Hell: An Excessive Punishment

[Guest kcdad]

Super natural... what do you mean? Outside or Above Nature?

 

Yes.

From Encarta: 1. not of natural world: relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws

 

Resurrection... what do you mean? Raised from the dead or remembered, dredged up again?

 

The dead returning to life, as the Bible speaks of it.

 

Miracles... ahhhh the things that make us wonder, that make you go AHHHHHH

 

Supernatural acts that are beyond nature. You know, the things that don't happen.

 

Healings? You don't believe in healing? Geesh.

 

Not the supernatural variety. Geesh.

 

Do we really have to explain our terms like this? All the things I spoke of in my post were those things that are of Biblical Christianity, you know the religion that most of the people on this site left. I mean, come on. This is Ex-Christian dot net. The form of Christianity we escaped from is the conservative/evangelical type, which is dominant in our culture.

 

Since there is no way of understanding "supernatural" why keep using that term?

 

So , resurrection does not mean reanimation of the dead, but the "dredging up" of the dead... as in memories.

So, miracles refer to things that make you go "Ahhhh", that make you wonder.

And healings... well healings occur ALL THE TIME.

[nightflight]

Since there is no way of understanding "supernatural" why keep using that term?

 

Where did you get that from? I gave you the dictionary definition of "supernatural"; it is a term used and understood by Christians. Of course, I don't accept that there is anything "supernatural", but I am an agnostic about it.

 

So , resurrection does not mean reanimation of the dead, but the "dredging up" of the dead... as in memories.

 

I have no idea where you get that from. I don't think most Christians would accept your definition.

 

So, miracles refer to things that make you go "Ahhhh", that make you wonder.

 

Maybe in Oprah's book club, but not in the context of Christianity.

 

And healings... well healings occur ALL THE TIME.

 

Yes, natural healings occur all the time.

[Guest kcdad]

'nightflight' date='Jan 28 2009, 12:26 PM' post='426788']

Since there is no way of understanding "supernatural" why keep using that term?

 

Where did you get that from? I gave you the dictionary definition of "supernatural"; it is a term used and understood by Christians. Of course, I don't accept that there is anything "supernatural", but I am an agnostic about it.

 

It is a negative word. Supernatural does mean anything except the absence of the natural... that is, that which is perceivable.

 

So , resurrection does not mean reanimation of the dead, but the "dredging up" of the dead... as in memories.

 

I have no idea where you get that from. I don't think most Christians would accept your definition.

 

So? Most Christians don't believe anything, most Christians don't do anything. Most "anything" isn't really relevant.

 

So, miracles refer to things that make you go "Ahhhh", that make you wonder.

 

Maybe in Oprah's book club, but not in the context of Christianity.

 

Whose Christianity? you paint with a broad brush... much like the fundamentalists you seem to be running away from.

And healings... well healings occur ALL THE TIME.

 

Yes, natural healings occur all the time.

 

natural, unnatural... what difference does it make. Healing is healing. Since the trend of nature is to decay, isn't all healing "miraculous"?

[nightflight]

It is a negative word. Supernatural does mean anything except the absence of the natural... that is, that which is perceivable.

 

Well it means something to most Christians.

 

So? Most Christians don't believe anything, most Christians don't do anything. Most "anything" isn't really relevant.

 

Huh????

Whose Christianity? you paint with a broad brush... much like the fundamentalists you seem to be running away from.

 

natural, unnatural... what difference does it make. Healing is healing. Since the trend of nature is to decay, isn't all healing "miraculous"?

 

Not if words mean things. I use the term in context of the type of Christianity that dominates our society. You know, the kind MOST of the members here left. Why don't you get that? You come here and tell us that the Christianity that we escaped is not the True Christianity ; this is like the argument that fundys tell ex-Christians when they say "you weren't really a Christian, you didn't truly believe." Remarkably similar. Definitely boorish.

 

Look, this is Ex-Christian dot net. The kind of Christianity most members here escaped from is the Christianity that is dominant, i.e. fundamentalist/evangelical. This is not Ex-watered down-ultra-liberal-cherry-pick-chocolate on top of shit-Christian dot net. I think you need to realize this. Many people here have experienced great pain and mental trauma due to Christianity. They do not need to be dismissed by your insistence that their pain is much ado about nothing. And that is in effect what you are doing.

