Let's talk about the Resurrection

[PilgrimsProgress]

You know, for plenty of people around the world, their religion is about how to live life, not how to 'earn' "life after death", which is nothing more than humanity's existential response to fear of their own mortality. A la Freud, etc.

What does this resurrection story mean to us today? How can we use it to help us navigate this often suffering story we live in real life? For me, it's the magic of each new day, the knowledge that no matter how awful yesterday was, today is fresh and new. Ergo, there is hope.

Wonderful post -I thought it should be rewarded with acknowledgement, rather than a boring "like".......

 

[chansen]

Perhaps atheists, like conservative old style Christians, can only cope with "this is right" or this is wrong"?

And atheists are just like religious people once more. It's Groundhog Day all over again.

There are lots of things we don't know. So we work on filling those gaps. Attempts to fill those gaps from theology, or supplant current knowledge with theology, fail miserably. They always have.

Atheists aren't your problem. Your problem is idiot fellow Christians. But instead you focus on atheists, I assume because your kids are losing faith faster than they are converting to crazier versions of the faith. We don't have atheist clubs in every town. We are hopeless at recruiting. A handful of us even care about our numbers. We just came to what we see as a reasonable conclusion. We don't think this decision lets us live forever. We don't even get a discount bus pass. We didn't even have a choice in the matter, because nothing else made sense to us.

Ffs, you guys have more basic moral and ethical positions in common with atheists than with almost any other Christians. And yet we are the inflexible ones, equated with the worst Christianity has to offer.

You are fighting the wrong battles, and you're wondering why you're losing them. How can that be?

 

[Ritafee]

Ffs, you guys have more basic moral and ethical positions in common with atheists than with almost any other Christians. And yet we are the inflexible ones, equated with the worst Christianity has to offer.

We’re all the same life, the same life that’s in you, is in me and everyone else in 'this room'.

Edit: And the birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees!

That is what we have in common. No amount of divisive language can change that.

You know, for plenty of people around the world, their religion is about how to live life, not how to 'earn' "life after death", which is nothing more than humanity's existential response to fear of their own mortality. A la Freud, etc.

What does this resurrection story mean to us today? How can we use it to help us navigate this often suffering story we live in real life? For me, it's the magic of each new day, the knowledge that no matter how awful yesterday was, today is fresh and new. Ergo, there is hope.

The 'common' definition of resurrection then (to leave religion out of it) ... a standing up again.

For plenty of people around the world ... 'earning a living' is the principle ritual practice of 'life on earth' as we know it.

For me the moral of the story of the resurrection in the bible is standing up 'figuratively' for 'Jesus' with each our own 'body' which is not the 'whole' of our life but rather the material for the demonstration of the 'resurrection' --- so to speak.

Also, as the bible story goes ... life is a gift not a curse.

To exercise the gift in a 'earn your living' cursed worldly culture as opposed to the 'standing up for Jesus' gift culture ...
has conformed us to suffering in this world ... in deed.

But a gift is a gift ...

I for one and all do not believe it will be snatched away by this 'worldly' concept of a supposed 'curse of death' as the final answer.

For my 'personalized' go at unlocking the mystery of the 'resurrection' adopting a 'posture' of 'humility' is the primary key.

I don't 'know' how to label this 'belief'? 'opinion'? in accordance with the limited construct of language ...

I did not come to my own senses by reading the bible or practicing a religious set of 'dogma' ...

There was always 'a part in me' that I sensed as 'subjective truth' ... for as long as I can remember having 'common sense' at all ... intuition?

Wonder Wonder Wonder Wonder Who ...

 

[PilgrimsProgress]

Ffs, you guys have more basic moral and ethical positions in common with atheists than with almost any other Christians. And yet we are the inflexible ones, equated with the worst Christianity has to offer.

You are fighting the wrong battles, and you're wondering why you're losing them.

If you can't so much as entertain the possibility of faith, then perhaps you are inflexible? It's true that ethically I may have more in common with some atheists than conservative Christians, but my faith is important to me and I'm content to be on my own journey. Conservative Christianity has issues - like seeing Heaven as a country club for privileged members (them) - that I don't agree with, but, just because I don't share their ideas about the Christian faith, doesn't mean I have to discard the baby with the bath water.
It's not a competition for me, although it appears to be for conservative Christians (winning souls) and militant atheists.

