secondeve

Hey guys, I'm doing a university subject called 'the New Testament and its Times' this semester, and thought I'd share a paper I wrote for it last night on the Gospel of Mark. There were two questions asking us to look at how Mark portrays Jesus' human side, and what details in the narrative were suggestive of eyewitness testimony. Anyway, here 'tis: In examining the narrative structure of the Gospel of Mark, it is interesting to consider those elements which contribute to our image of Jesus as a man (as opposed to a divinity), and, further, to try and determine which details of the account are suggestive of eye-witness testimony. In both cases, we are essentially seeking to identify information which, on balance, seems more likely to be true, not because the author has gone out of his way to emphasise it, but for precisely the opposite reason. This involves the combination of several criterion used in establishing the authenticity of the Gospels, namely: dissimilarity, lack of a higher theological imperative for a given anecdote or occurrence, embarrassment, relationship to an actual rural context, and multiple independent attestation. By these methods, a Biblical scholar may construct a plausible interpretation of the depiction of Jesus

Which is one of many good reasons why you are not suited to the job of security guard. I would think that the essence of that job would be that somebody in control has the responsibility of deciding the rules of engagement and, if presented to an employee without room for negotiation, must be followed to the letter of the law. Any criticism in the situation you describe, however maddening it must have been, would surely be directed to whoever was in control behind the scenes and their inability to allow sufficient flexibility of choice to the security guard. If anything went wrong on campus, security guards would usually be judged on how well they followed their written instructions and not on how well they interpreted them. And having said that, I have never been a security guard, though having served in the army it often seemed very similar, and if I had been you and been treated in such a manner it would have been very irritating. But it made a good basis for a thread, and thank you. For my part, I understood the guy was looking to the rules, but what made me so mad was his flat-out acknowledgement that it was a glitch in his system: he knew we were allowed to be there, but because the computer didn't, we had to leave. If he hadn't known about the error, I would've acquiesced, but as things stood, I got ticked off.

Personally, I tend to lean on the side of the spirit (when it comes to everyday law as well as moral). What sparked off this topic for me was a run-in with a security guard at university. My husband is enrolled as a PhD student, and subsequently has access to the philosophy study after hours and on weekends (he has a key to the door). However, a security guard showed up midday Saturday and tried to turf us out of the building, on the grounds that, due to an administrative error, my husband's enrolment wasn't confirmed, and therefore he had to treat us as tresspassers, even though he (a) was aware that the error was purely administrative because it had happened to several other postgrads (who he'd also kicked out) and (b) could plainly see my husband had both a valid student ID and a key to the building. Eventually, a lecturer came along and vouched for us, but the whole thing took about half an hour. Anyway, I got really riled up about the incident as a clear example of the spirit of law versus the letter. The whole point of the security guard (spirit) is to keep people who aren't allowed out of the building, and look after the people who are allowed in. The letter of the law is administrative - their system tells them who is allowed in, and who's not. In this case, the letter of the law was actually defeating the spirit of the law (I felt) because even though he knew we were people who had a right to the building, he persisted in trying to kick us out in accordance with the letter. What made me post the question here was the dichotomy I often perceive when two Christians differ in interpretation of Biblical verses (i.e. one takes it strictly literally, and the other interprets through a more general understanding of God). This, to me, has big ramifications on the integrity of the Bible as viewed by individual Christians, because it effectively creates a clause-of-faith. i.e. if a literal statement proves distressing, it can be overruled by the spirit of the law without being proven incorrect. This means that even where a given Biblical statement might be called untrue if literal, they still believe that the Bible is inerrant. And that, I think, puts a very interesting emphasis on whether the spirit or the letter of the law is more important, because while this principle works well for the majority of the text, there are still some issues which push at the edges. So which consideration is more important to interpreting the Bible?

Right: apologies. Just realised I got confused initially: was thinking about the Earth not being the centre of the solar system, which the Church did advocate. Probably some Christians back in the day did think the Earth was flat, but you're correct - I have no information to say it was an official position.

Are you making a distinction between the Catholic church and Christianity? I am making no such distinction. No Christian has taught that the earth was flat. The Catholic Church never declared this so, and neither have any of the other Christian faiths. Where do you get this information? Few of the early church folks found it hard to believe that there were folks on the other side of the round earth, and some thought that earth was floating on the water. Not a one of them worth mentioning ever thought it was flat. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Either no Christian ever taught the earth was flat, or no Christian worth mentioning ever thought it was flat. Your call.

