I won’t be able to post today about the book you gave me to read. I will do so very soon. I apologize and have not forgotten my promise.

Jill

I think I’m going to do mine in parts. I’ll have a lot of time on the plane so I’ll probably do a good chunk of it then. Give me a couple of weeks to come back and check out your response. Sarah and I are looking forward to Korea. Dallas is a dump.

By the following Sunday (I’m not home much this week) I should be able to tell you what I think of the argument in the book. Korea is supposed to be beautiful from what I”ve heard.

Jill

Enjoy Korea. It’s a beautiful country with wonderful people. The food is simply amazing too. If you’ve never had Korea style ribs, you are in for a treat. Just don’t expect them to look like American ribs – they cross cut them.

Jill,

I’ll try to read those, but I have a pretty large reading load as it is. I may not get to them in time to be of use in this thread.

I didn’t mean to be exclusionary. I would like to hear the opinions of any poster on this site who will read both books.

I’m not being defensive. This is my true opinion of Kellor and this book. I didn’t have any beef with him that would color my opinion of his work. His book was well reviewed by many so I was suprised that I found so many problems with it.

Mike A.,

Would you read the books Clint and I are reading if you have the time? I would like to hear your opinion of them.

Clint choose: “The Reason for God” by Timothy Keller

I choose: “Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them)” by Bart Ehrman

I’ll keep it in mind. I’m a bit taxed with preparing to move to Korea and reading several different books right now that I don’t want to have to take with me. I wasn’t really expecting Jill to give me the book challenge .

I don’t expect you to read purely from a neutral position (it is impossible for me) but can you attempt to minimize the defenses a bit? If Keller is doing what you are saying, give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to ignorance. I sincerely doubt his intentions are questionable. I’ll try to do the same with Ehrman.

I’m working on a complete anaylsis of the book where I will reference his writings and say what I think of them. I’d like to do this all at one time. I will absolutely address your question above. One short answer is that he misrepresents the arguments of those with whom he disagrees, then he argues against that misrepresentation in hopes of making his point. I found all of the logical fallacies in this book:

“Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

* Ad hominem – attacking the arguer and not the argument.
* Argument from “authority”.
* Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an “unfavourable” decision).
* Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
* Special pleading (typically referring to god’s will).
* Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
* Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
* Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
* Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
* Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not “proved”).
* Non sequitur – “it does not follow” – the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – “it happened after so it was caused by” – confusion of cause and effect.
* Meaningless question (“what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
* Excluded middle – considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the “other side” look worse than it really is).
* Short-term v. long-term – a subset of excluded middle (“why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?”).
* Slippery slope – a subset of excluded middle – unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man – caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
* Weasel words – for example, use of euphemisms for war such as “police action” to get around limitations on Presidential powers. “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public” from Carl Sagan

Also, I’ve seen religious leaders (many claiming to be Christian) surprise a lot of people with their cruelty and greed for power. I don’t think we should be so quick to assume that these specific Jewish leaders were incapable of such cruelty.

Wow, Keller seems insincere? I was expecting a lot of things but not that. What statements specifically made you feel that way?

I just wanted your thoughts as to Ehrman’s motives. I’m sure he is sincere. And I am certain that he would not be hostile to me questioning him on it.

Mike,

Constantine edited the thousands of copies of manuscripts from various translations and edited the writings of the church fathers of the 2nd century who quoted a large portion of the gospels? That seems to be a bit of a stretch. It would be more plausible if there were very few NT manuscripts in circulation during that time. There is also correspondence between Roman officials in the 2nd century (?) mocking the fact that Christians worshipped a dead man as God. It doesn’t seem that Constantine even had the opportunity to change centuries worth of history.

Pilate was not portrayed as a good guy at all. In the gospel, a story is told to Jesus of how cruel he was.”There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” (Luke 13:1) He did not ask for Jesus’ pardon from pure motives. And, Philo gave an account of an instance in which the emperor intervenened on the Jews’ behalf. Not long after Christ was executed, Pilate ended up being removed from his position and faced charges of malfeasance back at Rome. It seems that Pilate could have been in a delicate position in which he did not want to please the crowd but also needed to appease them to limit attention from Rome.

