Sin and Self

[bhsmte]

A religion determines its principles and commands. I think they're very clearly at face value here. Don't kill, covet, steal, etc. Love your enemies. Things like that.

Of course, the very micromoment you do this, you realize how the vast majority of Christians really aren't living their religion. They're living something else. What is this? Their culturally conditioned, warped versions of religion.

So maybe it's safe to say that Christ has rarely been preached, in the sense that who he really is and what his message really is hasn't truly been heard, given all this cultural noise twisting the real basic meaning of the principles and commands of religion.

And what becomes most interesting to me is how many nonbelievers seem discontented with religion when it's revealed *not* to be this culturally warped stuff. They tend to leave alone the really good (and hard) stuff. Just like the so-called Christians do.

Which adds a whole new meaning to: "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (Matthew 7:13-14)

The bible is a mixed bag, but when it comes to the "good stuff", I don't see anything that a person devoid of religion, could not follow on their own, without religion.

If religions had never developed, would people be running around killing and raping at will? I highly doubt it. In fact, as societies have developed and have become less religious, quality of life has increased, not declined.

I am not saying religion is bad, because it can be the right thing for certain people, but it is certainly not required to be a good person and live a loving caring life towards others.

 

[Received]

The bible is a mixed bag, but when it comes to the "good stuff", I don't see anything that a person devoid of religion, could not follow on their own, without religion.

If religions had never developed, would people be running around killing and raping at will? I highly doubt it. In fact, as societies have developed and have become less religious, quality of life has increased, not declined.

I am not saying religion is bad, because it can be the right thing for certain people, but it is certainly not required to be a good person and live a loving caring life towards others.

That's another argument, isn't it?

I think the point here is that there's often a divide between what a holy book (which is the basis of a religion) says and how people act in the name of this religion on which it's based. Sure, a person's religious group will influence him to some degree, but he's still responsible for what he clearly reads in front of him when it comes to ethical principles. No doubt the world would be fine without religion -- although I would say, with some backing of psychological studies, that it would be more prone to meaninglessness -- but the problem with religion isn't religion, but the simple boring fact that its adherents don't really follow, for some reason, the text on which their religion is based.

 

[bhsmte]

That's another argument, isn't it?

I think the point here is that there's often a divide between what a holy book (which is the basis of a religion) says and how people act in the name of this religion on which it's based. Sure, a person's religious group will influence him to some degree, but he's still responsible for what he clearly reads in front of him when it comes to ethical principles. No doubt the world would be fine without religion -- although I would say, with some backing of psychological studies, that it would be more prone to meaninglessness -- but the problem with religion isn't religion, but the simple boring fact that its adherents don't really follow, for some reason, the text on which their religion is based.

The latter is one of the symptoms of people falling away from religion in general and likely why Christianity has declined for decades. People gravitate towards what they want to believe and what fits them and they see religious dogma as cumbersome and likely, not believable when it gets down to brass tacks, though I do believe, some will not readily admit their doubts, when asked.

 

[Received]

The latter is one of the symptoms of people falling away from religion in general and likely why Christianity has declined for decades. People gravitate towards what they want to believe and what fits them and they see religious dogma as cumbersome and likely, not believable when it gets down to brass tacks, though I do believe, some will not readily admit their doubts, when asked.

I'd only say it's more likely the case that Christianity hasn't been slowly losing members, but rather that it never, throughout most of history (the big exception being the time before Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, before which being a Christian meant necessarily living a lifestyle against the shadow of death each day), had a majority of real adherents to begin with. Once you subtract the cultural twisters we've been talking about, you have probably 20-30% of the pile that's authentically Christian. Blame tribal theism on the rest.

 

[bhsmte]

I'd only say it's more likely the case that Christianity hasn't been slowly losing members, but rather that it never, throughout most of history (the big exception being the time before Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, before which being a Christian meant necessarily living a lifestyle against the shadow of death each day), had a majority of real adherents to begin with. Once you subtract the cultural twisters we've been talking about, you have probably 20-30% of the pile that's authentically Christian. Blame tribal theism on the rest.

