Philosophy Discussion Forums

In other words, it is only when we let go of our inadequate concepts of God that we can finally grasp divinity in its truth and purity.

This can just mean that one needs to go further in one's inquiry and come up with more adequate conceptions rather than abandon the quest altogether. As an example, Alan Watts was also an Anglican priest at one time, and did a pretty good job of comparing and critiquing Western and Eastern religions' conceptions of God in his book The Supreme Identity [ https://amzn.to/33MBubT ], and other books.

h_k_s wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 2:41 pm

anonymous66 wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 9:34 am

Have you ever read anything by or about Don Cupitt? He's an Anglican priest and someone who calls himself a "Christian non-realist". He thinks that we humans made up the idea of God, and believes that Jesus was a man who introduced a radical new humanistic philosophy. I'm also interested in Christian Atheism- I understand Christian Atheists to be people who like the humanistic traditions and teachings of Christianity- they just also happen to lack a belief in deities.

The various atheistic theories simply do not interest me.

I view them all as Satanic, although there is also a chance that someone like Bertrand Russell was driven to atheism simply by his own hard life during WW1 England. He was jailed for his anti-war and anti-propaganda views. 100 years later we now know he was right, that WW1 was a futile mistake, and that lying to the population through propaganda is immoral. However he was quite alone in his fight against them both back then. His ill treatment is what led him to conclude there is no God, although assuming such involves a plethora of contradictions and fallacies.

If you are given a hard life to bear, it is simply a test of your worthiness of the love of God. This theme is mentioned in Keanu Reeves's movie "Constantine." If you cannot bear it without denying God, then you are not worthy. End of test. You failed.

There are other reasons for atheism as well. Born with a silver spoon and no needs at all will also lead to atheism. These people are not very useful to God therefore there is no loss when they become lost.

I hope You realize that your opinion is Fallacious .
You assume there is a god (at least you assume there's one that fits the biblical description) and this concept of god probably wouldn't even exist if you had never been introduced to the Bible or people that have been indoctrinated by it. It is much more fallacious to claim a god than it is to deny I got because one requires burden of proof while the other does not .

MAYA EL wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2019, 10:56 pm

h_k_s wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 2:41 pm

The various atheistic theories simply do not interest me.

I view them all as Satanic, although there is also a chance that someone like Bertrand Russell was driven to atheism simply by his own hard life during WW1 England. He was jailed for his anti-war and anti-propaganda views. 100 years later we now know he was right, that WW1 was a futile mistake, and that lying to the population through propaganda is immoral. However he was quite alone in his fight against them both back then. His ill treatment is what led him to conclude there is no God, although assuming such involves a plethora of contradictions and fallacies.

If you are given a hard life to bear, it is simply a test of your worthiness of the love of God. This theme is mentioned in Keanu Reeves's movie "Constantine." If you cannot bear it without denying God, then you are not worthy. End of test. You failed.

There are other reasons for atheism as well. Born with a silver spoon and no needs at all will also lead to atheism. These people are not very useful to God therefore there is no loss when they become lost.

I hope You realize that your opinion is Fallacious .
You assume there is a god (at least you assume there's one that fits the biblical description) and this concept of god probably wouldn't even exist if you had never been introduced to the Bible or people that have been indoctrinated by it. It is much more fallacious to claim a god than it is to deny I got because one requires burden of proof while the other does not .

All opinions can be considered fallacious (not sure why you capitalized that -- adjectives never get capitalized in any language -- not even in German where they capitalize all nouns) by anyone who does not have a similar opinion.

anonymous66 wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 2:59 pm

h_k_s wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 2:41 pm

The various atheistic theories...

To be clear- Don Cupitt is not an atheist- he is a Christian non-realist. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/ ... es-dawkins

I am one of the now-unfashionable and increasingly beleaguered Church of England liberals who will be raising a glass next year to toast the 30th anniversary of the publication of the Revd Don Cupitt’s Taking Leave of God. Theological conserva­tives may not think there is much to learn from Cupitt’s arch-liberal classic, but they should think again.

The book’s provocative title ap­peared to say that we could dispense with God altogether, and many jumped to this conclusion, calling Cupitt a “Christian atheist”. In fact, Cupitt was trying to make theology more truthful: he wanted to purify our ideas of God rather than dis­pense with them.