It's not up to you to deny me the journey of the mystery of faith, it really isn't.....

 

[Ritafee]

What is your personal belief regarding the resurrection?

My body my choice.

 

[Seeler]

If you can't so much as entertain the possibility of faith, then perhaps you are inflexible? It's true that ethically I may have more in common with some atheists than conservative Christians, but my faith is important to me and I'm content to be on my own journey. Conservative Christianity has issues - like seeing Heaven as a country club for privileged members (them) - that I don't agree with, but, just because I don't share their ideas about the Christian faith, doesn't mean I have to discard the baby with the bath water.
It's not a competition for me, although it appears to be for conservative Christians (winning souls) and militant atheists.

It's not up to you to deny me the journey of the mystery of faith, it really isn't.....

Great Thread, Pilgrim.
I have been following along. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, by the time I form my answer to a post, someone has posted what I want to say only usually more concisely and better. However, perhaps I can be first in replying to your about post, even though it is addressed to Chanson. Like you, I find that just because I don't share some of the same thology as other Christians, I can still get along with them. I could say the same about moderate atheists. I know many, some within the UCC. We have a lot in common.
I learned early, on the original Wonder Café, that I should not speak about militant atheists with Chansen. I do find that they are similar to Conservative Christians in many ways and I find it difficult to communicate with them about anything spiritual or religious in nature.

 

[Ritafee]

I think it is quite telling that, in order to demean rational inquiry, you have to equate it to faith. Our use of senses gives us evidence that we can show others. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

You are desperate for evidence. If you ever had any, you'd jump up and down and throw it in our faces. Until then, you will put down the use of our senses, and promote the use of imagination in the form of faith.

In a moment of honest reflection, Philosopher Thomas Nagel remarks ...

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

and Dawkins remarks ...

Well, I used to say it would be very simple. It would be the second coming of Jesus or a great, big, deep, booming, bass Paul Robeson voice saying, “I am God, and I created.” But I was persuaded…that even if there was this booming voice in the second coming in clouds of glory, the more probable explanation is that it’s a hallucination, or a conjuring trick by David Copperfield, or something…. A supernatural explanation for anything is incoherent. It doesn’t add up to an explanation for anything.

Boghossian pushes the question further. He asks Dawkins, “So what would persuade you?” Dawkins replies,

Well, I’m starting to think nothing would, which, in a way, goes against the grain, because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming.

As the bible story goes ...
Lazarus was living, breathing evidence of Jesus’ identity. However, rather than believe, the chief priests made plans to destroy the evidence.

My mother's life 'as she lived it' and 'as she lays dying' demonstrate for me that she has 'knowledge' or an 'orientation of the heart' that is rooted in 'faith that transcends even her own ability to rationalize it with words'. And she does not try to rationalize it ... she just 'acts' on it. That is why I harp on the faith without works is dead bible text ... If not for my mother's ability to exercise her faith for all to see why would anyone believe that she has in deed voluntarily subjected her life according to her perception 'to the will of God'. She does not preach or try to convert with words ... she demonstrates her faith through her 'undying love for life' 'for better or for worse in sickness and in health' and so on and so on. My mother is not going to die ... her 'material body' will at some point fade from 'evidence' of her life ... that absence will not destroy her presence in some other shape and form ... call it imagination if you must ... imagination is the closest thing to 'God' that we have ...this is not a problem. The problem that I have with 'atheists' or 'christians' religious or non religious is not their unbelief or their belief ... it is their need to 'destroy' the evidence as it is 'resurrected/arises' for each and other as subjective experience.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

For the non-religious:
*fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

The fruit of the Spirit is the best of human traits brought to fruition.

Love is a deep respect and gratitude for the unity in the origins of all life and its beauty.

Joy is the emotional experience of recognizing the beauty of life.

Peace is the cessation of abject suffering. (But not the complete cessation of conflict. Conflict is carried by doubt, and it’s necessary for learning and growth.)

Patience is in not reaping the harvest too soon; in not cutting the tree down to soon, not rushing to the conclusion.

Kindness is generousity.

Goodness that which puts us in pursuit of all the best human traits.

Faithfulness is sticking with it even when it’s difficult.

Gentleness is tending to life with care.

Self-control is respecting boundaries.

