Atheism Is For The Weak

[Ouroboros]

Jebus plainly says that, if we want to be worthy of him, we have to hate everything and everyone else but him, sell all our possessions, and devote our lives exclusively to the promotion of the Xian religion. People can intrepret this metaphorically and cause relatively little harm to themselves (depending on if they interpret the whole of it in a non-literal way or not), but anything else than complete metaphor is either cherry-picking at best or ascribing to an insane and self-repressive idea at worst.

 

Things like that are why literalism in Xianity must go (next best thing to the entire religion being done away with )

Exactly, when you read the Bible as metaphors and mythologies it comes better together (even though I don't agree with all that is said even then).

 

And it's strange that Christians can take these verses and read them non-literal, and yet when it say something remotely about something else they can read more into it that it actually say. For instance the question about abortion, the Bible doesn't say anything about it, but they find some arbitrary obscure verse and make it to "thou shalt not commit abortion", and yet Jesus' words "sell everything" doesn't have any meaning what-so-ever. I think most Christians don't have their priorities right. They believe what they want to believe, not what their own book say they should believe. It's relativistic and subjective faith and not objective or absolute.

[NotBlinded]

I have some of Joseph Campbell on CD. His insights on myths are very wonderful. He is noted as being "the world's foremost scholar of mythology." I want to get some more of his CDs or books. I think I'll go Amazoning right now!

 

Mythic Reflections

Thoughts on myth, spirit, and our times

an interview with Joseph Campbell, by Tom Collins

 

Tom: What does myth do for us? Why is it so important?

 

Joseph: It puts you in touch with a plane of reference that goes past your mind and into your very being, into your very gut. The ultimate mystery of being and nonbeing transcends all categories of knowledge and thought. Yet that which transcends all talk is the very essence of your own being, so you're resting on it and you know it. The function of mythological symbols is to give you a sense of "Aha! Yes. I know what it is, it's myself." This is what it's all about, and then you feel a kind of centering, centering, centering all the time. And whatever you do can be discussed in relationship to this ground of truth. Though to talk about it as truth is a little bit deceptive because when we think of truth we think of something that can be conceptualized. It goes past that.

 

Tom: Heinrich Zimmer said "The best truths cannot be spoken. . . "

 

Joseph: "And the second best are misunderstood."

 

Tom: Then you added something to that.

 

Joseph: The third best is the usual conversation - science, history, sociology.

 

Tom: Why do people confuse these?

 

Joseph: Because the imagery that has to be used in order to tell what can't be told, symbolic imagery, is then understood or interpreted not symbolically but factually, empirically. It's a natural thing, but that's the whole problem with Western religion. All of the symbols are interpreted as if they were historical references. They're not. And if they are, then so what?

 

Isn't that awesome????

 

Antlerman, I think you would like this guy too.

 

Read the rest here.

[Lycorth]

Exactly, when you read the Bible as metaphors and mythologies it comes better together (even though I don't agree with all that is said even then).

 

Pretty much - even as pure metaphor, the Babble still pales in comparison to other philosophies and religions.

 

And it's strange that Christians can take these verses and read them non-literal, and yet when it say something remotely about something else they can read more into it that it actually say. For instance the question about abortion, the Bible doesn't say anything about it, but they find some arbitrary obscure verse and make it to "thou shalt not commit abortion", and yet Jesus' words "sell everything" doesn't have any meaning what-so-ever. I think most Christians don't have their priorities right. They believe what they want to believe, not what their own book say they should believe. It's relativistic and subjective faith and not objective or absolute.

 

Innit funny, though? Most Xians don't see the hypocrisy inherent in their own take on their religion. They will say this verse is meant to be metaphor and this one is meant to be literal, all without being able to cite why they have the right to do so. The Babble contains no guidelines for interpretation of anything within it; to me, it seems that therefore, the Babble was meant to be taken literally. After all, if you write up something that says "you must hate your mother and father in order to serve me", if this is not meant to be taken literally, then you'd go through the trouble of explaining that, right? You'd make sure your intended meaning got through in such a way as to not confuse anyone.

