Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Riverwind · 05-13-2007, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Nope, no sarcasm. I am not a Christian. God is okay with that.

What is the point of your blog then? Was it merely an experiment to see how others would treat you if you said you were a Christian?

(Title of a post: How I Became a Christian - It didn't seem historical...is it?)

Have you decided since creating your blog that you are no longer a Christian after a brief reanalysis of the faith?

Or, is it that you now feel that you are not and atheist, you believe in God (you're just not a Christian)? Or that you are merely telling me you are not a Christian for my sake because I cannot understand how someone can be a Christian aside from the Bible? If that is the case, then being a Christian is ultimately between you and God, not you and me...but you know that...I just don't like to be patronized.

Or, are you an atheist again?

Confused....

gracebkr · 05-13-2007, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EthnAlln

This idea came to me at random this morning, and I thought it might make an interesting topic for discussion. The question I ask is, "Can the worshipping practices of the first Christians be known with sufficient plausbility and in sufficient detail to make a feasible reconstruction of what took place in them?"

I ask because of a personal memory that surfaced this morning as I was posting on the GRD board. As I posted there, when I was growing up, my family were close friends with a family who attended the Church of Christ, except for one bleak period when the mother of that family told my mother that we were all going to hell for not attending her church. The families reconciled later.

Still, when I was 21 or 22, one of the boys in the family was studying to become a CoC minister. He told me in reverential tones how crystal clear God's plan for his life had become and tried to lure me in. I told him I preferred to remain a Catholic. That's when he explained to me that his church was trying to restore Christianity to its original, perfect form as established by Jesus, before the Catholic usurpers got hold of it. In order not to offend me, he said (and this is an exact quote), "I admire them for it, but I think they are going to be responsible for the condemnation of a lot of souls." That's a case where politeness definitely gets in the way of logic. How can you admire an organization that is sending millions of dupes to eternal torment?

So, I would think any member of the CoC would be an ardent historian and archaeologist in order to complete the church's mission. Unless they think it was already completed through some later revelation. I keep wondering if they are making any progress (but I'm not going to visit them to find out). It seems to me that accurate history and archaeology are nearly fatal to religious faith.

Incidentally, my friend's god-given mission was tragically cut short a year later when he was killed in an automobile accident while driving to church to deliver his weekly sermon. So much for knowing God's plan for your life.

This is where people start getting delusional. If someone is a believer in Christ, the one who died on the cross for our sins and this person acknowledges it, how in the hell can God condemn them? I hate when people or so called Christians say someone is going to hell. Remember you Christians Mathew 7:1-5

Quote:

"Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother´s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ´Let me remove that splinter from your eye,´ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother´s eye.”

If these Christians who claim others have fallen to prey of the wrong religion will go to hell, what does that say for the sinner in all of us that have fallen prey? Even the Christians who say this have obviously fallen prey.

Peter Kirby · 05-13-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

What is the point of your blog then? Was it merely an experiment to see how others would treat you if you said you were a Christian?

No, not at all. Quite frankly I would never put myself through such voluntarily, if there were not something actual in myself about it. "Coming out" as whatever religious type is always a painful thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

Have you decided since creating your blog that you are no longer a Christian after a brief reanalysis of the faith?

No, my analysis of the faith did not change much. What changed is my analysis of the trick by which I convinced myself I was someone who believed in the faith. That trick was called Wittgensteinian fideism. More on that later on, probably on the blog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

Or, is it that you now feel that you are not and atheist, you believe in God (you're just not a Christian).

Well, I'm certainly not a weak atheist; I'm either a deist or a strong atheist depending on the understanding of God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

Or, are you an atheist again?

With respect to Bible-God, that has not changed anytime recently.

Riverwind · 05-13-2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

What changed is my analysis of the trick by which I convinced myself I was someone who believed in the faith. That trick was called Wittgensteinian fideism.

I'll be interested to read more about this on your blog. Please elaborate on your blog. In these sentences, it sounds as if you are saying that you "tricked" yourself into believing in "the faith" (Christianity? or just in God?), and are now analyzing why you fell for this "trick" (and that you don't really believe after all). Anyway, the wording is a bit confusing to me at least. I'm familiar with Wittgenstein but not any "trick". I'll have to go back and read up now. Again, I'll be interested to read what you have to say about it.

