|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 03, 2013 10:32 PM |
|
|
artu said:
If we put aside decoding the myth's symbols and go theological, the problem becomes this then though, if the original sin was not sexual and the disobedience was about awareness of self and getting the wisdom to learn right from wrong or in JJ's words:
Quote:
It's not about sex, it's about the realization of past and present, the step from an existence of living firmly anchored in the present and simply LIVE to realization, conscious thought and everything that comes with it (the realization of the finiteness of the physical existence and that everything must die eventuelly, including yourself and your beloved.
It's about the dawn of humanity as we know it.
Why is that even a sin?
Because they saw it as a penalty - or some aspects of conscious thought. The animals wwere living without thought or sorrow, only in the present. If one was attacked by a predator, lost a leg and survived, eventually it would seemingly have no problem to simply accept that fate, forget the incident and live on.
You have to consider how HARD life in these times was. Life looked like an endless hardship, and when you enjoyed something for short time, death, and dessaster already lurked nehind the next tree. It looked like a PENALTY.
The human awareness includes moral and the knowledge about "good and evil - animals act by instinct and are not responsible. Humans have to make decisions and can decide this or that way. The responsibility and the possibility to do the wrong thing may look like a penalty as well.
For which a reason was sought: what have we done to deserve such a full consciousness of such a miserable life, when everything could be way better?
Quote:
Aren't Christians proud of their God because he gave us free will. Sex (not having sex with your wife) was a taboo but wisdom never was. And if it's about
Quote:
Abstractly spoken, the Christian religion (not only the Catholics) have a general problem with fun for fun's sake (Protestants have that problem even more). Fun for fun's sake is "wasteful", because fun is unproductive; plus, it's the devil's way to make you open for his temptations.
then why, having sex with your pregnant wife (obviously sex for sex's sake) ISN'T a sin?
One reason is probably that the Bible never says anything about a husband not being allowed to have sex with his pregnant wife - the other would be that any such notion would have led to the immediate downfall of the Church. 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2013 11:07 PM |
|
|
Hobbit said:
I have no idea what you're trying to prove right now, so let me repeat my question: do you personally think that being against putting man's sperm anywhere else than his wife's vagina isn't the same as being against non-procreational sex? 
Yes, I think it's not the same, because quite obviously the church isn't against non-procreational sex per se.
There is also not one official document of the Pope that would deal with the specific cases - nowhere says any Pope or Papal bulletin that oral sex would not be allowed, for example.
Of course there IS a lot of literature dealing with it and claiming it, but the Church is too clever to say something like that. They just say, hey, people, keep in mind that sex should be done lovingly and allow for pregnancy - however there are no limitations when you ARE already pregnant or when it's clear you can't get pregnant now because the wife's last period was 25 days ago.
However, I don't want to defend the Church. Whatever their ideas, they have no business to give idiots an opening to write silly books about whether a Christian is allowed to have oral contact with genitalia or not - that's just too presumptious and none of their business.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 02, 2013 11:25 AM |
|
|
While checking out something about Nietzsche, I've stumbled upon an interesting article. It is a short summary of Nietzsche's views on how and why Judaism evolved into Christianity the way it did and afterwards how the practice of Jesus evolved into Paul's theology. To sum it up roughly, Nietzsche thinks of Jesus more like a Buddha figure, while he holds Paul responsible for the Christianity he is very much against. The article is THIS.
Markkur, I would very much like to hear your opinion on this, because if we accept this hypothesis as a frame/theme for now, I think that the way you live your "Christianity" fits what Nietzsche refers as a Buddhist approach, while Elodin for example, can be an example of what the philosopher criticises in Paul.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 02, 2013 07:31 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 19:31, 02 Oct 2013.
|
I've got a question for you people. Do you consider buddhism a religion? I'm studying it right now and to me, it feels a lot more like a philosophy with it not emphasising (an external?) divinity or trying to explain the material world with creation myths and such.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 02, 2013 07:36 PM |
|
|
Honestly, I hesitate to reply but I think you are in earnest about this gigantic debate, so give me some time. Days are a tad difficult but the topic certainly merits any effort I could make. However I should make a couple of comments, just to let you know what I think atm, just in case you decide to not follow-up because of my delusions. .
