What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Which is all stupid.

Please refer back to my post about getting pushed into a pool.

You want to play rhetorical games and stack the fictional deck about an all powerful god who created the universe and then went into hiding, except that he didn’t really (re Bible) he only goes into hiding when we go looking.

So we have a god in hiding who damns people who can’t find him.

 

Meanwhile what we have is nearly an entire religion that is ripped off from contemporary religions, and in the words of one of my seminary professors amounts to a religious competition where people’s strutted “my god is bigger than your god.”

 

 

You are confusing the possibility of a God and intelligent design with a mans interpretation of their god.

Edited April 16, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Renegade7]

Don't have a knucklefist fight in here, not what this thread is for. Thank you.

[AsburySkinsFan]

39 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

You are confusing the possibility of a God and intelligent design with a mans interpretation of their god.

Oh you’re arguing for a “first mover” as god. What good is a god that sets things in motion and then walks away? The net result of that god is that god is unnecessary.

 

With that I’ll quit. Want to respect @Renegade7wishes, but it’s hard for me to talk about what I believe as it is so antithetical to what I used to believe.

[HOF44]

I've known and exchanged posts with ASF for years.  From his missionary days to where he is now.  It would fascinate me to no end to sit down one afternoon/evening over some whiskey and cigars and have him walk me through that journey.

Edited April 16, 2019 by HOF44

[TheGreatBuzz]

I think this fits in thos thread okay.  If @Renegade7 disagrees, I'll delete the post.

 

I've noticed that pretty much every candidate has talked in some part about their faith.  It made me think about a growing minority that does not seem to get targeted or even mentioned. 

 

Atheists. 

 

We are a very close second in the poll for this thread though not a great sample size.  But we are a growing demographic roughly the same size as evangelicals. 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-number-of-americans-with-no-religious-affiliation-is-rising/

 

I have a theory why we atheists aren't targeted or even really worried about being put off.  This theory is totally pulled out of my *** and I hope I don't offend......Atheists tend to be more accepting of religious people than can be said about the opposite.  Yes, this isn't true for all but seems to be the case in my experience. 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

(Also I'm interested to here opinions on acceptance without including the political angle. )

[Renegade7]

20 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

With that I’ll quit. Want to respect @Renegade7wishes, but it’s hard for me to talk about what I believe as it is so antithetical to what I used to believe.

 

Completely understandable.  I don't know if putting all your experience into one post would do it justice. And I've seen a difficulty in separating a religion from its followers as well, we've all had our moments.

 

  I tried what I thought at time was Athiesm, more likely agnostic, once but choose to stop in fear of my safety and mental health.  I didn't know what I was going, I just knew the isolation made it worse.

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think this fits in thos thread okay.  If @Renegade7 disagrees, I'll delete the post.

 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

(Also I'm interested to here opinions on acceptance without including the political angle. )

 

I'm not sure I want another political thread no matter how hard it's been to separate from religion in reality.  Most of how I feel when they interest I find talking about in others threads, like when Isreal comes up.

 

As to your question, I've seen what comes across as more antagonistic interactions for non-believers then believers because they feels like we holding the world back.  

 

Having said that, most people I met regardless of what they believe are pretty friendly and dont bother anybody.  Ya know, hold the elevator for you types.  It only takes one person out of millions or billions to do the suicide vest or burning black churches.

 

Besides, atheism isn't a belief system, its a lack of belief.  There's an association, but if I was a politician id be aware they likely aren't thinking about God they focusing on my policies already.  I dont see the added benefit of going to a convention or something unless we're talking about checking every box demographically.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Renegade7

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I have a theory why we atheists aren't targeted or even really worried about being put off.  This theory is totally pulled out of my *** and I hope I don't offend......Atheists tend to be more accepting of religious people than can be said about the opposite.  Yes, this isn't true for all but seems to be the case in my experience. 

 

 

Probably because athiests vote on issues and not on faith so a little pandering to True Believers won’t really hurt a candidates standing with athiests, but a candidate pandering to athiests would be labeled a satanist demon freak with no morals by the mega churches.... in short, it would hurt candidates more to pander to athiests than it hurts to religious folk.  Plus, people trust a religious person more, even though you really shouldn’t.

