The obvious reading of this is that Jesus thought the Second coming would happen soon. Of course, it never happened. Christians will reinterpret this to say that the resurrection was the first stage of the Second Coming. But if Christians can reread and reinterpret Scripture, what right have they to attack the Koran? Modern Muslim apologists have all the arguments they need to defend any passage you choose to attack — Gregory

Any religion is based on the belief of its followers. Obviously, if the "end of times" did not happen when Jesus predicted, it was not because of God, but because of human error. This belief that he eventually will return to create the "Kingdom of God", as long as Christianity exists, will continue to be believed. The same thing with Islam. They believe that Allah - that if translated, becomes "God", but people don't get that - will return at the "end of times" to judge every person. When will the end of times be? Never, because it is a religion, and "religion" is a human construction for giving us purpose. While it makes sense to belive, we - humans - will believe - humanity is just like that -.

You don't seem to have a distinct point/argument then — Gregory

My position is that you only have the privilege to criticize the world around you, and the religion that founded your civilization, because it is weak - you live in a secular world -. We are the blatant symptoms of this weakness - An atheist - my case - and a questioner of the legitimacy of the Bible -.

I'm really curious now: - If we eventually achieve it, what do you think will become of humanity? — Gus Lamarch

Did watch the youtube short "singularity"? :smirk:

Here's an excerpt from an old post on an old thread Purpose of Humans is to create God on Earth:

My guess is (might as well keep pulling this out of my butt) the good news is also the bad news: the herd of homo insapiens will be thinned over, say, the next century or two by slowly rolling catastrophes like dozens of meters sea-level rise, mega-urban coastal collapses, fresh water protracted hot wars, blah blah blah ... as the barely surviving remnants are 'nudged' into algorithm constructed and managed 'human reservations' ... while THEY hyper-multitask nonstop transforming the Earth, then perhaps the inner solar system eventually, into their very own apex species niche.

But why zookeep us?

Wouldn't it be more efficient (or something) to exterminate us?

Sure machines, no matter how intelligent, wouldn't have sentimental attachment to or 'feel' nostagia for their maker-ancestors, right? Isn't this just pathetic wishful thinking on our (my) part that our AI-children would protect us from the hazards of our worst selves like providential gods rather than hunt us for sport like inhuman Terminators? — 180 Proof

(Follow this quote's link to the original full post a
for my wild guess answer.)

:rofl:

Which is working towards a philosophical point - Christianity appropriated a good deal of what was critically important in ancient philosophies - Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus especially. As their ideas then were used to form the philoosophical scaffolding of Christian theology, then to reject theology is also to reject many of those ideas - without ever having really understood what they were. But then, try to explain what they were, and it's rejected, because it sounds too close to religion! — Wayfarer

Point well taken Wayfarer.

Did watch the youtube short "singularity"? :smirk: — 180 Proof

Yeah.

Here's an excerpt from an old post on an old thread Purpose of Humans is to create God on Earth:

My guess is (might as well keep pulling this out of my butt) the good news is also the bad news: the herd of homo insapiens will be thinned over, say, the next century or two by slowly rolling catastrophes like dozens of meters sea-level rise, mega-urban coastal collapses, fresh water protracted hot wars, blah blah blah ... as the barely surviving remnants are 'nudged' into algorithm constructed and managed 'human reservations' ... while THEY hyper-multitask nonstop transforming the Earth, then perhaps the inner solar system eventually, into their very own apex species niche.

But why zookeep us?

Wouldn't it be more efficient (or something) to exterminate us?

Sure machines, no matter how intelligent, wouldn't have sentimental attachment to or 'feel' nostagia for its maker-ancestors, right? Isn't this just pathetic wishful thinking on our (my) part that our AI-children would protect us from the hazards of our worst selves like providential gods rather than hunt us for sport like inhuman Terminators? — 180 Proof

Congratulations, you are more pessimistic - or realistic - than me. :down:

If Jesus was God and promised he would return in that generation and didn't, than God is at fault

You haven't made much sense at all so far

If Jesus was God — Gregory

You forgot that I already mentioned that I believe that Jesus was a historical figure, but not that he was a divine figure.

You haven't made much sense at all so far — Gregory

Indeed, it is difficult to see meaning in opinions that go against what you take to be truth and you are not open to change.