Nietzsche was human like us all and while in being one of us he raises some good questions or (also as countless others) correctly identifies some real problems in the Church; <imo>overall the man is very angry, bitter, hateful and deluded. His is an ill-mind even if he does have a few brilliant thoughts.
He is exactly what I would wish no man would EVER "think" to be; let alone BE.
And for the record, the Nazi's idolized this one man (instituted his UBER-scheme)far more than anything that has been attributed to the Nazi's corruption to the Church. "To me"...His "Superman-plan" is nothing more than what should be expected from any person, when the entire belief system of an individual is fixated on SELF and the achievement of ONE.
As far as his "views" of Jesus and Paul?"...pure hogwash. Initially, it was Paul that was my RL inspiration.
I'll come back and make a post about Jesus & Paul etc. Please refrain from opposing "my take" on this guy; that's just my opinion. Wait until I am doing more than responding based on past debates and have a chance to look at the Doc you've listed. I also try and explain(my take)why Elodin and I are so different. In the end you'll probably be more interested in that, than any thoughts of mine on Nietzsche.
Cheers
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 02, 2013 07:41 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:42, 02 Oct 2013.
|
@Xerox
I consider Confucius(ism?) a philosopher, but Buddhism is religion. A religion does not have to be theistic. It's a metaphysical conception of the universe, it has this concept of nirvana which is totally spiritual, it considers itself unfalsifiable because of that spiritualism... all the ingredients are there. Less mythological than the Abrahamic religions, sure, the stories are not part of the "the core." But that's not categorically necessary.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 02, 2013 08:06 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
I've got a question for you people. Do you consider buddhism a religion? I'm studying it right now and to me, it feels a lot more like a philosophy with it not emphasising (an external?) divinity or trying to explain the material world with creation myths and such.
The standard answer resembles this;
Quote:
Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence
but I think this to be a nice addition;
Quote:
in the words of Émile Durkheim, religion differs from private belief in that it is "something eminently social"
I would add that the natural-process is two-fold; I think we usually must start on the inside before heading outside. If it's purely a companionship motive, than it will likely not last, since it will not have roots in the person and be more akin to a trend or hobby.
I think any religion, any practiced belief, is often about effective change;...putting oars in your boat to better get somewhere.<L>
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 02, 2013 08:41 PM |
|
|
I think this definition is much better:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Quote:
an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence
is too general. Ideology and religion are different, your pick of definition also fits ideology. Of course, if we broaden the perspective, religion IS ideology with its references lost in the wilderness of history but that would take too much detail to pinpoint right now.
Just this: Nietzsche was indeed an angry man, he was self-destructive to the level of "martyrdom." That was, however, if you really read him, not because he considered himself super-human as the Nazis did. Nietzsche's super-human is an ideal just like your faith in the "evolution of the mind." To understand Nietzsche, you must start with what he was angry at: The Kartezyen comprehension of the mind. To sum it up, before Nietzsche, there is this naughty will of ours, and then there is this morally correct other consciousness that sets the boundaries to that naughty will power. "To know virtue" is to be aware of that duality and sharpen the skills of consciousness to CONTROL the naughty will. How he wonderfully reversed that model is like this: What we consider morally correct has its roots in our will. Morality evolves by the will, not trying to block it. There had been many debates on ethics before him, but this perspective was revolutionary.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 02, 2013 09:03 PM |
|
|
markkur said:
Please refrain from opposing "my take" on this guy; that's just my opinion.
I was going to paint fireworks in this thread after reading your such simplistic analysis about one the the humanity greatest minds ever, but then I read the end. After all, I may even understand you, as he stated so many times the Christianity is the contagious religion of the pity, and this is exactly your synthesis level about Nietzsche: pitiful.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 03, 2013 12:20 AM |
|
Edited by markkur at 00:32, 03 Oct 2013.
|
Salamandre said:
markkur said:
Please refrain from opposing "my take" on this guy; that's just my opinion.
