Christians on Decline, Non-believers Skyrocketing in US

[bshole]

whether Jesus existed, or
whether Jesus did the things reported in the documents written 40 years later (and you dismiss?), or
if Jesus is divine, or
are the Gospels reliable?

I have many many questions. One of which is: why did God need to kill himself (through the agency of man) as a sacrifice to himself in order to let men into heaven? God makes the rules, he is utterly capable of forgiving the tresspasses of man without killing himself as a sacrifice to himself first. It just seems really really really weird. Do I need to whip myself as a sacrifice to myself before I can forgive my for kid talking back to me? I never questioned the logic when I was being indoctrinated but now under the cold scope of critical thinking it is quite frankly bizarre. Is God a sociopath? Quite frankly his actions are completely inexplicable from a 21st century POV.

 

[child of wonder]

Wow, that devolved fast. It went from a slip about Jesus writing so little, to a correction he didn't write anything "Christianity 101," to all scripture is authored by God you heretic... Oh well, if everyone wants to snipe and one up this thread is not longer conducive to anything profitable. The theory and process of inspiration is interesting topic but as noted above with my example "tell the disciples--and Peter" (see, Peter isn't a disciple!!) if that is how the exchanges are going to develop there is nothing to be gained in this thread.

That's just Cerpin Taxt. He's very smart but most of what he says comes across as demeaning and condescending. What he has in intelligence he lacks in tact.

If you can see past that, a lot of what he says is good stuff and often forces one to re-assess their own point of view. But it's the "see past that" part that's sometimes the most difficult.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wow, that devolved fast. It went from a slip about Jesus writing so little, to a correction he didn't write anything "Christianity 101," to all scripture is authored by God you heretic... Oh well, if everyone wants to snipe and one up this thread is not longer conducive to anything profitable. The theory and process of inspiration is interesting topic but as noted above with my example "tell the disciples--and Peter" (see, Peter isn't a disciple!!) if that is how the exchanges are going to develop there is nothing to be gained in this thread.

Unfortunately there are very few here that are capable of intelligently and objectively discussing this topic. While these discussions invariably devolve and ultimately fail, I do appreciate your attempt. You're obviously well versed on this subject. I enjoy your perspective and also envy your ability to articulate your thoughts so clearly. Perhaps Discussion Club is a better place for these conversations. I saw that a thread over there on a related subject was locked recently, but the mods will be fair imo and will help control the nonsense and bigotry to some degree.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Bias? What bias? Never mind what all the historians of this period have concluded with overwhelming unanimity, I'm just damn glad we have an incredibly objective and informed source like www.truthbeknown.com around to get to the real "truth" of the matter.

No, they have not. And your sarcasm does nothing to refute the arguments presented. Fortunately, the very tactics you are employing fail hard. So hard, that as the thread title says, non-believers are growing in number. The original point of the thread. 😉

Fewer and fewer are buying into the nonsense that is ancient mysticism. And, as they decide for themselves, more and more end up abandoning blind faith for logic, reason, and humanism.

 

[bshole]

Fewer and fewer are buying into the nonsense that is ancient mysticism. And, as they decide for themselves, more and more end up abandoning blind faith for logic, reason, and humanism.

Yea unfortunately all that logic, reason and humanism results in a really fucking BLEAK worldview. You are obviously hardcore where the thought of meaningless existence and death doesn't bother you. I wish that I had that. My genetic makeup prevents it for me and therefor I am doomed to misery and despair. At least Christianity can give you hope (if you can lose your ability to reason). I am so hoping for a new religion that promises heaven and meaning and doesn't blow out my logic meters.

 

[Ban Bot]

I then added on to what you said. Where there is not enough evidence, the officer will not fill in the gaps with what he wants. No proof of a flood, then the officer does nothing with the claim other than to note its a claim. If the bible claims something, its not inherently true. You must question the validity of the sources and verify. If it cant be verified, then its a unfounded claim that may or may not be true. I would bet that you believe a great many things on faith though.

The bold is a fair approach for those not convinced of Biblical accuracy.

And artifacts aren't proof of themselves. e.g. a Potsherd was found in what is believed to be Gath, the Biblical home of Goliath. This Potsherd dates to the time of David and has the name Goliath on it. What does this prove? There was someone in Gath in the 10th/9th c. BCE with the name Goliath.

It alone doesn't prove this is the Biblical Goliath. Even if it did...
It alone doesn't prove David killed Goliath. Even if it did...
It alone doesn't prove David's God is real.