 

 

Also, pandering to religious people, there is a community there. An opportunity to gain volunteers, a group of people to hold fundraisers for you ect. Even though it’s not a “church” activity, those churches have people with like minds who will work together to get their candidate elected... athiests don’t really have that kind of infrastructure.

[TheGreatBuzz]

46 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I'm not sure I want another political thread no matter how hard it's been to separate from religion in reality.

So should I edit my post?  I'm getting mixed signals here.  

[PeterMP]

22 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

I mean if you can read the following and with a straight face claim that this isn’t EXACTLY what the church did with Jesus then....

 

for more reading

https://nickcady.org/2019/01/09/the-gospel-of-caesar-augustus-what-it-tells-us-about-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ/

 

It is one case.  In Turkey (not necessarily something the Jewish writers of the Gospel would be aware of).

 

And it doesn't mention any actual preformed miracles.

 

There's no evidence of a " tradition where an author would write fantastical stories about the new king/Caesar to demonstrate their greatness and "proof" of their divine appointment." in the context of a gospel

 

Something happening in one place at one time without actual fantastical stories.

 

I also don't think that Jesus really promised (Earthly) peace (or salvation) to his people.

 

(Now, if you want to broaden your statement to say that Kings of the era were often associated with fantastical stories.  That's fine, and you can even find examples of that in the Jewish tradition (e.g. King David).).

 

But that's not really what your claim was.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That one case sets the historical precedent, and sets the framework for how a "gospel" functioned in the first century. The Christian gospels take this tradition and infuse it with nearly every other religious tradition and royal announcement known to the first century ears. These people were not strangers to this stuff. They would have heralds who would go to the towns and tell of the new leader's great deeds. As for whether or not Jesus said or did anything we'll never know, what we do know is what the evangelists said about him. When we see the gospels they are certainly longer than the single proclamation but that what frames the entire view of a gospel in the 1st century mind, it shows that the Christians didn't invent the genre but instead borrowed it, built on it, and drafted many of the fantastical things that were said about other rulers are gods of the time, and they boiled them all into a giant Jesus stew so that when that first century Jews heard this being told (because they were read aloud) they it would be as familiar as the Star Spangled Banner is to us but as challenging as reframing of that song to be about Mexico rather than the USA.

[PeterMP]

22 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Oh you’re arguing for a “first mover” as god. What good is a god that sets things in motion and then walks away? The net result of that god is that god is unnecessary.

 

With that I’ll quit. Want to respect @Renegade7wishes, but it’s hard for me to talk about what I believe as it is so antithetical to what I used to believe.

 

You've still done the same thing that she's pointed out.  Just because you don't like a possible philosophical manifestation of a god isn't good evidence that such a god doesn't exist.

 

All you've done is repeat the idea that you don't like it.

Edited April 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

27 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

That one case sets the historical precedent, and sets the framework for how a "gospel" functioned in the first century. The Christian gospels take this tradition and infuse it with nearly every other religious tradition and royal announcement known to the first century ears. These people were not strangers to this stuff. They would have heralds who would go to the towns and tell of the new leader's great deeds. As for whether or not Jesus said or did anything we'll never know, what we do know is what the evangelists said about him. When we see the gospels they are certainly longer than the single proclamation but that what frames the entire view of a gospel in the 1st century mind, it shows that the Christians didn't invent the genre but instead borrowed it, built on it, and drafted many of the fantastical things that were said about other rulers are gods of the time, and they boiled them all into a giant Jesus stew so that when that first century Jews heard this being told (because they were read aloud) they it would be as familiar as the Star Spangled Banner is to us but as challenging as reframing of that song to be about Mexico rather than the USA.

 

You have 3 issues:

 

1.  The 1st century Jews ignored it.  Your argument seems to suggest that the Gospels were designed to be fantastic stories as propaganda to recruit new members, but that isn't practically what happened.

 

2.  Paul's letters are extremely light on biographical information on Jesus.  For example, there is no mention of the virgin birth in any of Paul's letters, and yet Paul was clearly the most successful recruiter in the early Christian church.  Somebody forgot to tell Paul of this 1st century mind (which suggest to me that you are misrepresenting/misunderstanding the 1st century mind).

