Christians are Revolting - Sean Lauren

[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.

[ElCodeMonkey]

This is the "Thirst for Truth" cover I came up with. Is it "enticing" or just plain cheesy? . I'd probably give the idea to a real artist so that it's slightly more professional and not potentially stolen graphics I found off the internet... Not sure I want to go with this though.

Well, on to Chapter 2?

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 46 by Elijah John]

In your recent reply to DI you said:

"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."

I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion or which churches teach that. I know that Southern Baptists, which make up the largest Protestant denomination in the US, teach that when Jesus referred to "the Law and the Prophets," he was referring to the Law as the first 5 books of the OT, and the Prophets as all the prophetic books, the last 17 in the OT. The books that remain are generally referred to as historical and books of wisdom.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 46 by Elijah John]

In your recent reply to DI you said:

"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."

I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion or which churches teach that. I know that Southern Baptists, which make up the largest Protestant denomination in the US, teach that when Jesus referred to "the Law and the Prophets," he was referring to the Law as the first 5 books of the OT, and the Prophets as all the prophetic books, the last 17 in the OT. The books that remain are generally referred to as historical and books of wisdom.

Jesus characterized the Golden Rule as the essence of the Law and the Prophets. The essence. Yes the whole Law is contained in the Torah, but he was summarizing.

And when asked "what must i do to inherit eternal life"? Jesus replied, "keep the commandments". He lists a few of them, from the Decalogue.

I doubt any Trinitarian Church has zeroed in on these things as the essence of the Gospel as I have done here. And as, I believe, Jesus did. I know I'm a "heretic" in that regard. I would also add the Beattitudes. They are written in the form of proclaimation. "Blessed are..." Benedictions. In other words, the announcement of the Good News, ie the Gospel.

Sorry Sean, I don't mean to derail.

Maybe author Sean agrees with me here, on these theological things even if not on our political differences.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 53 by Elijah John]

Yep, I absolutely agree. The political post seems like it'd be better on our Head to Head though . You mentioned not seeing how the trinitarian God perspective harms people so long as it's not being forced on others. It's not the trinitarian view that does it, it's the dogmatic worship of a book that does it and indoctrinating children into believing it's the very infallible word of God. It leads people like me to believe it and read it and attempt to fulfill every contradictory verse. It definitely leads to trouble as my story expounds. That's where the harm comes in. If Christianity "knew what spirit they were of" and "listened for God's voice" rather than thinking the Bible said it all and represented God, then the pain would not be present and the religion itself would be beautiful even if still wrong about a God.

[Divine Insight]

You seem to take the Bible at face value. I do not.

I'm in total agreement with the fundamentalist on this point. The Bible is either the infallible word of God, or it's not. And if it's fallible, then it's worthless IMHO. How could we tell which parts were from God, and which parts are lies made up by immoral humans?

There is no way we could tell without proclaiming ourselves to be "Moral authorities" who could determine what is and isn't moral. But if that were the case, then there would be no need for the Bible at all.

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.

I passionately reject this view as being clearly wrong.

Why?

Because the whole point of this entire religion is that our eternal fate resides on "getting it right". Therefore there can be no room for lies and falsehoods in the "Holy Book of God's Word".

This is why these religions originally held up their Holy Books (the Bible and the Qur'an") as being the unquestioned infallible "Word of God". We simply can't have a Holy Book that is filled with lies that claim that this God is instructing us to do immoral and barbaric things.

You seem to be ignoring the fact, that whether or not you "get it right" will determine your eternal fate.

How can you trust a God who has allowed his instructions to become corrupted and filled with lies attributed to HIM. For example, the Bible tells us to kill heathens who come into our town and preach of other Gods. What if we were to do this and this is not what God wants? How could God blame us for having done precisely has HIS Holy Book commanded us to do?

So the Bible simply can't be a guessing game where you need to guess which parts are directives, instructions, and commandments from God, and which parts aren't.

That would be a God who is literally gambling with our eternal fate. A God that we could never trust. Especially when nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that this is a guessing game.

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".

What you might personally "latch onto" is totally irrelevant. All that amounts to is you pushing your ideas of what you believe to be good ethics onto the God that you imagine to be behind the Bible.

