Leaving the forum - Thanks for the ride

[fewwillfindit]

I have decided to permanently leave this forum, and I am posting this here so that anyone with whom I am presently debating will know why I am no longer replying. I can no longer deal with all of the negativity and the haters of God, His kids and His Word. It is seriously dragging me into the gutter and it is killing my spirit. It is the prolific God-haters like I AM ALL I AM, notachance, Zzyzx, etc., whom I just don't want forced into my life anymore, and their presence is inescapable on this forum. They and others like them are not interested in anything but spewing their venomous bile against Christianity. They have not taken the time to study and learn that which they argue against, and repeatedly demonstrate this ignorance of the Bible, Christian theology and history in their "debates." When confronted, rather than attempting to learn, they presume to rail even harder in their ignorance and refuse to even try to understand. Such "debaters" take center stage on this forum and are by far the most prolific and vociferous posters.

With nearly every new thread, there is a daily barrage of hatred leveled against Christianity, calling the holiness or our God and His precious Word into question. I think that this forum would be more adequately named "Hating Christianity and Religion" rather than Debating Christianity and Religion. Thank you Otseng for your valiant attempt to promote Christian Apologetics. Truly, I thank you. I know you meant well when you created it, but in my estimation it has become overrun with hatred, and it is doing far more harm to Christianity than good.

I do, however, appreciate thoughtful non-Theist debaters like McCulloch and many more, so this is not a diatribe against the entire group.

I do wish that I could stick around long enough to see Zzyzx actually debate instead of merely finding a myriad of creative ways to say "prove it," but I fear I would be waiting a long time for that. A five-year old could be successful using those "debate" tactics. Sorry, but I'm not impressed.

Anyhow, good-bye. To my Christian brothers and sisters, keep up the good work.

I will not be answering any more replies.

God bless you.

[Jester]

I've had a few thoughts as of late, and this is a good chance to voice them, I think.

First,

I would disagree that this is an anti-Christian forum at heart. It is a forum to both argue for and against Christianity. Having people here that argue against Christianity is to be expected. As well as having people here to argue for it. So, it is neither pro nor anti-Christianity.

I completely agree. There is no way to be "in the world" without exposing ourselves to ideas that run counter to Biblical truth.

For me, and I think for many, the frustration has been dealing with the tendency for some non-theists to challenge without making a case for an alternative worldview. It leaves the theist constantly on the defensive and, in my view, is not a balanced approach to seeking the truth.
I've tried debating this, but have become convinced that it is fruitless. Rather, I believe that we should politely refuse to debate anyone who challenges without offering a counterclaim. I feel that this would both relieve a great deal of this frustration and increase the quality of the debates that do take place.

[WinePusher]

Part 2.

Your posts contain a myriad of positions that are open to debate. For example, take your position on Christianity being Heterodox. That is not an established fact, it's one point of view that atheists constantly regurgitate, but you proceed in this thread as if it were an established fact.

I think heterodoxy IS quite well established, by historical standards. The presumption of unity at any point in the history of Christianity, at any point beyond the first dozen Christians (if even then), seems counter to the historical trends that can be seen in general.

That depends on how much you're going to overstate it. There is unity among Christianity throughout history on the major doctrinal beliefs, there disagreement among Christianity throughout history on minor doctrinal beliefs. You tend to overstate what these disagreement are and cite them as evidence of Christianity being heterodox. Yes, it does demonstrate that minor elements of Christianity are heterodox, but not nearly to the extent which you're suggesting.

Diversity and division can be seen explicitly or implicitly from at least the time of Paul:

1) Clearly there were both Jewish and Gentile Christians in Paul’s time. Paul himself was behind a lot of this. Paul preached that it was unnecessary for Gentile Christians to follow Torah, while others insisted it was necessary. There is documentary evidence that this split persisted into the 2nd century at least.

This is an overstatement. First of all, all early Christians came from different backgrounds. One could say the religion was 'ethnically' diverse but that does not imply that it was doctrinally heterodox. Second of all, Paul said it was unnecessary for Gentiles to undergo circumcision in order to become Christian. That doesn't amount to the entire Torah.

3) Anti “heresy� writings by such people as Irenaeus in the last half of the 2nd century demonstrates that there were distinct groups of Christians with differing ideas. Although considered “heretical� to Irenaeus and those of like mind, from an objective, non-judgemental, non-theological, historical viewpoint, these are simply differing sects, and these sects did not appear suddenly when Irenaeus wrote of them – they had long histories. It is of significance that most of the information we have about these sects is from polemics such as Irenaeus. The direct viewpoints of these other forms of Christianity were lost (the winners always write the histories).

