Brian37 vs manofmanynames
Online manofmanynames,
You say you are unafraid of confrontation. GREAT! I wish more theists would take your attitude insted of falsely equating blasphemy and criticism to hate.
NOW, lets get on with it.
1. Define your god.
Then we will start from there.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Okay, according to your orthodox beliefs, Jesus is God. In the post above you replied to Brian37 that God is neither a "super hero, supernatural, or divine. "
I'm confused, are you not a trinitarian ?
If you are a trinitarian then why would God not be supernatural or divine ?
- Login to post comments
Offline Okay, according to your orthodox beliefs, Jesus is God. In the post above you replied to Brian37 that God is neither a "super hero, supernatural, or divine. "
I'm confused, are you not a trinitarian ?
If you are a trinitarian then why would God not be supernatural or divine ?
Oh sorry, Brian37 said that, I accidently forget to include that in his quote brackets. And now that you replied, I can't go back and edit it either.
It should have read like this:
God is neither a super hero, super natural, divine or your watered down version "love". It is just your imagination.And once again to avoid the hocus pokus of the bible you try to water down your Super hero in the sky by calling it an idea rather than a thing.
And my response to him would have read:
I believe that life has a poetic resonance to it, and ultimate meaning behind it (the transcendent). There's your supernatural belief.I believe Jesus is 100% God, and 100% man, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and Lord. Here's my belief in divinity, with Jesus being divine.
I believe Jesus Christ is the savior of humanity. I guess we would call that a superhero belief right?
Sorry for the confusion.
- Login to post comments
Offline ProzacDeathWish wrote:Okay, according to your orthodox beliefs, Jesus is God. In the post above you replied to Brian37 that God is neither a "super hero, supernatural, or divine. "
I'm confused, are you not a trinitarian ?
If you are a trinitarian then why would God not be supernatural or divine ?
Oh sorry, Brian37 said that, I accidently forget to include that in his quote brackets. And now that you replied, I can't go back and edit it either.
Ha, the "oops !" factor strikes again. 
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm interested to know MoMN, what are your views on such things like 'sin' and morality (abortion, gay marriage, etc)? I think your position on these would open up to more interesting diologue.
- Login to post comments
Offline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:- found at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html
The link to their site is: http://online.sagepub.com/
Well, Hegesippus, who is, keep in mind, a Jewish convert, in the piece you provided is only writing how much of a righteous (not zeaolous) man James was, and even if we were to take the account as Hegesippus writing actual history, and all of event he wrote were true, with James not wearing wool, it doesn't argue your point. I mean I would have already told you, that James did practice the rites of the Jewish law. I mean that much is fairly made by the new testament accounts.
I also briefly read part two of the James article on sagepub. I couldn't access part one for free, and even there it doesn't seem like your case is being made. Nothing of what I seen in part two seems to claim that James was zeolous about the Jewish rites of the law.
So far, I seen nothing to make the case that James took the position of the the zealous Jewish Christians: ""Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved". The portrayal of James in the new testament, seems to suggest that this wasn't his position, because in the Acts only the zeoulous Jewish Christians opposition to what Paul is doing is mentioned, not James opposition. James seemed to be playing the political role, of trying to keep the peace. Secondly, the charges against Paul were not true, in his letters he did condemn practicing the rites of the law, he said if Christians wanted to do them, that's fine by him, but that the acts themselves were meaningless, they were not a means of salvation. And what we know of Jesus from the Gospel accounts it seems quite clear that he would have said the same thing too. Do you agree with this last point at least?
Hegesippus as you say was a Jewish convert but the original Apostles as well as Jesus were Jews so I don't see the point here. In fact nearly all of the early Christians in Jerusalem were Jews and did not go through a faith renouncing ceremony as prevalent these days but simply added the belief that Jesus was the Messiah as foretold in prophecy. This granted was in a twisted way in that he died and was alleged to have been resurrected but possible in the overall Messianic beliefs in the 1st century. As in Acts 5:33-42 where Gamaliel advises against harming the Apostles as they could in fact be of God. If so he argued then the priests would be going against God. He in fact told them to be patient and wait and see. Regardless in order to go into the holy of holies as it is claimed James did, he would have been a high priest and this is what is meant by he wore linen not woolen fabric as it was required.
It seems many Christians, I don't know if you take this point, have little problem citing Josephus as evidence of Jesus in the text also including James in Ant 20.9.1 as well as the testimonium in Ant 18.3.3. Explain if this is acceptable to legitimize Jesus as historical why a Jew discussing James is insufficient?
In another example of ancient texts, see Epiphanius, Panarion, 78.14.1-6 which also supports the pious James as a high priest.
"1. James also wore a plate on his head. And once during a drought he lifted his hands to heaven and prayed, and at once heaven sent rain. He never wore woolen clothing. His knees grew hard as a camel’s from his continued kneeling before the Lord out of excessive piety. 2. Thus they no longer called him by his name; his name was “The Just.” He never washed in a bath, did not partake in animal flesh, as I explained above, and did not wear sandals. And there is much else one could say about the man and his virtuous way of life.
