The Paris Attacks: The Consequence of Goodness Without Truth

[Nearly Sane]

No:  the words of a Gospel writer, with an agenda.  It simply does not make any kind of sense to accept the main message of Jesus  -  one of love and forgiveness  -   with the idea of a vengeful Being.  The two concepts are irreconcilable.

This is entirely circular - you are Basing what you reject on what is the main message but what you define as the main message is what you use to reject things.

[BashfulAnthony]

Yes, and as was then pointed out that isn't a useful argument. You are being asked for the methodology, not certificates on your wall.

On what else can I base my views?

[Outrider]

No:  the words of a Gospel writer, with an agenda.  It simply does not make any kind of sense to accept the main message of Jesus  -  one of love and forgiveness  -   with the idea of a vengeful Being.  The two concepts are irreconcilable.

You're absolutely right, it doesn't. From a religious point of view, as a Christian, you accept that the words of Jesus are correct, the depiction of a caring, kind, all-loving incarnation of God. That's fine.

As a scholar, presumably, you have to approach the text from a neutral point of view, surely. You have to have a reason - not a preconception or a desire - to think that the depiction of Jesus is a more accurate reflection than the depiction of the Old Testament deity.

What scholarly method do you use to determine 'this section is true' or 'this section has been corrupted/twisted/repurposed', without resorting to 'Jesus has to be kind, so therefore...'

O.

[Nearly Sane]

On what else can I base my views?

No one is asking you to base your views on anything else. The information that you have is exactly what you need to base it on. But simply stating you are right because you are Basing your views on what you have studied negates any possibility of discussion. It is also not an argument to say that you have studied something. You have to lay out why you think you are right and show your reasoning. Simply saying I have reasoned is of no imoact.

[BashfulAnthony]

You're absolutely right, it doesn't. From a religious point of view, as a Christian, you accept that the words of Jesus are correct, the depiction of a caring, kind, all-loving incarnation of God. That's fine.

As a scholar, presumably, you have to approach the text from a neutral point of view, surely. You have to have a reason - not a preconception or a desire - to think that the depiction of Jesus is a more accurate reflection than the depiction of the Old Testament deity.

What scholarly method do you use to determine 'this section is true' or 'this section has been corrupted/twisted/repurposed', without resorting to 'Jesus has to be kind, so therefore...'

O.

What's wrong with resorting  to "Jesus is, kind, etc" ?  It I accept Him as loving and forgiving, then it is logical, and complete sense to discard the "fire and brimstone bit."

[Outrider]

What's wrong with resorting  to "Jesus is, kind, etc" ?  It I accept Him as loving and forgiving, then it is logical, and complete sense to discard the "fire and brimstone bit."

As a religious viewpoint, nothing. As a scholar, it's bias, simple as that. Surely with all your vast teaching experience of critical analysis you knew that?

Critical analysis involves questioning each step, not wading in with preconceptions and looking for selected passages to confirm that bias and discarding passages because they don't - that's not critical analysis, it's Christian apologetics. That's a field of enquiry, certainly, but it's a field with declared preconceptions.

O.

[Rhiannon]

What's wrong with resorting  to "Jesus is, kind, etc" ?  It I accept Him as loving and forgiving, then it is logical, and complete sense to discard the "fire and brimstone bit."

From your faith position it's perfectly acceptable. But what you accept or prefer to believe doesn't make you right and other Christians wrong.

[BashfulAnthony]

From your faith position it's perfectly acceptable. But what you accept or prefer to believe doesn't make you right and other Christians wrong.

Any Christian who regards Jesus as anything other than loving and forgiving is wrong.  Not a particularly controversial view.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, but if you talk to Hope for example, he says it is loving for God to punish transgression and for Jesus to warn of that.

[BeRational]

I have already said this: pay attention!  I base my views on my study, and what seems to me to be the correct view.

But that is NOT a method, it is just opinion.

Others can base things on their studies and come to a different conclusion.

A method would not allow this to happen. A method would home in on one answer.

[Outrider]

Any Christian who regards Jesus as anything other than loving and forgiving is wrong.  Not a particularly controversial view.

That's your take on Christianity. Other Christian groups differ, individuals within Christian groups differ. There are Christians who believe Jesus/God will condemn homosexuals to hell for eternity, for instance, entirely in keeping with their conceptualisation of God.

The point of analysing the New and Old Testaments is to find out what is the truth, if any, in there. If you go in with a preconception that 'Jesus is kind' all you do is find those scriptural elements that confirm your preconception - that's not a method for determining truth, that's cherry-picking.

O.

[Rhiannon]

There's nothing at all wrong with cherry-picking from scripture to support a particular belief based on how one experiences faith. It's only an issue when someone wants to make that true-for-them true-for-me also, particularly if they then seek to judge me for not believing as they do.

[Owlswing]

Just where does BA's concept of Jesus as a subject of historical vesus religious study have any connection whatsoever to what happened in Paris?

I know that I am demonstrating my terminal ignorance here but . . .

[Rhiannon]

I'm guessing that we got here so somehow from the 'little Christs' comment in the rather alarming article in Alan's OP.

[Rhiannon]

Quoting the OT is no argument, since is wrong, and thus irrelevant.

Ah, here you go, Owlswing.

[floo]

There's nothing at all wrong with cherry-picking from scripture to support a particular belief based on how one experiences faith. It's only an issue when someone wants to make that true-for-them true-for-me also, particularly if they then seek to judge me for not believing as they do.

I agree.

[Spud]

What's wrong with resorting  to "Jesus is, kind, etc" ?  It I accept Him as loving and forgiving, then it is logical, and complete sense to discard the "fire and brimstone bit."

What do you make of this, BA? "And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." Matthew 12:31

[Owlswing]

Ah, here you go, Owlswing.

Unfortunately the source of the quote causes me to reject it out of hand.

[BashfulAnthony]

What do you make of this, BA? "And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven." Matthew 12:31

As I have explained, 750 times, last night being the latest... well look at my posts for yesterday:  I can't be repeating myself again.