 

3.  "what frames the entire view of a gospel in the 1st century mind"  I think that statement is false.  With the focus on the afterlife and rejection of Earthly success/treasure, it seems to me that much of the Gospels actually reject the 1st century mind (and the today's mind).

 

(What is missing from the Gospel stories that would have been commonly found in other stories from other leaders and appealed to the 1st century mind is stories related to military or physical combat (e.g. David and the Goliath, and for the Cesar's stories of battles won).  The Christian Gospels were very different than what 1st century people were used to seeing in their leaders.)

Edited April 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So should I edit my post?  I'm getting mixed signals here.  

No, don't edit your post.  Let me know what you think about what I said.

 

There's already a thread about Trump and Evangelism, so I don't want this to become another one, which is what I worry would happen if I openly invited politics into this thread, which has done pretty fine without it.  Trying to keep it where it's inviting enough for people to be civil enough to talk about their personal beliefs and if possible respectful of others even if they disagree with them in hopes of finding what we do agree on.  

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Also, pandering to religious people, there is a community there. An opportunity to gain volunteers, a group of people to hold fundraisers for you ect. Even though it’s not a “church” activity, those churches have people with like minds who will work together to get their candidate elected... athiests don’t really have that kind of infrastructure.

2

 

I wanted to post something like that, but they have conventions and chapters.  It's just not a type of grouping that you get from a church, it's not a traditional fellowship thing, no songs and stuff.  I agree policies matter more to them and God matters less, but that's just from observation.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Renegade7

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

You've still done the same thing that she's pointed out.  Just because you don't like a possible philosophical manifestation of a god isn't good evidence that such a god doesn't exist.

 

All you've done is repeat the idea that you don't like it.

And yet the burden of proof is not on me anymore.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

You have 3 issues:

 

1.  The 1st century Jews ignored it.  Your argument seems to suggest that the Gospels were designed to be fantastic stories as propaganda to recruit new members, but that isn't practically what happened.

 

2.  Paul's letters are extremely light on biographical information on Jesus.  For example, there is no mention of the virgin birth in any of Paul's letters, and yet Paul was clearly the most successful recruiter in the early Christian church.  Somebody forgot to tell Paul of this 1st century mind (which suggest to me that you are misrepresenting/misunderstanding the 1st century mind).

 

3.  "what frames the entire view of a gospel in the 1st century mind"  I think that statement is false.  With the focus on the afterlife and rejection of Earthly success/treasure, it seems to me that much of the Gospels actually reject the 1st century mind (and the today's mind).

 

(What is missing from the Gospel stories that would have been commonly found in other stories from other leaders and appealed to the 1st century mind is stories related to military or physical combat (e.g. David and the Goliath, and for the Cesar's stories of battles won).  The Christian Gospels were very different than what 1st century people were used to seeing in their leaders.)

1) the Jews ignored it because it was just another in a long line of failed Messiahs.

 

2) and yet by 397 CE those four texts receive the primacy of importance in the canon, to which Paul's letters serve as supplemental. What's more is that we never hear an evangelistic sermon from Paul, what we do have are letters to established churches, so lets not pretend that Paul was ignoring the biographical, that biographical is what establishes Jesus and frames his existence and purpose. 

 

3) you are blending the term gospel here from the gospel genre to "the gospel", that said there is so little focus on the afterlife in the gospels, instead they focus primarily on the last week of Jesus' life and his sermons on how to LIVE in the Kingdom of God. These are not texts to tell people how to get to heaven. They are instead texts proclaiming a new king, a new kingdom, and a new way to live within that kingdom.

 

4) the Synoptics certainly do flip the conquest expectation on its head but at the same time, but that doesn't take away from the royal connections, and even the coronation by the soldiers with the crown, reed, and robe. This king is certainly different, but make no mistake the entire framework of how the story is told is borrowed.

[Renegade7]

4 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

(Also I'm interested to here opinions on acceptance without including the political angle. )

2

 

Like to answer, what do you mean by "acceptance"?

