Christians are Revolting - Sean Lauren

Debate specific books

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20501
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

Christians are Revolting - Sean Lauren

Post #1

Post by otseng »

This thread will debate the book Christians are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress, by Sean Lauren.

We will go through the book one chapter at a time and discuss the contents of each chapter. I anticipate we'll spend several days on each chapter and then move on to the next one. Please avoid jumping ahead, but you're free to discuss previous chapters (for those that join late). We'll end the debate with each person giving a general overview of the book. The thread will then be closed.

If you'd like to participate, sign up here.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #41

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to post 37 by Divine Insight]

I never said Jesus preached a "different God" from that of the OT YHVH. That is your interpretation, and I'm not sure how you get that from anything I've said.

The God of Jesus IS Jehovah of the "Old" Testament. The Father. The Father of Jesus, and "OUR Father" as Jesus taught.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #42

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 37 by Divine Insight]

I never said Jesus preached a "different God" from that of the OT YHVH. That is your interpretation, and I'm not sure how you get that from anything I've said.

The God of Jesus IS Jehovah of the "Old" Testament. The Father. The Father of Jesus, and "OUR Father" as Jesus taught.
I have a hard time believing that you subscribe wholly to the OT depiction of God and yet condemn some of the NT. Surely you agree that the OT God that commanded sacrifice is not the true God of Jesus.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #43

Post by Elijah John »

ElCodeMonkey wrote:
Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 37 by Divine Insight]

I never said Jesus preached a "different God" from that of the OT YHVH. That is your interpretation, and I'm not sure how you get that from anything I've said.

The God of Jesus IS Jehovah of the "Old" Testament. The Father. The Father of Jesus, and "OUR Father" as Jesus taught.
I have a hard time believing that you subscribe wholly to the OT depiction of God and yet condemn some of the NT. Surely you agree that the OT God that commanded sacrifice is not the true God of Jesus.
You have several "anti-sacrifice" verses from the OT in your book. Like Hosea 6.6. And I would add Micah 6.6-6.8. THAT is, I believe, the true voice of Jehovah, the God of Jesus, not the one which supposedly commanded blood sacrifice. No, I do not entirely subscribe to the depiction of God either in the "Old" or in the New Testament. (Jeremiah 7.21-23)

In fact, Jesus quotes Hosea 6.6 in Matthew 12.7. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice".

Jesus quotes the OT on many other matters as well. Hardly someone divorced from the God of his Fathers.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20501
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Ch. 1 - An Infidel's Progress

Post #44

Post by otseng »

ElCodeMonkey wrote: My hope is that sheep will notice the goats, notice Jesus' warnings, and look for something unique which is what I provide. I simply need to make it more... nice... to draw them in initially. I was personally fueled by my noticing a problem within Christianity so a book like this, as a Christian, would have drawn me in.
If you really want to attract mainstream Christians to read the book, I'd suggest a few changes. First, the cover art is not going to attract Christians. Perhaps just drop the artwork altogether (esp the back cover of a zombie Jesus). The subtitle "An infidel's progess" probably should be dropped too. Why would any Christian care about reading an infidel's progress? Atheists would probably care more about that. I don't want to jump too far ahead, but the book has too much sarcasm in my opinion for a Christian audience. It undercuts the alleged motive of trying to improve Christianity.
That might require me, once again, to spout negativities, but what else can I do?
There's nothing wrong with an honest critique of Christanity. Christianity needs it. However, if it's receptive to it is another matter.

By the way, I can identify with many things you've written. And I can understand where you're coming from and even agree with things you say.
Elijah John wrote: Many of Sean's theological and practical objections to Christianity as we have it today, are shared by historical Jesus scholars as well. Even some clerics, like Bishop John Shelby Spong.
Actually, I agree with many of Sean's objections to Christianity.
I am wondering if what you see as "original intent" and what the author sees as the original intent of Christianty are one in the same. I have my doubts that you mean the same thing.
Probably my view and Sean's view of original intent are not the same. But neither of our views are similar with what mainstream Christianity is today.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20501
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

Ch. 2 - Fire insurance

Post #45

Post by otseng »

I find it interesting that there is a lot of overlap between our experiences.

"I also attended Vacation Bible School (VBS) a few times and I went through AWANA’s Sparks program."

I lead a class in our yearly VBS and I'm also an AWANA Ministry Director (used to be called AWANA Commander). So, I'm very familiar with the experiences you mentioned.

"Around the age of eight or nine, I encountered people speaking in tongues for the first time."

I was saved through a charismatic church while in college. So my early experiences with Christianity was in the environment similar to yours. Speaking in tongues, faith healings, prosperity gospel, name-it-claim-it, etc were all part of our culture. In the end, the ministry imploded and probably left a lot of people with many scars. But, for me, I look back on that as the period of greatest growth in my Christian walk.

"I heard no opposing views from which to realize that any even existed until much later in my life."