Justice is the spread of equality in motion.

Mercy is the recognition that the original reason others have hurt us is because they have learned to hurt, just as you have - as have all of our ancestors.

Forgiveness is freedom from debt.

Resurrection is when all of the above sprouts again, grows back fully.

Salvation is when the best human traits overcome the bad ones.

Which brings us back to patience.

(I wrote that down but it wasn’t my original idea.)

 

[Ritafee]

I think the resurrection transcends theology and can not be rationalized.

It is experienced for me in the depths of my being when I resolve to 'pick up my cross' and Vaya con Dios.

Sad to confess ...

The state religion then comes a calling with their claim to my children and their children's children's accrued debt to the principles of power invoked in my name and I am back in the loop ... the resurrection will have to wait ... by the crucifixion of an 'other' I am allowed to continue my practice of idolatry before I am finished for the real deal ... so I get back to work rendering for ceasar salad ... and then ... like a big bang ... another resurrection and my whole being resonates with love for 'other' and I want to go out and repent for the error of my banal way to the crucifixion of 'other' and I once again resolve to abandon my con-formed worldview in favor of the holy-other worldview ... so I start doing good and neglecting my fiscal responsibility to the con-fabulous world ... of a course the 'inevitable' technique of the electronic mail brings me back to the really-rational-world. I am once again admonished by my fellow travelers to render unto ceasar that which is ceasar's or every material-worldly possession with my name on it will be be forfeited to that state of the seizure-induced-panic. Necessary evil is the only way out. What is needed then is an 'other' crucifixion. Keep those resurrections coming is my eternal hope ... I am almost ready ... but for now ... send money if you can ... I have not finished 'practicing' my religion.

Any way ... this day ... I am stuck in the throes of a summer cold and might be a bit off key in my rage against the body.

The death of my material body ... no thing but a blessing as far as I am concerned. I often contemplate killing it myself ... however ... as it appears ... I have been given a material body for this part of my life ... there must be some reason to keep it till it decides it has had enough of me ... and then ... the wind of freedom will lift the rest of me up up and away ... setting me free for freedom sake ... and I sure as no-hell do not imagine carrying this bodily baggage for my ever-lasting-life.

 

[Ritafee]

Ffs, you guys have more basic moral and ethical positions in common with atheists than with almost any other Christians. And yet we are the inflexible ones, equated with the worst Christianity has to offer.

What basic moral and ethical positions do atheists agree on with each other?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

What basic moral and ethical positions do atheists agree on with each other?

To love justice, to long for right, to love mercy, to pity the suffering, to assist the weak, to forget wrongs and remember benefits, to love truth, To be sincere, to utter honest words, to love liberty, to wage relentless war against slavery in all forms, to love wife and child and friend, to make a safe and happy home, to love the beauty in art and nature, to cultivate the mind, to be familiar with the mighty thoughts that genius has expressed, to be familiar with the noble deeds of the world, to cultivate courage and cheerfulness, to make others safe and happy, to fill life with splendor by generous acts, to express warmth with loving words, to discard error, to destroy prejudice, to receive new truths with an open heart and mind, to cultivate hope, to see the calm beyond the storm and the dawn beyond the night, to do the best that can be done and then be resigned. This is the mentality of reason, the creed of science. it satisfies the brain and the heart. Robert G Ingersoll ( 1833 - 1899 ) And to irradicate hate in all forms.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Robert Ingersoll sounded like he was, at least, shaped by Christianity - the words he uses are indicative of that.

Do you think atheists agree on those values today? I don’t think all Christians would agree with them (unfortunately, simply because they are not words written by a Christian), but I do. I think several Christians here would agree with the quote you posted @Pavlos Maros .

 

[chansen]

Robert Ingersoll sounded like he was, at least, shaped by Christianity...

*facepalm*

 

[chansen]

Let me just explain the facepalm reaction now that I've had 15 minuted to walk away and do something else.

Every time someone says something nice and life affirming, it immediately gets compared to Christianity. That's bulls**t. Ingersoll was by most accounts a deist, but it hardly matters. Nice thoughts are not automatically Christian, any more than evil thoughts are automatically Christian.

 

[chansen]

If you can't so much as entertain the possibility of faith, then perhaps you are inflexible?

I also can't entertain the possibility that the moon landing was a hoax, or that the earth is flat. Does that make me inflexible?