4) The active doctrinal disputes (such as Arianism) that were present in the early fourth century led to Constantine calling the first Nicene council.

Well yes. I wasn't clear, I wasn't speaking this far ahead. I was talking about the immediate demographic of Christianity in the first century and early second century. I was also speaking to the demographics within Orthodox Christianity. Gnosticism along with Arianism cannot be considered part of early Christianity, by definition they were not Christian sects.

5) The Great Schism (East/West), the Protestant Reformation, the LDS, Restorationist movements, fundamentalism – all are driven by the same engines that drove the earliest diversity.

The Great Schism was the result of disagreements over Easter and Communion and the Protestant Reformation was the result of disagreements over the achievement of salvation. All minor doctrinal differences, not major doctrinal differences. That's key to this issue.

Oh I think I can deal with it. This is something we could debate in isolation: what is the best explanation (best hypothesis) for authorship of the various Gospels.

Fine, we can keep it in this thread. So you acknowledge that your explanation for authorship generates more historical problems than it attempts to solve?

No, not if you look at the data objectively. However, if you look at the data from a simplistic, traditional Christian perspective then on the surface – it may appear that way. A traditional view packages up nicely – it is relatively consistent, and can satisfy any Christian who chooses to look no further. Stick with your belief that the disciple Matthew wrote the eponymous Gospel, and your faith is affirmed. The problems begin arising when you drop the fideistic assumptions and try to examine the data objectively. An objective view should be one that any open-minded person could agree with, regardless of his religious persuasion (Muslim, Jew, Zoroastrian, atheist…).

Well what exactly is the data that supports your/Brown's theory? Reading his quote he offers none to support the contention that the Gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses. I also don't recall reading any found in your own post. It is ironic that you call my explanation a fideistic assumption when it is actually your/Brown's explanation that is actually the fideistic assumption. The explanation lacks any data and evidentiary support, and I'm now beginning to reconsider how objective Brown actually is after reading his quote.

Let me quote from Raymond Brown (this is the long quotation I referred to earlier):

The Three Stages of Gospel Formation
1. The public ministry or activity of Jesus of Nazareth (the first third of the 1st century AD). He did things of note, orally proclaimed his message, and interacted with others (e.g. JBap and Jewish religious figures). Jesus chose companions who traveled with him and saw and heard what he said and did. Their memories of his words and deeds supplied the raw “Jesus material.� These memories were already selective since they concentrated on what pertained to Jesus’ proclamation of God, not the many trivia of ordinary existence…On a practical level it is important for modern readers to keep reminding themselves that these were memories of what was said and done by a Jew who lived in Galilee and Jerusalem in the 20s…
2. The (Apostolic ) Preaching about Jesus (the second third of the 1st century AD). Those who had seen and heard Jesus had their following of him confirmed through postresurrectional appearances (1 Cor 15:5-7); and they came to full faith in the risen Jesus as the one through whom God had manifested ultimate salvific love to Israel and eventually to the whole world…
3. The Written Gospels (the last third of the 1st century, approximately). Although in the middle of the previous period as the Jesus material was being preached some early written collections (now lost) would have appeared, and although preaching based on oral preservation and development of Jesus material continued well into the 2d century, the era 65-100 was probably when all four canonical gospels were written. As for the evangelists or Gospel writers/authors, according to traditions stemming from the 2d century and reflected in titles prefaced to the Gospels ca. 200 or even earlier, two Gospels were attributed to Gospels (Matthew and John) and two to apostolic men (i.e. companions of the apostles: Mark [of Peter] and Luke [of Paul]). Yet most modern scholars do not think that the evangelists were eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus. …
The recognition that the evangelists were not eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry is important for understanding the differences among the Gospels….

Corollaries of this approach to Gospel formation…

o The Gospels are not literal records of the ministry of Jesus. Decades of developing and adapting the Jesus tradition had intervened. How much development? That has to be determined by painstaking scholarship which most often produces judgements ranging from possibility to probability, but rarely certainty. …


o A thesis that does not present the Gospels as literal history is sometimes interpreted to mean that they are not true accounts of Jesus Truth, however, must be evaluated in terms of the intended purpose. The Gospels must be judged untrue if the goal was strict reporting or exact biography; but if the goal was to bring readers/hearers to a faith in Jesus that opens them to God’s rule or kingdom, then adaptations that make the Gospels less than literal (adding the dimension of faith, adjusting to new audiences) were made precisely to facilitate that goal and thus to make the Gospels true.

o To some such an approach to Gospel truth is unsatisfactory since, if there have been developments and adaptations, how do we know that the Gospesls offer a message faithful to that of Jesus? Scholars cannot be certain guides since they disagree widely on the amount of alteration, ranging from major to minor. This is a theological issue, and so a theological answer is appropriate. Those who believe in inspiration will maintain that the Holy Spirit guided the process, guranteeing that the end-product Gospels reflect the truth that GOd sent Jesus to proclaim.
[fredonly emphasis].