 

But there is nothing like that in the Babble, anywhere. We must therefore assume that the plain words we read were meant to be read as they are, since nothing to clarify it further was included in this so-called "divine revelation." Of course, Xians like to cite the passage where Jebus says "let those who have ears, hear" or something to that effect, as their authority to try and interpret troublesome passages less literally (assuming that Jebus really wants them to love their parents and enjoy mateiral possessions and so forth, even though he plainly says not to), but that's just a big, fat smokescreen.

[NotBlinded]

Exactly, when you read the Bible as metaphors and mythologies it comes better together (even though I don't agree with all that is said even then).

 

Pretty much - even as pure metaphor, the Babble still pales in comparison to other philosophies and religions.

 

And it's strange that Christians can take these verses and read them non-literal, and yet when it say something remotely about something else they can read more into it that it actually say. For instance the question about abortion, the Bible doesn't say anything about it, but they find some arbitrary obscure verse and make it to "thou shalt not commit abortion", and yet Jesus' words "sell everything" doesn't have any meaning what-so-ever. I think most Christians don't have their priorities right. They believe what they want to believe, not what their own book say they should believe. It's relativistic and subjective faith and not objective or absolute.

 

Innit funny, though? Most Xians don't see the hypocrisy inherent in their own take on their religion. They will say this verse is meant to be metaphor and this one is meant to be literal, all without being able to cite why they have the right to do so. The Babble contains no guidelines for interpretation of anything within it; to me, it seems that therefore, the Babble was meant to be taken literally. After all, if you write up something that says "you must hate your mother and father in order to serve me", if this is not meant to be taken literally, then you'd go through the trouble of explaining that, right? You'd make sure your intended meaning got through in such a way as to not confuse anyone.

 

But there is nothing like that in the Babble, anywhere. We must therefore assume that the plain words we read were meant to be read as they are, since nothing to clarify it further was included in this so-called "divine revelation." Of course, Xians like to cite the passage where Jebus says "let those who have ears, hear" or something to that effect, as their authority to try and interpret troublesome passages less literally (assuming that Jebus really wants them to love their parents and enjoy mateiral possessions and so forth, even though he plainly says not to), but that's just a big, fat smokescreen.

Hi Varokhar.

 

Once people decide, and understand, that it is a myth, the reading of it will change naturally.

 

Dang it, I don't want to sound like I'm saying something you don't know, but did you read the link to Campbell that I posted above? You don't have to. I'm just wondering if there might be a way to get you to see that there is a way to read it without being so literal. The way a myth should be read.

 

You don't have to reply or do anything of course, I just thought I'd give a little thought to chew on. I'm not saying you haven't considered it or anything...okay, I'll shut-up now!

[Amanda]

Amanda, I was thinking of this verse:

 

Luke 14:25-35

25 Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27 "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? 29 "Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, 30 saying, `This man began to build and was not able to finish.' 31 "Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 "Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. 33 "So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. 34 "Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned? 35 "It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

 

And you have to hate your family too. Love your neighbor as yourself, but hate yourself and your family, doesn't this lead to that you should hate your neighbor as much as your hate yourself?

 

HanSolo, reading the whole chapter, I think it is taking on a different meaning. This is why I've said these stories are not written as articulate as our era would like.

 

It seems this chapter is of Jesus with the lawyers and the pharisees, challenging the reasoning of their laws, such as not healing on the sabbath. Further he encouraged them through parables to be more humble, instead of always thinking they deserved the highest places. Additionally, it is also beneficial to do things for people without expecting favors in return.

 

One person, to whom Jesus was speaking, said to Jesus that Jesus was with peace and joy to get this wisdom from this 'divine' resource within. That's when Jesus started this parable. It says that this one wealthy man had invited his wealthy friends over to have dinner. They claimed they were too busy to come, making silly excuses. So this wealthy man invited instead the maimed, the poor, the blind, etc., those that realized they needed the food, until his house was full. Then Jesus said, of those that were invited and reject his invitation, they will not understand what he has to offer. Comprehending what Jesus is teaching, one has to 'hate' (reject) their own ways and those of their family so that these new concepts can make sense. Take what is burdensome for one's self and apply these new teachings. Give up all these things that seem meaningful now, because if it is not enriching your life... what will give it its purpose? BTW, the word "all" is not a literal meaning of "all," but meaning "most or many things" as this word's definition is found here.

