EADD Theology Megathread

[knock]

that's exactly how it's been for me. Nowt to worry about :D

 

[Shambles]

Oh it's no worry at all, Knock. Quite the opposite. Is very comforting whether it be drug-addled illusion (as I tend to strongly suspect) or otherwise.

The bit that bugs me a tad is that I sometimes catch myself and wonder if I'm victim to precisely the kinda delusion I accuse others of. Admittedly I have a very obvious suspect to point the finger at and it ain't no tosspot of a deity. But is so very persisitant and so very real that I almost accept it as reality (in some kinda sense at least). Doesn't affect day-to-day life or owt - not like I have the remotest desire to "convert" folk or owt and doesn't make much (if any) difference to anything I say or do. But is summat... different to what I expect. Or at least it was. Am frankly disappointed when I don't get to visit after so many years of coming and going.

Meh. Just thought it only fair I should mention my personal angle on the whole "spirituality" bizniz given I'm kinda hard on others. Just wonder if there's any real difference. Am I just a fukkin hypocrite for harbouring... doubts about delusions sometimes? When it's right in yer face is hard to ignore though. Fuck fukkin signs this is more like hand-in-hand Ultra Hi-Def walkthroughs :D

But merely drug-addled dissociational delusions, for sure. Very pleasing ones though and have helped me greatly when even I caved in and begged for help from that xtain fella. Doors were firmly shut in every sense of the word confirming all I ever suspected about such bellend godheads. At least me lil dreamstates have comfort and meaning for me even if sound drivel if attempted to explain at all. Which is why I occaisonally feel a twinge of guilt at mockery of others. Even though they clearly deserve it

Obligatory Greydon tune (got four album's worth so ain't running out anytime soon )...

Greydon Square - Star View

(oddly enough, was actually listening to the very Michio Kaku interview he samples on that one just t'other night. small world innit)

 

[farmaz]

The Hagakure by Yamamoto Tsunetomo.

Part Zen Buddhism & part practical and spiritual guide for a warrior, drawn from a collection of commentaries by the samurai is the only thing I really take note of in terms of Theology.

 

[pinkpapaver]

[/IMG]

i'll catch up later. gnite and god bless

 

[Raasyvibe]

Wasn't referring to anyone in particular, Raas. All of y'all believers really. You've answered maybe two or three questions of mine out of several dozen so far. The "easy" ones, naturally

"Bad God" from the OT (misrepresented by non-xtian human beans (naturally) "proven" by... other Biblical passages that are somehow "known" to be accurate...) and did The Baby Jeebuz "change one jot of The Law" or not (again backed up by selected Biblical passages). Forgive me for not converting on the spot but I also had to do RE at primary school. At secondary too - maybe not all of y'all did?

Meh. Trying to debate Xtian theology with actual Xtians makes fishbarrel shooting seem sporting so will leave it be.

Damn. You're so cynical. lol 2/3 easy questions out of dozens? are you having a laugh!?

Misunderstanding of text is very common in religious debates - differentiating between Jesus and his values of love, and this evil tyrant God in the old T.

Not just in this thread either, but elsewhere. Even Alasdair still doesn't get it.

do you believe that adulterers should be stoned? do you wear clothes of mixed fibers?

alasdair

When you yourself posted -

Plenty of it is either done directly or at direct command. Fukkin disgusting stuff. Finding meaning in such an execrable work of vile hate says a lot about those who subscribe to

it became clear, that if any theological progression is to be made in this thread it would be important to clear up the basics.

Never claimed it wasn't easy, obvious stuff

The theological answers behind the vulgarity of the OT, have been given time and time again, century after century........ I'll answer this age old question for you, yet again:

But it was clearly very neccessary and relevent, I had to clear up your misunderstanding that the Bible is a work of vile hate and Christians are perverse for subscribing to it.

Since answering questions on "bad OT god", and jesus's oppositition to the OT (As clearly as possible stating many supportive verses), we have also encroached upon such topics such as hell, metaphorical meanings of OT stories, why God does not make himself visible.. (and this is off the top of my head.)

Are my answers putting you to sleep?! or is it the alcohol again!? lol Because i've answerd a lot more than the above questions. You may not agree with my answers, but I still answered them


__________________________
1.
__________________________

presume what I meant was that I didn't see how you arrived at your interpretations - why you chose to accept some parts of scripture and not others. Having it both ways, as it were. Saying that the "bad" OT stuff must have been altered or interpolated (them bleedin' pharisees at it again ) for example. How do you know?

