Support NeoGAF

[Dice]

I've noticed that in the church quite a lot. Work with people where they are at... unless they're

Spoiler

gay, Muslim, or

Christian, then you're allowed to not give a shit. I guess the new shepherding strategy is to shoot at the ones that go astray.

 

[Buckethead]

This is bullshit.

If God exists then he can get fucked because when it all comes down to it... it's just a game to him, all a means to a fucking end.

I'm so done trying be an adult with this childish, uneducated sheeperherder bullshit.

 

[Mgoblue201]

That in no way logically follows. It's a common fallacy though, which is why I can understand why buckethead is so distraught.

You're gonna have to put forth a better argument than that. It is bad enough that the authorship ascribed to some books through tradition have come under question, for that tradition was upheld by men who claim to be inspired by god. It is another thing entirely when books explicitly identifying the author may have been written by someone else (I believe that some books written by Paul have had their authenticity questioned, but I'm not sure where every scholar stands on that). It immediately establishes the author as a crude liar, which has implications for his credibility and the nature of his message. If one could somehow prove beyond reasonable doubt that the content of a book was absolutely true in spite of the mendacity of the author, then I guess we would have to believe it, but proof rarely works like that, for we must usually establish authenticity first. When attempting to formulate a belief (in this case, is the Bible true?), the nature of the book's composition must act as its own sort of evidence, especially when the adherents of a religion claim that their book was divinely inspired; how it was composed will tell us something about whether we can trust it. Inauthenticity immediately destroys that trust. Of course, Christians usually start by assuming that the book is true and then attempt to prove its veracity through whatever means necessary, the very opposite of how it should work.

 

[DanteFox]

You're gonna have to put forth a better argument than that. It is bad enough that the authorship ascribed to some books through tradition have come under question, for that tradition was upheld by men who claim to be inspired by god. It is another thing entirely when books explicitly identifying the author may have been written by someone else (I believe that some books written by Paul have had their authenticity questioned, but I'm not sure where every scholar stands on that). It immediately establishes the author as a crude liar, which has implications for his credibility and the nature of his message. If one could somehow prove beyond reasonable doubt that the content of a book was absolutely true in spite of the mendacity of the author, then I guess we would have to believe it, but proof rarely works like that, for we must usually establish authenticity first. When attempting to formulate a belief (in this case, is the Bible true?), the nature of the book's composition must act as its own sort of evidence, especially when the adherents of a religion claim that their book was divinely inspired; how it was composed will tell us something about whether we can trust it. Inauthenticity immediately destroys that trust. Of course, Christians usually start by assuming that the book is true and then attempt to prove its veracity through whatever means necessary, the very opposite of how it should work.

Discrediting one part of the bible doesn't discredit the whole thing. That's just sound logic. Even if someone comes to the conclusion that X part of the bible is completely false, they might still come to the conclusion that Y part is true. All it would mean is that they no longer subscribe to the notion of biblical infallibility. There are Christians who do this.

 

[Dice]

If God exists then he can get fucked because when it all comes down to it... it's just a game to him, all a means to a fucking end.

Yeah, the arbitrary and conflicted premise of salvation in Christianity is still my biggest problem with it, even more so than what discredits the notion of anything supernatural. I don't know what it takes to make a Christian finally get a wider perspective and see "he's just fucking around!" but once you do and it clicks there is just no way around it.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Discrediting one part of the bible doesn't discredit the whole thing. That's just sound logic. Even if someone comes to the conclusion that X part of the bible is completely false, they might still come to the conclusion that Y part is true. All it would mean is that they no longer subscribe to the notion of biblical infallibility. There are Christians who do this.

discrediting one part of the bible puts it's entire ethos into context, at which more and more of the bible requires deeper and deeper scrutiny. It also discredits everything else that's been written or assembled by the same author in context of the bible, regardless of if it's true, until it's varifiable true.

or at least that's how I would interpert it.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Then we can dismiss god as a clumsy deity who would allow mendacious elements into his holy text that would confuse and mislead millions. But even beyond that it leads to important questions that may destroy the veracity of the whole thing. For example, what if we could dismiss the really essential parts of the Bible such as the gospels? What if one part of the Bible that was clearly discredited was quoted by someone important, say Jesus, as if it was true? Does that discredit Jesus too?

