Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
World renowned Atheist Accepts Possible Existence of God
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Yossie wrote:So if that's the bible, which one was i thinking of; where - boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, girl couldn't care less about boy, boy crucifies himself on cross?
Sounds like my last relationship TBH .. :v:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Excelsior wrote:Whether you end up believing it or not, it is the most influential book of all time. Its worth a read. I love it.
The question that needs to be asked is how and why was is it so influential.
If Constantine hadn't "seen" that cross in the sun, which prompted the adoption of christianity, which was just a very small sect at the time, as the state religion we'd all be as ignorant of it as we are of any of the other sects.
Like in most things the powers-that-be foisted the "choice" on us. Basically, its influence has been as a result of political and historical factors and not because of a property of the rather boring, rather long book itself. It is these two factors that has meant that the influence of the bible has been almost exclusively in maintaining the status quo, keeping Roman rulers etc in power and the plebs down.
The "rules of the road" is also an influential book, but only because of its necessity that is ensured by the state. It's also a better read than the bible imho.:D
If you want a book to love, I suggest Catch 22.:)
Yossarian Lives 0 -
-
Yossie wrote:The question that needs to be asked is how and why was is it so influential.
To ask that question, one should begin by reading it. Alongside the works of Joyce, the Bible is the greatest work of literature least widely read by those who have an interest in writing, reading and books.yossie wrote:If Constantine hadn't "seen" that cross in the sun, which prompted the adoption of christianity, which was just a very small sect at the time, as the state religion we'd all be as ignorant of it as we are of any of the other sects.
This is an unsupportable comment historically Yossie. The writings of the early church leaders, the writings of Roman society and (most intruigingly) the writings of non-Christian belief systems that adopted themes from the Jesus saga show the huge influence that Christianity was having on the decaying Roman Empire. You don't put so much energy into squashing a tiny sect as Rome exerted on trying to kill Christians.
The accepted shorthand account of Constantine's conversion was that it was pretty much counterfeit and intended to authorise a dangerous subversive influence and bring it under the auspices of the Emperor. Crucially though, every single one of the texts (and indeed most of the formative theological interpretation) was already over 225 years old by the time Rome pulled Christ close.
What I am saying is that Constantine's conversion was an effort to stop the spread of subversive Christianity. Sadly, it largely succeeded (until Luther, Zwingli and Calvin
) for a long time.yossarian wrote:Like in most things the powers-that-be foisted the "choice" on us. Basically, its influence has been as a result of political and historical factors and not because of a property of the rather boring, rather long book itself.
Cop on and let people take responsibility for things. The Bible had no direct influence over people's lives until the printing press. Since then, people who read the Bible certainly have done it by their own volition. No state could never encourage reading the Bible because (except for short tedious Jewish history sections) it is a deeply troubling book for any power group. How can you blanket call the books long and boring when delights like Hosea and Habakkuk exist.yossarian wrote:It is these two factors that has meant that the influence of the bible has been almost exclusively in maintaining the status quo, keeping Roman rulers etc in power and the plebs down.
Well I haven't met anyone that badly off these days as a result of Caesar but I know what you mean. The irony is that the Bible is, as I have claimed above, the kind of book that kills status quos dead if you read it through. And I think that had Constantine never adopted it, its huge influence would still be felt because the story is so compelling.yoassarian wrote:The "rules of the road" is also an influential book, but only because of its necessity that is ensured by the state. It's also a better read than the bible imho.
I know this is a joke but I hear it so often I wonder how people who obviously haven't read it can think it boring. The Rules of the Road analogy is a bit weak too, in fairness, at the end of the day, fair play, like. The Rules are just that- an applied behavioural code. The Bible is a many stranded compilation of 66 different books consisting of 1000s of individuals' stories with one dominant theme of a Creator God with a bad case of unrequited love. Even if the Bible is influential only because some guy with a girl's name made it the law 1700 years ago, it still could never be compared to the Rules of the Road.yossarian wrote:If you want a book to love, I suggest Catch 22.
