Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
crookedspiral

A new christianity for a new world

53 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Guitar
On 12/2/2018 at 8:48 AM, Will Due said:

 

And that's because God is within all of us busy doing everthing possible to adjust our thoughts while honoring our sovereign free will to think whatever we like but perhaps shouldn't. 

 

 

No, he/she/it's not because there is not one iota of proof that such an entity exists outside the minds of those who blindly believe.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
On ‎3‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 12:18 AM, Will Due said:

 

And that's because God is within all of us busy doing everthing possible to adjust our thoughts while honoring our sovereign free will to think whatever we like but perhaps shouldn't. 

God is that ignorant part of our minds that we fill with fantasy.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 2:14 AM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The leaders of Progressive Christianity had grown weary of defining their Christian faith in negative terms:

And who are the "progressive" leaders?

They must be a very tiny portion of the Christian population. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

@Clockwork_Spirit

Quote

Skeptics, atheists, agostics ect. are welcome to discuss and debate any time.

Then you would understand, welcome, won't mind, my outlook of it. Because, despite being said it's not, I see this as a form of preaching. (Note: in my opinion) 

Quote

This thread is about how Christianity can transform our lives in these modern times.

Here's the thing, where this sentence has me doubting this. "How Christianity can?" To me, this is either a selling point, or something that should have been evident on the whole for everyone from the past to now. 

I also feel, everything has a standpoint of being able to transform our lives. What I'm getting from here is conjecture, or how one's mindset can allow the belief to do the task, but to me, I personally don't see proof and examples. In which, I think can be put forth in any belief system, or other paths, if I'm going to include those. (The forgiveness thing, seems to me, to be reaching that it ties in to a person's freedom, like being the key, and I don't think so. I don't think so, because I think being free, is knowing that you don't really feel you forgive or you do, and you still keep in the mindset that you're better than that to submit to actions from feelings. I really think it's getting it wrong, on a defining level, assuming forgiveness is not condoning the behavior. I really think it does, and I feel it does by what it's name and nature implies. 

But again, that's me. 

Quote

How a progressive, non-literal interpretation of Biblical texts can offer much hope and makes much sense.  

So, is this implying that it's up to interpretations? Can each person get it wrong, or have a more personal conformed ideal of what the bible says, that would improve their life? If that is the case, wouldn't that be the same of anything? I have found various fictional books, that seem to do that for me. Where's the line of interpreting it to fit one's own personal meaning, and when it doesn't? 

Quote

Thought all pastors were boring?

I wouldn't really know, since I have never been to a service in my entire life, (that is your basic Sunday morning church service.) Granted, you're saying this about the pastors in the videos, but here's why I brought in this quote. It seems that if I never been an orthodoxed Christian, and really had any Christian teachings in my life, is my life not transformed and full, or have meaning? Can anyone imply that for any other orthodoxed religion that has not been in my life? 

I know quite a few Atheists, who lives seem full, some transformed, and be happy. I have come across Christians, fully practicing their faith, and it seems they don't understand why they should apply their faith to their behavior or feel like their belief is not answering and fulfilling them. I have found my own beliefs, and secular practices and thinking, has done a lot for me. I also feel, I have transformed my life, through out the years. I could be guessing that Christianity in my life, might end up making go paths that I felt I had to do, and end up miserable because, it's probably what my instincts would tell me not to do. Like I said, I could be guessing on that. 

Bottom line for me on this, what I think is doing the transforming of lives on this, is the individuals themselves, who use their beliefs, their knowledge, and their drive to actually transform their lives. I don't think Christianity is the one size fits all thing. Even if it's proved as a path, some people have different outlooks and experiences that may feel they need something else, or to forgo it for their own understandable reasons. 

So, I wonder if this some form of wish fulfillment to get all on board here, or understand that maybe it's not for all, and welcomes how other paths, religious or none, can be the same thing for other people. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MERRY DMAS

@Clockwork_Spirit

What does "The truth will set you free" mean to you in your own words?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
On 12/2/2018 at 11:24 PM, danydandan said:

Then what exactly is the point in having doctrine? Are you saying all stories in the Gospels are fable's? 

