RICK LANNOYE SAID:
“I went to Catholic parochial school from the 1st through the 8th grades. Academically, that was a good thing, but my Catholic education also resulted in about 20 years of trying to rid myself of feeling guilty, especially about things pertaining to sex or what we were told back then were ‘impure thoughts’."
In other words, Rick is a stereotypical apostate. It’s funny how many self-styled “free-thinkers” are straight out of central casting.
I mean, how many times have we seen this movie before? “I had all these Christian hang-ups about sex. Then I had this wonderful feeling of liberation when I was able to shed the guilt-trip.”
The only folks who find this rerun appealing are folks who had an unhappy religious upbringing. A Carrie-style background.
For the rest of us, who were socially and emotionally well-adjusted, this has no traction at all.
“I suppose my whole life has turned on that one, beautiful moment, when I finally stopped long enough to think about what I had been told to believe--what those who had converted me said I was supposed to believe, what they said I had better believe...or else--in order to entertain some doubts. It was then that the process began in earnest, the process of really questioning each and every assertion that I had in my youthful zeal swallowed hook, line and sinker. Maybe it's easy for most Christians to passively accept all they're told they must believe.”
Here’s another example of Rick as the typecast apostate. Once again, it’s funny how so many apostates think these confessions somehow burnish their credibility when–in fact–they come across as emotionally and intellectually stunted losers.
“Whether Jesus was God or not, whether I believe in God or not, Jesus did not believe in Hell.”
What a ridiculous statement on so many levels:
i) Hell is only possible if there is a God. So the existence of God is directly germane to the issue.
ii) Likewise, if Jesus is just another fallible, shortsighted, culturebound man, then he’s in no position to tell us what the afterlife, if any, is like.
iii) By the same token, if Jesus is just another fallible, shortsighted, culturebound man, then he’s in no position to make promises or issue threats about the afterlife. He can’t make good on what he says.
“His core message makes it impossible that he could have in that HIS view of God was radically different than the vindictive, angry, and basically, sociopathic view that was common then and now.”
Once again, if Jesus is just another brainy simian, like you and me, then there’s no reason to think his religious opinions square with reality. Who cares?
“As to the idea that the modern Bible is the infallible Word of God, it plainly cannot be! As Steven (Triablogue) himself (perhaps, unwittingly) pointed out, there are a number of different versions of Jesus in the Gospels! Evangelicals/Fundamentalists and the like are compelled by their doctrinal position to blend them altogether into one picture, even though each of of these Jesuses contradict each other.”
Of course, that’s pure, undiluted assertion.
“But not even they would ever make such a mish mash of any other ancient text. Normally, any scholar worth the paper his degree is printed on WEIGHS what is found in every text to discern which passages are most likely adulterations and mistakes and complete fabrications, from those which are most likely true to the original. Much can be detected in the context itself!”
Of course, many conservative Bible scholars with Ivy League degrees have done all that and come to the conclusion that Scripture is the inspired word of God.
“Steve quotes from the story of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25, which is actually a very good example of 3 different layers, or 3 different versions of Jesus. I contend that the original layer is the part where Jesus teaches his followers to be as empathetic to the suffering as they would be toward him. This teaching, as it was being relayed (by word of mouth initially, and then written down and recopied over and over), was eventually woven into one of the many typical Jewish Messianic Warning Parables.”
Conjectures like that are self-refuting. If they were true, you could never prove it. For if you postulate a series of oral and literary redactions, then each subsequent redaction erases much evidence for the prior redaction.
It isn’t just a case of adding one layer atop another, where you can excavate the intact layers. Rather, the redactive process would pulverize (literally, rewrite) the previous version so that each previous version is, to that degree, edited out of existence. The metaphor of redactive “layers” is deceptive.
“Then, on the top layer, are 2 insertions (probably added by some Greek Christian scribe LONG after Jesus' death) adding the words ‘and these shall go into everlasting punishment’.”
I notice that he doesn’t cite any MS evidence for this scribal interpolation.
In addition, I have no interest in the “original” Jesus who was allegedly buried beneath “layers” or oral and literary redaction.
Rick evidently thinks the “real” Jesus was groovy guru (a 1C Maharishi Mahesh Yogi) with some really cool ideas about forgiveness.
Well, I’m not interested in following a fallible, shortsighted spiritual guide. I only have to look in the mirror to find a fallible, shortsighted guy staring back at me. That’s not something I need to outsource.
“But of course, the original ideas Jesus had about a kind, loving and forgiving God, don't serve the agenda of the rich and powerful who need a hateful, vengenge God to help get people to side with them.”
Ah, yes, boilerplate Marxism. But one of the problems with a Marxist critique of Scripture is that you also have Marxist theologians who find in Scripture a running critique of the rich and powerful. According to them, God sides with the poor.
My point is not to vouch for Liberation theology. Just to observe that such an argument cuts both ways.
“So converted was I that I left school to join up with a group of ex-hippies who had also gotten saved, and went traveling all around the country and eventually to Europe for almost four years, basically working as a rodie for a Christian rock band.”
Actually, Rick never outgrew his Jesus-Freak paradigm. His view of the “original Jesus,” buried beneath all the redactive rubble, bears an uncanny resemblance to the Messiah of the rock opera: Jesus Christ Superstar.
Try not to get worried
Try not to turn on to
Problems that upset you
oh Don't you know
Everything's alright
Yes everything's fine
And we want you to sleep well tonight
Let the world turn without you tonight
If we try
We'll get by
Close your eyes
And relax
Steve,
ReplyDeleteLet's summarize your counter argument against the many questions I raised about your belief that God is going to torture billions of people for all eternity: "...because it says so in some ancient writings, and you better not listen to Rick Lannoye because he's an ex-hippie prejudiced by his Christian upbringing."
