exceptionally unsettling fundy experience

[bilby]

You react to arrrogant self-importance as inherent to vast power? And acceptable?

I react the opposite. With truly and honestly vast power, must come - inherently - vast humility and empathy. Otherwise it shows that the power is not that vast. To me it is a sign of weakness and doubt.

QFT.

 

[steve_bank]

You were able to deduce "The arrogant self importance.." from um... moral ambiguities? Amazing... you deserve a jar of perfumed alabaster.

Ummm.. yes. As much as you read into the gospels.

Th son of god getting pamed with perfume or oil. Might ht be likend to a massage of sorts?

Sorrybut the gospel Jesus makes absolutely no sense as an accurate rendering of single real individual. A young Jewish precious biblical scholar debating in the temple with adults would likely have ben of a family of means, not a lowly carpenter or handyman.

I watched a little of the Christian Jesus shows presented as historical fact. One woman said 'Pilate gazed into the eues of Jesus'. Pure invention and imagination. Randomization not facts.

Christians have no idea what a real Jesus may have been lke. In contrast we know a lot of te personality of Caesar. His wars and politucs are documented by multiple contempraneous soures. .

 

[Politesse]

Christians have no idea what a real Jesus may have been lke. In contrast we know a lot of te personality of Caesar. His wars and politucs are documented by multiple contempraneous soures. .

Otherwise known as "primarily a single document, his own journal about his exploits, almost certainly ghost-written by propagandists", the oldest manuscript for which post-dates Caesar's death by nearly 900 years.

But he is mentioned in many other sources written by his contemporaries, most importantly Cicero, who was in a good social position to know the emperor personally and describe the political situation accurately... if not without bias. He was not part of the conspiracy to assassinate the man, but he strongly backed his (debatably) chosen heir Octavian in the years that followed, which is the sole reason why his works were allowed to survive while many others disappeared. Our manuscripts for these books and letters are mostly 4th century in origin--- just like those that exist for Mr. of Nazareth. In addition to the normal ravages of time, Constantine the Great was thorough in his efforts to both obscure and redefine the pre-Constantinopolitan past of the Roman state.

Both Jesus and Caesar almost certainly existed, but you'd be a fool to consider the "facts" of their lives as beyond question; the political and religious interests invested in their careers (remember that both men were declared to be divine god-men by legions of fanatic followers, Caesar and his heirs were not a "secular" alternative to Christianity so much as a rival faith) mean that much of what was written about them is almost certainly fabrication or distortion to suit the needs one late Roman emperor or another. We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the scribes of old felt little shame in altering the documents they copied.

 

[jab]

We can notice those who claim loudly to be moral but who are not. We call them hyocrites. We despise those whose acts do not match their self proclaimed moral standards. Especially those who claim autnhority. Politicians, religious leaders etc.

Or to be blunt, actions matter more than words.

And now, God. Christians and others tell us God is good, merciful, just, fair, and compassionate. And of course is all powerful, omnipotent. And the source of all objective morality.

But we do not live in a Universe where we see the results of such a being.

And is actions that count. That is all that counts.

yes, exactly. And the "Jesus" to whom Learner appeals is a frontman for God--the God who had his own son tortured and killed to "save" a small segment of humankind, the God who is responsible of the very existence of all humankind, and the thief-in-the-night God of the upcoming apocalypse, and the post Apocalypse eternal Hell.
No, on some things, Jesus in not a reliable moral authority at all.

 

[steve_bank]

I would like to know what Leared thinks of us atheists.

The majority of Christians I have known one way or smother make a pitch at conversion.

I've had Christians walk up to me in parking lots and on the sidewalk. Pamphlets left on my desk at work.

Yes Learner, Christianity is particularly intrusive. Jews have very strong beliefs, yet do not impose.

There is a native island in Japn that is off limits to outsiders. A Christian tied to bring the word to the 'hethens' and got killed by an arrow.

Christians float bibles on balloons across te border to North Korea.

They are on a bu zz, a high from proselytizing. It is like an addiction.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Oh but you see... regardless of there even being many denominations and what have you. EVERY Christian understands WHO the Moral authority is,... and they all understand the concept of repentance. Everything else which is of lesser importance, i.e., the variations to interpretations, being trivial by large comparison, doesn't conflict with the message, so to speak. These things I've seen put out there by Christians, which I agree with, is to highlight the core of faith, that we all agree and understand between us, in the wide Christian community.
(ETA: Those faiths that don't have the the core principles, e.g., Jesus as savior etc.., we don't see as Christian)

The high moral WHO in all these cases is the individual person having decided what they prefer. It's quite simple to understand and is obvious to any rational person. You used the word interpretation and that's exactly what people do, interpret what they read depending on their circumstances. This explains all those different takes that you want to dismiss. The high moral authority is collective human behavior that emanates from an environment. Makes a lot more sense than invisible space people, again, rationally speaking.