All we know from this one artifact is there was a man with the same name in the same period and the same period and the same people that the Bible records the same. There are a lot of artifacts substantiating Biblical history to various degrees. I am personally preferential to the works of Ken Kitchen. But even if you agree many of the kings and events of the divided monarchy are confirmed by the Assyrians and other sources it doesn't prove every event and in no way of itself proves the Bible is completely accurate or (more importantly) the God of the Bible is real.

The same would hold true of a huge event like the exodus. Even if I could prove to someone's satisfaction that Moses existed and tens of thousands (maybe many more) Semitic slaves escaped Egypt as a consequence of 10 horrible plagues that isn't the same thing as convincing them that God of Moses is real.

You must question the validity of the sources and verify. If it cant be verified, then its a unfounded claim that may or may not be true. I would bet that you believe a great many things on faith though.

I would think almost every Christian would confirm the bolded part. Many Christians have been convinced (to one degree or another) that the Bible is factual (inerrant, although there is debate about what that means and to what degree) and therefore even when science or history cannot substantiate a claim in the Bible it is accepted.

While not identical modern folks do this all the time in the realm of history. A history book is a filtered version of people and events that are interpreted and in most cases the authors themselves have not verified every detail but relied on other histories. They accept that the work of others before them is accurate and dependable. Science, even though it should always be testable and reproducible, is built on the same.

The difference of course is for conservative Christians the Bible is unalterable and unchanging. Science and History have academic recourse to remedy errors. Therefore many things, notably divine activity that is not verifiable even if the events are, are taken on faith. This is a non-starter for many post-Enlightenment as divine activity is by default discarded as a possibility because it is not testable or verifiable.

TLDR: we do take many things on faith. All sensible discussion accepts this as a valid process as humans take many things on faith if the source has been found reliable. The Bible presents a sizable hurdle as it presents itself as inerrant (unlike history and science which can be amended), many things cannot be verified at all, some things are difficult to reconcile, and most importantly in most cases even if events can be confirmed they cannot be sourced unequivocally to God as the source.

So why do people accept it on faith? Each person has a different reason everything from personal experience, passed down tradition or cultural influence, philosophy, the evidence meeting their bar of conviction, the hope or fear the Bible inspires, a composition of many of these points, etc. In general these fall short of the completely empirical levels of confirmation most skeptics demand for the most salient issues, namely is there proof regarding the Biblical God?

IMO this is where a lot of people start talking past each other and insults and derision ensue. Speaking as someone from the faith I would argue it is important for people of faith, when communicating with those who do not believe and have these questions, to not mock the position and acknowledge many things are taken on the basis of faith. Not everything of course (and I don't believe in blind faith and rejection of reason and evidence) but an honest admission and acknowledgement that we accept the Bible at least partially based on the principles of faith and being informed through a variety of sources (logic, philosophy, history, tradition, personal experience, etc.) other than empirical and reproducible tests of the divine goes a long way toward honest dialogue. We need to be honest with ourselves, first, to produce profitable dialogue. Some of the most compelling witnesses I have heard are those who confess purely personal experience which is invalid input for the skeptics I mention, but you will only know that if you first establish a baseline for the exchange.

Anything else is just yelling past each other and produces nothing.

 

[mindmajick]

Yea unfortunately all that logic, reason and humanism results in a really fucking BLEAK worldview. You are obviously hardcore where the thought of meaningless existence and death doesn't bother you. I wish that I had that. My genetic makeup prevents it for me and therefor I am doomed to misery and despair. At least Christianity can give you hope (if you can lose your ability to reason). I am so hoping for a new religion that promises heaven and meaning and doesn't blow out my logic meters.

The "Four Noble Truths" comprise the essence of Buddha's teachings, though they leave much left unexplained. They are the truth of suffering, the truth of the cause of suffering, the truth of the end of suffering, and the truth of the path that leads to the end of suffering.

Edit: i expected someone to call me on what i said about buddha before lol. He never wrote anything either.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, they have not. And your sarcasm does nothing to refute the arguments presented. Fortunately, the very tactics you are employing fail hard. So hard, that as the thread title says, non-believers are growing in number. The original point of the thread. 😉

Fewer and fewer are buying into the nonsense that is ancient mysticism. And, as they decide for themselves, more and more end up abandoning blind faith for logic, reason, and humanism.

I was being sarcastic as you apparently prefer to put your "faith" in a ridiculously questionable source that directly conflicts with hundreds, if not thousands, of years of expert analysis on this subject concluding Jesus existed. I thought the wikipedia link I provided would put this point to rest...so I don't understand why this is so hard for you. However, that said, if there is some specific point from the source you linked that you believe is compelling and wish to discuss, I'll be your huckleberry.