I am completely willing to listen, and I have listened, for many years, to Christians. I have not been impressed by a single Christian claim. It very much appears that there are zero facts behind Christianity, and that it soldiers on in the minds of so many because of a strange mix of tradition and delusion, present in varying ratios from person to person.

For that observation, I'm labelled "inflexible". That's fine. People can try to call me whatever they want. But I think fairness has nothing to do with mindlessly shutting off your brain and declaring that "both sides have a point!" If something like Christianity, that has been proposed to me countless times as a faith I should base my life around, is holding an empty bag, I think I should say so. This is not some child's imaginary friend that I should entertain because it's cute. This is a major influence in the world, in our politics, that I think is most likely based on a series of lies. And the product of Christianity, at least the parts of it that are thriving, are not good. Not even to the nice Christians.

So yeah, I'm inflexible in the face of baseless ideas that make people stupid. And I'm not going to be shamed into playing nice because some nice people really like to believe in it.

It's not a competition for me, although it appears to be for conservative Christians (winning souls) and militant atheists.

Conservative Christians are literally killing people over this faith. They have shamed gays into the closet and to their deaths. They are trying to label climate change a hoax because f*** "God's creation". They mock you at every opportunity as "wishy washy" or somehow not Christian. I don't do any of that, but somehow I'm just as bad.

I think the best way to combat Christianity, is to mock it back into the dark ages where it belongs. If only all religion-focused militants used words.

It's not up to you to deny me the journey of the mystery of faith, it really isn't.....

If a few words can deny you your faith, then you don't have much of a faith.

 

[Mendalla]

Every time someone says something nice and life affirming, it immediately gets compared to Christianity. That's bulls**t. Ingersoll was by most accounts a deist, but it hardly matters. Nice thoughts are not automatically Christian, any more than evil thoughts are automatically Christian.

No, they aren't, but Ingersoll was raised Christian in a heavily Christian environment (his father was a fairly radical Congregationalist minister) so was quite likely influenced by that, even if his father's mistreatment (Rev. Ingersoll frequently got in trouble for his radical views) helped prompt him to leave that world. To pretend that he was not influenced in his values by that upbringing would be naive to say the least. Even "recovering evangelicals" (see other thread) often acknowledge values and ideas that they have kept from that world.

 

[chansen]

Christianity was completely pervasive at that time in that culture, and though the ideas can be completely secular, they get hijacked by Christians at every opportunity. As if you can't get there by any other means.

 

[Mendalla]

Christianity was completely pervasive at that time in that culture, and though the ideas can be completely secular, they get hijacked by Christians at every opportunity. As if you can't get there by any other means.

So you're suggesting that being raised by a radical, abolitionist Congregational minister whose values clearly came from his faith in no way affected Robert Ingersoll also being an abolitionist and radical? That's about a bulls**t as it gets. The fact is, many of the "secular ideas" in modern humanism came from Christianity, not secularism. Separating church and state, for instance, came from radical non-conformist Christian groups like the Puritans who had been oppressed by dominant state-backed and -empowered churches (e.g. Anglicanism in the British empire, Catholicism in Southern Europe and related empires). As is often said, they were seeking "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion". It was only once that separation was achieved that secularism took advantage of it and flourished.

 

[chansen]

It's still bulls**t that any positive idea immediately gets claimed by Christianity. You can't escape its gravitational pull because whenever even someone who is trying to put some distance between themselves and the bible has a positive idea, Christianity claims it.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Let me just explain the facepalm reaction now that I've had 15 minuted to walk away and do something else.

Every time someone says something nice and life affirming, it immediately gets compared to Christianity. That's bulls**t. Ingersoll was by most accounts a deist, but it hardly matters. Nice thoughts are not automatically Christian, any more than evil thoughts are automatically Christian.

This is a thread about Resurrection, so forgive me for having Christianity in mind. Ingersoll was alive in the 19th century. The little bit I read about him actually does suggest he was shaped by Christianity - brought up in a strict Christian home - but became agnostic, and very critical of organized religion. He was much like progressive Christians today...which would’ve put him ahead of his time. He was also an early feminist...denouncing the church’s treatment of women and how that was shaping society’s treatment of women at the time. I can’t say he was shaped by feminist theory per say, because it didn’t exist yet.