3. You see then that this house was in every respect most noteworthy. For if Joseph’s sons revered virginity and the Nazarite life, how much more did that elderly honorable man guard with reverence the holy Virgin and honor the vessel in which the salvation of the human race dwelt! 4. “Does not nature itself teach you” that the man was elderly, greatly advanced in age, grown great among men, faithful in his ways, and reverent in appearance? For the gospel says that “the God-fearing man sought to divorce her secretly.” 5. But James brother of the Lord and son of Joseph, died in Jerusalem, having lived twenty-four years, more or less, after the Savior’s Ascension. He was ninety-six years old when he was struck on the head by a fuller with his club, flung from the pinnacle of the temple and cast down, he who had done no wrong 6. knelt and prayed for those who had thrown him down, saying: Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing. Thus even Simeon, his cousin, the son Clopas, who was standing at a distance, said, “Stop, why are you stoning the just one? Behold, he is uttering the most wonderful prayers for you.” And thus he was martyred…"
My position is somewhat similar to that of Eisenman in I consider James to have been involved in the Zealot movement as well as perhaps Jesus and John the Baptist. This has been ill described by many scholars and discredited at times, never the less I consider it highly probable and worthy of investigation. I wrote an essay on this subject about 25 years ago, which of course I can't find today. In the Gospels the call of the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent had special meaning to those in this movement. It was a call to cast off the pagan contamination of the Romans and Hellenistic influence as propagated specifically by the Herodians at this time and those who were gaining either financially or in positions of power to manipulate to their own political gain. A tradition of political manipulation had been in place for around 200 years between the main antagonists the Sadducees and the Pharisees.
I did locate some of my books but it would be difficult to effectively summarize the content. Fortunately, I have found there are those who are far more expressive than I could possibly be that do justice to the works of Eisenman. I suggest you read the review of his work by Robert Price as his critique is highly detailed. Eisenman of course also has detractors that consider him to be on a tangent. http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpeisman.html
Eisenman's website is here: http://roberteisenman.com/
He is a professor at the University of California at Long Beach and here's that website: http://www.csulb.edu/centers/sjco/
Many hours of his lectures are on YouTube see here: http://www.youtube.com/user/EisenmanLecture
Specific YouTube videos of his lectures on Paul and James are here: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C6D4DF1496F8D8C2
Jesus appears to be calling Jews to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand in his missionary activities. As to what Jesus himself would have advocated we cannot know as the words in the Gospels are not his but those of others that have interpreted either what they may have seen themselves if Matthew and John were truly written by actual disciples which I consider unlikely or third hand at best by Mark and Luke. The Jesus as interpreted 2nd or 3rd hand in the Gospels may have agreed with Paul but what relevance is that really? Jesus in the Gospels was not advocating a new religion at all, but coming back to the pure law of God. So, as Paul developed another direction, I doubt sincerely Jesus would have been inclined to support a complete rejection of the Law and implementation of Paul's perceived theology. and even as you say in your last comment to me in your post, "Perceiving in our experience of human existence something poetic and profound is in fact accepting what is before our eyes, what you seem to forgot is that we all don't see the same thing." You may be seeing that which you want or desire and truly not what has actually occurred.
Quote:When Gentiles became the dominant part of Christians many Jews were in rebellion, hiding, and eventually became called the killers of God. It made sense to dispense with the marks of a Jew which they clearly did. Even the later written Gospels show a bias against the Jews going from Mark to Matthew or John one sees considerable difference including contempt in the writing.Well, that's not the reason for the conflict in Epistles account. Nothing in the writings convey that the Gentiles held such violent contempt for the Jews then. The sort of contempt developed far later on. Sure, as a result they would have even more vehemently opposed following the Jewish rites then. I have no qualms in agreeing that after the relationship between Judaism and Christianity started to fall apart, and animosity developed between the two groups, Jewish rites were looked at in an even harsher light.
Surely the relationship between Jews and Gentiles weren't nearly all that hostile at the time of the Epistles, at least no where near the extant it was a few decades later.
There was conflict between Jews and pagan Gentiles especially Romans because they occupied Judea from the time of Roman occupation until Hadrian purges Jews from Palestine. Many Jewish groups had been rebelling and continued to do so. Even before the outright war in 66-70 CE the Zealots and others but not those in power were in conflict with the Romans as well as Jews that contaminated the country as sympathizers and corroborators. This obviously included those Jesus criticized severely such as the Herodians.. Even the Gospels indicate this in many places as does Josephus. One of the first mentioned was in 4 BCE right after the death of Herod. This revolt was led by Simon of Perea a former servant of the king. In Josephus Jewish Wars Book 2.4.2 it details the account. The captain of the king's party Gratus met and destroyed the rebels only after they had looted and burned the Royal Palace. Judas the Galilean also leads a revolt in 4 BCE see Ant. 17.10.5-10. Josephus details many of these rebellions in Ant. Book 17. Soon thereafter another revolt occurred and it is put down by Varus the President of Syria with 2 Roman Legions and 1500 armed men of Berytus and Aretas. Many towns and villages were burned or razed including Sepphoris, significant because it was near the supposed home of Jesus. Varus marched on Jerusalem and crucified 2,000 as a result of rebellion. The Romans left the bodies to rot as a reminder to those who would oppose Rome the fate that would be theirs. This leads me to wonder why the concern over pulling dead criminals' bodies down before the Sabbath as the Gospel accounts claim. Romans usually left bodies to rot and be picked clean by vultures as examples what would happen to those who rebelled against the Empire.
Still yet another revolt is led by a shepherd named Athronges which becomes a very long guerrilla war. In the end the rebels are all destroyed. Yet another rebellion is started in 45 CE by Theudas. A Samaritan claimed he could lead the people to the holy vessels of Moses. Pilate sent the troops in and killed them all. This action got Pilate recalled, not because of dead Jews but because he was making poor decisions that contributed to increased rebellion and risked the Legions. Under Governor Festus an Egyptian Jew claimed to be a prophet and led 30,000 followers into the desert with the intent of invading Judea and Jerusalem. Festus eliminated the problem by typical military intervention killing nearly all, see Jewish Wars 2.261-262 and 2.258-259. Judas the Galilean's grandson Menahem began a revolt in 66 CE. He is eventually killed by Eleazear the son of the high priest Ananias also included in Jewish Wars book 2. In 115 to 117 CE just 20 some years prior to the second rebellion Lukuas leads a revolt taking Alexandria and burning it. He was aided by Jewish rebels from throughout the empire including Cyprus. In the war called the Kitos war the Jews are claimed to have killed over 200,000 Greeks according to Dio Cassius.