I never said there was anything wrong attempting to understand what someone is saying that is not how the term "openmindedness" is typically used. Usually being "openminded" where these types of discussions are concerned means being open to the possibility that there are more than one way to God. Usually it is not athesists that are so bent making the "opendminded" argument as it is those of other relgions who seek to have us believe that their religions are on par with Christianity. Typically, what I see coming here (and I am speaking in a general sense) are arrogant athesists coming here with false, preconceived notions about Christians and can't even quote the Bible properly when they are making their case. They come to boards like this one looking for Christians they view as easy prey, who are not scientists who are mostly just regular people, not scholars. They make unrealistic demands of us, and then pretend they have won some type of victory because we did not have an answer to a unreasonable question that no one would possibly have an answer to. Frankly from what I have seen on this board, atheists are lousy debators. They frame our faith incorrectly, assign motives and values to us that we do not hold to and then that as platform for criticism. I understand your frustration; and were I go back through your second paragraph and replace the word 'Christians' with 'atheists,' you'd have a pretty good idea of how we get pidgenholed in debates, too. Your last comment - the mention of being assigned motives and values that one does not actually hold, and then being criticised for them - is a very accurate description of the vast bulk of my conversations with Christians about atheism. All atheism is, at the end of the day, is a lack of belief in all and any gods. Beyond that lack, it implies no adherence to a set moral, political, social, scientific or ethical philosophy - and yet in discussions pertaining to such diverse points as these, atheists are continually lumped together as a single herd. Atheism is dubbed a 'religion' or 'faith' by some Christians when, contextually, the notion is absurd: a single commonality of thought with no supporting moral/social framework does not religion make. It is widely assumed that all atheists accord with the theory of evolution; that we are all in favour of pre-marital sex, homosexuality and abortion; that we are irrevocably politically left wing; that we live spiritually empty lives (due to our lack of a relationship with God); that we are ignorant; and that we are, at core, amoral (because we do not have the Bible to guide us).

Closemindedness is never justified. If you're right, then there's nothing to lose by being open-minded; and if you're wrong, there's everything to gain. Humillity is important. But in the modern world, many have been forced to desperate ends just to try and get their story across. There is so much information out there, with so much skepticism, and everyone says there right; I fear that an agressive approach may be the only way to get anywhere these days. Perhaps, though, being different to the aggressive norm might be more effective? Otherwise, the cycle becomes self-perpetuating: people being aggressive spawn people who want to be heard being aggressive, which spawns other people who want to be heard being aggressive...

Also, because I trust science when it comes to engineering, chemistry, medicine and biology. I further trust historians and archeologists. When the bunch of people who figured out about lead poisioning, cholera, gene therapy, dinosaurs, ancient Africa and radio-carbon dating get together and tell me they've figured out something new - well, they tend to get my trust. If they didn't, it'd be a bit odd for me to then trust them to perform X-rays, surgery or to tell me about genetic disorders or the breeding habits of whales.

Because as an overall picture, it makes vastly more sense than the alternative. I'd be much more inclined to view the idea of divine creation favourably (as an idea, at least) if it came unattached to religion. I disbelieve the Christian version because I disbelieve Christianity; likewise with other faiths. Evolution is not burdened with the joint necessity of believing in unrelated mythological or moral arguments - by which I mean, I don't need to take a certain position on homosexuality in order to believe that humans and apes are related. (Note: I don't consider the ID movement as unattached from religion. At the very least, it is not, as it claims to be, science: viz, it does not meet the dictionary definition for a scientific theory.)

Shiloh, the point is that while you believe yourself to be 100% correct, I also believe the same about my position. And as neither of us is a likely convert, this leaves no room for debate of any kind - nor even discussion - unless one or both of us is willing to be open-minded about the other person's beliefs. I think it was Aristotle who praised the ability to understand someone's point of view without accepting it yourself: this is what I am advocating, and what I ultimately mean by open-mindedness. When you boil the beef right down to the bones, I think you're wrong. I do not believe in Christianity, and if you put a gun to my head and told me to pick a theory for the universe, I'd say there are no gods, and never have been. But the reason I'm on Worthy is because I don't live day to day with that gun at my head: I have the intellectual freedom to try and understand other people, even where I fundamentally disagree with them. Because, ultimately, it's the only way humanity has ever learned anything.

I believe the word you're looking for, secondeve, is 'polemicist' rather than 'debator'. ? Not sure how your comment relates to mine. Are you making a distinction between the Catholic church and Christianity?

