Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had to look up "Strobelsearch" to see what you were talking about. LOL.
But I don't see how research is applicable to believing or not believing in some sort of force, if you will, whether you call it God or something else, or whatever path one might latch onto to seek a connection to it. My sense of something beyond our physical presence could not be altered by browsing the Internet.
If you're referring purely to biblical-type research to "prove" a specific spiritual framework, no thanks. As you already know, I'm not a person who believes that the Bible came about supernaturally or that it's literally true. I have neither the need nor the patience to do the sort of research you've done to prove that nor the desire to argue about it.
Since the Bible stories were never intended to be taken literally to begin with, then any attempt by atheists to "prove" the stories false is like an ever descending rabbit hole that will lead to nowhere.
There is truth in the stories, just like in any popular ancient story or modern Star Trek story. Trying to say that they are false is impossible, because the Bible literalists know the stories contain truth of some kind. The stories would never have endured as long as they had without that symbolic truth that they contain.
I'm sure that we have done this before, but here goes again.
We are well aware of those who do not take some of the Bible literally. With those who take all of the Bible metaphorically it is a different argument: one that we don't get into much further than 'why give the Bible a special place as a guide for life?'. If you are referring just to Genesis and Exodus, also, usually as metaphorical or symbolic, we argue with those who take for example the prophecies, the Exodus and the Gospels, as fact, not metaphor. And surely you must see that gospels are taken as reliable events by almost all the believers?
It is with those who DO take ALL the Bible 'cover to cover' as literally reliable (obvious poetic similes apart - that was always a red herring) that we argue, and for good reason. They are a danger and threat in the USA, and if they win there, they could be a tremendous threat everywhere else. The might and wealth of the USA would be put to pushing Literalist Genesis belief (plus YE science -skeptical views) everywhere it can.
I know it goes against the grain for those who don't really believe the Bible but who rather admire it to side with 'New Atheism' (here's lookin' at you, Prof. Stavrakopoulou) and against Bible -believers, but if you can't help us to fight for your right to take the Bible (or part of it) as metaphorical and not literal, at least don't fight those who are doing so.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-23-2018 at 10:01 PM..
Anyway, I think there are a lot of moderate believers. They believe the traditional religious doctrines, but they aren't going around preaching it. They have more of a "live and let live" attitude. CS Lewis and Soren Kierkegaard might fall into this category.
Since the Bible stories were never intended to be taken literally to begin with, then any attempt by atheists to "prove" the stories false is like an ever descending rabbit hole that will lead to nowhere.
Some were. Daniel, for example, was prophecy written after the fact to predict the end of the world within a few years. That is why the early 'prophecies' were accurate but later events were not predicted.
And even those stories that were written as allegories are now taken to be historical. Even secular historians try and find the 'real' Jesus somewhere in those fictional accounts. And Christians today use those fictional accounts to try and influence others, to tell them how to live.
Atheists demonstrating those tales are false do have an effect, as they allow those who feel repressed by Christians to take a position against those Christians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
There is truth in the stories, just like in any popular ancient story or modern Star Trek story. Trying to say that they are false is impossible, because the Bible literalists know the stories contain truth of some kind. The stories would never have endured as long as they had without that symbolic truth that they contain.
What truth? That an angel spoke to some people to tell them to follow most (or all) of the OT laws? Those stories endured because that is what good stories do, not because of the alleged truth in them.
It is not possible to be offensive at all and deliver the actual Gospel message of love and reconciliation. Love does NOT offend.
You're confusing delivering a "message" with delivering "love". And that's a problem those on the extremes suffer from as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Christ's Gospel is completely inoffensive.
That has been false for over two thousand years, starting with referring to Jesus as Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is those who query the words "written in ink" and interpreted into the "precepts and doctrines of men" and ignore what God has "written in our hearts" who offend.
And so it goes with such offensive perspectives - they are only rationalizable via circular arguments and self-ratified edicts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
It's not about the degree of belief.
Actually, for many it is; and perhaps it is a matter of the degree of belief for more people, now, than about anything else. The fastest-growing contingent of many who see themselves as Christian/Jewish/etc. are those who consider themselves such because they embrace the heritage of the religion rather than due to a literal belief in its historical tenets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Moderate Christians (for example) believe in the Trinity.
Some do, but more and more are seeing it as a metaphor. Case in point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
If you're referring purely to biblical-type research to "prove" a specific spiritual framework, no thanks. As you already know, I'm not a person who believes that the Bible came about supernaturally or that it's literally true.
Many see value in Bible stories because their message resonate with their current, modern perspective. President John Adams is noted for saying that he sought a religion based on a "common sense sort of reasonableness". If, or when, Bible stories no longer resonate with modern ethics, they are set aside, and should be. Religion is a support, an aide - it is not a jail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
The stories would never have endured as long as they had without that symbolic truth that they contain.
