PaulS

I agree Bart can't 100% 'know' what Jesus was really teaching, and quite possibly he is working with material that has indeed been corrupted since Jesus actually said and did whatever he did, if in fact he even existed as we think of him today. I do think that much of Bart's work has demonstrated the corruption of any original writings and the significance that there is a lot we can't actually know, though Christianity in general pretends it does. But I do like the idea of taking the very same documents that have been used to paint a certain picture and shed a bit more historical accuracy on them to demonstrate they don't actually mean what many have been told they do. Whether that happens to be historical reality of what Jesus actually said at the time, may forever remain uncertain.

I think that is what all religions are trying to achieve to a large degree. Many people feel there is something else and the various religious beliefs, including those who are 'spiritual but not religious', do seem to be attempts to try and understand that. Of course we have seen most of the different understandings claiming to be the 'right' one, which is what I like about PC - it isn't 'telling' you what you need, it is inviting you to simply relax and enjoy the trip.

That does seem to be Bart's understanding from what I have read of him about his book so far. I'll let you know.

Well I'll be interested to read Bart's book because he does seem to be a biblical scholar with a fair amount of both knowledge and integrity, so not sure how he could otherwise mistake something that you consider so obvious. From what I understand, Bart simply says that the Jesus message is Heaven = living on this earth under God's reign some time in Jesus' near approaching future and those in Sheol (translated as Hell) will be resurrected to either live again on earth or face obliteration. I think he will make a case for Hell meaning obliteration or extinguishment for those who don't make the grade. Nothing about the typical Christian understanding of Heaven and Hell. If I look at the few verses you offer I could also imagine other interpretations - In Matthew's parable of the 10 Virgins you have Jesus saying people are going away to eternal punishment. If you're punishment is obliteration, never to be resurrected, that would be eternal punishment, not eternal torture I expect. Similarly, your Mark reference is referring to a physical place called Gehenna and again, it is easily understood as a finality, an end, and not an eternal, ongoing torture or existence in any way. Matt 23:33 is also referring to Gehenna - finality, not eternal torture. I'm interested to see how Bart explains the Lukan passage, but it does strike me as odd - almost as though it is a late addition to the story or a later story imposed on the character of Jesus. I wonder if perhaps Bart thinks Jesus didn't actually say the rich man was being tortured in Hades, particularly as we know that Hades is a Greek introduction. Nowhere in the OT scriptures is Hades supported, and the only OT references to Hell are indeed Sheol, the place where all dead go, not just the bad guys. Yes, so Hell means something, but I think Bart will argue that it doesn't mean what the majority of Christians believe it does (eternal torture or suffering). Yes, so it would seem Bart is suggesting that Jesus thought Gehenna as a vivid example of what it means not to make it to God's kingdom on this earth when it was to come into being. One was to be destroyed, not tortured or suffering for all eternity. Well, like I said, I'll be interested to read how Bart approaches that point of view.

Personally I don't get too hung up on what is and what is not PC. There are some general guidelines under the 8 Points, but they are not dogmatic 'must have' beliefs to qualify. I don't think that is the intention of PC - you get enough of that with other streams of Christianity. PC encourages you to be yourself and investigate, question, doubt and grow as God speaks to you, personally, however that may be. Note: Thread with 14 posts split off from "What does PC mean to you by JosephM

Welcome to the forum TT, I hope you enjoy delving into and participating here. Personally, I wouldn't get too hung up on 'Christian' values. Too many churches and people have all manner of rules that don't contribute to love and wholeness but are rather about exclusivity and divisiveness. Live and let live sounds like a terrific philosophy/belief system to me. I find Progressive Christianity to be so much more accepting and relaxed about God than those who are 'certain' about God wants. My experience has been those that are most certain about God and Jesus are often the least reflective of what I understand a Christian to be. If you are looking for a fellowship that doesn't subscribe to hate mongering perhaps Google Progressive Christianity in your area, or maybe utilize the ProgressiveChristianity.org main site which shares details of PC churches and groups under its tab 'Community'. Cheers Paul

Eagerly awaiting renowned biblical scholar Bart Erhman's forthcoming book making it clear that teachings about Hell are not Christian whatsoever. How I wish this reading was compulsory in Sunday Schools around the world so that rather than be indoctrinated by falsehoods, children could start out their Christian journey with a far better understanding of the bible.

I hope you find happiness in your life, Burl.