 

[Learner]

Oh but you see... regardless of there even being many denominations and what have you. EVERY Christian understands WHO the Moral authority is,... and they all understand the concept of repentance. Everything else which is of lesser importance, i.e., the variations to interpretations, being trivial by large comparison, doesn't conflict with the message, so to speak. These things I've seen put out there by Christians, which I agree with, is to highlight the core of faith, that we all agree and understand between us, in the wide Christian community.
(ETA: Those faiths that don't have the the core principles, e.g., Jesus as savior etc.., we don't see as Christian)

The high moral WHO in all these cases is the individual person having decided what they prefer. It's quite simple to understand and is obvious to any rational person. You used the word interpretation and that's exactly what people do, interpret what they read depending on their circumstances. This explains all those different takes that you want to dismiss. The high moral authority is collective human behavior that emanates from an environment. Makes a lot more sense than invisible space people, again, rationally speaking.

It isn't hard to interpret, since practically everyone understands the concept of sin. Even when I was a 10 year old (or perhaps younger) I understood what sin was... good and bad and all that. Imo, the bible is meant to be simple to understand; intended for the everyday ordinary average person. The levels of study and levels of understanding can go much deeper, depending on the level of understanding one wants to achieve ..which is 'not at all' necessary for the average believer.

We see people understand this moral 'interpretation', when individuals change their lives completely around; ending a cycle of crime,or going to prison, when they take to a faith seriously, in this case Christianity.

 

[Wiploc]

Oh but you see... regardless of there even being many denominations and what have you. EVERY Christian understands WHO the Moral authority is,... and they all understand the concept of repentance. Everything else which is of lesser importance, i.e., the variations to interpretations, being trivial by large comparison, doesn't conflict with the message, so to speak. These things I've seen put out there by Christians, which I agree with, is to highlight the core of faith, that we all agree and understand between us, in the wide Christian community.
(ETA: Those faiths that don't have the the core principles, e.g., Jesus as savior etc.., we don't see as Christian)

My impression has always been that Christians disagree among themselves on almost everything. So much so that insults, hatred, and warfare follow. I remember, for instance, hearing Baptists saying that Catholics don't go to Heaven.

Your claim that Christians are united except on the details ... well, it's hard to swallow.

It isn't hard to interpret, since practically everyone understands the concept of sin.

Now that claim is just outlandish.

I was raised by Christians. I went to church and Sunday school. This was Kansas; my world was full of Christians. So far as I knew, everyone but me and Madelyn O'Hair and the Russians were Christian. I sat thru prayers in school. I was immersed in Christian culture.

I never heard meaningful explanation of sin until the second or third time I went to college, in a Western Civilization class.

If you think sin is something everybody understands, you should be able to explain it to me.

I'm all ears.

 

[TomC]

Even when I was a 10 year old (or perhaps younger) I understood what sin was... good and bad and all that.

At 10, I understood that Protestantism was a sin.

Jesus started a church. It's called the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants are people who ignore Jesus because they think they know better than Him.

You're right, even a 10 year old understands sin.
Tom

 

[Learner]

Oh but you see... regardless of there even being many denominations and what have you. EVERY Christian understands WHO the Moral authority is,... and they all understand the concept of repentance. Everything else which is of lesser importance, i.e., the variations to interpretations, being trivial by large comparison, doesn't conflict with the message, so to speak. These things I've seen put out there by Christians, which I agree with, is to highlight the core of faith, that we all agree and understand between us, in the wide Christian community.
(ETA: Those faiths that don't have the the core principles, e.g., Jesus as savior etc.., we don't see as Christian)

My impression has always been that Christians disagree among themselves on almost everything. So much so that insults, hatred, and warfare follow. I remember, for instance, hearing Baptists saying that Catholics don't go to Heaven.

I remember as a young boy, hearing bombs going off in London, which stemmed from a political war that involved Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland.

(I was just going to respond to this bit to Rheas long post)

There may be various reasons, why different groups fight each other, but it is certainly unlike the law of the 'Absolute Moral Authority' which as Jesus says, 'love your enemies' etc.. I would say mostly these conflicts are, politics involving itself with Christianity. Irony would have it... people just don't want religion, more so Christianity, getting involved with any Political Governance.

Your claim that Christians are united except on the details ... well, it's hard to swallow.