-- An Introduction to the New Testament, P 107-111

For the most part, I believe Brown is quite objective, following the evidence where it leads. He does certainly have some roadblocks that keep him from jumping over the edge, a la Dominic Crossan, but by and large – he follows the data. And that is exactly my point with the Gospel authorship. The objective starting point cannot be a pre-conceived notion of who the author is. Hypothetically, it would be absurd for you to declare “we must assume the disciple Matthew wrote the eponymous Gospel� as a starting and ending point unless it could be proven otherwise. Instead, the logical starting point would be to examine the text for clues, determine what we can from the Bible itself as well as from extra-biblical sources.

You see, this is exactly the problem. Brown was being objective right up until the point where he drops several clearly biased, verbal catastrophes:

'The recognition that the evangelists were not eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry is important for understanding the differences among the Gospels.'

Important to understand what differences? He needs to articulate the differences if he hopes to make any sense.

'A thesis that does not present the Gospels as literal history is sometimes interpreted to mean that they are not true accounts of Jesus Truth, however, must be evaluated in terms of the intended purpose. The Gospels must be judged untrue if the goal was strict reporting or exact biography; but if the goal was to bring readers/hearers to a faith in Jesus that opens them to God’s rule or kingdom, then adaptations that make the Gospels less than literal (adding the dimension of faith, adjusting to new audiences) were made precisely to facilitate that goal and thus to make the Gospels true.'

This lacks evidence. It's pure, unadulterated sophistry. What he's saying is that unless the Gospels are read in his preferred method, they are true; but if they are read in his unpreferred method they are not true.

'The Gospels are not literal records of the ministry of Jesus.'

Pure nonsense. What are they then? Symbolic, fictional, allegorical records of Jesus' ministry? They're either one or the other, and as I said before a prima facie reading of the Gospels shows they are meant to be read as literal records.

And as I said earlier, the chain of information is no different from any other chain of information. Information is spread through a society through the media, and the media manifests itself in many different forms. In the Ancient World, the media would have taken the form of rumor, gossip and oral transmission. And because this was the sole mode by which information could move, it would not have been as messy and unreliable as you would like to assume. The information would also be verified internally, among the population. Fact checking could be accomplished simply by going to the provenance of the information.

You have not accounted for the earliest stage of the information about the alleged virginal conception and birth of Jesus. You have described a reasonable means by which this meme would have been spread once it entered the rumor mill (or the tradent circuit), but not how the alleged fact passed from the only possible original source (Mary) into the population.

Mary is a possible source but an unlikely source. Since you've been offering plausible scenarios allow me to offer my own. Jesus would have told his disciples directly that he was born of a virgin in his discourses. It is a common pattern throughout the Gospels to see Jesus talking about himself personally, for example there are many instances where he predicts his own death. The two evangelists that wrote an infancy narrative, Matthew and Luke, would have heard of this; Matthew directly, Luke indirectly and went onto write it down as an actual event.

The most likely means by which the meme originated, as I’ve said, is that some tradent “deduced� this from the “almah� passage. If this hypothesis is true, this implies it was probably a creation of the Greek speaking Christians – since it was the Greek version of the Old Testament that contained the mistranslation. But you are insisting it’s historical, and therefore had to have come through the Aramaic speaking disciples. How did they receive this information? If you come up with something, consider why should this be considered a trustworthy bit of information, since the disciples (even if they were the actual authors of the Gospels) weren’t present. Unless you utilize supernatural assumptions, assume certain key Christian doctrines are true, there is no argument to support the credibility of the chain of information. It seems to me to be one more example of circular logic: you must assume Christian doctrine is true in order to prove it is true.

You're frequently retreating into this line of argumentation where you suggest that my arguments are the result of dogmatic faith and rest upon an array of unproven assumptions. The same could be said about you. That you make a proactive attempt to come up with arguments and explanation just to avoid an explanation that would indicate theological and philosophical truth in Christianity. What you and even Brown have done is avoid the obvious explanation at all costs and create these historically implausible, convoluted scenarios that simply do not make sense of the facts.