When I read the bible, I see that some of the verses in the OT are the absolute antithesis to what Jesus is preaching. So something fishy is going on. Bit of reading makes it clear that man has interfered with the old texts somewhat.

I'm not a scholar, and don't think it's neccessary to question the theology so much that I need to find out which rule has been added exactly by which (bleedin') pharisee. The very fact that Jesus is refuting the "law" and disobeying it is enough evidence for me that it is not always "the word of God".

_______________
2.
___________

Basically, what is your interpretation/answer/belief to the questions and objections raised by myself and others, how and why you chose those particular interpretations/answers/objections over others and why those alternatives are wrong.

The posts between us I have never "picked and chose" interpretations. Just delivered the only practical meaning, supported by many other verses in the bible.

__________________________
3.
___________________

Yes he does. He didn't have to create such a place (obviously I don't believe he did anything due to lack of existence but we'll take that as read, eh? ). It was a choice and he apparently decided that eternal torment was the best option and make it incredibly easy (by many interpretations anyway - I know there is a very wide range of beliefs about Hell and precious little actually said about it in the book) to be sent there too for good measure. Infinite punishment for finite crimes as it's often succinctly put. By definition this is unjust.

At the end of the day we don't know how hell works exactly, and as you said there's little said in the book. I have a few ideas. From a Christian perspective: Clearly, God has allowed evil on this world, and allowed the consequences of it in the next.

It may seem unjust in theory, but if we knew more about it (Just what is the suffering like, and who goes there and why) it would make more sense.

Not fair to form opinions on hell without this knowledge, though when I see despicable evil and suffering in this world it certainly makes it very easy for me to believe in.

___________________________
4.
___________________________

If there was no Adam and Eve there was no Fall, no Fall no need for the Crucifiction. That's fairly fundamental stuff. And if most of the... more "out there" OT stuff is meant as metaphorical lessons then why are they such bad lessons? Why is wickedness and immorality so frequently rewarded and held up as something to aspire to?

The truth behind the bible is found in the meanings of the stories. How true the actual stories are is very debatable.
(sorry to give the standard response here, but it cuts it for me. I'd be more worried about my Christiannity if the stories were real, but the meanings were nonsense)

Yeah it's a strange old book, and one i've neglected studying in (It's sooooo big)

Let me give you one example.... etc

___________________________
5.
_________________________

I have to assume that's a joke? Disbelief makes people more inclined to evil acts? Really? Cos believers are so well behaved in comparison, I'm sure

I'm making the case that hiding God exposes more sin. The Moors murders was off the top of my head, a case where Brady's disbelief in God was a motive. Even recently, he was irrate with Hindley when he heard of her becoming Catholic in jail.

But hiding God serves other purposes in less extreme ways. Simply, for people who enjoy sinful lives, atheism becomes a great convenience for them. Think of people with much wealth, if they called themselves Christian they would have to change, else they will look like bad Christians. Saying "I don't believe in God" is a great excuse for those who want to lead sinful lives.

_____________________


There's probably a few more around the thread i could dig out, but I think i've made my point now.

I no doubt sometimes come over as another one of those irksome "cyber atheists" (not a term I like but heyho) who thinks he knows it all and will disagree and dismiss any opposing views on principle... but I hope I'm not. Perhaps I am after all. Will have to see what happens. Would be nice to find something I haven't heard before though. I keep thinking that there must be something there for so many to believe such things but I've not found it yet. Maybe one day (although I suspect not ) but til then heated (good-natured) debates are fun anyway

Just to regress on the thread somewhat, I was not referring to you when I coined the phrase "Cyber atheist", in fairness you do seem interested on philosophical discussion rather than posting endless memes (And there a few of them on this board).

But you do come across as biassed against religion. Very negative attitude towards Christians and Christiannity.

Art is the only worthwhile thing that has ever come out of Christianity as far as I can tell.

Well, even at my church, we do a lot of charity work and fundraising. Much emphasis is placed on improving ourselves and finding our joys in life by being compassionate towards those in need? Seems ignorant to me to ignore all the good that comes from the church and only acknowledge the art.

One question this time - a simple but open-ended one: What do y'all think about other religions and their devout believers?