[florduh]

kcdad, I surprised at you.

 

Semantic argument is the last hope of a losing battle. It's beneath you. Don't you have anything of substance, or are you just trying to piss people off for fun?

 

 

 

Edited to add my logo.

[Guest kcdad]

Not if words mean things. I use the term in context of the type of Christianity that dominates our society. You know, the kind MOST of the members here left. Why don't you get that? You come here and tell us that the Christianity that we escaped is not the True Christianity ; this is like the argument that fundys tell ex-Christians when they say "you weren't really a Christian, you didn't truly believe." Remarkably similar. Definitely boorish.

 

Look, this is Ex-Christian dot net. The kind of Christianity most members here escaped from is the Christianity that is dominant, i.e. fundamentalist/evangelical. This is not Ex-watered down-ultra-liberal-cherry-pick-chocolate on top of shit-Christian dot net. I think you need to realize this. Many people here have experienced great pain and mental trauma due to Christianity. They do not need to be dismissed by your insistence that their pain is much ado about nothing. And that is in effect what you are doing.

 

Don't put words in my mouth (or posts).

 

I have no faith in Christianity whatsoever. It is a perverted religion created by The Roman Empire to replace the teaching of Jesus which was a revolutionary change in way of living.

Their "pain" is of no concern to me. Nor should it be any concern of theirs since they are escaped from it now. Reliving the same nonsense they ran away from is self destructive... NOT therapeutic.

 

The search for truth is all that is important. You want to dismiss "supernatural" things... fine. Just dismissing Christian supernaturalism doesn't solve the problem. You had better know of what you speak before you start dismissing ideas.

 

If you want to play that "most Christians" game, or "most people on this forum" game, that's fine. I demand higher levels of communication. You would probably be one of the first to question some fundie who wrote that "most atheists" have no morals, "most ex-christians" just couldn't hack it, or some other such nonsense.

 

I am an ex-Christian, too. Just because I am tolerant and thoughtful about my sweeping generalizations doesn't make me any different than "most" ex-Christians.

 

Perhaps if we had all be exposed to the type of Christians that teach what Jesus taught... those in the "-watered down-ultra-liberal-cherry-pick-chocolate on top of shit" category, maybe we would have a different title to this forum.

 

Creating a strawman of "Christianity" and or The Bible is a colossal waste of time and energy... you are attacking something that was never meant to be what you are attacking.

 

As I heard one these "-watered down-ultra-liberal-cherry-pick-chocolate on top of shit" people say recently... if Jesus came back today (and it wouldn't be to America) he wouldn't recognise either the church or the Jesus that the church worships. That is profound on several levels.

 

Just because you can find no truth in it, doesn't mean it isn't there. There is truth in all religions, all philosophies, all science.

[Deva]

I have no faith in Christianity whatsoever. It is a perverted religion created by The Roman Empire to replace the teaching of Jesus which was a revolutionary change in way of living.

 

No one today knows what the "teaching of Jesus" actually was and the "type of Christianity Jesus taught", although I am sure you think you do.

 

Their "pain" is of no concern to me. Nor should it be any concern of theirs since they are escaped from it now. Reliving the same nonsense they ran away from is self destructive... NOT therapeutic.

 

Typical of your superior pronouncements. No concern for anyone but yourself. I am not surprised.

 

You had better know of what you speak before you start dismissing ideas.

 

Or else what? You sound like a childish, schoolyard bully. You ought to stop redefining words to suit yourself.

 

Just because I am tolerant and thoughtful..

 

If you are, then start demonstrating it.

 

Creating a strawman of "Christianity" and or The Bible is a colossal waste of time and energy... you are attacking something that was never meant to be what you are attacking.

 

Its not a straw man, its the heart of the discussion. You are trying to promulgate your own individual interpretation and promote some form of unknown so-called Christianity, not what for centuries the accepted creeds taught and what the vast majority of Christians believed for 2,000 years.

 

Just because you can find no truth in it, doesn't mean it isn't there. There is truth in all religions, all philosophies, all science.

 

Then go find it for yourself and quit trying to foist your odd version on everyone else.

[Japedo]

The Roman Empire to replace the teaching of Jesus which was a revolutionary change in way of living.

===========

I am an ex-Christian, too. Just because I am tolerant and thoughtful about my sweeping generalizations doesn't make me any different than "most" ex-Christians.

