The Bible UnWheeled

[Scrawly]

I'm reminded again of the saying, "The answer to bad religion is not no religion but good religion."

When I see people who identify themselves as Christians but have some seriously messed up beliefs, it never surprises me to learn that they've "deconverted". This Bible Wheel fellow is, obviously, no exception. They spend so much time chasing after lies that they never see the truth, and when the lies inevitably crumble, they have no foundation to fall back on, and so, in the end, they renounce Christianity, although it's debatable if they were ever Christians to begin with.

Can you give us an example of a "messed up" belief that Christian's generally hold (besides this Bible Wheel silliness)? How would you define "good religion"?

[Scrawly]

Richard gives four general reasons for leaving the Christian faith.

1) The doctrine of an eternal hell.
2) Biblical errance.
3) Unanswered prayers.

The fourth he does not number but he refers to divisions among Christians, Catholic, the division among protestants.

There were other reasons, notably that the biblical stories were clearly ancient tribal myths and legends, written by a primitive people. To defend these stories as literally and maximally historical is absurdity of the highest order, according to Mr. Bible Wheel.

[Faber]

That's so punny!

Not a pun at all. The term "lunatic" comes from the Latin, "pertaining to the moon." It's the old superstition that people act strangely during the full moon.

[Faber]

Can you give us an example of a "messed up" belief that Christian's generally hold (besides this Bible Wheel silliness)? How would you define "good religion"?

Define "good religion?" How about James 1:27,

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

As for "messed up beliefs," where do I begin" Shemitah, Blood Moons, Jupiter Effect, Rapture, Dispensationalism, hypercalvinism, ...

[Scrawly]

Define "good religion?" How about James 1:27,

As for "messed up beliefs," where do I begin" Shemitah, Blood Moons, Jupiter Effect, Rapture, Dispensationalism, hypercalvinism, ...

So would the message be for Christian's to limit their focus on doctrine and the biblical text, and get practical with the needs of others? I think good doctrine is important, and good works should flow from that, however, it seems like that would bring us to a Bible-Wheel-like focus on doctrine and would leave us with very little energy and time to put towards "good religion" that James speaks of.

[Littlejoe]

Not a pun at all. The term "lunatic" comes from the Latin, "pertaining to the moon." It's the old superstition that people act strangely during the full moon.

Uh...Yeah....

[Faber]

So would the message be for Christian's to limit their focus on doctrine and the biblical text, and get practical with the needs of others? I think good doctrine is important, and good works should flow from that, however, it seems like that would bring us to a Bible-Wheel-like focus on doctrine and would leave us with very little energy and time to put towards "good religion" that James speaks of.

Depends. In my case, when I first became a Christian at age 17, I knew absolutely nothing about Jesus, the Bible, the Christian faith, or anything. Fortunately, going to a good Bible teaching church, I learned fast. But I was filling myself with heavy theology and found myself a few years later spiritually sluggish, because I wasn't putting it into works. Sorta like that saying, being so heavenly minded that I was of no earthly good. But then the church became fundamentalist, control-oriented, and I was deep into works and neglecting the spiritual aspects. I got myself straightened out, got the proper balance of doctrine and Bible study, relationship with the Lord, and ministering to others.

[shunyadragon]

There were other reasons, notably that the biblical stories were clearly ancient tribal myths and legends, written by a primitive people. To defend these stories as literally and maximally historical is absurdity of the highest order, according to Mr. Bible Wheel.

As I already stated: My rejection of traditional Christian faith is simple: The faith, and foundation doctrines and beliefs are not tenable, logical nor rational when based on ancient cannanite and pre-Babylonian mythology. The scripture is also of weak provenance.

I will give the Bible wheel a few points for this.

[Mountain Man]

Can you give us an example of a "messed up" belief that Christian's generally hold (besides this Bible Wheel silliness)? How would you define "good religion"?

I'm not aware of any generally held "messed up" beliefs in Christianity. I was referring to fringe lunatics like Bible Wheel, or people who think they can reconcile their acceptance of homosexuality with the Bible's clear condemnation. You push a lie hard enough and it'll break, and if their Christianity isn't otherwise grounded in the truth then they "deconvert". I've seen it happen many times.

[Mountain Man]

As I already stated: My rejection of traditional Christian faith is simple: The faith, and foundation doctrines and beliefs are not tenable, logical nor rational when based on ancient cannanite and pre-Babylonian mythology. The scripture is also of weak provenance.

