A response to the video "Why does every intelligent Christian disobey Jesus"?

[jetson]

What about when he said "Sell your possessions and give to the poor." (Luke 12:33)

Telling people to sell their possessions and give to the poor sounds like excellent advice to me.  Christians all over the world follow this advice all the time.

So after running it through the magic decoder ring, Luke 12:33 says "Sell some of your possessions, you know, the crap you were not really using anyway, spend most of it on more frivolous crap, but if it's not too inconvenient, give to the capital campaign to build a new wing on our mega-chuch with a coffee shop and recreation center, support ultra-conservative politicians in their defense of big corporations, and if there is any left over, put it in this box and we'll pretend to use it to build an orphanage in Guatemala."

Too big for a sig, but seriously a classic!

[Eddy Swirl]

Oddly enough, I seem to recall that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said: "People will hate you and tell all kinds of horrible lies about you because you have chosen to follow Me.

How convenient. It reminds me of "If you don't eat your brussel sprouts, the monster under the bed will bight your toes off!" It's just a way to keep the followers in line, and to "program" the followers to ignore the horrible (rational) lies (truth) that people might want to share with them.

The monster under the bed is real by the way.

[screwtape]

Bold mine.  If you go on to read the rest of it, it uses the word "love" almost exclusively and interchangeably with the real love. It is very misleading.  It also sounds preposterous to me.  Sounds typical of woo-ists who redefine well established words to suit their needs.  Agape is not anything like love.

So wait a minute, giving precise and clear definitions makes this webpage "misleading"? 

I am either doing a terrible job expressing my meaning or you are typing before thinking about what I wrote. 

It was not precise or clear. The first thing it said was agape is not love like we know love.  It is not romantic love, it is not brotherly love, it is not familial love, it is not the kind of love you have for your cat or for your car.  It is not good will or charitable feelings.  It says, "Agape love is unique and is distinguished by its nature and character."  Which tells me nothing other than it is not love in any way I can relate to.

In fact, it explicitly says it is not love that naturally occurs in any human being.

But this type of love does not come naturally to humans.

So agape does not equal love.  Agape is something else, some other emotion that we do not actually have a word for, except "agape". Yet it goes on to use the two words interchangeably throughout the article.  It is like saying I have this fruit that I will call an "orange" but there is nothing orange-like about it.  It is not orange in color, it contains no citric acid, and it is not technically a fruit (but it is a food, I think).  And it is shaped like a tetrahedron.  But I'll still refer to it as an orange anyway. 

My point was not aimed at you so much as it was the sneaky way "love" was substituted in where "agape" should have been used.  It was a rhetorical sleight of hand and I dislike it.

I actually think that the page you linked to is very clear and lucid.  As for whether agape is love, the naswer is yes.  Just look up "love" in a good English dictionary and you'll see several definitions, one of which is pretty close to the definition that you're unhappy with.  What's your complaint?

The complaint is the essay - which you agree with - went through great pains to explain how agape is not love and yet the article - and you - then use the two terms interchangeably.

So how again is love defined as "self sacrifice" consistent with killing the other man?  It sounds to me that if jesus H felt agape the way you think it works, he would have nailed a couple other Jews and a Roman or two to the cross instead of sacrificing himself.  Your agape sounds more like Rambo-agape.

The life of a soldier reuiqres great self-sacrifice.

Now you're not even trying. 

If you agape[1] a person, friend or foe, my interpretation of the sacrificial nature of it would be sacrifice for that person.  That is what self sacrifice is, right?  If jesus H agaped mankind, then his sacrifice was for the benefit of mankind.  Similarly, while military service can be self-sacrificial, I would say that sacrifice is generally only for the benefit of the soldier's own side. How is it your sacrifice if you are killing the other guy?

1.	using "agape" as a verb in the same way you would use "love" as a verb.

[Agamemnon]

Those youtube videos have gotten...how many millions of viewings? They must be pretty damn effective to be that popular.

Of course, now that I've pointed this out, I expect that you'll soon be backtracking on your claim that something which is popular must also be effective.

Nah, Bible has gotten a huge head start and billions of dollars behind it. It HAS been effective, unfortunately. My point is that the logic must not be nearly as flawed as you are claiming, or it would most likely be ignored along with thousands of other anti-Christian videos.

You are claiming that the logic in the videos is totally ridiculous, but the video stats indicate otherwise.

[pingnak]

I'd like to take a moment ant point out that the earlier image of 'Touchdown Jesus' was struck by lightning and burned down to its frame, much to the delight of most of its neighbors, who thought it was tacky.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGTBFPte-MY[/youtube]

It was composed of plaster coated styrofoam on a steel frame.  Ironically it belonged to the 'Solid Rock Church', but I guess a less flammable solid-rock Jesus would have been too expensive, as apparently was properly grounding it.