 

[Ban Bot]

I have many many questions. One of which is: why did God need to kill himself (through the agency of man) as a sacrifice to himself in order to let men into heaven? God makes the rules, he is utterly capable of forgiving the tresspasses of man without killing himself as a sacrifice to himself first. It just seems really really really weird. Do I need to whip myself as a sacrifice to myself before I can forgive my for kid talking back to me? I never questioned the logic when I was being indoctrinated but now under the cold scope of critical thinking it is quite frankly bizarre. Is God a sociopath? Quite frankly his actions are completely inexplicable from a 21st century POV.

I get that. I had the same questions.

Here is my answer, take it for what it is. I assume as a baseline there are a number of scriptures that teach substitutionary atonement (e.g. Isaiah 53) and that the concept of forgiveness associated with sacrifice. Also I will assume a familiarity that the Bible takes the position that mankind is sinful, separated from God, and in need of redemption.

So how do we go from offerings of grains, wine, lambs, goats, calves, and birds to human sacrifice--and how in the world could that ever even work? Why would he even want that?

IMO this stems from Genesis 15 and the covenant with Abraham. This is my opinion and by no means a consensus view--it is actually pretty esoteric. I read the covenant as a Royal Grant (land, prosperity given for past deeds; eternal to the descendants but individuals can be excluded if they are disloyal to the king making the grant). The passing through the cut animals is a reference to covenant violation (this is what it means but "cut a covenant"; Jeremiah 34 is an example of such). Up to this point scholars are in total agreement. This is where I take the text differently. Typically, in most examples, those who pass through the animals bear the penalty of covenant violation. So if you didn't let your slaves go (as in Jeremiah 34) you died like those animals. But the general expectation is Abraham would have passed through the animals. The twist on the account is Abraham goes into a deep sleep and doesn't participate. Instead the penalties for failure to observe the covenant by Abraham and his descendants is passed to another--the one who passed through the animals, Yahweh who appeared in a pseudo-Sinai theophany.

How I take this is Yahweh made an eternal covenant with Abraham and his descendants but in a twist himself takes up the punishment for their sin so they could enjoy the benefits of the covenant. They could never do it on their own, hence why Yahweh accounts Abraham's belief as righteousness (v.6). Of import it was the "word of Yahweh" that came to Abraham (cp. John 1:1-18). Subsequently every later covenant (Sinai, Moab, Davidic, New) is attached to the Abrahamic covenant. Notably the animals cut are all the species present in the Temple offerings, connecting this rite with the meaning of the Temple service.

That is only my opinion. But to me it explains the requirement for divine sacrifice as well as the efficacy of divine substitution to enable human enjoyment of covenant blessings and why faith is meritorious grounds for justification. It also explains exactly who (the word of Yahweh / theophanic presence) would bear the penalty. Finally it connects divine substation and the Abrahamic covenant with the Temple offerings which are associated with Christ's work (notably Passover and Day of Atonement).

I could be wrong. I wrote a paper on this at one time and noted that there are clear teachings (divine substitution and atonement) and interpretation (my reading of Genesis 15). I try not to mix the two.

But I had the same question and this is the answer that satisfied my concern. I had always asked, "God could have forgiven us with a wink of the eye. Why did Christ have to die in our stead?"

Now that doesn't make the logic sound by modern 21st sensibilities so you may be disappointed with my answer. I took encouragement from it, namely that God's love for us from the get go was laid out that he would put his own skin in the game to guarantee humanity could be redeemed. I am not ashamed to say it brings great comfort to believe God bears our burdens and has our restoration at heart so much he would take our place. What some people see in Genesis 15 is an esoteric and outmoded cruel God killing animals, foretelling the suffering of people in Egypt (hey! if he knows it is gonna happen what kind of god doesn't prevent it to begin with!) yet I see the God most are familiar with in the New Testament who is making promises to remedy the human condition at great personal cost to pay debts we ourselves make.

 

[realibrad]

TLDR: we do take many things on faith. All sensible discussion accepts this as a valid process as humans take many things on faith if the source has been found reliable. The Bible presents a sizable hurdle as it presents itself as inerrant (unlike history and science which can be amended), many things cannot be verified at all, some things are difficult to reconcile, and most importantly in most cases even if events can be confirmed they cannot be sourced unequivocally to God as the source.

So why do people accept it on faith? Each person has a different reason everything from personal experience, passed down tradition or cultural influence, philosophy, the evidence meeting their bar of conviction, the hope or fear the Bible inspires, a composition of many of these points, etc. In general these fall short of the completely empirical levels of confirmation most skeptics demand for the most salient issues, namely is there proof regarding the Biblical God?

