as times and places, then it is pretty tough to validate subjective elements such as the words spoken.
For example, if someone published an article in the newspaper that said Dan Rather made such and such a statement reporting from Mars, you’d know the article was bunk. (Actually, if someone said that Dan Rather made such and such a statement from anywhere, one should probably regard that statement as bunk)
:chuckle:
You have to be male in order to go to heaven in all religions?
Sorry ladies.
:nono:
You said:
Ok so show me in the Gita, the Upanishads and others where you can find that the ladies have to become guys to get into the kingdom.
So I should look throughout the religions to find the concept of sex change as a stipulation for salvation, right?
Fine, jack with the other texts all you like with the so called “truth you already know in your heart.� If you start pulling biblical information into your theories and you do it incorrectly, I, or someone else, will be there to make it quite known that you have misused the text.
Yup. I don’t know how you think that helps your argument for an earlier date for the Gnostic Gospels, Irenaeus was born in 130 AD, and his influence was clearly second century. The “cannon of truth� was a non-Gnostic creed and Irenaeus was noted for his arguments against Gnosticism through his work, Against Heresies. which shows that it was during this time that Gnosticism became problematic enough to deal with it specifically and severely.
Yes, you certainly are, and if I were you, I wouldn’t trust anyone who would flat out admit that their preferred method if interpretation of any text was eisegesis.
But you were probably trying to get me to pack my bags and go on a guilt trip for directly engaging your method, right?
:nono:
Wickwoman, I have been quite patient with some of your musings but it is more important that people understand that your conclusions are based totally on subjective whim and your fancy than they are any reliable interpretive method than it is that you like me.
I didn’t assume you did, I asked, you told me you didn’t, you got your info from Elaine Pagels, which is a more scholarly and reliable source (as it at least has some of the dating info right). Nonetheless, lets focus on the reason for our dialog, you think it is perfectly reasonable to interpret texts based on whether or not you feel like Jesus might or might not have said such and such, and your only real criteria (the one upon which all other issues rest) is what you feel He should have said.
So if you want to think that I am just a jerk, then think that I am just a jerk. But don’t use that as an excuse to continue to hold on to such a foolish criterion. It would be better to show a measure of wisdom, show that you admit it is foolish and commit to revising your hermeneutic.
And when you presume to misuse the scriptures, when I have attempted to patiently show you time and time again how it is misuse, to the extent that you simply ignore those points and then go on to espouse heresy, that is tantamount to slapping my face, and what is more, God's face.
I can handle my face slapped knowing that God executes judgment. I am concerned for you about your persistently mistreating God's word and in so doing slapping God's face.
Lets just deal with the first one for now, ok?
The truth as it exists or the truth as you want it to be?
Of course not, PureX totally agrees with you on your hermeneutical foolishness. If you feel stupid because you now realize that your method of biblical interpretation is lacking, then stop feeling stupid, just admit that it doesn’t make sense, and commit to learning a better method. Learning from one's mistakes is wisdom. Willfully persisting in them is foolishness.
No one here will think you foolish for admitting you were wrong, me included, you will be honored for your wisdom and humility. If you decide to persist in foolishness, well, then that’s another story…
Balder doesn’t have a sense of humor…?
Just kidden’ Balder, I know you have a sense of humor, you’ve pulled few zingers on me lately.
Grace and Peace
Last edited:
Just posting in the spirit of Matthew 10:14.Originally posted by wickwoman
I was shocked and appalled. HOW RUDE! Good riddance indeed. Not only do they threaten you with eternal Hellfire, they cheer when you supposedly choose it.
Jefferson-
Maybe you should show where you're coming from, in the post that you say something that caold be misinterpreted. Although, that probably wouldn't be any fun. :chuckle:
Maybe you should show where you're coming from, in the post that you say something that caold be misinterpreted. Although, that probably wouldn't be any fun. :chuckle:
I'm not talking hermeneutics. I'm talking about the paucity of evidence that Israel had almost a million-man fighting force during David's reign. Until you can demonstrate that these figures--specifically this passage, without sidetracking the discussion into Ai, or the Exodus, or something else--either mean what they say or don't, you're chasing your tail.
wickwoman
New member
Dear B Christian K:
It comes down to this. No matter how you prove who or what's in the Bible or when or where it was written there is no way to prove that God inspired it. This is the only real point I'm trying to make here. As for what you think God is like, obviously, the Bible tells you. I don't necessarily have to rely exclusively on the Bible. I read a variety of religious works and look for a common theme. That's one common sense argument. Can you get around it? You're welcome to try.
Common sense argument #2: Your behavior should reflect the loving and just God you believe is found in the Bible. Your behavior reflects the God in the Bible, but he is neither loving nor just.
The reason I did choose the particular method I chose was because you did actually hurt me and I wasn't expecting it based on your past private message to me where you "offered an olive branch" as I stated earlier. I was open, expecting to enjoy future encounters and to start fresh. Also, I was thinking there was still a small quiet place in you that might not have gone past the point of no return. Obviously I was mistaken.
If your mindset is threatened by me and my way of approaching the Bible, that's your problem, not mine. The Bible does not belong to you. You cannot limit my access to is nor can you determine what I will use it for. Sorry.
You approach my posts with the idea that you should protect others from me? Interesting. That's the same way I approach your posts.
It comes down to this. No matter how you prove who or what's in the Bible or when or where it was written there is no way to prove that God inspired it. This is the only real point I'm trying to make here. As for what you think God is like, obviously, the Bible tells you. I don't necessarily have to rely exclusively on the Bible. I read a variety of religious works and look for a common theme. That's one common sense argument. Can you get around it? You're welcome to try.
Common sense argument #2: Your behavior should reflect the loving and just God you believe is found in the Bible. Your behavior reflects the God in the Bible, but he is neither loving nor just.
