Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

[Untitled]

You can always believe you really understand the spirit of the scriptures and that others are wrong. Others can believe you are a flaming heretic. But you'll be a christian heretic.
So yes you can ignore all the tenents and be a christian, but you'll be considered a heretic. If you were right and time will prove you right...a martyr. ...or just a heretic. ...or just right.

 

[Kmal]

You can always believe you really understand the spirit of the scriptures and that others are wrong. Others can believe you are a flaming heretic. But you'll be a christian heretic.
So yes you can ignore all the tenents and be a christian, but you'll be considered a heretic. If you were right and time will prove you right...a martyr. ...or just a heretic. ...or just right.

You can't always do what's right, but you can always do what you would do.

 

[Apone]

These are pictures of the natural world. Are atheists now claiming to be the Creators of the universe?

While individual atheists may create beauty, you simply don't see atheists gathering together in large groups, creating beauty. There is nothing that atheists do which is comparable to rite and liturgy.

Now if you wanna go out and change that, and create the First Atheist Church of Random Beauty, I support you.

I didn't realize you were talking about 'creating'… it seemed like you were saying that atheists have no appreciation of beautiful things, or that the religious aesthetic is superior to all others, which is just not true.

Also, most/all of that religious 'beauty' you're so keen on was still created by an individual-- the group performs it, but they're interpreting/reproducing, not actually creating. There are gorgeous arrangements of all kinds of pieces of music… but I suppose the religious context has to advantage of not needing to bend to capitalist demand.

Still, many extremely beautiful pieces of music are not religious-themed-- Beethoven's 6th is one of my favorites, and it's mostly about going for a walk in the forest on a really nice day.

And another reason that atheists don't convene and create together is because atheism isn't really a belief per se, it's more like people who think that it's time to cast aside all of the obsolete theories of existence. It's hard to organize people around something that they don't believe in, and it's pretty pointless and antagonistic to go around creating works of art celebrating the death of God, or whatever.

But that doesn't mean there aren't a host of other reasons why some people who just happen to be atheists couldn't create great works of art… not about atheism, but about being, or nature, or the universe, or imagination. The difference is that atheists don't end up turning it into a tribute to something which they believe does not exist.

 

[the]

Also, most/all of that religious 'beauty' you're so keen on was still created by an individual

How nit picky. I guess you really one-uped her with that one.

 

[Kmal]

You dont have to believe it happened literally to be a Christian, that's not the faith it's talking about. It's a parable- a story that illustrates a point, lesson, or set of principles. The death and resurrection have a deeper meaning than just "believe this lol and you'll go to heaven." You can think it happened literally, that's fine, but if it didnt happen literally, the principle is negated? Did a tortoise and a hare actually race and the rabbit take a nap to poke fun at the tortoise and lose because he was boasting? Probably not, but that fable's lesson remains even though it didnt happen 'in real life.' Fable uses animals, parable uses people.

I'm not saying he didnt rise from the dead because i know he did. Having your body being raised up from the dead can be looked at more than one way, especially with the hebrew language. Acknowledge that the hebrew language uses concrete words to describe abstract things and you will see where I'm coming from. Unconditional love is achievable since we've seen someone do it, and we havent even seen it. That is one of the main ideas I get from the death- as for the rebirth, that explains there is no end. Time is not like a timeline, it is cyclical like a clock. It is a bunch of beginnings and ends, starting with who? Ending with who? Should we see just the symbol or what the symbol stands for?

 

[Billy]

Atheist church? that doesnt make sense...

Atheist is to belief
what
bald is to hair color.

 

[Kmal]

Atheist church? that doesnt make sense...

Atheist is to religion as
what
bald is to hair color.

Fixed. Belief however- i've gathered it is the belief that there is nothing to have faith in except science.

 

[the]

Do you think that people actually benefit in any way from your numerous sarcastic asides?
Serious question.

I benefit mostly. If you would like me to be direct and tell you that I thought you were being a jerk then I will oblige.

 

[Vict]

About as much as I believe that the Great Old Ones will rise from the sea.

 

[grt$5vb]

I'm in agreement with Mr. Aquila. That was the point I was trying to make actually. I don't understand how there is a debate to be had or how people don't believe Christ rose from the tomb. The merit to this question is beyond me.

 

[Apone]

Fixed. Belief however- i've gathered it is the belief that there is nothing to have faith in except science.

Science doesn't have complete faith in anything, including itself.

