Figuring Out Religion

[curlew]

And since it's another rainy day in Florida here's another one about how to give an atheist a religious experience...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51B8MzcxOX0

What's the TL;DR of the above? An atheist experiences metaphysicality and suddenly believes there is a "God" or that religions are therefore valid?

Had to figure out what TL;DR means but basically it's an example of how the human mind is hard-wired to believe in the supernatural and how this can be exploited.

[MachineGhost]

Had to figure out what TL;DR means but basically it's an example of how the human mind is hard-wired to believe in the supernatural and how this can be exploited.

OIC. Sort of as in the era before The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind.

[Xan]

Had to figure out what TL;DR means but basically it's an example of how the human mind is hard-wired to believe in the supernatural and how this can be exploited.

I can agree with that.

Yes, there are many things the human mind is hard-wired for and which can be taken advantage of. That doesn't mean those things are bad or wrong.

[Mountaineer]

For those who wonder why God was so mean and cruel to others (e.g. directing the clean out of Caanan) this episode might prove interesting, and beneficial.

White Horse Inn (Whatever Happened to Hell?): http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WhiteHor ... 161002.mp3

"For the last half century or so, contemporary Christian faith and practice has been focused on positive and uplifting stories of personal transformation along with a kind of unbridled optimism about what each of us can do with God’s help. But in doing so, has the church ended up downplaying the negative aspects of biblical truth? In order to present Christianity as attractive to others, have we gotten rid of Hell? That’s the focus of this edition of White Horse Inn."

[curlew]

For those who wonder why God was so mean and cruel to others (e.g. directing the clean out of Caanan) this episode might prove interesting, and beneficial.

White Horse Inn (Whatever Happened to Hell?): http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WhiteHor ... 161002.mp3

"For the last half century or so, contemporary Christian faith and practice has been focused on positive and uplifting stories of personal transformation along with a kind of unbridled optimism about what each of us can do with God’s help. But in doing so, has the church ended up downplaying the negative aspects of biblical truth? In order to present Christianity as attractive to others, have we gotten rid of Hell? That’s the focus of this edition of White Horse Inn."

So your basic point is that if we think God is mean and cruel because of all the Old Testament killings then we shouldn't forget that Jesus teaches us in the New Testament that God is even more mean and cruel than that because he will send us to suffer in hell for all eternity. But the reason he does this isn't because he's mean and cruel. It's because he's holy and that's just what a holy god does.

And those of us who don't believe that walk in darkness, of course.

[Xan]

For those who wonder why God was so mean and cruel to others (e.g. directing the clean out of Caanan) this episode might prove interesting, and beneficial.

White Horse Inn (Whatever Happened to Hell?): http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WhiteHor ... 161002.mp3

"For the last half century or so, contemporary Christian faith and practice has been focused on positive and uplifting stories of personal transformation along with a kind of unbridled optimism about what each of us can do with God’s help. But in doing so, has the church ended up downplaying the negative aspects of biblical truth? In order to present Christianity as attractive to others, have we gotten rid of Hell? That’s the focus of this edition of White Horse Inn."

So your basic point is that if we think God is mean and cruel because of all the Old Testament killings then we shouldn't forget that Jesus teaches us in the New Testament that God is even more mean and cruel than that because he will send us to suffer in hell for all eternity. But the reason he does this isn't because he's mean and cruel. It's because he's holy and that's just what a holy god does.

And those of us who don't believe that walk in darkness, of course.

Curlew, if you're going to reject God because he's mean and cruel, then what's your alternative? What squares better with reality? Every living thing on this planet will die, often horribly. If the "God" that you prefer allows that, then isn't he also mean and cruel?

[curlew]

For those who wonder why God was so mean and cruel to others (e.g. directing the clean out of Caanan) this episode might prove interesting, and beneficial.

White Horse Inn (Whatever Happened to Hell?): http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WhiteHor ... 161002.mp3

"For the last half century or so, contemporary Christian faith and practice has been focused on positive and uplifting stories of personal transformation along with a kind of unbridled optimism about what each of us can do with God’s help. But in doing so, has the church ended up downplaying the negative aspects of biblical truth? In order to present Christianity as attractive to others, have we gotten rid of Hell? That’s the focus of this edition of White Horse Inn."

So your basic point is that if we think God is mean and cruel because of all the Old Testament killings then we shouldn't forget that Jesus teaches us in the New Testament that God is even more mean and cruel than that because he will send us to suffer in hell for all eternity. But the reason he does this isn't because he's mean and cruel. It's because he's holy and that's just what a holy god does.