IMO this is where a lot of people start talking past each other and insults and derision ensue. Speaking as someone from the faith I would argue it is important for people of faith, when communicating with those who do not believe and have these questions, to not mock the position and acknowledge many things are taken on the basis of faith. Not everything of course (and I don't believe in blind faith and rejection of reason and evidence) but an honest admission and acknowledgement that we accept the Bible at least partially based on the principles of faith and being informed through a variety of sources (logic, philosophy, history, tradition, personal experience, etc.) other than empirical and reproducible tests of the divine goes a long way toward honest dialogue. We need to be honest with ourselves, first, to produce profitable dialogue. Some of the most compelling witnesses I have heard are those who confess purely personal experience which is invalid input for the skeptics I mention, but you will only know that if you first establish a baseline for the exchange.

Anything else is just yelling past each other and produces nothing.

There is a difference between blind faith, faith, and logic. Blind faith is a problem, and I dont see any justification for that.

Faith if placed in a person whom has shown to be correct about something is more credible, but that should only give you a starting point for lack of a better term. It should not give anyone a false idea that its fact.

Logic is different. This as you might assume is my position. I don't know that there is not a god, but the god(s) that have been explained to me dont seem logical. What seems most logical is that there is not a god, so I take the position that until there is sufficient evidence, I will remain an atheist. When new evidence comes along, I can change my mind, and further my understanding of the world. The problem with many religious people, is that they will not change their minds if it conflicts with the bible. It helps that most Christians I know don't know the bible, so they dont have to worry about the conflicts, but those who do have trouble.

Believing things without evidence simply means evidence cannot change your mind, and that seems very dangerous.

 

[sandorski]

It probably isn't helpful to use the word hell as it has been used to translate or refer to so many different words (sheol, abaddon, ge hinnom, hades, gehenna, tartarus, abyssos, the lake of fire). These are not identical concepts.

RE: Satan and hell.

Satan and his angels were bound (Revelation 20) and tossed into the pit (abyssos) which is likened to a prison. This may/may not be the same as Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4). After the 1000 year reign of Messiah, at that time, Satan, his angels, death, hades, and those who are judged and not found in the book of life are thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20).

Using hell for all these words is just confusing: Satan and his angels were bound (Revelation 20) and tossed into hell which is likened to a prison. This may/may not be the same as hell (2 Peter 2:4). After the 1000 year reign of Messiah, at that time, Satan, his angels, death, hell, and those who are judged and not found in the book of life are thrown into the hell (Revelation 20).

Sloppy use of words has hellish results.

RE: Adam and Eve and hell. In this case the lake of fire is for apostate heavenly hosts and for humans not in the book of life. Whether that was the plan for all lost humanity from the beginning or only since Revelation is kind of a moot point (God, since the publication of that book, has continued to allow humans to be born who would be destined to the lake of fire so the same general charge stands: God makes humans destined for the lake of fire.)

RE: "Hell was a Pagan idea that didn't get Biblical support until the New Testament". Not really. Exile is one of the first Biblical themes. The grave, a book of life, life after death, and judgment are all themes that can be found in the Hebrew Bible, most very early. Even if the exodus is denied there is clearly connections between Israel and Egypt (everything from loanwords to an intimate knowledge of the flood inundation cycle and its relation to Egypt's gods; see also the Armana Letters showing significant diplomacy between Canaan and Egypt in the 14th c. BCE and scarabs found in Canaan) which begs the question: Why would Israel have no concept of an afterlife considering Egypt's preoccupation with such? It seems clear to me there is a subtext of eternal life in the Hebrew Bible, to wit one of the first stories is about the Tree of Life. It is sloppy scholarship to insinuate borrowing as trees of life, underworlds, paradise, etc. are all pervasive concepts throughout the ancient Near East but developed differently in various religions. Probably the best example, as the Hebrew Bible well documents such, is the Temple (and tabernacle before which). It is a common tripartite long room design as so common in the Levant but how it functions (especially the image of God), food/sacrifices, etc. communicates and functions very differently. Form and function are not the same thing, a rule that extends to a lot of shared imagery and conceptual categories.

You really haven't provided a rebuttal of what I have said. All those Scriptures you cited were from the New Testament. The Egyptian gods/concepts were all, by definition, Pagan. That Egyptian artifacts and concepts were found in ancient Israel is not surprising given that Egypt was a Major Power and neighbour of ancient Israel. Judaism itself makes no reference to Hell, it is a concept from outside that Religion and it was Christianity that incorporates the concept into its' belief system while claiming to be a natural progression from Judaism.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I was being sarcastic as you apparently prefer to put your "faith" in a ridiculously questionable source that directly conflicts with hundreds, if not thousands, of years of expert analysis on this subject concluding Jesus existed. I thought the wikipedia link I provided would put this point to rest...so I don't understand why this is so hard for you. However, that said, if there is some specific point from the source you linked that you believe is compelling and wish to discuss, I'll be your huckleberry.