This doesn't solve the problem of the Bible being untrustworthy.

What are we supposed to do? Listen to Elijah John?

Or perhaps we should push our own moral values onto the Bible just like Elijah John does?

This way we can all create a God in our own image of moral values and ethics.

In fact, if I was going to do this, why even bother with the Hebrew folklore of God? There are other religions that have moral values that are far more compatible with mine. If I'm going to chose a religion with the highest moral values I wouldn't be choosing Hebrew mythology. Too much immoral and barbaric junk needs to be tossed out of the Hebrew Bible. May as well start with something less barbaric and ignorant, don't you think?

I see the moral values taught by the Buddha to be far superior to the barbarism of the Bible. Far less junk to need to toss out.

Also, look at Wicca. It's a nice clean slate. "Do as you will but harm none."

There you go, now you are free to push your own moral ethics onto that. All that's required is that your ethics don't harm anyone. Pretty easy and straight forward.

Also, look at the SUPREME INTELLIGENCE here! The Goddess of Wicca said everything that needs to be said in a mere 7 words. You can hardly ask for a more supremely efficient "Bible".

I would argue that Wicca has the best argument of all religions in terms of having the most supremely intelligent Goddess. Seven words, and everything that needs to be said has been said. Who can do better than this? It must have come from a God.

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

He has given us Reason, and common sense to filter it. And successive prophets, including Mohammed. And also, today, historical Jesus scholars.

But those scholars can't even agree with each other when it comes down to the actual topic of moral behavior, as well as what this God supposedly expects from us.

You keep telling Christians not to worship Jesus. But what if that's what God wants them to do? According to the Gospels God himself spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be His Son, and said, "Hear Him". This automatically makes the teachings of Jesus the Teachings of God. Therefore to worship Jesus is no different from worshiping God. (assuming there is any truth to any of these Gospel rumors).

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.

You are totally correct about the Buddha. The Buddha most certainly did teach us to question EVERYTHING, including HIS teachings. But then again, the Buddha wasn't claiming to be God (other than in a the pantheistic sense of his culture's beliefs)

And why should you claim that the God of the Bible doesn't want us to follow any book blindly? Jesus himself is said to have confirmed that every jot and tittle of the law shall stand until heaven and earth pass. So Jesus was supporting the idea that we are indeed to follow the Old Testament law "blindly". Who are we to question "God's Word" that has been verified by Jesus right down to every jot and tittle?

Sean rejects this religion overall, and just tries to focus on what Jesus actually taught. So Sean doesn't need to justify why a God would have permitted things to become so corrupt. But your claim that YHVH is God, has many problems.

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.

But haven't you been rejecting that teaching of Paul and John for years now? Haven't you rejected the "divinity" of Christ? So it certainly appears that you feel the NT is far worse than the OT in terms of containing errors and lies.

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?

Take your choice. They are all telling the same overall story. The idea that there are "Different Bibles" is nonsense. Sure, they may have translated a few subtle things differently and have drawn different interpretations and conclusions about various things. But I'm not aware of any Christian Bibles grave opposition to each other concerning the overall stories.

It just a non-argument to try to pretend that you could argue that there are different Bibles in an effort to try to salvage a "God who keeps a perfect infallible Holy Canon".

Moreover, if you actually believe such a version exists then why not just point to it specifically and we can take a look at it.

In the meantime this thread is about what Sean's non-supernatural Hippy Jesus supposedly taught.

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.

Get it wrong and you suffer eternal damnation or simply even just death?

Get it right and you WIN eternal life in paradise?

Sounds like a game suited for Las Vegas.

What if people's common sense and reason causes them to conclude that Hebrew mythology is clearly nothing more than very poorly written superstition?

Then what? Are the still eligible to win eternal life in paradise?

According to John 3:18, no they are not.

Like I said, the Goddess of Wicca tells everyone, "Do as you will but harm none". What if a person saw this as being common sense and reasonable? Do they then win eternal life in paradise for having lived a life of doing whatever they want whilst being sure not to harm anyone else in the process?