All of these events surely built brotherly love and warmth from the Gentiles throughout the Empire towards the Jews. I think one can say the environment was fairly hostile towards the Jews from the view of Gentiles during the time the Epistles and Gospels were created. As the 1st century ended more Christians were Gentiles not Jews and generally they had predisposed hostility towards Jews in general from 200 + years of Jewish rebellion against the Empire. Muslims throughout the world developed hate towards America in far less time thanks largely to George Bush.
Quote:In a short reply such that we aren't discussing every single instance of how Jews gradually were held in contempt we'll consider the story of the great commandment in Mark 12:28-34. The person asking Jesus what is the first commandment of all is a scribe, In the end Jesus tells him he is not far from the Kingdom of God nicely. In Matthew 22:34-40 it's a lawyer who was one of the Pharisees and he did so tempting him or testing. There are no comments from Jesus about the worthiness of this man. In Luke 10:25-37 again it's a lawyer who is testing him. Jesus then tells the Good Samaritan Parable. In the end, its go and do likewise. Same basic story, different takes with one showing Jesus giving the scribe positive comments and the others either negative or neutral. There are other instances of greater impact where scribes become simply Jews and put forth in contempt or simply said in a nasty way, which I'll have to look up if you don't remember. An instance of plotting against Jesus for example after he is doing works on the Sabbath comes to mind.
Marks account is not a flattering portrayal of the scribes and the Pharisees, I suggest you read the surrounding verses again in chapter 12:
"They sent some Pharisees and Herodians to him to ensnare him in his speech (Mark 12:13.)"
And the scribe Mark describes was being sneaky. He was flowering Jesus up, to catch him no differently than the Pharisees were. Look what Jesus also says in Mark 12, after his encounter with this scribe:
"In the course of his teaching he said, "Beware of the scribes, who like to go around in long robes and accept greetings in the marketplaces,
seats of honor in synagogues, and places of honor at banquets. They devour the houses of widows and, as a pretext, recite lengthy prayers. They will receive a very severe condemnation."All three books, in fact all three chapters of the book, explicitly claim that Pharisees were testing Jesus. They may have changed the setup of how the events went, but they all have to say the same thing. I guess so much for your point right?
You quickly seemed to reject possibilities that the world of 1st century early Christians can't be different than you have read in the Gospels or interpreted. There are many complications that will take time for you to research to come to a reasoned outcome in considering other information. Since you have mentioned possible dedication of your life to either the ministry or the priesthood you may want to further investigate in far greater depth before making such a commitment.
The entire rant over the scribes and Pharisees attributed to Jesus in Matthew 23 is to me a later inspired political rant. It is likely due to Pauline influences as in v10 he says for one is your Master even Christ. That which he is ranting over can be from a zealot rebel's POV or from the Pauline inspiration either one as both positions were against the contamination of the worship of God by those in power in Judea. Zealots promoted in addition to conforming to the Law, purging the pagans from the country. Jesus was just as interested in bringing the people back to purity and the Father as were the zealots. The Herodians primarily were those poisoning the Temple and the synagogues.The rant against scribes and Pharisees is minimized in the other Gospels. In Mark 12 it is but 2 verses compared to Matthew. In Luke 11 Jesus rails at a Pharisee in his home over a meal. The rant appears in a manner different but containing similarities to several others in the other Gospels. Jesus appeared to lack common courtesy regarding insulting one's host which is held to be very important even today in the Mid-East. I also question the Pharisees hanging out with the Herodians indicated in several places such as Mark 12:13. Herodians and Pharisees were generally in complete opposition during this period. I can refer you to several books and sources if you'd like to learn more.
The Gospel of John has been considered by many scholars to be anti-Jewish in content.
For example:
What purpose is John 3:1 (KJV) serving with. "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews"? This is not exactly inciting hate but what was the point? Exactly who does this mean in John 3:25 "Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying"?
Who's asking this in John 5:10 "The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the Sabbath day: It is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed."?
And of course John 5:16 who's persecuting Jesus exactly? "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day."
This if heard by Gentiles is surely going to build a loving relationship with the Jewish people isn't it?
You don't need to answer my questions above I know the arguments and answers.
See http://catholic-resources.org/John/Themes-Jews.htm This details all the instances of the word Jews or Jew in the Gospel of John. When you look at some of these occurrences it strikes one it is either derogatory or it is because John was writing only to the Gentiles such that he had to explain the practices of Judaism. If these quotes were expounded upon one can easily build a case of the Jews are God-killers, which later Church fathers certainly did.
see also http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2004/01/Jesus-Versus-The-Jews.aspx
Quote:I find all god-beliefs to be based in the land of imagination and wishful thinking trying to make a case for "Is that all there Is?" Or why are we here and not accepting what is before your eyes. Your choice. That's why cars come in different colors because people find them to be appealing for one reason or another.Perceiving in our experience of human existence something poetic and profound is in fact accepting what is before our eyes, what you seem to forgot is that we all don't see the same thing.