What your describing isn't Christianity.

 

There's no such thing a single, unitary Christianity. There never has been. The Catholic church has a built up a lot of press trying to create that myth, but they're basically the only group left with anything to gain from that viewpoint, especially after the Reformation.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Why bother flogging that dead horse? Religions have been created from ancient times right through to modern times. Thousands of years of trying, and it's still a fail. I think what this thread proves is that if one wholly embraces religion, it not only posses the personality, it drives the carrier to infect others. Allegories are the only place left for the nonsense stories religion provides, but nonsense is nonsense. Religion does lots of bad too. From radicalisation to families disfellowshipping their own blood to children dying to preserve a relationship with an imaginary being, wars torture suppression and bigotry are things religion should work on if it wants to gain respect. Religion has embraced everyone of them. This immature worship leaves children growing up to hate and fear science and scientists, because science disproves their parents’ religion – leading to appalling scientific illiteracy.

The best thing religion could do for that world is accept redundancy and bow out. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
11 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

There's no such thing a single, unitary Christianity. There never has been. The Catholic church has a built up a lot of press trying to create that myth, but they're basically the only group left with anything to gain from that viewpoint, especially after the Reformation.

--Jaylemurph

I mean this whole concept doesn't have a specific doctrine. It cannot be a religion if there isn't defined by a doctrine, it's very open to interpretation. It's more a philosophy than Christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
On 2-12-2018 at 5:55 PM, XenoFish said:

Why shouldn't I detest religion and not all adherents are toxic. Some of them however are blinded by their own beliefs. They go straight into fortune cookie talk. I'm personally fine with the faithful, I hate the fanatics.


Thesame goes for Atheists, or any other (non religious) conviction for that matter. This is something a lot of people who belong to such a category (ie. Atheists) love to, well.. ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:


Thesame goes for Atheists, or any other (non religious) conviction for that matter. This is something a lot of people who belong to such a category (ie. Atheists) love to, well.. ignore.

Another one. 

What beliefs are you claiming atheism embraces? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Another one. 

What beliefs are you claiming atheism embraces? 


The belief in absence of a god, deities.. and/or unicorns.

Your signature actually underwrites my point pretty nicely; subtly implying the belief in unicorns is comparative to the belief in god. That 'reason', is inherently on the side of the atheist, not the theist.

This is exactly the behaviour most atheist lament the theists to (arrogantly) adhere to.

Edited by Phaeton80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


The belief in absence of a god, deities.. and/or unicorns.

Your signature actually underwrites my point pretty nicely; subtly implying the belief in unicorns is comparative to the belief in god. That 'reason', is inherently on the side of the atheist, not the theist.

This is exactly the behaviour most atheist lament the theists to (arrogantly) adhere to.

Are aware that the vast majority of Atheists are Religious yeah? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
55 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Are aware that the vast majority of Atheists are Religious yeah? 


Exactly my point. It seems to me atheist love to regard themselves as superior to 'religious folk' (meaning people who believe in fairytales like deities, unicorns, manbearpig, santaclaus.. in the eyes of the atheist), thinking 'rational', 'science' and 'reason' is on their side.. wielding similar dogma as Abrahamic religious congregations maintain.. regarding themselves as the opposite of religion / religious. While ofcourse, they are quite similar compared to the theists, who think their version of reality, their dogma, their theology is 'absolute truth'.

So although the following quote seems to be aimed at religious folk:

"People can believe whatever the hell they want. So long as no one gets harmed by it and they don't become an arrogant d-bag because of it." 

It equally goes for atheists - or non religious folk (although we both understand atheists could behave just as religiously as theists, think youll agree in day to day life atheists are seen as non- religious), as it goes for theists. It seemed to me this was falsely projected as an unique attribute of theists, and not atheists. If not here, certainly elsewhere, this is a popular notion prevalent in atheist circles, being arrogant d-bags to any 'biblethumper' they can find..

Just like the popular notion, or popular misconception rather, religion (that is, Abrahamic scripture) is responsible for most wars and suffering in the distant and not so distant past, and that humanity should 'outgrow it' to relieve itself from such suffering. This is patently false, history is obviously rife with political / ideological (religious and non religious) wars, which will continue - allbeit under a different, non religious banner - given the source of such folly isnt scripture / religion, its humanity itself.