The book’s title came from the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart: “Man’s last and highest parting comes when, for God’s sake, he takes leave of God.” In other words, it is only when we let go of our inade­quate concepts of God that we can finally grasp divinity in its truth and purity.

Meets my definition of atheist.

h_k_s wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2019, 10:58 pm

MAYA EL wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2019, 10:56 pm

I hope You realize that your opinion is Fallacious .
You assume there is a god (at least you assume there's one that fits the biblical description) and this concept of god probably wouldn't even exist if you had never been introduced to the Bible or people that have been indoctrinated by it. It is much more fallacious to claim a god than it is to deny I got because one requires burden of proof while the other does not .

All opinions can be considered fallacious (not sure why you capitalized that -- adjectives never get capitalized in any language -- not even in German where they capitalize all nouns) by anyone who does not have a similar opinion.

Sure kets insert that bold statement to deflect.

h_k_s: Meets my definition of atheist.

Yes... re: the quote, "In other words, it is only when we let go of our inadequate concepts of God that we can finally grasp divinity in its truth and purity."

What does that mean? Can Don Cupitt, in his great wisdom, tell us which concepts of God are adequate and which are not? If so, what are the adequate concepts and what makes them so?

MAYA EL wrote: ↑August 24th, 2019, 1:59 am

h_k_s wrote: ↑August 23rd, 2019, 10:58 pm

All opinions can be considered fallacious (not sure why you capitalized that -- adjectives never get capitalized in any language -- not even in German where they capitalize all nouns) by anyone who does not have a similar opinion.

Sure kets insert that bold statement to deflect.

You should learn to agree to disagree. That is the best strategy on a planet with 7+ billion people on it.

h_k_s wrote: ↑August 24th, 2019, 4:33 pm

MAYA EL wrote: ↑August 24th, 2019, 1:59 am
Sure kets insert that bold statement to deflect.

You should learn to agree to disagree. That is the best strategy on a planet with 7+ billion people on it.

Agree to disagree or be passive and conform? .
But if you don't want to have a discussion with me in particular then that is fine have a wonderful day.

h_k_s wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2019, 2:41 pm

The various atheistic theories simply do not interest me.

There are none. No atheist needs a theory to establish something which does not exist.

I view them all as Satanic, although there is also a chance that someone like Bertrand Russell was driven to atheism simply by his own hard life during WW1 England.

Satan does not exist either. Just another fantasy to make up for the gaps that theist fails to fill LOL

He was jailed for his anti-war and anti-propaganda views.

Hardly a problem for Russell. Given that "gentle" Jesus is supposedly a representative of god on earth, one would think that atheists would be found amongst the war mongers ,not the peacemakers!! But this is just one more massive contradiction among theists' confused ideas.
But I do not think a man of Russell's intellect was adversely affected by six months in Brixton prison for an act of conscience; especially a conscience far more "christian" that the vast majority of Christians baying for German blood

100 years later we now know he was right, that WW1 was a futile mistake, and that lying to the population through propaganda is immoral. However he was quite alone in his fight against them both back then. His ill treatment is what led him to conclude there is no God, although assuming such involves a plethora of contradictions and fallacies.
[/quote]
All the fallacies are on your side. Russell's position on this was crystal clear from the start to his end.

If you are given a hard life to bear, it is simply a test of your worthiness of the love of God. This theme is mentioned in Keanu Reeves's movie "Constantine." If you cannot bear it without denying God, then you are not worthy. End of test. You failed.

What a joke!
You try to ridicule Bertrand Russell one of the 20thC greatest minds with a childish pulp fiction acted by one of the 20thC's greatest air-heads

There are other reasons for atheism as well. Born with a silver spoon and no needs at all will also lead to atheism. These people are not very useful to God therefore there is no loss when they become lost.

So atheism is the result of both affluence and hardship!!

I think you are missing the far more obvious, and statistically established facts.
Atheism is the result of thinking.
Atheism predicts low with low intelligence and high with high intelligence and a good education.
Anyone who has taken the trouble to think through the stuff they were indoctrinated in from childhood have a far greater chance of finding the truth.
Those that are scared to think tend to stick with god.

