The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Well, yeah. Corinthians 15:12-19

Paul's opinion on the matter? And he's already been proven wrong many times by the history of human progress.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Paul's opinion on the matter? And he's already been proven wrong many times by the history of human progress.

When the Bible is sold as "the Word of God," and Corinthians is part of the Word, what you've just said is that you're really just picking and choosing what your religion is rather than actually following the pillars of Christianity.

This gets back to my "more like a Buddhist" comments from prior points in this thread.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

It was me. I still stand by it because when I talk to other Christians, they seem to all think that without the resurrection, Jesus fails to meet all the criteria for being Christ, Messiah, etc. as promised by God, and therefore he's labeled as yet another prophet rather than the Son of God.

Hmm...wonder why. Let's see, here's what I believe:

Jesus' message trumps those of others in the Bible. Jesus is God, He came late, could set the record straight and was well documented. Don't get me wrong...other accounts add value to the message. But why would one put older human based accounts before God's direct accounts...or from say Paul who had little additional information and was translating the same Word we have available to us for the contemporary Mediterranean. Jesus was/is God and His Word is timeless in nature.

There are metaphors in the Bible. Direct metaphors are used throughout the Bible...unless we believe that a camel can literally go through the eye of a needle. Examples are used today in modern teaching...the use of metaphors were commonly used in those days for a similar purpose. We have no idea what metaphors are used. And anyone who say its critical to understand exactly which are metaphors and which aren't...really misses what's going on or are trying to create controversy where there isn't any. Because regardless of where metaphors occur, Christianity's impact has already happened and its charity continues unabated.

A general understanding of Jesus, the Word, etc. is more important than belief in God for the average person. Do folks often get married the night they meet someone? It takes awhile of getting to know each other, dating and the like. Why would best practice for a relationship with God be any different? In the end, if belief happens...its a blessing. Even for a Christian, a simple belief takes no effort and results in no change in behavior. Understanding, adhering and behaving is what Jesus told us to do. That's what it means to be a Christian.

So I usually get charges of being something like a 'Buddhist' as others are signing off from the discussion. Perhaps its because I put forward perspectives on the matter. Beyond that it never makes any sense...and I doubt I'll ever get any idea what's behind it.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Hmm...wonder why. Let's see, here's what I believe:

Jesus' message trumps those of others in the Bible. Jesus is God, He came late, could set the record straight and was well documented. Don't get me wrong...other accounts add value to the message. But why would one put older human based accounts before God's direct accounts...or from say Paul who had little additional information and was translating the same Word we have available to us for the contemporary Mediterranean. Jesus was/is God and His Word is timeless in nature.

There are metaphors in the Bible. Direct metaphors are used throughout the Bible...unless we believe that a camel can literally go through the eye of a needle. Examples are used today in modern teaching...the use of metaphors were commonly used in those days for a similar purpose. We have no idea what metaphors are used. And anyone who say its critical to understand exactly which are metaphors and which aren't...really misses what's going on or are trying to create controversy where there isn't any. Because regardless of where metaphors occur, Christianity's impact has already happened and its charity continues unabated.

A general understanding of Jesus, the Word, etc. is more important than belief in God for the average person. Do folks often get married the night they meet someone? It takes awhile of getting to know each other, dating and the like. Why would best practice for a relationship with God be any different? In the end, if belief happens...its a blessing. Even for a Christian, a simple belief takes no effort and results in no change in behavior. Understanding, adhering and behaving is what Jesus told us to do. That's what it means to be a Christian.

So I usually get charges of being something like a 'Buddhist' as others are signing off from the discussion. Perhaps its because I put forward perspectives on the matter. Beyond that it never makes any sense...and I doubt I'll ever get any idea what's behind it.

Because the short, short, short, version of Buddhism is that your thoughts and deeds matter most, rather than any explicit belief in the divine. Essentially, "be a good person." There's way more to it than that, obviously, but that's good enough for a message board discussion. What you espouse sounds extremely similar. If I'm understanding your posts correctly, to you it doesn't matter if Jesus was resurrected or is truly the son of God (and I understand you believe he is, but you also said it wouldn't change your mind in the hypothetical world where proof is found tomorrow that he wasn't or isn't), what matters most is following his directives, which also essentially boils down to "be a good person."