In reality, most parts of the Bible have false or suspicious material, so we should dismiss all of it anyway. No reason to focus exclusively on the authorship of the individual books.

 

[DanteFox]

what ifs are pointless in this case because they aren't reality so we can dismiss them altogether.

I do enjoy how you were able to swiftly discredit the whole bible with one sentence though. Fear not biblical scholars! Mgoblue's got you covered!

 

[Count Dookkake]

Yeah.

I'm open to being wrong.

But to classify me as a lost cause and whatever they're doing makes me feel like fucking shit.

I take issue with the mental gymnastics and I've been trying desperately to figure everything out. Completely dismissive.

Not all who wander are lost... unless you're a Christian then get fucked, I guess?

This was not really a surprise.

 

[Buckethead]

This was not really a surprise.

What my more or less nervous breakdown?

Ha.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Yeah, the arbitrary and conflicted premise of salvation in Christianity is still my biggest problem with it, even more so than what discredits the notion of anything supernatural. I don't know what it takes to make a Christian finally get a wider perspective and see "he's just fucking around!" but once you do and it clicks there is just no way around it.

the premise of salvation is a very important flaw of christianity. This questioning of why here? why now? why us? and why him? is extremely hard to answer, and when it is answered, it's in the most disenginous or vague way. Usually like "he has a plan" or "have faith". But as you said, if his plan exists, then why is it so cryptic, and why are we so unaware of it, and then it brings up all the issues regarding free will and living in apathy, and why his actions in the bible are so disconnected from our actions today.

 

[Buckethead]

My theory:

Man invented God.

A rejection of the idea of God is offensive to those who deeply embrace it because it rejects man.

At the center of God is man's egotism.

 

[Mgoblue201]

what ifs are pointless in this case because they aren't reality so we can dismiss them altogether.

I do enjoy how you were able to swiftly discredit the whole bible with one sentence though. Fear not biblical scholars! Mgoblue's got you covered!

I shouldn't have to explain the difference between a summation and an argument to someone who twice now makes sweeping claims without backing them up with evidence. At least in my case it was not even intended as a part of the main argument (just a throw-away line, really), whereas in your case it encompasses the totality of your posts. You didn't even bother to explore the issue of whether important parts of the Bible can be dismissed because the authenticity of the book is questionable.

 

[DanteFox]

I just enjoy seeing you backpedal from your original claim.

 

[KtSlime]

what ifs are pointless in this case because they aren't reality so we can dismiss them altogether.

I do enjoy how you were able to swiftly discredit the whole bible with one sentence though. Fear not biblical scholars! Mgoblue's got you covered!

It seems to me that once you find and erroneous piece of data in a writing (of any sort) that while it does not necessitate that all the following data is in error, it does mean that you have to finely comb through the entire thing to determine what is and is not correct.

A book like a the Bible which has had everyones hands in it and makes fantastic claims could be near impossible to determine which of its claims hold any truth. People should default to suspicion with these claims and not take any of them as truth until we have independent data verifying the accuracy of each separate claim.


les papillons sexuels: I think you already know the answer to that.

Spoiler

He believes in the Bible

 

[les papillons sexuels]

I just enjoy seeing you backpedal from your original claim.

why are you just throwing out non sequitur statements and claiming victory.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I just enjoy seeing you backpedal from your original claim.

What the hell are you talking about? I haven't changed anything about my original claim.

It seems to me that once you find and erroneous piece of data in a writing (of any sort) that while it does not necessitate that all the following data is in error, it does mean that you have to finely comb through the entire thing to determine what is and is not correct.

A book like a the Bible which has had everyones hands in it and makes fantastic claims could be near impossible to determine which of its claims hold any truth. People should default to suspicion with these claims and not take any of them as truth until we have independent data verifying the accuracy of each separate claim.

