(October 14, 2021 at 9:58 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 14, 2021 at 12:15 am)Belacqua Wrote: Only the most naive Christians see God as anthropomorphic.

You keep talking about those guys like they're a tiny minority, but in the USA they're over a quarter of the population, and in the majority in some states (like mine).

Very naive people can easily be in the majority. It's true in politics as well.

(October 14, 2021 at 12:52 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

Quote:So, the short version is that:
1. the jewish god is a person.
2. the deist god is a person.
3. the pantheist god is a person.
4. the polytheist god are a persons.

3 would be inaccurate.  The pantheist god isn't a person or person like.  It's everything or everything-like.  It intervenes as the others do not as a person of it's own volition but because there are many intervening agents in "everything".  

All bad faith arguments from faithless people, imo.  I'm assuming you're referring to abrahamics here..but, just as one example, if anyone calling themselves a christian tells you that god is something other than christ who suffered and died for your sins on the cross and was resurrected - then you're not talking to a christian.  If they tell you god is not personal, or does not intervene, they're not christian.  Amusingly, and as the fundies never get tired of telling anyone who will listen, most christians today..aren't.  There's some nut who has a scale named after him that purports to determine whether or not some one has "a biblical faith" - and by their reckoning, less than 6% of people with children under 18 qualify - even though far more than 6% identify as such.  That doesn't bode well for christianity, but it's a small bit of hope for the rest of humanity.

The song and dance about communist gods is in no way christian (christ was a communist, at least by his description) - it's political christianity - which was the engineer of the demise of religious christianity in the us.  They basically fell on their own swords for fear of soviets under every bed, in every closet...and look at em now - wedded to a russian asset and dreams of a totalitarian state.

They never really believed in anything other than power, specifically their own, and how to maintain it.

“3 would be inaccurate.  The pantheist god isn't a person or person like.  It's everything or everything-like.  It intervenes as the others do not as a person of it's own volition but because there are many intervening agents in "everything".”

==Since Seax wrote:
“God would not create a universe with laws opposed to His Will.”

So this tells me that god, which is our universe, is a person.

“All bad faith arguments from faithless people, imo. I'm assuming you're referring to abrahamics here”

==Yes, I talk to a lot of people and since it is almost always in english, I assume that they are in the USA and christian.
I often do ask them and some of the time they answer. It’s often USA + christian.

There is a certain number, maybe I have encountered 30 people, who claim that they don’t have a religion and that they follow Jesus and they have a relationship.

Yes, I have encountered a bunch of times cases where some christian says the other christian is not christian.
For example, they don’t consider mormons as christians. To be honest, mormons are barely christian. (They have this notion that the jewish god was just a human and by following the rules of his god, that he got his diploma and license to be a god. This god created Earth and populated it. They believe that they will become gods in the afterlife.
This stuff is discussed at the exmormon website. Some were saying that today’s mormonism is not recognizable. A lot of this stuff is swepted under the rug.

“There's some nut who has a scale named after him that purports to determine whether or not some one has "a biblical faith" - and by their reckoning, less than 6% of people with children under 18 qualify - even though far more than 6% identify as such. That doesn't bode well for christianity, but it's a small bit of hope for the rest of humanity.”

==Yes, the different christian sects compete with each other, sometimes with violence.
It’s the same with islam. For example, ISIS, al-nusra, taliban.

“The song and dance about communist gods is in no way christian (christ was a communist, at least by his description) - it's political christianity - which was the engineer of the demise of religious christianity in the us. They basically fell on their own swords for fear of soviets under every bed, in every closet...and look at em now - wedded to a russian asset and dreams of a totalitarian state.”

==What do you mean?

(October 14, 2021 at 9:58 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 14, 2021 at 12:15 am)Belacqua Wrote: Only the most naive Christians see God as anthropomorphic.

You keep talking about those guys like they're a tiny minority, but in the USA they're over a quarter of the population, and in the majority in some states (like mine).

@Belacqua

I agree with Mister here. When you say "only the most" it is inferred that you mean a minority. I appreciate your clarifying that the majority are "often wrong" (just like in politics) but still, Mister is right to point out what Christians believe colloquially.

Many here (especially myself) would have far less an issue with a pantheistic concept in Christianity.

But this does present some contradictions:

First of all, all of Paul's letters and a bunch of stuff found in the Gospels and elsewhere. If God is a hearer and answerer of prayers, then he has an anthropomorphic quality. Listening to someone's desires/wishes and taking steps to fulfil those desires/wishes is something only people do. Having a list of commandments is something only people do.