You haven't presented a logical alternative to my agnosticism so I can't be open to it

You haven't presented a logical alternative to my agnosticism so I can't be open to it — Gregory

Life is not just made of logic and reason, if it was, we wouldn't need to be humans!
And I am not here to convert you, I am here to discuss; but it seems to me that you took it somehow to being personal, so I will end my participation in this dialogue here. Good morning/Good night

I just didn't know what your point was. Gn

Just what ideas of ancient pagan philosophers do you think would have to be rejected if a specifically Christian theology is rejected?

As far as I'm aware, no pagan philosopher had any idea supporting the belief that Jesus is the Son of God; that Jesus is one in being with the Father; the doctrine of the Trinity; the resurrection of Jesus; the Ascension; the Immaculate Conception; the Second Coming, at which the living and the dead will be judged; or any of the beliefs that distinguish Christianity from other religions, or from deism, pantheism, and panentheisn for that matter.

Christian theology resembles pagan philosophy only to the extent it isn't distinctively Christian--when what is distinctively Christian is ignored or disregarded.

Just what ideas of ancient pagan philosophers do you think would have to be rejected if a specifically Christian theology is rejected? — Ciceronianus the White

Much was incorporated from Plato, neo-Platonism and the philosophy of late antiquity. Platonism gave Christian doctrine a philosophical framework especially the Greek-speaking Fathers, including Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Philo, but there’s a large number of them. The anonymous ‘pseudo-Dionysius’ also advocated a kind of Christianised Platonism, or Platonic Christianity.

But then, of course, Christians closed the Platonic Academy (although it might have been moribund by then) and burned down the ancient Library of Alexandria.

There’s a strong tension in Christianity around all of this - ‘what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem’, and ‘The wisdom of the Son is foolishness to the Greeks’, among others. Arguably, this is one of the major factors behind Protestant fundamentalism. Luther himself thought Aquinas did ‘the devils work’. Those two elements were able to be synthesised in some cultures -like Eastern Christianity - but not in others.

For myself, I have found the logic of Aristotle’s hylomorphic dualism to be persuasive. More than that, though - any real metaphysics, I contend, has to rest on the reality of universals, or of intelligible objects, such as natural numbers. This was the subject of centuries of debate between the nominalises and Scholast Realists - which, generally speaking, nominalism won. And ‘history is written by the victors’, no more so than in this matter. So that is how we came to a one-dimensional culture which only accepts matter as real.

Sorry, but I don't think you answer my question. I don't see how the claim that the rejection of Christian doctrine entails the rejection of some of the ideas of pagan philosophy follows from the fact the Christian Fathers borrowed from pagan philosophy in an effort to support Christian doctrine.

You are right

Lucian, emperor Julian, Celsus, Porphyry, and Hierocles provided Roman alternatives to Christianity, which is just remodeled Judaism. We don't have all their works because Christians use to destroy stuff. But to be Christian is to become a Jew. I have nothing against Jews as people. But I'm Italian and Christianity has a Middle Eastern vibe I don't like. Sure Christians dressed their religion up in Greek garb, but I think the experiment completely failed

I just didn't know what your point was. — Gregory

I'll try to summarize my point in the best possible way:

- Christianity is the basis of all western civilization today, and every advance, progress, freedom achieved, is thanks to the weakening of the dogmas of this same religion - secularism -. However, this same secularism decays - thanks to nihilism - and eventually causes this same society to collapse. To avoid this collapse, a rational belief in Christianity would be necessary, however - as this is practically impossible to achieve -, I opt for conscious-unconscious belief on the christian faith - if it worked for a 1000 years for europe, it should - in theory - work for us -. If you don't believe in Christianity, at least pretend to do so to legitimize your values, morals, and purposes.

But I'm Italian and Christianity has a Middle Eastern vibe I don't like. — Gregory

Even though you were apologetic to Islam before, but ok.

I don't see how the claim that the rejection of Christian doctrine entails the rejection of some of the ideas of pagan philosophy follows from the fact the Christian Fathers borrowed from pagan philosophy in an effort to support Christian doctrine. — Ciceronianus the White

It's not that hard to follow; its the 'baby thrown out with the bathwater'.