This is false logic. I might as well argue that because Dan Brown features prominently at the top of the best-seller lists and is widely read, his actual writing is superb. In fact, his writing is absolute trash. Hype isn't everything; and even where a wide readership is known, that doesn't vouch for the quality or judgement of said readership. Gossip magazines have massive readerships and are exceedingly well publicised, but that doesn't mean they accurately represent the majority of the female populace. Journalists don't pull names from a hat when writing articles about prominent figures. They choose. I don't see how you can run this line. The writer set out to make a point that atheists are poor debaters, and chose examples which, in his estimation, fit that description. If there's a different definition of bias, I'd like to hear it. Closemindedness is never justified. If you're right, then there's nothing to lose by being open-minded; and if you're wrong, there's everything to gain. Closemindedness can be quite justified. There are still those who believe the earth is flat and as result reject any notion that man has been to outerspace. Why would I need to be openminded toward them about their assertion that the earth is flat? There are lots of other issues about which closemindedness toward any other position is quite justified. I can afford to be closeminded where God is concerned, because I know Him, and He knows me. If you tried to convince me God does not exist, it would be analagous to me trying to convice your friends that you are just a figment of their overactive imagination. As I recall (to take your example) it was the Church who persisted in believing the Earth was flat, and they were, at the time, of the distinct opinion that God's infallability made them right. And the reason they proved so difficult to argue with is precisely because they were closeminded. In essence, you're advocating a double-standard. You want everyone else to be open-minded towards your beliefs, but reject such open-mindedness for yourself. Which, I would say, is a fairly textbook example of hypocricy. I wasn't aware Christianity boasted a 'do as I say, not as I do' policy among its many offerings; rather, I thought that Christians were meant to lead by example. Consider that illusion suitably undone.

Closemindedness is never justified. If you're right, then there's nothing to lose by being open-minded; and if you're wrong, there's everything to gain.

Which is more important: the spirit of the law, or the letter of the law?

By whose definition are Dawkins et al the "top three" atheists? Yes, they are well known and well publicised; they have written books and participated in public debates. But the fact of this prominence does not automatically mean they are the most representative of atheists as a whole, nor that all atheists - or even a majority - view them as such. To take Dawkins, while I naturally agree with some of what he says, I intensely dislike his arrogance and manner of delivery. I am also skeptical of the idea that a sampling, while certainly representative of the whole, is always an accurate such representation. Besides which, the key element of such a study - that it is, as you say, random - is absent here; the writer has chosen his sample. One might therefore be reasonable in saying that they have set out to stack the statistics somewhat in their favour. Gee...I guess just like the "broad generalizations" that atheists afford Christians. This is, perhaps, the worst justification in the known universe for taking a certain tone with one's opponents. If you really take issue with said tactics and dislike their use against you, stooping to them yourself not only makes you childish, but a hypocrit. I find myself agreeing with Jesus on this one: act like an adult, and turn the other cheek. Your argument will be all the sounder for it.

Yes. It is perfectly reasonable to pick apart the efforts of three prominent atheists and thereby conclude that all atheists are similarly poor debaters. In the land of the crazy logic. What would be the result, I wonder, if I were to take Anne Coulter, Jack Chick and the Westboro Baptist Church as my examples of Christianity and, from their combined efforts, conclude that all Christians are foamy-mouthed latter-day loonies? Using my latent psychic powers, I predict that a violent flame war, followed by thread-closure, would result. Posting articles like this, no matter how good they make you feel, is really pointless. I give this thread the lifespan of the average mayfly before the above scenario - surprise, surprise! - takes place. And if you really, genuinely and truly believe this article to be 100% true, and not merely a quasi-humerous attempt at incendiary journalism, then I believe you're in for a rude awakening at some point in the near future. Just a heads up.

Hi Keilan! My first response is, offspring inherit different characteristics from each parent. For example, my father has black hair, and my mother light brown; I take after my mother. My parents don't both have to be brown-haired in order for me to inherit that gene. So I'd say that mutations could be inherited even if they came only from one parent.

