Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

On Changing Minds


Legion

Recommended Posts

OC, instead of expecting anyone to try to prove a negative, why don't YOU undertake the even more burdensome task of proving that, not only is there a 'god' of some sort 'somewhere, out there,' but that it is also the Hebrew god of the OT that is also the Xtian god that demanded a blood human sacrifice, and that all this stuff that's been written down and assembled as 'the bible' is the mystic handiwork of this deity rather than a collection of human-authored essays. I'm not holding my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be really interested in how you define the word "saved" in a saved soul context based on our previous discussions.

It's a metaphorical expression of something existential. What that means is that its essence is a state of moving from a state of lesser to greater awareness of the Self, a becoming, an unfolding towards reconciliation with ALL. To be "lost", is to be looking downward, lost in yourself, lost in an imagination that isolates and removes ones "soul" from living and life, which includes the self, others, and the world or universe. Salvation is being reconciled with everything in a path towards Unity.

 

I hear within the language of Christianity this same theme, put in the language of separation and reconciliation with God. It's not a unique theme, but expresses something existential. Man's sense of separation from others and the world, and even from himself in a world of Dualism, subject/object. Salvation is being moved into reconciliation, unity, ONENESS. That's the theme. And to me, it is meaningful. The literalness of all of it, is experiential. The symbols of it are not just pointers towards that, but become part of the reality of the experience of that path of those that seek it, that use them, on that road to 'reconciliation' or 'salvation'. And in that way, they are real. Even if the reality of the experience lies beyond them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A-man I thought that was one of your best posts ever.

 

May I now touch the hem of your garment? :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salvation is being moved into reconciliation, unity, ONENESS.

And that's exactly what I felt after my de-conversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You DO NOT know god or his ways.

 

You can't have a relationship with your god-man because he is NOT there. He ONLY exists in your confines of your stunted imagination.

You make a lot of positive claims you can not back up. Why? Judging from your words you seem to be an atheist in the truest sense - meaning you assert there is no God. So show me evidence to support your positive claim, i.e the non-existence of God. Perhaps you would like to start a thread specifically for this subject? I'll respond to your purported evidence.

 

You do realize, don't you that you're in a forum where the most of the participants:

 

1-Don't believe in gods

2-Don't believe the bible is holy or inspired in any way and

3-Don't believe in a seperate and eternal soul

 

so the above is about the most ridiculous question (statement?) that could be asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a metaphorical expression of something existential. What that means is that its essence is a state of moving from a state of lesser to greater awareness of the Self, a becoming, an unfolding towards reconciliation with ALL. To be "lost", is to be looking downward, lost in yourself, lost in an imagination that isolates and removes ones "soul" from living and life, which includes the self, others, and the world or universe. Salvation is being reconciled with everything in a path towards Unity.

Couldn't this effectively be availing myself to the contents of my daughter's math book?

 

I hear within the language of Christianity this same theme, put in the language of separation and reconciliation with God. It's not a unique theme, but expresses something existential. Man's sense of separation from others and the world, and even from himself in a world of Dualism, subject/object. Salvation is being moved into reconciliation, unity, ONENESS. That's the theme. And to me, it is meaningful. The literalness of all of it, is experiential. The symbols of it are not just pointers towards that, but become part of the reality of the experience of that path of those that seek it, that use them, on that road to 'reconciliation' or 'salvation'. And in that way, they are real. Even if the reality of the experience lies beyond them.

 

Sure Christianity expresses something existential, but to a different end. I have no problem with being in touch with others/nature/universe as one has energy to, but I can't see that this describes the end result, the eternal, the afterlife, that is described in the Bible. Take the thief on the Cross....Jesus says today he will be with Him in paradise. How is crucifiction on a cross the existential oneness/awareness of self?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A-man I thought that was one of your best posts ever.

 

May I now touch the hem of your garment? :HaHa:

Yes, if it means you'll get caught up on your tithing to me. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phanta rocks! :woohoo:

 

She sure does!! I've been really impressed lately with her attempts to facilitate focused and meaningful dialog. It seems like an exasperating process. But she is pulling it off quite well!

 

You go girl!