I was making two claims. One, if we can't trust certain parts of the Bible, then we can no longer trust god, who from his perfection must be obliged to clear up any misunderstanding in his message (because he must be necessarily blamed for causing that confusion). Two, it does necessitate that we begin to view the Bible more suspiciously, but mostly in the sense that, since we are no longer obliged to take the entire thing as true, we open up the possibility that important elements may be discredited; for example, is the Adam and Eve story no longer authentic? What about the ten commandments? Or the gospels? If the gospel stories are not authentic, then Christianity itself is wrong. That is the possibility of saying that certain parts of the Bible may not be authentic.

 

[DanteFox]

why are you just throwing out non sequitur statements and claiming victory.

he made fallacious claim. I called it out. Now he changed his claim and basically said "we can dismiss the whole bible anyway." He's the one that needs to provide evidence and back up his claim.

What the hell are you talking about? I haven't changed anything about my original claim.

I was making two claims. One, if we can't trust certain parts of the Bible, then we can no longer trust god, who from his perfection must be obliged to clear up any misunderstanding in his message (because he must be necessarily blamed for causing that confusion).

That doesn't logically follow either. If a part of the bible is wrong, it doesn't mean God lied, it means the person who wrote it either lied or got it wrong when they thought it was right.

Two, it does necessitate that we begin to view the Bible more suspiciously, but mostly in the sense that, since we are no longer obliged to take the entire thing as true, we open up the possibility that important elements may be discredited; for example, is the Adam and Eve story no longer authentic? What about the ten commandments? Or the gospels? If the gospel stories are not authentic, then Christianity itself is wrong. That is the possibility of saying that certain parts of the Bible may not be authentic.

I don't think that's necessarily true either. I think everything's always up for scrutiny. Even if no part of the bible were proved false, we could still scrutinize any part we wished.

 

[Mario]

Yeah.

I'm open to being wrong.

But to classify me as a lost cause and whatever they're doing makes me feel like fucking shit.

I take issue with the mental gymnastics and I've been trying desperately to figure everything out. Completely dismissive.

Not all who wander are lost... unless you're a Christian then get fucked, I guess?

Their response to your admission only exposes their ignorance when it comes to how and why you might have arrived at an atheist position.

It would have been better had they acknowledged your position, not second guessed your reasoning, offered to help with answering any doubts or questions about faith or scripture, and at least suggested you would be welcomed should you choose to return into the fold at some point. But that didn't happen. From a foundation of their own ignorance, they tried to belittle you and incite feelings of fear and guilt. Do not give in to this.

Take solace from the fact you have stood up alone to declare your beliefs even when faced with harsh criticism, and in doing so you have demonstrated yourself a strong person. If those in your community cannot support you during such a time, then perhaps they never had genuine reasons to support you in the first place, and therefore you should open yourself to meeting new people with which you can form real relationships based on mutual trust and understanding.

 

[Mgoblue201]

he made fallacious claim. I called it out. Now he changed his claim and basically said "we can dismiss the whole bible anyway." He's the one that needs to provide evidence and back up his claim.

I did not change it. I made an additional statement on top of the argument that I was already making. You're really terrible at this kind of thing. You've barely presented any evidence at all, but you want me to offer evidence for a single throw-away statement I made, out of many statements I did attempt to prove, that wasn't even part of the main argument we were having?

 

[Buckethead]

Thanks Mario, you've articulated my thoughts and feelings very well.

I already appreciate the people here and that will only deepen. They're a pillar of support when I need one.

The other one is friends IRL and the other one is the Nintendo DS.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

he made fallacious claim. I called it out. Now he changed his claim and basically said "we can dismiss the whole bible anyway." He's the one that needs to provide evidence and back up his claim.

where? what claim in particular?

That doesn't logically follow either. If a part of the bible is wrong, it doesn't mean God lied, it means the person who wrote it either lied or got it wrong when they thought it was right.

do you even know what the bible is? The entire premise of the bible is that it's devinely inspired. Without the influence of god himself in the writing and assmebly of the book theres absolutely nothing redeming about it. If a writer was misled, then he was misled by the will of god.

so god either knew that he would make the mistake when he wrote the bible, god gave him false information, or god knew that he was going to lie, in any case, the fault is of god. Furthermore, this concept can be expanded to the bible as a whole.