And those of us who don't believe that walk in darkness, of course.

Curlew, if you're going to reject God because he's mean and cruel, then what's your alternative? What squares better with reality? Every living thing on this planet will die, often horribly. If the "God" that you prefer allows that, then isn't he also mean and cruel?

I didn't reject your God because he's mean and cruel. I rejected him because I don't believe he exists.

[Xan]

I didn't reject your God because he's mean and cruel. I rejected him because I don't believe he exists.

Then why complain about the details?

[MachineGhost]

I didn't reject your God because he's mean and cruel. I rejected him because I don't believe he exists.

Then why complain about the details?

That's a good point! So long as you guys aren't coercing non-believers with those details.

[Mountaineer]

I didn't reject your God because he's mean and cruel. I rejected him because I don't believe he exists.

Then why complain about the details?

That's a good point! So long as you guys aren't coercing non-believers with those details.

One can only be coerced by his own choice.

[Mountaineer]

The apparent thrust to diminish the value of family and life and emphasize personal happiness at the expense of others (e.g. delayed marriage, same sex marriage, divorce, abortion, physician assisted suicide, birth control) appears to be having some rather severe (unintended?) consequences. Martin Luther's doctrine of the three estates seems to be on target for suggesting how society can be organized effectively; when one is neglected, the others suffer. In my opinion, one of the contributing factors to many of our societal ills results from children being viewed as a choice instead of a gift from God, a gift that may require personal sacrifice. Caring about self more than caring about others does have its downsides.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... d5ceb53eb6

"In 1965, even high school dropouts were more likely to be in the workforce than are the 25-to-54 males today. And, Eberstadt notes, “the collapse of work for modern America’s men happened despite considerable upgrades in educational attainment.” The collapse has coincided with a retreat from marriage (“the proportion of never-married men was over three times higher in 2015 than 1965”), which suggests a broader infantilization. As does the use to which the voluntarily idle put their time — for example, watching TV and movies 5.5 hours daily, two hours more than men who are counted as unemployed because they are seeking work."

https://dmondayblog.wordpress.com/luthe ... e-estates/

Luther’s Three Estates
Ecclesia (the Church) - This is Martin Luther’s first estate in his theology of vocation. Gene Edward Veith notes that “every Christian has been ‘called’ through the gospel into the life of faith (Romans 8:30), becoming a member of Christ’s body, the church” (Chapter One, Working for Our Neighbor). As members, Christians will have vocations to serve the Church. For example, a male Christian might have a full-time vocation as a pastor. If they are a lay person, then they might have a vocation of elder, committee member, choir member, etc.

Oeconomia (the Household) - The second estate in Luther’s theology is mostly associated with the family but can also find connections with the economy. Here one will have suitable vocations such as a parent, a sibling, etc. Regarding the economy, one will buy, sell, and trade goods. All of these are vocations within the economy. Here, the Christian should display godliness in all his or her doings both in the household and in the market.

Politia (the State) - The third estate is the government, but there is much more to this estate then the national capital. As Veith explains, “We might use the term society, or, better yet, culture or community” (Chapter One, Working for Our Neighbor). An obvious vocation is that of a citizen, but a Christian can hold more than one. For example, he might be both a senator and a citizen. Or an artist contributing to a local art museum. A Christian might even be a local park volunteer. The list is endless in Christian vocations.

[MachineGhost]

People only got married early (and not for romantic love which is a post-Roaring Twenties modern notion helped along by faux scarcity in diamonds) to have sex because there wasn't effective birth control available. So you see, it's all connected to having dominion over nature. If you equate "God" to nature, then you are but a powerless victim with no control over your body, thoughts or destiny -- the anti-thesis of what it means to civilized.

Luther was last alive over 470 years ago. Let that sink in in terms of irrelevance.

[Mountaineer]

People only got married early (and not for romantic love which is a post-Roaring Twenties modern notion helped along by faux scarcity in diamonds) to have sex because there wasn't effective birth control available. So you see, it's all connected to having dominion over nature. If you equate "God" to nature, then you are but a powerless victim with no control over your body, thoughts or destiny -- the anti-thesis of what it means to civilized.

Luther was last alive over 470 years ago. Let that sink in in terms of irrelevance.