[Amanda]

Things like that are why literalism in Xianity must go (next best thing to the entire religion being done away with )

Varokhar... I agree. Let's hope that ultimately reason with compassion stands and unites us all, from where ever it may come.

 

NBBTB, you have an amazing sense of understanding these concepts! What I have to struggle through to understand, just comes naturally to you. Now, is that fair?

[Trancelation]

I deal with my own problems; I do not ask for help from an imaginary source. as tempting as it can be to go back to the Old Ways and pray, I find it more helpful to draw in a long, deep breath and focus my mind, to be aware of all factors in a situation, and keep my thoughts clear. This emptiness in myself is my comfort, my river of insight. When Christians lose their God, they lose everything.

I hope you don't take this wrong, but that is the very core of spirituality. It's not bogging one's mind down with religious nonsense, it's clearing the mind to find what is already inside you.

 

This is why I will say that Atheists, or non-fundamental people, are more spiritual than religious people.

 

This is where, IMO, God is to be found.

 

I hope I didn't offend you with that, I just find it so amazing that fundies of all flavors can't see this.

No offense taken. I consider myself a spiritual person. There's nothing wrong with healthy spirituality, with admitting there are some things we don't understand and seeing the beauty in that mystery, rather than attempting to strangle the fear of the unknown with the egomaniacal desperations we dress up in pious outfits and call "religion".

 

Usually my comments evoke little response or thought, but it's cool to see that this one did.

[NotBlinded]

Usually my comments evoke little response or thought, but it's cool to see that this one did.

I don't believe that...I read your posts all the time and enjoy them. I may not always say something, but I do remember them. I liked the posts about your narcissistic friend and the comparissons you were making.

 

See....they inspire thought!

[Antlerman]

Pretty much - even as pure metaphor, the Babble still pales in comparison to other philosophies and religions.

As pure metaphor then it isn't a philosophy per se. It's something different. It's a language.

 

But does the Bible pale in comparison to other books of other religions or philosophy? I suppose it depends on what language you speak, and what culture you grew up in. It also depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Should the criticism be against the book, or against how people use it? Not all people use it the same way; therefore it doesn't pale compared to other religions or philosophies for them. It works for them.

 

Could something work better? Maybe yes, maybe no. Do you speak Turkish? Do you understand the subtlties of Turkish culture? Would a myth from their culture mean the same thing to you as it does to them? So automatically the myth language of that culture works better for them, just as ours does for us. But because we are exposed to other ideas, and other cultures, some in those cultures may start find new languages to speak that work for them in ways their's was not. But not everyone.

 

Considering that Greek thought has largely shaped the language and world views of the West, and that Christianity is infused with Greek thought through it's origins and later theologians schooled in Greek thought, then that language seems to work well for those raised in the West. I often see people blaming the Bible as the source of these ideas, but in reality the ideas about it are so infused into our way of looking at it by the influence of scholars through Church history who read it through the lens of classical Western philosophy. Is the criticism against the Bible, or Western thought?

 

Can we divorce our reading of it from a Western mindset? It would be interesting to see an objective test study done giving the Bible to a villager in some remote provence of China who has never had exposure to any knowledge of the West, to read from the Bible and offer his intepreation of it. Then do the same thing several times in other similar studies. What sort of philosophies would they be getting from it? What sort of meaning? Of course, the mere fact of translating into that language the read itself, would infuse it with all sorts of meaning connected to those words they use in their culture.