Yes, I would think, it has become more culturally acceptable to move away from religion and church, so people have done so.

Even today, I believe, many people claim to be Christian and attend church, because they feel there is a social need to do so, not because they have a deeply held belief.

 

[Received]

Yes, I would think, it has become more culturally acceptable to move away from religion and church, so people have done so.

Even today, I believe, many people claim to be Christian and attend church, because they feel there is a social need to do so, not because they have a deeply held belief.

Which I think is a very good thing. Had a long serendipitous talk on many subjects with a friend who's an atheist yesterday, and we both agreed strongly that good religion is a good thing, and that it's a good thing as well to move away from bad (cultural) religion to no religion at all. Like Nietzsche said: atheism is "Christian morality overcoming Christian metaphysics." Fake Christianity is much worse than no religion at all, and is arguably the stuff that has caused all the bad stuff throughout history in the name of God.

 

[bhsmte]

Which I think is a very good thing. Had a long serendipitous talk on many subjects with a friend who's an atheist yesterday, and we both agreed strongly that good religion is a good thing, and that it's a good thing as well to move away from bad (cultural) religion to no religion at all. Like Nietzsche said: atheism is "Christian morality overcoming Christian metaphysics." Fake Christianity is much worse than no religion at all, and is arguably the stuff that has caused all the bad stuff throughout history in the name of God.

Nietzsche, wasn't he a middle linebacker, for the Packers some years ago?

Anyway, I have always said; whatever works for you. If religion makes one a better person and better able to cope with life, they should hold onto it.

 

[Received]

Nietzsche, wasn't he a middle linebacker, for the Packers some years ago?

Yeah, and every time he got a sack, he'd look down at his prey while shaking his head and say, "human, all too human."

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, and every time he got a sack, he'd look down at his prey while shaking his head and say, "human, all too human."

Good one!

 

[Received]

Seems you have a different view than many other Christians.

Let me ask you something. When I answered as I did to invite your response above, did I suddenly become not worth chasing anymore? Like you got a sense of, "well, I can't talk with this guy anymore on this subject"?

 

[bhsmte]

Let me ask you something. When I answered as I did to invite your response above, did I suddenly become not worth chasing anymore? Like you got a sense of, "well, I can't talk with this guy anymore on this subject"?

Not at all. You made your position clear and didn't really have a need for you to clarify it any further.

By the way, I would take your position on this topic, of being from a high moral and ethical base, grounded in human decency. Again, it is not the typical Christian view, which is quite sad.

 

[Received]

Not at all. You made your position clear and didn't really have a need for you to clarify it any further.

By the way, I would take your position on this topic, of being from a high moral and ethical base, grounded in human decency. Again, it is not the typical Christian view, which is quite sad.

Thanks.

What seems the case to me is that lots of nonbelievers sort of gravitate toward the more cultural Christianity (tribal theism) we've discussed here as a sort of default position, or what really is the case with Christianity. So that when someone like myself or other folks present a more humane (and yet Biblical) view, people seem to lose interest. It's interesting. It's almost like they want the default false position to be true so they have an enemy to fight against. When a good theism comes along, it becomes a little threatening. IMO.

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks.

What seems the case to me is that lots of nonbelievers sort of gravitate toward the more cultural Christianity (tribal theism) we've discussed here as a sort of default position, or what really is the case with Christianity. So that when someone like myself or other folks present a more humane (and yet Biblical) view, people seem to lose interest. It's interesting. It's almost like they want the default false position to be true so they have an enemy to fight against. When a good theism comes along, it becomes a little threatening. IMO.

Here is the problem with pure biblical views. It certainly can be argued, that scripture supports the notion of not believing in the Christian God brings gloom and doom to those who choose not to. One would really need to cherry pick certain parts of the scripture, to get around this main theme.