The reason I did choose the particular method I chose was because you did actually hurt me and I wasn't expecting it based on your past private message to me where you "offered an olive branch" as I stated earlier. I was open, expecting to enjoy future encounters and to start fresh. Also, I was thinking there was still a small quiet place in you that might not have gone past the point of no return. Obviously I was mistaken.
If your mindset is threatened by me and my way of approaching the Bible, that's your problem, not mine. The Bible does not belong to you. You cannot limit my access to is nor can you determine what I will use it for. Sorry.
You approach my posts with the idea that you should protect others from me? Interesting. That's the same way I approach your posts.
PureX
Well-known member
You seem to be having a really hard time understanding that it has nothing to do with hermeneutics. Anything we read, we read according to our own experience and understanding. If I read King Lear, I'm going to read it and understand it and value it relative to my own life. Do the characters behave in a way that seems "realistic"? How will I decide what is "realistic" behavior, except through my own personal experience of the way people behave? Does what the characters think and say make sense to me? Are they thinking and speaking the "truth"? How will I decide these things except through my own personal experience of what is real and true? Is my experience of what's real and true the same as yours? - No. In many ways it will be, but in many other ways it will not be the same.
We come to any text with a whole set of experiences and ideas about what's real and true and valuable. We use these preconceptions to understand and evaluate what we read. This is why we don't all understand or value the same texts in the same way. You keep trying to imply that the "answers" to our questions of truth and value are in the text itself, and that if we study the text and cross reference it and all that we can find this objective and abstract truth hiding in it. But you don't seem to understand that there is no truth in any of those words. The words are just symbols on a page intended to call up in our minds certain chains of ideas that already lurk there within us. The "truth" is not in the words on the page, it's in the reader. All the words do is help the reader call this truth to consciousness, and perhaps help him to re-evaluate it, or re-conceptualize it in a somewhat new way.
Wickwoman is simply doing what everyone does when they read the bible or any other text. She's picking out those pieces of text that are true and valuable according to her understanding of what is true and valuable, and then attributing them to Jesus as she understands and values Jesus. And this is not different from anyone else, including yourself. It's you who are suffering from the illusion that the truth is contained in the text itself, and that it can be "found" in there if you look hard enough and ignore your own ideas and feelings about what is real and true. You don't seem to realize that this is impossible. You can't even read a text without understanding the words according to what you already concieve of as reality and truth. Your own preconceptions are coloring your understanding of what you read just as much as anyone else's is. The difference is that they understand this while you imagine that this is not so.
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
But you continually try to pursuade people that God inspired the parts of the bible that you like. BCK has clearly pointed out that this is a selfish, foolish and immature way to interpret scripture. What if we were to teach our kids that this is the way we discover what is right? By holding on to only those things that feel good to us. They'd end up smacking and choking other kids who took their toys or did something they didn't like because this is what felt right to them. Don't you think that it could be the same with God, wise and just and us, small and learning? We might do things and believe things that feel good to us but that doesn't make it right.
I see it as more caring for BCK to point out where you're wrong than to make sure he doesn't step on your toes. Can't you stop your "can't we all get along" thinking long enough to see that if somebody sees another, heading for destruction, he sees it way more important to point out those things that are causing his destruction than to make sure he keeps that person happy at all cost? Our nature is to want everybody to like us. When somebody wants to risk that for the sake of another, that's pretty caring.
Last edited:
wickwoman
New member
Dear Poly:
If we "can't all get along" right here and now, then who cares about eternal damnation? Eternal damnation is a fantasy. It is a future event that is not real. The only real is now. And, so, I will continue to make the present as loving and meaningful as possible. I will not squander one day worrying about eternal danmation or causing others to live their lives in fear of it.
If we "can't all get along" right here and now, then who cares about eternal damnation? Eternal damnation is a fantasy. It is a future event that is not real. The only real is now. And, so, I will continue to make the present as loving and meaningful as possible. I will not squander one day worrying about eternal danmation or causing others to live their lives in fear of it.
wickwoman
New member
Re: The Quote from the Gospel of Thomas
Did Peter say women should have a sex change operation?
Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven." (Gospel of Thomas, 114, Dorresse’s translation).
Well, I'm just guessing about this, but, no, since the operation wasn't available. What's the most obvious interpretation. Based on the treatment of women at the time, I would guess it had something to do with Jesus saying that females should have equal access to God which they didn't at the time.
It reminds me of when Jesus said one must be born again and a listener (was it a disciple, I don't remember now) asked: How can a man get back into his mother's womb? Or do we only apply metaphorical interpretation to the canon and not to the gnostic texts?
Did Peter say women should have a sex change operation?
Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven." (Gospel of Thomas, 114, Dorresse’s translation).
Well, I'm just guessing about this, but, no, since the operation wasn't available. What's the most obvious interpretation. Based on the treatment of women at the time, I would guess it had something to do with Jesus saying that females should have equal access to God which they didn't at the time.
It reminds me of when Jesus said one must be born again and a listener (was it a disciple, I don't remember now) asked: How can a man get back into his mother's womb? Or do we only apply metaphorical interpretation to the canon and not to the gnostic texts?
Gerald
Resident Fiend
I have an excuse: my origins are entirely human.
You seem rather enamored with the idea of God being some sort of cosmic prankster.
What point is there in trusting an entity who might just say "Ha ha, joke's on you!" and toss you into the Lake O'Fireâ„¢ just because he happens to feeling cheeky that day?
I s'pose that's where Faithâ„¢ comes in: maintaining trust in the entity in spite of the above possibility, or just accepting that if the Big Guyâ„¢ wants to screw you over he going to whether you like it or not.
You'd be better off venerating Loki...
- Status