anti-christ discussion, from middle p. 3 to end.

[Jersey Girl]

I will come back to this. I'm waiting for a live thing to get started right now.

ETA: What I am saying to you in my reply is if you are directing your comments towards my posts, please put my name on it so I know it's about me. I know huck was posting here as well, though I haven't read any new comments he might have made once I got into reading/replying with honor. I don't mind being singled out by name. Nail me to a wall if you like only please put my name on it otherwise it comes off as vague posting and confuses me.

[huckelberry]

I mean, isn’t this really boils down to what people do with the scriptures? It’s allegory when needed, literal when wanted, and anachronistic when inconvenient? I think Honor is asking some pretty straightforward questions that are being, well, rudely brushed aside or ignored. Answering simple questions with, perhaps, esoteric hot takes seems like dodging.

- Doc

Doc, can be frustrating as you say. Hang is the Bible is actually a confusing mix of different kind of writings and there is no key to be sure which is which. Jesus tells stories I assume are fiction to present a message or perhaps create questions. I have run into individuals who thought the stories had to have literally have happened. Wierd. I think it is clear that there are old folk stories recreated to contain ideas which might be called spiritual. There is a good deal of history retold and reshaped for that same purpose. There are songs and long reflections on general events. There are even bits of history told just because it happened. If one askes the message of some things, S.. happens may be the clearest answer in some cases.

Ok, you already know this but still people do not always agree on what is what.

I know people say the Bible is the answer book, sometimes I think it is the Question book.

/////////////

By the way, I do not remember the phrase fallen world appearing in the Bible. I did a quick online Bible word search and did not come up with a source. I think I can still be Biblical (a silly phrase sometimes) and still agree with Honorentheos that fallen world is a poor idea.

[Jersey Girl]

I mean, you ARE having a good exchange. You're both being thorough and thoughtful. Perhaps I was reading too much into your lengthy answer to Honor as a dodge. To recap:

Hey huck. What do you think about calling it a corrupted world? That's how I think about it.

To put this another way, Jersey Girl, what prevents us from telling children that don't behave like mature and self realized adults they are fallen and corrupt?

You said:

The same thing that doesn't prevent parents from telling their children they are losers, evil, screwed up, hopeless, ugly, worthless, stupid, pieces of crap, and idiots.

Nothing.

Parents “F” with their children's heads every day of the week. Not all parents. But there are plenty who emotionally and psychologically abuse their children probably because the parents themselves lack skill and competency.

I took that as a sidestep to the question at the heart of the matter, which is something to the effect that this is the world as we have it, have always known it to be, and it'll forever be based on observable data - so how do you tell kids the world sucks because humans, them, suck?

Within Christian theology there exists a LOT of philosophy that we humans are totally the worst, we did this to ourselves, and unless we're not the product of the natural course of events, but rather because we're inherently flawed.

So. Honor basically said two things:

1) We have nothing but this world to compare reality to.

2) Within Christian theology you're left with telling children, who will then become adults, that they're the worst.

You then basically said:

1) ?

2) Naw, dawg, that's effed up.

That feels like a dodge. My apologies if I missed a clear answer to his two questions.

- Doc

Cam I am just posting your whole reply as-is. Bear with me, it's gonna look like a mess.


honor: To put this another way, Jersey Girl, what prevents us from telling children that don't behave like mature and self realized adults they are fallen and corrupt?

Jersey Girl: The same thing that doesn't prevent parents from telling their children they are losers, evil, screwed up, hopeless, ugly, worthless, stupid, pieces of crap, and idiots.

Nothing.

Parents “F” with their children's heads every day of the week. Not all parents. But there are plenty who emotionally and psychologically abuse their children probably because the parents themselves lack skill and competency.

I am telling honor that there is nothing preventing us from telling children that if they don't behave like self actualized adults, they are fallen and corrupt. My point is that the descriptions in the Bible don't change how parents treat their children. Parents demoralize their own children on a regular basis and always have, they don't need phrases and concepts to do it. In other words, the phrases themselves are a moot point, Biblical or otherwise.


Let's go here...

Now it's me and you, Cam.


Cam: I took that as a sidestep to the question at the heart of the matter, which is something to the effect that this is the world as we have it, have always known it to be, and it'll forever be based on observable data - so how do you tell kids the world sucks because humans, them, suck?