I agree, but would go further as to say that I think trying to understand why good people suffer is a kindred question for all religions. All religions, past and present have tried to justify why there is suffering and they all have their particular answers. The ancient Israelites used to think it was because they weren't obeying their God properly, Christians generally believe it is because Satan has interfered with God's best intentions and upset the apple cart (although he'll get his comeuppance!), Hindus/Buddhists/Janists all have their own understanding of Karma - the list could go on and on. Bart's understanding, which is by no means original, makes the matter entirely simple - it's just what happens. Bad stuff happens to good people. That's life. Interestingly, from what I can tell, one of the worlds oldest, most isolated civilizations - the Australian Aborigines, who were on their own on the Australian Continent for +50,000 recent years, laid no external blame for suffering, and just accepted that it was a fact of life also. Life just happens. Bad things happen too. Life has no ultimate meaning or destiny which is why we develop our own meaning. We can try and enjoy life as best we can, and we may or may not have what we consider an enjoyable life. If we do, okay, if we don't, well that happens too. There is no judge, jury or executioner waiting in the wings to avenge or reward. We are our own rewarder and our own punisher.

As Bart was answering a Buddhist magazine, I suspect he was referring to Karma in the Buddhist concept of samsara. That understanding advocates that we physically and spiritually go through successive cycles of actual life and death and that this cycle of rebirth is defined by karma. We all know that behaviors and actions have consequences, but what I think Bart is saying is that you won't reincarnate as another human (or other animal) carrying the baggage of one or more of your previous lives. I don't disagree about the results you say can occur, I just don't think that is Bart's intention when using the term 'karma'. Why I think Bart's overall answer is nice is because, for me, he is reaffirming that life is what we make it. We weren't 'put' here for an ulterior purpose. We have evolved into what we are today and it is our choice to enjoy it or not. And if sometimes we can't enjoy it, know that that is part of the experience also. It just is what it is. So to that end I think you and Bart would agree that Life itself does have its own meaning - it is what we make of it and nothing else. I think Bart is just saying there is no meaning 'outside' of our existence (nobody watching on waiting for us to fall, or expecting us to glorify a deity, or invent a car, etc).

Of course 'suffering' is not a requirement of pain, but the suffering experienced when say one's child starves to death painfully in front of your eyes, is probably suffering that is a little hard to easily accept. Indeed, I guess one could train themselves to accept that death and misery, but it begs the question why any God would like such pain to exist, which is the point that I think Bart is making.

Burl, I thank you for answering my initial questions. I did want to pursue a discussion but found your answering frustrating. That is my issue though and sorry to have caused you offence. I wasn't trying to offend you but rather point out how I didn't see your answers making sense against what you were claiming. I used the words pretending and ignorance in what I thought was the correct context, questioning if these were traits you were displaying, not trying to say that is what you are. I did not mean to accuse you of being a pretender or ignorant. No need to participate here any further with me. I understand. Peace and goodwill. Paul

I've just had a filling in one of my teeth.

I know not being face to face hampers communication but I am genuinely trying hard to ask you these questions without you becoming offended. What I am genuinely asking is that is it not ignorance to say something is wrong whilst simultaneously acknowledging you don't really know that much about it because it is not of interest to you? I am not trying to insult you but to delve into the discussion. You made it clear that you believe there is no evidence to support natural selection. When presented with the evidence you dismiss it outright, only later to claim the subject doesn't particularly interest you. You seem to want to have it both ways - that is why I am trying to better understand where you are coming from. Sorry you feel offended for being challenged, but I am trying to genuinely get answers in our discussions from you. This is a thread about the deception of evolution and you made claims that are unsupported by science, but when challenged about your claims you then claim disinterest in the subject matter. I am merely pointing out how odd that behavior seems to me and am hoping you could maturely discuss it.

I understand how evolution may not be a particular interest of yours and that many others are much more knowledgeable than you in that area, but by ignoring it, or even worse - denying it, in the face of extensive evidence (which still is not of particular interest to you) are you not choosing ignorance for something that makes you feel better i.e. you are happy supposing other reasons for your existence rather than basing them on the scientific reality of evolution? It seems to me you are saying you are prepared to close the door on something because it simply does not interest you, even though it may reveal actual answers if you better understood it. Worse, when you pretend to speak authoritatively about it and tell others it is a false science, what harm are you causing to people when you are actually not declaring that you don't actually understand it entirely, simply because it is not of interest to you. This is what I was referring to about integrity. Is not your integrity about wanting to know the truth compromised because you don't have a particular interest in a demonstrably proven area of science and reality. Are you not being a little like an ostrich with its head in the sand because of your 'lack of interest'. Surely, if you genuinely value truth, such a journey of discovery should compel you to investigate every element of that truth, even if it is challenging to your current beliefs. Should it not?