Well, for my part, I eat animals because my body works best when I do, and because they're tasty. Morally, I have no problem with killing to eat, or eating things which have been killed expressly for the purpose. I don't eat people because (one) I find the thought repugnant, and (two) because even if I didn't, I practically couldn't. As to why I find it repugnant, I'd say that's down to cultural upbringing for the least part, and for the most, because there are few cannibal mammals, and even so, those that are, are only under certain circumstances. Selective breeding would have a hard time achieving an animal who ate its own kind faster than they could produce new ones, so I think that on some primal level, something's down there in the hindbrain telling us not to. Actually, that isn't exactly the Christian view. The Christian view is that we are made in God's image (an thus are fused with His character), but we are corrupted by sin. In this perspective, Satan is not the cause of our evil, but he does know how to deceive us into chosing the path of evil. We are still responsible for the choices we make. What makes this view less scary is trusting that God's nature is at our core, not selfishness or primate behavior (as another posted). I agree with you that choices and how you chose to perceive another makes a difference, though. I know the devil isn't the source of sin - he just eggs people on. I meant that, when Christians come across a particularly horrible act, they sometimes think that here, the devil has taken the reins (so to speak) and either directly egged on the participants or stepped in personally. Yes, sin is the source of human evils, but the devil can be 'blamed' insofar as he tries - and is seen to succeed - in exploiting this. But I agree that yes, it can also be more comforting (or less scary) when coupled with the idea that there is something fundamentally divine protecting us, or fighting back. As for making choices on how to see the world and acting accordingly, after looking at the news today, I think the perfect example is the Westboro Baptist "Church." http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2...?s_rid=smh:top5 Now there's some people who truly are blind.

Simple...humans are animals...highly evolved animals mind you, but apparently not enough. We are just a higher order of primate (my opinion, don't get all fussy) than any of our evolutionary cousins...but still primates. We have a mental capacity that allows us to out-think and rise above every other species on the planet...but this advantage can sometimes be a weakness. We can think highly enough to know (most of the time) what is rational/irrational and what is right/wrong. Unfortunately this level of thinking can also allow us to carry out our more animalistic instincts in ways more brutal than any lower order species could conceive of. I forget who said it, but i remember someone saying: "we are primates...extremely intelligent primates, but primates nonetheless...our prefrontal lobes are too small and our adrenaline glands are too big." Fortunately, most people will tend to use the rational and kind parts of their psyche far more often than the primative instincts. Animals, however, are not cruel, even if they are brutal. Cruelty comes from intelligence, because it requires not only an intention to cause suffering, but the means to take pleasure in it, or otherwise justify it. It also requires curiosity: what happens if I do this? Most little children will happily burn ants with a magnifying glass or pull the wings off flies, because it's funny to watch the ants burn or the flies twitch. Insects make no noises of pain that we can hear. Which is why we tell children that doing this stuff is wrong, and how would they like it if someone did the same to them? The closest thing to human cruelty you'll find in the animal world comes from the smartest species. I think that's worth remembering.

It's a scary thought, I'll agree freely. In a way, I'd say it's more frightening than the idea of the devil, because then not only are we doing this stuff on our own initiative, but there's no higher force to blame. Sometimes, I think that's one of the things that people find 'safe' or easy about Christianity - that when terrible things happen, it's not just random cruelty, but can be chased back to some powerful malevolent force against whom we are, ultimately, helpless. It takes away an element of human responsibility. I imagine there were many ordinary people in Nazi Germany who cheered Hitler to power because Germany was dying, everyone was starving in the economic chaos left after WWI and the war-guilt clause at the Treaty of Versailles, and Hitler fixed that. Probably, many were so grateful to have food again, or jobs, or to have a little bit of that fear lifted, they turned a blind eye to what he was doing to the Jews, convincing themselves it wasn't really that bad. Sure, they didn't know all the gruesome details, but they didn't want to, either. But later, after WWII - what would those people have thought then? Perhaps that they had helped create a monster. Her answer terrified me too....possibly because some of it is true. "Half angel. Half devil. All human." Without Christ we can be that. ........Whirlwind That line - half angel, half devil, all human - is a description of humanity from one of my favourite books, and it's always struck me as the best way to describe how we're capable of such extremes.