It's not just everyday Christians who believe this stuff. It is explicitly stated in the Bible that God has human qualities. I'm all for a pantheistic concept of Christianity that has Christ as a universal symbol, accessible to all who deeply contemplate suffering or the human condition. 

I dig it. But you know who hates that sort of depiction of Christianity? Evangelicals! They prolly hate it more than the folks on this atheist forum who scoff at that sort of thing. To evangelicals, that sort of idea is "denying God's divinity" or something like that.

I'm all for wresting the ultimate meaning of Christianity from the Evangelicals' dirty little hands (and then taking the conversation from there). So let's do that if you wish. But, at the same time, Mister had a point worth mentioning before the deeper discussion begins.

(October 14, 2021 at 9:44 pm)Ferrocyanide Wrote: “3 would be inaccurate.  The pantheist god isn't a person or person like.  It's everything or everything-like.  It intervenes as the others do not as a person of it's own volition but because there are many intervening agents in "everything".”

==Since Seax wrote:
“God would not create a universe with laws opposed to His Will.”

So this tells me that god, which is our universe, is a person.

That just tells you that seax believed in a personal god, not that pantheism proposes one, or that the universe is a person.  

Quote:There is a certain number, maybe I have encountered 30 people, who claim that they don’t have a religion and that they follow Jesus and they have a relationship.

An effect of secularization on the religious, yeah.  "Religious" is perceived to be a pejorative term, even by them, and that line is designed to evade whatever portion of contemporary society that reflexively balks at religion. Some of them are just idiots and/or liars, too, ofc.

Quote:Yes, I have encountered a bunch of times cases where some christian says the other christian is not christian.
For example, they don’t consider mormons as christians. To be honest, mormons are barely christian. (They have this notion that the jewish god was just a human and by following the rules of his god, that he got his diploma and license to be a god. This god created Earth and populated it. They believe that they will become gods in the afterlife.
This stuff is discussed at the exmormon website. Some were saying that today’s mormonism is not recognizable. A lot of this stuff is swepted under the rug.

You're talking about bickering, I'm referencing classification.  Mormons are christian because they believe in the crucifixion, resurrection, and divinity of christ.  They're theists because they believe in a personal and intervening god.  They may, arguably, be polytheists because they believe that there could be more than one god, that they might become gods themselves.   All christians are, by definition, theists, and anyone who rejects theism cannot be accurately classified as christian.  Sometimes these people who reject the divinity of christ are called cultural christians, more informally, jesusists.  To denote that they do not believe in a theistic god, do not believe in christ, but do hold some value system derived from judeochristian mythology.  

Quote:“There's some nut who has a scale named after him that purports to determine whether or not some one has "a biblical faith" - and by their reckoning, less than 6% of people with children under 18 qualify - even though far more than 6% identify as such. That doesn't bode well for christianity, but it's a small bit of hope for the rest of humanity.”

==Yes, the different christian sects compete with each other, sometimes with violence.
It’s the same with islam. For example, ISIS, al-nusra, taliban.

That's true, but what his scale and polling is designed to show is that children are leaving the faith, and not teaching it to their children.  That his particular brand of christianity is perched on a demographic cliff (if not already laying dead in the ravine below).  

Quote:“The song and dance about communist gods is in no way christian (christ was a communist, at least by his description) - it's political christianity - which was the engineer of the demise of religious christianity in the us. They basically fell on their own swords for fear of soviets under every bed, in every closet...and look at em now - wedded to a russian asset and dreams of a totalitarian state.”

==What do you mean?

That through a series of movements and circumstances too long and numerous to really explore in this format, going back to the cold war, american christianity became (or was captured by) an aggressive far right wing movement with political power at it's core, all but discarding anything genuinely christian or christlike in the process.   Today, they're the maga mob.  Dominionists.  Abortion, homosexuality, public education.  Expert infantry badge jesus, trickle down jesus.  A christianity with a criminal, thrice married adulterer and publicly shitty person at it's head, which promises to do everything it can to overthrow american democracy in their lifetimes. Like so many before them, they're tired of waiting for the godmans return. They're going to build gods kingdom on earth, themselves, here. Like I said. Faithless.

(October 14, 2021 at 11:38 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(October 14, 2021 at 9:58 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: You keep talking about those guys like they're a tiny minority, but in the USA they're over a quarter of the population, and in the majority in some states (like mine).

@Belacqua

I agree with Mister here. When you say "only the most" it is inferred that you mean a minority. I appreciate your clarifying that the majority are "often wrong" (just like in politics) but still, Mister is right to point out what Christians believe colloquially.