 

Perhaps if we had all be exposed to the type of Christians that teach what Jesus taught... those in the "-watered down-ultra-liberal-cherry-pick-chocolate on top of shit" category, maybe we would have a different title to this forum.

================

 

you are attacking something that was never meant to be what you are attacking.

 

============

As I heard one these "-watered down-ultra-liberal-cherry-pick-chocolate on top of shit" people say recently... if Jesus came back today (and it wouldn't be to America) he wouldn't recognise either the church or the Jesus that the church worships. That is profound on several levels.

 

Where exactly do you stand on the whole Jesus thing? Do you think he was just a guy or the son of God? On one hand you say you have no faith in Christianity, in saying that, Even the most rabid of Christians don't place their "Faith" in the Church, but more so their "Personal relationship with god".

 

You talk as tho Jesus is a real being and also mention him coming back in a round-about way. Where will he be returning to and what proof is there of his so called "real" teachings? The Term Christian is to be a follower of Christ aka Jesus. You advocate following Christ (Jesus) here by talking about how the church mucked up his message. How is it you call yourself a Ex-Cer which in it's very meaning means to REJECT Christ? I think many people are confused about where you stand. You reject him but also follow him?

[Kuroikaze]

Creating a strawman of "Christianity" and or The Bible is a colossal waste of time and energy... you are attacking something that was never meant to be what you are attacking.

 

"Meant to be"? I guess that would be the heart of the difference between you and me, I don't think that the bible or Christianity was "meant to be" anything. That would imply somebody had a plan, and as far as I can see, no one did.

 

Christianity is many things to many people, some of them much less troublesome than the kind of Christianity I belonged too. But it is just as silly to claim that Liberal Christians have it "right" and the fundies have it wrong, as it is to claim the opposite.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Liberal Christians are much better people when it comes to their behavior, but suggesting that means they interpreted the bible "right" is just pointless.

 

 

Just because you can find no truth in it, doesn't mean it isn't there. There is truth in all religions, all philosophies, all science.

 

Some have more truth than others. Christianity is no where near the lead if you ask me.

[florduh]

You talk as tho Jesus is a real being and also mention him coming back in a round-about way. Where will he be returning to and what proof is there of his so called "real" teachings? The Term Christian is to be a follower of Christ aka Jesus. You advocate following Christ (Jesus) here by talking about how the church mucked up his message. How is it you call yourself a Ex-Cer which in it's very meaning means to REJECT Christ? I think many people are confused about where you stand. You reject him but also follow him?

 

 

It looks like an super-intellectualized version of end3. Jesus was right, but the church messed it up. If only we could see the REAL TRUTH as he has . . .

[chefranden]

At some point I guess I'll get around to reading an abrigment of Aquinas. No time soon though. I've got about 30 more books on the Reformation before I get to old Tom.

 

I have read some Aquinas as a Christian, and I found him eminently forgettable though of course I tried to pretend otherwise. It was like trying to feel holy while reading 1st and 2nd Chronicles only longer. I certainly could have missed the enlightened bits in the boredom.

[chefranden]

1. So I'm all for saying MLK was wrong about that in the technical sense. But in a deeper sense--the sense that we need to get to--he was right. He was saying that segregation violates the human spirit in some fundamental way. He didn't know how to put his finger on it and therefore used theologically laden terms to describe what he was talking about it.

 

We don't have to use those same exact terms, but we do need understand those terms. How can we meaningfully interpret those terms if we don't make any effort to meet them on their own terms. And we can't meet them on their own terms if we think they are just a bunch of bullshit.

 

1. Religion is not just a bunch of bullshit. No serious atheist thinks this. The most influential atheist of all time said that "religion is the general theory of this world. Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions."

 

1. What the hell is a "human spirit"? I don't think that a serious atheist deals in spirit.

 

2. Look my new friend, I am fully up on the terms. I was a Christian for a good bit of my 59 years, and a minister/pastor/preacher on top of it. I was raised a Lutheran and I'm familiar with the Reformation and other church history. I will put my knowledge up against yours anytime you like.

 

Your problem here is your apparent condescending attitude that folks around here have a bit of difficulty accepting. You seem to be making the same mistake that Christians make upon arrival here. This isn't your ordinary atheist site. No sir, this here is a bunch of atheists and theists that have decided via membership, experience, and knowledge that Christianity in its many guises is bullshit. Now you come along and try to tell us that Christianity is good in some fashion and also that somehow we are not TrueAtheists™ if we don't know that Christianity is good.