[Eddy Swirl]

^^^ haha irony x3

[Anfauglir]

The question you've "...gouge your eye out and throw it away..."  Have your eyes never caused sin in your heart?  Why do you still have both your eyes?  (An assumption there on my part, I confess).

I already answered this question in the first post of this thread, but since you apparently missed it, I'll just quote it again.  "So similarly, when Jesus said: 'If your hand causes you to sin, cut if off', he was not advising us to get a saw and cut off our hands, but rather to remove any portion of our personal attitudes or behavior that was leading us into sin."  Same for eyes.

Really?  So "it is profitable for the that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" (repeated twice) is also methaphor (my bold)?

Sorry, but there is nothing methaphorical about those lines, much as you may want them to be.  But perhaps you could explain exactly why you believe your interpretation is correct?

[Agamemnon]

AlexBP,

If the videos are so easily dismissed, why do you even bother coming here to attack them? What's the point, if the logic is so obviously flawed, as you would have us believe? If you are so confident in your reasoning then I don't see why you wouldn't just ignore them. There must have been something compelling enough about them to inspire you to come here and talk down to us.

All these proofs have to do is show that Christianity does not hold up under any kind of scrutiny. That it doesn't match the reality we inhabit. It doesn't take much effort to see that. Even if you don't subscribe to a literal interpretation of the bible, by being a Christian means you still have to accept things that are plainly absurd and obviously incongruent with reality.

[Epiphany84]

This subject played a big part in my letting go of the fairytale.  I ahd lengthy conversations with christians (while a christian) about all of things things they did that went against God's teaching.  It's so funny how many interpretations i began to hear of what the bible said about various topics.

[screwtape]

This subject played a big part in my letting go of the fairytale.  I ahd lengthy conversations with christians (while a christian) about all of things things they did that went against God's teaching.  It's so funny how many interpretations i began to hear of what the bible said about various topics.

Welcome, Epiphany.  Very good observation.  Once upon a time we had a member here who was a former theologian.  His screen name was DTE.  He was a devastating opponent for xians to deal with because of the depth and breadth of his religious knowledge.  When he first came he introduced a concept he called Self Projection As God - or SPAG for short. He introduced it in this post, but it was already a well developed idea in his head.  Notice, an hour and ten minutes later he makes this challenge and shows 3 xians at the same time just where their SPAG is. Do check out his posts in the old forum if you get a chance.

[hickdive]

The question you've shied away from is exactly HOW you differentiate between metaphor and literal truth, when the subject discussed is so far away from anyone's experience.

I have not shied away from that question at all, but have answered it clearly in posts 26 and 30.

I'm sorry, either you've subsequently edited your answer out of posts #26 and #30 or there's something preventing my PC from seeing what you posted because, as far as I can tell, neither of those posts actually answer the question.

So, to repeat it and give you the opportunity to repost the answer you gave;

How, precisely, does anyone determine which elements of the bible are literally true and which are metaphorical?

[Agamemnon]

I'm reading the challenge now, screwtape, thanks for that. VERY interesting... AlexBP ought to read it as well. Maybe it would help him understand why the logic of the site truely is effective at refuting Christianity.

[CutePuppy]

The old forum was before my time (here), but whatever happened to this DTE person anyway? Is he oke? Is there a specific reason he's not a (frequent?) poster now?

I think I'm going to spend some time reading his posts in the old forum. I have the feeling I lack the background knowledge to really understand what he's saying though. Still, another opportunity to learn, I guess. Thanks for the links.

[screwtape]

The old forum was before my time (here), but whatever happened to this DTE person anyway? Is he oke? Is there a specific reason he's not a (frequent?) poster now?

I cannot speak for him.  My understanding is he came to feel this was a waste of time. Too often he would have a xian dead to rights defeated and saw them perform all manner of mental gymnastic and startling denial to avoid facing the truth.  I believe he wanted to actually do something to make the world more secular and he realized this site was, for him, an impediment.  Read his posts from the current forum and ATT and I think you will get a better feeling for it.

He had a blog for a while, but last I checked it had tumbleweeds blowing through it.  I do not have the link on hand, but I will try to find it.

I think I'm going to spend some time reading his posts in the old forum. I have the feeling I lack the background knowledge to really understand what he's saying though. Still, another opportunity to learn, I guess. Thanks for the links.

He was on a different level than most of us.  I can only think of maybe 3 people here who come close.  As I said, he was a theologian as a career for a while.

Here is my incomplete list of DTE's Greatest hits.  Some of them are at ATT, others are in the old forum.  For DTE, you really have to follow the thread.  Most of his best work was done over the course of a conversation.  You can spend a lot of time reading his material, but I think it is worth it.