 

Thanks, Oddbird. Synergistic discussion--the kind of discussion I enjoy engaging in!-- is always an investment of time and energy, and my experience is that it has the best chance of yielding returns for both participants.

 

However, I understand that synergistic dialogue is not one of Clay's stated goals. Thus it is understandable that Clay is unhappy about my terms; they do not serve his agenda. He isn't interested in living, breathing, persons with whom to participate in a dialogue, but rather arguments to nail up as examples for his fellows in faith.

 

My thoughts, feelings, and ideas are not tools to be used in this way. I am a growing, learning human being who is fresh and curious and alive. Thus, I judge myself wise for having boundaries around discussion with Clay and insisting on sticking to the kind of discussion I find enjoyable and useful--synergistic discussion.

 

Phanta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a metaphorical expression of something existential. What that means is that its essence is a state of moving from a state of lesser to greater awareness of the Self, a becoming, an unfolding towards reconciliation with ALL. To be "lost", is to be looking downward, lost in yourself, lost in an imagination that isolates and removes ones "soul" from living and life, which includes the self, others, and the world or universe. Salvation is being reconciled with everything in a path towards Unity.

Couldn't this effectively be availing myself to the contents of my daughter's math book?

No. I don't see how that one area of understanding engages the whole person. But since I'm not a math guy, perhaps math can open them up in their heart and mind and spirit to others to the point they live a changed life through a changed level of awareness of the Universe. I don't know.

 

I hear within the language of Christianity this same theme, put in the language of separation and reconciliation with God. It's not a unique theme, but expresses something existential. Man's sense of separation from others and the world, and even from himself in a world of Dualism, subject/object. Salvation is being moved into reconciliation, unity, ONENESS. That's the theme. And to me, it is meaningful. The literalness of all of it, is experiential. The symbols of it are not just pointers towards that, but become part of the reality of the experience of that path of those that seek it, that use them, on that road to 'reconciliation' or 'salvation'. And in that way, they are real. Even if the reality of the experience lies beyond them.

 

Sure Christianity expresses something existential, but to a different end. I have no problem with being in touch with others/nature/universe as one has energy to, but I can't see that this describes the end result, the eternal, the afterlife, that is described in the Bible. Take the thief on the Cross....Jesus says today he will be with Him in paradise. How is crucifiction on a cross the existential oneness/awareness of self?

I'm not sure how it's ultimately to a different end. Reconciliation to God is reconciliation to God. Not whether or not that is imaged as streets of gold in a heavenly Jerusalem, an afterlife of continued Subject/Object, reincarnation towards Nirvana, etc. Those are all symbolic expressions of that sense of that state of being, or that existential desire for reconciliation. The essence, the spirit of it, the Heart of it, is from the same place and to the same Ultimate end. Union with the Ultimate.

 

So how is crucifixion on a cross the existential oneness/awareness of self? It symbolizes a death to self and union with God. Oneness with God is achieved at the end of ego, where you being united with the essence of the Divine: Godhead. That state of coming to the end of self, the death of self in moving beyond into Enlightenment, can be a terrifying place to be, to look into. So it is expressed in the mystics the world over within and without all religions.

 

This is interesting. I'd like to respond to other points you see in Christian faith in how it can be understood to the same end in other means of language. I think this may help to make my point about symbols which has always been met with difficulty in what I'm actually saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You DO NOT know god or his ways.

 

You can't have a relationship with your god-man because he is NOT there. He ONLY exists in your confines of your stunted imagination.

You make a lot of positive claims you can not back up. Why? Judging from your words you seem to be an atheist in the truest sense - meaning you assert there is no God. So show me evidence to support your positive claim, i.e the non-existence of God. Perhaps you would like to start a thread specifically for this subject? I'll respond to your purported evidence.

 

Could you please answer this: name one thing that your faith does -- that is good -- that can't be done without it?

 

--S.

Save my soul.

 

Nice try at shifting the burden of proof. The default position is that gods are undefined. You have not established that any gods exist, so we are left with no evidence. The appropraite conclusion is that there are no gods. Unless, of course, you wish to support your claim that some gods exist while others don't.

