This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

whatever

What am I supposed to look up?
Pastors who say they are not religious?
Maybe you could link to one thing that you would like to challenge.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sermon+on+danger+of+religion+%2b+youtube&&view=detail&mid=47F3149EDF2B0F41663247F3149EDF2B0F416632&&FORM=VRDGAR

this is just one of many. Google "sermon on religion" + youtube or "sermon on danger of religion" + youtue on google or bing.

I'm not convinced you tried to do a search yourself.

But the earliest church took the strands of the record (passed on by recounting stories) and made executive decisions about what would be kept and what would not be kept. We don't have the minutes of those editing sessions. — Bitter Crank

We should not assume that these stories were intended to be historical records. The practice of chreia, found in compositional textbooks used to teach writing and rhetoric, called Progymnasmata were standard pedagogical exercises that school students at that time learned. A chreia is defined as: a brief statement or action that is aptly attributed to some person. Something that is "aptly attributed" is not something the person actually said or did but shows us something about that person. These rhetorical practices influenced the writing of the gospels (see David B. Gowler's article in "The Historical Jesus in Context").

As to "minutes of those editing sessions" we have the writings of Irenaeus, including "Against Heresies", which rejects gospels influenced by Gnosticism. He appealed to the "rule of faith" which he described as:

…this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race…

Gospels that supported these beliefs were included and those that did not were rejected as heretical.

We should not overlook the importance of inspiration, but this cuts both ways. Literally the indwelling of spirit, inspiration was considered the word of God, the Holy Spirit, except, of course, when the inspired writing did not fit the criteria set out in the orthodoxy of the rule of faith.

The gospel of Mark was problematic because it originally ended with the empty tomb. No story of resurrection. The solution was to add a new ending.

This pastor is speaking rhetorically in regards to the use of the word "religion" in order to express a religious thought.

yeah i didn't watch the video. Your right it was a stupid topic for a discussion.

Until i do further research or come to the complete realization of the following opinion or fact that pastors do not typically say religion is bad. yes i agree this was a bad topic for a discussion. If i am allowed in the future i will post future topics.

Whoa, I did not say it was stupid. I don't happen to agree with this pastor's rhetoric although I understand what is intended by its use.

Do you have a view of the religious that you are interested in expressing or challenging?

I adhere to what I consider to be the basic tenet of Christianity — Possibility

That would include the idol worship of a genocidal son murdering god. Right?

Is that not a turn off for you from a moral POV?

Regards
DL

no, it wouldn’t.

I adhere to what I consider to be the basic tenet of Christianity - to follow the teachings and example of Jesus (as I understand them) — Possibility

I don’t do worship, of idols or otherwise, and I don’t interpret from the bible that Jesus is ‘the son of God’, nor do I interpret ‘God’ as literally described or defined by human beings in politically, ideologically or culturally motivated texts. If you think he taught or did any of that, then I don’t think you’ve read the bible for your own understanding, without a predetermined agenda.

The words of the bible are words of human beings who lived thousands of years ago, interpreting real spiritual experience and then using those words as tools to further certain ends. What I understand to be ‘God’ is not a god at all.

I don’t do worship — Possibility

IOW, you have created your own god, without looking at, or not accepting, the biblical narrative.

Why then do you call yourself a Christian?

You say you do not read the bible literally, but must if you are to believe in a literal Jesus.

This might interest you.

Jesus for the non religious - Retired bishop John Spong on religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUmKEH9jnu8

Regards
DL

I have followed the biblical narrative as a journey in developing awareness of God, and it has led me to interact with God in a different way than the majority interpret as ‘Christian’. That doesn’t mean I ignore the bible at all - on the contrary.

I never said I believe in a ‘literal Jesus’ - I’m not even convinced he existed as an ‘historical’ character. I would say I believe in the literary Jesus, and I’m quite familiar with Bishop Spong, thank you. Progressive Christianity is a faith community in which I feel most at home.

I consider my self a christian and i blame money hungry pastors with an over simplified message on the dying Christian church. Thats my personal view.

Why do christian pastors feel the need to say christianity is not a religion? — James Statter

Oddly, it's at once what all religious folk should claim and the very height of hypocrisy.

If something is known to be true then it's not a belief, it's just the way things are, so in that way a religion may not be a religion. The problem is twofold however, firstly, if you know something then you can explain it. No one can explain the vagaries in religious beliefs. A religious authority may claim that such things are beyond human comprehension and therefore cannot be explained. That doesn't negate the fact that they still don't know.