If part of the bible is wrong, and god is responsible for the content of the bible, and people are suspicious of those who write lies, then one should be suspicious of the entirety of it.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Did anybody see this? It's an article about a debate between Richard Dawkins and a priest. It was about a survey Dawkins did about how people claimed they were Christian, but couldn't recite the first book in the new testament, to which the priest asked if Dawkins could recite the entire name of the " On Origin the of species..", to which he couldn't. Just thought it was a little interesting:

Link

Lol, he received quite a backlash.

 

[Uchip]

Discrediting one part of the bible doesn't discredit the whole thing.

Did you ever take a second to think that the very fact that parts of it can be discredited mean that it cant possibly be the word of god.
Or is there some kind of loophole that believers fall back on, like "maybe it was lost in translation" or "god works in mysterious ways"?

 

[Feep]

The other one is friends IRL and the other one is the Nintendo DS.

Is no one laughing at this? This is the best subtle joke I've read on GAF this month.

On topic, good for you, man. It's tough to stand up like that...that peer pressure, that groupthink, is the primary force most theists never end up leaving the beliefs they just happened to be raised in. That you managed to do so anyway proves you a remarkable strong person.

 

[Mgoblue201]

That doesn't logically follow either. If a part of the bible is wrong, it doesn't mean God lied, it means the person who wrote it either lied or got it wrong when they thought it was right.

I didn't say that god lied. I said that he is to blame for a failure to clear up the misunderstanding. This is not merely a benign problem. At worst it means that Christians are doing and saying things in the name of god that aren't even true. If god stands by as these falsehoods are promulgated, then it is his fault.

I don't think that's necessarily true either. I think everything's always up for scrutiny. Even if no part of the bible were proved false, we could still scrutinize any part we wished.

If we could prove that the Bible is infallible, then there is no need to scrutinize it, for we could trust every part of it. But if one part is discredited, then that at least opens up the possibility that we would have to discredit the entire thing for the reasons I mentioned.

 

[JGS]

Hold the fuck up.

Question.

Who gets money from Bible sales?

Most are public domain or voluntary endeavors, but particular publishers make money off of it just like companies who make Shakespeare books make money.

Anyone can sell something that's free.

JGS, what do you personally think salvation and non-salvation is? I'm guessing salvation = being with god, non-salvation = non-existence? That's a guess but again I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I actually have no idea. The Bible speaks of 2 options - life on earth &/or life in heaven. It's probably both & I imagine I'm an earther. In any event salvation = life and the only human life left is involved in devotion to God (Actually, this goes beyond human life and includes angels as well).

So you're probably right.

 

[DanteFox]

I didn't say that god lied. I said that he is to blame for a failure to clear up the misunderstanding. This is not merely a benign problem. At worst it means that Christians are doing and saying things in the name of god that aren't even true. If god stands by as these falsehoods are promulgated, then it is his fault.

I agree to a certain extent but as long as the main message gets through, I can understand if he doesn't feel the need to clarify what parts of Genesis are true and what not.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Is no one laughing at this? This is the best subtle joke I've read on GAF this month.

On topic, good for you, man. It's tough to stand up like that...that peer pressure, that groupthink, is the primary force most theists never end up leaving the beliefs they just happened to be raised in. That you managed to do so anyway proves you a remarkable strong person.

Many people are perfectly content to chew their cud. Lambs of god. Jeez if the writing wasn't clearly on the wall...

 

[Count Dookkake]

What my more or less nervous breakdown?

Ha.

That, too, I suppose, but I meant their assholish response to your honest questions.

The memeplex has evolved over time to prevent shrinkage. Using fear and anger in response to questioning is a great tool to quiet anyone else who might also be having doubts.

 

[Hylian7]

I have a relevant topic that kind of spawned off of a post I made in that "My boyfriend doesn't believe in evolution" thread. Someone (supporting evolution) said something like "Well you got any better ideas on how we all came to be." I quoted that post and said "To be fair, that's the same logic creationists use. 'You don't have any better ideas, therefore God.'"