In fact, researching the NT specifically, from a scholarly and historical standpoint, was one of the drivers of me moving away from Christianity. When I looked at the scripture from this view point and took that new knowledge to overlay it with the realities of the real world we live in, the story just falls to pieces, IMO.

I take no issue with someone that has faith in a God and needs to determine on their own, what works for them to keep their faith. As long as they don't make claims of; them being better than me, I am angry at God, I am being led by evil, they need to reject reality to hold onto their belief, then religious faith can be very healthy.

 

[Received]

Here is the problem with pure biblical views. It certainly can be argued, that scripture supports the notion of not believing in the Christian God brings gloom and doom to those who choose not to. One would really need to cherry pick certain parts of the scripture, to get around this main theme.

In fact, researching the NT specifically, from a scholarly and historical standpoint, was one of the drivers of me moving away from Christianity. When I looked at the scripture from this view point and took that new knowledge to overlay it with the realities of the real world we live in, the story just falls to pieces, IMO.

I take no issue with someone that has faith in a God and needs to determine on their own, what works for them to keep their faith. As long as they don't make claims of; them being better than me, I am angry at God, I am being led by evil, they need to reject reality to hold onto their belief, then religious faith can be very healthy.

See, here's the deal though: we read translations, and the translation we read determines our perspective of the Bible. Of course, no matter what translation you have of the OT, God gets to be a pretty big jerk a few times in places, but these have theological responses given the projection of the writers at the time. But I would be much less likely to be a Christian if I didn't have a basic theology which, quite simply, pointed out the very basic Greek meaning of a few verses that could easily have been translated more realistically but weren't. Tribal theism and culturally conditioned Christendom have influenced even the very translations we have.

 

[bhsmte]

See, here's the deal though: we read translations, and the translation we read determines our perspective of the Bible. Of course, no matter what translation you have of the OT, God gets to be a pretty big jerk a few times in places, but these have theological responses given the projection of the writers at the time. But I would be much less likely to be a Christian if I didn't have a basic theology which, quite simply, pointed out the very basic Greek meaning of a few verses that could easily have been translated more realistically but weren't. Tribal theism and culturally conditioned Christendom have influenced even the very translations we have.

Ok, that's fine.

We would then have to move on to the next point, which is; how much credibility does scripture really have, when it comes to historical credibility?

There are bits a pieces that can be considered to be historically credible, but beyond that, it smells to me, like a man made attempt to explain things, they couldn't explain, a search for hope, a search for meaning and lastly, maybe an attempt to control people a bit as well.

 

[Received]

Ok, that's fine.

We would then have to move on to the next point, which is; how much credibility does scripture really have, when it comes to historical credibility?

There are bits a pieces that can be considered to be historically credible, but beyond that, it smells to me, like a man made attempt to explain things, they couldn't explain, a search for hope, a search for meaning and lastly, maybe an attempt to control people a bit as well.

Let's keep in mind that it's always going to be manmade to some degree; the question is whether it's manmade in a way that inspires the events it records as being true, particularly the stuff about Jesus. But I don't know. I think it's precisely because the OT is so nasty that we can trust it as a historical document, given it has the fingerprints of masculinity projections all over it.

The NT is a more precise story, and it seems like there are two pretty clearcut camps depending on the interpretation of the gospels' historical progression from not many miracles (Q document, Gospel of Thomas) to dang near gnostic level stuff with miracles (Gospel of John). One camp says the historical progression proves that Jesus' divinity was created after the fact; the other says it was just a historical progression, and not to pay too much attention to Q or Thomas as evidence.

But to me the question is answered best by Hitchens of all people, who said that the seemingly crazy stuff recorded in the NT about Jesus leads him to believe that there was some version of someone like him just given the out there stuff recorded about him.

 

[bhsmte]

Let's keep in mind that it's always going to be manmade to some degree; the question is whether it's manmade in a way that inspires the events it records as being true, particularly the stuff about Jesus. But I don't know. I think it's precisely because the OT is so nasty that we can trust it as a historical document, given it has the fingerprints of masculinity projections all over it.