Many here (especially myself) would have far less an issue with a pantheistic concept in Christianity.

But this does present some contradictions:

First of all, all of Paul's letters and a bunch of stuff found in the Gospels and elsewhere. If God is a hearer and answerer of prayers, then he has an anthropomorphic quality. Listening to someone's desires/wishes and taking steps to fulfil those desires/wishes is something only people do. Having a list of commandments is something only people do.

It's not just everyday Christians who believe this stuff. It is explicitly stated in the Bible that God has human qualities. I'm all for a pantheistic concept of Christianity that has Christ as a universal symbol, accessible to all who deeply contemplate suffering or the human condition. 

I dig it. But you know who hates that sort of depiction of Christianity? Evangelicals! They prolly hate it more than the folks on this atheist forum who scoff at that sort of thing. To evangelicals, that sort of idea is "denying God's divinity" or something like that.

I'm all for wresting the ultimate meaning of Christianity from the Evangelicals' dirty little hands (and then taking the conversation from there). So let's do that if you wish. But, at the same time, Mister had a point worth mentioning before the deeper discussion begins.

We should absolutely argue against people with a naive view of theology. That's most of what I do on this forum.

(October 14, 2021 at 11:46 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That just tells you that seax believed in a personal god, not that pantheism proposes one, or that the universe is a person.  


An effect of secularization on the religious, yeah.  "Religious" is perceived to be a pejorative term, even by them, and that line is designed to evade whatever portion of contemporary society that reflexively balks at religion.  Some of them are just idiots and/or liars, too, ofc.


You're talking about bickering, I'm referencing classification.  Mormons are christian because they believe in the crucifixion, resurrection, and divinity of christ.  They're theists because they believe in a personal and intervening god.  They may, arguably, be polytheists because they believe that there could be more than one god, that they might become gods themselves.   All christians are, by definition, theists, and anyone who rejects theism cannot be accurately classified as christian.  Sometimes these people who reject the divinity of christ are called cultural christians, more informally, jesusists.  To denote that they do not believe in a theistic god, do not believe in christ, but do hold some value system derived from judeochristian mythology.  


That's true, but what his scale and polling is designed to show is that children are leaving the faith, and not teaching it to their children.  That his particular brand of christianity is perched on a demographic cliff (if not already laying dead in the ravine below).  

hat through a series of movements and circumstances too long and numerous to really explore in this format, going back to the cold war, american christianity became (or was captured by) an aggressive far right wing movement with political power at it's core, all but discarding anything genuinely christian or christlike in the process.   Today, they're the maga mob.  Dominionists.  Abortion, homosexuality, public education.  Expert infantry badge jesus, trickle down jesus.  A christianity with a criminal, thrice married adulterer and publicly shitty person at it's head, which promises to do everything it can to overthrow american democracy in their lifetimes.  Like so many before them, they're tired of waiting for the godmans return.  They're going to build gods kingdom on earth, themselves, here.  Like I said.  Faithless.

“That just tells you that seax believed in a personal god, not that pantheism proposes one, or that the universe is a person.”

==Well, then, I’m not sure then.
Let’s make a list of possibilities.

1. A god that has a brain, that thinks, maybe he has feelings, that is not frozen and time passes forward for him.
2. #1 and also the god has other components that are non brains, sort of how a human has a brain but also a few arms and a few legs. Perhaps the laws of physics also a component of the pantheist god.
3. God is the universe which is a brainless entity.

Were you talking about #2?

If a pantheist tells me that their god is #3, then this looks like renaming. They are removing the sticker that says apple from the apple and they are sticking the sticker that says banana on it.

Yes, in that sense, you can classify a mormon as a christian. It all comes down to what you want a word to mean.
Dictionaries are alright but sometimes, they do not match what a person means.

For example, one christian told me that science is my god.
I asked him what does he mean by the word god.
He said that I worship science.
I asked what does worship mean to him.
He said that have a lot of respect for something and to love it.
I said, I agree, do respect and love science and now, I understand his language.

However, according to his definition, I have a lot of gods. My parents are gods. My friends are gods.
Also, why isn’t science a god for him? Is god a god for himself? Does the god respect himself and love himself?

My point is that we have to extract the maximum amount of information from the theist, we need to understand their lingo.

“Sometimes these people who reject the divinity of christ are called cultural christians, more informally, jesusists.  To denote that they do not believe in a theistic god, do not believe in christ, but do hold some value system derived from judeochristian mythology.”

==They are using a filter. A filter blocks certain things and lets other things pass through.