The Jews were not fickle. Jesus angered a lot of high-ranking religious authorities. It is entirely plausible that he walked in being praised by a large group of citizens but faced the death penalty in front of a large group of Pharisees and Sadducees. The citizens may have not felt comfortable opposing their religious leaders. Given the account of the cowardice of Peter, one of Jesus’ closest disciples, I’m not sure we can expect much more from the people.

Clint,
With all due respect, the idea that the Jews could have forced a monstrous Roman Governor to Crucify Jesus is a fable. Nobody ever forced the Romans to do anything when they were in control.
Also, Jews recognized Cruxifixion as an abomidable act, because of its’ cruelty. No religious Jew whether Pharise, or Sadduce would ever demand Cruxifixion of anyone, much less a Jew. However, if you were a Roman Emperor, who needed Christians to maintain power, it would be in your interest to downplay the Romans in the story and blame the Jews, who by then they had driven from the area.

Clint,
You might remember that my contention is that beginning with the Council of Nicea the Constantine led Romans re-edited the Gospels to make the Jews the villains and Jesus friendly to Rome. Given that the Roman’s were among the cruelest, most bloodthirsty of cultrues, does it really ring true to you that Jesus would honor them and not his own people. Isn’t it strange that the man who rode into Jerusalem on the back of an Ass, to the accolades of the multitudes and who preached the Sermon on The Mount to the cheers of thousands, suddenly becomes reviled.
Are Jews that fickle?

The best clue to this is the portrayal of Pontius Pilate seeming to want to save Jesus, when contemporary Roman accounts detail that he was recalled from the ME and punished for his cruelty. Some official the Romans would think too cruel must have been a monster. Yet in the Gospels he’s portrayed as a good guy.

I did start the Kellor book. It’s annoying for me to read because it has so many logical flaws in it and I feel he is, at base, a very disingenuous person. It’s a piece of sophistry. (I don’t think you recommended him because he was a sophist. I think you are sincere. Kellor seems to be a different story.) Nevertheless, a promise is a promise and I intend to keep mine!

As to Ehrman’s motives, I would e-mail him where he teaches and ask him. He seems like a very sincere person to me. He’s a scholar, and as such I believe he wants the best understanding of his subject possible. I don’t think he’s using a tactic in the way you mean it. He’s trying to lay out a thoughtful and well reasoned explanation of his conclusions and how he came to them. But I’d contact him directly with your question and see what he says. I don’t think he would be hostile to you.

Okay, I didn’t read your comment right at first. I just jumped on my assumption. My comment above is a better reply.

Also, the Jews in Jerusalem were the ones who forced the Roman governor’s hand. He did not find their claims legitimate at all. If the Romans really feared Jesus, they would not have been reluctant to crucify him.

I’ve started Ehrman’s book. He is very articulate and systematic. I haven’t finished the first chapter though. His tactic in the introduction is very strategic–mention some the most controversial seeming contradictions of the Bible. Some of them are very legitimate questions but others are a bit frivolous. It reminds me of medieval war movies where the archers fire a volley before the ground troops move in. That was just my first impression. I have a question. Every rational being has an end to everything he does. What do you think Ehrman’s purpose for writing this book was?

I’ll try to go more in depth with the book today. Have you had a chance to read Keller? What is your first impression?

It was mockery. Jesus was not legitimately dubbed a king. They whipped him, spit on him, bowed to him, put a crown of thorns on his head, and hailed him “King of the Jews.” He claimed to be the messiah. The Jews rightly assumed that that also meant king. Yet, Jesus honored the Roman government even when the Pharisees tried to trick him into criticizing Caesar.

Mespo,

That does not say that Jesus opposed the Roman government. That is a biased comment from a power-hungry high priest. Jesus honored the Roman government and taught others to do the same (Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s). The Jews expected him to be a conqueror. They did not expect for him to lay down his life.

That passage you quoted also mentioned miracles done by Jesus. It came from a man who didn’t want to believe that Jesus did any miracles.