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
19 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

It seems to me atheist love to regard themselves as superior to 'religious folk'

Just as it is plainly obvious that 'theists' love to regard themselves as more moral, more righteous, and just all around better people compared to atheists.  As long as we're grossly generalizing.

20 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

thinking 'rational', 'science' and 'reason' is on their side.. wielding similar dogma as Abrahamic religious congregations maintain.

What 'similar dogma' would that be?

21 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

"People can believe whatever the hell they want. So long as no one gets harmed by it and they don't become an arrogant d-bag because of it." 

It equally goes for atheists

I wouldn't say 'equally'.  In the US the result of atheists being 'd-bags' is nativity scenes can't be placed on public property and some public gatherings are not allowed to start with a prayer by certain people. The result of theists being d-bags on the other hand is the limiting of the freedom of women and gays, enforced by law in some cases, and attempts to make sure kids aren't exposed to ideas theists don't like, otherwise known as 'science'.  Pretty big difference in impact there.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

My comment about people believing whatever they so long as they bring no harm and don't act like d-bags. It goes for everyone. 

I personally can't stand a self righteous theist and atheist. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
2 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:


The belief in absence of a god, deities.. and/or unicorns.

Your signature actually underwrites my point pretty nicely; subtly implying the belief in unicorns is comparative to the belief in god. That 'reason', is inherently on the side of the atheist, not the theist.

This is exactly the behaviour most atheist lament the theists to (arrogantly) adhere to.

Gods in most religions are effectively immortal kings or rulers, why aren't they comparative to magical horned horses?

The biggest difference people tend to worship one of these mythical beings.

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
19 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Just as it is plainly obvious that 'theists' love to regard themselves as more moral, more righteous, and just all around better people compared to atheists.  As long as we're grossly generalizing.

Yes, this whole subject - the quote I responded to - is grossly generalizing. I didnt see any malcontent from you when it was aimed at the religious congregation however, funny how that works isnt it. And yes, Theists have some very nasty traits, I never contended that notion.. but I guess me claiming the Atheists are very comparable to the Theists in a lot of aspects made you suppose I was attacking your group. Premature.

What 'similar dogma' would that be?

In the sense of dogma simply being unfettered faith or practice in something without question, this goes for any human ideological group. Maybe the following quote explains my point best:

“There is a conflict in the heart of science between science as a method of inquiry based on reason, evidence, hypothesis, and collective investigation, and science as a belief system, or a world view. And unfortunately the world view aspect of science has come to inhibit and constrict the free inquiry which is the very lifeblood of the scientific endeavor.” – Rupert Sheldrake

I wouldn't say 'equally'.  In the US the result of atheists being 'd-bags' is nativity scenes can't be placed on public property and some public gatherings are not allowed to start with a prayer by certain people. The result of theists being d-bags on the other hand is the limiting of the freedom of women and gays, enforced by law in some cases, and attempts to make sure kids aren't exposed to ideas theists don't like, otherwise known as 'science'.  Pretty big difference in impact there.

Oh but I certainly erm.. would. Both (public) groups can be equally apt at douchebaggery, and I would think your denial of that implies a certain subjectivity. There are lots of Atheists who make sure their kids arent exposed to ideas they dont like, lets be honest here. Look, Im not defending Theists and attacking Atheists (Im responding to someone painting Theists as 'a problem', implicitly implying Atheists arent, or are excempt from that behaviour), but you seem to do so, vice versa.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
4 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Yes, this whole subject - the quote I responded to - is grossly generalizing. I didnt see any malcontent from you when it was aimed at the religious congregation however, funny how that works isnt it. 

Whereas you are jumping in to defend atheists when someone makes a comment about them that also applies to theists?  I guess I've missed those.