As I said earlier, cars come in different colors because differing things appeal to people. This is complete acknowledgment that people perceive situations differently. A good modern day example is the movie "Vantage Point."
I recall you have read or studied some of Bart Ehrman's works did that include “Misquoting Jesus”? He has great examples how the text was altered over time in directions far from the earliest copies. Several of my favorites are the earliest copy of Mark 6:3 says the Jesus was the son of a carpenter which is supported by Origen. Later copies had Jesus being a carpenter too. In another Ehrman points out Hebrews 2:8-9 originally was likely that “Jesus died for all people apart from God.” Other versions in the majority became “by the grace of God.” Clearly the difference can be of substantial impact. This is just one more aspect to consider when you read the Gospels or any part of the Bible.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm interested to know MoMN, what are your views on such things like 'sin' and morality (abortion, gay marriage, etc)? I think your position on these would open up to more interesting dialog.
I'm pro-choice, though because of my own sense of endearment towards life even at a conception, I personally wouldn't desire an abortion, if it were my choice. If i got a girl pregnant, I would tell her that I prefer that she has the child, and I'll be there for her if that's her choice, but in the end it's her choice what she wants to do, and I'll support what ever decision she decides in the end. It's a woman a body, and it's her choice (at least to a certain point), even if I don't agree with it.
Gay-marriage?
I've lived in San Francisco for a number of years, and I have very close gay friends. I understand their situations, and their lives well enough, to be committed to being for gay rights, including gay marriage.
Sin?
Sin is the English translation of the Greek word hamartia, which literally means missing the target. That there is some order and meaning to life we are to live up, and our failure to do so is sin.
And original sin, as Reinhold Niebuhr presents the Pauline perspective: "Original sin is that thing about man which makes him capable of conceiving of his own perfection and incapable of achieving it. "
- Login to post comments
Online ProzacDeathWish wrote:Okay, according to your orthodox beliefs, Jesus is God. In the post above you replied to Brian37 that God is neither a "super hero, supernatural, or divine. "
I'm confused, are you not a trinitarian ?
If you are a trinitarian then why would God not be supernatural or divine ?
Oh sorry, Brian37 said that, I accidently forget to include that in his quote brackets. And now that you replied, I can't go back and edit it either.
It should have read like this:
Brian37 wrote:And once again to avoid the hocus pokus of the bible you try to water down your Super hero in the sky by calling it an idea rather than a thing.God is neither a super hero, super natural, divine or your watered down version "love". It is just your imagination.
And my response to him would have read:
Quote:I believe that life has a poetic resonance to it, and ultimate meaning behind it (the transcendent). There's your supernatural belief.I believe Jesus is 100% God, and 100% man, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and Lord. Here's my belief in divinity, with Jesus being divine.
I believe Jesus Christ is the savior of humanity. I guess we would call that a superhero belief right?
Sorry for the confusion.
Sorry for the confusion.
No you are not, neither is the Muslim apologist or Jewish apoligist or pantheist apologist. Ambiguity is the bastion of the deluded and only the credulous will buy the used car.
I believe Jesus Christ is the savior of humanity. I guess we would call that a superhero belief right?
I don't care what you call it, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. You think your belief deserves special treatment?
Muslims think Mohamed and Allah are the savior of humanity.
As the cliche goes, "If ifs and butts were candy and nuts".
If I claimed Angelina Jolie fucked me, would you simply say, "Ok, I believe you".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline No you are not, neither is the Muslim apologist or Jewish apologist or pantheist apologist. Ambiguity is the bastion of the deluded and only the credulous will buy the used car.
Haha, damn Brian dude you foaming at the mouth aren't you? You sure you don't have rabies
Should I start worrying for my life, thinking your contempt towards me might eventually lead you to desire physical harm on me?
Seriously dude, all this? because i forgot to put one of your lines in the quote box?
And yes, dude just keep pulling out the deluded card, that's a good boy, that's a good boy, there there good boy.
Why can't we just be friends there little buddy?
I'm sorry man, I'll be more careful, and make sure I won't mess up on the quote feature again next time i reply to one of your post. will you be happy then?
]I don't care what you call it, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. You think your belief deserves special treatment?
Haha, no silly I don't want no special treatment, when did I ever suggest otherwise?
If I claimed Angelina Jolie fucked me, would you simply say, "OK, I believe you".
No, I'd just tell him good for you. No one is asking you to believe anything. I've only expressed why I myself believe, and haven't attempted by even one iota to get you to believe as well. I didn't come out here looking for you Brian, you came looking for me, you knocked on my door. I only opened up, invited you in, and answered your questions about why I believe the things I do, that's it there little buddy. Nothing more nothing less.
You don't need to get all paranoid thinking that's I'm out to get you, or cajole you into the Christian fold, to each is his own Brian, no reason to get all ape shit crazy about it
- Login to post comments
Offline God = Nature
God doesn't = Jesus or any other human being!
- Login to post comments
Offline Sin is the English translation of the Greek word hamartia, which literally means missing the target. That there is some order and meaning to life we are to live up, and our failure to do so is sin.
That explains quite a bit.
If sin is "missing God's mark", then all people sin and Christ's alleged sacrifice meant nothing. After all, the only one who can hit God's mark is God himself.
If Christ died once for all and accepting his gift will secure you for eternity (as the Bible claims) why keep going back to the well?
Are you paranoid enough to ask forgiveness every day or do you wait until you get nervous about going to heaven?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline That's why Catholicism and the Orthodox churches simplified it with the sacraments.
"Sola fides" (something like that) is strictly a Protestant concept. And a hellish little concept it is, too.
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.