As such, they have the same standing as Greek myths, and the Vedas and the Upanishads. And truly to use ancient texts as any kind of backup for any claim, it would be essential to prove that independent societies from geographically separated parts of the world came up with stories projecting the same message. That's why the Golden Rule is so well-supported. A version of it is found in many, independently-divined belief systems. Contrast that with the tenets of any religion that are found only in that one belief system - that fact alone is enough to substantially prove its falsehood.
A new-ish friend (Kathy)was curious when she found out I am an atheist and it led to discussing religion which wasn't anything she'd really done. She just went along rather thoughtlessly with how ever she'd been brought up.
Eventually, she agreed that she did cherry pick and decided her brand of religion is Kathyism
This may be the kind of 'moderate' being referred to?
It is my observation that religious belief is now a very thinly veiled veneer over political believe. I think this is difficult for the "moderate" believer because they are quickly defined by others in regards to position on wedge type political issues. Moderate believers are then forced to pick a side. Go with the "blood sacrifice" conservatives or the "social jesus" liberals.
You're confusing delivering a "message" with delivering "love". And that's a problem those on the extremes suffer from as well.
That has been false for over two thousand years, starting with referring to Jesus as Christ.
And so it goes with such offensive perspectives - they are only rationalizable via circular arguments and self-ratified edicts.
Actually, for many it is; and perhaps it is a matter of the degree of belief for more people, now, than about anything else. The fastest-growing contingent of many who see themselves as Christian/Jewish/etc. are those who consider themselves such because they embrace the heritage of the religion rather than due to a literal belief in its historical tenets.
Some do, but more and more are seeing it as a metaphor. Case in point:Many see value in Bible stories because their message resonate with their current, modern perspective. President John Adams is noted for saying that he sought a religion based on a "common sense sort of reasonableness". If, or when, Bible stories no longer resonate with modern ethics, they are set aside, and should be. Religion is a support, an aide - it is not a jail.
As such, they have the same standing as Greek myths, and the Vedas and the Upanishads. And truly to use ancient texts as any kind of backup for any claim, it would be essential to prove that independent societies from geographically separated parts of the world came up with stories projecting the same message. That's why the Golden Rule is so well-supported. A version of it is found in many, independently-divined belief systems. Contrast that with the tenets of any religion that are found only in that one belief system - that fact alone is enough to substantially prove its falsehood.
Well done at seeing though Mystic's crafty Bullcrap. and I am entitled to use a thumbsup as Mystic uses it for any post, no matter how woeful, if he thinks it supports his beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Ah! You mean the 'cherry-pickers.'
I'd never though of C.S Lewis as a cafeteria Christian, but I have little doubt that he took the Jesus story (and resurrection) as fact. Perhaps I can't even blame him for being sold the Jesus story (he was originally born atheist, I believe...well, we all were) because it can be made to look damn' good. It really requires close examination of the case to see that it actually doesn't stand up.
A new-ish friend (Kathy)was curious when she found out I am an atheist and it led to discussing religion which wasn't anything she'd really done. She just went along rather thoughtlessly with how ever she'd been brought up.
Eventually, she agreed that she did cherry pick and decided her brand of religion is Kathyism
This may be the kind of 'moderate' being referred to?
I think so. In fact I'm sure of it. Anyone who Doubts and Questions and does their own thinking away from the dogma she or he has been fed is 'Moderate'. Of course we'd need to know more. Kathy may have still beeen solid on the NT. May have still been a regular churchgoer. On the other hand, she might have become a sortagod agnostic and seen Jesus just as a nice guy who got nailed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein
It is my observation that religious belief is now a very thinly veiled veneer over political believe. I think this is difficult for the "moderate" believer because they are quickly defined by others in regards to position on wedge type political issues. Moderate believers are then forced to pick a side. Go with the "blood sacrifice" conservatives or the "social jesus" liberals.
Yeah that'll happen. It's possible to think through that and separate church and state in the head. What the key to that is the morality debate. Because underlying the right politics is the right society, and underneath that is the right morality - human or religious. We already know the answer to that.
"Oh but right -wing Fundamentalist Christianity ain't nohow so bad like Islamic fundamentalism!"
Yes, thats the word. They want the best of both worlds...they want to be able to call themselves a christian/ catholic, but also want to be part of the secular world, they do not want any type of conflict or anything that may risk the quality of their lifestyle being effected.
The many people like this that I know personally, the secular world comes first, if they are going to compromise, its going to be their religious beliefs,they will also go to great lengths to justify 'doing nothing'
Jesus warned that christians would be hated and despised by the world, just as he was...but if modern day christians are not doing or saying things that would make the secular world hate them, there is not going to be any hatred or persecution, as this type of person would not be a threat, if you notice the ones that are truly hated and despised, they are the type NOT to ever compromise or settle, in other words, they STAND UP for what they believe in, they ARE a threat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