“That's true, but what his scale and polling is designed to show is that children are leaving the faith, and not teaching it to their children.  That his particular brand of christianity is perched on a demographic cliff (if not already laying dead in the ravine below).”

==Is the person who created the scale+poll a christian? Was his objective to suggest that his version of christianity is the standard and other christians need to meet his standard?
I am interested in his scale. Do you have it in your files?

“That through a series of movements and circumstances too long and numerous to really explore in this format, going back to the cold war, american christianity became (or was captured by) an aggressive far right wing movement with political power at it's core, all but discarding anything genuinely christian or christlike in the process.   Today, they're the maga mob.  Dominionists.  Abortion, homosexuality, public education.  Expert infantry badge jesus, trickle down jesus.  A christianity with a criminal, thrice married adulterer and publicly shitty person at it's head, which promises to do everything it can to overthrow american democracy in their lifetimes. Like so many before them, they're tired of waiting for the godmans return. They're going to build gods kingdom on earth, themselves, here. Like I said. Faithless.”

==I have studied some of the history of the USA to try to figure out what is going on down there. Definitely, Communist Russia has shaped the USA quite a bit. One important point is the launch of Sputnik, which worried the USA government, so they gave importance to science, so they reinserted Evolution theory in biology textbooks.
It’s pretty funny but Tennessee had made it illegal to teach Evolution theory. There is the Scopes Monkey trial of 1925 which led to all publishers removing Evolution from biology textbooks. So, for 35 y, kids didn’t learn about Evolution theory.

Donald Trump? Well, it is normal for united statians to divorce and remarry a few times. I just didn’t realize he was a narcissist, misogynist habitual liar.

Also, I guess you are talking about evangelists protestianism and teleevangelists protestianism. There seems to be a lot of them in the USA. I guess the number is 46%.

(October 15, 2021 at 1:00 am)Belacqua Wrote: We should absolutely argue against people with a naive view of theology. That's most of what I do on this forum.

All theology is naive just like all astrology is naive.

(October 15, 2021 at 1:00 am)Belacqua Wrote: We should absolutely argue against people with a naive view of theology. That's most of what I do on this forum.

Well, I don't think Augustine qualifies as a pantheist. Nor does he qualify as naive. It's unclear at first glance what we are criticizing when we enter into the conversation. It seems like we are getting away from figures like Augustine and concepts like Biblical authority when we start talking pantheism.

(October 15, 2021 at 1:23 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(October 15, 2021 at 1:00 am)Belacqua Wrote: We should absolutely argue against people with a naive view of theology. That's most of what I do on this forum.

Well, I don't think Augustine qualifies as a pantheist. Nor does he qualify as naive. It's unclear at first glance what we are criticizing when we enter into the conversation. It seems like we are getting away from figures like Augustine and concepts like Biblical authority when we start talking pantheism.

A non-anthropomorphic conception of God does not equal pantheism. 

In Christianity, people are said to be like God in some ways, but this doesn't mean that God has a body, has emotions, changes his mind, barks out orders, or possesses lots of other human traits. 

When the Bible says "God hears" something, this doesn't mean that he has ears and hears the sounds in the same way a person does. Naive people may read it that way, but not educated people. 

The Bible is to be interpreted, and the non-naive interpretation is known to a minority of people, both Christian and atheist. Literalist sola scriptura Christianity has never been the position of people educated in theology.

(October 15, 2021 at 2:13 am)Belacqua Wrote: The Bible is to be interpreted, and the non-naive interpretation is known to a minority of people, both Christian and atheist. Literalist sola scriptura Christianity has never been the position of people educated in theology.

Except when they do take it literally like the existence of Noah, Adam, and Eve, six days creation which was taken literally by "serious" theologians like Aquinas and Augustine.

Or take the term Biblical minimalism. It is a name for theologians who consider Bible to be ahistorical, and they are considered to be a minority among theologians today.

Or read the account of Thomas L. Thompson when he wrote a dissertation in 1970s that Bible is not historical and that patriarchs in the Bible did not exist.

Quote:He then studied Catholic theology at the University of Tübingen; his dissertation, "The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham", was completed in 1971, but rejected by the Catholic faculty (one of his examiners was Joseph Ratzinger, then Tübingen's Professor of Systematic Theology and later Pope Benedict XVI). 

The controversy around his dissertation prevented him from obtaining a position at a North American university.[6] He continued as a private scholar while working as a high-school teacher, janitor, and house painter until he was awarded a guest professorship at the École Biblique in Jerusalem in 1984. This appointment proved controversial among Israelis, who, according to Thompson, objected to his earlier study casting doubt on the historicity of the Jewish origin narratives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Thompson