Spiritual but not religious?

Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: Well, my own personal belief and I suppose this is "faith" because I can't PROVE this in any way.... But: Jesus was just a man. That doesn't take away from what he said or did. He probably was just preaching about peace, love, be good to your fellow man. The basics of all religions (you know before extremists and idiots derail it). I certainly don't use the Bible as a source for his life because, well Rob correct me if  I'm wrong. But I thought there was a gap from when Jesus was 9 (I think) to 33. What happened in between? And wasn't there that council where there was a vote about whether Jesus was human or divine? 12 to 33 (or so), but yeah. As for councils...don't get me started.    Like I said, I'm not a Trinitarian...

Rob, do you take the Bible literally? I know many who do, many who don't. Those that don't were some of the "truest" religious folk I've met. Just curious because they've often said they were taught the Bible is a good thing, but just stories and metaphor/allegory. It shouldn't be literal.

I guess it is all about how you're brought up.
Only because you acknowledge that large gap in his life...like what happened then? Nothing? Stuff that they wanted to leave out?


Edited by JJLehto - June 10 2010 at 14:28

Again I strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in who Jesus was, and how Christianity began:

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940/

"In this New York Times bestseller, leading Bible expert Bart Ehrman skillfully demonstrates that the New Testament is riddled with contradictory views about who Jesus was and the significance of his life. Ehrman reveals that many of the books were written in the names of the apostles by Christians living decades later, and that central Christian doctrines were the inventions of still later theologians. Although this has been the standard and widespread view of scholars for two centuries, most people have never learned of it.

Jesus, Interrupted is a clear and compelling account of the central challenges we have when attempting to reconstruct the life and meaning of Jesus."

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 10 2010 at 14:32

Slartibartfast wrote: I always thought Jesus was this guy from south of the border.

er...or just north of the border now......made a successful crossing

JJLehto wrote: Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: Well, my own personal belief and I suppose this is "faith" because I can't PROVE this in any way.... But: Jesus was just a man. That doesn't take away from what he said or did. He probably was just preaching about peace, love, be good to your fellow man. The basics of all religions (you know before extremists and idiots derail it). I certainly don't use the Bible as a source for his life because, well Rob correct me if  I'm wrong. But I thought there was a gap from when Jesus was 9 (I think) to 33. What happened in between? And wasn't there that council where there was a vote about whether Jesus was human or divine? 12 to 33 (or so), but yeah. As for councils...don't get me started.    Like I said, I'm not a Trinitarian... Rob, do you take the Bible literally? I know many who do, many who don't. Those that don't were some of the "truest" religious folk I've met. Just curious because they've often said they were taught the Bible is a good thing, but just stories and metaphor/allegory. It shouldn't be literal. I guess it is all about how you're brought up. Only because you acknowledge that large gap in his life...like what happened then? Nothing? Stuff that they wanted to leave out?

That depends on what you mean by "literally."  I'm not being evasive, I promise.  Some folks use that word as a smokescreen for the word "seriously."  Yes, I take the Bible seriously.

There is figurative language throughout the Bible, including metaphor and hyperbole.  So no, I do not take everything in the Bible literally (that would be silly, really).  I study it to see what is figurative and what isn't.  I do not always know which is which, but usually I can tell based on linguistic patterns and cultural norms.  And even if everything in Old Testament is allegory (it isn't), the most important thing is the typological metanarrative, which amazes me every time I study it.

As for what is left out regarding Jesus' life, I think there's an easy answer to that.  Look at any biblical figure.  How many of them have their whole lives accounted for?  I think the answer to that is "zero."  The Gospels are not biographies of Jesus- they focus on what was most important- Christ's humble origins and his ministry.

Epignosis wrote: As for what is left out regarding Jesus' life, I think there's an easy answer to that.  Look at any biblical figure.  How many of them have their whole lives accounted for?  I think the answer to that is "zero."  The Gospels are not biographies of Jesus- they focus on what was most important- Christ's humble origins and his ministry.