I was going to paint fireworks in this thread after reading your such simplistic analysis about one the the humanity greatest minds ever, but then I read the end. After all, I may even understand you, as he stated so many times the Christianity is the contagious religion of the pity, and this is exactly your synthesis level about Nietzsche: pitiful.
Goodness man, sounds like you burn me at the stake for not following your master.
Edit=
First off...about Nietzsche, when I post later...know this.
All I know or care to know, centers on conversations like this with Artu. I am aware he wrote a great deal; therefore, for any lurkers, please understand that I've no opinion of this man in general, unfortunately my opine is about what I need to debate concerning his views about my Faith...when I am asked.
I assume Artu has asked what I would make of this stuff from my POV and is not wanting to "fry me" because I do not respond exactly as he would think I should
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 03, 2013 01:08 AM |
|
|
You assumed right. But I also understand why Salamandre got furious. Linking Nietzsche to the Nazis is very superficial, it's the first thing that comes to mind if you dont know his context. Anyway, I specifically am curious about your opinion on this part:
Nietzsche paints a picture of the Jesus of history as being a true evangel, which means that he did not subscribe to the concepts of guilt, punishment, and reward. He did not engage in faith, but only in actions, and these actions prescribed a way of life which Nietzsche sees as rather Buddhistic. The evangel does not get angry, does not pass judgment, and neither does he feel any hatred or resentment for his enemies. He rejected the whole idea of sin and repentance, and believed that this evangelical way of life was divine in itself, closing the gap between man and God so much that it is God, according to Nietzsche. Therefore, he saw prayer, faith, and redemption as farcical, instead believing that the "kingdom of heaven" is a state of mind that can be experienced on earth by living this type of peaceful, judgment-suspending existence, free from worry, guilt, and anger. Nietzsche argues that this was the life of Jesus and nothing more, and this way of life was the "glad tidings" which he brought.
What I observe about you is, whenever you talk about your faith, you don't talk about verses, you don't talk about rules, you only express how it made your life better as a giving person, how it turned you into a better husband, uncle, grandfather... Seems relevant.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 03, 2013 04:51 AM |
|
Edited by markkur at 05:04, 03 Oct 2013.
|
artu said:
You assumed right. But I also understand why Salamandre got furious. Linking Nietzsche to the Nazis is very superficial, it's the first thing that comes to mind if you dont know his context.
Well, do think I just had a thought and embraced it? A professor @ a CA university teaches on that very subject and he says the Nazis used his teachings. Frankly the following quote confirms it for me but I'm curious how would you interpret the quote;
Btw, on a related note; Christ is "my Hero" and I've not ever been insulting to people here for the many slams on Jesus and Faith. I know its not important to many here but Elodin got upset for a reason and he was not always in the wrong. However, I've seen things differently and I see the perversion of the Church itself as the chief-source of nearly all of the honest contention and accept that fact.
Quote:
as Nietzsche sees it. It also promotes the preservation of those who nature has selected for destruction, or in other words, those who Nietzsche calls "failures." This preservation of failures, he argues, makes the overall picture of life look decadent, in that it becomes filled with weak and retrograde individuals.
You embrace that?
This is the start of the post I brought;
@ Artu
Quote:
Further in the book, after Nietzsche devotes a few passages to contrasting Buddhism with Christianity, he paints a picture of the Jesus of history as actually having lived a type of "Buddhistic" existence, and lambastes Paul particularly for turning this historically correct Jesus, vis-ŕ-vis, Jesus the "Nazarene," into Jesus the "Christ."
I need to keep my responses brief. It's because my skeleton is in such a mess these days and nothing more. Fyi, because my spine hurts from the weight of my massive brain hovering above <LOL> I have to get out of my chair and get horizontal much too much.
Hmm, let me ask a couple of questions.
Am I a "failure" and beyond pity? Furthermore, I've been fighting this Dragon for 13 years; should I have taken the noble and honorable way out and shot myself long ago, to make my family's life look brighter, better? I mean. after all; nature "selected me for destruction" and a very slow and painful sort at that. Maybe that makes me the worst sort of retrograde?