 

And speaking of unsupported claims, You have a soul? If, by soul, you mean thoughts, memories, intention, movement, appetite, and awareness, then you speak of the brain. When your brain dies, you die, even if every other organ continues functioning. No brain = no thoughts, memories, intention, movement, appetite or awareness.

 

Religions make promises for "after death." That has got to be the greatest fraud perpetuated on mankind ever. It drains resources that could help the living, and the charlatans that sell religion are worse than snake oil salesmen. At least the latter makes claims that are verifiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was making is other religions paint different portraits of god. They have differing and contradictory views about god's will and character.

 

Surely, you can comment on this logical dilemma -- can't you?

 

--S.

This is not a logical dilemma. A difference of opinion does not even constitute a dilemma let alone a logical dilemma.

It isn't a "logical dilemma" in the sense that it does not involve the laws of logic, but it is a dilemma for anyone that can see that different religions offer different views of the supernatural just as one would expect when one is speculating on something that doesn't exist.

 

The contradictions between religions, and their mutual exclusivity, make any claims about one religion suspect. If you were born Muslim, you would be Muslim. If you were born Buddhist, you would be Buddhist. At least, that is the rule. There are exceptions. One day, you may become Buddhist, but it won't mean that Buddhism is better, or truer or more powerful than Islam Or whatever your religion is.

 

Even if you believe that Joseph Smith received special dictation from the Angel Moroni, it is not necessarily true. Claims such as these are the nature of religion.

 

You would probably argue that the golden plates, if still extant, would take away our free will. I think it's hogwash.

 

But can you blame people for adopting the beliefs of their parents? It is only "logical."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how it's ultimately to a different end. Reconciliation to God is reconciliation to God. Not whether or not that is imaged as streets of gold in a heavenly Jerusalem, an afterlife of continued Subject/Object, reincarnation towards Nirvana, etc. Those are all symbolic expressions of that sense of that state of being, or that existential desire for reconciliation. The essence, the spirit of it, the Heart of it, is from the same place and to the same Ultimate end. Union with the Ultimate.

 

So how is crucifixion on a cross the existential oneness/awareness of self? It symbolizes a death to self and union with God. Oneness with God is achieved at the end of ego, where you being united with the essence of the Divine: Godhead. That state of coming to the end of self, the death of self in moving beyond into Enlightenment, can be a terrifying place to be, to look into. So it is expressed in the mystics the world over within and without all religions.

 

This is interesting. I'd like to respond to other points you see in Christian faith in how it can be understood to the same end in other means of language. I think this may help to make my point about symbols which has always been met with difficulty in what I'm actually saying.

 

In all of this symbolism, is anything actually happening now and especially after we die?

 

Phanta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how it's ultimately to a different end.

I am considering one guy physically dead, the thief on the cross, that is unable to be existential anymore. So how can he do something other than be dead.

 

Reconciliation to God is reconciliation to God. Not whether or not that is imaged as streets of gold in a heavenly Jerusalem, an afterlife of continued Subject/Object, reincarnation towards Nirvana, etc.

You are saying that natural physical death is ALSO being reconciled to God in some existential sense?

 

Those are all symbolic expressions of that sense of that state of being, or that existential desire for reconciliation. The essence, the spirit of it, the Heart of it, is from the same place and to the same Ultimate end. Union with the Ultimate.

Yes, they are that too.

 

So how is crucifixion on a cross the existential oneness/awareness of self? It symbolizes a death to self and union with God. Oneness with God is achieved at the end of ego, where you being united with the essence of the Divine: Godhead. That state of coming to the end of self, the death of self in moving beyond into Enlightenment, can be a terrifying place to be, to look into. So it is expressed in the mystics the world over within and without all religions.

 

You don't think the literal crucifiction of Jesus and the other two guys actually happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how it's ultimately to a different end. Reconciliation to God is reconciliation to God. Not whether or not that is imaged as streets of gold in a heavenly Jerusalem, an afterlife of continued Subject/Object, reincarnation towards Nirvana, etc. Those are all symbolic expressions of that sense of that state of being, or that existential desire for reconciliation. The essence, the spirit of it, the Heart of it, is from the same place and to the same Ultimate end. Union with the Ultimate.