No thanks. You have already shifted the focus from the credibility of what it is claimed Josephus wrote, to the existence of Jesus.

And given this topic is about how millions of people no longer belong to, or never joined these cults. I see no reason to champion a movement that is advancing so well already.

I am eating a steak fajita I just made, and am tired from a long surf session. So my mood is far to good to muster up any argumentative replies. ()🙂

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Yea unfortunately all that logic, reason and humanism results in a really fucking BLEAK worldview. You are obviously hardcore where the thought of meaningless existence and death doesn't bother you. I wish that I had that. My genetic makeup prevents it for me and therefor I am doomed to misery and despair. At least Christianity can give you hope (if you can lose your ability to reason). I am so hoping for a new religion that promises heaven and meaning and doesn't blow out my logic meters.

Look brudda. Stop with the false attribution. My worldview is anything but bleak. I love, eat, surf, and do all the other things that make me happy. I require no other existence than the one I have to satiate me. I know it can be difficult to understand that others minds work so vastly different from your own, but there it is.

Time to wrap up another steak winjita. Soooo good.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Wow, that devolved fast. It went from a slip about Jesus writing so little, to a correction he didn't write anything "Christianity 101," to all scripture is authored by God you heretic... Oh well, if everyone wants to snipe and one up this thread is not longer conducive to anything profitable. The theory and process of inspiration is interesting topic but as noted above with my example "tell the disciples--and Peter" (see, Peter isn't a disciple!!) if that is how the exchanges are going to develop there is nothing to be gained in this thread.

The point really was that it's silly to talk about "Christianity 101" when there are more distinct versions of Christianity than there are micro breweries in the pacific northwest. Can you imagine any one of them trying to tell you that only their beer is "true beer"? That their recipe for their IPA is "beer 101"?

The tenets I listed are not exactly uncommon, either.

https://carm.org/statement-faith

 

[Ban Bot]

You really haven't provided a rebuttal of what I have said. All those Scriptures you cited were from the New Testament. The Egyptian gods/concepts were all, by definition, Pagan. That Egyptian artifacts and concepts were found in ancient Israel is not surprising given that Egypt was a Major Power and neighbour of ancient Israel. Judaism itself makes no reference to Hell, it is a concept from outside that Religion and it was Christianity that incorporates the concept into its' belief system while claiming to be a natural progression from Judaism.

Let's go back to what you said what I responded to:

I have read it and the whole Bible. I am not convinced you have since Hell was supposedly created for Satan and his Angels and not Adam and Eve. That said, Hell was a Pagan idea that didn't get Biblical support until the New Testament.

RE: Judaism and hell. You are wrong. Gehenna is a Jewish belief. And Jewish scripture (Daniel 12) clearly teaches a resurrection of condemnation. These beliefs pre-date Christianity.

I know a scholar who recently addressed the OT view of the afterlife of the "bad" dead on his blog. While the OT doctrine is not robust it definitely outlines enough material that Israelite religion had a view of an unpleasant afterlife for the dead. Daniel 12 is emphatic and, as noted, later Judaism does not have concept of "hell" (Gehenna) which is obviously not identical to "Christian" views as espoused by Dante but also not too dissimilar to some Christian sects.

These issues are not easily resolved by simple English words and presupposing simple, clearly demarcated concepts.


RE: "I am not convinced you have since Hell was supposedly created for Satan and his Angels and not Adam and Eve"

I attempted to explain the vast vocabulary on the topic which is often conflated under the heading "HELL" which are in fact different concepts. Revelation 20 indeed includes 3 of these and clearly are not the same thing. That didn't register as you are demanding you are correct.

So I will be more concise and blunt:

If by HELL you mean Tartarus/the abyss you are correct, this was made for Satan and his angels not Adam. But let it be known these words are not your typical words concepts for Hell. In fact they are typically rendered the Abyss or the Deep Pit or the like.

If by HELL you mean the Lake of Fire you are incorrect as it will be made not just for Satan and his angels but also Adam (man). The Lake of Fire is far and away the most common concept most associate with hell. It would really be up to you to show that hades, the abyss, and the lake of fire are the same. The text I cited makes that impossible.

I tried to open up more thoughtful exchange on this topic but since you are locked into the English concept of hell (and not the Biblical concepts related to the afterlife related to a variety of words sheol, hades, gehenna, etc.) there is no reason to continue this discussion.