Pipripi, I only have so much time in my day and if I spent an hour on every book, film clip, movie etc that somebody asked me to spend time on because it supports their argument, I would literally have no time left even to feed myself. I have read several reviews of this YouTube production and find it not of particular interest. https://thehumanist.com/arts_entertainment/film/film-review-atheist-delusion Cheers Paul

It's okay Burl - you don't need to answer. I was looking for another quote of mine when I came across your position in July 2018. So unless it has developed, you believe: ...the human species simply appeared or was created in its current form and that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that any species developed into another species. The idea that humans developed from Neanderthals, apes or amoebas is an evidence free, faith-based extrapolation. It has never been scientifically observed and has no proposed MoA. There is proof that evolution caused the extinction of once plentiful species. There is proof many species have survived for aeons without any significant change. But there is no proof of one species ever evolving into another. All of the demonstrated change in life over time occurs at the sub-species level. The idea that humans developed from Neanderthals, apes or amoebas is an evidence free, faith-based extrapolation. It has never been scientifically observed and has no proposed MoA. There is proof that evolution caused the extinction of once plentiful species. There is proof many species have survived for aeons without any significant change. But there is no proof of one species ever evolving into another. All of the demonstrated change in life over time occurs at the sub-species level. It is hard to have a frutiful discussion about the sceince of evolution with somebody who just wants to deny its reality instead for a faith-based view. Your free to hold your view of course - I just find no merit or integrity in denying evolution. It’s science. It’s fact. Just because it doesn’t help you understand your puzzle as to just why Homo sapiens are so fantastic, doesn’t mean the science of evolution should be denied. God help us if our education system takes such a POV. In fact, I think a better understanding of evolution might even offer a better understanding of what you are looking for, or at least help you ponder the question, whilst exercising your intellectual integrity. Denying the science only cheats you of true understanding.

No, you need to understand the science of evolution. Just like we understand the science of gravity, biology, nuclear physics, chemistry, etc etc - when you understand the science of evolution you can move past the peer pressure of religion.

I liked an interview that Bart Erhman participated in recently with a South Korean Buddhist Magazine. In particular, I love how he understands and explains suffering in the world. For copyright reasons I cannot post the entire article, but here's one of the more relevant questions and Bart's response: Q. You’ve thoroughly revealed in your book, God’s Problem, that Christianity cannot save people from their sufferings. This is a great work. You are absolutely right. In Buddha’s Teachings, Buddha has clearly said that people can reduce their sufferings temporarily and partially by relying on Gods, but Gods cannot absolutely save people from their sufferings. Their sufferings are caused only by their own karma. If people want to be happy, they should not harm and hurt others. Even if they are very happy, they cannot avoid their death. Birth-aging-sickness-death, is the suffering that all sentient-beings must inevitably undergo. Whether they have money, power, knowledge or not, every one of them must suffer from it. Buddha said that reaching Nirvana by oneself is the only way to terminate all sufferings and finally achieve eternal happiness. You’ve concluded that Christianity cannot solve the problem of sufferings. After you made that conclusion, are you trying to find a right way to solve the problem of sufferings? Bart: Yes, I continue to wrestle with why there is so much suffering in the world. I do not think it is caused by God or by evil spirits; I do not think that it is intended (by a divine being) to strengthen us or to urge us to do good to other (though it certainly should have that effect on us, even if these are not the reasons for it); and, contrary to the Buddhist teaching you’ve laid out, I do not think that it is because of our own karma. Much suffering is completely innocent, and it is completely random. In my view it is because we are material creatures in a material universe and there is no extrinsic super-natural force in the universe connected with us. The universe can be a cruel and capricious place, and we are here by pure accident. Life came into existence, and evolved, and we are the result. But there is no ultimate meaning or destiny. For that reason, we need to develop our own meaning. It comes by enjoying life as we can, and working very hard to help others to do so as well, especially those experiencing senseless and horrible suffering. Nice.

So what I am trying to get at, but it feels like pulling teeth, is do you accept that mankind evolved from other species? Yes or no? If you accept the science of evolution that mankind did evolve, then I am asking you how that affects what you think mankind needs to be saved from and at what point on the spectrum do you think man needed this saving, as opposed to the other animals that started this journey billions of years ago and seem to not need such saving.