 

3. Religion is just a bunch of bullshit. Oh it has some nice packaging -- stain glass, cathedrals, grand music, pretty clothes, and so on, but it is bullshit based on some pissed off desert god murdering his son so the pissed off god doesn't have to be so pissed off any more. That is the core of it, and that is bull shit no matter how pretty a box it is kept in.

 

Christianity is not a protest of suffering. It is a celebration of suffering. That is not to say that Christians haven't protested suffering. They have, but I'd say they have done this in spite of the religion not because of it. Every reform has been fought tooth and nail by the religion. And even when reform gets established the religion often tries to disestablish it as is witnessed by the continual attempt to get creationism taught as science.

 

Guys like John Shelby Spong have made an attempt to throw out all the trash and keep the good bits. What they have left at most is a shell to keep the old fossils in until they die off. The fundamentalists are right when they deride his non-theism, for without a god there is no point to it. And since there is no god there is no point to any of it. Again this doesn't mean that the Messiah sung in a cathedral isn't magnificent. It is, but this is no reason not to call bullshit.

 

FYI there is no atheist dogma, therefore your statements about "serious atheism" are not going to be taken seriously -- at least by any serious atheist.

[Guest end3]

You talk as tho Jesus is a real being and also mention him coming back in a round-about way. Where will he be returning to and what proof is there of his so called "real" teachings? The Term Christian is to be a follower of Christ aka Jesus. You advocate following Christ (Jesus) here by talking about how the church mucked up his message. How is it you call yourself a Ex-Cer which in it's very meaning means to REJECT Christ? I think many people are confused about where you stand. You reject him but also follow him?

 

 

It looks like an super-intellectualized version of end3. Jesus was right, but the church messed it up. If only we could see the REAL TRUTH as he has . . .

 

I am almost sure that is an insult KCDad...

 

Hey, you damn thug!!!

 

Subjective reality here man......I would like to open a discussion sometime of the higher qualities that are in the list of subjective.....if that makes sense.....or developing a scientific method for subjective.....and you thought I was sane.

 

edit: I may not be intellectualized, but I can Love with the best of them...

 

edit edit: How do you know the I am not right and they are spiritually incorrect? Consensus Bible thumping? Gheez I demand credit for being an individual in the midst of orthodoxy.

[Kuroikaze]

edit edit: How do you know the I am not right and they are spiritually incorrect? Consensus Bible thumping? Gheez I demand credit for being an individual in the midst of orthodoxy.

 

Fine, consider yourself credited.

 

I still don't think you seem to understand the notion of being a atheist though.

I don't think the fundies are spiritually incorrect or correct, nor do I think you are spiritually incorrect or correct. I think there is no such thing as spiritual correctness.

Both positions are entirely made up, at least as far as claims that god prefers one of them to the others. No god to give approval one way or the other. Both you and the fundy came up with your position on your own, no supernatural involvement.

 

Don't get me wrong, if I had to choose between you or Pat Robertson as my neighbor I would pick you. I suspect I would get along with you much better than him, but that doesn't mean I think your conception of god is anymore factual than his.

[agnosticator]

Chefranden, your point "Christianity is not a protest of suffering. It is a celebration of suffering." , is core of the onion. It is the oldest and most common ground for religion-human sacrifice both literal and figurative.

 

Many scholars and thinkers share the views on christianity that kcdad and shantonu share. But, almost all christians I've known and christian authors and ministers I've read or listened to, disagree with their views.

 

Just like islam and the muslims today, who in the majority (as far as I can tell) want to convert or eradicate all other religions by force, most biblical american christians (in my experience) would disagree angrily and call their take on christianity heresy. It is the latter majority brand of christianity that has plagued the pasts of many here on this site. There are muslims who are "liberal" in their views, but are helpless in stopping the rest of their brethren from spreading their hate and violence. So are the "liberal" (or whatever we label this view) christians helpless to change the minds of the others to a deeper view.