I've a lot of respect for other religions. Our very consciousness has a spiritual nature to it, something we can develop and become more aware of. Religion then, becomes the greatest avenue for spiritual discovery. Second only to DMT. (Thats a joke....)


As I have taken interest in spirituality through my Christian belief, I see that it coalesces greatly with Bhuddism. I'm going to purchase the Dhammapada soon because I am very interested in that religion. There is evil in us, Christians generally refer to it as "sin", where Bhuddism recognises it as "desires", but both religions seem recognise the spiritual side to man (the soul) and what addicitions and desires interfere with this.

A lot of good things have come from Bhuddism, I have great respect for Shaolin monks and their tremendous discipline.

But damn Sham, just like Christianity you are doing the same with Bhuddism. Ignoring all the good that has come from it, then judging the whole religion by the spiritual abusers -

Even the Buddhists have a few things to be deeply ashamed of - aside from the standard treatment of women as being fundamentally inferior to men (you can't reach Enlightenment if you're not male) the Tibetan lamas ran a feudal society treating what were essentially slaves with unbelievable brutality for a religion with such a reputation for non-violence. The list goes on...

Sorry to state the obvious (again) but....as it's relevant.....

Please remember that religion is controlled and practiced by humans. And humans are suceptible to mistakes, errors, misunderstanding, misjudgements (even king david in that bible passage remember)

Just because you join a religion, does not supposedley make you an automatic omniscient angel. You're still human. A strong Christian I spoke to recently told me "He still has much to learn after 20 years of going to church"

Of course you're gonna get a few nutters in each religion. They are called spiritual abusers, and do not represent the entire religion. And are not to be confused with those who are actually true to their religion - who love life and want to praise God for the oppurtunities and experiences they have received.

. Especially given that bit of the not-so-good book that guarantees folk like me a prime spot in Hell no matter what. Denying the Holy Spirit is apparently the only sin that is utterly unforgivable no matter what happens. Not that I'd expect anything less from such a stroppy cunt of a deity, mind

It matters not a jot as if I had a Xtian soul it's damned for eternity no matter what. As is yours as it happens, Raas. You seem to have missed the bit of the rarely good book that spells it out very clearly. Deny the holy spirit and there's no way back. No being born again. No chance. Nothing. NT shiz so not even those pesky Pharisees can save ya. Hell for eternity. See you there... or not given it's distinct lack of existence

ah ah, someone hasn't been reading his new testament properly


A lot of religious folk seem comforted by the fact that they are going to heaven, for practicing Christian virtues and the atheists will be condemned to hell.

But .... nah.... this doesn't go well with me.

The problem is I know of good-hearted Atheists, and evil-hearted Christians. Wouldn't see right that a decent person goes to hell, for a mistake in their belief...

Who really ends up in hell?...

I have my suspicions

Mark 3:29 tends to imply that by denying God in this world, you won't walk with him in heaven...

But in Luke 23, it shows a little more hope...

39 One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 "And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 42 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" 43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

I'm not going to surmise about what kind of person you are, and whether you go to hell or not. But I will say that you do not know what life holds for you yet. What experiences await you and what you will learn. You don't know who you will meet and how they will influence you. Not until you are on your death bed have you truely denied God (and at the rate of progression in this thread, it's getting that way for you )

_______
EDIT - re-reading it may seem unclear what i'm saying. to summarize:

People often change their beliefs their whole life. No-one is strictly a "theist" or "atheist", as ones belief is susceptible to change, right up until their last moments of life. Not until you die can you know if you rejected God or not.

alasdair

 

[Raasyvibe]

^ Oh and by the way sorry for forgetting the rest of the thread posters. These posts are taking ages to reply, I will address a few other people when i have a chance

 

[Shambles]

Thanks for the lengthy reply, Raas

Will tear it apart later

Just one point to start the ball rolling though... Why do you accept certain passages from the NT but not others? And why do you accept most NT passages over OT stuff? Is Jesus not the human incarnation of the OT god?

 

[Raasyvibe]

I accept all NT passages, but sometimes you gotta reada a few more to recognise what they're really saying.

The NT was inspired by Jesus, the gospels written by his disciples. So it becomes a reliable source for finding out about God.

Jesus is the incarnate of God who inspired the OT, but how the OT authors depicted God doesn't seem to be accurate.