 

What I've been driving at lately in other posts is that when a metaphor is used in a culture that it has meaning to, it communicates a relevant truth to that person who is part of that culture and speaks that symbolic language. Myths are representations of whole groups of thoughts, ideas, emotions, histories, connotations. If you hear the word "Mom", is your first response to analyze it, "female parent", or does it bring with it a train of thoughts, feelings, memories, and mental images? That's the general idea, but myths are more than that. They communicate meaning, and as such become truths to people who hear them and respond to them. This is what happens with language. It shapes our views of reality.

 

So is it fair to say one myth is better than another? Is it the myth, or what someone does with it that the point of criticism? In the same sense of us pointing out that no two people read the Bible the same way so it's not valid to say they have the one truth, is it fair to then read it one way ourselves and call it worthless? It's just seems much too complex of a question to say that, IMHO. (BTW, this doesn't mean I embrace Bible mythology for myself. It's purely in defense of how words and myths work in language).

[mwc]

Innit funny, though? Most Xians don't see the hypocrisy inherent in their own take on their religion. They will say this verse is meant to be metaphor and this one is meant to be literal, all without being able to cite why they have the right to do so. The Babble contains no guidelines for interpretation of anything within it; to me, it seems that therefore, the Babble was meant to be taken literally. After all, if you write up something that says "you must hate your mother and father in order to serve me", if this is not meant to be taken literally, then you'd go through the trouble of explaining that, right? You'd make sure your intended meaning got through in such a way as to not confuse anyone.

 

But there is nothing like that in the Babble, anywhere. We must therefore assume that the plain words we read were meant to be read as they are, since nothing to clarify it further was included in this so-called "divine revelation." Of course, Xians like to cite the passage where Jebus says "let those who have ears, hear" or something to that effect, as their authority to try and interpret troublesome passages less literally (assuming that Jebus really wants them to love their parents and enjoy mateiral possessions and so forth, even though he plainly says not to), but that's just a big, fat smokescreen.

I have to agree with you on this. On the surface, if we are to assume that this is a historical narrative, then a literal reading is the only one that makes sense. The reason is simple. We have a story that is historical. Within that literal story we have parables and analogs.

 

On the other hand, if the story is a metaphor, then we have a metaphor that contains further metaphor (parables) and analogs. How does one know how to interpret that?

 

Well, if one was an initiate in a secret religion one might be told how to do so while if one wasn't an initiate one would see a literal story with metaphors and analogs within. The deeper meanings lost entirely on the latter person but they'd never realize it.

 

Imagine what could happen if such a document fell into the hands of someone who then thought they were reading the story of a real flesh and blood individual instead of, oh I don't know, an analogy of a new way of thinking, based on a reinterpretation, or midrash, of the old writings and some not so old writings, that leads the tribes of Israel into a new golden age? A way of thinking that is looked down upon and is considered criminal but is gaining in popularity? A way of thinking that is being wrongfully suppressed...crucified...if you will. One that will rise up and lead all of Israel to victory over its oppressors. Just imagine if a document describing something like that, but in an analogy using historical narrative, were to ever be written and fall into the hands of someone who didn't understand that deeper underlying thought and it then took on a life of its own.

 

I guess we'll never know for sure what the effects of something like that could be.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

I agree that you could interpret it that way if you want to, but it can cause a problem of how to interpret other verses just like that. For instance who did Jesus tell to love their neighbors, or who was the 10 commandments intended for etc? Why does Paul's letters apply to the Church when they were supposedly addressed to a recipient? If we start going down that path we can pretty much exclude 90% of Bible. A lot of it has a context when someone tells someone else something, and most of the time those verses are still taken as directives to the Church as a whole.

 

The Bible (OT) is very clear that the Torah and the laws etc were to God's elected people, the Jews, and not to anyone else. The NT supposedly rewrote that connection to say that everyone that follows Jesus is a Jew. Now, if that is true, then is Jesus talking to the physical Jew or the spiritual Jew in the context of the verse? Most Christians believe the verses in the Gospels are to the "spiritual Jews", i.e. the Christians.

[Lycorth]

I'm just wondering if there might be a way to get you to see that there is a way to read it without being so literal. The way a myth should be read.

