The Abrahamic Confinement Of Atheism

AfterInfinity
*sigh* There's so many things in that which I want to point out, question, examine, and end up junking...but I know full well that it's a pointless exercise. Maybe this thread in itself was a pointless endeavor. Did anyone really not know how it would end?

Well the topic was about atheists treating Christians differently than people of other religions. Considering that the thread has been focused on Christianity and the faults that come inherent with it... I'd say it's "living the subject matter" quite faithfully.

reply to post by Cuervo


My point exactly.

Although there is something to be said for the fact that the subject set itself up. In complaining about the focus, it set the focus. Y'know what I mean?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


What is the letter of the law, and what is the Law of Christ?

Can you tell me what the Law of Grace, the Law of Mercy and the Law of Christ are? As they all are in my Bible.

Oh, I am following the Law of Christ. Therefore that makes me Christian.

Bear One Another’s Burdens 6 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. 5 For each will have to bear his own load.

The law of Christ has always been spiritual, never the legalistic letter of the law. As Jesus kept the spirit of the law, through kindness, mercy and grace, then as a Christian, I am keeping His law, so that makes me a Christian.

So what law again were you referring to? As a Christian, the only law I must follow is the Law of Christ. Would you prefer me to be the old legalistic form, so then I would be a Phariseeical Jew? And not all Jews were Pharisees. I am not a Pharisee, therefore not obligated to keep former laws.

reply to post by WarminIndy

The law of Christ has always been spiritual, never the legalistic letter of the law. As Jesus kept the spirit of the law, through kindness, mercy and grace, then as a Christian, I am keeping His law, so that makes me a Christian.

So the Bible doesn't represent Jesus, as Jesus represents God? Is that what you're telling me? That every person who ever told me that the Bible was an ultimate authority didn't know what they were talking about? Because that's what I've been saying. That I have always been told there is no higher authority than God, and that the Bible is the authority of God instated upon earth through his son Jesus. That the Bible is just as much an instruction of Jesus and God, if not more so, as anything else. That the written law is in direct and perfect accordance with the will of the spirit of God. And that to defy the Bible's directives, and those who have been established as an authorized representative of such, is an assault on the authority of the Almighty.

Are you telling me that this is not true? It's a simple yes or no.

Cuervo

AfterInfinity
*sigh* There's so many things in that which I want to point out, question, examine, and end up junking...but I know full well that it's a pointless exercise. Maybe this thread in itself was a pointless endeavor. Did anyone really not know how it would end?

Well the topic was about atheists treating Christians differently than people of other religions. Considering that the thread has been focused on Christianity and the faults that come inherent with it... I'd say it's "living the subject matter" quite faithfully.

And not one Christian has disputed or attacked the OP. If we can live with them as our neighbors, then maybe they can live with us as neighbors as well?

I did hear this..."You Christian should be stoning Cuervo, because Cuervo is a witch and you Christians know you have to stone Cuervo for that"...I would think if I stoned you, then you have the right to throw the stone back at me.

But as neither of us wants to be blind or toothless, an eye for an eye is not in our laws.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

You're making it more complicated than it is, and I'm not playing that game.

Perhaps it is because you don't grasp spirituality?

Asatru, Taoism, Buddhism and Christianity are about spiritualism. How difficult is that to understand?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

The law of Christ has always been spiritual, never the legalistic letter of the law. As Jesus kept the spirit of the law, through kindness, mercy and grace, then as a Christian, I am keeping His law, so that makes me a Christian.

So the Bible doesn't represent Jesus, as Jesus represents God? Is that what you're telling me? That every person who ever told me that the Bible was an ultimate authority didn't know what they were talking about? Because that's what I've been saying. That I have always been told there is no higher authority than God, and that the Bible is the authority of God instated upon earth through his son Jesus. That the Bible is just as much an instruction of Jesus and God, if not more so, as anything else. That the written law is in direct and perfect accordance with the will of the spirit of God. And that to defy the Bible's directives, and those who have been established as an authorized representative of such, is an assault on the authority of the Almighty.

Are you telling me that this is not true? It's a simple yes or no.

edit on 11-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Let's break this down into multiples, as you have given multiple questions.

1: The Bible is inspired by God, Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. No, the Bible does not fully represent Jesus.
2: The Bible as the ultimate authority, No, the Word of God takes precedence. The Bible is merely a primary source document, that is all.
3: God is the ultimate authority. Yes, there's no higher authority than God.
4: The written law also contains spiritual law. Of which the spiritual law takes precedence.
5: You are referring to Catholic doctrine, based on man-made traditions. I am not Catholic and do not recognize the pope as the vicar of Christ. Therefore, the Catholic church holds no authority over me.