I love it too. I love lots of books. But I need to challenge these myths that the New Testament is a retrodding of pagan myths, that the God of the OT is different from the NT, that political manipulation is the only explanation of the Bible's success and most importantly, that the Bible is boring.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
cont.....excelsior wrote:Crucially though, every single one of the texts (and indeed most of the formative theological interpretation) was already over 225 years old by the time Rome pulled Christ close
Not that it matters much, since as shown theology had little to do with it, but, the idea that the central theological issues of christianity formed a coherent comprehensive whole at this time is naïve. These early christians weren’t the kind we know of today. They formed hybrid theories for their old and new religions. They continued to carry out sacrifices etc until it was forcibly stamped out by the state.
There were many factions within the court and within the “religion”. Large and volatile non-cosmetic changes occurred in the theology so Empire and religion could co-exist with each others political realities. The Arians, the Montanists, the Gnostics, the Marcionites all did battle for dominance, so much so that Constantine himself had to hold special councils to try prevents schisms, which might destabilise the court. Bishops of different regions of the empire courted the men of power to gain advantage. Out of all this, a moderate conservative middle-way was agreed upon for political stability and theological considerations took that line. There were even those of the christian faith, the Donatists, who believed that christianity had sold-out even before Constantine, and formed a break away group.excelsior wrote:The accepted shorthand account of Constantine's conversion was that it was pretty much counterfeit and intended to authorise a dangerous subversive influence and bring it under the auspices of the Emperor.excelsior wrote:What I am saying is that Constantine's conversion was an effort to stop the spread of subversive Christianity
As stated above there wasn’t much subversion on behalf of jesus. On the contrary, Roman reorganised christianity and the church along its own lines. Hence, the modern RC church’s hierarchical positions exactly mirror those of the Roman Empire. Just like a lot of our law and philosophy.excelsian wrote:Sadly, it largely succeeded (until Luther, Zwingli and Calvin ) for a long time.
You mean until the next major political and social upheaval, for which a huge body of evidence and research also exists to show its social/political materialist underpinnings. (You are also showing your anti-catholic (pro-presbyterian?) prejudice with this comment.)excelsian wrote:Cop on and let people take responsibility for things.
*Copping on in 5…… 4…… 3……. 2……… 1…….. I am Captain Copped-on. Hear me speak!*
“Whether people get drunk and start fights or not is their choice and their responsibility.”
However, I’d hope that you’d agree, the fact that one is “Irish” or “Chec” and not “British” or “Czechoslovakian” and the fact that one is “born” Catholic/Jew/etc are both facts foisted on us by history, politics and the powers-that-be. This doesn’t affect personal choices, btw.excelsian wrote:No state could never encourage reading the Bible because (except for short tedious Jewish history sections) it is a deeply troubling book for any power group.
I know of a very influential American who ain’t that troubled by it, in fact, he reads it everyday and claims it as his inspiration. Although I did hear this man don’t read too good so he probably got the wrong idea.Excelsior wrote:And I think that had Constantine never adopted it, its huge influence would still be felt because the story is so compelling.
Where I think not, as we’ve seen evidence of above. The simple historical facts are that christianity wouldn’t have flourished without the support of the Roman Empire.
As regards compelling, well the communist manifesto is compelling; hell, the Da Vinci Code is compelling, some even argue “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” - Isaac Asimov. The “compelling” is only in the mind of the “compelled” such as yourself and probably because people get the meme (i.e. believe) first and read later. The number of converts to christianity of people who have read the bible and were convinced, I would argue, is a minute, even negligible, fraction of total christians. For the vast majority, it was only an unfortunate accident of birth.
My point in a nutshell is that the position of the bible in the world, like christianity/religion, answers more to historical materialist reasons than to any of their own merits.
Just as christianity’s adoption by the Roman Empire was for material reasons; just like the reformation was a political power struggle; just like the English revolution with its seekers, quakers, independents, diggers, levellers and ranters; just like the countless conversions and countless counter-conversions of whole countries by monarchs; just like “the troubles” up north; just like new-age individualist spirituality bunkum; they are all wedded to socio-economic material reasons, not divinity.Excelsior wrote:How can you blanket call the books long and boring when delights like Hosea and Habakkuk exist
…and most importantly, that the Bible is boring.
Having said all that, if you want to make a case for the literary merits of the bible then go on ahead, although I think Ulysses and Catch 22 will fair better. However, if you claim it is anything more than just a book or even that it is inspired by the divine then that is an extraordinary claim and you require extraordinary evidence. [I would make some witty comparisons here but I don’t want to trigger your hostile anti-trekkie prejudice.]