- Login to post comments
Online Brian37 wrote:Again, I can find morals and metaphores in Star Wars.You can find morals and metaphors anywhere, you can find all sorts of moral preached by humanism, but the joke on such a philosophy, is that no matter how nice they may sound to us, or reasonable they appear, moral reasoning goes out the window in our proactive moral behavior. Finding morals sayings means nothing, finding the conviction to follow through with them now thats a different story. Humanism tells all sorts of pretty moral fables, none of them are all that convincing, nor do they seem aware that they need to be.
Humanism and atheism ARE seperate issues dippy!
An atheist is simply one who does not hold any belief in any god or gods.
"Humanism" is a label describing a group.
Now, please stop dodging your god claim. If all you have is quotes from Paul and the ambigious "god is love" garbage, you are failing epically and it seems the only way you can hang in here is to attempt to distract us from the fact that you have nothing.
1. "god is love" explains nothing.
2. People quote the Koran as evidence that their god is our moral authority....MY POINT.......So what? For you to think your book is special is absurd and you are not doing anything any differently than anyone else who holds a naked assertion and claim it to be fact.
If you want to "believe" without evidence, we cant stop you. But do not take us for fools.
Do you have anything else besides "god is love" or the self serving circular reasoning of bible quotes?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Di66en6ion wrote:I'm interested to know MoMN, what are your views on such things like 'sin' and morality (abortion, gay marriage, etc)? I think your position on these would open up to more interesting dialog.
I'm pro-choice, though because of my own sense of endearment towards life even at a conception, I personally wouldn't desire an abortion, if it were my choice. If i got a girl pregnant, I would tell her that I prefer that she has the child, and I'll be there for her if that's her choice, but in the end it's her choice what she wants to do, and I'll support what ever decision she decides in the end. It's a woman a body, and it's her choice (at least to a certain point), even if I don't agree with it.
Gay-marriage?
I've lived in San Francisco for a number of years, and I have very close gay friends. I understand their situations, and their lives well enough, to be committed to being for gay rights, including gay marriage.
Sin?
Sin is the English translation of the Greek word hamartia, which literally means missing the target. That there is some order and meaning to life we are to live up, and our failure to do so is sin.
And original sin, as Reinhold Niebuhr presents the Pauline perspective: "Original sin is that thing about man which makes him capable of conceiving of his own perfection and incapable of achieving it. "
Damn, you're definitely a refreshing attitude to have around to read. I wish more theists could articulate themselves as well as you and not take so much of the bible literally.
- Login to post comments
Reminds me of a Zen Buddhist fragment, "Two Zen Masters, fighting in the mud."
Who's right? Does it matter? They're both in the damn mud.
If the story of Jesus is metaphor, like the tortoise and hair, then there is no reason to litterally believe them to be real . Again, I can find morals and metaphores in Star Wars, but because REAL actors played the parts doesn't make "The Force" real.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You can find morals and metaphors anywhere, you can find all sorts of moral preached by humanism, but the joke on such a philosophy, is that no matter how nice they may sound to us, or reasonable they appear, moral reasoning goes out the window in our proactive moral behavior. Finding morals sayings means nothing, finding the conviction to follow through with them now thats a different story. Humanism tells all sorts of pretty moral fables, none of them are all that convincing, nor do they seem aware that they need to be.
Well, Hegesippus, who is, keep in mind, a Jewish convert, in the piece you provided is only writing how much of a righteous (not zeaolous) man James was, and even if we were to take the account as Hegesippus writing actual history, and all of event he wrote were true, with James not wearing wool, it doesn't argue your point. I mean I would have already told you, that James did practice the rites of the Jewish law. I mean that much is fairly made by the new testament accounts.
I also briefly read part two of the James article on sagepub. I couldn't access part one for free, and even there it doesn't seem like your case is being made. Nothing of what I seen in part two seems to claim that James was zeolous about the Jewish rites of the law.
So far, I seen nothing to make the case that James took the position of the the zealous Jewish Christians: ""Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved". The portrayal of James in the new testament, seems to suggest that this wasn't his position, because in the Acts only the zeoulous Jewish Christians opposition to what Paul is doing is mentioned, not James opposition. James seemed to be playing the political role, of trying to keep the peace. Secondly, the charges against Paul were not true, in his letters he did condemn practicing the rites of the law, he said if Christians wanted to do them, that's fine by him, but that the acts themselves were meaningless, they were not a means of salvation. And what we know of Jesus from the Gospel accounts it seems quite clear that he would have said the same thing too. Do you agree with this last point at least?
Well, that's not the reason for the conflict in Epistles account. Nothing in the writings convey that the Gentiles held such violent contempt for the Jews then. The sort of contempt developed far later on. Sure, as a result they would have even more vehemently opposed following the Jewish rites then. I have no qualms in agreeing that after the relationship between Judaism and Christianity started to fall apart, and animosity developed between the two groups, Jewish rites were looked at in an even harsher light.
Surely the relationship between Jews and Gentiles weren't nearly all that hostile at the time of the Epistles, at least no where near the extant it was a few decades later.
Kind of like when American were no longer fond of the french after the french didn't want to support our post 9/11 military pursuits, despising all things french, even relabeling french fries, "freedom fries".
Marks account is not a flattering portrayal of the scribes and the pharisees, I suggest you read the surrounding verses again in chapter 12:
"They sent some Pharisees and Herodians to him to ensnare him in his speech (Mark 12:13.)"
And the scribe Mark describes was being sneaky. He was flowering Jesus up, to catch him no differently than the pharisees were. Look what Jesus also says in Mark 12, after his encounter with this scribe:
All three books, in fact all three chapters of the book, explicitly claim that Pharisees were testing Jesus. They may of changed the setup of how the events went, but the all have to say the same thing. I guess so much for your point right?