RE: "The Egyptian gods/concepts were all, by definition, Pagan." This is going to be a problem of definition again. Their gods were all, to use the Biblical word, "strange" but that is not to say all Egyptian concepts are "pagan." Yes, Israel was not to worship Yahweh the way other nations worship their gods (Deu 6) but as I already stated as fact the ANE has a host of shared concepts and beliefs that cannot be distilled into direct borrowing.

I gave an exact example in the tripartite long room as an example. By your quote you consider that a "pagan" assimilation and as priori conclude due to the youth if Israel compared to their neighbors they borrowed everything and have nothing unique, i.e. everything is pagan. That is not how ANE studies work and for our discussion the Bible doesn't consider such things pagan. You are imposing a new criteria for pagan that is not worthy of exploration.

It is not dissimilar to your discussion of Hell--I took the time to detail the difficulties with your broad-stroke approach because there is no single word/concept for "Hell."

There is a worthwhile discussion for borrowing, dependency, shared history or origins, and convergent/parallel development in religious studies but the way you have framed the issue (Christianity infused paganism) and framing the concepts of Israel's ancient neighbors as pagan is, also, not a worthwhile line of discussion.

I have read it and the whole Bible. I am not convinced you have

Yep, this discussion isn't going anywhere.

 

[Ban Bot]

The point really was that it's silly to talk about "Christianity 101" when there are more distinct versions of Christianity than there are micro breweries in the pacific northwest. Can you imagine any one of them trying to tell you that only their beer is "true beer"? That their recipe for their IPA is "beer 101"?

The tenets I listed are not exactly uncommon, either.

https://carm.org/statement-faith

I agree. I only quoted you but it was the entire exchange that escalated from one posted saying something innocuous about Jesus not writing much (technically didn't write anything during his earthly life that has been passed down and the Gospels don't record him writing anything sans in the dirt iirc) turned into a flame about Christianity 101 and heresy. Oy vey!

Btw, your point about the variegated Christian beliefs is a keen observation. That is why some of my points are stated as vagaries but in other cases (e.g. delaminating words in a text like the vocabulary of "hell") can be more specific. It isn't being evasive but trying to articulate the difference between what is in the Bible versus what I believe.

I appreciate that observation as it is a step toward actual dialogue. Science is fantastic about having clear definitions; religion, not so much. e.g. as a matter of fact Protestants and Mormons use a lot of core terms but define them very differently. Frustratingly, it can be a challenge to dissect how tradition informs a worldview and separating what the text said in its historical context and what I believe it to mean.

Anyone who has done serious study knows that that last sentence is the root of all forms of discord in Christian history.

Anyways, thanks for the clarification and observation.

 

[sandorski]

Let's go back to what you said what I responded to:



RE: Judaism and hell. You are wrong. Gehenna is a Jewish belief. And Jewish scripture (Daniel 12) clearly teaches a resurrection of condemnation. These beliefs pre-date Christianity.

I know a scholar who recently addressed the OT view of the afterlife of the "bad" dead on his blog. While the OT doctrine is not robust it definitely outlines enough material that Israelite religion had a view of an unpleasant afterlife for the dead. Daniel 12 is emphatic and, as noted, later Judaism does not have concept of "hell" (Gehenna) which is obviously not identical to "Christian" views as espoused by Dante but also not too dissimilar to some Christian sects.

These issues are not easily resolved by simple English words and presupposing simple, clearly demarcated concepts.


RE: "I am not convinced you have since Hell was supposedly created for Satan and his Angels and not Adam and Eve"

I attempted to explain the vast vocabulary on the topic which is often conflated under the heading "HELL" which are in fact different concepts. Revelation 20 indeed includes 3 of these and clearly are not the same thing. That didn't register as you are demanding you are correct.

So I will be more concise and blunt:

If by HELL you mean Tartarus/the abyss you are correct, this was made for Satan and his angels not Adam. But let it be known these words are not your typical words concepts for Hell. In fact they are typically rendered the Abyss or the Deep Pit or the like.

If by HELL you mean the Lake of Fire you are incorrect as it will be made not just for Satan and his angels but also Adam (man). The Lake of Fire is far and away the most common concept most associate with hell. It would really be up to you to show that hades, the abyss, and the lake of fire are the same. The text I cited makes that impossible.

I tried to open up more thoughtful exchange on this topic but since you are locked into the English concept of hell (and not the Biblical concepts related to the afterlife related to a variety of words sheol, hades, gehenna, etc.) there is no reason to continue this discussion.