Clint,
You’re wrong the proof is in the Gospel account of what was posted on Jesus cross. “King of the Jews.” Professing to be King of the Jews was treason to the Romans of the time, because only the emperor could name a Jewish King. By Jesus and his followers stating that he was of the line of David, on both sides, they were claiming “Moshiach” (messiah=king)status for Jesus, which would make him King. That would usurp the Emperor’s powers and be highly disrespectful, therefore treasonous. That what what the anointment scene was about, the Jewish “Moshiach” (King) required anointment.

I think Buddha’s point is really beyond doubt assuming you accept the Biblical account as true. Here is John’s account of the Sanhedrin Trial where the political motivations are abundantly clear:

John 11: “47 What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.” 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.

“He was killed because he threatened [Roman] power which was based in fear.”

Buddha, you must admit that that is a theory. It is derived from no reliable source other than imagination.

Judaism is not big on a conception of life after death and neither am I. There is no concept of original sin in Judaism, nor the belief that people are essentially sinners, we believe that the mission of all humans is to perfect this world. While I am not in one sense a traditional Jew, as a Deist, I agree with those concepts. Therefore people striving to save my soul are annoying to me, despite the goodness of their intentions. I neither believe in Heaven, nor Hell and I’m willing to take my chances if at sometime I am to be judged by the Creator.

Jill

I never said what the Romans and Jewish leaders did to Christ was anything but horrific. You are correct that he wasn’t killed for his good works. He was killed because he threatened their power which was based in fear. In the case of Rome, it was the fear they created by having the Legions. In the case of the Jews, his message of God as love – as Mike so wonderfully elaborated upon – was squarely in opposition to their message of a wrathful God. If you love your brother, how can you be made to kill him for Caesar? If we are all one, how can we wage war? How can we maintain the version of a wrathful God when a heretic is saying God is love? The lust for earthly power is ego worship and that’s just evil. The men who killed Christ did so for their own selfish reasons. I think it’s horrible that a teacher was killed in the name of preserving the “status quo”. Any teacher with a good message that can lift us all up should be listened to, not killed. Whether it be Jesus (reasons mentioned already), Socrates (he didn’t want to drink that hemlock, he was a threat to the Greek establishment so they gave him a choice of poison or sword), MLK (killed because he dared to claim all men are created equal, even black men) or Malcolm X (his post Mecca message of tolerance was a threat to the radical powers and ambitions within the Nation of Islam). I have never contended Jesus was anything less than a wise teacher and a rebel against worldly authority. He was an iconoclast who bravely brought a message of love to a world that most certainly wasn’t loving. Some of those following him? Eh, not always such good people. Make no mistake. I have no problem with Jesus or his teachings proper as well as they can be discerned from the historical collection of documents in context. Just the evils that rides on His coattails in the form of bad things done my men in His name.

Christianity is founded upon undeserved mercy. Jesus’ death was necessary and wasn’t an accident. Most relgions are built on a moral system–”If you do a,b, and c you can reach x.” Christianity says, “You failed in a, b, and c so x must come to you.”

“I was called a “Christ Killer” in High School and I didn’t like it because I never disparaged others religions.”

I’m sorry that was directed towards you in a racist way. If Christianity was to be judged by some of those who claim to be Christians, then I would quickly leave and join the ranks of atheists. There has been much bigotry in the name of Christ. Most people who wear jerseys are not in professional sports. Jesus said that those who obey Him prove that they are His followers. You may find it shocking that I do agree that you are a “Christ-killer.” The human race, including myself, are all Christ-killers. It is not an ethnic guilt, its a human one:

But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. -Isaiah 53:5

I bought Jesus, Interrupted by Ehrman. I haven’t started it yet. I think I would like you to read The Reason for God by Tim Keller.

Many of these sayings that I’ve quoted were deeply offensive to most. He wasn’t executed for the crime of good deeds. He was executed because He was deeply offensive–calling moral people evil and declaring Himself to be exclusive access to Ultimate Reality.