Don't bother my friend, I'm know you are not a bitter cold-stone and have much better uses for your time. I want to share my thoughts about the "good" Jesus but mainly on the”bad" Paul. I also want to try & blend-in (a little) how the NT shaped me over decades. From my pov...it's all connected.
Let me start with a small matter that just happened. Like millions across the globe, my illness has destroyed my fiscal health too. I am in better shape than many but like everyone else living on a fixed-income, the rising cost of living has left me barely getting by.
I just watched a rental called Kidnapped and enjoyed it a lot, it's
the sort of movie that I own and have watched dozens of times. With limited resources, I use discs to get my mind off...pain. When it came time to return the movie, I thought; "why not copy it", who would care? I'd have one more movie to watch over and over again. That sort of thinking. However, I popped it into the drive...and then, I took it right back out; I couldn't copy it.
Sorry, I've probably bored you with such an exciting tale but what I'm sharing is how Christ and Paul affected me, because, yester year, I would have copied and shared it with anyone and never gave it a thought. This example is trivial but it is at the tail-end of a long list of more important changes thru my life.
When I first read the New Testament, I had no religious indoctrination. I was so remote from the stuff, I didn't know what Easter was to Christians but when I met Christ in the words of the NT, his teachings in short, what he shared with all of us, blasted deep inside me and made sense of so many things that had been difficult for me to understand about myself.
Moving right along, Jesus seemed on a rung too far above me and His
example, out of my reach. It was Paul's testimony that changed all that. Why?
I identified with Paul. He was a radical and very passionate about his beliefs. He was human like the rest of us and as I read the text I saw some of my own struggles. Paul's example gave me a jumpstart to
becoming the person I wanted to be...through "my" minds eye. Obviously...something very personal.
Paul is a detriment to Christianity? <imo> If not for Paul, Christianity might have died in Jerusalem with Peter and James. It was Paul only that said; "the Gentiles should come as they are and not adapt the Jewish rituals". Now this is extraordinary, because it was Paul that had by far the most orthodox background and should have been the roadblock to outsiders.
But what happened? Paul walks 10,000 to 14,000 miles (depends on the
historian)in three journeys taking Christ to the masses. He was
completely changed by Christ; his life was changed for something he
knew was life-changing. Look how strong Paul proved to be; he was
stoned, shipwrecked and jailed several times and nothing kept him back, no event turned him around to his "old man" or sent him home defeated.
Paul was a serious Pharisee and after conversion, I doubt anyone knew
better, the real danger of religion. He knew it had crucified Jesus and then he found it already rising in the laws of his fellow Christians. The Lord's worst enemies were the religious leaders of his day. that had no compassion but instead adored purple pomp and seats of honor.
Artu, you know that this is exactly what the Church became in the Middle-Ages. It was not the fault of Paul but for the same old reason that always is about anything...the greed of man.
I'll come back to your last post.
Edit sorry Artu, something has high-jacked my formatting and after several attempts, I cannot correct the post.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 03, 2013 06:23 AM |
|
|
artu said:
What I observe about you is, whenever you talk about your faith, you don't talk about verses, you don't talk about rules, you only express how it made your life better as a giving person, how it turned you into a better husband, uncle, grandfather... Seems relevant.
It is relevant and I'll try to answer briefly but this is a great spot for long scrolls.
I do talk about Verse it's just that I don't habitually give it to people.<imo> That's a friend to friend conversation or maybe a question to answer but never a flamethrower...like verse has too often been used throughout the history of the Church. Btw, if I am living by the verses? Than should not those verses reveal themselves some way in my communication?
I know many NT scriptures by heart and they have been the tools for my spiritual life. I've never memorized the Bible per se, what I have done is hold a guiding-image born from the reading the pages and the image I currently have is a collage of many scriptures. Another way to say this; is that over many years, pieces of the puzzle (the man I wanted to become) have surfaced, sometimes after hardships; other times a sudden revelation, that wasn't sudden at all but only a final understanding or decision that stemmed from a long internal debate amid doubt and examination.