Peter Kirby · 05-13-2007, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

I'll be interested to read more about this on your blog. Please elaborate on your blog. In these sentences, it sounds as if you are saying that you "tricked" yourself into believing in "the faith" (Christianity? or just in God?), and are now analyzing why you fell for this "trick" (and that you don't really believe after all). Anyway, the wording is a bit confusing to me at least. I'm familiar with Wittgenstein but not any "trick". I'll have to go back and read up now. Again, I'll be interested to read what you have to say about it.

If you want a teaser, look for the book Naturalism and Religion by Kai Nielsen in the library, and read the third part.

Biff the unclean · 05-13-2007, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EthnAlln

This idea came to me at random this morning, and I thought it might make an interesting topic for discussion. The question I ask is, "Can the worshipping practices of the first Christians be known with sufficient plausbility and in sufficient detail to make a feasible reconstruction of what took place in them?"

As soon as the Roman Catholic Church was established they started holding ecumenical councils. One of the first actions of the very first ecumenical council was to place a ban on self-castration. That they felt the need to enact such a ban sheds light on the worship practices of early Christian’s that were changed by Rome.

Joan of Bark · 05-14-2007, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

How can a Christian separate themselves from the Bible? That, I don't understand. Without a Bible, how would one even know who Christ was or what to believe about him?

Why doesn't God merely tell you through prayer about the life of His son? That way we could get a consistent record of the events of Jesus' life without all the problems caused by recording and translating (not to mention saving the destruction of millions of trees).

Of course, this sensible action on God's part would put countless theologians out of work.

Solitary Man · 05-14-2007, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

Apart from the Bible, I would know nothing of the Christian God and could not be a Christian. It is how the Christian tradition was passed down to us (unless of course one places their faith also in the traditions of the Catholic church). I could call myself a believer in God, but not a Christian.

How can a Christian separate themselves from the Bible? That, I don't understand. Without a Bible, how would one even know who Christ was or what to believe about him?

I wonder how people were Christians before there was a "Bible".

gurugeorge · 05-14-2007, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

Apart from the Bible, I would know nothing of the Christian God and could not be a Christian. It is how the Christian tradition was passed down to us (unless of course one places their faith also in the traditions of the Catholic church). I could call myself a believer in God, but not a Christian.

How can a Christian separate themselves from the Bible? That, I don't understand. Without a Bible, how would one even know who Christ was or what to believe about him?

Well, of course if you believe in "Christ" as a literal historical person, he wouldn't even have entered into your consciousness if not for the writings about him.

However, if one takes (as I do) the position that "Christ" is a symbol for something "in you" (that - as I believe - was later historicised into the biography of a man-god), you can hardly avoid "Christ" because "Christ" is that little chip of God in you that "lights up" the world around you - it is that "in you" by virtue of which you are alive, perceive that something exists, etc.

IOW, "Christ in you", far from being something you could know, is that which knows, that without which nobody anywhere would ever have gotten any idea that anything ever existed at all, or any other idea for that matter.

Without the Jewish-Hellenic writings, this particular name for THAT might never have come into existence, but it has many other names in many other cultures, so no sweat

(What I have outlined above is one interpretation of the context of the texts that have been handed down to us as the NT, plus the Apocrypha and Gnostic writings, considered as a whole, as understood by people like Freke and Gandy, or Tom Harpur, who take the position that there was no person called "Jesus Christ", but that early on there most certainly was a deep form of spirituality called "Christianity", in which the "Christ myth" was probably initially meant as a sort of "foot in the door" element for the public, a sort of quest story embodying the situtation of this "Christ" principle "in the flesh", its trials and tribulations, etc.)

Steven Avery · 05-14-2007, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

...nearly any translation / version (although some will argue with you about the KJV...my personal thought on this is so what with what little difference there is...) ... Some people can and do make the Bible their God. I, personally, feel that KJV-onlyers do this

Hi Riverwind,

This is an accusation that you might want to rethink, revisit, prayerfully reconsider.

Here is an analogy. At least a start.

The revelation at Sinai in Arabia was accompanied by thunders and lightnings, and the Hebrews received, after some difficulties, the Decalogue, the 10 commandments, written by the finger of God.

Yet would you say that they were therefore worshipping a "stone God" or a "tablet God". Or made the Decalogue their God ?

For consideration.

Shalom,
Steven

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.