Sheer human cruelty. I don't need to believe in an ultimate evil to believe that humans are capable of such darkness, just as I don't need to believe in god to believe that we can be heart-breakingly good. The Nazis didn't believe the Jews were human, or that they had souls. So they treated them like refuse. One of my grandmother's friends was in Belsen. She had a baby daughter - six months old - and one of the guards grabbed her by the feet and smashed her head on a wall, just like that. Think of how humans have treated animals for most of history. Decarte believed that they were just machines, and that when they cried out in pain, it wasn't because they felt anything, but because it was a dumb reflex, nothing more. He drew diagrams showing it. Not so long ago, people put litters of kittens and puppies in sacks weighted with rocks and drowned them in the river, heedless as the guard. We worked ponies in deep mines alongside slaves until their eyes and hearts gave out from the coaldust and lack of light, and died in the dark. There were holes in the earth full of the dead, horses alongside men who believed the wrong faith, or lost the wrong battle, or had the wrong genes, worked to death and showered with welts because slaves had no purpose, no souls. The ultimate darkness is when we believe that we - and we alone - are human. Then we don't care who we kill, or how cruelly, or who we maim. The devil has nothing to do with it. But because we can never feel what another person does - because all the atoms between two bodies and all the leagues between two different minds are a barrier to empathy - we convince ourselves that they aren't like us. Even if they bleed, or smile, or cry, or laugh; not us. Just beasts. And we believe we're better - our blood is more pure, our god more righteous, our history more true, and the differences mount and mount until we can't see past them, until all we see is animals in human skin, despicable mimics who we loathe too much to pity; loathe them for their blindness, filth, ignorance and perversion. We believe our own propaganda; it would be a mercy to kill them, and if we can take pleasure in the act? Why not laugh as we hunt down vermin? We revel in purity that drips of blood, but the devil is in us by then, well and truly, and if there was ever an angel, too, their wings have been pulled out at the roots, until all they can do is weep. All of us walks a balance between the best and worst we could be. One man's worst might be another's best, and one man's best might not even reach another's worst - but for each of us, that's what we're born, and what we become, and what we make ourselves. Half angel. Half devil. All human.

No. I don't believe in god because, assuming such an entity exists, and assuming that they have directly involved themselves in the welfare of humanity, and assuming that they have a preference as to how we live our lives, and assuming they've told us that preference, I don't believe any human being is smart enough, on the evidence alone, to tell which religion, of the hundreds of thousands that human history can offer, is the right one. I say on the evidence aloneas a qualifier because every single religious devotee of every single faith in human history has also believed that theirs is the right one, not just on the evidence, but because they have felt or witnessed the power of their god/gods 'telling' them so. As this clearly cannot be true in even the vast majority of cases, I'm forced to one of three conclusions: 1. There is no god, and these incidents of his presence are either lies, misunderstandings or able to be explained by other causes. 2. There is a god, and he is revealing himself to everyone, regardless of their religion. 3. There is a god, but people cannot tell the difference between lies, misunderstandings and other causes and his messages. Factor in that even within any correct religion, you could still have believers thinking they'd 'felt' god when they actually hadn't, or had been 'spoken' to by god when, in fact, god had said no such thing. So, ultimately, while I'm open to the possibility of god (or gods), I don't believe it's possible to actually know whether you've got the right religion, or - more importantly - whether god has a religion at all.

Big surprise, given that Conservapedia is run with the sole agenda of promoting western Christian values over any form of liberalism, perceived or otherwise. Hardly an unbiased source.

The idea that the anecdote you use really doesn't illustrate that experience can be wrong, it is simply an example of how someone might misunderstand what their experience represents. One could jump to conclusions and believe that the lack of a 'spiritual feeling' might mean that God was not with them, but that would be a large assumption. Rather, one could simply take the difference at face value, knowing that the feeling was not the only sign in their lives of God's presence. But you can have false experiences. Misinterpreingt something that actually happened is different to believing something happened at all, when nothing did. For the sake of argument, there have to be thousands of Muslims who feel the rightness and rapture of Allah guiding their actions and speaking to them, but you could just as easily say that if Allah isn't real, then they were only imagining what they felt. Or, conversely, I might think I see a ghost, when in fact I haven't seen anything more than a flicker of movement at the corner of my eye.

Sorry, there seems to be a confusion here: I never attended church as a kid. When I say we had weekly religion classes, I mean a young reverend came into our classroom and told us Bible stories, not that we had a sermon or anything. The only times I went to church between the ages of 0 and 14 was one, to be baptised when I was a few weeks old, and two, when I was six or so, and my Catholic best friend took me to church/Sunday school with her, which I found baffling. As for falling for Wicca 'hook, line and sinker,' I wouldn't quite say I did. I never prayed to any god or goddess, or bought any books on the subject, and to all intents and purposes (bar an interest in trying to make 'magic,' which, as stated, never worked) remained an atheist. My worldview didn't change. And, as has been mentioned, given that absolutely nothing happened on the few occasions we tried to make balls of energy shoot out our hands or somesuch, we pretty much all just stopped. So quite honestly, I've never embraced a religion in the sense of believing in a higher power. I tried on the idea of magic for a short while (which is perhaps how I should have phrased it originally), but it wasn't real, so I stopped. Simple.