[florduh]

You talk as tho Jesus is a real being and also mention him coming back in a round-about way. Where will he be returning to and what proof is there of his so called "real" teachings? The Term Christian is to be a follower of Christ aka Jesus. You advocate following Christ (Jesus) here by talking about how the church mucked up his message. How is it you call yourself a Ex-Cer which in it's very meaning means to REJECT Christ? I think many people are confused about where you stand. You reject him but also follow him?

 

 

It looks like an super-intellectualized version of end3. Jesus was right, but the church messed it up. If only we could see the REAL TRUTH as he has . . .

 

I am almost sure that is an insult KCDad...

 

Hey, you damn thug!!!

 

Subjective reality here man......I would like to open a discussion sometime of the higher qualities that are in the list of subjective.....if that makes sense.....or developing a scientific method for subjective.....and you thought I was sane.

 

edit: I may not be intellectualized, but I can Love with the best of them...

 

edit edit: How do you know the I am not right and they are spiritually incorrect? Consensus Bible thumping? Gheez I demand credit for being an individual in the midst of orthodoxy.

 

 

No insult toward anyone. End, you are intellectual but someone is trying to top it with SUPERintellect :wink:

[Justin]

I have no faith in Christianity whatsoever. It is a perverted religion created by The Roman Empire to replace the teaching of Jesus which was a revolutionary change in way of living.

 

Kcdad, what, may i ask, do you go by to gain your understanding of the word of God? Since you openly admit that there are errors in the Bible and that the church has perverted everything and that metaphors dot the entire landscape of the Bible, then how do you get anything out of it? How do you know what is what in the Bible when it is all a mess? You talked several times about the "true" words of Jesus, yet the Bible is the only thing that says squat about his words and him.

 

I actually think liberal christians are just as bad as the fundie ones. They have to come up with nearly as many excuses to fit their new fangled ideologies and they have to swallow just as much ridiculous bullshit as the fundies too.

[chefranden]

I actually think liberal christians are just as bad as the fundie ones. They have to come up with nearly as many excuses to fit their new fangled ideologies and they have to swallow just as much ridiculous bullshit as the fundies too.

 

I find that the fundies are more honest about their faith then liberal Christians. On the other hand liberal Christians seem be nicer than fundies. Perhaps niceness is inversely proportional to faith.

[chefranden]

Yes. Talking serpents and donkeys, people wrestling with spiritual beings... come on.

 

People now believe these things literally, why do you suppose that people then did not? Do not underestimate the credulity of any population. If you could pin the stories on a specific author, you might make the case that the author was writing a metaphorical allegory. I suspect that at least the redactors believed literally or at least expected the people too. There are few if any once upon a time devices in the text to signal that the donkey and other fantastic things didn't really happen.

 

Why do you suppose that people would commit genocide based on known myth? Why would they accept as law the notion of stoning an unruly child? I suggest they believed it as it stood in those days.

[Antlerman]

Free-thought. What does that mean? Conformity to one set of doctrines, or engaging in the open pursuit of ideas? I thought free thought was in response to not having restrictions placed upon possibilities through the imposition of doctrine; it was about the free pursuit of ideas. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe being an atheist is just a different kind of faith. Personally I was attracted to it for the freeing aspect of it. I guess maybe I could be wrong. Maybe it's about a new set of doctrines instead? Is it to become yet another ideal sullied by humans, just like the religious ideals of the past?

[nightflight]

If you want to play that "most Christians" game, or "most people on this forum" game, that's fine. I demand higher levels of communication. You would probably be one of the first to question some fundie who wrote that "most atheists" have no morals, "most ex-christians" just couldn't hack it, or some other such nonsense.

 

You demand? You demand???? Who the fuck are you? We have to engage discussion as you wish us to?

This is not your classroom. We are not your students. We are not paying you for your "lessons". Do you understand this?

 

And for your information Clyde, "most" is appropriate. If you think liberal Christianity is the dominant Christian faith, then your head is even further up your ass than I thought.

 

I am an ex-Christian, too. Just because I am tolerant and thoughtful about my sweeping generalizations doesn't make me any different than "most" ex-Christians.

 

No, its your boorish contrarian shtick. Its not "tolerant and thoughtful".

 

Perhaps if we had all be exposed to the type of Christians that teach what Jesus taught... those in the "-watered down-ultra-liberal-cherry-pick-chocolate on top of shit" category, maybe we would have a different title to this forum.

 

Jesus is overrated. He was mean.