The fact that you ignore the entire Old Testament and all but a handful of the New Testament, or at least make them of secondary importance to the Gospels, specifically call out Paul, and otherwise ignore any part of the overall religion not found in the texts (such as Papal edicts or their Protestant equivalents) makes a pretty strong case that you take a more personal approach to it. Which again picks up many themes from Buddhism.

For the record, you don't have to be Christian or believe that the Bible was divinely inspired to realize the Bible provides good guidance in many areas. If the only thing you need to take away from the Bible is "be a good person," I think you'd find many non-Christians would agree.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Because the short, short, short, version of Buddhism is that your thoughts and deeds matter most, rather than any explicit belief in the divine. Essentially, "be a good person." There's way more to it than that, obviously, but that's good enough for a message board discussion. What you espouse sounds extremely similar. If I'm understanding your posts correctly, to you it doesn't matter if Jesus was resurrected or is truly the son of God (and I understand you believe he is, but you also said it wouldn't change your mind in the hypothetical world where proof is found tomorrow that he wasn't or isn't), what matters most is following his directives, which also essentially boils down to "be a good person."

The fact that you ignore the entire Old Testament and all but a handful of the New Testament, or at least make them of secondary importance to the Gospels, specifically call out Paul, and otherwise ignore any part of the overall religion not found in the texts (such as Papal edicts or their Protestant equivalents) makes a pretty strong case that you take a more personal approach to it. Which again picks up many themes from Buddhism.

For the record, you don't have to be Christian or believe that the Bible was divinely inspired to realize the Bible provides good guidance in many areas. If the only thing you need to take away from the Bible is "be a good person," I think you'd find many non-Christians would agree.

This one certainly would agree.

So, so, so well stated - thank you!

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Because the short, short, short, version of Buddhism is that your thoughts and deeds matter most, rather than any explicit belief in the divine. Essentially, "be a good person." There's way more to it than that, obviously, but that's good enough for a message board discussion. What you espouse sounds extremely similar. If I'm understanding your posts correctly, to you it doesn't matter if Jesus was resurrected or is truly the son of God (and I understand you believe he is, but you also said it wouldn't change your mind in the hypothetical world where proof is found tomorrow that he wasn't or isn't), what matters most is following his directives, which also essentially boils down to "be a good person."

The fact that you ignore the entire Old Testament and all but a handful of the New Testament, or at least make them of secondary importance to the Gospels, specifically call out Paul, and otherwise ignore any part of the overall religion not found in the texts (such as Papal edicts or their Protestant equivalents) makes a pretty strong case that you take a more personal approach to it. Which again picks up many themes from Buddhism.

For the record, you don't have to be Christian or believe that the Bible was divinely inspired to realize the Bible provides good guidance in many areas. If the only thing you need to take away from the Bible is "be a good person," I think you'd find many non-Christians would agree.

I'll take that on. First, I believe in God and a belief in God is an important aspect in Christianity. And no, I never said it doesn't matter if Jesus is the son of God. But too many (possibly yourself included), put belief in God as the roadblock to explore faith. It leads to giving up before you start...'I'll never get that job, so why try'. To the point, the only one excluding you from church for being unsure is you. Second, all statements in the Bible are not created equal...and we as human can't implement all of it. A short reference to Jacob about his particular situation...is not on par with a primarily plank in Jesus' message. In attempting to have all points mentioned in the Bible as equal your taking a quote by Paul to a literal extreme and setting a hopelessly high standard that makes Christianity impossible.

Buddhism is an inward focused state...with the ultimate goal of Nirvana, 'the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished'. Christianity is not inward focused, but externally focused. I am last...others and God first. The only potential relationship is in regards to Buddhism's adoption of 'ethics'. But the main reason for its adoption of ethics is inward focused...'in order to live a better life in which one is happy, without worries, and can meditate well'. Buddhism's inward philosophy and Christianity's external focus are the exact opposite. Buddhism is actually much closer to what Atheists claim philosophical Atheism to be (whereas in reality Atheism doesn't have the same ethical core as Buddhism).

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

whereas in reality Atheism doesn't have the same ethical core as Buddhism

The more you box at those shadows, the more chance you'll catch yourself with a jab.