If I were going to rely on common sense and what appears to be reasonable, I wouldn't even bother with Hebrew Mythology at all. Especially not if I was reading the entire Canon starting with Genesis and working through the entire Old Testament. I would have tossed that religion out as being totally unreasonable long before even needing to consider the New Testament.

Fortunately Sean doesn't need to deal with any of this. Sean can just focus entirely on Jesus. Sean has already rejected the "God" aspect of this, so he has no need to even touch on the Old Testament at all.

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.

That's fine, but that's no argument for the tradition you've chosen.

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.

Exactly. And this is basically how silly this whole thing is. If there is a God who values decency, honesty, truth, and reason, then there's no way that such a God could possibly condemn me.

So the whole "judgement day" thing is kind of silly anyway. In fact, why would a God need to judge anyone? Look at how the Eastern Mystical religion see Karma as being the auto-pilot of fate. That seems like a more intelligent system don't you think?

Why would a God want to be bothered with having to judge every single individual human when a system like karma would do it all automatically?

Again, another religion that trumps Hebrew Mythology in terms of supreme wisdom and efficiency.

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

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".

Keep in mind that Jesus supported every jot and tittle of the teachings of the prophets, NOT just the ten commandments carved in stone by the finger of God.

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.

That's fine. Again, this is nothing more than an explanation of your personal beliefs. It's not a defense of Hebrew Mythology as it is written in the Hebrew Holy Canon.

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.

I'm interested to see how Sean addresses these supernatural claims made by Jesus.

I haven't had time to read further in his book. I figure I'll take it a chapter at a time through this debate thread.

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".

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.

There's no question that Jesus was a theist. But being a Hippy Theist doesn't really add anything if he was still just a mortal man with opinions on theology.

I have opinions on theology too.

I can even offer support for Buddhism and Wicca, at least in terms of them appearing to potentially have "Divine Insight" to offer.

I cannot do the same for Hebrew, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim theologies. As you point out, if there is any divine wisdom in there you need to dig it out from among the dung.

I just don't see the need to do that when things like Buddhism and Wicca have wisdom right out in the open without the dung.

Why bother digging around in dung-filled theologies when pristine theologies already exist?

Note: I'm using the term "dung" here to abstractly refer to the corrupt human lies that Elijah John suggests are contained with in the Biblical Canon. I agree that they are there. The question then becomes, "Why?" Why are such falsehoods attributed to the God of the Bible if this God doesn't approve of them?

[otseng]

Well, on to Chapter 2?

Yes. I should've been more obvious about it, but I already started it in post 44.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 55 by Divine Insight]

I've explained my approach to you, over and over and over again. If it's still a mystery to you, then maybe I am wasting my time, both our time... Maybe Sean will have better luck.

And by the way, I never said you should listen to "Elijah John" to interpret the Bible for you. No, use your own God-given common sense. More relable than listening to one's Pastor (as Sean will demonstrate in his book).

It's not all or nothing DI, that's lazy, categorical thinking. Sorting it out is work. You buy into the Fundamentalist, literalist approach to the Bible than reject it. Fair enough.

But again, they do not speak for most Christians, and as several of us here have attempted to explain to you, (including someone smarter than me, cnorman18) literalism is not the only way.

And neither Sean or I have invented the selective approach. Historical Jesus scholars before us used academic methods to sort it all out. Criteria of embarassment, multiple attestation, cultural context, etc, etc.

And Jefferson used a more intuitive approach for sorting the "diamond from the dung".

Doesn't this sound like Deja Vu to you? It should. We've been here before.

I don't believe I ever got an answer from you for this question. Have you ever read any books by historical Jesus scholars, such as Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong, John Dominic Crossan, or the Jesus Seminar? I ask because slective approaches to the Bible seem totally foriegn to you. And you attack as though we offer something wrong and unheard of. Not so. Our approaches are viable, and some of us see something worth saving in the Judeo-Christian traditon.

And speaking of more "Pristine approaches"..including Wicca, and Buddhism, have you read "Aradia, the Gospel of the Witches"?
And you say Hebrew mythology is full of atrocity and nonsense. Get a load of that one, from your own tradition of Wicca.