Are you only aware of Catholicism? Is Catholicism the ultimate authority and representative of Christianity?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Well, let's put 'er this way: if the Catholic church doesn't know what the hell it's talking about, then why would I trust any other establishment? They are run by the same kinds of people for the same kinds of reasons. If the Catholic church is suspect, they all are.

Including yours.

Also, if the written law sometimes runs contrary to spiritual law, then where is spiritual law established? What do we refer to for concrete spiritual guidance and protocol? Is there a psychic rule book somewhere? And why was the law written in such a manner if it contradicts spiritual law? There's so many questions here...

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Well, let's put 'er this way: if the Catholic church doesn't know what the hell it's talking about, then why would I trust any other establishment? They are run by the same kinds of people for the same kinds of reasons. If the Catholic church is suspect, they all are.

Including yours.

Also, if the written law sometimes runs contrary to spiritual law, then where is spiritual law established? What do we refer to for concrete spiritual guidance and protocol? Is there a psychic rule book somewhere? And why was the law written in such a manner if it contradicts spiritual law? There's so many questions here...

edit on 11-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Well, you don't know my establishment.

And the Protestant Reformation happened because some people took the same view as you, they questioned authority and misrepresentation.

The Spiritual law is established in the heart. As God said "I will write my laws on their hearts".

We look to God for spiritual guidance and protocol.

There is no psychic rule book, it just means that you are willing to seek God. And God has written laws on your heart too. That's the moral code you live by.

Why was the Jewish laws of Moses written? There has to be written laws for any society, that only makes sense. But the Bible does say "the Gentiles do by nature those things which are contained in the the law, therefore are a law unto themselves". Do you need a written law to tell you not to do something, if already it is in your heart?

You have killed the message because of the messenger. Not all Christians seek to misrepresent the law of Christ, that is written in our hearts.

I will tell you this plainly, seek God first. Don't trust a preacher to tell you what he thinks it means. If you don't trust, and you have questions, that is what should be happening, rather than blindly putting yourself under the dictates of someone else that has not sought God. I am not asking you to trust me, all I ask is that you don't assume anything about me. The seeking is your responsibility. I can only tell you what I know, nothing more than that. I am not God, only God is. I can give you suggestions and maybe a message I hear from there, but I cannot replace God.

So don't assume that all Christians know God and neither assume that we all don't. I question preachers all the time, there's nothing wrong with that. I even argued with a priest from a Catholic church. He had to listen and answer, because he was not higher than me, and I was not lower than him. It is ok not to trust people, that's why we say "have faith in God" and "put your trust in NO man".

But as the OP said, these attacks against all Christians are based in misrepresentation and assumption. And it isn't fair to target Christians, placing us in a higher moral category, just to attack, and thereby, attacking through a double-standard.

reply to post by WarminIndy


That tells me no system is utterly reliable, as they all call each other into question by the flaws they all share. Yours falls short because it makes the same mistakes or oversights in different areas from the systems it attempts to surpass.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

That tells me no system is utterly reliable, as they all call each other into question by the flaws they all share. Yours falls short because it makes the same mistakes or oversights in different areas from the systems it attempts to surpass.

Have I said anything to suggest mine is surpassing anyone else?

When they are designed by man, yes. Humanity is utterly unreliable. That's why we are looking for something beyond humanity. Science can only look at humanity and the universe, but cannot fix humanity. Even scientists are utterly unreliable when they themselves disagree about the nature of the universe.

Science is utterly unreliable, it can only tell you that 2 + 2 = 4, but it cannot tell you whether 2 or 4 is good or bad. The law of nature is utterly unreliable because it has failed humanity. You have been told that you are the product of evolution, survival of the species is utterly dismal, it has put some people born into very awful places and some in very good places. But science tells us that it is the way it should be, so no compassion and no mercy from nature. And evolution can only say that if a male and female breed, then another byproduct of evolution happens. It doesn't place any moral compunction on the utterly unreliable humanity to stop the survival of the species.

So you have utterly unreliable people still a dismal product of what you would think would be a wonderful thing. Spirituality recognizes this and attempts to stop dismal products from the continued contamination of this planet. But then one would say "Is this what God designed" if God designed utterly dismal humanity, then it's His fault so don't believe in Him? That's what science says, there is no hope for humanity that has been dictated to remain utterly dismal and will continue to remain, if they continue surviving.