The core principles they all agree with. i.e., Jesus is Christianity! The details aside which may vary, is of lesser importance, not affecting the theology. Sure there are disputes... but we talk with each more these days. Thank Heavens for the live video chats.

It isn't hard to interpret, since practically everyone understands the concept of sin.

Now that claim is just outlandish.

I was raised by Christians. I went to church and Sunday school. This was Kansas; my world was full of Christians. So far as I knew, everyone but me and Madelyn O'Hair and the Russians were Christian. I sat thru prayers in school. I was immersed in Christian culture.

I never heard meaningful explanation of sin until the second or third time I went to college, in a Western Civilization class.

You never heard or understood the difference between good or bad?

If you think sin is something everybody understands, you should be able to explain it to me.

I'm all ears.

Everybody - I assume you mean Christians, who should by the theology understand the 10 commandments etc.. Are there people who call themselves Christians, who are unaware of the saying when Jesus says "to love your neighbor as yourself?"

 

[Wiploc]

It isn't hard to interpret, since practically everyone understands the concept of sin.

Now that claim is just outlandish.

I was raised by Christians. I went to church and Sunday school. This was Kansas; my world was full of Christians. So far as I knew, everyone but me and Madelyn O'Hair and the Russians were Christian. I sat thru prayers in school. I was immersed in Christian culture.

I never heard meaningful explanation of sin until the second or third time I went to college, in a Western Civilization class.

You never heard or understood the difference between good or bad?

Sure I do. I just don't see what that has to do with sin.

Torture, for instance, is bad.
Infinite torture is infinitely bad.
So if even one person suffers in eternal Hellfire, this is the worst of all possible worlds.

And if you succeed in conflating the concepts of sin and bad, then you make Jehovah--the creator of Hellfire--into the greatest sinner of all.

If you think sin is something everybody understands, you should be able to explain it to me.

I'm all ears.

Everybody - I assume you mean Christians,

You didn't limit your claim to Christians. You said that, "practically everyone understands the concept of sin."

And then--correct me if I'm wrong--you tried to conflate sin and bad, as if they were the same thing.

 

[bilby]

And then--correct me if I'm wrong--you tried to conflate sin and bad, as if they were the same thing.

When in fact, a conflation of the two is a fictional sailor from Baghdad.

 

[Learner]

It isn't hard to interpret, since practically everyone understands the concept of sin.

Now that claim is just outlandish.

I was raised by Christians. I went to church and Sunday school. This was Kansas; my world was full of Christians. So far as I knew, everyone but me and Madelyn O'Hair and the Russians were Christian. I sat thru prayers in school. I was immersed in Christian culture.

I never heard meaningful explanation of sin until the second or third time I went to college, in a Western Civilization class.

You never heard or understood the difference between good or bad?

Sure I do. I just don't see what that has to do with sin.

I used the word bad in context to sin, interchangeably and synonymously.

Torture, for instance, is bad.
Infinite torture is infinitely bad.
So if even one person suffers in eternal Hellfire, this is the worst of all possible worlds.

Context as in bad for bad people? This sounds like the usual atheist 'technical' speak - having several alternative meanings.

And if you succeed in conflating the concepts of sin and bad, then you make Jehovah--the creator of Hellfire--into the greatest sinner of all.

Well yes, by your portrayal of the word bad (one from several other context uses of the word), you could 'technically' mean that.

And curiously, your view of sin 'which you haven't explained yet'. Would I be correct in understanding that by 'NOT conflating the concepts of sin and bad' - would therefore mean to you, Jehovah is not the greatest sinner of all?

If you think sin is something everybody understands, you should be able to explain it to me.

I'm all ears.

Everybody - I assume you mean Christians,

You didn't limit your claim to Christians. You said that, "practically everyone understands the concept of sin."

And then--correct me if I'm wrong--you tried to conflate sin and bad, as if they were the same thing.

Ah ok. Initially I meant anyone who has read or heard the stories in the bible.
As I said, I use the word bad, in context to sin.

And what was your definition of sin BTW?

 

[Wiploc]

It isn't hard to interpret, since practically everyone understands the concept of sin.

Now that claim is just outlandish.

I was raised by Christians. I went to church and Sunday school. This was Kansas; my world was full of Christians. So far as I knew, everyone but me and Madelyn O'Hair and the Russians were Christian. I sat thru prayers in school. I was immersed in Christian culture.

I never heard meaningful explanation of sin until the second or third time I went to college, in a Western Civilization class.

You never heard or understood the difference between good or bad?

Sure I do. I just don't see what that has to do with sin.

I used the word bad in context to sin, interchangeably and synonymously.