 

So how is crucifixion on a cross the existential oneness/awareness of self? It symbolizes a death to self and union with God. Oneness with God is achieved at the end of ego, where you being united with the essence of the Divine: Godhead. That state of coming to the end of self, the death of self in moving beyond into Enlightenment, can be a terrifying place to be, to look into. So it is expressed in the mystics the world over within and without all religions.

 

This is interesting. I'd like to respond to other points you see in Christian faith in how it can be understood to the same end in other means of language. I think this may help to make my point about symbols which has always been met with difficulty in what I'm actually saying.

 

In all of this symbolism, is anything actually happening now and especially after we die?

 

Phanta

Ask a Christian who uses it. ;) In other words, is it effective to them to open themselves up to an understanding of the nature of their lives, and does it have meaning? If it doesn't, then it's really not effective as a symbol. But I tend to think that since so many embrace that symbol it does in fact have some value on some level for them. (However, this does not mean all use it in this sort of way).

 

I would exclude the notion of 'especially after we die', because how can anyone speak to something we have no actual frame of reference to describe, if anything at all? I pretty much ignore any questions or considerations of an 'after-life', since I consider Being to be. This is 'eternity'. Not after 12:00 or something like that, starting at death-o'clock. We are now. "I AM" isn't "WILL BE". Time is only a frame of reference, but existence IS. So any apprehension of it is not something that awaits 'beyond' this life. But is here, in Now. Now is. There is no "after-life", only IS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how it's ultimately to a different end. Reconciliation to God is reconciliation to God. Not whether or not that is imaged as streets of gold in a heavenly Jerusalem, an afterlife of continued Subject/Object, reincarnation towards Nirvana, etc. Those are all symbolic expressions of that sense of that state of being, or that existential desire for reconciliation. The essence, the spirit of it, the Heart of it, is from the same place and to the same Ultimate end. Union with the Ultimate.

 

So how is crucifixion on a cross the existential oneness/awareness of self? It symbolizes a death to self and union with God. Oneness with God is achieved at the end of ego, where you being united with the essence of the Divine: Godhead. That state of coming to the end of self, the death of self in moving beyond into Enlightenment, can be a terrifying place to be, to look into. So it is expressed in the mystics the world over within and without all religions.

 

This is interesting. I'd like to respond to other points you see in Christian faith in how it can be understood to the same end in other means of language. I think this may help to make my point about symbols which has always been met with difficulty in what I'm actually saying.

 

In all of this symbolism, is anything actually happening now and especially after we die?

 

Phanta

Ask a Christian who uses it. ;) In other words, is it effective to them to open themselves up to an understanding of the nature of their lives, and does it have meaning? If it doesn't, then it's really not effective as a symbol. But I tend to think that since so many embrace that symbol it does in fact have some value on some level for them. (However, this does not mean all use it in this sort of way).

 

I would exclude the notion of 'especially after we die', because how can anyone speak to something we have no actual frame of reference to describe, if anything at all? I pretty much ignore any questions or considerations of an 'after-life', since I consider Being to be. This is 'eternity'. Not after 12:00 or something like that, starting at death-o'clock. We are now. "I AM" isn't "WILL BE". Time is only a frame of reference, but existence IS. So any apprehension of it is not something that awaits 'beyond' this life. But is here, in Now. Now is. There is no "after-life", only IS.

 

Right, so how does the thief on the cross experience symbolic existential oneness.... :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So how is crucifixion on a cross the existential oneness/awareness of self? It symbolizes a death to self and union with God. Oneness with God is achieved at the end of ego, where you being united with the essence of the Divine: Godhead. That state of coming to the end of self, the death of self in moving beyond into Enlightenment, can be a terrifying place to be, to look into. So it is expressed in the mystics the world over within and without all religions.

 

You don't think the literal crucifiction of Jesus and the other two guys actually happened?

 

It is certainly within reason to think some guy named Jesus (it was a popular name) was executed a couple centuries ago. I have trouble with, in my best Paul Harvey voice, the rest of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salvation is being moved into reconciliation, unity, ONENESS.

And that's exactly what I felt after my de-conversion.