I believe all Christians should learn about opposing views. They should know about other religions, theory of evolution, etc. Christians should not "protect" themselves by not exposing themselves to contrary ideas. If Christianity is indeed true, then there should be nothing to fear in learning about other things.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #46

Post by Divine Insight »

Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 37 by Divine Insight]

I never said Jesus preached a "different God" from that of the OT YHVH. That is your interpretation, and I'm not sure how you get that from anything I've said.

The God of Jesus IS Jehovah of the "Old" Testament. The Father. The Father of Jesus, and "OUR Father" as Jesus taught.
In that case I see extreme inconsistencies in your position. I mention God cursing the serpent to crawl on his belly and eat dust for the rest of his days, which is what the OT has this God doing. You brush that off as being as silly as talking about "talking snakes" like as if it doesn't apply to the God of the Old Testament.

And the Old Testament does have this God commanding men to make blood sacrifices to atone their sins. You point out that the Bible also contains contradictory verses that rebuke this.

That's fine. But then which parts of the OT are true about God, and which parts are lies?

Also, why hasn't this omnipotent omniscient God corrected this situation? :-k

Surely this God himself could see that the Bible was going to be sold to the public by churches claiming to represent him as God's "Holy Word".

So why would an omnipotent omniscient God permit his message to humans to become so corrupt and filled with lies?

And according to you the Gospels are even far worse.

Why should anyone believe that our creator is so inept that he can't even keep his own Holy book in order?

Moreover, according to you, since you claim that both the OT and the NT are corrupt and filled with falsehoods and misguided claims, then I have done the correct thing in rejecting both the OT and the NT.

And according to your arguments God couldn't blame me at all, because according to you I'm right, the Bible is filled with contradictions and obvious lies. That's YOUR argument for both the OT and the NT.

On judgement day I could call you as my star witness that I can't be blamed for not believing either the OT, or the NT. According to you, neither one of them can be trusted to contain truth. At least, not without also containing contradictory lies as well.

How do you explain a God who demands that people follow his commandments but doesn't make it crystal clear what those commandments are? :-k

Apparently Sean doesn't have this problem since it appears that Sean rejects the idea that there is any God behind any of this. In fact, I see this as also being quite confusing when you and Sean seem to be claiming similar (yet extremely dissimilar) positions.

You need to explain how this supposedly trustworthy God allowed his Holy Books to become so corrupt.

Sean only needs to say that Jesus was a hippy teaching "Make love not war". :D
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #47

Post by Elijah John »

Divine Insight wrote:
In that case I see extreme inconsistencies in your position. I mention God cursing the serpent to crawl on his belly and eat dust for the rest of his days, which is what the OT has this God doing. You brush that off as being as silly as talking about "talking snakes" like as if it doesn't apply to the God of the Old Testament.
You seem to take the Bible at face value. I do not. I see it as a Divine-human partnership, and in places humans got it wrong. They brought their pre-scientific mindset into the mix. Including their superstitions, and in some cases their projected barbarism. God used imperfect people in order to write (one of His) book.
And the Old Testament does have this God commanding men to make blood sacrifices to atone their sins. You point out that the Bible also contains contradictory verses that rebuke this.

That's fine. But then which parts of the OT are true about God, and which parts are lies?
I latch onto the ethics, especially the Ten Commandments, and the Golden Rule, which Jesus described as the "Law and the Prophets". The essence of the Bible, the essential. The rest is, as Hillel put it, "commentary". I would add, "commentary and sometimes confusion".
Also, why hasn't this omnipotent omniscient God corrected this situation? :-k


He has given us Reason, and common sense to filter it. And successive prophets, including Mohammed. And also, today, historical Jesus scholars. ;)
Surely this God himself could see that the Bible was going to be sold to the public by churches claiming to represent him as God's "Holy Word".

So why would an omnipotent omniscient God permit his message to humans to become so corrupt and filled with lies?
Free will, and God-given common sense. I don't think He wants us to follow any book, blindly. I don't think even the Buddha wanted us to do that.
And according to you the Gospels are even far worse.
.

Not sure what exactly you mean by that, except the NT introduces the idea of the eternal torture of hell.
Why should anyone believe that our creator is so inept that he can't even keep his own Holy book in order?
Which Bible are you talking about? The RC Canon? The Orthodox? The Protestant?

You are drawing unfounded conclusions here. That the Bible is His Holy Book (And Doesn't He have others?) and that it's His job to keep it in order. Perhaps we have the task of sorting it out with our God-given common sense and Reason. Only Fundamentalists teach us to distrust the thinking faculty. The Episcopal Church by contast, for example, teaches that it's foundations are like a three-legged stool. Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. It's that last leg that Fudamentalists seem to view as "fallen" and not to be trusted.
Moreover, according to you, since you claim that both the OT and the NT are corrupt and filled with falsehoods and misguided claims, then I have done the correct thing in rejecting both the OT and the NT.
That certainly is an option. But that is your choice. Mine is to embrace my Judeo-Christian tradition, and mine it for the diamonds, while ignoring or casting off the dung. You choose other traditions, fine. I choose to remain in mine.
And according to your arguments God couldn't blame me at all, because according to you I'm right, the Bible is filled with contradictions and obvious lies. That's YOUR argument for both the OT and the NT.