Some even think the earth itself was formed 4 billion years ago, and the universe 14 billion years ago. Let that sink in in terms of irrelevance. I'm guessing you think anything said must be in your lifetime or it has no value? Well, there goes Plato, Socrates, Homer, Muslim scientists from the middle ages, Shakespeare, etc. etc.

[Xan]

People only got married early (and not for romantic love which is a post-Roaring Twenties modern notion helped along by faux scarcity in diamonds) to have sex because there wasn't effective birth control available. So you see, it's all connected to having dominion over nature. If you equate "God" to nature, then you are but a powerless victim with no control over your body, thoughts or destiny -- the anti-thesis of what it means to civilized.

Luther was last alive over 470 years ago. Let that sink in in terms of irrelevance.

Some even think the earth itself was formed 4 billion years ago, and the universe 14 billion years ago. Let that sink in in terms of irrelevance. I'm guessing you think anything said must be in your lifetime or it has no value? Well, there goes Plato, Socrates, Homer, Muslim scientists from the middle ages, Shakespeare, etc. etc.

MG has already claimed to be smarter than anyone from the past. The ridiculousness of that claim doesn't seem to register.

[MachineGhost]

MG has already claimed to be smarter than anyone from the past. The ridiculousness of that claim doesn't seem to register.

I have? If I was so smart, why can't I remember?

I don't think I'm smarter than Einstein so your claim about my claim is false either way.

Maybe you're just joking but then again you religious types take everything so fucking seriously, including when I put on airs. Lord have mercy!

[Mountaineer]

MG has already claimed to be smarter than anyone from the past. The ridiculousness of that claim doesn't seem to register.

I have? If I was so smart, why can't I remember?

I don't think I'm smarter than Einstein so your claim about my claim is false either way.

Maybe you're just joking but then again you religious types take everything so fucking seriously, including when I put on airs. Lord have mercy!

I can't speak for others, but I take people at their word - until they prove unworthy.

[Xan]

MG has already claimed to be smarter than anyone from the past. The ridiculousness of that claim doesn't seem to register.

I have? If I was so smart, why can't I remember?

Well, because you're actually not, of course!

I don't think I'm smarter than Einstein so your claim about my claim is false either way.

It looks like you qualified it slightly by saying "before the Rational Enlightenment". So you can be dumber than Einstein, but you did claim to be smarter than Mountaineer's "Plato, Socrates, Homer, Muslim scientists from the middle ages, Shakespeare, etc. etc."

Maybe you're just joking but then again you religious types take everything so fucking seriously, including when I put on airs. Lord have mercy!

Whenever you get called out on your BS then you're "putting on airs". Sure.

Here's the conversation http://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/foru ... f=9&t=8660 :

Food for thought: How well did things work out for explaining the nature of reality and the universe before the Rational Enlightenment? We all laugh at them now because we have a better Operating System and that is science.

Speak for yourself. The idea that people now are so much smarter and better than people have always been is a pernicious one. In particular, would YOU do any better in the same situation than the people you now laugh at?

Well, yeah, I'm super smart and I would have been back then as I would have now, which means I likely would have been imprisoned perpetually, drowned, beheaded, crucifixed or quartered by your very own religious-believing kind. So excuse my enemity to all those who glorify or preach a return to the way it was, which was ignorance and stupidity over knowledge and reason.

[MachineGhost]

I sense there is a huge difference between me implying people before the Pre-Rational Enlightenment were dumb and stupid and you saying I claimed to be smarter than anyone from the past. Straw man.

[Pointedstick]

I read something today that I just had to share.

https://cac.org/jesus-invitation-follow-2016-10-18/

Jesus clearly taught the twelve disciples about surrender, the necessity of suffering, humility, servant leadership, and nonviolence. They resisted him every time, and so he finally had to make the journey himself and tell them, “Follow me!” But Christians have preferred to hear something Jesus never said: “Worship me.” Worship of Jesus is rather harmless and risk-free; following Jesus changes everything.

The clear message of Jesus’ teaching has not been taught with much seriousness in most churches. Simplicity, humility, and “descent” were never expected of the clergy—certainly not of the higher clergy—and, therefore, how could we ask it of the rest of the church? Jesus was training the leaders because they could only ask of others what they themselves had done first. Once we saw the clerical state as a place of advancement instead of downward mobility, once ordination was not a form of initiation but a continuation of patriarchal patterns, the authentic preaching of the Gospel became the exception rather than the norm.