Jersey Girl: Why are you asking how we tell kids the world sucks because humans (them) suck? I think that's wrongheaded. Did you see where I wrote about observations, cause/effect/examining the behaviors/activity and the outcomes IN the world as we know it and attached sociology right to it? That is what I am talking about. No one has to tell their children that humans suck. Why do you think that is so? I am tempted to call straw man but I don't think that's your intention at all--because I don't think you “F” around with me here. What makes you draw the conclusion that you have to tell children that humans (and by extension, they) suck?

That's the kind of thing that parents do to their children when they say the other parent sucks. The other parent is part of them. In the above case, we are talking about humans overall and telling the child that humans suck.

Is that the only option you can think of?

We don't need to tell our children that humans suck and by extension that they suck, too. We teach children from the very beginnings of life about human interactions and human behavior. At various stages, we teach (who am I kidding, most parents don't have a blessed clue about developmental stages or cognition, or how to teach their children--that's another topic so shut up, Jersey) and guide children through a myriad of first-hand experiences. We help them to think about how their behavior affects others and themselves, and recognize the consequences of behaviors.

We don't need to tell them that the entire world and all the humans in it, suck. We help them to learn which behaviors suck, how to deal with them if confronted, how to avoid behavior in anti-social ways and help them think and learn about pro-social behaviors that result in positive and desired outcomes.

Back to my exchanges with honor...

You know I observe people like a pathological nutjob, right? I know from experience and observation, that honor thinks and expresses himself far differently than I do. I know that the sum total of his in real life experiences, his work, his preferences in literature and his adeptness at using it, his interests, his knowledge base, and his "orientations" if you will, are far different than my own. It's not easy for honor and myself to get on the same page, but I think as we continued through the exchanges we reached a point of understanding the other person and if not, he's just patronizing me and thinking "My god she's stupid" so he blew me off and thanked me.

But I don't see honor that way at all unless he's trying to spare my feelings which would be okay, but I would rather someone point out how screwed up my thinking is and give me a chance to better refine my thinking or learn to express it better. And, if I misunderstood his intentions or questions, I want to know that, too. Just like I followed up with you here. There are certain things on this board that matter to me. Communication regarding topics or subtopics that are important to me is one of them. Like I wouldn't give sg the time of day, honor or you and several others here, I would make a strong effort to correct course if needed and get on the same page.

First you say we made an effort to be thorough, then in the next virtual breath you say you took my lengthy post as a dodge. Which is it? It's either an effort or a dodge, isn't it? FYI: If I wanted to dodge something I'd straight up dodge. The very last thing I would do is go through the time and effort to express myself when an economy of words would suffice as a dodge and get me out of a tight squeezing position. Only I don't avoid the tight squeezing position to start with. I want it. I welcome it. I used to participate in lengthy discussion going 300 posts one:one with adversaries. I WANT that to happen, but it hardly ever happens here.

So I try to express myself as best and completely as I can and you see obfuscation only I'm being thorough at the same time? It can't be both, Cam.

I can “F” around in Paradise 'til the cows come home. I saw a place where I wanted to intersect this thread based on honor's comments. Let's see if he feels like continuing, lost interest or just doesn't care to hear from me any further. Any of those choices are okay with me.

[Jersey Girl]

I mean, isn’t this really boils down to what people do with the scriptures? It’s allegory when needed, literal when wanted, and anachronistic when inconvenient? I think Honor is asking some pretty straightforward questions that are being, well, rudely brushed aside or ignored. Answering simple questions with, perhaps, esoteric hot takes seems like dodging.

- Doc

Doc, can be frustrating as you say. Hang is the Bible is actually a confusing mix of different kind of writings and there is no key to be sure which is which. Jesus tells stories I assume are fiction to present a message or perhaps create questions. I have run into individuals who thought the stories had to have literally have happened. Wierd. I think it is clear that there are old folk stories recreated to contain ideas which might be called spiritual. There is a good deal of history retold and reshaped for that same purpose. There are songs and long reflections on general events. There are even bits of history told just because it happened. If one askes the message of some things, S.. happens may be the clearest answer in some cases.

Ok, you already know this but still people do not always agree on what is what.

I know people say the Bible is the answer book, sometimes I think it is the Question book.

/////////////

By the way, I do not remember the phrase fallen world appearing in the Bible. I did a quick online Bible word search and did not come up with a source. I think I can still be Biblical (a silly phrase sometimes) and still agree with Honorentheos that fallen world is a poor idea.

Hey huck I'm going to chop your post into little pieces and reply to some of it.

Jesus tells stories I assume are fiction to present a message or perhaps create questions.