On judgement day I could call you as my star witness that I can't be blamed for not believing either the OT, or the NT. According to you, neither one of them can be trusted to contain truth. At least, not without also containing contradictory lies as well.
Don't blame me for the condition of your wretched soul! ;) (jk). Seriously, I believe God's Wisdom and Mercy is more expansive than either of us know. I doubt He would need my input on this matter.
How do you explain a God who demands that people follow his commandments but doesn't make it crystal clear what those commandments are? :-k
I think the Ten are pretty clear. And written in stone by the finger of God Himself. The others not so much. Could this be a metaphorical way of underlining their importance? Even Reform Jews, who reject many of the 613, embrace the "big Ten".
Apparently Sean doesn't have this problem since it appears that Sean rejects the idea that there is any God behind any of this. In fact, I see this as also being quite confusing when you and Sean seem to be claiming similar (yet extremely dissimilar) positions.
On many things, (but not all) Sean and I see the Bible as saying similar things. I believe (a lot of) those things we both see in the text, and we agree on what we reject. (mostly). But he takes it a major step futhrer, in rejecting belief in God altogether, whereas I still embrace Him. I believe in God partly on the Good that is left in the Bible, but my belief also transcends the Bible, in a Deistic, Nature and Reason, kind of way.

We both see that post-council Trinitarianism is a far cry from what Jesus most probably preached, i.e. the mercy of the Father, and the Kingdom of God, and not his own supposed atoning blood "sacrifice". Where did Jesus go around preaching "I am God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity here in the flesh, and I am going to die to pay for your sins"? "Believe it". No Jesus preached "Blessed are the poor in Spirit", "Blessed are the merciful", etc. THAT is the Good News, the Gospel.
You need to explain how this supposedly trustworthy God allowed his Holy Books to become so corrupt.

Sean only needs to say that Jesus was a hippy teaching "Make love not war". :D
Yup, I have the greater burden, it seems. Hopefully I did explain it above. Though I am sure there are better explanations I have yet to discover. But I don't think Sean would characterize Jesus as only a hippy. Jesus was a Theist, I don't think Sean would deny that. One does not need to BE a Theist in order to see that Jesus was a Theist.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Re: Ch. 1 - An Infidel's Progress

Post #48

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

otseng wrote: If you really want to attract mainstream Christians to read the book, I'd suggest a few changes. First, the cover art is not going to attract Christians. Perhaps just drop the artwork altogether (esp the back cover of a zombie Jesus). The subtitle "An infidel's progess" probably should be dropped too. Why would any Christian care about reading an infidel's progress? Atheists would probably care more about that. I don't want to jump too far ahead, but the book has too much sarcasm in my opinion for a Christian audience. It undercuts the alleged motive of trying to improve Christianity.
I very much appreciate your input on how to make it more palatable for Christians. I do realize and agree that the title and cover art basically wreck the chances of Christians reading it. It suited my own feelings far better than enticing others to see my point of view. That said, I've been on a hunt for a new title for quite some time and nothing has really come to mind. I started working on a "Thirst for Truth" title and cover which I initially liked, but I'm not sure it's enticing enough. I made the cover a dry desert with stormy sky and raindrops to make the book look wet. I've also considered "Savorless Salt" but that also sounds negative and I want something more positive. The book can be summed as an autobiography of me determining that Christianity has fled the original teaches and that through great seeking I found what I now believe is the original Christianity. Not sure how to make that an enticing title. Any ideas? :-)

As for sarcasm, I really did not think I put much if any in it. Perhaps there's an expectation of sarcasm in which case things get read differently from intention? Or maybe we differ on what sarcasm is? Like, are you considering it sarcastic when I say "with a smirk" that I was saved in the past tense but somehow became unsaved?
otseng wrote: There's nothing wrong with an honest critique of Christanity. Christianity needs it.
Fair enough, I just need practice in tact, I guess.
otseng wrote:By the way, I can identify with many things you've written. And I can understand where you're coming from and even agree with things you say.
It's awesome finding common ground. As my book illustrates, I found VERY little common ground when I first started coming to these conclusions.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Ch. 1 - An Infidel's Progress

Post #49

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to post 47 by ElCodeMonkey]

So now that you've become an atheist, why does it matter to you whether people see and understand the original message of Jesus, which was a Theistic one, even if not a Trinitarian one?
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Re: Ch. 1 - An Infidel's Progress

Post #50

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

Elijah John wrote: [Replying to post 47 by ElCodeMonkey]

So now that you've become an atheist, why does it matter to you whether people see and understand the original message of Jesus, which was a Theistic one, even if not a Trinitarian one?
Because the version I now understand would not have harmed me or others whereas the version(s) that exist now do indeed harm me and others. The original Christianity is an amazing religion and, for the most part, I would agree with its moral fiber. I would not necessarily take it to the same extreme of selflessness nor believe in the afterlife, but it is otherwise a very good thing. Modern Christianity, on the other hand, can breed hate, foolishness, and wishful magical thinking which leads to great harm as my book illustrates.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

Post Reply