 

 

I have had many such experiences since my deconversion as well. My "soul" has felt unburdened and free!

 

Hallelujah?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I understand that synergistic dialogue is not one of Clay's stated goals. Thus it is understandable that Clay is unhappy about my terms; they do not serve his agenda. He isn't interested in living, breathing, persons with whom to participate in a dialogue, but rather arguments to nail up as examples for his fellows in faith.

 

My thoughts, feelings, and ideas are not tools to be used in this way. I am a growing, learning human being who is fresh and curious and alive. Thus, I judge myself wise for having boundaries around discussion with Clay and insisting on sticking to the kind of discussion I find enjoyable and useful--synergistic discussion.

 

Phanta

 

And by having such an agenda, the evangelical apologists who land upon this site from time to time do the species a disservice by placing religious interests above the common humanity we share. The human is overshadowed by service to the "Soul Machine."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You DO NOT know god or his ways.

 

You can't have a relationship with your god-man because he is NOT there. He ONLY exists in your confines of your stunted imagination.

You make a lot of positive claims you can not back up. Why? Judging from your words you seem to be an atheist in the truest sense - meaning you assert there is no God. So show me evidence to support your positive claim, i.e the non-existence of God. Perhaps you would like to start a thread specifically for this subject? I'll respond to your purported evidence.

 

Shyone already explained what I was going to say: Nice try at shifting the burden of proof. The default position is that gods are undefined. You have not established that any gods exist, so we are left with no evidence. The appropriate conclusion is that there are no gods. Unless, of course, you wish to support your claim that some gods exist while others don't.

 

The onus is upon you to provide objective evidence for your personal christian god. Which you have not done.

 

Furthermore, as usual the christian's mode of operandi is conjecture, presupposition and fallacious arguments -- in this case a strawman.

 

I never argued "the non-existence of God". You created this strawman to attack instead of arguing against my specific arguments. Do...you...under...stand?

 

Additionally, trying to prove the non-existence of something is also a fallacious argument.

 

I'll tell you what -- oh deluded one -- you prove there is no such thing as Allah, Zeus, an invisible celestial teapot between earth and mars and invisible fairies and I'll use your method.

 

Get the point? You can't prove a negative.

 

I never asserted there was no god.

 

Read this carefully and let it penetrate your dense cranium: I do NOT claim there is NO god. Do you compute?

 

There very well could be some sort of ultimate reality (a god for lack of a better word) but this ultimate reality has not revealed himself to us and I have yet to see any objective evidence of this personal christian god's existence.

 

So just to be clear, I do not believe in your personal christian god-concept. Any argument used against your god-concept is provisional. We are attacking your god-concept by pointing out inconsistencies, gaps of logic or contradictions of YOUR DEFINITION of god that you have fabricated by your idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture and stunted imaginings.

 

Try real hard to digest this information and fully comprehend what I am saying.

 

NO one (including the "truthsayer" OC) has any credible knowledge of god's supposed attributes or will. This is why I find your ridiculous interpretive claims about god's character and god's will so patently asinine.

 

You believe in an invisible omni-present personal christian god based on your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the bible and FAITH. Faith meaning -- believing in something that doesn't have objective evidence or is contrary to the supposed evidences (although you say you have evidence -- you simply settle for the flimsiest of supposed evidences such as bloated rationalizations, subjective reasoning and stunted imaginings.

 

Can you provide evidence that does NOT include bloated rationalizations, subjective reasoning and stunted imaginings?

 

Waiting.......

 

You have NO objective evidence for a personal christian god.

 

If you had objective evidence for ANY of the outlandish christian/god claims you make you would NOT need FAITH.

 

So let's cut to the chase.

 

Please provide objective evidence for Jesus being the resurrected son of god, savior of mankind, as opposed to a piece of fiction, written over a hundred years, based on perhaps a fallible human prophet an/or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths.

 

You're the one who originally asserted a belief in a personal christian god -- the onus is upon you to provide objective evidence for your outlandish christian/god claims.

 

I await your mental back-flips and diverging.

 

--S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, so how does the thief on the cross experience symbolic existential oneness.... :shrug:

 

Why do you think he has to?