And teach a lesson or provoke thought.

the Bible is actually a confusing mix of different kind of writings and there is no key to be sure which is which.
I think it is clear that there are old folk stories recreated to contain ideas which might be called spiritual.
There is a good deal of history retold and reshaped for that same purpose.
There are songs and long reflections on general events.
There are even bits of history told just because it happened

Yes, of course. There are different genres contained in the Bible. People in the early years online would ask me if I believed "in" the Bible. What does that even mean? Do people think Proverbs are some kind of journalistic writing? Do I believe in a proverb? Do I believe in a piece of poetry? Do I believe in a parable itself or the message it is intended to convey?

Or people would ask me if I believe "in" Jesus. What does that mean? I don't get people sometimes. I am sure they think the same about me as well.

I know people say the Bible is the answer book, sometimes I think it is the Question book.

Most definitely!

[dastardly stem]

Stem, I appreciate the passion of your last post. You make good points about the ambiguity in the idea of judgement in the gospels.
A fairly standard interpretation of the oil some of the virgins lacked is that the oil is faith and trust in God. This would not be saying yes to a religious formulae but an open hope in Gods good purpose and in his caring judgement. The parable of the talents point out a judgement not on the quantity of good deeds but the heart within the deeds.

Thank you, sir. 'preciate it.

[honorentheos]

I understand where you are coming from, honor, but I do think I need to say more about my perspective. When it comes to the Old Testament I lean heavy towards an allegorical perspective. So with regard to the fallen or corrupt world, I think this was an attempt on the part of ancient tribes to make sense or understand what they saw and experienced in the world around them. In other words, their observations and conclusions based on the knowledge at hand.

When I wrote in another post about observations and outcomes, I think there is plenty of room to fit those ancient observations into what we know today as sociology and if you take that back to bare bones reasoning, I see it as the same type of cause/effect reasoning from which a toddler learns about their environment and the people in it. Essentially saying that the ancients were thinking at toddler level and what we see as sociology is the development of thought/reasoning based on layer after layer of new discovery.

Hi Jersey Girl,

I expect that it makes sense to assume the ancients had a less developed understanding of the mechanics of the Universe. But I don't see this as exactly speaking against my points here, rather it kinda speaks directly to why the concept of a Christ is a problem.

The idea of a Christ has a historical context it came out of and that formed it. That historical context is not background so much as mold. This history is imprinted on the idea of Christ. And understanding that historical context helps us understand why it so easily marries the Christ concept to nationalism, prejudice, and division. Yes, that's partially due to the perspective of the ancients. But the thing is, their perspective birthed the idea of Christ.

So this gets to another issue here. I don't think we see eye to eye on the nature of the Christ concept. I fully believe that the concept is not something objectively independent that is observed and subject to perspective. Rather, it is a human creation. Human beings formed it for reasons, and absent this cultural development of the Christ myth there is nothing.

So, if this is true and we also can agree that in at least some ways ancient attempts to explain the world could be considered under-developed given our modern perspective, why not then agree that the concept itself is outdated and should be shed?

I've been saying this over and over in this thread that I don't see most participants in the thread as removed from my view so much as being unfavorable towards the term anti Christ. Why? Because we seem to collectively agree that these historic issues aren't compatible with a more moral, ethical approach to treating ones self and others. But we've been taught that anti Christ is bad.

So, why is it such a big deal to admit to being anti Christ if the Christ myth is problematic by its nature and origin?

[Jersey Girl]

honor I scanned your new reply late last night. I will get back to you on this, I promise!

ETA: honor I haven't read all of your previous comments regarding anti-Christ. I will get a reply here within a few hours because I don't want you to feel blown off. If I miss something that you explained previously, I dunno. I am just going to reply directly to your words to me. Let's see how that goes.

[Jersey Girl]

Okay, honor. I'm shutting out everybody but you! It's not easy for me to get where you are in your thinking, but I will try and also share my own.

I understand where you are coming from, honor, but I do think I need to say more about my perspective. When it comes to the Old Testament I lean heavy towards an allegorical perspective. So with regard to the fallen or corrupt world, I think this was an attempt on the part of ancient tribes to make sense or understand what they saw and experienced in the world around them. In other words, their observations and conclusions based on the knowledge at hand.

When I wrote in another post about observations and outcomes, I think there is plenty of room to fit those ancient observations into what we know today as sociology and if you take that back to bare bones reasoning, I see it as the same type of cause/effect reasoning from which a toddler learns about their environment and the people in it. Essentially saying that the ancients were thinking at toddler level and what we see as sociology is the development of thought/reasoning based on layer after layer of new discovery.

