Is the Christian story a myth?

[jimkenney12]

Fundamentalist Christianity goes beyond the Christian message. Fundamentalist atheism, to me, goes beyond believing there is no deity to believing there is nothing beyond the reality we recognize. Fundamentalist atheists would almost certainly reject the concept of synchronicity raised in some of these posts, that we are all connected in a way we do not understand at a deep level.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Ask @Pavlos Maros. Now that chansen is gone, he is the closest thing we have to a fundamentalist atheistic. I describe myself as a-theistic, or non-theistic, but with a high level of agnosticism.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

In post 20 I said this.
"What are the fundamentals of atheism?
The fundamentals of christianity are I believe, biblical inerrancy, the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and his return.
So please what are the fundamentals of atheism? And sorry this is off topic. But needs to be ask. Now it has been put forward. And incidentally, I'm not saying, that there aren't over zealous atheists, but that isn't fundamentalism."
I'm labeled an atheist, but all that means is I'm not a theist. I label myself a humanist.
Fundamental and atheist cannot be put together. Because there are no fundamentals of atheism.
Richard Dawkins put forward a belief/nonbelief scale. Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia I personally believe that 1 and 7 are impossible because neither person at these extremes could possibly travel the universe, to see if a god is hiding under a rock somewhere. So they could never say they know. The best option for both extremes is 2 and 6, I am a 6 which makes me an agnostic/atheist because agnostism is about knowledge and atheism is about belief. Anybody who is honest would share either of these two extremes, in regard to their theism/atheism. But as said atheist is a label given to me from a theistic perspective, and not one I really share.

 

[ninj]

I think the inherent problem is admitting there's too much we can never know. There some areas where we are permanently limited by our capacities, but rather than hold that ambiguity, the tendency is to look for significance.
The universe could be something completely different from what we can apprehend.
We assign importance to concepts like time measurement or meaning, which are unique to us. Provisional for survival.
There's genuine humility in understanding our smallness. We don't have nearly as much volition or control as we think.
I was really lucky, especially in hindsight, to have been raised in a humanist/atheist/agnostic household with lots of compassion and truth. No god but lots of room for questioning.

 

[jimkenney12]

The foundational belief for Christianity is that Jesus had good news for everyone. Christian fundamentalism confines belief to the ancient creeds established hundreds of years after his death. I believe Pavlos Marcos and chansen are atheists who only believe there is no deity, and seek to invite deists to save themselves from their erroneous beliefs. Extreme atheists sound like and act like Christian fundamentalists with their determined adherence to the correct belief, so why not call them fundamentalist atheists?

 

[Luce NDs]

The Good News for some Christians is that they could sacrifice someone to believe that it saved them until they found themselves next in line! This is illustrated in many factions of edifice of substantial nature ... not the immaterial essence of the collective intelligence that is nothing but a bad spot on the medium ... a smeared medium ... it is something that was not cleared ... thus intelligence on the object is beyond the subject!

People generally divine into a du of poles one stoic on nothing and the alternate stoic on matter ... whereas to a processing medium an atom of matter is an electrified proton ... a' priori? That's like Beguines that are generally unknown due to isolation and anonymity ... purely un labelled? Non nominal ... these can't be counted because of segregation ... divine issue like skits ... when people act out soliloquy stuff as sacredly connected! Gnostic (hidden) sects ... if you know anything whatsoever ... obscure it in a myth, legend, or other deep literature that the great wills declare as not to be read! Triumphant awe ... thus the substance of the surroundings collapse into a mystery spot ... ash ole? Explains some literature on burning pits ... Gehenna as prodigal (waste) of effort generating Black Pearls! Thus enflamed ...

Imagine a vast heat of night as an unseen pyre! Previous view as Dejah Vu ... much missed or misty ... Jung and Dr. John Dourley said it all summed up ultimately to nothing ... first one has to ask the ultimate question; what's that? Go figure ... given what's denied in our culture of stoicism! Stand tall ... columns ultimately come down ... structuralism must be re done ...