Most atheists recognize that theism and atheism alike are not essentially related to ethics. Ethics comes from your values and actions in the human world. The understanding that there are no supernatural phantoms is an ontological theory (well, OK, technically it's a metaphysical theory, as it is about what exists as distinct from what existence is) and is not, by definition, about ethics.

Your first point about the inward directedness of Buddhism seems to be on point, though. I've never really been able to square ethics with the Buddhist doctrine that if you're searching for enlightenment you should stop helping the starving people in your village because that's a distraction. There are parallels to this in every religion (for example, the desert ascetics of Christianity who put the wind up Thaïs), but they have always seemed to be Missing The Point in a big way.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

The more you box at those shadows, the more chance you'll catch yourself with a jab.

Most atheists recognize that theism and atheism alike are not essentially related to ethics. Ethics comes from your values and actions in the human world. The understanding that there are no supernatural phantoms is an ontological theory (well, OK, technically it's a metaphysical theory, as it is about what exists as distinct from what existence is) and is not, by definition, about ethics.

Hey, I can't speak for any other atheists out there, but I like to rape a pillage at every chance there is. Just the other night, I had this hot blonde number tied up and gagged in my basement. That was a story my whole family enjoyed hearing, and I'll just leave it at that!

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Hey, I can't speak for any other atheists out there, but I like to rape a pillage at every chance there is. Just the other night, I had this hot blonde number tied up and gagged in my basement. That was a story my whole family enjoyed hearing, and I'll just leave it at that!

Shouldn't you be campaigning, Senator Paul?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

The more you box at those shadows, the more chance you'll catch yourself with a jab.

Most atheists recognize that theism and atheism alike are not essentially related to ethics. Ethics comes from your values and actions in the human world. The understanding that there are no supernatural phantoms is an ontological theory (well, OK, technically it's a metaphysical theory, as it is about what exists as distinct from what existence is) and is not, by definition, about ethics.

Your first point about the inward directedness of Buddhism seems to be on point, though. I've never really been able to square ethics with the Buddhist doctrine that if you're searching for enlightenment you should stop helping the starving people in your village because that's a distraction. There are parallels to this in every religion (for example, the desert ascetics of Christianity who put the wind up Thaïs), but they have always seemed to be Missing The Point in a big way.

You're both repeating what I'm saying...and then say I missed the point.

Ethics absolutely come from humans. Christianity has a moral code that give a foundation/guidance for that. And you know...that's actually not a bad thing. Atheism has no tenants tied to ethics or morality. So, when Atheists have ethical behavior...which happens all the time...it does not, by definition, come from Atheism but rather other human drivers. I'm not sure how that means Atheists are being positioned as evil...

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

You're both repeating what I'm saying...and then say I missed the point.

Ethics absolutely come from humans. Christianity has a moral code that give a foundation/guidance for that. And you know...that's actually not a bad thing. Atheism has no tenants tied to ethics or morality. So, when Atheists have ethical behavior...which happens all the time...it does not, by definition, come from Atheism but rather other human drivers. I'm not sure how that means Atheists are being positioned as evil...

I think we were going by some of the prior Greatest Hits (i.e., "because they don't believe in God atheists must be definition lack morality blah blah blah").

But yes, since that's what you meant, you didn't miss the point, you nailed it. A religion can give* you an ethical code, but a lack of religion simply means you take your ethical code from elsewhere.

*In practice, I think most people get their ethical codes from the adults they model in youth. Insofar as this gets tangled up in some delivery mechanism, be it religion or something else, it gets misascribed to that, but really it's a matter of example rather than theory (as one can see from people who inculcate religious values assiduously and turn out to be absolute rats).

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I think we were going by some of the prior Greatest Hits (i.e., "because they don't believe in God atheists must be definition lack morality blah blah blah").

But yes, since that's what you meant, you didn't miss the point, you nailed it. A religion can give* you an ethical code, but a lack of religion simply means you take your ethical code from elsewhere.

*In practice, I think most people get their ethical codes from the adults they model in youth. Insofar as this gets tangled up in some delivery mechanism, be it religion or something else, it gets misascribed to that, but really it's a matter of example rather than theory (as one can see from people who inculcate religious values assiduously and turn out to be absolute rats).