And if you want to talk about laughable gods, how about Cronos, who eats his own children? Do you buy into the Greco-Roman pantheon? Some silly stuff there. Do you take that literally too? How bout Nordic pantheons? Or Celtic?

And isn't human sacrifice a part of your own tradition? Corpses of sacrifcial vicims buried in Druid peat bogs come to mind.

Oh, what a rich, pristine heritage.

Or if you are really ecclectic as neo-pagans so often boast, do you also embrace Aztec blood lust as part of your "pristine traditon"?

Seems to me you just pick and choose what you want to about Wicca and paganism, and it's so called "pristine" heritage and conveniently ignore the rest. Sanitization, and revisionism. Why should we listen to "Divine Insight" for our interpretation of other traditions which you claim are so superior?

Glass houses.

[ElCodeMonkey]

I find it very strange how people wish for an all or nothing perspective of the Bible. I just listened to 12 Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson, and I don't feel the need to take all or nothing. Some was good and right on the money. Some was bad and lazy research or logic. And I don't know for a fact which parts are right or wrong and which parts I correctly or incorrectly attribute.

The reason people WANT to take all or nothing is because they're stuck in a religious mindset. You have to believe all the right things and do all the right sacrements and know all the right stuff. But even with the Bible being taken as "all" people still disagree. So even when it's "all" the problem is no easier than when it's not all. The problem doesn't dissipate by taking it all and no new problems arise than exists for any other book we read when we do not take it for all. The reason it's not a big deal, the very reason Jesus wrote no books to begin with, the very reason Jesus said to listen to God himself and not call any other man teacher, is because it is merely about doing the right thing. It's not something that can be written and be all encompassing. Love is not a blind adherence to rules. And if we listen and learn to have a spirit of love, we don't really need to separate every last sentence in the Bible into good or bad categories. There is perhaps other stuff about what future awaits us that we might be able to glean from the Bible, but that will remain faith or else be less important than what the entirety sums up to be: love your neighbor.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 58 by ElCodeMonkey]

Essence, and transcendence. Love, you said it. Love is the essence, is taught in the Bible but also transcends the Bible, doctrines, dogmas and Creeds.

[Divine Insight]

It's not all or nothing DI, that's lazy, categorical thinking. Sorting it out is work.

But you seem to be ignoring the condemnation factor of this religion.

This is a God who threatens to condemn humans to death if they get it wrong. Keep in mind, "The wages of sin is death" in this religion. This is a core principle.

We shouldn't need to "work out" what this God might or might not think is a "sin".

In fact, if we're doing that then we are pushing our own ideas of morality and virtue onto the Bible rather than obeying the commandments of some God.

So you're actuation that not wanting to "work it out" being lazy isn't even applicable.

I'm totally happy with the moral values that I have embraced. So I've already "worked" all that out. But that would have nothing to do with having to worry whether or not I GUESSED the right morality to appease a God who is threatening to kill me if I don't get it the way he thinks it should be. [/quote]

I've explained my approach to you, over and over and over again. If it's still a mystery to you, then maybe I am wasting my time, both our time... Maybe Sean will have better luck.

What do you mean that maybe Sean will have better luck?

You and Sean are living in two entirely different universes. You're not even remotely close to being on the same page. You totally support the God of the Old Testament. Sean is an atheist. You guys don't have anything in common at all from a theological perspective.

Sure, you guys might be in agreement on what you would like to believe Jesus taught. But so what? I'm on that page as well. So in that respect I'm on the same page as Sean already.

I don't even disagree with your objections to the New Testament. What I disagree with on your position is the idea that the God of the Old Testament could make any sense by tossing out major sections of the Old Testament in a feeble effort to pretend that there could be a God behind it that is completely different from what it actually describes.

As far as I can see you're basically clinging to a theology that you actually have vast disagreements with. Why you don't just let go of it and move on to something that isn't so self-conflicted is basically all I've been asking. And thus far you haven't answered that other than to say that this was a tradition you were brought up in and for this reason alone you're going to cling to it. I can certainly understand that kind of thinking in terms of human social interactions. But in terms of theology I don't see where it holds any merit. Any argument for a theology being true simply because it's the one the culture you were born into believes in, is not a sound argument.