May require medium of some genus ... that understands such an event cannot be processed all alone ... rare and Eire Cases hard as blarney ... a rocky subject? Hard headed ... like Canon and Bulls ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Poor virtue if it cannot evolve from a solid position ... awe motive that some say is 'R eek 'n esse? Dribble down power ... exhausting ...

Rock and seeps ... Moses cracked it ... thus crystalline water ensues ... springs? Do water sources demonize as we dash to foul it? In myth it is stated that water is a support system for s'ul ... light effect or levity? There be sully ... cool and collected while landing on the pool formed between poles ... ignorance rules ... fr the sake of what we didn't wish to know of the vast unknown ... an incarnate ideal? Not how it physically appears ... yet still aga^st ...

 

[ninj]

"...Extreme atheists sound like and act like Christian fundamentalists with their determined adherence to the correct belief, so why not call them fundamentalist atheists?"

Not quite fair, although I do understand what you're saying. Actually atheists exist on a continuum between "hard" and "soft"....like religious people. Not all are adept with presenting a cogent argument appropriate to the situation. That's unfortunate.
Both are valuable. The ones who are more confrontational actually work to challenge pompous and wilful ignorance by systematically questioning them until their ignorance is evident.
Soft ones show more by example ie "They're an atheist but act better than many Christians...hmmm".

 

[ninj]

Not quite fair, although I do understand what you're saying. Actually atheists exist on a continuum between "hard" and "soft"....like religious people. Not all are adept with presenting a cogent argument appropriate to the situation. That's unfortunate.
Both are valuable. The ones who are more confrontational actually work to challenge pompous and wilful ignorance by systematically questioning them until their ignorance is evident.
Soft ones show more by example ie "They're an atheist but act better than many Christians...hmmm".

Make no mistake though. I firmly believe teaching religion to children to accept in faith a religion that takes its foundational texts from a horrendous bronze age source is wrong. It does harm, not good. Yes, world religions are an interesting study, but no kid should be served up biblical stories as if they're different from fairy tales, and even then, they should be rated R. Morality doesn't come from "faith".
I stand by that.

 

[ninj]

A form of abuse is doing violence to a child's rational faculties.

 

[Mendalla]

Morality doesn't come from "faith".

Those stories, though, represent how humans have transmitted values and ideas for much of history. Looking at them through that lens can be part of an education in "ethics" and "morality", it's just you need to (a) make it one text among many (there's lots to learn from other faiths and philosophies) and (b) frame it correctly as a mix of history, myth (as we discussed above), literature, etc. rather than as a coherent account of "God's sovereign plan".

 

[Luce NDs]

Transmit the entire collection of story ... this allows freedom of choice on which some base common sentience may form to corrupt ultimately powerful will to be boss over poorly understood matter ...

Out of those may come something of value intellectually that will immediately be denied by great wills! Thus vast sentience remains out there ... where will doesn't have to be familiar!

 

[ninj]

Those stories, though, represent how humans have transmitted values and ideas for much of history. Looking at them through that lens can be part of an education in "ethics" and "morality", it's just you need to (a) make it one text among many (there's lots to learn from other faiths and philosophies) and (b) frame it correctly as a mix of history, myth (as we discussed above), literature, etc. rather than as a coherent account of "God's sovereign plan".

Agreed, but a kid's developmental stage must be considered. Important nuances are mostly lost unless the critical skills are in place.
Agree with the rest.
Children should always know religious faith is optional.

 

[Luce NDs]

Agreed, but a kid's developmental stage must be considered. Important nuances are mostly lost unless the critical skills are in place.
Agree with the rest.
Children should always know religious faith is optional.

Imagine critical skills passing on ... because of CRT! It runs out on many incidents because of the alien impacts ... a strange sentient!

