Sunday School

Sunday School January 6th 2019

This topic contains 38 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Simon Paynton 1 week, 2 days ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 31 through 39 (of 39 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #25077

    Davis
    Participant

     

    But what exactly is meant by this?  Perhaps citizens and theologians have differing views.

     

    Yes. Welcome to the dodgy, pointless time wasting world of theology. Every work on the topic usually defines all loving. The works that come closest to a reasonable rational definition are the works that are the most respectable but that doesn’t mean they are good. If their definition is too close to resembling the generic “love” then their arguments will inevitably be bad because how could you use a reasonable definition of  “all loving” in the same work as one where people are threatened with eternal torture (and possibly the eventual victims of that). Good definition, eventually there are fatally bad arguments…some of them really really really bad. However the works that define all loving in some other way, like loving enough to guide people to the right path etc, reek of idiosyncratic, ad-hoc blubber, where the definition becomes so long and convoluted that its really hard to balance that with the actual texts from the bible and 2000 years of Christian theology and practice. The arguments that follow may be convincing, but the original definition already skewed the conversation into one that would inevitably end up sound with a definition that would allow it in the first place. In other words, you either go with the circle and then jam it into the square and hope no one sees the crack (good definition, badly argued) or you go with the square, carve it off into a circle and put it in there hopping no one sees saw dust anywhere (bad definition, well argued). Humanist researchers have spent a lot of time trying to find an argument with a good definition and well argued (not just limited to “all-loving” or the “problem of evil”) and alas so far, just theological garbage. Sorry. We’ve simply reached a time where we are free to call out this bullshit and move on.

    #25078

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    He told his followers to hate their families.

    So it sounds from all this like Jesus was a stupid asshole.  But how could a stupid asshole have started a successful religion, which is still going strong 2000 years later?

    People don’t “follow” those things – Christians are not known for abandoning their families, for example.

    Jesus is known for peace and love, and above all, redemption.  “Jesus saves.”  I think it’s very plausible that that is the form that God’s love takes: “the door is always open” to those looking for a way out of their degradation or whatever.  That is logically consistent and consistent with what we see.

    Even though he said a lot of dumb things, some of the things you quote as being dumb, are just parables.  This for example is a fitting description of the biological pressure to thrive:

    It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it. Mark 4:31-32

    I think that a lot of his ranting and raving could have been saved, if he had known about evolution and had been more scientifically up to date.  He was only trying to make himself understood about a mystical subject which is nevertheless real.

    #25079

    But how could a stupid asshole have started a successful religion…

    Christianity was not founded by Jesus. It is very likely that Jesus never existed.

    #25080

    if he had known about evolution and had been more scientifically up to date.

    Pity his Daddy did not tell him about it. He should have have come up with a better strategy. Claiming to be the creator of all of humankind and then picking a chosen people to speak with shows a particular favoritism that cannot be “loving”.
    “Let’s say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I’ll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years.

    Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks ‘That’s enough of that. It’s time to intervene,’ and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don’t lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let’s go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can’t be believed by a thinking person.

    Christopher Hitchens.

    #25081

    Strega
    Moderator

    Simon, if Jesus existed at all, he died before the religion was created.  Poor old J was simply a tool for the creation of Christianity and the controlling of the people and the nations.  This part is history. You can read all about it from many, many sources.

    The Jesus was the token with which Christianity was designed and imposed, using the age old carrot and stick method. Heaven or Hell. Plus the very real time massacres and murders.  It wasn’t spread *because* of its story. The story was *designed* to enable it to spread, actively encouraged by the soldiers of Christ and the inquisitions. Might is Right, after all

    Poor old Hypothetical Jesus never got a say in it. Not one say.

    #25082

    _Robert_
    Participant

    God sent Jesus to saves us from himself? In what fucking universe does that make sense?

    Our species is doomed and will be one of the most unsuccessful genetic experiments nature ever produced. When the earth eventually recovers perhaps there will be lifeforms deserving of this beautiful planet.

    #25085

    Davis
    Participant

    Jesus was a stupid asshole

    Honestly, if I were to come across a person who said most of the stuff Jesus said, I would be partially endeared to him for his ideas of kindness, I would be horrified by many of the things he says (cutting out your eye, abandoning your family) and greatly disturbed by his support for what someone says/does (who he claims to be his father) which is mainly: believe in him/me or you’ll burn forever and I agree with that, when my father committed mass genocide I also agree with that. And I’d be extremely dubious of other stories he told like bringing people back from the dead etc. So no, I don’t think he was a stand-out person, a moral person or someone to follow. Go ahead, extract the nice stuff, it’s stuff that’s been said many times before and many times since. When you start justifying or dismissing the crazy, disturbing stuff…then you’ve voluntarily taken up the game of appologetics. Good luck with that.

    People don’t “follow” those things

    Perhaps this one they don’t follow very much, they just follow lots of the other crazy bullshit that came out of Jesus and St. Pauls crafted religion. The fact that most christians don’t do one bad thing their philosophy says doesn’t give them credit as good. THEY DO TONS OF OTHER STUPID SHIT THAT RELIGION SPEAKS OF!

    Jesus is known for peace and love

    That is how he has been presented by some. He is also known for demanding obedience and belief. You cannot just take the image as evangelicals portray or how early Christians showed the man as they were sculpting and spreading their faith. You continually ignore and gloss over the SCARY SHIT. And no, not everyone takes Jesus as a figure of redemption. They also dearly fear the consequences of questioning his words and message as well as a greater fear of eternally disappointing him. Begging him to help when he never seems to help much.

    some of the things you quote as being dumb, are just parables

    Nope. That’s an example of bullshit theological tricks. The pesky material we will explain away through randomly though up explanation A (or B or C). However the stuff that supports my view of the person and my arguments, those aren’t parables at all. They clearly mean explanation Z (which is obviously the right one). Bad bad bad path to start following.

    I think that a lot of his ranting and raving could have been saved, if he had known about evolution and had been more scientifically up to date.

    If he was the amazing person everyone claimed, then he could have used his parlor tricks to teach people the skills they need to learn for themselves. Instead he not only preached stuff that was false, but you are forgetting he also preached bullshit that was sadistic and scarry in ANY UNIVERSE OR TIME FRAME.

    He was only trying to make himself understood about a mystical subject which is nevertheless real.

    Then he would have said things that would have been partially understood and then confirmed later. And no, there is no God or universal consciousness or some thriving all-loving force guiding us. It’s all a tower of nonsense with no evidence nor any way to falsify it.

    #25086

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    extract the nice stuff, it’s stuff that’s been said many times before and many times since

    Admittedly (according to Wikipedia) he was paraphrasing two separate statements in the Torah when he said “love God, and love your neighbour as yourself”.  But apart from that, I haven’t heard it anywhere else until I came up with the same formula for the evolutionary ethics philosophy I am putting together.

    Most Christian denominations view these two commandments as, together, forming the core of the Christian religion.

    there is no God or universal consciousness or some thriving all-loving force guiding us. It’s all a tower of nonsense with no evidence nor any way to falsify it.

    Evidence (for example):

    1. physical healing – it happens on its own
    2. emotions – detecting what we like or don’t like
    3. do you want to thrive?  a) yes; b) no

     

    #25095

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Evidence (for example):

    1. physical healing – it happens on its own
    2. emotions – detecting what we like or don’t like
    3. do you want to thrive? a) yes; b) no

    @davis – what do you think of this proposed evidence for the pressure to thrive?  Can you think of another explanation for these things?  Don’t duck and dodge now.

Viewing 9 posts - 31 through 39 (of 39 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.