I think people forget that "I don't know." is an acceptable answer. Sometimes people have asked me what happens when I die, and I say "I don't know, nothing?" They always think this is a ridiculous answer to give for whatever reason, and they usually try to argue with "Well we know more than you because we have an answer and you don't." "I don't know." is a perfectly acceptable answer if you don't know the answer to something. You shouldn't just have to fill in and assume something just because you have nothing.

 

[Buckethead]

I'm very up and down.

One minute I'm okay/happy but another I'm very anxious/have trouble focusing/want to curl into a ball.

I hope that goes away.

 

[Pollux]

I'm sorry if this really doesn't belong in this thread, but it's about doubting faith and I had nowhere else to really put it.

Some people here know that I'm a believer, but I just had to say this after talking to someone today about faith. He was SO sure about God, about his faith...he denied completely any feelings of doubt.

I've come to the conclusion that those who are like him actually have the most doubt.

I feel that this sums up how I'm currently feeling.

First of all, the believer is always threatened with an uncertainty that in moments of temptation can suddenly and unexpectedly cast a piercing light on the fragility of the whole that usually seems so self-evident to him. A few examples will help to make this clear. That lovable Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, who looks so naive and unproblematical, grew up in an atmosphere of complete religious security; her whole existence from beginning to end, and down to the smallest detail, was so completely molded by the faith of the Church that the invisible world became, not just a part of her everyday life, but that life itself. It seemed to be an almost tangible reality that could not be removed by any amount of thinking. To her, “religion” really was a self-evident presupposition of her daily existence; she dealt with it as we deal with the concrete details of our lives. Yet this very saint, a person apparently cocooned in complete security, left behind her, from the last weeks of her passion, shattering admissions that her horrified sisters toned down in her literary remains and that have only now come to light in the new verbatim editions. She says, for example, “I am assailed by the worst temptations of atheism”. Her mind is beset by every possible argument against the faith; the sense of believing seems to have vanished; she feels that she is now “in sinners’ shoes.” In other words, in what is apparently a flawlessly interlocking world someone here suddenly catches a glimpse of the abyss lurking—even for her—under the firm structure of the supporting conventions. In a situation like this, what is in question is not the sort of thing that one perhaps quarrels about otherwise—the dogma of the Assumption, the proper use of confession—all this becomes absolutely secondary. What is at stake is the whole structure; it is a question of all or nothing. That is the only remaining alternative; nowhere does there seem anything to cling to in this sudden fall. Wherever one looks, only the bottomless abyss of nothingness can be seen.

Maybe atheists and theists have a little more in common than we like to admit? Am I just wrong here?

I can't be the only believer with doubts. But are there any atheists here that also have doubt?

 

[Atramental]

I'm very up and down.

One minute I'm okay/happy but another I'm very anxious/have trouble focusing/want to curl into a ball.

I hope that goes away.

Wait. What's the matter?

I haven't been following this thread a whole lot so forgive me for my ignorance.

 

[Dice]

Maybe atheists and theists have a little more in common than we like to admit? Am I just wrong here?

I can't be the only believer with doubts. But are there any atheists here that also have doubt?

Well the difference is that going one way you're falling into evidence, and the other way you are falling into assumptions.

As for the description from the perspective of the believer, I'm glad I didn't experience such a thing. I found a fully formed humanist worldview in the waiting. Perhaps my mind wasn't comfortable letting go until that was finished building in the background precisely so that I would not fall into an abyss. I'm not sure, as my mind works rather intuitively most of the time.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Oh, great. More vapid musings from that criminal Ratzinger.

 

[Hylian7]

Oh, great. More vapid musings from that criminal Ratzinger.

What did he say?

 

[Pollux]

What did he say?

the quote from my post.

 

[Air]

I can't be the only believer with doubts. But are there any atheists here that also have doubt?