 

[Shambles]

The gospels were definitely not written by any of his disciples. No NT scholar nor historian says that. They came much later. Mattew (or was it Mark - always get the "Ms" mixed up 8)) came first, the other "M" copied it almost word for word and added some wildly innacurate historical and geographical details. Luke did much the same only messed it up even worse. John is so fukkin nuts it's nearer sci-fi than history. Together they span 100-150-odd years after Jesus' supposed death. At best, the earliest could have been dictated by somebody alive at the time if they lived to old age (very rare at the time but not inconceivable) the others were not even close. And enough is known about the authors (if not their names) to suggest they were written by high status, highly educated Jewish and Greek scholars. Not poor fishermen and tax collectors and the like yer man Jesus is known for discipling.

 

[Raasyvibe]

^ Matthew and John were apostles of Jesus. Mark was apostle of Peter and Luke seems closely related to it all.

Who actually wrote them, what the scholars say etc.... that's a whole new topic... can we address the previous post first.

 

[Shambles]

The gospels have nowt to do with the names attached. I'm sure you're well aware of that. The common names come from centuries later.

 

[Raasyvibe]

^ Very contentious topic, and one this Christian admits he hasn't looked into properly (though I should...). I've edited the former post a little bit to clear up misunderstandings. Damn you always reply to posts so quickly. Gimme a chance to re-read and edit it next time

 

[Shambles]

Not in the least bit contentious, Raas

I read up over a lifetime of disbelief - sorry for quickfire responses

Will get back to you in terms of more detailed stuff as and when

 

[Vurtual]

^^also, the four eventual gospels were whittled down from a wide range of 'gospels', coming from several different christian traditions (eg google nag hammadi) - such a profusion of traditions and gospels continued up to the council of nicea (400AD ish?) when the romans (the then 'owners' of the religion) decided which would make the cut (and once and for all if jesus was god as many bisphops didn't agree) - this is where the final edit of roman jesus (and the bible) was put together, cutting out awkward bits (like jesus being a revolutionary against the romans (aw it wasn't pilate wot killedf him it woz the jews!), jesus getting off with mary magdalen, and thomas being jesus' twin brother etc) - there were lots of different things in all these gospels from very different viewpoints (many contradictory).

The gnostic gospels were some of the more far out ones (mostly greek-influenced i guess - this is the bunch that john came from) - they were basically adapted neo-platonism, and so as a whole come across as bit more intelligent (dare i say) and closer to greek philosophy traditions. The history of this stuff (neoplatonism and gnosticism) interests me, and how it later evolved into various 'occult' traditions, and alchemy (and then science (via islam)).

i think without the hefty chunk of neoplatonic and/or stoic influence, christianity would have been the poorer.

(as a Philip K Dick fan i can appreciate some of the gnostic stuff he crowbars into his later stuff (if only as another insanity to explore))

 

[Shambles]

Hehe. Ya. Philip K Dick did develop a smidge of religiomania at stages. There's a nice comicbook adaptation of one of his relgioious/psychotic "episodes" I forget the name of but sure as a fan you'll know anyway.

Hadn't even gotten onto the essentially arbitrary nature of the gospels most widely accepted as... well... gospel but yup - is also a good point. The decisions on which to include and exclude were largely political rather than theological. It is somewhat true that they are amongst the earlier gospel texts and tend to mostly corroborate each other (except John which is kinda wacky and stands apart from the others) but they would be really as the two in the middle are essentially later rewrites of the first. This is easily proven (by those that prove such things - Christian theologians in other words) by analysing the original Greek text and comparison with other fragments of scripture and is also in no way controversial.

Then there's all the additions, subtractions, interpolations and general chaff that's built up over centuries. Most of it is fairly minor stuff but some of it is quite surprising. Somewhat annoyingly for those nutty snake-handler folk in America, that entire end section is a later addition that is in no early texts so has zero theological credibility. One of the more (in)famous examples of later additions is the "Who amongst you who is without sin cast the first stone" story. Not in any early copies of anything. Was just added by some monk centuries later. There are many other examples. Is actually a fascinating topic in its own right and surely of interest to anybody who wishes to follow what was actually written in their particular favoured books, no?

There's loadsa stuff on PooToob about it and dozens of books. Bart Ehrman in particular has written several books on the subject - and they were mostly written before he became an atheist in case the "A-word" is off-putting for some so he's coming at the subject from the perspective of a devout believer which he was at the time. One of many talks on the subject that gives a good overview: Misquoting Jesus: How the Bible Got Changed.

