Godless Apostate

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What if these are all metaphors?

Then there would be a religion, that was at least being honest with itself.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Disagree with the bolded. I'm sure there are a ton of great religions that have been wiped out because other religion just had more people and/or more firepower than they do.

I was speaking to how religions start and grow at a grassroots level, and how you need a message that strongly resonates with our core humanity in order for a religion to find legs. To take the next steps into becoming a dominant religion does require a religion that coalesces it's people into a stable power base that can be wielded by the ruling class for expansion.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Disagree with the bolded. I'm sure there are a ton of great religions that have been wiped out because other religion just had more people and/or more firepower than they do.

The pagan Romans had much more firepower than the early Christians.

The Mongols had unsurpassed firepower, and yet their shamanist religion did not spread to the places they conquered. When Muslim Arabs conquered much of the same territory, Islam stuck.

Buddhism was not spread by military force. Judaism had no temporal power for a couple millennia, but it survived.

It helps if your religion has the backing of secular power. But it doesn't seem necessary for a religion to survive. And religions without that backing have survived and thrived. So social and spiritual utility does seem to play a big part in the success of a religion.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by stone hands

interesting. my genuine followup question to this is(and please correct me if I'm mistaken, I know very little about the meat and potatoes of christianity outside of what can be absorbed via osmosis from living in a western nation and am curious) - it's my understanding the core belief of christianity is that jesus was quite literally the son of god, his teachings and belief that he died for everyone else's sins is predicated that he was a divine being in a human body whos goal was to tell humans the rules of how to live virtuously(paraphrasing). if he wasn't immaculately conceived, and just a regular guy...doesnt that kind of make the entire thing moot as a religious activity?

No, I don't think it does. In the first place, I am not convinced that immaculate conception is the automatic precursor for a form of divinity: No one wrote the rules on this, and as such it is incredibly difficult to say with certainty that ONE expression of how divinity is achieved is the exclusive way. It bears mentioning here that the immaculate conception was not always a featured doctrine of Christianity. The letters of Paul are the oldest Christian writings, and they don't know anything about it. The first gospel was the Gospel according to Mark, and it likewise shows no knowledge about Jesus's origins.

Second, the nature of Jesus's crucifixion and how that atoned for global sin is also an idea that has not always been fixed. The penal substitution model is by far the most broadly conceived version, and the one that most Christians adhere to, but it is also problematic. An alternative version of the crucifixion that was much more popular before the fourth century was the idea of Christus victor, by which the math of Jesus is a terrible tragedy, and his resurrection is an expression of God's victory over evil and the inauguration of a new age of peace and well being for mankind. So, no, there is no necessary predication on the idea that Jesus was divine (or at least the same sort of divine as God.)

There is a great deal of value for numerous Christians in the symbolic nature of the Gospel stories, and in the idea that "salvation" is mostly about human flourishing in the natural world. A much more pragmatic interpretation of the Gospel is not necessarily burdened by the intricacies of how all the theological dots connect.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No, I don't think it does. In the first place, I am not convinced that immaculate conception is the automatic precursor for a form of divinity: No one wrote the rules on this, and as such it is incredibly difficult to say with certainty that ONE expression of how divinity is achieved is the exclusive way. It bears mentioning here that the immaculate conception was not always a featured doctrine of Christianity. The letters of Paul are the oldest Christian writings, and they don't know anything about it. The first gospel was the Gospel according to Mark, and it likewise shows no knowledge about Jesus's origins.

Second, the nature of Jesus's crucifixion and how that atoned for global sin is also an idea that has not always been fixed. The penal substitution model is by far the most broadly conceived version, and the one that most Christians adhere to, but it is also problematic. An alternative version of the crucifixion that was much more popular before the fourth century was the idea of Christus victor, by which the math of Jesus is a terrible tragedy, and his resurrection is an expression of God's victory over evil and the inauguration of a new age of peace and well being for mankind. So, no, there is no necessary predication on the idea that Jesus was divine (or at least the same sort of divine as God.)

There is a great deal of value for numerous Christians in the symbolic nature of the Gospel stories, and in the idea that "salvation" is mostly about human flourishing in the natural world. A much more pragmatic interpretation of the Gospel is not necessarily burdened by the intricacies of how all the theological dots connect.

In this sense then, the Gospels are part of a guide for how humans (recognized as extremely complex) can live a good life in an inextricably difficult world. It is interesting to me that even very philosophical attempts to provide a similar path - Plato & Hobbes come to mind - eventually fall upon a state religion that even the rulers are required to abide by to some extent.

This, to me, is the key to why religion is so much more than its critics surmise and why it consistently elides their attempts to charge and criticize it rationally.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

In this sense then, the Gospels are part of a guide for how humans (recognized as extremely complex) can live a good life in an inextricably difficult world.

This, to me, is the key to why religion is so much more than its critics surmise and why it consistently elides their attempts to charge and criticize it rationally.

This might seem off topic, but I wonder if anyone has been watching The Good Place and what the opinions are of it?

When I first started watching I thought it was going to be a stupid sitcom, but it's quickly become one of my favorite shows for how it attempts to address complex modern morality and ethical philosophy in a light and comical way. Not to mention the discussions of the reasons for humanity and the construction of the afterlife. Seems similar to some thoughts thrown around in this thread.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by peter12

In this sense then, the Gospels are part of a guide for how humans (recognized as extremely complex) can live a good life in an inextricably difficult world.

You mean like stoning adulterers to death, selling your daughters, beating slaves, not wearing clothing of mixed fabrics and not eating shellfish?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

You mean like stoning adulterers to death, selling your daughters, beating slaves, not wearing clothing of mixed fabrics and not eating shellfish?

You think this is edgy, but it's not.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Also, I'm not exactly a biblical scholar, but I'm pretty confident that none of that is in the gospels.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by peter12

You think this is edgy, but it's not.

sure, you go with that.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Also, I'm not exactly a biblical scholar, but I'm pretty confident that none of that is in the gospels.

Exodus 21:7-11 New Living Translation (NLT)
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Leviticus 20:10 New International Version (NIV)
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

Leviticus 11:9-12 ESV
“These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you.

Deuteronomy 22:11 ESV
You shall not wear cloth of wool and linen mixed together.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Sigh... that's all from the old testament.

You're really embarrassing yourself here.

[peter12]

No humility or self-awareness.

[nik-]

It's like when a kid first discovers atheism and just has to get it out regardless of relevance. He's directing it at a conversation that's not even happening here.

[Fuzz]

No one tell him about the donkey thing...

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Sigh... that's all from the old testament.

You're really embarrassing yourself here.

and? the old testament is what? not true?

so, in the beginning.... should just be ignored as it is OT mumbo jumbo?

I have to admit, I don't really differentiate between old and new, so explain to me, how one is not true and the other is.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

No one tell him about the donkey thing...

yeah, that's a favorite also.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's like when a kid first discovers atheism and just has to get it out regardless of relevance. He's directing it at a conversation that's not even happening here.

right

Originally Posted by peter12

In this sense then, the Gospels are part of a guide for how humans (recognized as extremely complex) can live a good life in an inextricably difficult world.

[nik-]

The gospels are four books and they're not in the Old Testament. Take the off ramp.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

and? the old testament is what? not true?

so, in the beginning.... should just be ignored as it is OT mumbo jumbo?

I have to admit, I don't really differentiate between old and new, so explain to me, how one is not true and the other is.

iirc old testament is for jews and new testament is for christians

but as ive said multiple times im as far from an expert on the topic as you can possibly be