I like to tear down and deconstruct my belief as often as possible. Doubt is a very important aspect to my belief. I feel like the assurance your friend has will lead them to problems in the future with their faith. I think people are usually so scared of challenging their beliefs, and turn it into this monolithic structure that when this belief is finally challenged and the structure falls, there is no will to pick up the pieces. Which I think is dangerous for anyone really.

EDIT: I should also say, when I see somebody post on this site and say "I know for sure", or whatever, all I do is hope that is the case. Many times I've seen people's faith shatter, and it's sad (depending on your perspective)

 

[onipex]

Just got home from our little meeting.

They told me:
- That I was wrong.
- That I had made up my mind to be an Atheist.
- That the logical/intellectual issues weren't the problem.

They indirectly accused me of rationalizing Atheism so that I could do whatever I wanted.
Could be true. I do want to have me some sex... in a committed relationship.
And I am a bit of a loner.

But it seemed to me that there was a lot of Circular Reasoning, No True Scotsman, and Appeals To Fear.

Also I was told that the Pentateuch is entirely mythological.

And more or less that we can't treat ancient text with modern criticism, e.g.: who wrote the Pentateuch is unimportant.

I lost faith before. I never bothered to tell any friends or family at the time, because it wouldn't have mattered much anyway. I would still have to go to church or whatever. I didn't really care what their response would be either. There were atheist my age that went to church because they also had to follow their parents rules.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I'm sorry if this really doesn't belong in this thread, but it's about doubting faith and I had nowhere else to really put it.

Some people here know that I'm a believer, but I just had to say this after talking to someone today about faith. He was SO sure about God, about his faith...he denied completely any feelings of doubt.

I've come to the conclusion that those who are like him actually have the most doubt.

I feel that this sums up how I'm currently feeling.



Maybe atheists and theists have a little more in common than we like to admit? Am I just wrong here?

I can't be the only believer with doubts. But are there any atheists here that also have doubt?

In what way does this doubt manifest? Are there certain Theological positions that you doubt in particular?

In regards to Atheists having 'doubt', then sure, any rational Atheist should have 'doubts' about every position they believe or reject. I'm not viewing doubt in the same way as a Theist though, as every proposition I hold (or at least strive to) is based on evidence, and as such could change in an instant if the evidence ran counter to my current beliefs.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I lost faith before. I never bothered to tell any friends or family at the time, because it wouldn't have mattered much anyway. I would still have to go to church or whatever. I didn't really care what their response would be either. There were atheist my age that went to church because they also had to follow their parents rules.

How did you lose your faith and then regain it?

 

[Buckethead]

I lost faith before. I never bothered to tell any friends or family at the time, because it wouldn't have mattered much anyway. I would still have to go to church or whatever. I didn't really care what their response would be either. There were atheist my age that went to church because they also had to follow their parents rules.

What is your point?

The difference between me and you is that I seem(ed) to care deeply for a significant period of time (8 years).

But none of it seems to make any sense, ergo I'm an Atheist.

 

[soul creator]

I have "doubt" in the sense of always wanting to question my views and see if they still hold up. Hell, it's one of the reasons why I enjoy posting in religion threads.

That said, the more arguments for religion I hear, the more I feel my position on things is far more accurate, lol. These days, it seems that the only "convincing" religion arguments are the ones that basically ignore exactly what makes religion unique in the first place.

"What's wrong with religious beliefs? If you remove the supernatural claims, vague and open-ended definitions, claims of personal revelation with no other evidence, holy books, authoritarian deities...it's not as bad as you say it is!"

Reminds me of this article:

Preamble. We acknowledge that religion comes in many shapes and forms and that therefore any attempt to define what religion "really" is would be stipulation, not description. Nevertheless, we have a view of what religion should be, in its best form, and these four articles describe features that a religion fit for the contemporary world needs to have. These features are not meant to be exhaustive and nor do they necessarily capture what is most important for any given individual. They are rather a minimal set of features that we can agree on despite our differences, and believe others can agree on too.

1. To be religious is primarily to assent to a set of values, and/or practise a way of life, and/or belong to a community that shares these values and/or practices. Any creeds or factual assertions associated with these things, especially ones that make claims about the nature and origin of the natural universe, are at most secondary and often irrelevant.