 

The thief on the cross accounts are parts of the cross myth. They were elaborated upon as time went by from gospel to gospel until the latest story took on an almost cartoon-ish quality of unreality. The thief on the cross account is one of the least believable accounts in the Bible.

 

It is not what the thief himself got out of Jesus that is of any importance (it's a story, remember?). It is the hope of radical and unconditional forgiveness that faith in Christ held out to the hearers in the generations since the story was penned that matters.

 

It's a pretty good story too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I understand that synergistic dialogue is not one of Clay's stated goals. Thus it is understandable that Clay is unhappy about my terms; they do not serve his agenda. He isn't interested in living, breathing, persons with whom to participate in a dialogue, but rather arguments to nail up as examples for his fellows in faith.

 

My thoughts, feelings, and ideas are not tools to be used in this way. I am a growing, learning human being who is fresh and curious and alive. Thus, I judge myself wise for having boundaries around discussion with Clay and insisting on sticking to the kind of discussion I find enjoyable and useful--synergistic discussion.

 

Phanta

 

And by having such an agenda, the evangelical apologists who land upon this site from time to time do the species a disservice by placing religious interests above the common humanity we share. The human is overshadowed by service to the "Soul Machine."

 

Hardly, how is love your neighbor a disservice? Secondly, individualism is expressly recognized through Spriritual gifts.....in the Soul Machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how it's ultimately to a different end.

I am considering one guy physically dead, the thief on the cross, that is unable to be existential anymore. So how can he do something other than be dead.

He does references some state of being beyond death, but I don't think it's value is to talk about some new home to go to. I think the message of it is that through Faith, you have found salvation, Enlightenment. It doesn't matter that the setting is "in the beyond of life". "Today, you have found God!" That's what its message is.

 

And that people take this to be about some sort of 'evidence' of an after life, is really what I see as the problem of literalism. It misunderstands the 'reason' for the symbol. It makes the symbol - fact. "There is life after death. Because Jesus referenced it." "Jesus also referenced Adam and Eve for an underlying message. But the literalist will take this to mean that Evolution did not happen, because God incarnate would never lie. That falls drastically short of understanding that these are vehicles of communication of greater truths, not about stating literal facts.

 

Reconciliation to God is reconciliation to God. Not whether or not that is imaged as streets of gold in a heavenly Jerusalem, an afterlife of continued Subject/Object, reincarnation towards Nirvana, etc.

You are saying that natural physical death is ALSO being reconciled to God in some existential sense?

Physical death is physical death. The only thing that can be spoken to is this existence, through these eyes and its experiences. If there is a continuation of "me" I personally can't imagine it to be anything like the way I look and think and perceive as a human. At best, if there is any sort of 'cognitive' continuance, I would image it to be 'in God', as Godhead. But I won't commit to any belief about that.

 

Those are all symbolic expressions of that sense of that state of being, or that existential desire for reconciliation. The essence, the spirit of it, the Heart of it, is from the same place and to the same Ultimate end. Union with the Ultimate.

Yes, they are that too.

Wouldn't you agree that is the ultimate point, and that the rest are just discussion surrounding that?

 

So how is crucifixion on a cross the existential oneness/awareness of self? It symbolizes a death to self and union with God. Oneness with God is achieved at the end of ego, where you being united with the essence of the Divine: Godhead. That state of coming to the end of self, the death of self in moving beyond into Enlightenment, can be a terrifying place to be, to look into. So it is expressed in the mystics the world over within and without all religions.

 

You don't think the literal crucifiction of Jesus and the other two guys actually happened?

It's not ultimately relevant, whether he was or wasn't, or even existed for that matter, because its not about fact of history, it's about what it points to symbolically, what it is to get you to think about, to realize, to seek, etc. That's what symbols do. That is their nature. Facts don't do that. Facts are just facts. So the Crucifixion and the thieves with Jesus are not a history lesson, but a "spiritual lesson". It's the message of it, not the facts of it.