I will admit that what you have argued so far in the past 2 or three posts, seems relatively detached, and I'm quite appreciative of that. I'm grown accustom to individuals like americanidle who foam at the mouth with each response, who become so dogmatic of their views and opinions, that if you challenge them, they behave as if you slapped their mom. So such dialogues are a welcome change.
But I don't consider your belief that you view religious concepts in a detached manner to be true. In your previous response you wrote when you felt that my faith was frail or weak, that you took it as a sign of "hope". I mean clearly you view your atheism, with fondness, that you see something "superior" about it, that others would be better off if they were atheist. I might be reading too far, but it does seem like this is what you were implying, by seeing that glimmer of hope. In viewing religion from this perspective, you're not viewing it in a detached manner, you already have a belief on what should be true, and often times your going to conform facts to fit this perspective, i mean that's just what we humans do. But we should admit our biases, rather than claim we're "detached" when it seems we clearly aren't.
I haven't done this yet, but I'll check it out soon.
same here.
Well, I do try and be objective as possible, as you can see with my responses. I write out exactly why I believe them to be true, and why I don't believe your interpretations were right. But I sure don't come off as being dogmatic about it. And I'm sure you do recognize that I don't make a thin case for my views either--at least in this post.
Perceiving in our experience of human existence something poetic and profound is in fact accepting what is before our eyes, what you seem to forgot is that we all don't see the same thing.
Ah, so now you desire a calm, rational response? After you accused me of being a coward, and a liar, after you deceptively cut out portions of my post, and accused me of saying things I didn't. After attacking my character, and being deceptive you want me to coddle you with a "you misunderstood me" response? Sorry, you don't merit being treated so kindly. Until you learn to man up, and apologize.
Yep, everyone does.
I'm gonna repost what I wrote in Post 58:
"I'm a theist, a Christian, who believes in the Christian God, the God who revealed himself in a "reviled and murdered political criminal". And as an Orthodox theist, this is not a claim that God revealed himself partially in Jesus Christ, but fully. If you asking for proof or evidence outside of Jesus Christ, you're asking for evidence that God revealed himself some other way, like God revealed himself in Jesus Christ and a petri dish, but that's not what I believe."
The important word here is "reviled". All I can ever know about God is what he reveals. A claim that God revealed himself fully in Jesus Christ, means that all I can ever know of God, of his ultimate nature, and relationship to humanity are found in Jesus Christ.
No, i explicitly gave the reasons for why I believe. Post 58 again:
"What makes Jesus God? an encounter with him, personal experience, to perceive him as the guiding light of ones life, as the Way the Truth, and the Life, as the Christ, as total sovereign, as the image of what true love is, whose meaning is the source of one's hope, and is the source of one's conviction. If he approached me like Peter, two thousand years ago, and asked me who do you say I am? I would say truly, you are the Son of God. "
What I wrote above is the fundamental grounding of my theism. And I've said this numerous times.
If you think the virgin birth defines Jesus as the Son of God, you'd be silly. In fact the term Son of God is not a term of divinity at all, it's term for soverinity, a term for messiah, a title even given to David.
The Gospels that most explicitly calls Jesus divine, John's Gospel is totally absent of a virgin birth narrative, and when John gives the explicit reason for why Jesus is divine, he doesn't say it's because he performs miracles, or any of his supernatural feats, but because Jesus is the Logos (the truth) incarnate.
And I already wrote, that this was the reason for why I believed. That I accept Jesus as guiding light of my life, as the Way the Truth, and the Life, as the Christ, as total sovereign, as the image of what true love is, whose meaning is the source of my hope, and is the source of my convictions.
manofmanynames wrote:
Save the drama. There wasn't even a shred of anything deceptive in my post. While the quote I used was the only part I was interested in getting a response to, the remainder of your post was there for everyone to read in its entirety. Did you think it magically disappeared ? Let me check.. Nope. Still there. All anyone needed to read your long winded post was a little masochism and a reason to waste ten minutes of their life.
Show me someone who buys the deceptive crap you're trying to sell !
No one but you my friend.
However, it's a good way to deflect attention away from answering the questions I posed, which is so obviously what you're doing. You pick and choose which questions you answer alot like you pick and choose which books of the bible you're willing to defend and which biblical passages are literal and which are not.
You nearly had a coronary when I suggested you got your beliefs from the bible and ranted/raved for 3 pages of posts how offended you were until you finally admitted your beliefs did in fact come from the gospels..
Last I checked..............the gospels were a part of the bible
Disclaimer: manofmanynames full post in its brilliant entirety can be found on page 3 ...(just in case anyone had a recent lobotomy and wasn't aware of this). See there, momn.. you can now can dispense with the "deceptive" angle and quit dodging the questions.
Explain to me how you could have arrived at a belief in jesus christ without using the bible as a source.
Are the 62 remaining books (other than the gospels) also divinely inspired or are they not ?
Is this the same god that inspired the gospels ?
Anyone want to lay odds on another dodge ?
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
lol, so who dodged?
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17480?page=2#comment-241946
Where I wrote:
"Please explain to us how you missed this, and if you didn't miss it, how you interpreted it to make your assumption? " I'm not responding to the rest of your post, because I know how cowards like you work, you'd ignore confronting your lie when its called to attention, and respond to only the other portions of the post. But I'm not letting you get away that easily,"
Did you or, did you not dodge the question I devoted the entire post too? I explicitly told you I'm not letting you get away without answering it, and admitting you were an idiot who can't read, and then apologize for implying I'm a liar.