Over time, that image has been easily amendable, because if I hold Pauls' statement that "we see through the mirror darkly" close to my heart and I am always aware of my imperfection.
In short I've not been about placing invisible shackles around others but getting rid of my own. It's not just that alone, but many other teachings i.e. something else Paul said; (my words) "we strive for the mark of the high-calling of our Lord Jesus but we never believe we've reached perfection"...or the very sobering verse from Christ were he says " "you who have no sin ,cast the first stone" and all the religious whacks went home. Some may see my Faith as a weakness, and that's OK but I know it to be a strength.
On a broader front, I think people like Elodin mean well and not only that are doing something much better than I could do...being themselves. I don't believe any person is completely right or completely wrong. Ever hear that joke about hmmm...the body's; chief exit-hole, where its stating its case for it's importance? If it shuts down everything else is affected. 
Now if that's true about the least of us and we know it is, then I think one thing has been overlooked by too many Christians; the parts of the "body of Christ" (Corpus Christi). One of my worst experiences in the Church is what I call the cookie-cutter mentality. Here's the rules, here is the text..blah blah blah. The failure of this blanket approach is often whatever is being taught is at odds with Christ or the pages of the NT.
i.e. Years back I made this mistake of buying a book that was recommended to me on "winning souls". I was young & dumb and had yet to understand the folly behind such a thought. But if you remember that most Churches are businesses and need the pews filled, then it's easy to deduce the need for such an effort. Here's where Jesus comes in; "You cannot serve God and Mammon" and also "its the Holy-Spirit that calls a soul" See where I am going? Here are two things that fly in the face of what the Church is suppose to follow but instead are practicing "Marketing" while stepping in to the Holy-Spirits' role within the quiet of a soul?
I could write pages but I'll not impose more gripes.
For what its worth, Elodin always seemed to me a spokesman for the Text, a Teacher. I don't really fit anywhere in the traditional roles. I just try to see & respect people. I suppose my faith is much more the ancient neighborhood sort, my distain for Mega-Churches is a likely indicator.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 03, 2013 02:39 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:01, 03 Oct 2013.
|
markkur said:
A professor @ a CA university teaches on that very subject and he says the Nazis used his teachings. Frankly the following quote confirms it for me but I'm curious how would you interpret the quote
The Nazis did use his teachings, they also twisted Darwin and other scholars to fit their agenda. That does not mean Nietzsche was a National Socialist, or his philosophy originally promoted Nazism. Even in the linked article you can see he is not anti-semit for instance. There is also a unique situation, when it comes to Nietzsche and Nazism, usually only known by people who are especially interested in his life, (from Wiki):
As his caretaker, his sister assumed the roles of curator and editor of Nietzsche's manuscripts. Förster-Nietzsche was married to a prominent German nationalist and antisemite, Bernhard Förster, and reworked Nietzsche's unpublished writings to fit her husband's ideology, often in ways contrary to Nietzsche's stated opinions, which were strongly and explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism (see Nietzsche's criticism of antisemitism and nationalism). Through Förster-Nietzsche's editions, Nietzsche's name became associated with German militarism and Nazism, although later twentieth-century scholars have attempted to counteract this misconception of his ideas.
To Nietzsche, weakness and failure is first of all to push away life for an heavenly ideal. That's the morality of slaves to him. It's true his views on weakness are radical at times (but hey, philosophers are not prophets, you can partially agree or disagree with them, and that's the best part) but that was probably to cope with his own sensitivity. Nietzsche couldn't listen to music, he immediately started crying. He once hugged a horse getting whipped, again, crying, though that was probably after his mental illness.
By the way, Nietzsche does not object to Paul being devoted to Christianity or him spreading it (maybe even saving it as you put it), he claims that Paul transformed Christianity into something else. It's natural for you to embrace Paul, because on Nietzsche's perspective, what you've been fed is the transformed version of the religion to begin with anyway, not the Buddhistic practice of Jesus.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 03, 2013 05:07 PM |
|
|
artu said:
The Nazis did use his teachings, they also twisted Darwin and other scholars to fit their agenda. That does not mean Nietzsche was a National Socialist, or his philosophy originally promoted Nazism. Even in the linked article you can see he is not anti-semit for instance.