I think that’s a pretty good attitude - I feel the same way. I’m reading a current title, Tom Holland, Dominion, which is an account of the historical impact of Christianity - not from a Christian apologist but from a cultural historian. (Review here. ) It makes the point that legacy Christian cultural attitudes are hugely influential even amongst those who reject it.

It might interest you to know that the famous German philosopher, Juergen Habermas, came to a similar realisation in the early 2000’s and engaged in a series of dialogues with then-Cardinal Ratzinger (later the Pope) about the place of religious values in today’s secular culture. Habermas in no way converted to Christianity through that, but acknowledged something similar to what you’re saying.

You might like the book Action by Maurice Blondel. Friendly recommendation

I think that’s a pretty good attitude - I feel the same way. I’m reading a current title, Tom Holland, Dominion, which is an account of the historical impact of Christianity - not from a Christian apologist but a cultural historian. — Wayfarer

It's like being conscious that it's all a lie, but still following it because it created the world you live in. It's like a "conscious-ignorance" if I can put it in that way. And thanks for the recommendation, I'm going to take a look.

It might interest you to know that the famous German philosopher, Juergen Habermas, came to a similar realisation in the early 2000’s and engaged in a series of dialogues with then-Cardinal Ratzinger (later the Pope) about the place of religious values in today’s secular culture. Habermas in no way converted to Christianity through that, but acknowledged something similar to what you’re saying. — Wayfarer

Interesting. I will look this in more depth.

You might like the book Action by Maurice Blondel. Friendly recommendation — Gregory

Thanks for all the recommendations, I will definitely give it a look - and if I'm interested - I will read them.

It's like being conscious that it's all a lie, — Gus Lamarch

That's not how I feel about it. When I was around school-leaving age, it was the 1960's, Woodstock generation, counter-culture, Beatles discovering Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, LSD. At the time, I believed more in the Hindu-Buddhist cultural attitude of religion as 'path to enlightenment' through higher consciousness. At that stage I too felt Christianity was false - like the 'fossilised remains of a once-vital insight'. Not that it was wrong, just that it was learned by rote and practiced by many people who had no real connection with the truth behind it and that it's original meaning was lost.

Subsequently I studied comparative religion, to get an idea of what 'enlightenment' meant in various cultures. This changed my attitude towards Christianity also, in that I began to interpret it in symbolic terms. Seen through that perspective, it can be highly meaningful. But I'm still mindful of the fact that two people can profess membership of just the same school or sect and have completely different understanding of what it means.

One of the sages I encountered in my search was Joseph Campbell, author of Hero with a Thousand Faces. It's now legendary that this book also inspired George Lucas and was the source of the mythology of Star Wars. Campbell too was not 'a believer' but a kind of cultural psychologist. Here's a quote of his which I think nails a lot about what is happening in 'religion in the public square':

Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies. — Joseph Campbell

Far too much time and hot air is being spent here.

The case against Christianity? They can't tell the difference between wine and blood. Their theology and ethics involve our being forgiven for something we didn't do. They discourage criticism and encourage immorality.

There is more, but what more do you need?

Their theology and ethics involve our being forgiven for something we didn't do. — Banno

It refers to the sin you inherit from your father and mother, which is the condition of being someone distinct rather than no one distinct.

There is more, but what more do you need? — Banno

:death: :flower:

It refers to the sin you inherit from your father and mother... — Nils Loc

...yep. And they think this reasonable - to punish a child for the offence of it's parents.

Take a bit of time and careful attention, if you want to learn about the argument I find most convincing against the God of Abraham, and look at Epicurus' Problem of Evil, and all that that entails.

NVM

Augustine apparently started the idea that babies were evil because they committed Adam's sin with in while in his balls

Crazy but the world is insane now, so I wouldn't knock him for it. Too much Augustinian splooge to clean up to worry much I guess.

St Paul clearly teaches that each Christian is the bride of Jesus. He can't marry a group as a group, so the meaning of the Church as the bride of Christ is clearly that each Christian marries Jesus when he becomes a Christian

yep. And they think this reasonable - to punish a child for the offence of it's parents. — Banno

I found you a brand of Christianity that isn't burdened by such ideas. https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Original_Sin