Jesus said, “[The world] hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil.” -John 7:7

Does it concern you that a man who was executed for offensiveness and pointed words theoretically always agrees with your worldview?

never could figure out the “Christ killer” thing. If Jesus didnt die on the cross no religion end of story.

Buddha,
I’m glad that my Daughter and Son-In-Law, who are both Yeshiva Trained and deeply religious (although his being a radical feminist endeared me to him in the first place)don’t read JT’s Blog, not that I haven’t tried to get them to. They would find me being a resident expert in Judaism a hoot, in comparison to their knowledge and Hebrew fluency. However, I have done more reading than either in comparative religion and have had a good deal longer to ponder philosophy. with that out front, let me take a stab. Also by the way your 12:43 comment and 2:12 comments say much better than I can and I share your thinking on that Guatama Buddha guy.

In my view that Jesus was a Pharisee Rabbi is obvious. The congruity of the “Golden Rule” to Rabbi Hillel’s formulation shows it so. The Pharisees themselves were also rebelling against the idea of God as wrathful and their written teachings an pronouncements dating from at least a century before Jesus were known to try to ameliorate the harsh dictums of the Torah by explaining they were not meant literally. That Jesus was on the more radical end is I think apparent, but that brings with it some problems for the Christian conception of Jesus’ teaching.

The Pharisees were the leaders of the rebellions against Rome,
while the Sadducee’s, like the High Priest, were the Quisling’s with the Romans and the Fundamentalists of their day. The reason for this is simple. The priestly functions of the temple were ritualistic and inherited. They were not the keepers of the religious traditions, merely the functionaries.
Their power derived from running the temple as shown in the Torah, but the religion was in the hands of the Pharisees. When Rome took over Israel they believed that as in their own land the keepers of the religion, were the temple priests. They couldn’t understand why once they had cowed and bribed the High Priest, the Jews were still pissed off and fighting back.

Jesus, as the Gospels claim probably had some claim of Davidic lineage. He thus proclaimed himself “Moshiach,” which denotes King and not “Son of God.” He remained a faithful Jew, followed the 613 commandments, ate kosher food and was probably as a good Jewish Rabbi of his time was married, to Mary who was the “Beloved Disciple.” Proclaiming himself “King of the Jews” was sedition against Rome since only the Emperor had the right to name a King of an occupied territory.

His rebellion failed and at best guess he was crucified between 30 to 35CE. “The four canonical texts are the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John, probably written between 65 and 100 AD.[1][2] They appear to have been originally untitled; they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second century (ie 100 – 150) but the names by which they are currently known appear suddenly around the year 180″ (Wikipedia)

Paul, who had never known Jesus, nevertheless claimed to understand him and his mission better than did Jesus’ disciples, who are really made to seem stupid in the Gospels.
We do know from Paul’s own writings that he had a huge dispute with James, Jesus brother and with Peter. While Paul claimed they came around to his way of thinking they were probably dead by then and so were unable to dispute it. Also there are no known writings from either of them. Paul changed the essential nature of Jesus’ teachings and also claimed that he was trained as a Pharisee. That was unlikely in that he also seems to have been a valued employee of the high Priest who hated the Pharisee’s. Paul died just about the time the first Gospel was written.

The Gospel writers were originally unknown, as above, and we can’t determine if they had known Jesus, or even Paul. There are indications that none of them were Jewish and Paul even acknowledges that his greatest successes were among the gentiles. While history has traced the disciples of the original Jesus movement, through James the Just up to around 500CE or so, the Pauline group flourished underground until
Constantine needed it to become Emperor and then decreed the christian Canon in 325CE at Nicaea and other later counsels.
The one over riding necessity of these councils was to ensure to erase any possibility that Jesus was a rebel against Rome, for very obvious reasons.

What we see today as the Christian Canon has no doubt been edited and re-edited throughout the years. Jill’s reference to Ehrman’s book are apt, but there is a whole literature that has followed the same reasoning for at least the past 150 years, some of it by distinguished Christian scholars.

Clint,
I have to honestly ask myself, based on your inquiry am I particularly hostile towards Christians? Since all of my parents close friends were pious Catholics and many of my own closest adult friends were Protestants of one or another denomination, I think I can honestly say that no I’m not per se prejudiced against Christians. However, as a Jew (albeit a
Deist)I must state that there is much in the history of Christianity that offends me, as is also true with Islam.