 

Again, that's the downfall of literalism. It takes its symbolic message and reduces it, in reductionist fashion, to a discussion, a quibble about facts. It's take a religious message, and makes it a scientific argument. Chances are, that if you actually could time travel back into history and meet the real Jesus, you would likely be quite shocked at how dissimilar it all looked to the image in your beliefs that the later stories of him passed down to you through the Church. I think we'd all be quite removed from the context of that reality to the point it would likely decimate your faith. That's the problem of imagining objects of faith as scientific and historic facts.

 

I just had a discussion with the former president of the MN Atheists on Tuesday night in a discussion group I'm a member of about objects of faith and symbolism. He presented the argument that if those symbols don't point to something that is 'verifiable', provable, objective reality, then they won't work, that they are a form of delusion. I countered to him that in fact the very opposite is true. Faith is about reaching forward to some unrealized reality, and in the case of religious faith, to an Ultimate Reality of ones whole existence, their whole being. In order to reach towards that unseen, unrealized hope of reality, it has to be through symbols, since if it were something we could point to here, than it is this reality and not some goal to beyond, or above. They have to point to something beyond themselves, and beyond what is scientifically verifiable (such as proving Jesus walked on water, or God created the earth as in the Genesis story). Literalism robs religion of its symbolic richness, which is for some other end other than establishing empirical facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, so how does the thief on the cross experience symbolic existential oneness.... :shrug:

 

Why do you think he has to?

 

The thief on the cross accounts are parts of the cross myth. They were elaborated upon as time went by from gospel to gospel until the latest story took on an almost cartoon-ish quality of unreality. The thief on the cross account is one of the least believable accounts in the Bible.

 

It is not what the thief himself got out of Jesus that is of any importance (it's a story, remember?). It is the hope of radical and unconditional forgiveness that faith in Christ held out to the hearers in the generations since the story was penned that matters.

 

It's a pretty good story too.

 

I am not the one that is professing Christ only being a man "that was really existentially in tune". Just pointing out the "story" doesn't say that the end goal is only natural, physical, existential oneness....it is a false interpretation of the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I understand that synergistic dialogue is not one of Clay's stated goals. Thus it is understandable that Clay is unhappy about my terms; they do not serve his agenda. He isn't interested in living, breathing, persons with whom to participate in a dialogue, but rather arguments to nail up as examples for his fellows in faith.

 

My thoughts, feelings, and ideas are not tools to be used in this way. I am a growing, learning human being who is fresh and curious and alive. Thus, I judge myself wise for having boundaries around discussion with Clay and insisting on sticking to the kind of discussion I find enjoyable and useful--synergistic discussion.

 

Phanta

 

And by having such an agenda, the evangelical apologists who land upon this site from time to time do the species a disservice by placing religious interests above the common humanity we share. The human is overshadowed by service to the "Soul Machine."

 

The agenda is plainly stated. It is on us, then, to make a measured choice about participating, about allowing ourselves to get hooked into a certain type of engagement. We can point a finger outward all we want, but I say the one with the agenda doesn't implement for long what doesn't work.

 

Phanta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had a discussion with the former president of the MN Atheists on Tuesday night about objects of faith and symbolism. He presented the argument that if those symbols don't point to something that is 'verifiable', provable, objective reality, then they won't work, that they are a form of delusion. I countered to him that in fact the very opposite is true. Faith is about reaching forward to some unrealized reality, and in the case of religious faith, to an Ultimate Reality of ones whole existence, their whole being. In order to reach towards that unseen, unrealized hope of reality, it has to be through symbols, since if it were something we could point to here, than it is this reality and not some goal to beyond, or above. They have to point to something beyond themselves, and beyond what is scientifically verifiable (such as proving Jesus walked on water, or God created the earth as in the Genesis story). Literalism robs religion of its symbolic richness, which is for some other end. The whole problem with it is in fact a form of reductionism, draining the life-spirit of the soul of man.

I think what you defined above as Faith is closer to Hope.

 

If there is an expectation of achieving some kind of "Ultimate Reality" with nothing supporting it, you can call it faith, but for someone that is not necessarily expecting it, it remains a hope, a goal or a dream.

 

Symbols are weird. They are super-concentrated language. Even more than language, they can induce emotions, and that's where they get power. IF there is nothing behind the symbol but emotion, unrealized concepts or impossible claims, then the symbol is just a tool to be wielded against people who can't think for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.