But spirituality says "wait a minute, if we were once in perfection, can we be again?" We seek something greater and higher than the laws that dictated nothing more than our eye color and where we born. You choose not to believe in God because God is at fault, but God cannot be at fault if He doesn't exist. But God did a funny thing, He chose to give humanity the right to act on its own free will, be its own moral agent. And humanity, in its utterly unreliable way, screwed it up. They screwed it up so much, that in order to not take any blame, then said "That's who created us, evolution". Evolution did not grant free will to live in the first place, or live in peace. All evolution did was give you an outward appearance. It didn't grant you morality. And utterly unreliable people interpreted science for you, to ease your conscience. It's not your fault, you are simply a product.

That's the sum total of you and me according to the utterly unreliable humans, we are just products of chance. But in recognizing God or a great power or mind out there, then we know that we are more than just products of chance, that there is a purpose for our existence and to let others know they are more than just dismal creatures. Yes, you are human, and if you are just at the top of the food chain, then where does morality come from? If morality is inward, science does not even give you a reason to act upon it. The law of nature vs. the law of spirit, both defined by utterly unreliable humanity.

If science were reliable, then the laws should be set in stone as well, but they aren't either. So which system is the most unreliable? Science, that changes by every scientist, through the same observations but different interpretations, or religion that has sought to prove something beyond what is in flux, and through our observations arrive at different interpretations as well?

Non-belief has not helped humanity either, because humans are humans. The laws of nature who scientists say made humanity gives it no accountability, but religion gives accountability. So which is more unreliable?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

A long list of cheap spiritualists and an historical incident of profound idiocy. What else is new? I stand by what I said before.

Maybe you have an unorthodox defintion of 'mysticism', then. Or maybe you just like arguing with people.

They may be cheap spiritualists to you, but they're mystics to anyone who understands what mysticism is, even if they are not of the same religion. There is no need to be so uncharitable. I am an atheist and nobody's mystic, yet I respect and can appreciate these traditions and the insights achieved by their practitioners.

Your anger, my friend, often seems very close to hunger.

reply to post by WarminIndy

In fact, many Christians have been mystics.

Indeed, to those who are familiar with his career but don't think he was God in human shape, it is rather obvious that Jesus himself was a mystic.

Astyanax
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

In fact, many Christians have been mystics.

Indeed, to those who are familiar with his career but don't think he was God in human shape, it is rather obvious that Jesus himself was a mystic.

And that's a fair statement. Thank you for that.

reply to post by Cuervo

Considering that the thread has been focused on Christianity and the faults that come inherent with it... I'd say it's "living the subject matter" quite faithfully.

Well, I've been trying to get some traction here on the allied subjects of karma and Theravada Buddhism, but none of you seem to want to play; not even the OP, who (I now suspect) is an evangelical Christian with an axe to grind against unbelievers and a rather novel way of stirring the fewmet-soup.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Science is utterly unreliable, it can only tell you that 2 + 2 = 4, but it cannot tell you whether 2 or 4 is good or bad. The law of nature is utterly unreliable because it has failed humanity. You have been told that you are the product of evolution, survival of the species is utterly dismal, it has put some people born into very awful places and some in very good places. But science tells us that it is the way it should be, so no compassion and no mercy from nature. And evolution can only say that if a male and female breed, then another byproduct of evolution happens. It doesn't place any moral compunction on the utterly unreliable humanity to stop the survival of the species.

This goes too far. Defending your position is one thing; leveraging the sympathy of others to slander science and truth is not acceptable.

Science cannot tell you that two is good and four is bad, or whatever. That is not its purpose; we have moral codes and ethical systems to help us judge such things, we don't need science. Science tells us nothing about the way things 'should' be; it merely shows us things as they are. Far from having failed humanity, it has been of enormous value to us.

Incidentally, feelings of compassion and mercy may exist only in human hearts, but altruism, mutual aid, affection and self-sacrifice all exist among animals. Science has even given us a means of predicting the likelihood of an act of altruism occurring in any given situation.

But that is neither here nor there. It suffices that science strikes the chains of superstition and ignorance from our minds; we have no right to expect it to teach us also how to live.

Science is a human activity. As such, its conclusions are inherently unreliable. All scientists accept this; but they and the establishment of which they are part go to great lengths to ensure that its results are as reliable as humanly possible. Generally, when something is shown to be true by the rigorously applied scientific method, it almost certainly is true — though it may be part of a greater or deeper truth that is not yet glimpsed, as (for example) Newtonian mechanics is now known to be a special case of a greater, deeper truth known as relativistic mechanics.