You would first have to prove that Christianity is "based on ancient cannanite and pre-Babylonian mythology". To that end, you might want to study Glenn Miller's comprehensive essay Was Jesus Just a Copycat Savior Myth? to learn how real historians analyze ostensibly similiar beliefs using the following test:

1. Similarity of general motifs is not enough to "prove anything"; we must have "complex structures" (e.g., 'system of deities', 'narrative structure').
2. Ideally, we would need to establish the historical link first, before looking for borrowings.
3. Differences between structures/stories/complexes do not disprove influence, as long as the parallels are 'too numerous' and 'too striking'.
4. Parallels must be 'striking' (i.e., unexpected, 'odd', difficult to account for).
5. Some/many parallels/parallel motifs are superficial (i.e., identical on the surface), and 'prove nothing'.
6. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be numerous.
7. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be complex (i.e., with multiple parts and interrelationships).
8. Parallels that can be used to support the possibility of influence need to be detailed.
9. The details in alleged parallels must have the same "conceptual usage" reflected in them (e.g., they must be used with the same meaning).
10. The parallels must have the same ' ideas underlying them'.
11. The similar ideas in alleged parallels must be 'central features' in the material--and not just isolated or peripheral elements.
12. Details which are completely unexpected (to the point of being unexplainable apart from borrowing) are strong evidence for borrowing
13. Details which are almost irrelevant to the new context, but which have function in the old context are strong evidence for borrowing

So there's your framework. Something tells me you have a lot of work to do to make all the pieces fit.

[shunyadragon]

You would first have to prove that Christianity is "based on ancient cannanite and pre-Babylonian mythology". To that end, you might want to study Glenn Miller's comprehensive essay Was Jesus Just a Copycat Savior Myth? to learn how real historians analyze ostensibly similiar beliefs using the following test:

The basis for "based on ancient cannanite and pre-Babylonian mythology" is related to the foundation of Christian doctrines and beliefs of the 'Fall,' 'Original Sin' and the Flood are based on the myths of Genesis, and the Pentateuch, which have their origins in Canaanite and pre-Babylonian myths and writings. These writings have poor provenance as scripture with any specific authorship as traditionally claimed in Judaism and Christianity.

The question of the mythology concerning the existence of, and Divine claims of Jesus Christ is another issue. On this issue your essay has a high degree of bias to justify belief. There are indeed more sides to these issues than this.

Proof? This, as usual, very questionable illusive request that does not exist. My view is based on sound academics in history.

[Mountain Man]

The basis for "based on ancient cannanite and pre-Babylonian mythology" is related to the foundation of Christian doctrines and beliefs of the 'Fall,' and 'Original Sin' based on the myths of Genesis, and the Pentateuch, which have their origins in Canaanite and pre-Babylonian myths and writings. These writings have poor provenance as scripture with any specific authorship as traditionally claimed in Judaism and Christianity.

The question of the mythology concerning the existence of, and Divine claims of Jesus Christ is another issue.

Proof? This, as usual, very questionable illusive request that does not exist. My view is based on sound academics in history.

So your argument is basically, "Christianity is based on a myth. Therefore, Christianity is based on a myth."

Yep, I knew if I threw a rigerous historical test in your face, you'd fold like a cheap suit.

If you read Glenn Miller's essay and apply the 13-step historical test to your argument, I think you'll reach the same conclusion I have: you're full of crap.

[shunyadragon]

So your argument is basically, "Christianity is based on a myth. Therefore, Christianity is based on a myth."

No.

Yep, I knew if I threw a rigerous historical test in your face, you'd fold like a cheap suit.

If you read Glenn Miller's essay and apply the 13-step historical test to your argument, I think you'll reach the same conclusion I have: you're full of crap.

I have read the reference. It remains a highly biased historical test to justify a 'belief system' a priori.

[Mountain Man]

I have read the reference. It remains a highly biased historical test to justify a 'belief system' a priori.

"Highly biased". Yeah, O.K.

What you really mean is that any objective test used by reputable scholars sinks your argument like the Titanic, so you're going to pigeon-hole it as "biased" and pretend that's a sufficient rebuttal to pull your backside out of the fire.

[Jedidiah]

So your argument is basically, "Christianity is based on a myth. Therefore, Christianity is based on a myth."

That is not a fair characterization MM. He is basing his argument on the "Similarity of general motifs."