Of course I don't expect the Gospels to painstakingly record how many times Jesus blew his nose. But ironically, since you mention it, the Gospels neither agree on his origins nor on his ministry.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Again I strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in who Jesus was, and how Christianity began: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940/ "In this New York Times bestseller, leading Bible expert Bart Ehrman skillfully demonstrates that the New Testament is riddled with contradictory views about who Jesus was and the significance of his life. Ehrman reveals that many of the books were written in the names of the apostles by Christians living decades later, and that central Christian doctrines were the inventions of still later theologians. Although this has been the standard and widespread view of scholars for two centuries, most people have never learned of it. Jesus, Interrupted is a clear and compelling account of the central challenges we have when attempting to reconstruct the life and meaning of Jesus."

Just for balance-

From Wikipedia:

Michael J. Kruger, Associate Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary has called it "a book full of ironies" and "intellectual schizophrenia." He cites a number of examples stating that, "it purports to be about unbiased history but rarely presents an opposing viewpoint; ironic that it claims to follow the scholarly consensus but breaks from it so often; ironic that it insists on the historical-critical method but then reads the gospels with a modernist, overly-literal hermeneutic; ironic that it claims no one view of early Christianity could be "right" (Walter Bauer) but then proceeds to tell us which view of early Christianity is "right;"..."^[3] Similar criticisms have been voiced by Ben Witherington, Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary noting Ehrman's idiosyncrasies as "not the voice of the critical consensus on the NT. He could be called the popular voice of one particular more liberal or radical interpretation of the data."^[4]

By the way, I think that Jesus, if he existed (which I believe), was a hell of a man. Probably one of the best ever. I'm not sure he whose son he was or how his mother got him in the first place, but I guess we can all agree he really got his message straight. 

Mr ProgFreak wrote: The T wrote: Mike, now you're also a master in children psychology?  I tend to fully agree with Robert on that one. Children are heavily selfish by nature. They have to be in order to get what they want from the first persons they come in contact with. I don't think toddlers are good or bad by nature. Depending innumerable factors, they can be either. Or become either. By nature the only thing they are is creatures striving to survive. How they will do it, they'll learn from the environment, their parents, and all the rest.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo I know, it's a long video ... but it's quite interesting. Of course it is a complex subject, which is why I think that anecdotal evidence can only get you so far.

The T wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: The T wrote: Mike, now you're also a master in children psychology?  I tend to fully agree with Robert on that one. Children are heavily selfish by nature. They have to be in order to get what they want from the first persons they come in contact with. I don't think toddlers are good or bad by nature. Depending innumerable factors, they can be either. Or become either. By nature the only thing they are is creatures striving to survive. How they will do it, they'll learn from the environment, their parents, and all the rest.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo I know, it's a long video ... but it's quite interesting. Of course it is a complex subject, which is why I think that anecdotal evidence can only get you so far. That's why psychology relies on statistical evidence, not to prove things, but to support their likelihood. You're an statistics lover Mike, I guess you should also believe in its power in this case.

I'm not sure why you would mention statistical evidence here though, since the presentation is mostly about scientific studies and medical findings.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: Out of curiosity, Mike, what books have you read where the author attempts to show harmony among the Gospels?  Or do you merely stick to authors that will buttress your beliefs? Tell me which book you would recommend, and if it's available on Amazon (preferably on the Kindle), I'll have a look. But if you're so versed in the Bible, maybe you can quickly comment on for example the origins of Jesus, and how the Gospels are in harmony about it - it seems like a central aspect to me. And please, not just the synoptic Gospels, but also John.

Regarding your second paragraph: I can't now (it is 15:55 here...I have to work again  ).  I will make some recommendations later, though.  I'll pop by periodically with pithy comments probably.

On an unrelated note, are you very fond of Kindle?  I don't think I'd like it.  Can you tell me what you like about it?