I understand that situation very well, you see that is exactly what many have done with the Christ & the NT.
artu said:
There is also a unique situation, when it comes to Nietzsche and Nazism, usually only known by people who are especially interested in his life,...
What a horrible thing to do. Some caretaker.
artu said:
To Nietzsche, weakness and failure is first of all to push away life for an heavenly ideal. That's the morality of slaves to him.
<imo> Are not we all, some sort of slave? although I prefer peasant or peon.
Seriously who is not "serving" someone or something else? My taxes are the exact same thing as the English peasant getting a small share of his master's crops. In essence our servitude is how we make a living, no matter the modern terms we use to make it sound better. Obama is a King, like all U.S president now. He will not let the people have their way...he will do as he pleases, just like Charles the 1st when he shoved his' prayer book down the throats of his' peasants.
The "heavenly ideal" is a distant hope to almost all Christians I've known over 3 decades. Here's a popular saying; "A little faith in Christ will bring your soul to Heaven, great Faith in Christ will bring Heaven to your soul" Every Christian I've know is trying to get this right...here and now.
Christianity has not held me down or back or any such negative notion; it has been the key to "my happiness" and a awesome guide for my life.
Btw, late in my life, I am still learning. i.e. Pain is a very selfish thing and being human, I am in a constant war with that fact. I'm not above normal human life experiences, I have to go through this stuff just like everyone else that faces this trail. As a matter of fact, I've had to revisit life-lessons that at one time I had mastered but serious and constant pain has a way of doing that and without asking permission. My Faith is a powerful crutch right now and I gratefully admit that to anyone.
You see, most folks are going to reach old-age and that means nearly all are going to become...weak in areas and they will no longer be in their prime. So many souls, that I have met on this road have become very bitter. I will not. unless...I lose command of my faculties.
artu said:
... It's natural for you to embrace Paul, because on Nietzsche's perspective, what you've been fed is the transformed version of the religion to begin with anyway, not the Buddhistic practice of Jesus.
I was not fed anything, I said I had no indoctrination. I've simply lived the words in the NT, Honestly at first I thought I was kind of handicapped but later in life I've seen that as a blessing, when I finally understood that I was not wrestling with all the programming of dogma. I have followed "The Way" and never been interested in religion that often ignores its Master.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 03, 2013 06:42 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:48, 03 Oct 2013.
|
|
Yes, but the New Testament IS the modified faith according to Nietzsche, he never wrestles Greko-Roman style, he grabs you by the legs. So when I said what you've been fed, I meant what you've been presented as the faith to begin with (from his perspective). As you can see in the article, he thinks the NT turned a Buddhistic figure into the son of God.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted October 04, 2013 12:01 AM |
|
|
Paul did not change Jesus, Jesus changed Paul.
What is not easy to know; is Jesus' life before his ministry. Many, many things are said and argued but the one idea that's been put forth I think likely, is that Christ was an Essene. In my mind that's very Buddha like but more important to me, many things describe Jesus in the scriptures.
Here's a brief description...as usual, like most history, this topic is full of debate too.
Quote:
A little later Josephus gave a detailed account of the Essenes in The Jewish War (c. 75 CE), with a shorter description in Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94 CE) and The Life of Flavius Josephus (c. 97 CE). Claiming first hand knowledge, he lists the Essenoi as one of the three sects of Jewish philosophy alongside the Pharisees and the Sadducees. He relates the same information concerning piety, celibacy, the absence of personal property and of money, the belief in communality and commitment to a strict observance of Sabbath. He further adds that the Essenes ritually immersed in water every morning, ate together after prayer, devoted themselves to charity and benevolence, forbade the expression of anger, studied the books of the elders, preserved secrets, and were very mindful of the names of the angels kept in their sacred writings.
Pliny, also a geographer and explorer, located them in the desert near the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the year 1947 by Muhammed edh-Dhib and Ahmed Mohammed, two Bedouin shepherds of the Ta'amireh tribe.