 

Hey, NBBTL

 

I read the Campbell bits you posted, and I recall reading stuff like that, both during my Xian days and when I was wavering in my Xianity. He's just doing what the different sects of Xianity do, and that's interpret things differently. No sect interprets the Babble in a strictly literal sense - to do so would require believers to murder and destroy in God's name, as well as probably make their heads explode trying to reconcile the Jebus stories with the contradictions of them in the OT.

 

I know there are many ways to interpret the Babble, but without clear guidelines (or guidelines of any kind) laid forth in the book itself, I submit that, therefore, only a literal understanding of the text was originally intended.

 

But does the Bible pale in comparison to other books of other religions or philosophy?

 

To me it does, in the sense that, even if you look at it as pure metaphor, the language used to convey those metaphors is still ugly. For anyone to use the language in the Babble to convey any truths or such would be like using a turd to show off a big diamond embedded in it, if you follow my meaning.

 

Imagine what could happen if such a document fell into the hands of someone who then thought they were reading the story of a real flesh and blood individual instead of, oh I don't know, an analogy of a new way of thinking, based on a reinterpretation, or midrash, of the old writings and some not so old writings, that leads the tribes of Israel into a new golden age?

 

Heh - but didn't we already find out what happened when Xian religious writings fell into the wrong hands? The Dark Ages, savvy?

[Amanda]

Hey HanSolo, my awesome friend, why defend these Christian teachings any further on an ExChristian site that I respect too much? Hopefully I stay within my boundaries here. There are clearly too many other resources for people to be spiritually/emotionally enriched than for exfundamentalists or victims of fundamentalism to go back there in any way. IMO, if one can make their break to freedom from that mentality, don't walk away... run! This site wonderfully supports that cause.

 

Again, I just think in all fairness, it is healthy to judge people individually instead of stereotyping everyone into the same delusional category... just as not all people who drink liquor are alcoholics. There happens to be some people who do not take these teachings totally literal, nor have beliefs that support helplessness and arrogance. I've learned a lot from you and other wonderful members here, and hope to continue to do so. What further benefit is there in addressing each additional issue you posted? Blah, blah, blah... no one cares.

[Amanda]

Heh - but didn't we already find out what happened when Xian religious writings fell into the wrong hands? The Dark Ages, savvy?

 

Varokhar, it seems to have been in the wrong hands much more than that! The Christian religion has been used by prominent people throughout history to achieve their personal agendas and influence the masses. It seems to have taken more twists and turns than any rollercoaster ride!

 

The very first church even capitalized, such as to sell forgiveness of sin amongst other things, Emperor Constantine gave it a major shift, a pope or priest even arranged for a murder of a major family in church during Easter services for the feuding family attempting to gain additional property (with Leonardo Divinci present), famous artists like Raphael, Divinci, and Michael Angelo enhanced dramatic emphasis, the Spanish Inquisition put in their two cents, just to name a few. IMO, two thousand years of kneading the Christian religion for specific selfish needs gives us the continual roller coaster ride we're still on today.

[Ouroboros]

Hey HanSolo, my awesome friend, why defend these Christian teachings any further on an ExChristian site that I respect too much? Hopefully I stay within my boundaries here. There are clearly too many other resources for people to be spiritually/emotionally enriched than for exfundamentalists or victims of fundamentalism to go back there in any way. IMO, if one can make their break to freedom from that mentality, don't walk away... run! This site wonderfully supports that cause.

Don't feel bad, I wasn't bashing you. *hugs*

 

The argument you gave, I've heard before, on this site as a matter of fact. And I know there are preachers that have taken these verses and had a sermon around them. Usually when it's time to bring in some extra offering because the church needs a new "xyz". And I have never heard anyone preaching that "here's what the Bible say, but it doesn't apply to us because it was mean for Bob only." For instance, Jesus told his "inner" circle of disciples that they had to fast to cast out a certain demon. Does this constitute a teaching to Christians to fast to cast out some demons, or was it just a one time and unique situation?