Secondly, if you know something is true then you'll behave accordingly. For example, if you knew with certainty that if you followed the law you'd literally receive a heavenly reward, and it was impossible to avoid the most severe punishment conceivable for any transgression, you'd follow the law. In truth, the heaven/hell polarization is neither realistic or particularly motivating.

It's not that religious people don't value truth, it's that they value solidarity with a group, a group who shares their values and goals, more than they value truth. When someone says that they're "a religious person," to me that means that they value solidarity with a particular group more than they value truth. It's not a declaration of virtue. The solidarity that they value could be expressed in rather unvirtuous ways.

I never said I believe in a ‘literal Jesus’ - I’m not even convinced he existed as an ‘historical’ character. I would say I believe in the literary Jesus, — Possibility

You break the law of the excluded middle.

You cannot both believe Jesus to be a historical and literal being and his not being a literal and real being.

Perhaps you made a grammatical error.

Regards
DL

I consider my self a christian and i blame money hungry pastors with an over simplified message on the dying Christian church. Thats my personal view. — James Statter

What compels you to be a Christian and follow a genocidal son murdering god and his homophobic and misogynous religion?

Regards
DL

It's not that religious people don't value truth, it's that they value solidarity with a group, a group who shares their values and goals, more than they value truth — praxis

That is the crux of the matter.

Religions are created to take advantage of our normal tribal instincts and fellowship needs.

Regards
DL

I am a Christian in that I believe Christ was enlightened and was a truly moral person. I do not take the Bible to be the infallible “Word of God”. It’s stories are indeed myths with lessons to be learned. Some are good myths. Some are just asinine.

I believe in a higher consciousness that created the universe, and this is what I call “God”. I cannot fathom how inanimate matter collects itself and organizes itself so that it can become self-aware without some kind of divine guidance. I have yet to hear a convincing argument how this would be possible as an accident of nature. We are all “gods” in that we are all conscious, and I believe consciousness is of a spiritual nature, being so unexplainable and mysterious. It seems to me our consciousness was purposefully created by a higher consciousness. I find this to be an abductive inference for the existence of God’s consciousness. I find it to be a better inference than that matter accidentally collected and organized itself into conscious beings.

Edit: I posted this in the wrong thread, but it’s probably fine here, too.

I attempted to answer some of this question elsewhere but how is the God of the Bible misogynistic?

Do you believe wives should obey their husbands? What about what the Bible says about women’s rights?

I believe if a woman gets married the man will get nothing out of the marriage if the woman doesn't take a slightly lower position than the man. Most marriages end in divorce because people in our day don't understand this. Yes i do believe a married woman should submit on some level to her husband.

Edit: I posted this in the wrong thread, but it’s probably fine here, too — Noah Te Stroete

I answered at the other location and hope you reply there.

Regards
DL

I attempted to answer some of this question elsewhere but how is the God of the Bible misogynistic? — James Statter

For one, he forgot that men need women to reproduce when he created Adam without his rib woman.

I do not think I said god was misogynous. I often say that Christianity is as well as being homophobic.

Their misogyny is plainly seen in Gen 3 when god says--- he shall rule over you, as well as in the



Regards
DL

if you read all of 1 Timothy chapter 2 that is in regards to inside the Church and women can teach other women in the church as well as children. I don't have a problem with that verse when you read the whole book of 1st Timothy. Nice picture that you put along with that verse. (sarcasm)

That quote was intended for someone else i think you misread the title of that post because i was talking to someone else.

i think homosexuality is a sin just like pornography and the sports illustrated swimsuit addition is a sin so yes i guess that would make it homophobic. Alot of women would agree with me on that.

Personally i have no problem with women being in charge but that being said i do not believe women should have the same pay if they don't do the same work. If they do the same work they should get paid more or the same as men. Also in blue collar jobs women very often get away with a lot of things that men do not get away with. I've been wrong before though.

Gnostic Christian Bishop i'm guessing you are either 30 or older and there is little to no chance you'll ever be a normal christian so i'm probably wasting my time talking to you with any urgency or you are 20 something and perhaps some one somewhere will change your mind about something. I guess i'll do a search on gnosticism and discover its like some new age religion.

or you are 20 something and perhaps some one somewhere will change your mind about something. — James Statter

That sounds like you are trying to convert him rather than having a friendly discussion. Evangelism isn’t allowed here.

Nope your wrong. Discussing philosophy is a form of evangelism and no i could care less if he believes 1+1 = 4 or if 1+1 = 10. I'm not trying to evangelise anyone.

kick me dont kick me i really dont care

Discussing philosophy is a form of evangelism — James Statter

Maybe. It depends on your intentions.