I was a devout atheist based on reason after a rigorous Catholic childhood. By the time I reached 40 I figured there wasn't much point in suffering the debilities of old age so I planned to end my existence and I went to bed with the thought of carrying out the plan the following day. I sent myself to sleep with the mantra "If there is a God I need to know it."

There followed an intense period that I describe as "Possession". There was another intelligence sharing my thoughts, it was fantastic, and lasted for years and then it suddenly stopped. "Why have you forsaken me!", I get it, I was dumped and left to fall from the height I was elevated to.

The brains capacity to implement a survival mechanism? Possibly, but now I am a believer, but I don't pray unless I'm in dire straights (no atheists in foxholes)

dawwg said: There was another intelligence sharing my thoughts

Perhaps just a part of your self that you were previously unaware of? If one can follows the growth of one's persona back to early childhood, interesting discoveries can be made about the nature of consciousness and personality - attitudes adopted, social roles accepted, etc. Who were you prior to the conditioning?

Before, I was a nothing and a nobody, now I'm the Beast who might bring down those little tongues of fire representing the Holy Ghost "in the sight of men". Wouldn't that be great?

Revelation 13:13

I was a nothing and a nobody

That's true of each one of us, recognizing it is the beginning of wisdom.

Nobody for president! -- https://bit.ly/320sjCT

Re: Bertrand Russell and "secular" morality:

"It is of the greatest importance to inquire whether any method of strengthening kindly impulses exists. I have no doubt that their strength or weakness depends upon discoverable physiological causes; let us assume that it depends upon the glands. If so, an international secret society of physiologists could bring about the millennium by kidnapping, on a given day, all the rulers of the world, and injecting into their blood some substance which would fill them with benevolence towards their fellow-creatures. Suddenly M. Poincare would wish well to Ruhr miners, Lord Curzon to Indian nationalists, Mr. Smuts to the natives of what was German South West Africa, the American government to its political prisoners and its victims in Ellis Island.

But alas, the physiologists would first have to administer the love-philtre to themselves before they would undertake such a task. Otherwise, they would prefer to win titles and fortunes by injecting military ferocity into recruits. And so we come back to the old dilemma: only kindliness can save the world, and even if we knew how to produce kindliness we should not do so unless we were already kindly. Failing that, it seems that the solution which the Houynhnms adopted towards the Yahoos, namely extermination, is the only one; apparently the Yahoos are bent on applying it to each other." -- Bertrand Russell

steveb1 wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 12:21 am If those texts could be scientifically documented, it would help establish historicity for sure.

First off, I appreciate you bringing up this topic and asking these questions. I have copied notes of interesting comments from you and others, as this has been on my “mental shelf” for a while. I had watched a documentary suggesting Gnostics as the first Christians and saw Christ as a Spirit, not a man. I also remember reading how “Christ is not Jesus’s last name.” Jesus is a Latin name. Yeshua is Hebrew.

It seems that Constantine and earliest councils had major influence in bible canon. The details of that influence may never be fully known, as with much of his-story. When you have a corrupt group who strictly forbid lay people from owning a bible (in 1229) & killing people like William Tyndale (in 1536) just for translating the bible into English (the Roman Catholic church had declared Latin as the only language for scripture) - besides inquisition and crusades, you see how corrupt and untrustworthy it is.

As implied, Paul’s epistles &/or Hebrews is considered to be the earliest Christian writings (prior to 70 AD since Hebrews speaks of the temple in present tense - before its destruction). All of those earliest writings speak of Christ as a spirit, not a man.

Moreover, I deem spiritual books as symbolically rather than literally or historically true. Buddhist monks told trainee-monks to consider Buddha never having lived, so they would prioritize the spirit of the writings over a person. This approach ought to be applied to Christian doctrine, but is easier said than done because of corruption. Thomas Jefferson suggested it is as easy to distinguish between the gospels’ genius authors’ words, and inferior minds, as it is to distinguish between diamonds and dung. However, because of dogma that makes human sacrifice scapegoating as common belief as “pass the pepper” and the history of religious persecution, few seem able to distinguish between them. I have enjoyed some ideas of Jordan Peterson’s bible series (including Carl Jung’s symbolic ideas), though it’s primarily Old Testament.

Btw, Anybody know about the Silver Scrolls, found in 1983 in Old city Jerusalem & believed to be oldest bible text?