RE: "The Egyptian gods/concepts were all, by definition, Pagan." This is going to be a problem of definition again. Their gods were all, to use the Biblical word, "strange" but that is not to say all Egyptian concepts are "pagan." Yes, Israel was not to worship Yahweh the way other nations worship their gods (Deu 6) but as I already stated as fact the ANE has a host of shared concepts and beliefs that cannot be distilled into direct borrowing.

I gave an exact example in the tripartite long room as an example. By your quote you consider that a "pagan" assimilation and as priori conclude due to the youth if Israel compared to their neighbors they borrowed everything and have nothing unique, i.e. everything is pagan. That is not how ANE studies work and for our discussion the Bible doesn't consider such things pagan. You are imposing a new criteria for pagan that is not worthy of exploration.

It is not dissimilar to your discussion of Hell--I took the time to detail the difficulties with your broad-stroke approach because there is no single word/concept for "Hell."

There is a worthwhile discussion for borrowing, dependency, shared history or origins, and convergent/parallel development in religious studies but the way you have framed the issue (Christianity infused paganism) and framing the concepts of Israel's ancient neighbors as pagan is, also, not a worthwhile line of discussion.



Yep, this discussion isn't going anywhere.

After Life and the dominant Christian view of Hell are not the same. Neither is Gehenna the same as Hell, it seems more in line with the Catholic concept of Purgatory. Hell is a permanent place of torture, Gehenna/Purgatory are temporary places of cleansing. Whether the New Testament scripture has multiple levels of afterlife places of punishment is moot, for the dominant belief is in Hell itself.

Neither does it matter that certain Christian sects didn't or don't believe that a Hell exists at all. There were sects that didn't believe that Jesus was God or Divine. Others didn't believe he was even a Man, rather that he was an apparition or Ghost.

Like I said, by definition all non-Jewish gods/Religions were Pagan. All who didn't follow Judaism were Pagans to the Jews. Similarly, all who don't follow Christianity, except the Jews, are Pagans to Christians.

The only reason I discuss these things is to merely point out the obvious: There is no "God" behind any of this. Christianity in all its' forms is merely a mishmash of Religious concepts popular at the time in that region of the World. Even the story of Jesus lacks any originality, he was a collection of ancient memes made into one Religion that most people could relate to. Hell was just one more borrowed concept.

That meme borrowing doesn't even start with Jesus as far as the Bible as a whole is concerned. Noah and the Flood is a borrowed meme, the Rainbow also is borrowed(both the Flood and Rainbow make a whole lot more sense in their more original non-Jewish telling), details of Moses are borrowed also. The Bible is full of ancient stories that are merely retold with a fresh spin on them, much like many current Hollywood movies.

 

[JSt0rm]

This shit is more complicated then lord of the rings. Of course we have had thousands of years to make it as convoluted as possible. Maybe in a couple thousand years lotr will be a religion.

 

[Blackjack200]

This shit is more complicated then lord of the rings. Of course we have had thousands of years to make it as convoluted as possible. Maybe in a couple thousand years lotr will be a religion.

That would be like basing a religion on science fiction. :whiste:

 

[JSt0rm]

That would be like basing a religion on science fiction. :whiste:

Hey now. Dont make fun of my Scientology!

 

[bshole]

Let's go back to what you said what I responded to:

RE: Judaism and hell. You are wrong. Gehenna is a Jewish belief. And Jewish scripture (Daniel 12) clearly teaches a resurrection of condemnation. These beliefs pre-date Christianity.

I know a scholar who recently addressed the OT view of the afterlife of the "bad" dead on his blog. While the OT doctrine is not robust it definitely outlines enough material that Israelite religion had a view of an unpleasant afterlife for the dead. Daniel 12 is emphatic and, as noted, later Judaism does not have concept of "hell" (Gehenna) which is obviously not identical to "Christian" views as espoused by Dante but also not too dissimilar to some Christian sects.

These issues are not easily resolved by simple English words and presupposing simple, clearly demarcated concepts.


RE: "I am not convinced you have since Hell was supposedly created for Satan and his Angels and not Adam and Eve"

I attempted to explain the vast vocabulary on the topic which is often conflated under the heading "HELL" which are in fact different concepts. Revelation 20 indeed includes 3 of these and clearly are not the same thing. That didn't register as you are demanding you are correct.

So I will be more concise and blunt:

If by HELL you mean Tartarus/the abyss you are correct, this was made for Satan and his angels not Adam. But let it be known these words are not your typical words concepts for Hell. In fact they are typically rendered the Abyss or the Deep Pit or the like.

If by HELL you mean the Lake of Fire you are incorrect as it will be made not just for Satan and his angels but also Adam (man). The Lake of Fire is far and away the most common concept most associate with hell. It would really be up to you to show that hades, the abyss, and the lake of fire are the same. The text I cited makes that impossible.