This is because that after the atrocities of the Crusades; the expulsion from England so the king could avoid repayment of his debts; the expulsion from Spain of Jews in 1492; The Inquisition; Martin Luther turning against Jews when he realized they would not convert en masse; the usurpation (from a Jewish point of view) of our Torah and the general attitude that you’ve replaced us and that we are a vile sub-human race; we’ve got some grievances. Islam claims to have treated us better but that is historically inaccurate.

I was called a “Christ Killer” in High School and I didn’t like it because I never disparaged others religions. Now I can’t speak for the others on this site, they are quite able to defend themselves, but it seems to me that the hostility is not directed at Christians per se, but at the hubris in the fundamentalist Christian community that preaches the “Golden Rule,” but acts like followers of Mammon in their quest to overturn church/state separation and their backing a political philosophy of greed and hatred of those who are different and/or lack financial wherewithal.

There is no contradiction that God is love and he gave His son for our “sins”. Lessons often come with a price. But maybe I see it that way because I think the idea of original sin is often misinterpreted. The sin wasn’t disobeying God’s order not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. It was arrogance and seeking of satisfying ego that led to the decision to eat the apple. If one presumes to fight nature, that is a path to disaster. I don’t buy into sin either. There are evil acts and good acts. Proverbs 20:11 says, “Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.” Sin is a term misused to create shame and self-doubt when evil in action is the actual concern. All men have occasional evil thoughts. Some men are only capable of evil thought. It is our nature. What makes us evil in res is acting upon them. Even in the Bible it is not a sin to think about killing a man, but it is to actually do it. Again, free will is in play.

I’m pretty sure John didn’t use the “wrath absorber” terminology (although I find it humorous), but it brings up a point that I’ll defer to our resident expert in Judaism, Mike S., on for clarification. Jesus was likely a Pharisee rabbi and breaking with Jewish tradition of the time was part of his rationale for teaching. He was rebelling against the idea of a cruel and vengeful God as He is often portrayed in the ancient world (and today). The above example shows that cruelty on Earth does not abrogate God’s love for all, even when that cruelty is to His “chosen”. And by chosen I don’t mean special or any better than “sinners” or people of good conscience who call God by another name. I mean those who carry the message God is love no matter if you call that God Yaweh, God, Ganesh or the Bodi-Dharma. Death in the name of a noble cause like spreading love is not wrath, but furtherance of the message by example. It’s true sacrifice in the name of the one thing we can all agree upon as being good in the world: love. Teaching by negative example is just another method of teaching. I don’t think John was mistaken except perhaps in word choice, but a wrathful God was a common concept of his time and he was using the language of the day. I think his intent is clear though – no amount of suffering cancels out His love even if that suffering befalls a carrier of the message of love. In fact, John’s one of the better sources for the actual teachings, but I think there is often a misinterpretation of the nature of the sacrifice. It wasn’t to forgive our “sins”, it was to teach the value of sacrifice in the name of love. An attempt to instill virtue even by the harshest of lessons. Mike’s understanding of the history of Judaism as it relates to early Christianity will probably be able to give you a better answer than that though.

God’s creatures are beyond eccumenical. They welcome all faiths and denominations.

In fact, there’s line at the door – awaiting…

Let’s discuss them here. I’ve made certain to get updates at this entry so I should see what book you want me to read.

I will definitely buy the book and read it. I think you understand that my presupposition is that Scripture is accurate and true, but I will try to be open and intellectually honest (I realize that, to some, given the former, the latter is impossible…but I’ll try to accomplish the impossible). I have a favor to ask. Can we both discuss our findings either here, my site, or by email? I will get back to you soon about my choice of book.

How do you know exactly that 1 Jn. 4:8 (God is love) is authentic? Here is the whole passage:

“Anyone who does not love does not know God, because GOD IS LOVE. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation (wrath-absorber) for our sins.”