One must prepared for a lot of ode things as placed in essays ... iconic projections of experience of generally unknowns that are great in the Hebrew tradition of unknown ideals ... you just do not know what is in/on minds ... there is a class that doesn't understand writs of that nature due to avoidance of reading assignations ..

 

[Pavlos Maros]

The foundational belief for Christianity is that Jesus had good news for everyone. Christian fundamentalism confines belief to the ancient creeds established hundreds of years after his death. I believe Pavlos Marcos and chansen are atheists who only believe there is no deity, and seek to invite deists to save themselves from their erroneous beliefs. Extreme atheists sound like and act like Christian fundamentalists with their determined adherence to the correct belief, so why not call them fundamentalist atheists?

Simply because there are no fundamentals to atheism, it is nothing more than being unconvinced a god exists. I have no believes either way, when it comes to a god/gods existence. I'm just not convinced. Because no one has ever met their burden in that regard. As said in post #83 whether one does, I could not possibly know. But that does not mean that one does. Not until the burden has been met. And I'm still waiting?
Oh and deist are theist too, (They have a god belief.) who haven't met their burden either.
You can only call them over zealous atheists. Nothing else is correct. Unless of course you are rewriting the dictionary?

 

[jimkenney12]

Not quite fair, although I do understand what you're saying. Actually atheists exist on a continuum between "hard" and "soft"....like religious people. Not all are adept with presenting a cogent argument appropriate to the situation. That's unfortunate.
Both are valuable. The ones who are more confrontational actually work to challenge pompous and wilful ignorance by systematically questioning them until their ignorance is evident.
Soft ones show more by example ie "They're an atheist but act better than many Christians...hmmm".

When I referred to correct belief, I was referring to the belief that nothing exists beyond the reality we know, a belief sometimes called scientism. Their fundamentalism extends beyond there is no deity to there is nothing other than the reality we know.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Those stories, though, represent how humans have transmitted values and ideas for much of history. Looking at them through that lens can be part of an education in "ethics" and "morality", it's just you need to (a) make it one text among many (there's lots to learn from other faiths and philosophies) and (b) frame it correctly as a mix of history, myth (as we discussed above), literature, etc. rather than as a coherent account of "God's sovereign plan".

Agreed. but so has aesops fables, a thousand and one nights and Grimms fairy tales, etc. but only the bible is "supposedly telling the truth." Lol.

 

[Mendalla]

Agreed, but a kid's developmental stage must be considered. Important nuances are mostly lost unless the critical skills are in place.
Agree with the rest.
Children should always know religious faith is optional.

UUs have religious education curricula that do precisely this. It's kind of our thing, really, given that our fourth principle is a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning" and our sources include pretty much all of human thought once you unpack them a bit.

One interesting point: I have known at least one person raised UU who ended up evangelical Christian. So, even someone raised with a fairly rationalist, critical approach to religious and philosophical ideas can be drawn to that tradition.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

When I referred to correct belief, I was referring to the belief that nothing exists beyond the reality we know, a belief sometimes called scientism. Their fundamentalism extends beyond there is no deity to there is nothing other than the reality we know.

What fundamenalism. You keep saying that. Can you, one post a link please. And two show us a factual alternative that can be used to teach us about the universe, the world, and reality. Thank you.

 

[Mendalla]

What fundamenalism. You keep saying that. Can you, one post a link please. And two show us a factual alternative that can be used to teach us about the universe, the world, and reality. Thank you.

Without delving in deep to what you've been discussing with Jim, the fundamentalism comes when one rejects any thought or approach different from your own and insist that your way is how the world should be run. That's the pattern you see with fundamentalism in Christianity and Islam.

I am not sure I have ever really seen that in an atheist school of thought (atheism itself is just an idea found in many streams of philosophy), but some atheists certainly start heading that way when they start talking about bans on religion or specific religious traditions. If atheists expect their ideas to be accepted and respected by the religious, it has to be a two-way street. Dialogue rather than diatribe is what will give us a better world.