I tried to open up more thoughtful exchange on this topic but since you are locked into the English concept of hell (and not the Biblical concepts related to the afterlife related to a variety of words sheol, hades, gehenna, etc.) there is no reason to continue this discussion.


RE: "The Egyptian gods/concepts were all, by definition, Pagan." This is going to be a problem of definition again. Their gods were all, to use the Biblical word, "strange" but that is not to say all Egyptian concepts are "pagan." Yes, Israel was not to worship Yahweh the way other nations worship their gods (Deu 6) but as I already stated as fact the ANE has a host of shared concepts and beliefs that cannot be distilled into direct borrowing.

I gave an exact example in the tripartite long room as an example. By your quote you consider that a "pagan" assimilation and as priori conclude due to the youth if Israel compared to their neighbors they borrowed everything and have nothing unique, i.e. everything is pagan. That is not how ANE studies work and for our discussion the Bible doesn't consider such things pagan. You are imposing a new criteria for pagan that is not worthy of exploration.

It is not dissimilar to your discussion of Hell--I took the time to detail the difficulties with your broad-stroke approach because there is no single word/concept for "Hell."

There is a worthwhile discussion for borrowing, dependency, shared history or origins, and convergent/parallel development in religious studies but the way you have framed the issue (Christianity infused paganism) and framing the concepts of Israel's ancient neighbors as pagan is, also, not a worthwhile line of discussion.

Yep, this discussion isn't going anywhere.

Do you believe that there is a place of endless suffering reserved for those who do not accept Jesus? I honestly can't tell from your posts. I will say that you use the biggest words of anybody on this thread, lol! You do a good job of making me feel stooopid.

 

[Retro Rob]

Even the story of Jesus lacks any originality, he was a collection of ancient memes made into one Religion that most people could relate to. Hell was just one more borrowed concept.

I'd just like to add, there were about 4000 years from when religion appeared in recorded detailed history, and when Christianity began.

Ideas about God/gods had millenniums to develop and change, so the similarities are mere coincidence. There are a finite set of ways you can define a god. The shorter the interval, the less you'll see similarities, the larger the interval, the greater the chance of similarities.

Its one thing to show similarities, its a completely separate issue to prove that someone stole from something. Sure, you can argue that X came first, but just because you buy the same car I bought years before I did, doesn't mean I stole your idea.

But since no one is alive from the time periods to deny/confirm, your guess is just as good as the next person's.

 

[sandorski]

I'd just like to add, there were about 4000 years from when religion appeared in recorded detailed history, and when Christianity began.

Ideas about God/gods had millenniums to develop and change, so the similarities are mere coincidence. There are a finite set of ways you can define a god. The shorter the interval, the less you'll see similarities, the larger the interval, the greater the chance of similarities.

Its one thing to show similarities, its a completely separate issue to prove that someone stole from something. Sure, you can argue that X came first, but just because you buy the same car I bought years before I did, doesn't mean I stole your idea.

But since no one is alive from the time periods to deny/confirm, your guess is just as good as the next person's.

Whether it was consciously stolen or not is really not the issue. What is the issue is authenticity of the claims. Especially the claims of Divine origins. Would a god with exclusivity, foresight, knowledge, and wisdom trickle out information to its' followers long after other followers of fake gods had made similar proposals? Seems extremely unlikely to me.

If one was to craft a new Religion with the ability of mass appeal, wouldn't it be crafted in such a way that most people would find it familiar?

Why are there so many divergent yet familiar stories/concepts all gathered together in Christiantiy if it wasn't just the product of the People who were part of it? We often talk about how divergent Christianity is today, but the current divergence is nothing even close to what existed in the first couple centuries of Christianity. So divergent that it's almost as if you guy just challenged a bunch of people to make their own Religion and call it "Christian" for shits and giggles to see whose would Win some prize.

 

[Retro Rob]

Would a god with exclusivity, foresight, knowledge, and wisdom trickle out information to its' followers long after other followers of fake gods had made similar proposals? Seems extremely unlikely to me.

Who knows? Perhaps this god was waiting for what he/it saw as more opportune time? Or perhaps the trickling of information would make people want more and seek it out?

Just ask more than the usual set of question that already feeds your preconceived expectations.

You seem to based your questions off of what YOU would do if you were a god/God.

 

[sandorski]

Who knows? Perhaps this god was waiting for what he/it saw as more opportune time? Or perhaps the trickling of information would make people want more and seek it out?

Just ask more than the usual set of question that already feeds your preconceived expectations.

You seem to based your questions off of what YOU would do if you were a god/God.

Why wouldn't I or anyone for that matter?