 

Again, I just think in all fairness, it is healthy to judge people individually instead of stereotyping everyone into the same delusional category... just as not all people who drink liquor are alcoholics. There happens to be some people who do not take these teachings totally literal, nor have beliefs that support helplessness and arrogance. I've learned a lot from you and other wonderful members here, and hope to continue to do so. What further benefit is there in addressing each additional issue you posted? Blah, blah, blah... no one cares.

I didn't judge you, I hope you didn't take it that way. We're just discussing the ins-and-outs of what we're talking about. Right?

 

I know there are always methods to "excuse" or "apologize" for what the Bible say, and I feel most people do it because they don't want to take the responsibility to actually follow and obey the difficult parts of the Bible. The excuse is either not to take some verses literal or that they don't apply to them, but then pick other parts literal and apply those to their life. But I'm sure these verses we mentioned were used to keep people (followers) poor and the Church rich for a long time, probably until fairly recently. I wonder when it became okay for a Christian to be rich?

[Ouroboros]

Varokhar, it seems to have been in the wrong hands much more than that! The Christian religion has been used by prominent people throughout history to achieve their personal agendas and influence the masses. It seems to have taken more twists and turns than any rollercoaster ride!

I so totally agree. The Bible is an extremely powerful tool to suppress and oppress people. Just like the Quran. Religion is power, power is politics, politic is religion...

[Antlerman]

But does the Bible pale in comparison to other books of other religions or philosophy?

 

To me it does, in the sense that, even if you look at it as pure metaphor, the language used to convey those metaphors is still ugly. For anyone to use the language in the Babble to convey any truths or such would be like using a turd to show off a big diamond embedded in it, if you follow my meaning.

In another thread this morning I read you wrote this,

That was my initial impression, but to expand upon it: Religion is subjective, not objective. Everyone views the gods from different GPS coordinates. No one sees exactly the same thing; therefore, from an objective POV, truth is not possible.

 

Nicely put

 

All religion is personal, and ought to be

I agree totally with Astreja that objectivity is impossible, and especially with emotional experiences such as religious beliefs and the value of something to someone. But above you start out saying "To me... the language is ugly", then you say that for anyone to use the language it is like using a turd. If religion is personal, then how can you or I tell someone objectively that something should be meaningless to them, that everyone should see it the same way? Is this any different from the fundamentalist saying to you that you are spiritually blind because you don't see truth as they do? Am I misunderstanding?

[Amanda]

For instance, Jesus told his "inner" circle of disciples that they had to fast to cast out a certain demon. Does this constitute a teaching to Christians to fast to cast out some demons, or was it just a one time and unique situation?

 

HanSolo, first you are ALWAYS respectful and I never feel bashed by you. You're far too clever with reasoning to resort to that! :wink:

 

Understanding a Christian story, IMO, requires its total context, sometimes cross referencing, applications of those times, quite often a dictionary to find some words' array of definitions/evolution... and yes, most of all reasoning. IMO, there can be some very enriching principles at the root of this research. Obviously many others here have discovered many of these same principles as I, elsewhere.

 

I know there are always methods to "excuse" or "apologize" for what the Bible say, and I feel most people do it because they don't want to take the responsibility to actually follow and obey the difficult parts of the Bible. The excuse is either not to take some verses literal or that they don't apply to them, but then pick other parts literal and apply those to their life. But I'm sure these verses we mentioned were used to keep people (followers) poor and the Church rich for a long time, probably until fairly recently. I wonder when it became okay for a Christian to be rich?

 

I certainly don't feel that is applicable to myself, however, if you observe evidence of that from me, I'd really appreciate you pointing that out to me. It wouldn't be the first time you've showed me the error of my ways... and I thank you for all those times you've done so.

[Ouroboros]

I certainly don't feel that is applicable to myself, however, if you observe evidence of that from me, I'd really appreciate you pointing that out to me. It wouldn't be the first time you've showed me the error of my ways... and I thank you for all those times you've done so.

My reference "most people" was more like "most Christians", and not a reference to you. You're not at fault in any way.