[EduChris]

...I would disagree that this is an anti-Christian forum at heart...it is neither pro nor anti-Christianity.

Actually, the double standards of the moderators do make this an anti-Christian forum. I think the mods have been showing signs of "battle fatigue" and are no longer capable of any adequate degree of objectivity. Maybe they should all go on a bit of a vacation and sign up some temp mods to handle things in the meanwhile?

[otseng]

Please show where this "double standard" is exhibited and we can discuss.

[EduChris]

Please show where this "double standard" is exhibited and we can discuss.

To demonstrate, I would have to bookmark nearly the entire forum, and the fact that you should even have to ask this question shows that there is no hope for the double standards to be corrected. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to make do with the status quo, where intelligent and serious debaters such as (insert long list here, including theopoesis, fewwillfindit, hobbes, and numerous others) simply give up, while rabble-rousers (do I really need to name names?) keep spouting nonsense and vitriol on nearly every thread.

[EduChris]

Please show where this "double standard" is exhibited and we can discuss.

Maybe I will name a few names. The fact that Slopeshoulder is on probation while Goat, JoeyKnothead, JohnPaul, TireOfTheNonsense are not--that speaks for itself. Slopeshoulder is arrogant and condescending at times, but always in response to severe provocation and always in the context of otherwise valuable contributions. The others (non-theists all) simply spew their venom and flame-bait at any and all Christians generally, often without any obvious provocation.

[otseng]

Maybe I will name a few names. The fact that Slopeshoulder is on probation while Goat, JoeyKnothead, JohnPaul, TireOfTheNonsense are not--that speaks for itself. Slopeshoulder is arrogant and condescending at times, but always in response to severe provocation and always in the context of otherwise valuable contributions.

There is no question that Slopeshoulder has valuable contributions. But, unfortunately, his eloquent posts are interspersed with personal attacks. It is on this basis that gets him into trouble. Actually, I do not like to see him get disciplined. But, as an experienced member of this forum, he should know better.

Though Goat can be provocative, his attacks are generally against the position, rather than the person.

Joey has received a final formal warning. Further missteps will land him on probation.

Tired of the Nonsense has rarely personally attacked someone.

As for JohnPaul, he's on the moderators' radar. But, let me say that if someone is violating the rules, if people start attacking back, or commenting back, or responding in any inappropriate way, it makes it difficult to take action against that person.

If there is a double standard, I am generally less tolerant of personal attacks committed by people who have been here a long time. If a newbie comes along, I'm generally more lenient at the beginning.

[EduChris]

...I am generally less tolerant of personal attacks committed by people who have been here a long time...

But the folks who have been here the longest are precisely the ones who have been subjected to the most vitriol.

...If a newbie comes along, I'm generally more lenient at the beginning.

Nothing wrong with an initial grace-period; but still there is an obvious double-standard, and those on the short end of the standard will, over time, find it more difficult to combat the downward gravitational pull of all the nonsense that is tolerated around here.

[otseng]

...I am generally less tolerant of personal attacks committed by people who have been here a long time...

But the folks who have been here the longest are precisely the ones who have been subjected to the most vitriol.

Vitriol? What are you comparing this place to? Mr Roger's Neighborhood? If you can find a better forum than this one on the internet, I'd like to know about it and then emulate it.

The ones who are here the longest should fully understand the rules and know how the rules are enforced. If anyone thinks that somehow they can be exempt from the rules because of tenure is mistaken.

Nothing wrong with an initial grace-period; but still there is an obvious double-standard, and those on the short end of the standard will, over time, find it more difficult to combat the downward gravitational pull of all the nonsense that is tolerated around here.

There is actually no rule against nonsense. Though I'd like to get rid of all people who I personally consider to lack sense, the rules do not permit me to do that.

[arian]

...I am generally less tolerant of personal attacks committed by people who have been here a long time...

But the folks who have been here the longest are precisely the ones who have been subjected to the most vitriol.

...If a newbie comes along, I'm generally more lenient at the beginning.

Nothing wrong with an initial grace-period; but still there is an obvious double-standard, and those on the short end of the standard will, over time, find it more difficult to combat the downward gravitational pull of all the nonsense that is tolerated around here.

Hey Educhrist, does that mean you're staying? I pray you do, I very much enjoy your posts. God bless you my friend, .. let's continue to debate.

Odon.