Boy, I never intended that people get their morals directly because of their belief in God and without it, they are immoral. Sure, initially morals come from adults, role models and probably a sense of guilt. The Jesus story just turns it into a crystal clear code making it easy to follow and therefore very effective. It is this real world teaching/training mechanism that has made it very, very powerful in positively changing the course of human history imho.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Feeling inadequately equipped to sound so eloquent in my responses.

I think I am agreeing in part with 5mn_Major, sort of. I did not have a structured education regarding Christianity. I was brought up Unitarian by a mother who was fascinated by comparative religion and was always pointing out the contradictions, the reasoning behind certain things were in the Bible, what was left out, how different religions 'missed the mark' in her opinion.

It is hard to be cognizant that the Bible was put together by humans and ignore it was humans who cherry picked Gospels that supported their viewpoint (the resurrection was the most important part of the lesson) and excluding the Books that focused on Jesus actions during life being most important (Gnostic viewpoint). I know that the Gospels were not written by the men they are named after. I know they had target audiences and were written to address the issues specific to them. Taking all this into consideration does not make me believe less but I do not believe blindly. I am more likely to try to look at what was written and look into the context of what it is trying to address. I am sure it is a cop out but my answer to not being able to work it all out is I am not supposed to, no human is in complete understanding of what God wants. I am also not sure God always wants the same thing as the world changes. After all the OT is a litany of God working thru dealing with human foibles in different ways depending on the situation.

 

[MissThundercat]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Kenneth Copeland needs a private jet to "spread the Gospel." (link)

"He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the **** that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it."

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Kenneth Copeland needs a private jet to "spread the Gospel." (link)

"He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the **** that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it."

I'm never surprised by these guys (just garden variety con men of a type that goes back longer than preaching itself), but I am always surprised by their congregations. The vast majority of people over 40 that I have met, regardless of education or even intelligence, have been hard-headed and practical about money. Do these guys just prey on that tiny residual category? Are they so charismatic they can turn brains to mush?

How can people fall for these guys?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Boy, I never intended that people get their morals directly because of their belief in God and without it, they are immoral. Sure, initially morals come from adults, role models and probably a sense of guilt. The Jesus story just turns it into a crystal clear code making it easy to follow and therefore very effective. It is this real world teaching/training mechanism that has made it very, very powerful in positively changing the course of human history imho.

Wow, I like that way of putting it: Christianity is a highly efficient delivery system for what are really universal moral precepts because it is easy to understand and therefore more likely to be correctly assimilated and acted upon.

You, sir, have hit it on the head.

Very Jamesian: "Truth in our ideas means their power to do work."

Let me begin by reminding you of the fact that the possession of true
thoughts means everywhere the possession of invaluable instruments of
action; and that our duty to gain truth, so far from being a blank
command from out of the blue, or a 'stunt' self-imposed by our
intellect, can account for itself by excellent practical reasons.

The importance to human life of having true beliefs about matters of
fact is a thing too notorious. We live in a world of realities that can
be infinitely useful or infinitely harmful. Ideas that tell us which of
them to expect count as the true ideas in all this primary sphere of
verification, and the pursuit of such ideas is a primary human duty. The
possession of truth, so far from being here an end in itself, is only a
preliminary means towards other vital satisfactions. If I am lost in the
woods and starved, and find what looks like a cow-path, it is of the
utmost importance that I should think of a human habitation at the end
of it, for if I do so and follow it, I save myself. The true thought is
useful here because the house which is its object is useful. The
practical value of true ideas is thus primarily derived from the
practical importance of their objects to us. Their objects are, indeed,
not important at all times. I may on another occasion have no use for
the house; and then my idea of it, however verifiable, will be
practically irrelevant, and had better remain latent. Yet since almost
any object may some day become temporarily important, the advantage of
having a general stock of extra truths, of ideas that shall be true
of merely possible situations, is obvious. We store such extra truths
away in our memories, and with the overflow we fill our books of
reference. Whenever such an extra truth becomes practically relevant to
one of our emergencies, it passes from cold-storage to do work in the
world and our belief in it grows active. You can say of it then either
that 'it is useful because it is true' or that 'it is true because it is
useful.' Both these phrases mean exactly the same thing, namely that
here is an idea that gets fulfilled and can be verified. True is the
name for whatever idea starts the verification-process, useful is the
name for its completed function in experience. True ideas would never
have been singled out as such, would never have acquired a class-name,
least of all a name suggesting value, unless they had been useful from
the outset in this way.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