Anything bad is sinful? This is your position? And you hold that "practically everyone" agrees with this?

Torture, for instance, is bad.
Infinite torture is infinitely bad.
So if even one person suffers in eternal Hellfire, this is the worst of all possible worlds.

Context as in bad for bad people? This sounds like the usual atheist 'technical' speak - having several alternative meanings.

You lost me. I don't know what you're trying to say.

And if you succeed in conflating the concepts of sin and bad, then you make Jehovah--the creator of Hellfire--into the greatest sinner of all.

Well yes, by your portrayal of the word bad (one from several other context uses of the word), you could 'technically' mean that.

My portrayal of the word "bad"? You don't agree that torture is bad?

You think torture is only 'technically' bad?

Are you now saying that "practically everyone" thinks torture is good?

Your phrasing ("several other context uses of the word") confuses me. Can you help me out by using "bad" in a context that you choose, one that I and "practically everybody" can understand?

And curiously, your view of sin 'which you haven't explained yet'.

I'm happy to explain my understanding of sin. But you're still up to bat. You threw down the gauntlet. You said that practically everybody understands your meaning of the word "sin." I'm just asking what it is.

Before I give you the opportunity to start attacking my understanding of the word, I want you to explain your understanding of it. If your meaning is so clear, simple, and obvious that practically everybody agrees with you, why can't you say what it means?

Your first effort was to equate sin with badness. You didn't like the results of that. You accused me of using "the usual atheist technical speak." Can you achieve greater clarity by employing the usual Christian plain speak?

Is it that you really don't think torture is bad? Or is it that you don't really think sin equates to badness? One or the other, right? Which one is the problem?

Or is there a third choice? What would that be?

Give us something. Don't keep us guessing. Especially when you don't like my guesses.

What, in your opinion, is the meaning of "sin"?

Would I be correct in understanding that by 'NOT conflating the concepts of sin and bad' - would therefore mean to you, Jehovah is not the greatest sinner of all?

If you think sin is something everybody understands, you should be able to explain it to me.

I'm all ears.

Everybody - I assume you mean Christians,

You didn't limit your claim to Christians. You said that, "practically everyone understands the concept of sin."

And then--correct me if I'm wrong--you tried to conflate sin and bad, as if they were the same thing.

Ah ok. Initially I meant anyone who has read or heard the stories in the bible.

Backpedaling. You didn't mean "practically everybody." You meant "practically every Christian."

It is your current position that practically every Christian understands sin. Do I have that right?

If so, if I do have that right, then can you explain sin to nonbelievers?

Because I'm waiting. I'm eager to understand.

As I said, I use the word bad, in context to sin.

Does it mean something else in that context? Is "bad" a term of art that only Christians know?

Is it recondite? Abstruse? Arcane? If so, then how does almost every Christian understand it? And if not, then why can't your share your understanding of the word with us?

Can you explain the meaning of sin? Because I thought you were going to explain it.

I'm giving you plenty of opportunities.

If practically every Christian understands your definition of sin, I'd like to understand it too.

And what was your definition of sin BTW?

You first.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think a sin is anything that makes Mr. Jesus unhappy.

Of course, Mr. Jesus has reportedly issued some pretty contradictory statements so I'd need some clarification. He assaulted a tree and rioted inside a temple so can I do those things too? Hundreds of millions of christians believe Mr. Jesus made a global flood that killed lots of people. So it gets confusing for someone like me. Hard to know what makes the Jesus unhappy.

I think christians identify sin as primarily an act of disobedience. But things are kinda grey there.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Sin in ancient Hebrew means to miss, such as an archer misses his target. To sin is to fail to follow the commands of God. For a Jew, that would be different than for a Christian. Many Christians believe that the Laws of Moses are no longer necessary for Christians. They can eat pork and shellfish. But must hate homosexuals. Some Christians tell us, no, we must fllow all the laws of Moses. And most Christians are sinners. Jesus commands them not to pray in public. And to sell all they have and give to the poor. Which few of them do. Sin!

 

[bilby]

Something is bad if it offends against morality.

Something is a sin if it offends against god given morality.

Sin is synonymous with bad, if and only if gods are moral authorities.

There are, and can be, no moral authorities, as Plato demonstrated more than 2,400 years ago. Therefore sin is an impossibility; A fictional construct that cannot have an analog in reality.

 

[Wiploc]

Something is bad if it offends against morality.

Like having sex outside of marriage?

 

[bilby]

Something is bad if it offends against morality.

Like having sex outside of marriage?

Only if that's an immoral thing to do.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Is it immoral to light up a joint without saying grace?