[TheGreatBuzz]

10 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I'm not sure I want another political thread no matter how hard it's been to separate from religion in reality.  Most of how I feel when they interest I find talking about in others threads, like when Isreal comes up.

 

As to your question, I've seen what comes across as more antagonistic interactions for non-believers then believers because they feels like we holding the world back.  

 

Having said that, most people I met regardless of what they believe are pretty friendly and dont bother anybody.  Ya know, hold the elevator for you types.  It only takes one person out of millions or billions to do the suicide vest or burning black churches.

 

Besides, atheism isn't a belief system, its a lack of belief.  There's an association, but if I was a politician id be aware they likely aren't thinking about God they focusing on my policies already.  I dont see the added benefit of going to a convention or something unless we're talking about checking every box demographically.

 

I'm basing this soley off of personal experience so I could be wrong.  I find that religious people (not all or even the majority) tend to want to tell athiests why they are wrong, let them know they are going to hell, ask who created everything, etc.  I find athiests tend to do the opposite less.  I also find that athiests tend to be more respectful of practices of religious people (bowing head during a group prayer, etc) than a religious person is respectful of a persons right to not bow.  All that said, yea most people are the friendly hold the elevator types that don't really care what others believe.  Which is why I found it odd that the Left candidates have been mentioning faith more than they did in the past.  That's why got me thinking down this line to begin with.

 

Let me ask you this, how would an openly athiest candidate be received (a good candidate, like an athiest Obama)?  I don't think it would go well.  Yet most have no issue with a gay candidate.  But athiests make up vastly larger portion of the population.  

 

Note I am not trying to drive a certain agenda.  I don't even know what I expect or want from this conversation.  But I thought it was interesting.  

 

8 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

There's already a thread about Trump and Evangelism, so I don't want this to become another one,

 

I have no desire to discuss that portion of society if you don't.  I only mentioned evangelicals because it was one of the first listed in the article I read.  I was more talking about the more liberal 70% of the population.

 

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Like to answer, what do you mean by "acceptance"?

Maybe that isn't the right word but I can't think of a better one.  I guess for starters the prospect of an openly athiest candidate being okay.

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

And yet the burden of proof is not on me anymore.

 

Interestingly, (and apparently different than you) I've never felt the burden of proof is on me.  Other than basic math, I'll actively reject any burden of proof in any discussion.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

Interestingly, (and apparently different than you) I've never felt the burden of proof is on me.  Other than basic math, I'll actively reject any burden of proof in any discussion.

So the burden of proof in a discussion about the existence of god does not fall to the one arguing the claim of god's existence? I'm not sure you understand how this thing works.

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

1) the Jews ignored it because it was just another in a long line of failed Messiahs.

 

2) and yet by 397 CE those four texts receive the primacy of importance in the canon, to which Paul's letters serve as supplemental. What's more is that we never hear an evangelistic sermon from Paul, what we do have are letters to established churches, so lets not pretend that Paul was ignoring the biographical, that biographical is what establishes Jesus and frames his existence and purpose. 

 

3) you are blending the term gospel here from the gospel genre to "the gospel", that said there is so little focus on the afterlife in the gospels, instead they focus primarily on the last week of Jesus' life and his sermons on how to LIVE in the Kingdom of God. These are not texts to tell people how to get to heaven. They are instead texts proclaiming a new king, a new kingdom, and a new way to live within that kingdom.

 

4) the Synoptics certainly do flip the conquest expectation on its head but at the same time, but that doesn't take away from the royal connections, and even the coronation by the soldiers with the crown, reed, and robe. This king is certainly different, but make no mistake the entire framework of how the story is told is borrowed.

 

You seem to be suggesting that Paul did focus on biographical evidence in an evangelistic sermon even though you have no evidence of that.  I will further point out that any church I've ever been to even after it did exist, there were sermons on biographical information.  In my experience even in established churches, there are still discussion of biographical information.  That Paul focused on biographical information in his evangelistic sermon, but then ignored it in letters to those same churches when they wandered seems unlikely to me.  Obviously, I can't say it didn't happen, but to claim it did happen (without evidence) seems like an unnecessary and illogical assumption.  