What do you mean by saying natural selection is not a correct solution? What are you trying to 'solve'? Natural selection is one way certain species have evolved - in itself it is not the sole driver for evolution. There are other means of evolution apart from natural selection. Is your sole grounds for denying evolution your disbelief in natural selection - is that what you're saying? No, natural selection is not the precise reason, or any reason at all for that matter, for the 'dominance' of western civilization, if indeed one can even call western civilisation 'dominant'. And what precisely WC is constructed of and how it has changed through history also changes when and where it was/is considered dominant. If anything, what you are talking about are geopolitical influences more so than some sort of amazing book leading civilization into the realms of glory.

Pipiripi, We try (not always successfully) to keep the threads in some sort of order with their topic title. So this thread you started was claiming evolution to be deceptive. It would be preferable to stick with a discussion about why you (or others) find it deceptive and why others may find it factual, rather than drifting into different territory such as another's spiritual path. You started the thread so perhaps you might like to flesh it out some more as to why you find the science of evolution deceptive, why the science of evolution doesn't meet your mark, rather than just telling others that because the bible is right evolution must be wrong. I'm just saying that because for people who don't believe you, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of legitimate argument against evolution, so far. As I suggested to Burl, if he, or now you, want to discuss people's spiritual paths, then I suggest a new thread appropriately titled, would be a better option. Cheers Paul

Burl, 1) I assume you're actually saying this and not me, as you seem to have made it appear? Correct? 2) It doesn't matter what we want to think, what we want to draw inspiration from, what we want to imagine being. If we start out with what we want we will find what we think is satisfactory evidence to support whatever notion we want. If we start with the reality (i.e. in this instance the actual existence of natural selection), and have the integrity to try and understand it, whether that is inspirational or not is irrelevant, but it might just give you the answers you are looking for. Just because you want something doesn't make it so unfortunately. Just because natural selection or evolution doesn't give you 'inspiration' is no reason to deny it. That seems rather childish to me - the answer doesn't suit you so you don't want to understand it. How should you treat others - you really need a specific collection of books to show you that? Who says you need a conscious connection with God? I expect God as you think, does not exist, so to me any such 'connection' is meaningless. I have no issue with not making a connection with such a God. Obviously its something you feel you need - others don't. That doesn't make them wrong. How can you uplift others - of course you can draw inspiration from the bible, as many do from other sources as well including Buddhism, Islam, poetry, myths and legends, fables, etc. How can you face death without fear - this one I can answer easily - death is not to be feared. It happens to all of us. Billions of people before you have died. Let go of your ego and you won't be afraid. I'm not, because I won't know I'm dead! It seems to me you are dwelling in the emotion of evolution, rather than the science. We are discussing here whether evolution is false or not - not what we would prefer to believe. Of course one is free to believe whatever they want - just that it's not necessarily factual. 200k years may indeed be a long time, but that is not a genuine reason for pursuing a better understanding of our evolution. I can't help but think many Christians fear that a proper, scientific understanding of evolution threatens their belief that humans need to be saved, which of course in turn threatens much that they hold dear about their religion. What indeed do they need to be saved 'from' and did they require this 'saving' when they were 'lesser species'? This to me seems to be what many Christians are afraid of rather than be prepared to confront the reality of evolution. And to say that the bible is the cornerstone of civilization seems a perhaps inadvertently racist comment to me. Aboriginal Australians had a well-organised society for +50,000 years without the bible. As did Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and numerous other civilizations. Roman and then British power is what drove the limited understanding of the bible being the cornerstone of civilization because it considered all other beliefs and understanding to be primitive. They were the dominant power in certain areas and it is in those areas that the bible gained notoriety. In areas where those superpowers of their day did not gain a foothold, indeed the bible was nowhere near the cornerstone of such civilizations.

I guess we will, if you choose not to stay on topic (evolution) and discuss the question at hand - do you think this need for salvation (from whatever it is you think homo sapiens need to be saved from ) existed when homo sapiens were 'lesser' animals, before they evolved to the species they are today? After all, this is a thread concerning evolution's falseness or otherwise and I think it is only reasonable to discuss those questions around it. Unless of course genuine interest is not your desire and only acceptance of your view perhaps is. If you genuinely have an interest in deepening your understanding of my spiritual path, then feel free to start another thread on the matter and I will discuss further with you. I am more than happy to in a separate thread, but again, I have my suspicions that you have no genuine interest in an open and sharing discussion. Maybe you will surprise me.

Evidently, you have based your assumption on a lack of evidence. I visited and read both links.