John illustrates the “God is love” point by saying that God shows this love by punishing Jesus for our sins. This was allegedly written by Jesus’ closest disciple. Surely, this man wouldn’t have claimed this if Jesus taught otherwise. Or, was everything after “God is love” corrupted/edited?

I’m just asking if you’ll read it and telling you I will read the book of your choice. Take the time you need to find a book title for me and for you to read my book title.

seamus,

That was fabulous!!!

http://s177.photobucket.com/albums/w221/jiloru/more%20animal/?action=view&current=Praying_Kagura_pt__II_by_Photo_Cap.jpg

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:RgBbrKbSIxiZZM::www.all4humor.com/images/files/Praying%252520Cat.jpg

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/ap/69810737-002b-4fb0-8549-0600a3b82e59.h2.jpg

http://animalphotos.info/a/2008/06/13/pair-of-otters-poke-upper-bodies-out-of-water-one-looks-like-hes-praying/

I reject parts of it as having nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus and everything to do with the editors and after the fact contributors biases and personal political and/or financial concerns. The Bible wasn’t written by God. It was written by men. But I’ve explained this already and so has Mike S. Jesus’ message was simple. God is love. Any part of the Bible that contradicts that is simply put in by men with an earthly agenda. One can get a lot of value from Christ’s teachings if one is patient and diligent enough to weed out the garbage to get as close to the source as possible. Without the historical context of knowing how the Bible got to be as it is, the Bible is a terribly conflicted and violent book and open to misuse. This would be a much easier task if Christ had written himself, but we have to deal with what we have. Taking it all wholesale is the flaw of Fundamentalism and the Biblical literalism. The very same thing can be said about Muslim Fundamentalism, Jewish Fundamentalism and Hindu Fundamentalism. Religious works are not, by their very nature, intended as historical fact. For much of the history of all the above mentioned religions, they were not taught that way either. Fundamentalism is a recent distortion of allegory and parable aided by after the fact actors in an effort to get people to abdicate their free will to serve some agenda of men. It preys upon fear, divisiveness and hatred of the other. Again, the problem isn’t the teachings of Christ. It’s what men have done with them. Have you ever wondered why there is no Fundamentalist Buddhist movement? I think it’s because of two factors. The historical Buddha did indeed create records of his teachings. These teachings rely on a logic, a set plan to make your life better and improve the lives of those around you now, based in the premise that the root of all suffering is desire. The 8 Fold Path has not changed since he first delineated it. It does not require “belief”. It presents itself as a logic. The structural difference makes Buddhism resistant to the kind of after the fact manipulations seen elsewhere and particularly the most egregious flaw of Fundamentalist anything in relying on indirect materials and methods. All religious traditions have something of constructive value to offer. It’s just that some are more difficult to extract that true value from because of the acts of men trying to control other men instead of teaching them to seek enlightenment and true freedom in their hearts.

But you do reject the authenticity of certain parts, correct?

I’m not insulted. I have a guy who comes on my site consistently and practices his hobby of blaspheming…that tends to get a little insulting. I am only noting the general tone of people that comment on this blog. Other than the occasional “evangelistic” drive-by, I think I’m the only Christian that comments here. I’ve just noticed the general view of Christianity here is a that of a joke at best. My motive is just to see people’s thoughts not to courageously defend the faith from the vicious onslaught of the heathen.

It’s not “what parts”, it’s the application of the whole. One might be able to turn on a drill, but it’s not going to work as advertised if you use it as a hammer. I’m not going to retread the proper use of parable as a teaching tool or the history of the document as subject to outside and remote historical forces again.

Seamus,

One of these days, you making me dragon’s breath is going to ruin a monitor. Not that I plan action, but just so you know.

I’m honestly trying to figure out what exactly is so insulting about this post and the comments following it. Before your comment it was mostly discussion of how cute rabbits are.

I did not know, “Paul wrote the “love chapter” from the presupposition that Jesus’ resurrection is historically reliable and deserving of our faith.”

The choice was cherry picked if you will because it’s what I find attractive/smart.

No taunt was intended. Each of us creates our own reality, and creators are sometimes called….