 

Creating a strawman of "Christianity" and or The Bible is a colossal waste of time and energy... you are attacking something that was never meant to be what you are attacking.

 

I created a strawman? Interesting that my "strawman" is pretty much in line with the teachings of the last 1500 years of Christianity. Again, this is so like the charge that fundies bring, that we weren't True Christians .

 

Their "pain" is of no concern to me. Nor should it be any concern of theirs since they are escaped from it now. Reliving the same nonsense they ran away from is self destructive... NOT therapeutic.

 

Understand this; YOU DO NOT DECIDE WHEN A PERSON IS THROUGH THEIR DECONVERSION. YOU DO NOT TELL THEM HOW TO HANDLE IT. Again, a person who escapes from the cult does not need some dickweed telling them that their pain is much ado about nothing.

 

You need a clue.

[Antlerman]

You talk as tho Jesus is a real being and also mention him coming back in a round-about way. Where will he be returning to and what proof is there of his so called "real" teachings? The Term Christian is to be a follower of Christ aka Jesus. You advocate following Christ (Jesus) here by talking about how the church mucked up his message. How is it you call yourself a Ex-Cer which in it's very meaning means to REJECT Christ? I think many people are confused about where you stand. You reject him but also follow him?

To try to add something constructive to this discussion... I believe what kcdad is saying that is getting taken in all sorts of ways, is that there is a difference in his mind between someone being a Christian and someone being a follower of Jesus. I recently finished reading Burton Mack's book on Q, and in there he peels back the layers of the "hidden Gospel" found buried in the texts of Matthew and Luke's narrative Gospels (the two-document hypothesis). It's essentially a sayings document which contains three distinct layers. The earliest layer shows nothing more than a cynic-style sage who spoke in various aphorisms, and a early evolving community that began laying some rules for its members. NONE of it has anything supernatural in it; that is nothing other than a basic concept of the teacher speaking "divine wisdom", which was common theme in viewing a Cynic philosopher in the Greek culture.

 

It wasn't until the second, later layer that you start getting an apocalyptic layer, passing judgment down on the Pharisees in response to this later communities sense of rejection they were experiencing in their social setting. Here Jesus becomes this prophetic bringer of God's judgment against them - BUT STILL, he is not a supernatural god creature. Then the 3rd layer comes even later and you start to see Jesus becoming this agent of God, this almost divine creature, but he is still not what he was transformed into in the even latter miracle traditions, and the Christ cults of Asia minor, which traditions all got blended together into the narrative Gospel of Mark after the Jewish War, then evolved further into Matthew and Luke who included both Mark's Gospel and the Q document into theirs, adding their own touches here and there, etc.

 

So... all that to say... in Mack's book he clearly states over and over that the first followers of Jesus could not be called Christians. The Christ was a later figure that was added into the communities, but behind it was a simple cynic-sage named Jesus who was transformed by the communities developed in his name from Jesus of Galilee, to: Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Sacrifice for Sin, the Second Person in the Holy Trinity.

 

So is it possible for someone to say they are a follower of Jesus without believing in all that supernatural layer? According to Mack (and other NT scholars), the first followers of Jesus in fact did.

 

What does kcdad see when he says he follows Jesus? Is he saying he hears the aphorisms, the sayings of Wisdom without having to swallow all that later layer stuff? Personally that's what I'm hearing said. And why would some choose to associate with a figure so tainted by the "orthodox" Church? I would say it's because our culture is one that has these basic sayings deeply infused into our psyche, "Love your neighbor as yourself", "Do good to those who spitefully use you", etc. It's a part of the world we live and function in whether we recognize it our not. It permeates nearly every facet of our understandings through nearly every form of communication within our society and thus lays operating as a background mythology, even though we don't have to say "I believe in Jesus". It has informed our culture values, both for good and for bad.

 

What I hear someone like kcdad and shantou and others saying behind everything is that they wish to reshape the myth symbol of Jesus for good. Rather than deal with it by attempting to utterly nuke the symbol (which action will never work and instead create an even deeper and more vicious polarization of society as you try to destroy the icon while not having anything to replace them with - hence shantou's accurate statement about the old-school philosopher atheists like Sartre and Nietzsche who recognized the importance of religion in the human experience, as opposed to the popular neo-atheists like Dawkins and Harris), they wish to acknowledge the myth and be a part of its reformation, "reclaiming the language", so to speak. I have no problem with someone calling themselves an atheist and saying they find value in the basic aphorisms that came to us in our culture via the earliest followers of the human being Jesus.