Hi Jersey Girl,

I expect that it makes sense to assume the ancients had a less developed understanding of the mechanics of the Universe. But I don't see this as exactly speaking against my points here, rather it kinda speaks directly to why the concept of a Christ is a problem.

I'm going to try to understand what you said above by going through what follows.

The idea of a Christ has a historical context it came out of and that formed it. That historical context is not background so much as mold. This history is imprinted on the idea of Christ. And understanding that historical context helps us understand why it so easily marries the Christ concept to nationalism, prejudice, and division. Yes, that's partially due to the perspective of the ancients. But the thing is, their perspective birthed the idea of Christ.

From what I think I know and understand, the development of Christ was preceded by many developments in human thought. Example, as I mentioned previously, the Sky God, Thunder God, Sun God (Yes, I am aware of that), and those are what we can get our hands on in terms of the start of myths as you see them. I think that in her History of God, Karen Armstrong covered the emergence of religious thought and belief, that's one of the books I no longer have. It has been a long, long, time since I've even thought about these things but for example, if I am not mistaken Mithraism contains a godman figure that was crucified and transcended...or something very close to how the accounts of Christ are told, and predates the story of Christ. Just like other religions have their Flood Stories, likewise there are myths regarding resurrection and that sort of thing. I am sure there are many more but as I said, I haven't thought about it in a good long while nor have I discussed it with anyone seriously for 20-ish years and I couldn't place those in historical context to save my life at this point.

I would have to think more about what you say regarding nationalism, prejudice and division. I'm not sure what you are telling me there. Are you talking about "I come to bring a sword" type thinking or Christians vs Jews vs Romans or something like that? I could use something more concrete if you are willing to supply it.

So this gets to another issue here. I don't think we see eye to eye on the nature of the Christ concept. I fully believe that the concept is not something objectively independent that is observed and subject to perspective. Rather, it is a human creation. Human beings formed it for reasons, and absent this cultural development of the Christ myth there is nothing.

Well, I should hope and think that we don't see eye to eye on the nature of the Christ concept since you are atheist and I am not! I'm only going to ask you to not assume that you know what I believe.

So here, you are discussing the myths as a human development. I think I can agree with that at least in part. I want you to know that I can well understand a world without a god. So I think what you are saying here is that the story of Christ (and perhaps the figure of Christ himself) are man made myths and concepts, and because they are man made, they hold no concrete value to humans because they aren't based on truth to start with.

Also, unless I am reading too much into your words, since the stories and concepts are man made and also subjective in that they can't be tested in any sort of objective way, that is also an indication of little to no value because well, they aren't real.

How'd I do?

So, if this is true and we also can agree that in at least some ways ancient attempts to explain the world could be considered under-developed given our modern perspective, why not then agree that the concept itself is outdated and should be shed?

We can sure agree to that, honor. But there's the other side of that. Our brains are wired to look for patterns are they not? Some of us who were raised up in (I hate to say it this way) organized religion and indoctrinated (I got to that before you did!) believe that we see patterns in our lives that create a kind of intuition or belief in God. And yes, we were indoctrinated to that type of thinking and I am cool with that. I am cool with what I believe and how I believe it. More at the end here.

I've been saying this over and over in this thread that I don't see most participants in the thread as removed from my view so much as being unfavorable towards the term anti Christ. Why? Because we seem to collectively agree that these historic issues aren't compatible with a more moral, ethical approach to treating ones self and others. But we've been taught that anti Christ is bad.

As I stated previously, I haven't read the whole discussion regarding anti Christ. I am disrupted here by your mention that there is a more moral and ethical approach towards treating oneself and others. What do you mean? Are you saying that Christianity (since anti Christ is mentioned) lack morality and ethical thinking and that it is unhealthy in the way it guides us to treat others and also ourselves? And if you are saying that there is something unhealthy about the way Christianity guides us to treat ourselves, honor, is this where the concept of the fallen world intersects your position? Basically that humans a essentially crap and we need God to save us? Is that what you mean--->self esteem?

I'm all over the place here, I know. I'm trying.

So, why is it such a big deal to admit to being anti Christ if the Christ myth is problematic by its nature and origin?

You know I can't speak for all believers here and I can't address what conversation took place prior to my entrance into the thread to pose the first question to you. But here goes...it is all well and good for an atheist to declare that they are anti Christ (against the myths, the man made elements you are thinking about) but it is a whole nuther animal for a believer in Christ to frame their positions in that way.