Whatever the truth, there is no way of my knowing. I've accepted Christ by Faith and that has to be.
Cheers Artu
|
|
Khalbrae
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted October 08, 2013 07:55 PM |
|
|
Ah. Nice to see everybody's take.
Whereas some have tested their faith and kept it and others like myself have lost it, it is nice to see a civil discussion.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 12:45 AM |
|
|
Stevie said:
Corribus said:
False. The terms are not mutually exclusive. A person can believe there are no gods (atheist), but simultaneously acknowledge that we lack the ability to know the truth (agnostic).
Yes they are.
An Atheist says: There is no God/gods. There is no uncertainty from his side. He's asserting a negative value to the question. "Does God/gods exist? - Yes, No, I Don't Know.
An Agnostic says: I don't know if there is a God/gods. There is uncertainty from his side. He does not assert any value to the question. "Does God/gods exist? - Yes, No, I Don't Know.
Atheist Agnostic is impossible by deffinition, because one cannot be certain and uncertain at the same time in the same context. Logic 1.0.1.
You cleverly underlined the word "believe", you almost threw me off track. Good think I figured out it has no relevance whatsoever.
Aaaanyway, there are variations within the "atheist" spectrum, as one article from a site I'm reading put well:
Quote:
Atheists may be categorized under various technical terms as well as sociopolitical and cultural ones, which may overlap depending on the individual atheist's preferences:
Strong atheism, positive atheism, explicit atheism or critical atheism: generally refers to those who positively affirm God’s non-existence. Some current atheists, perhaps influenced by the deleterious effects of the New Atheist movement, actually think that this definition of atheism is a hoax concocted by theists in order to make atheists appear foolish. Yet, this is a traditional definition and one found in various dictionaries, encyclopedias, philosophical textbooks.
Weak atheism, negative atheism or implicit atheism: generally refers to those who would claim merely to lack a God belief. They would generally claim that they do not believe in God because God's existence has not been proven (or evidenced). It may or may not be in the future. This sect is similar to agnosticism.
Militant atheism or antitheism: generally refers to atheists who consider belief in God as dangerous superstitious ignorance and seek to abolish it or, at the very least, remove it from the public sphere (public meaning from politics, culture at large, etc.).
Note, that the closest it gets is when you could say it "resembles" agnosticism, but in no way it gets to be literally "the same" as agnosticism, otherwise which would be which? (I think this is the case that made you think that atheist agnostics are possible by definition)
I hope this made things more clear to you, dear moderator.
Atheism is simply not assuming God because there is no valid reason to. That is not to say that we can be sure there is no god with 100 percent certainty, but giving this uncertainty a special name such as agnosticism is unnecessary for most atheists. Because
a) We can't be certain there are no dragons, genies, aliens, green flamingos, whatever you can imagine in the universe either. But our natural stance is NOT TO ASSUME them for we have no reason to.
b) Even a quick look at human history, comparing mythological stories, religions and cultural rituals, also sociological and psychological research strongly indicates that God is a concept created by humans. We can even observe the concept changing as the way humans live change (when big empires, that is big hierarchies rise, monotheistic religions also rise for example, before that nobody imagines a God that rules everywhere, it takes them to see a king do that). So basically we have every rational reason to assume God is a historical concept of the human mind. That kind of weakens the 50/50 version of agnostic stance of god or no god as in heads or tails.
All of this had been discussed here with much more detail, examples, quotations from dictionaries etc etc. If you have the will and patience, I recommend to read this thread before replying to anything.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 31, 2013 01:48 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 01:49, 31 Oct 2013.
|
Stevie said:
I hope this made things more clear to you, dear moderator.
Yes. It makes it more clear that you don't know what you are talking about.
I do not believe in God. But I also do not possess knowledge that there is no God, either because I regard God as fundamentally unknowable, or because I have not witnessed empirical evidence that can support a logical deduction to that end. Therefore, I am an agnostic atheist.
Hey look, I can link to internet stuff too!
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