So I ask you, is your bible imbued with the divine or it just a book?
I say it is just a book and a long, boring one at that.
(Oh, and btw, do you have a literal interpretation of genesis?)
Long live “The Rules of the Road”! *Might make that my signature*0 -
I had no idea there was such a thing as "a world renound athiest" - and I had never heard of Prof Flew.....
What he says is interesting but ultimately it is smattered with the usual ambiguous "I think" and "I believe" statements that all those trying to convince of a higher-being must use, in lieu of any difinitive proof.....
As neither the existance, nor absence, of a higher-being can be proven - isn't it just one man who used to believe there was no God, now believing that there may be?.....I can't imagine that everytime a priest or suchlike has a crises of faith the believing world follow suit, so I'm not sure how Prof Flew's new faith moves the bigger argument on any?
It remains to be seen if I'll die an athiest - I wish never to be so closed minded that I assume I have all the answers and stop considering the choices and possibilities out there.....so maybe some day I'll change my mind too.....that's the great thing about athiesm, it gives you the freedom to explore and consider 0 -
-
Yossie wrote:Ah, it’s the – “YOU don’t know enough about crystal healing/astrology/homeopathy/ the bible/[insert irrational belief here], so YOU can’t comment” – argument.
Ah its the old "Compare Christianity to astrology and leave it at that" argument.Yossie wrote:It was the bibles influence ...
Ah its the old belief system as meme argument. Sadly, Memetics is a belief system, without any support for it except that it fits as an explanation for the world view of the adherents.Yossie wrote:Well Excelsior, I have a few close classicist friends who would like to debate that point with you.
Ah its the old "I have friends expert in that area, you know?" argumentYossie wrote:There were many other sects around ...
.... That decision primarily comes down to socio-economic materialist reasons, not theology.Excelsior wrote:The accepted shorthand account of Constantine's conversion was that it was pretty much counterfeit and intended to authorise a dangerous subversive influence and bring it under the auspices of the Emperor.
Once under those auspices, Christianity stagnated and went into decline. Christianity was, as you have laid out well, used as a tool by the state to coerce people into one line.Yossie wrote:So why was christianity chosen by the state? ... not to mention their winkles;) .
Once neutered, Christianity serves as a very effective social glue.Yossie wrote:For Constantine and his court this was primarily a political conversion not spiritual.
Thanks. If you and I keep writing that, people might start to realise it.Yossie wrote:Constantine himself would even continue to include sun worship, conveniently marrying both together with “crux in sun” vision.
And so the neutering begins.yossie wrote:When christainity became the dominant religion at court... to see that this was state controlled.
And so radically different to the house church, cell structure that had marked its beginnings.yossie wrote:Not that it matters much, since as shown theology had little to do with it,
Well my central point here is that while political machinations explain why Rome post Constantine was Christian it doesn't explain why all those people became Christians before then or say, today in Ireland.yossie wrote:but, the idea that the central theological issues of christianity formed a coherent comprehensive whole at this time is naïve. These early christians weren’t the kind we know of today. They formed hybrid theories for their old and new religions. They continued to carry out sacrifices etc until it was forcibly stamped out by the state.
You gotta tell me where this is coming from. Just cite something. Or get your classicist friend to register. Just move this argument beyond the general to give me something to work with.yossie wrote:There were many factions within the court and within the “religion”. ... Constantine himself had to hold special councils to try prevents schisms, which might destabilise the court.
While the political and the theological are interwoven, they are not one strand. What I read you as saying is that the fact that there were psuedo-Christian sects vying for power in the court of Constantine shows us that there were disputes in the theological realm. But the Marcionites and the Arians were voted out of Christianity through the representative leadership of the churches in the form of the Bishops. In both cases, practically unanimous. This shows a theological coherence, not the opposite. They could identify that which strayed beyond the bounds of the belief system and unite to distance it.Yossie wrote:Bishops of different regions of the empire courted the men of power to gain advantage. Out of all this, a moderate conservative middle-way was agreed upon for political stability and theological considerations took that line. There were even those of the christian faith, the Donatists, who believed that christianity had sold-out even before Constantine, and formed a break away group.