4 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

“There is a conflict in the heart of science between science as a method of inquiry based on reason, evidence, hypothesis, and collective investigation, and science as a belief system, or a world view. And unfortunately the world view aspect of science has come to inhibit and constrict the free inquiry which is the very lifeblood of the scientific endeavor.” – Rupert Sheldrake

Nice opinion, but the 'world view aspect of science' hasn't inhibited or constricted the free inquiry into the endeavors Sheldrake is complaining about there.  He's just whining because he doesn't have the goods, and apparently his ideas of 'free inquiry' doesn't include very relevant criticisms of Sheldrake's pet beliefs.

4 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Both (public) groups can be equally apt at douchebaggery, and I would think your denial of that implies a certain subjectivity.

Noting that there are people in almost any group that have done about any bad thing you can think of is unremarkable, it's the 'equal' part I disagree with.  I guess I think preventing people from getting married and corrupting science education is a little more douchebaggy and of greater impact than squashing the display of nativity scenes on a few properties; I didn't think that was particularly controversial, your mileage may vary.

4 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Look, Im not defending Theists and attacking Atheists (Im responding to someone painting Theists as 'a problem', implicitly implying Atheists arent, or are excempt from that behaviour), but you seem to do so, vice versa.

I guess I'm not clear on why when you reply to statements criticizing theists you are just providing balance but when I do the same thing I 'seem' to be attacking theists.  Speaking of 'certain subjectivity'. 

You seemed to take offense or think it's douchebaggy to note equivalencies between belief in god and belief in unicorns.  Any offense you take is besides the point right now since you haven't done anything to show the comparison is invalid; if you have a good argument for god over unicorns, please go ahead and provide it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
58 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Whereas you are jumping in to defend atheists when someone makes a comment about them that also applies to theists?  I guess I've missed those.

Yes, I guess you did. Luckily, you can scroll back.

Nice opinion, but the 'world view aspect of science' hasn't inhibited or constricted the free inquiry into the endeavors Sheldrake is complaining about there.  He's just whining because he doesn't have the goods, and apparently his ideas of 'free inquiry' doesn't include very relevant criticisms of Sheldrake's pet beliefs.

Ah, so no scientific dogma exists at all in your view, duelly noted (and quite obviously false). Any scientist providing material that goes against any generally accepted scientific - often politically charged - fact will find himself outcast and his career guttered. Anyone supposing the scientific community isnt influenced by internal dogmatic sociology is deluding him/herself, surely.

Noting that there are people in almost any group that have done about any bad thing you can think of is unremarkable, it's the 'equal' part I disagree with.  I guess I think preventing people from getting married and corrupting science education is a little more douchebaggy and of greater impact than squashing the display of nativity scenes on a few properties; I didn't think that was particularly controversial, your mileage may vary.

Like I said, you think religious people are superior douchebags compared to non religious people. Even using 'unique Theist attributes' - referring to religious parents not wanting their children to be exposed to ideas they dont agree with - which are very obviously Theist traits as well.. Further underwriting your preconceived, biased position.

I guess I'm not clear on why when you reply to statements criticizing theists you are just providing balance but when I do the same thing I 'seem' to be attacking theists.  Speaking of 'certain subjectivity'. 

The (rather obvious) difference is, you are posing Theists are somehow inherently superior douchebags compared to Atheists; while I am claiming both communities exemplify the same traits.. It really isnt that hard a concept to understand. I say equal, you say not equal. Thats more or less the definition of any verbal attack.

You seemed to take offense or think it's douchebaggy to note equivalencies between belief in god and belief in unicorns.  Any offense you take is besides the point right now since you haven't done anything to show the comparison is invalid; if you have a good argument for god over unicorns, please go ahead and provide it.

If you are seriously posing that question - why it would be douchebaggery to compare the belief in unicorns with the belief in G*d - I think it best if we end this exchange.

A fine evening to you sir.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
53 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Ah, so no scientific dogma exists at all in your view, duelly noted (and quite obviously false).

Quote me where I said 'no' scientific dogma exists at all - I just said, 'noting that there are people in almost any group that have done about any bad thing you can think of is unremarkable'.  There is also an important point that 'scientific dogma' is almost a contradiction.  Yes, undoubtedly, to be absolutely clear there are people who tout the supremacy of science or scientific findings in a dogmatic fashion.  However their dogmatism is counter to the philosophy underpinning science which emphasizes tentativeness in its conclusions and that science doesn't 'prove' things.  Contrast that to lots of theism where dogma is not only not contradictory but relied on and a virtue. So yes, dogmatism exists in both groups but are not equal.