Oh boy! The old ad hominum distraction tactic!
Look, whenever we see someone who feels the need to PERSONALLY attack an opponent in a debate, it's a really good indication that he senses his arguments are weak!
If you really felt you had a firm foundation to counter argue from, you would simply debate the points, not attempt to get others to ignore my points (clearly, for the fear they would be convincing!) on the basis of your claims that I'm prejudiced by prior experiences.
Plus, calling into question my "authority" is unnecessary, in that, unlike so many others, I make no claim to be a special authority and, therefore, I don't ask to just be taken at my word. No, the way I debate is to let the arguments speak for themselves! If my points are valid, they will prevail on their own!
So, if by some chance you could, going forward, manage to debate the ISSUES, please try to respond accordingly!
Explain, for example, how it is that the Jesus of Luke 9:51-56, the one who was very incensed when his disciples wanted to subject a villageful of people to a few minutes of fiery torture until they died, could in any way possible be the same Jesus in Revelation who orders billions of souls to be cast into the Lake of Fire to be tortured with no end? The Jesus of Luke 9 said, to speak even in those limited terms of torturous punishment was to be inspired by the Unholy Spirit. Imagine if THAT Jesus were asked about torturing BILLIONS of people as an ETERNAL punishment? No doubt he would have been far, far more distraught!
The point is, one cannot make a justified argument that "every word" in the modern gospels is infallible and completely consistent, and therefore, we must accept that the few passages which place Hell on Jesus lips must be taken to be true.
Sure, Jesus may have been just a man, and there is no God. Or, he may have been sent from God. But either way, the core message of Jesus is diametrically opposed to the later writings which eventually made their way into the New Testament. Regardless of whether you believe Jesus was correct about the nature of God or prejudiced (perhaps he, too, was a sort of ex-hippie that thought God was a lot nicer than he actually was!), what you cannot say is that his core message is consistent with the adulterations that were injected much later.
Of course, the Evangelicals would have us ignore Jesus' core message of compassion and forgiveness and caring and empathy, and direct our focus solely upon those handful of adulterations that make it seem the God of Jesus was a maniacal torture freak, especially since this view of God suits their political purposes much better.
RICK LANNOYE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Let's summarize your counter argument against the many questions I raised about your belief that God is going to torture billions of people for all eternity: ‘...because it says so in some ancient writings, and you better not listen to Rick Lannoye because he's an ex-hippie prejudiced by his Christian upbringing’."
i) To the contrary, I offered a number of specific counterarguments to your arguments–such as they are. And I notice that you don’t respond to my specific counterarguments.
ii) You also haven’t shown that, according to me, “God” is going to “torture” billions of people forever.
You need to establish that (a) “torture” is involved and (b) God is the agent.
“Look, whenever we see someone who feels the need to PERSONALLY attack an opponent in a debate, it's a really good indication that he senses his arguments are weak! If you really felt you had a firm foundation to counter argue from, you would simply debate the points, not attempt to get others to ignore my points (clearly, for the fear they would be convincing!) on the basis of your claims that I'm prejudiced by prior experiences.”
You were the one who chose to put your deconversion testimony on public display. And you did that as a polemical tactic. You’ve made your autobiography part of your case against the Christian faith.
So your personal experience is fair game. You made it so. Your deconversion testimony is a double-edged sword.
If you don’t like that, then leave yourself out of your atheology.
“So, if by some chance you could, going forward, manage to debate the ISSUES, please try to respond accordingly!”
False dichotomy. I did both. And you’re the one who made yourself the issue by publicizing your deconversion testimony.
“Explain, for example, how it is that the Jesus of Luke 9:51-56, the one who was very incensed when his disciples wanted to subject a villageful of people to a few minutes of fiery torture until they died, could in any way possible be the same Jesus in Revelation who orders billions of souls to be cast into the Lake of Fire to be tortured with no end? The Jesus of Luke 9 said, to speak even in those limited terms of torturous punishment was to be inspired by the Unholy Spirit. Imagine if THAT Jesus were asked about torturing BILLIONS of people as an ETERNAL punishment? No doubt he would have been far, far more distraught!”
Well, for starters, you’re comparing the incomparable. The lake of fire is figurative. Don’t you know a metaphor when you see it? To be “tortured” by figurative flames isn’t real torture. Try to read the Bible at something above a Sunday school level. Try to outgrow your persistent intellectual immaturity.
“But either way, the core message of Jesus is diametrically opposed to the later writings which eventually made their way into the New Testament.”
Of course, you arbitrarily isolate a “core” message. Your procedure is viciously circular.
We don’t have to look to “later NT writings” to find fiery images of the eschatological judgment. We can find that in Matthew. Or Thessalonians.
Indeed, we can find that in the OT, which antedates the NT–even on liberal dating schemes.
“Of course, the Evangelicals would have us ignore Jesus' core message of compassion and forgiveness and caring and empathy, and direct our focus solely upon those handful of adulterations that make it seem the God of Jesus was a maniacal torture freak, especially since this view of God suits their political purposes much better.”
Of course, that allegation is reversible. The religious left would have us ignore pervasive OT and NT statements regarding eschatological judgment–especially since that view of God suits their political purposes much better.
Rick,
ReplyDeleteThe reason why there is a "difference" between the Jesus of Luke 9 and Rev. 14 is because this the age of Gospel of Grace. As the (God Incarnate) Messiah, He came to preach/herald the Kingdom of God. People who hear the Gospel are being given an opportunity to be saved. That's why the Lord Jesus didn't want the people judged at the present time.
Luke 9:56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
However, when Christ returns, that's the time for Judgement. This is so basic, I don't know how you could miss it. There are many parables in which Jesus delays judgement for the last day.