And so we have Yossie laying the ground for a historical account of the schism. Your hesitance to debate theology means all I can say is that I agree with everything you have written here from a historical and political perspective.Yoss wrote:As stated above there wasn’t much subversion on behalf of jesus. On the contrary, Roman reorganised christianity and the church along its own lines. Hence, the modern RC church’s hierarchical positions exactly mirror those of the Roman Empire. Just like a lot of our law and philosophy.
Rome adopted Christianity and reorganised it to remove anything dangerous to the status quo. Exactly.Yoss wrote:You mean until the next major political and social upheaval, for which a huge body of evidence and research also exists to show its social/political materialist underpinnings.
But at some point you have to acknowledge that the personal conversion of the private person cannot be explained entirely through a socio-political investigation, as influential as context is.Yoss wrote:You are also showing your anti-catholic (pro-presbyterian?) prejudice with this comment.
This is the first time I have been described as anti-Catholic. Over on the Christianity forum they throw "ecumenicist" at me like it is an insult.
I am not pro-presbyterian if you mean that to be the church institution. But Sempre Reforma is a slogan I can proudly draw to my chest.yoss wrote:However, I’d hope that you’d agree, the fact that one is “Irish” or “Chec” and not “British” or “Czechoslovakian” and the fact that one is “born” Catholic/Jew/etc are both facts foisted on us by history, politics and the powers-that-be. This doesn’t affect personal choices, btw.
And so we stray to the border of theology again and Excelsior is left to look in on that fine country with longing.
While I am sociologically an Irish Catholic, it is certain that I am not a Roman Catholic. You are interested in the fact that modern western society is "Christian" in its heritage and how that can be explained largely through a historical analysis of social and political factors. What I am interested in is why in a modern western society that is predominantly secular going forward, certainly post-Christian, why are individuals choosing to believe that a carpenter was God and that by rising from the dead the whole of Creation is different.
You phrase it as "Why does that meme work" and in my clearer moments I phrase it as "WTF?" but mostly "Why do they, why did I, do that?"Yoss wrote:I know of a very influential American who ain’t that troubled by it, in fact, he reads it everyday and claims it as his inspiration. Although I did hear this man don’t read too good so he probably got the wrong idea.
Can you find any case of Bush referencing the Bible in a speech except in general statements of faith? What people are offended by with Bush is the fact that with broad religious strokes he curries favour from a large and influential body of the electorate who are seeking someone to protect their idea of morality. But Bush does not encourage reading the Gospels. Or the Pauline letters. It would be a very dangerous thing for him to advocate. He will never quote from Isaiah.yoss wrote:The number of converts to christianity of people who have read the bible and were convinced, I would argue, is a minute, even negligible, fraction of total christians. For the vast majority, it was only an unfortunate accident of birth.
My personal experience in a growing evangelical church in Dublin is totally different to your theories. An "unfortunate accident of birth" once again refers to a phenomenon that is largely irrelevant to me. I am not interested in people who go to church. I am interested in people hold their faith as the central fulcrum around which their life turns as a result of personal decision.yossie wrote:Just as christianity’s adoption by the Roman Empire was for material reasons; just like the reformation was a political power struggle; just like the English revolution with its seekers, quakers, independents, diggers, levellers and ranters; just like the countless conversions and countless counter-conversions of whole countries by monarchs; just like “the troubles” up north; just like new-age individualist spirituality bunkum; they are all wedded to socio-economic material reasons, not divinity.
All of these historical crises were played out by people. Those people exist in a socio-economic framework and are driven in a large part by material needs. As such, any individual's conversion or any large swathe of history will be analysed to some large success by a socio-economic explanation. But it doesn't account for the crucial moment of the theological decision that alter people's lives (whether that decision is to reject their distant "cultural heritage" in place of the contemporary a-divine secular worldview or to embrace the aforementioned lunacy about the Nazarene).Yoss wrote:So I ask you, is your bible imbued with the divine or it just a book?
I believe the Bible is divinely inspired.yoss wrote:I say it is just a book and a long, boring one at that.
I say it is a fascinating collection of 66 books.yoss wrote:Oh, and btw, do you have a literal interpretation of genesis?
The litmus test for sanity in the realm of the agnostics board? I think a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is an appalling warping of the text. I presume that is the portion of Genesis you refer to.0 -
-
Advertisement