Religion, too, is a human activity. Its conclusions are far from reliable, but its practitioners go to great lengths to pretend that they are. That is the real difference between science and religion.

WarminIndy

Thank you Cuervo.

The words of Jesus take priority for us, yes, they absolutely should. And that's the point maybe AfterInfinity does not understand.

As you are a follower of Asatru, then whatever lies in those words that you hold sacred, then they take priority over what someone else might come along and say, as you have indicated. I am sure not all Vikings went to Valhalla, as some of them did not die in battle, but from sickness and old age. But if one were a good warrior and did attempt to give all, then Valhalla was still held a place for them.

But if we went by strict legalism, then one can only go to Valhalla if they died in battle. But should we then say all people who follow this then must go out and raid, pillage and plunder just so they can go to Valhalla? Well, that's what Islam says, that to go to Djenna as a martyr, one must kill everyone else and themselves to get there in a jihad. And if that strict legalism still applied to the Japanese Shinto, then they should all still be Kamikazi pilots or committing Hari Kari, all for their emperor.

But not all Muslims are willing to blow people up, no Asatru follower is raiding, pillaging and plundering, no Shinto is flying into ships. And if we don't expect them to follow their previous legalism (neither do we want them to), then that does not mean they are not Muslim, Asatru or Shinto.

I don't know why I didn't see this post earlier. I'm not Asatru; I was just using that as an example. My pantheon is mostly Sumerian and Babylonian with some European/Celtic influence. That aside, I totally understand what you are saying. One advantage of my religion is that my religion does not dictate who my deities are but only a common system of honoring them. This makes it very easy to accept the beliefs of others.

The mythology in my pantheon is every bit as outlandish as the Christian mythology so I have to use discernment and realize that it's all an analog for actions that took place. The difference is that my contemporaries don't hold guilt over one another's head about taking it literally like the church does with Christians. I think that's why I feel for Christians who are in your position because I feel like you are what will make your religion survive beyond the next 50 years yet your own institutions feel like you are destroying "their" religion.


ps edit - I'll watch that video when I get a chance, thanks.

reply to post by Astyanax


People often mistake my criticism for anger. Its not. Its disappointment driven by practicality.

reply to post by Astyanax


I think that I placed it on the same level as religion to prove a point, as I did say both establishments are unreliable if they they are left to the human individual to dictate the interpretations.

There have been indeed great benefits from science, but it's not science per se, it's the interpretations of the observer what counts.

But science also has led to great persecution against others of humanity, and I think it only reasonable to point that out. Someone can blindly follow a scientific principle from a scientist and still end up doing horrible things, in the name of science. Eugenics is based in science. When we are talking about science, we must also include Scientific Ethics. Science has played a part is subjugation and destruction of humanity as well, so we can't leave that out of the discussion. For instance, Walter Plecker was a doctor who created the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924". This led to the One-Drop rule and Jim Crow, segregation and legal basis for euthanasia and forced sterilization, of which the very scientific Nazis used in their propaganda and cited in the Nuremburg Trials. But the Nazis set out to scientifically prove the superiority of the Aryans. And science has created the greatest power known to mankind, in the atomic bomb.

So scientific interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. When people who are anti-religious choose to point out the flaws of religion, then it is only right to point out the flaws of scientists, who do hold popular opinion in our society. That's what makes it utterly unreliable, when scientists with no ethics or no compassion are left to their own devices without challenge, do terrible things in the name of science. There are good scientists just as there are bad scientists. Do that make science itself flawed, or does it make the scientific establishment flawed? I think we could say the scientific establishment is flawed if scientists with no ethics are allowed to thrive.

Karma to them is defined as an action with a result, kind of like "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

I don't think people like the challenge against scientists, of which I believe would be the proper charges should apply, because the scientific establishment is what is flawed, not science itself. And maybe that's the thing people are not able to see, they can't separate the scientists from science, knowing that every scientists is a human being with a worldview. Placing science on a pedestal without recognizing that scientific interpretation comes from a flawed human, is also dangerous.

Everybody quotes Einstein, (I think he is the most quoted person today), so here's what Einstein said

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

I believe the point I am making is toward the establishment which is comprised of the same flawed humanity. It should be fair then make the scientific community as accountable, which is what reasonable, rational thinking people should do, instead of blindly following a person who might lead them into something horrific.