I have often thought that this “non-preaching” of the Gospel was like a secret social contract between clergy and laity, as we shake hands across the sanctuary. We agree not to tell you anything that would make you uncomfortable, and you will keep coming to our services. It is a nice deal, because once the Gospel is preached, I doubt if the churches would be filled. Rather, we might be out on the streets living the message. The discernment and the call to a life of service, to a life that gives itself away instead of simply protecting and procuring for itself in the name of Jesus, is what church should be about. Right now, so much church is the clergy teaching the people how to be co-dependent with them. It becomes job security instead of true spiritual empowerment. Remember, anyone—male or female—who has not gone on journeys of powerlessness will invariably abuse power.

[MachineGhost]

I liked this... start at 14:22:

http://watchcartoonsonline.eu/watch/ani ... r-warners/

[Xan]

I read something today that I just had to share.

https://cac.org/jesus-invitation-follow-2016-10-18/

Jesus clearly taught the twelve disciples about surrender, the necessity of suffering, humility, servant leadership, and nonviolence. They resisted him every time, and so he finally had to make the journey himself and tell them, “Follow me!” But Christians have preferred to hear something Jesus never said: “Worship me.” Worship of Jesus is rather harmless and risk-free; following Jesus changes everything.

The clear message of Jesus’ teaching has not been taught with much seriousness in most churches. Simplicity, humility, and “descent” were never expected of the clergy—certainly not of the higher clergy—and, therefore, how could we ask it of the rest of the church? Jesus was training the leaders because they could only ask of others what they themselves had done first. Once we saw the clerical state as a place of advancement instead of downward mobility, once ordination was not a form of initiation but a continuation of patriarchal patterns, the authentic preaching of the Gospel became the exception rather than the norm.

I have often thought that this “non-preaching” of the Gospel was like a secret social contract between clergy and laity, as we shake hands across the sanctuary. We agree not to tell you anything that would make you uncomfortable, and you will keep coming to our services. It is a nice deal, because once the Gospel is preached, I doubt if the churches would be filled. Rather, we might be out on the streets living the message. The discernment and the call to a life of service, to a life that gives itself away instead of simply protecting and procuring for itself in the name of Jesus, is what church should be about. Right now, so much church is the clergy teaching the people how to be co-dependent with them. It becomes job security instead of true spiritual empowerment. Remember, anyone—male or female—who has not gone on journeys of powerlessness will invariably abuse power.

I'm curious as to what the author would say that "the Gospel" (literally, "good news") in fact IS.

[MachineGhost]

I'm curious as to what the author would say that "the Gospel" (literally, "good news") in fact IS.

Progressive Western Values?

[Pointedstick]

I'm curious as to what the author would say that "the Gospel" (literally, "good news") in fact IS.

From what I get out of reading the NT so far, the Gospel mostly seems to be about trying to convince us that none of the worldly things we care about actually matter at all, either to God or even to us (ultimately). That wealth, status, possessions, and judgment divide us from each other and separate us from God, and especially when all of this is done by the religious authorities themselves, it's an active affront to God that should be opposed, even if this means upsetting some apple carts or even setting family members against one another. That we should trust in mystery and ambiguity and give up our illusions of control and knowledge because God is the one really in control and our knowledge is insignificant compared to His.

[MachineGhost]

From what I get out of reading the NT so far, the Gospel mostly seems to be about trying to convince us that none of the worldly things we care about actually matter at all, either to God or even to us (ultimately). That wealth, status, possessions, and judgment divide us from each other and separate us from God, and especially when all of this is done by the religious authorities themselves, it's an active affront to God that should be opposed, even if this means upsetting some apple carts or even setting family members against one another. That we should trust in mystery and ambiguity and give up our illusions of control and knowledge because God is the one really in control and our knowledge is insignificant compared to His.

You're seriously studying The Bible now, huh? Well, make sure you dig deeper into the Christian origins and not just take at face value what is "history written by the victors". I don't mean Sumeria -- that is Old Testament parables -- but the first millenium:

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1590306317/

[Mountaineer]

John Adams famously wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” We seem to be hell-bent on testing his prescience.

Adams’s admonition is often quoted as proof that the American founders desired to form a government based on Christian principles, but this gets it exactly wrong. Rather, our second president realized that a government founded on liberal principles would require the perpetuation of the pre-liberal or non-liberal norms extant among the people to be sustainable. The preceding but less-well-known lines of Adams’s letter make this clearer: “[W]e have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net.” .........

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusi ... al-despair