 

[pinkpapaver]

I'm wondering how did the christians get jews into christianity, some of them must have followed jesus.

I've worked out what the muslims did (and do ) back in the day. They accepted Jesus as a prophet, and accepted that he came about by the will of God and they got a story together about the resurrection, that judas took on jesus' form or something like that and that Jesus didn't get crucified at all. this meant that the jesus followers would not feel silly for following jesus.

i will clean this up later.

 

[Shambles]

Oddly enough I was thinking about putting a post together on precisely that subject last night, PinkP. Serendipitous, huh?

I think the answer to the first part is that "the Christians" didn't get Jews into Christianity cos there were no Christians until later - they were just a subset of Jews initailly. Basically some folk thought he fulfilled prophecy and was thus the Jewish Messiah (and later a general Messiah) and they went on to become various Christian denominations (many of whom didn't last - we mainly only got one version of the early Christianities handed down really. There's some interesting stuff about "Lost Christianites" (that linky is a Christian one so Xtian-friendly ) about for anybody interested.

Obviously most Jews around at the time didn't accept Jesus as fulfilling prophecy or of being the Messiah or there wouldn't still be Jews. I think the broad Jewish opinion is that he was just an itinerant Rabbi - one of many at the time - who became popular amongst certain Jewish and Gentile groups for the change in emphasis. But sure somebody will correct me on that cos is not summat I'm particarly up on tbh. Dunno if this is especially relevant cos not watched it in ages but sounds like it might be somewhat... Christianity: A History - Jesus the Jew

Islam does accept Jesus as a prophet (second only to Mohammed, I believe) but not his divinity, crucifiction or resurrection. They do believe he performed miracles though and have extra stories about him that aren't in the Bible. ITV doc covered the basics fairly recently: The Muslim Jesus.

Personally, I'm not convinced the person in the Bible known as Jesus actually lived at all. At least not like the story goes. Distinct lack of evidence. But don't really care one way or t'other so won't argue the toss over it. I'm sure somebody real was the ultimate base and the rest just got glommed on as tends to be the case with mythical figures. My favoured versions of the Jesus story...

David Fitzgerald - Examining the Evidence of a Historical Jesus (from an Atheist conference so tone may be a tad too mocking for some Xtians amongst us - the info is totally accurate and accepted by all though, just the interpretation that's in dispute)

Richard Carrier - Did Jesus Exist? (I Richard Carrier. Both an Atheist and a Doctor of Theology. And a very nice bloke with a great mind to boot. Also from an Atheist conference but far less mocking in tone... although still plays to the crowd a bit, naturally )

 

[Vurtual]

i think islam accepts jesus as an earlier prophet in the line of abraham; muhammad's (peas be upon him) just the latest update (also plenty of early christians saw jesus as human too - eg arian heresy).

i'll check out those links - as i said before, i find some, but only some of the atheist literature to be not my cup of tea - it would still be the team i chose (if there was a metaphysical football league - and if confused agnostic discordians haven't got a team!). i consider my religion to be science; fundamentally it's based on assumptions and interpretations like religion, but it's a lot more likely to change it's view with new evidence (though not perfect at this). i just think there's a baby and bathwater argument with religion - yeah on average christianity is an idiot but do we have to get rid of quakers too (no cnd, greenpeace, quasars etc)? Or the ranters or the heresy of the free spirit? Or more recently liberation theology and jean-bertrand aristide (though in their case the cia already did it)? Blake and Tolstoy too? Or for that matter the vast majority of the herd in any religion who are well-intentioned but maybe ignorant? (and we can use the 'cast the first stone' metaphor for ignorance regardless of provenance)

 

[badandwicked]

I admit I don't know much about them but from what i've heard the Quakers sound very cool. And they make great porridge.

 

[pinkpapaver]

^ chocolate too!!!
before the abomination in birmingham that is broad street (horrible place on a sat night) there were very few pubs in brum city centre. this was to do with the quakers having much control in the 19th century. if it weren't for them quakers selling hot choco;ate as a delicious alternative to booze we would not have the wonderful cadbury's. (now owned by the fake cheesemakers)
Bournville is a very pretty place made by the quaker cadbury family to make their workers more happy.

blessed are the chocolate makers. not so blessed are the fake cheese makers.