 

Really, honestly, the "sayings of Jesus" in that earliest tradition were not necessarily directly his anyway, but would have been "attributed" to him as was a common and legitimate practice in those days from the students following a teacher's philosophy. It was essentially, showing they had come to understand the philosophy to embody his character and say what he would have said. The sayings of Solomon would be one such example. So really, the "sayings of Jesus", as they were would be a mixture of actual saying of the teacher, and the words of his followers attributed to him in his name, which reflected their understandings of him and the meaning that communicated. So indeed, to say one follows Jesus means essentially to follow a school of thought, more than the human person. The worship of Jesus as a god, would in my opinion sort of loose that meaning. But that's another discussion.

 

So... in the hope to bring some fruitful discussion into what has otherwise degraded into name calling, and to inspire some exploration of ideas here, I'd very much like to hear what kcdad and shantou (sp?) have to say in response to the observations I've made. I'd be much happier exploring ideas than just insulting each other.

[florduh]

AM, I know how you enjoy having someone to academically discuss the power and meaning of myth. The guys in question here have read a lot of other people's opinions and have drawn conclusions about Jesus, Christianity, and us.

 

What I hear someone like kcdad and shantou and others saying behind everything is that they wish to reshape the myth symbol of Jesus for good.

 

What is actually being said here is that we reject Jesus because we don't have the correct interpretation. Since they pretend to know what happened and what was said two thousand years ago, they are right and we are ignorant and therefore wrong.

 

Taking that stance, and being insulting along the way, is no different than any other Christian who comes here to tell us how wrong we are, how angry we are, and how closed-minded we are.

 

I don't think any of us here are looking to be instructed by a self-proclaimed guru who has superior knowledge and understanding. Regarding Jesus and Christianity, there is no certainty, just conjecture and guesswork.

 

If someone simply MUST find value in the Jesus myth, more power to them. If it requires semantic contortions and unfounded assumptions, so be it. Those have always been hallmarks of the faithful. Just don't try to sell it to me as Truth.

[Japedo]

AM, I know how you enjoy having someone to academically discuss the power and meaning of myth. The guys in question here have read a lot of other people's opinions and have drawn conclusions about Jesus, Christianity, and us.

 

What I hear someone like kcdad and shantou and others saying behind everything is that they wish to reshape the myth symbol of Jesus for good.

 

What is actually being said here is that we reject Jesus because we don't have the correct interpretation. Since they pretend to know what happened and what was said two thousand years ago, they are right and we are ignorant and therefore wrong.

 

Taking that stance, and being insulting along the way, is no different than any other Christian who comes here to tell us how wrong we are, how angry we are, and how closed-minded we are.

 

I don't think any of us here are looking to be instructed by a self-proclaimed guru who has superior knowledge and understanding. Regarding Jesus and Christianity, there is no certainty, just conjecture and guesswork.

 

If someone simply MUST find value in the Jesus myth, more power to them. If it requires semantic contortions and unfounded assumptions, so be it. Those have always been hallmarks of the faithful. Just don't try to sell it to me as Truth.

 

 

Flordah,

 

You said it much better then I could!!

 

AM, Apology's if I sounded like I was name calling, or wasn't being constructive. I feel much the way Flordah lay's out here about the whole Jesus thing. I don't think he ever existed. If someone has to bend logic into a pretzel and claim they have the real truth while doing so, then they should be able to answer straight forward questions, something as strong as the truth should be able to withstand simple scrutiny.

 

I wouldn't have asked him other then he claimed that he was an Ex-Christian, not that he was a liberal one. He's a follower of Christ, what's he called if not an Xtian?

[Guest kcdad]

DevaLight'

 

There are many who are confident that the teachings of Jesus recorded in the several Gospels and extra canonical writings are indicitive of his teachings. The fact that you are unaware of it is meaningless to me.

 

Typical of your superior pronouncements. No concern for anyone but yourself. I am not surprised.

 

I don't concern myself with things I can not change, and indeed not with what people don't want to change, (and in fact enjoy suffering)

 

Then go find it for yourself and quit trying to foist your odd version on everyone else.

 

Why do you think I am foisting and you are just "sharing"?