 

But you're right. A true and real understanding of the Bible can only be achieved if you take the stories into context, and the writings, author, history (somewhat speculative, unfortunately), and so on. If one does that and stay consistent, the Bible wouldn't be this political tool or this strict code book, but more of a poetic literature, they way it's supposed to be. In a sense one could say that the Bible isn't necessarily true or depict real stories, but there could be a true way of understanding the Bible (and maybe no one has really done it yet).

 

Really of topic here.

 

Back to the title of the thread, I just was thinking, didn't Paul say that his strength was in his weakness? So what's so wrong with being weak when the Christian should proud himself being weak? If Atheism is for the weak, then Atheism is for the Christian, since he's supposed to be weak!!!

[Amanda]

Back to the title of the thread, I just was thinking, didn't Paul say that his strength was in his weakness? So what's so wrong with being weak when the Christian should proud himself being weak? If Atheism is for the weak, then Atheism is for the Christian, since he's supposed to be weak!!!

 

HanSolo, 2 Co 12:9 he said his strength is made perfect in weakness. Reading a bit of the chapter, I think Paul had a tendency to be arrogant and put himself higher than others... after all, he was a Roman intellectual and had come from the 'religous right' of those times, a Pharisee. Instead of focusing on his lofty attributes, he remained more balanced, therefore more stable and strong recognizing his weaknesses. Yet, I also think that in most of our cases, our struggles in recognizing and overcoming our weaknesses, our strength is perfected.

 

Atheism of today, IMO, is much more in line with these teachings than what is labeled "Christianity" today. My previous reading of Madeline O'Hare reveals these same principles I've discerned from these NT teachings. I think many of the 'godless' in those days were selfish hedonistic barbarians, which is totally opposite of today. It seems to me Atheism today is about accountability, responsibility, integrity for integrity's sake, appropriate compassion, and an effort to create a meaningful existence through self empowerment while reaching for a self actualized state. This is what I think the thrust of these NT teachings are. Remember, we know them by their actions... not their labels.

 

Think about ushering in these same concepts as back then, to the religous right of today. No need to go to the church to pray or commune with God, for God is within us! We too are gods! Think of ourself in a manner to not consider it robbery to be equal to God! God is in his kingdom which is within, known by that source that empowers/enlightens us through integrity, compassion, and reason. Call this kingdom out, and make our will on earth be through this resource, so this divine kingdom will manifest on earth through us. Does that sound like the Christianity of today... or the Atheist movement?

 

I think the religous right of today would have a hissy fit if we promoted such thinking! :ohmy:

[Ouroboros]

Atheism of today, IMO, is much more in line with these teachings than what is labeled "Christianity" today. My previous reading of Madeline O'Hare reveals these same principles I've discerned from these NT teachings. I think many of the 'godless' in those days were selfish hedonistic barbarians, which is totally opposite of today. It seems to me Atheism today is about accountability, responsibility, integrity for integrity's sake, appropriate compassion, and an effort to create a meaningful existence through self empowerment while reaching for a self actualized state. This is what I think the thrust of these NT teachings are. Remember, we know them by their actions... not their labels.

Amen/Ramen/Almond to that.

 

Think about ushering in these same concepts as back then, to the religous right of today. No need to go to the church to pray or commune with God, for God is within us! We too are gods! Think of ourself in a manner to not consider it robbery to be equal to God! God is in his kingdom which is within, known by that source that empowers/enlightens us through integrity, compassion, and reason. Call this kingdom out, and make our will on earth be through this resource, so this divine kingdom will manifest on earth through us. Does that sound like the Christianity of today... or the Atheist movement?

Well said. Like I think I stated before, probably that was the orginial thought of the Gospel stories, self-empowerment because we are it. We are the ones, the highest beings. And our lives will only be as good as we make them.

 

I think the religous right of today would have a hissy fit if we promoted such thinking! :ohmy:

True. What was started as a self-help religion ended up being a tool to oppress people, and with that power, the "leaders" won't give up the teachings in favor of free-will or free-thought. They have too much to lose.

[Jubilant]

Nice to see you posting again Captain Solo.