I would say, by way of example, that I am not anti Christ. In my mind, to be anti Christ means to be against the teachings of Christ and Christ himself because I do accept Christ as a historical figure while I realize that others do not. I am not anti the myths or the man made elements that folks point out in scripture. Why. Because I know that even the New Testament scriptures were transmitted via orality before they ever hit the pages of a scroll. I know that when humans get their hands on a report they often add and embellish for effect. We see this every day in the news media and so far as I am concerned, the scribes back then were the news media and the more a story "gets around" the more prone people are to add on to it as well...like playing telephone with local happenings.

You are going to ask me that if I accept that the Bible was messed with, the stories embellished, how on earth can I possibly believe any of it. I believe the soul of the teacher whose voice is consistent throughout the accounts when quoted. That is what I tune into, not the details of everything everyone says about him.

Here's my basic deal, honor. I don't know for a fact that there is/is not a God. I intuit God and at the same time I admit that that intuition could be my mind and heart, wanting to believe that there is a God and looking for patterns that support that desire. (On the other hand, if there is a God who has interacted on some level with human kind since a point of creation, that also makes sense to me that if there were a Creator God that "it" would wire human beings in such a way as to be able to two-way communicate with "it" and access "it".)

In any case, all that aside. I am one who is comfortable knowing that I can't know for sure. I am comfortable trying to live my life using the guidance of Jesus as quoted in the Bible as a framework for living that life. I am mostly comfortable in how I view myself in relation to other human beings, and they to me. I am comfortable that I pray to a God and that right in the middle of that prayer admitting that "I don't know if you are there or if I am talking to myself but I am still talking" and if you say to me, "Jersey, that's really just a form of talk therapy", I would say "Of course it is! Why wouldn't it be?" But my bottom line is this. Whether or not there is/is not a God. I would like to think I left this world a better place at least to some degree by my having been in it via my interactions and service to others and the environment. When I die I will either move forward to Heaven or I will become soil content. Either way, I live by principles (not always, not even close some days and in certain situations--I'm nothing close to perfect and I never will be in this life) that I think are congruent with that desire to leave something a little better for my having been here and that those principles are supported by the words and voice of Jesus Christ.

(Watch I'll cuss someone out in Paradise like in the next 5 seconds and you can say, oh see, those principles didn't last very long did they, Jersey? )

[Jersey Girl]

p.s.That voice that I mentioned I hear, honor? I want to be that.

ETA: I wanted to add something that I think I left hanging and that I want to make clear.

When I said this:

That is what I tune into, not the details of everything everyone says about him.

There I am talking about small details, and what folks see as discrepancies between the Synoptic Gospels. I think those can be explained by differences in authorship. Example: Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I think they were written by various authors that conveyed the reports made by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I think there is enough harmony between the Synoptic Gospels to overlook the small stuff. The big details. Yes, I believe the big details, honor. I don't see the story of Christ as a myth but I can well understand why you would. Do I know for a fact that it isn't myth? No, I do not.

[Philo Sofee]

p.s.That voice that I mentioned I hear, honor? I want to be that.

ETA: I wanted to add something that I think I left hanging and that I want to make clear.

When I said this:

That is what I tune into, not the details of everything everyone says about him.

There I am talking about small details, and what folks see as discrepancies between the Synoptic Gospels. I think those can be explained by differences in authorship. Example: Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I think they were written by various authors that conveyed the reports made by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I think there is enough harmony between the Synoptic Gospels to overlook the small stuff. The big details. Yes, I believe the big details, honor. I don't see the story of Christ as a myth but I can well understand why you would. Do I know for a fact that it isn't myth? No, I do not.

Excellent thoughts from both You and Honor! Enjoyed them very much. What has opened my eyes to my ownself journey has been stunning in a way. I rather got turned off to Jesus through my disaffection with LDSism and apologetics. In fact, yes, I sorta yelled at him for a few years and went all atheist on him just to show him what an idiot he is, you know, that kind of thing. I read Richard Carrier's book on the Historical Jesus and why the chances and probabilities that he is non-historical rather than real are really in favor of the non-historical Jesus, so I threw the book at him so to speak, and basically told him to lump it and refute it, you know, the old righteous diatribe of a heinous wicked apostate ne-er do well disgruntled and really pissed off Mormon kinda thing. After a few years I ended up re-reading Joseph Campbell, the mythologist, and Northrop Frye, the literary critic. It ain't history which turned me to at least look in Jesus' direction again, it is mythology. I find that just kind of sort of rather fascinating for me personally. And that's not because Jesus is a mere myth as opposed to an imagined concrete historical reality, that's because myth tells the higher truth of Jesus than history ever can.
Happy New Year you wonderful, sappy, beautiful people! I love ya all more than I can express and wish the very best for all of you!