2. Religious belief does not, and should not, require the belief that any supernatural events have occurred here on Earth, including miracles that bend or break natural laws, the resurrection of the dead, or visits by gods or angelic messengers.

3. Religions are not crypto- or proto-sciences. They should make no claims about the physical nature, origin or structure of the natural universe. That which science can study and explain empirically should be left to science, and if a religion makes a claim that is incompatible with our best science, the scientific claim, not the religious one, should prevail.

4. Religious texts are the creation of the human intellect and imagination. None need be taken as expressing the thoughts of a divine or supernatural mind that exists independently of humanity.

Remove everything that defines religion, and all the things that atheists complain about and, shock and awe, "religion" makes more sense!

 

[Air]

Reminds me of this article:
Remove everything that defines religion, and all the things that atheists complain about and, shock and awe, "religion" makes more sense!

I agree, I think the guy is simply describing secular humanism. I think there are ways to fix religion to keep it unique as you say. What that would entail is hard to say, but I'm sure it will be figured out one day.

 

[KtSlime]

I agree, I think the guy is simply describing secular humanism. I think there are ways to fix religion to keep it unique as you say. What that would entail is hard to say, but I'm sure it will be figured out one day.

It's easy, it's already been done a thousand times before. Read the book as literature, learn the history as a former take on history, look at the myths as mythology, and read the epistles as philosophy.

We should apply to them the same treatment we give The Odyssey, History, Works and Days, Phaedrus, etc.

 

[Air]

It's easy, it's already been done a thousand times before. Read the book as literature, learn the history as a former take on history, look at the myths as mythology, and read the epistles as philosophy.

We should apply to them the same treatment we give The Odyssey, History, Works and Days, Phaedrus, etc.

That's one way to do it. It also still sounds like secular humanism

 

[KtSlime]

That's one way to do it. It also still sounds like secular humanism

What else could you do with it? You could keep it around as ideas from the past, or you could go S*p*o*n*g on it, throw out the OT and the Gospel, and go on Paul's Platonic readings of the Septuagint, and view Jesus as an ideal man existing in the realm of the Forms.

Edit: I don't mind if we keep around the holidays, they are pretty secular, and most of them predated Christianity anyway. Holidays last longer than the religions that claim them.

 

[Air]

What else could you do with it? You could keep it around as ideas from the past, or you could go S*p*o*n*g on it, throw out the OT and the Gospel, and go on Paul's Platonic readings of the Septuagint, and view Jesus as an ideal man existing in the realm of the Forms.

As I said, I don't know at this instant. Doesn't mean I won't know at another time. I'm sure the answers are out there though, and I don't think it necessary that it has to come to me at this very moment.

 

[onipex]

How did you lose your faith and then regain it?

There were a lot of reasons I lost faith. I loved science when I younger and I had a lot of questions about gaps I saw in the Bible that no one I asked could answer. At that time a few of the people I knew in church were some of the vilest people I knew. The third reason is that I just couldn't understand how God allowed so many bad things to happen.

My faith came back over time after I both witnessed and been through some things. I was twice jumped by a gang of 7 people trying to send message and came out with a scratch. I’ve seen people I knew recover from injuries or conditions with no medical explanation. I was surprisingly knocked down by someone laying hands on me. I never believed such things were real. I didn't think I was going to fall nor did I want to fall. Actually no one expected me to fall because I wasn't caught. I went down hard and since we were outside my head bounced off the concrete and I broke one of the folding chairs behind me.

I was happy I regained my faith when I went through cancer. It gave me a sense of comfort. I had my moments of anger when I asked why me, but to be honest the answer I got back was why not me. What made me so special that I should be spared? I still had my doubts about God then though. Its hard not too when you know you can die. Watching all the children there with cancer walk around with smiles on their face was surreal too.

What is your point?

The difference between me and you is that I seem(ed) to care deeply for a significant period of time (8 years).

But none of it seems to make any sense, ergo I'm an Atheist.

No point I was just sharing. I actually know a guy that was a pastor for 25 years or so and became an Atheist.