Like I said, when you learn to be a man, and own up. I'll respond.
To quote you:
"Anyone want to lay odds on another dodge ?"
Well, I'm not much of an afterlife muser. The only notion of Heaven and Hell that are of any concern to me, are the earthly portion rather than the afterlife extension of them. As Jesus speaks of Heaven, as neither lo here or lo there, but within us, and among us, and hell is only the inverse of this, that Jesus uses the term Gehenna, which is reference to a literal place in Jerusalem. Hell is a place marked by indifference, and hatred, our unwillingness to love, and the darkness and consuming nature of such a state and it's manifestation in our life, and Heaven is the place of compassion, and love, of our light, and our salvation, and it's manifestation in this life as well. "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven", as the prayer goes.
The only concern for me about heaven and hell is right here. When Jesus is pressed by the scribes about life after death, he gives them a vague response, and ends their inquiry with a claim that God is not a God "of the dead, but of the living".
Do I believe in eternal life? sure i do? Do I know where you, and Brian Sapient are going to end up? Nope, not at all. But I do believe in God of justice, who punishes fairly, and rewards generously. That were ever well end up, we'd understand that this is where we deserve to be.
Do I think heaven is only composed of confessing Christians? not at all. In Matthew 25, when Jesus talks about separating the sheep from the goats. Those he confesses not to know, were those who confessed to know him, and those that he claimed he knew, were those surprised that he know them, unaware that they were doing anything for him at all.
Do I think that people who live their lives dedicated to Love, to the suffering people around them are on their way to hell? No, I consider them God's co-labors, even if they themselves don't know it.
And as James writers: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world."
To accept Jesus Christ, it's not the acceptance of mere words, or believing in his literal acts, but an acceptance of an expression. If God is in all of us, Christ is in all of us as well, as the truth is. We may not all know the name, but we can call live our lives in the sentiment.
Well, I consider Christianity to be the definitive truth about God and religion, but this doesn't mean that all those following other religions are following in falsehood. The extent of how true their religious expression are, is by how they live up to the template found in Jesus Christ, and false in how they don't. Judging that most religions hold Jesus Christ in high esteem, it seems that they have an understanding (even if it's not a full one) of the truth as well. The role of love, in one's life and expression, is the rule in which we are all judged by.
Well, I think I'm right, just like I think i'm right about many other things, like I think I'm right in believing the evolution did happen. Could I be proved wrong? Sure, why not? I don't confess to be right even about my religion, dogmatically. I believe it to be right, and the truth, I may even experience it to be true as well, but that doesn't mean that I'm not open to hear why others think its wrong, and to respond back to them. There are a few things I do know quite well, that I wouldn't be a believer if it weren't for Christianity. I'm familiar with other religions, though I admire many of them, the extent that I would have accepted that there is God based on them, is fairly thin.
Well, I don't disagree. But I do believe that it'd quite difficult, if not near impossible to be empowered by the teaching and live them near to the extent he himself practiced them, and not believe. Because the empowerment, comes with an embrace of Hope, a belief in a life of poetic resonance, and ultimate meaning (the transcendent, which i guess would be called "supernatural " ) . A disbeliever believing in these things, would be no less weird to me than an atheist confessing that created life reveals an intelligent design behind it.
Anyone can preach morality, but very few people can present the conviction needed to make it work. Everyone can claim that love your neighbor is good principle to live by, but very few people are convicted by the words alone to live it in practice. What's needed is to see these notions of morality as sovereign, to render them supremacy, a belief that Love is the ultimate ruler of us all, and beliefs such as this are affording love divinity.
In the words of late theologian Herbert Mccabe: "If you do not love your dead, and if you love, they'll kill you."
momn , you have identified yourself as believing Christian orthodoxy yet you seem unclear as to whether there is a literal Hell ( or Heaven? ) or even a literal after life. Also, you seem to be stating that other world religions ( sometimes referred to as "false religions" by mainstream Christians ) seem to possess actual spiritual ( not just religious ) utility. Are you a Universalist Unitarian ? If no, then what school or denomination of Christian thought best embodies your beliefs ? If that is not possible could it be that your theology is essentially a home grown version ? Just asking for clarification, that's all.
So from what I can tell from this entire thread is that MoMN is saying that his faith and morals are mostly grounded in an emotional bedwork. Historicity of Jesus or not, nothing in modern history has unambiguously validated any kind of miracle (if anyone has any, I'd very much like to read up on some) (lets also not forget the problems inherent in what exactly a miracle is).
Unlike the objectivity that historical artifacts and science can provide, arguing from an emotional appeal is pretty ambiguous and void of substance to those who don't share your view point. You can argue from a million different experiences and views of people (theists) but I could just throw a million other opposing views back into one's face.
Your points have all been subjective for the most part with respect to what you believe. You think Christian ideology has more weight than say humanism (which is purely subjective). I kind of see where you're going with your beliefs even though they don't seem very main-stream. Believing in something doesn't necessarily mean you'll act on those beliefs though, no matter what culture/ideology you have. I'd argue that there a few teaching's from Jesus that wouldn't hold much water today. You're also ignoring the idea that the bible most likely sums up only the good things people saw in him, much like an eulogy.
I dunno, just seems like any position grounded in ambiguity and/or irrationality is unassailable. If you want to use the belief in Jesus's teachings as some sort of mental focus then I don't really see a problem with that. I've seen a few atheists on here post some dogmatic stuff before as well as theists. I think the only real common fiber among us (athiests) is that we don't want the majority (theists) making laws that unfurl from such beliefs in teachings.