It is hard to be cognizant that the Bible was put together by humans and ignore it was humans who cherry picked Gospels that supported their viewpoint (the resurrection was the most important part of the lesson) and excluding the Books that focused on Jesus actions during life being most important (Gnostic viewpoint). I know that the Gospels were not written by the men they are named after. I know they had target audiences and were written to address the issues specific to them. Taking all this into consideration does not make me believe less but I do not believe blindly. I am more likely to try to look at what was written and look into the context of what it is trying to address. I am sure it is a cop out but my answer to not being able to work it all out is I am not supposed to, no human is in complete understanding of what God wants. I am also not sure God always wants the same thing as the world changes. After all the OT is a litany of God working thru dealing with human foibles in different ways depending on the situation.

Pretty much. I have a tendency to think folks either see the Bible as perfect or totally flawed. I am pretty sure its somewhere in between. IMO the people who think its perfect risk either following some belief that's tangential and/or get preachy. Those who believe its overly flawed just don't even put it in there consideration set...and reject a possibly powerful path for themselves or dissuade others from the potentiality of that course. I'm a big picture guy. And believe the best path is to not get hung up on Biblical side show flaws. Thanks to a well constructed platform to deliver the message across time - including a guy Paul to grease the skids - we all really know what Jesus was about. That's what matters.

Wow, I like that way of putting it: Christianity is a highly efficient delivery system for what are really universal moral precepts because it is easy to understand and therefore more likely to be correctly assimilated and acted upon.

You, sir, have hit it on the head.

Very Jamesian: "Truth in our ideas means their power to do work."

Thanks. I might caveat that a hair to say that 'universal moral precepts' starting 1600 or so was heavily influenced by a culture that had as its backdrop the Bible.

 

[MissThundercat]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I've been thinking about Prosperity Gospel, the people who share those idiotic "share and you'll be blessed" memes, and prior to that, and before Facebook/social media, the rage of the Prayer of Jabez sweeping through churches. In all cases, it sounded like "gimme gimme gimme." Televangelist twit Kenneth Copeland begging for a private jet... UGH.

It's been more than a year since I've picked up a Bible, but nowhere does it promise that god will "make it rain" or prove Prosperity Gospel. Isn't a recurring theme through the Bible "our daily bread?" You'll be given enough for the day. And if I read it correct, having more money is not a sin, per se? But if you want more money, it won't magically happen, by virtue of winning Powerball, or the bank truck isn't stopping at your front steps. You have to earn it... now that I think of it, Proverbs 6 says "go to the ant... who stores its provisions in summer and reaps at harvest. A little sleep... and poverty will come upon you like a bandit."

 

[joecct]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

They better start checking the Act of Settlement!!

I wonder if they could get away with the Ordnariate of Our Lady of Walsingham?

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I've been thinking about Prosperity Gospel, the people who share those idiotic "share and you'll be blessed" memes, and prior to that, and before Facebook/social media, the rage of the Prayer of Jabez sweeping through churches. In all cases, it sounded like "gimme gimme gimme." Televangelist twit Kenneth Copeland begging for a private jet... UGH.

It's been more than a year since I've picked up a Bible, but nowhere does it promise that god will "make it rain" or prove Prosperity Gospel. Isn't a recurring theme through the Bible "our daily bread?" You'll be given enough for the day. And if I read it correct, having more money is not a sin, per se? But if you want more money, it won't magically happen, by virtue of winning Powerball, or the bank truck isn't stopping at your front steps. You have to earn it... now that I think of it, Proverbs 6 says "go to the ant... who stores its provisions in summer and reaps at harvest. A little sleep... and poverty will come upon you like a bandit."

I think the point is God should be above all else. If you are obsessed with money or things you are not focused on God. Not a Bible scholar but I think the strictures against the rich are aimed at those who live for their riches and ignore those who have nothing or less.

Speaking of riches saw a thing on the news last night saying the Evangelicals are flocking to support Trump. He seems to be the antithesis of Christianity- riches obtained by interesting means, certainly NOT espousing love thy neighbor. Serious question- If this is true, how does he appeal to the Evangelical Christians? What is in his platform that would appeal to them?