(July 17, 2014 at 6:57 am)whateverist Wrote: I assume you still lean toward theism in your agnosticism.

No, agnostic is another word for athiest (as you well know).

Quote:Personally, I think I have internalized what Jesus taught to some degree.

It's interesting you should say that because in recent debates with Christians I can't ever get them to agree upon what Jesus taught. For instance - Jesus never teaches not to obey the whole of the OT law, ever, but what he does teach is that the "extra layers" imposed by the Pharisees is wrong. For instance the OT law God gives says do not work on the Sabbath - the Pharisees decided to define "work" far more strictly including telling Jews how far they could walk before breaking the Sabbath. The Pharisees taught "love thy neighbour; and hate thy enemy" and Jesus taught that was wrong (in this case to a lawyer with the parable of the Good Samaritan).

The part that most Christians do not want to think about is that Jesus is teaching Leviticus 19 to the letter in that passage in Luke 10, yet Leviticus 20 says "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." What happened in the early church is that Paul and Matthew and James and the other early leaders decided to abandon those laws, and that's recorded in the book of Acts. But that happens after Jesus has come and gone. That's essentially the same thing as what the Pharisees did by imposing their "interpretations" of the OT law, and when you look at it that way Christianity doesn't hold together - the early church leaders went ahead and did exactly what Jesus told the Pharisees off for doing!

One simple question for you if I may.
Do you believe the bible is divine or just written by "men".!

This of course will have "Jesus" implications.

(July 18, 2014 at 1:28 am)Aractus Wrote:

(July 17, 2014 at 6:57 am)whateverist Wrote: I assume you still lean toward theism in your agnosticism.

No, agnostic is another word for athiest (as you well know).

Honestly, I don't think so. It is in my case. It may or may not be in yours, but it sounds like it is. Mazel tov?

(July 18, 2014 at 1:28 am)Aractus Wrote:

Quote:Personally, I think I have internalized what Jesus taught to some degree.

It's interesting you should say that because in recent debates with Christians I can't ever get them to agree upon what Jesus taught. For instance - Jesus never teaches not to obey the whole of the OT law, ever, but what he does teach is that the "extra layers" imposed by the Pharisees is wrong. For instance the OT law God gives says do not work on the Sabbath - the Pharisees decided to define "work" far more strictly including telling Jews how far they could walk before breaking the Sabbath. The Pharisees taught "love thy neighbour; and hate thy enemy" and Jesus taught that was wrong (in this case to a lawyer with the parable of the Good Samaritan).

The part that most Christians do not want to think about is that Jesus is teaching Leviticus 19 to the letter in that passage in Luke 10, yet Leviticus 20 says "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." What happened in the early church is that Paul and Matthew and James and the other early leaders decided to abandon those laws, and that's recorded in the book of Acts. But that happens after Jesus has come and gone. That's essentially the same thing as what the Pharisees did by imposing their "interpretations" of the OT law, and when you look at it that way Christianity doesn't hold together - the early church leaders went ahead and did exactly what Jesus told the Pharisees off for doing!

Hmm, you know a lot more about the bible than I ever did. I don't really know what it says, but I do agree that it is other people's motivated selection of stories attributed to Jesus. What I think I've internalized is just the desire to understand everyone's perspective as somewhat inevitable given their life experience. Giving them the benefit of the doubt so far as possible. Now I often enough do not succeed but I don't mind admitting I admire people who give respect to others first, not just as pay back. But I don't think of Jesus as a savior or lord or sacrifice or any of that stuff.

When Jesus says I am the way, he doesn't (by my interpretation, obviously) mean follow my directions. He means rather, follow my example. He isn't promising to pull strings for you. He is just saying god is within, and it is in some manner or other. Unfortunately "god" has become corrupted with so much baggage like creator, moral judge and all that. I don't think Jesus had in mind any place later, it was always about right now. The kingdom is within and it sort of is but in the end it all comes down to chopping wood and hauling water and a thousand other mundane life tasks. Transcendence doesn't come in technicolor. It's a simple thing.

(July 18, 2014 at 1:28 am)Aractus Wrote: No, agnostic is another word for athiest (as you well know).

Not necessarily. Strictly speaking, that would be misuse but it is common and common usage is as common usage does. At least you're clear about your definitions. Am I right to assume this is a deliberate choice to avoid potential conflicts thanks to other common-use (mis)definitions of 'atheism'?

Welcome to the dark side mate.
As I've said previously, there might be a god, we cannot know.
But if there is, christianity( or any man made religion for that matter) does not come even remotely close to the truth.

(July 18, 2014 at 3:59 am)whateverist Wrote: Hmm, you know a lot more about the bible than I ever did. I don't really know what it says, but I do agree that it is other people's motivated selection of stories attributed to Jesus.

Well yes you could say that in the sense that the stories particularly about Jesus that record his actual teachings are only found in the Synoptic Gospels and John, and that Acts and the other Epistles are all based on Jesus but don't record his actual teachings. There are some exceptions to this of course, for instance Paul's epistle "1 Corinthians" records the Last Supper which is an actual near indisputable historical event concerning Jesus and his disciples. But most of it is theology that has been negotiated agreed upon with Matthew, James etc that he is teaching to the Corinthians or to the other recipients of his various epistles.

Quote:What I think I've internalized is just the desire to understand everyone's perspective as somewhat inevitable given their life experience. Giving them the benefit of the doubt so far as possible. Now I often enough do not succeed but I don't mind admitting I admire people who give respect to others first, not just as pay back. But I don't think of Jesus as a savior or lord or sacrifice or any of that stuff.

Nor do I, anymore. Once Jesus is not accepted as a messiah I see him as wanting to strip away Judaism back to its textual roots - meaning that he isn't necessarily proclaiming to be the messiah or the son of god that may have been written about him but not accurate, but he did certainly want is for Jews to go back to following what their god teaches and not what has been added to, etc, by the so-called teachers of the law and those in authority.

(July 18, 2014 at 5:57 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(July 18, 2014 at 1:28 am)Aractus Wrote: No, agnostic is another word for athiest (as you well know).

Not necessarily. Strictly speaking, that would be misuse but it is common and common usage is as common usage does. At least you're clear about your definitions. Am I right to assume this is a deliberate choice to avoid potential conflicts thanks to other common-use (mis)definitions of 'atheism'?

An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist, so agnostic is not a word for atheist, that's one of the biggest mistakes I see atheists doing.

Ok guys, lets get our definitions right here.
Agnostic and Gnostic- a claim of knowledge, a claim of what you know
Atheist and theist- a claim of what you believe.

Many atheists are agnostic atheists, we don't believe in god, but we don't know and we have no way of ever knowing if god exists or not. There are also agnostic theists.

There are also gnostic atheists and theists, they claim to know what they believe to be true. Thats because we humans often believe things before we actually know them, we don't tend to wait on knowledge before we believe something.

(July 18, 2014 at 8:41 am)Blackout Wrote: An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist, so agnostic is not a word for atheist, that's one of the biggest mistakes I see atheists doing.

Indeed. I'm a pedant for accurate usage and regularly pick people up on this exact point. However Aractus & I have had this conversation a couple of times and 'agnostic'-as-an-alternative-to-'atheist' is in common use (although it is a misuse). I wish it were otherwise but I like to think I know why he uses the definition that he does and I understand his motivation. I was just seeking confirmation.

For my taste, I think you could really benefit with more study. Pick up some atheist or agnostic books. I'd be more than happy to lead you into that sort of direction. Other than that, as long as you are happier, happy to see you here. Hope to converse soon