57 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Like I said, you think religious people are superior douchebags compared to non religious people. Even using 'unique Theist attributes' - referring to religious parents not wanting their children to be exposed to ideas they dont agree with - which are very obviously Theist traits as well.. Further underwriting your preconceived, biased position.

It's not 'preconceived', it's postconceived.  What I said, and you have not attempted to counter, is that the effect of theistic douchbaggery is greater and more damaging than that of atheistic douchebaggery.  I guess the evaluation of the harms I've noted is subjective although you haven't argued against the weighing I've done, but regardless there's also just plain more theists than atheists, so it's then fairly logical to think the effect of theist douchiness is not equal just based on the quantity difference.

59 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

while I am claiming both communities exemplify the same traits.. It really isnt that hard a concept to understand. I say equal, you say not equal. Thats more or less the definition of any verbal attack.

No it isn't, it's the definition of a disagreement.  I just don't understand your inconsistent attitude, and I do read many of your posts I encounter here (maybe partly cuz I like Star Trek:TNG and your avatar is kinda funny); sometimes you dispassionately and interestingly discuss points and then sometimes you seem to be searching for any umbrage you can take from statements made that 'implicitly' imply something negative, and make kinda pathetic 'arguments' (a la, "you're biased!") about the psychological motivations of people who post things you disagree with.  Unfortunately these kind of comments many times come at the expense of you discussing the point that was actually made which would be infinitely more interesting and relevant. 

I didn't just say 'not equal', I said 'not equal and here are examples and reasons why I think that'; you seem to disagree but I can't get to your corresponding 'why you think that'.

1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

If you are seriously posing that question - why it would be douchebaggery to compare the belief in unicorns with the belief in G*d - I think it best if we end this exchange.

A fine evening to you sir.

I'm not trying to 'attack' or antagonize, but I guess I don't know how to phrase my disagreements in a way that would be satisfactory to you.  Yes, I take the position that there isn't much significant difference between god belief and unicorn belief as far as the arguments for either of their existences.  I kinda really don't care if you find that suggestion offensive or don't think that is a topic that should be discussed because of the douchosity of the mere suggestion of such a thing, some offensive things are true nonetheless.  If you are just going to take offense at it and not provide any argument why it is wrong then I guess we can take some satisfaction in that we have reached at least one hard-fought agreement: that there is little point in continuing. 

I admit though it's been fun exploring all the new words that can be derived from the root of 'douche'.  You have a good day yourself!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crookedspiral
On 03/12/2018 at 9:49 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

 then is any of the Bible the inerrant word of God to progressives? 

The Bible is foundational to Christian understanding and identity. To be Christian means to be shaped by in a continuing conversation with this collection of texts. If that conversation ceases, then we cease to be Christian. But sometimes the Bible is just plain wrong.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

I think the only "Christianity" people are increasingly willing to accept is one without Christ.  JUST as predicted.  It's actually quite comforting for those that believe in Him.  The rest will probably deny until they cannot any longer and even then, millions will refuse.  Pride is like that.  So be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crookedspiral
19 minutes ago, and then said:

I think the only "Christianity" people are increasingly willing to accept is one without Christ.  JUST as predicted.  It's actually quite comforting for those that believe in Him.  The rest will probably deny until they cannot any longer and even then, millions will refuse.  Pride is like that.  So be it.

I think many Christians realize that you can live a Christ-centric life without denying social justice, LGBT equality, racial justice ect.

You just don't need to be a Biblical literalist.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

I think many Christians realize that you can live a Christ-centric life without denying social justice, LGBT equality, racial justice ect.

You just don't need to be a Biblical literalist.

I have no problem with how anyone lives their life.  It is theirs and is their own choice.  I just find that most "new" stances on "Christianity" tend to leave out the Divinity of Christ and so, are not truly a relationship with Him.  That is my belief.  Others are welcome to their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.