 

You seem to be trying to separate the Kingdom of God from getting into heaven:

 

"Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.” "

 

Are you arguing that people that did great things have always have stories told about the great things that they did?

 

That's pretty self-evident.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

You seem to be suggesting that Paul did focus on biographical evidence in an evangelistic sermon even though you have no evidence of that.  I will further point out that any church I've ever been to even after it did exist, there were sermons on biographical information.  In my experience even in established churches, there are still discussion of biographical information.  That Paul focused on biographical information in his evangelistic sermon, but then ignored it in letters to those same churches when they wandered seems unlikely to me.  Obviously, I can't say it didn't happen, but to claim it did happen (without evidence) seems like an unnecessary and illogical assumption.  

 

You seem to be trying to separate the Kingdom of God from getting into heaven:

 

"Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.” "

 

Are you arguing that people that did great things have always have stories told about the great things that they did?

 

That's pretty self-evident.

It seems an odd approach to preach Jesus to a bunch of Greeks without talking about the biographical nature of Christ. You seem to be suggesting that Paul's sermons to polytheistic Greeks was absent biography, and based on doctrine? How do you think that would play without the biographical gospels? At some point you have to talk about the man and how he figures into all the rest. It's the very reason the Gospels are first in the New Testament.

 

As for Jesus' kingdom, you're confusing the question he was asked, they were asking about borders, and the Kingdom of God is borderless it is "from above" but if Revelation is to be believed it will be THE kingdom on Earth as it was in the beginning. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

27 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

So the burden of proof in a discussion about the existence of god does not fall to the one arguing the claim of god's existence? I'm not sure you understand how this thing works.

 

I never claimed god existed, I said that your evidence against a god (an assumption that the universe can be explained without a god) is flawed.

[LD0506]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm basing this soley off of personal experience so I could be wrong.  I find that religious people (not all or even the majority) tend to want to tell athiests why they are wrong, let them know they are going to hell, ask who created everything, etc.  I find athiests tend to do the opposite less.  I also find that athiests tend to be more respectful of practices of religious people (bowing head during a group prayer, etc) than a religious person is respectful of a persons right to not bow.

 

IMO people that do not identify religiously, ie. atheists, agnostics, indifferents, etc., aren't necessarily more understanding or tolerant, but it just flows past them because it doesn't trigger the God ideation programmed into their brains, the same way you might just pass by people having an earnest discussion of werewolves or the Great Pumpkin. There's no hook to make you rise up n defend! 

 

There are a lot of similar examples psychologically in vegans or ex-smokers or Bernie supporters, they presuppose this vast importance in their beliefs that validates their existence by being a disciple. The threat to them is not people that disagree, it is people that write them off altogether, because this undermines their own view of themselves and self esteem that is dependent on holding this special knowledge that increases their self worth.

[PeterMP]

35 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

It seems an odd approach to preach Jesus to a bunch of Greeks without talking about the biographical nature of Christ. You seem to be suggesting that Paul's sermons to polytheistic Greeks was absent biography, and based on doctrine? How do you think that would play without the biographical gospels? At some point you have to talk about the man and how he figures into all the rest. It's the very reason the Gospels are first in the New Testament.

 

As for Jesus' kingdom, you're confusing the question he was asked, they were asking about borders, and the Kingdom of God is borderless it is "from above" but if Revelation is to be believed it will be THE kingdom on Earth as it was in the beginning. 

 

There are discussion of Jesus and how he fits into it in the context of a Roman belief system.  I can completely see though how to Roman polythestic believers that Jesus was born to a virgin through a ancestry that could be traced back to King David was not very relevant.

 

Not earthly and borderless are not the same thing.  The response is not that my kingdom is borderless.  It is is not earthly. 

 

Jesus said very little about the end times.  Certainly, in the context of his teachings, it is much more reasonable to believe his teachings were about how to live to get into heaven where his kingdom existed at that time than his teachings were about how people would live on Earth after the 2nd coming, which wouldn't be relevant to anybody alive at the time.

Edited April 17, 2019 by PeterMP