Well, it seems you equate fundamentalism with Christian orthodoxy.
The Orthodox church view of hell is: "Hell is described as self-exclusion from communion with that universal love, as cutting oneself off from love(wikipedia)"
And Hell as defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
The Orthodox view on other religions: "God's saving grace is also channelled outside the Church. It cannot be assumed that salvation is denied non-Christians living in true piety and according to natural law by theGod who "is love" (1 John 4:
, In his justice and mercy God will judge them worthy even though they are outside the true Church."
The Catholic view: "the non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."
Unitarian Universalist believe Christianity is just one of many truths, the view of the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church is the Christianity is the Truth, and non-christians can go to heaven as long as the live up to this truth, by loving others, tending to the sick and needy, etc...
The Catholic Church, and the Orthodox are two of three largest Christian denominations, and outside of the Fundementalist views, the views of mainline Christians are not too far off from this view on hell, and salvation. You're use to encountering fundamentalist all the time I'm guessing; they're probably the ones who frequent these sort of boards more, and you perhaps have a tainted view that assumes their view of Christianity is the dominant one, when in fact its more like a minority view.
I'm personally not a member of any denomination, I'm a man without a church and a pastor, though i tend evangelical churches quite frequently, mainly because many of my friends and family attend such services. But my own views align much with the views Orthodox Church, and the mainline Christian tradition.
No, it's fairly common.
You lied when you said you didn't get your beliefs from the bible....CHECK !
You've lacked the courage to even answer a simple one sentence question....CHECK !
It's alright. I knew you wouldn't answer. Thanks for providing the vindication.
You can add "predictable" to liar and coward.
And I've grown tired of the "No, I'm not..YOU are" crap responses.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Ah, yes, here you are stuck on your delusions.
You can cry about not getting a response all you want, it falls on deaf ears. Judging that I've taken on pretty much every question presented to me here, by a number of different atheist, if you want to believe I'm not replying to your silly questions, because i'm "dodging" them, you go ahead, and believe that.
When you have a warped mind, you tend to believe all sorts of things.
Anyways toodles troll, you go do your thing.
manofmanynames wrote:
See, finally we've found agreement on something.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Yes, AmericanIdiot, indeed we do.
What is common and you seem to think, all be it falsely, is that YOU got it right wherease all other Christians got it wrong. And once again to avoid the hocus pokus of the bible you try to water down your Super hero in the sky by calling it an idea rather than a thing.
THAT IS CALLED BACKPEDDLING.
God is neither a super hero, super natural, divine or your watered down version "love". It is just your imagination.
You cling to a club merely because it makes you feel good and you like the stories in the fan club handbook.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Oh, yes I know the card "u got it right everybody else got it wrong card" very well, it's quite stupid if you think about it. Pretty much every view that you and I both hold, is an "I got it right, everybody else got it wrong" sort of view. The difference between these views is the reason for why someone thinks his view is the correct one. Darwin though his theory was right, and the previous theories about the development of life were wrong, but it's the reasons why he believes this, that makes his positions more reasonable than the views held by others at the time.
Paultheskeptic thought he was right in assuming that Matthew, and Luke's chapter on what's the greatest commandment unlike Mark, was made to express antijewishness because they departed from Mark by claiming the Jews were trying to trap Jesus in speech. But he was wrong, and I was right, I showed him that Mark references the fact that they were trying to trap Jesus in speech as well, and Mark explicitly says so, just like Matthew, and Luke in their chapters.
Were I differ from some theist, is how they interpret the bible, how me and the fundamentalist interpret the Bible. The fundamentalist believes he's right, that all the accounts of how Judas died are the same, that Jesus said all three things on the cross, while most (if not all) atheist and myself would say that each writer has a different view on what Jesus said on the cross, and their own take on how Judas died. Clearly, you know which position is more reasonable.
Pulling out the "You got it right, whereas all other Christians got it wrong", is meaningless claim, all our ideas and thoughts to be comparatively evaluated requires an assessments of the reasons each view is held, and an opinion on which view is more consistent and accurate of the data, and material at hand.
The old "u got it right card, and everybody else got it wrong" comes straight out of the idiots card book, for people who don't have the patience to think, but its just another meaningless ploy.
God is neither a super hero, super natural, divine or your watered down version "love". It is just your imagination.
I believe that life has a poetic resonance to it, and ultimate meaning behind it (the transcendent). There's your supernatural belief.
I believe Jesus is 100% God, and 100% man, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and Lord. Here's my belief in divinity, with Jesus being divine.
I believe Jesus Christ is the savior of humanity. I guess we would call that a superhero belief right?
I cling to my beliefs because they are an empowering and profound view of life for me, and it's not merely the feeling of it but the results of that empowerment that lead me to believe. The Christian Gospel claims that the Kingdom of God is within you, but that's not a claim to just keep it there, but to bring it out, to allows one's light to shine on a hill, redeeming all in it. And it is because I have seen the fruits of this redemption abundantly in my life, that I endearingly claim loyalty, devotion, and worship to the one who revealed it, and embodies it.
Uhm..let's see. The definition of backpedaling (according to the New Oxford English Dictionary:
• reverse one's previous action or opinion.
Judging that my views have the pretty much I've always held since I became a theist, I don't know how the claim of "backpedaling" fits in here?
Answer this. Did I make any claims in this post, express a view and opinion, and then reverse course on that view and opinion I claimed to previously hold? Don't dodge this question, I want you to answer this. If you say yes, show me where and how. If you can't, then it goes to show that I did no such thing.