The NT is a more precise story, and it seems like there are two pretty clearcut camps depending on the interpretation of the gospels' historical progression from not many miracles (Q document, Gospel of Thomas) to dang near gnostic level stuff with miracles (Gospel of John). One camp says the historical progression proves that Jesus' divinity was created after the fact; the other says it was just a historical progression, and not to pay too much attention to Q or Thomas as evidence.

But to me the question is answered best by Hitchens of all people, who said that the seemingly crazy stuff recorded in the NT about Jesus leads him to believe that there was some version of someone like him just given the out there stuff recorded about him.

I don't even take into the account, the OT, when I investigated the NT.

And regarding inspiration, there is no question people were inspired to write what they did, but inspiration on it's own, does not make something true.

When it comes to the NT, I spend months reading scholarly and historical critique of the NT and was really amazed what I had no clue about and likely what the vast majority of Christians have no clue about.

I am not in the; Jesus was a fabrication camp, as I believe he was likely a real person. I have consumed the work of conservative, moderate and liberal historians regarding the NT and it is quite easy to identify when one is taking liberties with the historical method in their interpretations. Some of the conservative historians, are the equivalent of the tobacco company scientists, stating there was no evidence that smoking was bad for you.

All in all, an objective study of the NT, has been something that has been evasive and something you have to dig for. Consider, the vast majority of NT historians are Christians themselves and got into that line of work because of their beliefs, doesn't exactly create the most objective crowd. At the end of the day, a consensus of NT historians can agree on the following:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, it is all over the place and for good reason. Bart Ehrman is someone I put a good deal of credibility to his work. The guy has impeccable credentials; Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College and earned his PHD at Princeton under the leading NT scholar/historian of the 20th century. He was a conservative Christian to begin with and was a Baptist minister for a while, then became more liberal and eventually became agnostic. The guy learned Greek, so he could study the oldest texts and he basically came to the conclusion; the more he researched the NT, the more he realized, what he believed in the past, was likely not true. He also tied that with significant issues with suffering in the world and other realities that did not align with the Christian description of God and he became agnostic.

 

[FireDragon76]

Beyond that, it is all over the place and for good reason. Bart Ehrman is someone I put a good deal of credibility to his work. The guy has impeccable credentials; Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College and earned his PHD at Princeton under the leading NT scholar/historian of the 20th century...

Perhaps this is part of the issue, for you. Bart Ehrman having a conservative evangelical background hardly makes him "impeccable": evangelicals have been holding up unrealistic expectations for the biblical text for many, many years. It might surprise you to know, there are Christians, even conservative Christians, such as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, trained in biblical criticism, and yet hold to some very conservative, traditional beliefs. They are usually coming from a more philosophically sophisticated background than an "evangelical" (what is really neo-fundamentalism).

He also tied that with significant issues with suffering in the world and other realities that did not align with the Christian description of God and he became agnostic.

I also see this as a consequence of his evangelical background . Again, there are Christian traditions better able to deal with suffering existentially.

 

[bhsmte]

Perhaps this is part of the issue, for you. Bart Ehrman having a conservative evangelical background hardly makes him "impeccable": evangelicals have been holding up unrealistic expectations for the biblical text for many, many years. It might surprise you to know, there are Christians, even conservative Christians, such as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, trained in biblical criticism, and yet hold to some very conservative, traditional beliefs. They are usually coming from a more philosophically sophisticated background than an "evangelical" (what is really neo-fundamentalism).



I also see this as a consequence of his evangelical background . Again, there are Christian traditions better able to deal with suffering existentially.

His impeccable credentials comes from his formal education, his scholarly work and who he trained under, not the fact he was a conservative Christian at one point.

The fact that he slowly progressed from; conservative Christian, to moderate Christian, to liberal Christian, to an agnostic, is explained by him as to the more he learned through his research, the less he could believe.

 

[Received]

This mostly in Misquoting Jesus, I take it? Been meaning to read this.