DTE’s intro and first mention of spag  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=4868.0

DTE – Typology of xians – 3 kinds of SPAG http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=6677.0

DTE – open challenge to xians – displays the SPAGs of 3 xians.  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=4871.0

DTE on ATT.  Xians cannot be allowed to give up noah, jonah etc. http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=435.msg6320#msg6320

DTE on ATT.  “It is written”.  About how jesus & satan take the OT literally as written and do not argue interpretation. http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=436.msg6322#msg6322

DTE on ATT Jesus’ slaves. http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=456.msg6749#msg6749

DTE on ATT  xian typology and a brief idea on how to deconvert. http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php?topic=774.msg12614#msg12614

[HAL]

He had a blog for a while, but last I checked it had tumbleweeds blowing through it.  I do not have the link on hand, but I will try to find it.

It's been deleted -

http://avangelism.com/

He had a twitter account too but the last post on it is Apr 12th -

http://twitter.com/avangelism

[screwtape]

Thank you, HAL.  That was exactly what I was looking for.

[velkyn]

hmmm, really?  I seem to recall, Matthew 25 which seems to indicate that one has to be nice to one's fellow humans to get Jesus' approval.  You haven't been that, with your breezing in here making baseless claims, becoming abusive when shown you are wrong, etc.  The video may not be perfect, it may assume that Christians believe in certain ways, but any way a theist believes is open for question since you cannot demonstrate that your version is any better.

Oddly enough, I seem to recall that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said: "People will hate you and tell all kinds of horrible lies about you because you have chosen to follow Me.  When they do so, you should rejoice and be glad."  So by making these videos, the maker has helped the words of Jesus to come true once again, and the same might be said for certain posts on this forum.

Yes, indeed it does say that: 

11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

  Unfortunately, no one has been telling lies about you here.  What we have been doing is asking you to prove your claims.  That always seems to offend theists like you and I suspect it is that you think you have some special knowledge and are above such inquiry. 

And no, the maker of these videos does not help you get your jollies by claiming youself a martyr.  It seems that so many Christians are desperate to hang on to the masochism of their religion but not actually put any work behind it.  Honestly, if you are so desperate for any little shred of evidence for your myths, one would hope it would be more than claiming that anyone questioning you was proof that you were right, especially when you have nothing else to support your supposed "faith". 

[plethora]

@AlexBP

I never got a response to this post:

When the bible says Jesus fed thousands of people with a few loaves of bread and fish... is that meant to be taken as metaphor? How should I interpret this?

The bible claims Jesus fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish (Matthew 14:13–21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:5-15) and also 4000 people with 7 loaves of bread and 7 fish (Mark 8:1-9 and Matthew 15:32-39).

So tell me. Is this literal or metaphorical and explain why, please.

[AlexBP]

Really?  So "it is profitable for the that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" (repeated twice) is also methaphor (my bold)?

Sorry, but there is nothing methaphorical about those lines, much as you may want them to be.

You seem to think that since this line mentions physical things, it's not a metaphor.  But virtually every metaphor mentions physical things.  "Raining cats and dogs" mentions physical things.  "Tiger, tiger, burning bright" mentions physical things.  Or consider this excerpt from Andrew Marvell:

Now let us sport us while we may;
And now, like am'rous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour,
Than languish in his slow-chapp'd power.
Let us roll all our strength, and all
Our sweetness, up into one ball;
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Thorough the iron gates of life.

That mentions quite a number of physical things.  Does it follow that there's nothing metaphorical about it, or are you willing to admit that sometimes physical objects can be used metaphorically?

But perhaps you could explain exactly why you believe your interpretation is correct?

Sure.  The metaphorical interpretation must be correct because the literal interpretation makes no sense.  "If your right hand causes you to sin..." can't mean anything literally because rights hands never cause anyone to sin.  Sin can only be a conscious decision made in the mind, not in the right hand.  Further, that line doubles as a joke about a certain activity that some people do with their right hand, and jokes are not meant to be taken literally.

[Agamemnon]

AlexBP,

I mentioned people whose language and culture doesn't support the use of metaphor and who don't understand their useage. What does the bible do about them?

How about people that simply don't have the intelligence to understand them? They have to track you down to get the decoded version from you?

What if they don't have access to someone that doesn't believe the bible is 100% word-for-word literal truth?

I guess they are just doomed. Either they are worshiping a false religion created by a misinterpretation of the bible or they will reject the bible as pure fantasy.

[HAL]

The metaphorical interpretation must be correct because the literal interpretation makes no sense. 

Wow.

So anything in the Bible that literally makes no sense must have another true meaning?

Take this then -

Genesis 2

But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The bolded part literally makes no sense (women do not come from from men's ribs) , so what is the real meaning of it?

[Ambassador Pony]

Good catch, Hal.

Unreal. Simply astonishing.

[HAL]

Good catch, Hal.

Unreal. Simply astonishing.

Thanks. It is really astonishing.

"If your right hand causes you to sin..." can't mean anything literally because rights hands never cause anyone to sin. 

Alex,

If a god can make a woman from a rib, why can't a right hand cause a person to sin?

[Agamemnon]

I regard this whole "metaphor" excuse as tacit admission that the bible is almost entirely nothing like reality. And the few pieces that are like reality are completely unremarkable. They know the bible isn't reflective of reality, so they think treating it as figurative is going to fix that, but that creates new problems.

When you reduce all of these wild stories to metaphor it has a way of reducing God to impotence. If you take away all the special powers of the prophets of the bible then God no longer looks like the all-powerful deity any more. Nobody wants to worship an impotent God.

Alex, what metaphors are there in 2 Kings 2 that I might be misreading? It looks to me as if it is all intended to be taken as a historical account, but maybe I'm wrong.

[CutePuppy]

But perhaps you could explain exactly why you believe your interpretation is correct?

Sure.  The metaphorical interpretation must be correct because the literal interpretation makes no sense.

This sounds reasonable. Although literal interpretations often do make sense and they can still be considered metaphorical.

For example:

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I'm guessing you see this not as a literal command, but a metaphorical one? In this case, how can you tell? And what's your take on law enforcement and how do you think this passage contributes to it (or not)?

Sin can only be a conscious decision made in the mind, not in the right hand.

Nutty! I mean, not necessarily:

Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Lusting after women is not, by default, characterized as a conscious decision. I blame this on the evolution of our gonads that produce testosterone and estradiol. In this case, the (biggest/ most significant) cause of our lusting (after people) is literally our gonads. _{And I feel both dirty and happy stating this probably indisputable fact.}

John 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

Plenty of people who do not worship your god, simply because they don't know your god, not because they consciously decided not to follow it.

And conscious decisions don't come falling out of the sky: they themselves are obviously based on/ caused by something. So what if your conscious decision is actually based on how good something feels in your hand? Like, literally? For example, if you like the physical contact of a breast? And based on that feeling, you consciously decide to sin? Is your hand (and its touch receptors, I guess) then not a cause of you sinning? Can your hand then not cause you to sin, literally? I don't see how you can't take it literally like this, but feel free to explain?

[William]

Sure.  The metaphorical interpretation must be correct because the literal interpretation makes no sense.

So how do we deal with this one?:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version)

 18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

 19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

 20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

 21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Was it always a metaphor, or a law at one time that morphed into a metaphor?  :shrug

HINT HINT: Perhaps this bit of Deuteronomy is neither a jot nor a tittle 

[screwtape]

For example:

Matthew 5:39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I'm guessing you see this not as a literal command, but a metaphorical one? In this case, how can you tell? And what's your take on law enforcement and how do you think this passage contributes to it (or not)?

That would fit with Alex's belligerent version of agape.  You may "love" your enemy, but if he hits you, do not actually turn your other cheek.  That is just a a metaphor that means "kill him". 

[Anfauglir]

Really?  So "it is profitable for the that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" (repeated twice) is also methaphor (my bold)?

Sorry, but there is nothing methaphorical about those lines, much as you may want them to be.

You seem to think that since this line mentions physical things, it's not a metaphor.  But virtually every metaphor mentions physical things.  "Raining cats and dogs" mentions physical things.....That mentions quite a number of physical things.  Does it follow that there's nothing metaphorical about it, or are you willing to admit that sometimes physical objects can be used metaphorically?

Not at all - indeed, most metaphors do just that.  But what I was asking is how one tells when something physical should be intended literally or not - hence the second question:

But perhaps you could explain exactly why you believe your interpretation is correct?

Sure.  The metaphorical interpretation must be correct because the literal interpretation makes no sense.  "If your right hand causes you to sin..." can't mean anything literally because rights hands never cause anyone to sin.  Sin can only be a conscious decision made in the mind, not in the right hand.  Further, that line doubles as a joke about a certain activity that some people do with their right hand, and jokes are not meant to be taken literally.

You've been given an example that shows how a hand could indeed cause one to sin.  But looking at the "joke"....what of someone who does indeed spill his seed and feels they can't help themselves.  Would not literally cutting off their hand make perfect sense, in light of the "better to enter heaven incomplete"?

I'll quote it again, since you have conveniently ignored the quote in order for the passage to fit your preconceptions:

""it is profitable for the that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" (repeated twice).  If nothing is physically being cut off, what is the point of this line - specifically?

[plethora]

@AlexBP

Waiting for a response to my post #75.