And I have to agree that believing in the resurrection is probably a big part of being a Christian… saying 'Jesus was just a man with some interesting ideas' or some sort of pacifist motivational speaker probably doesn't make you Christian, because that could describe a lot of people in history, and if Jesus was just a man then there's absolutely no point in elevating him above all the others who contributed even greater ideas before he even existed-- other than the fact that he (or the image of the bearded, flaxen-haired European traditionally associated with him) is probably more immediately recognizable than most other historical figures, and certainly one of the most omnipresent figures in American culture.

So yeah, it's not worth calling yourself a Christian because you're obsessed with someone just because most other people are obsessed with him too.

 

[Kmal]

Science doesn't have complete faith in anything, including itself.
So yeah, it's not worth calling yourself a Christian because you're obsessed with someone just because most other people are obsessed with him too.

I didnt say science had faith in it self, you're giving it human qualities much like christians do to god. I was talking about atheists having faith in science because it generates empirical evidence. Regardless, the label is worthless if the vegetarian is eating meat knowingly- so why even give your self a label? Emotional connection? Self-validation? Validation through community?

 

[Saru Inc]

I'm not saying he didnt rise from the dead because i know he did. Having your body being raised up from the dead can be looked at more than one way, especially with the hebrew language. Acknowledge that the hebrew language uses concrete words to describe abstract things and you will see where I'm coming from. Unconditional love is achievable since we've seen someone do it, and we havent even seen it. That is one of the main ideas I get from the death- as for the rebirth, that explains there is no end. Time is not like a timeline, it is cyclical like a clock. It is a bunch of beginnings and ends, starting with who? Ending with who? Should we see just the symbol or what the symbol stands for?

--Author note - My E and H and now apparently A keys on my keyboard are not working correctly, so pardon any typos that may come --

What you bring up is a common statement, which I agree to for a certain extent. However the true miracle of the miracle is that he physically over came it. He took all the sin of the world on him, for all future generations. The penalty of this is death, but because Jesus is fully man and fully God, He overcame death itself, physically -and- spiritually. Without either of those aspects, it wouldn't be the miracle it is. Your post reminded me of a debate I had with an atheist, and he said "its so funny how you try so hard to justify the Bible." I said to him "and it disheartens me that you try so hard to disprove it" ... Jesus is Risen and for anyone to say otherwise is wrong. But I will point it out again: it is not wrong on my behalf, but God's behalf. There are many verses on this, I actually googled it and there's a compilation, so I will post that here. http://www.openbible.info/topics/judging_others

That's a point I want to make clear. Yes, in general I tend to 'troll' a lot, simply because I find it humourous and usually tends to be in good fun. But one of the tenets I take very seriously is this: there IS right and wrong in the world, you have asked for proof, and it is shown in the Bible. However, I DO NOT judge others for not believe in the BIble, but I do not say what they believe is right. I pray that God's will will be done for all people, and I really don't think any less of a non Christian. It is all in the Bible, yet it is prophesied by Jesus that you won't believe it, unless your heart truly hungers for God. Now I understand all the worldy and earthly implications and attitudes towards looking for guidance from a Book written before we were born. But to that I say this: of what of the scholarly articles of ancient Athens, Constantinople, Rome, and antiquity? Such empires have long fallen from Man's grasp by Man itself, and yet you so readily belive their teachings. You may argue "but these are facts we can verify today, these are ideas we can still think about and apply to our current selves!" But what is life? But what is Spirit? Don't these all come from Our Most High Father? Surely to be able to be all that we are today, we couldn't have come from Man. For Man only destroys, but God gives to those who ask.

Think about all the major civilizations run by Man who have not counseled with God? They've all fallen, or are now fallling: Mesopotamia, Sumer, Ur, Soddam and Gomorrah, Egypt, Rome, Carthage, the Nubian Empire, and now Europe and soon to be China will fall. If we came only from Man, then we would have never accomplished so much in this world, but by God's Grace we thrive. And of America? The land blessed by God's grace? Yes, we have fallen, but because of the disregard for God's commandment of Life, and we still have a chance to restore God's glory in America, and thus America will be restored. For those who deny that, I ask -- how did America become great in the first place? America was based on Judeo-Christian values of compassion, forgiveness, working hard, and being responsible for YOURSELF, and ENJOYING the fruits of our labor. We passed Europe while Europe was still practically in Feudalism. And now us, the ragtag colonists of Europe who sought Freedom are now MOCKED by Europeans for they fear that if we grow too confident we will turn our back on them and attack them. Also they owe us a lot of money from WW1/2

 

[Rasmus]

I'm not saying he didnt rise from the dead because i know he did. Having your body being raised up from the dead can be looked at more than one way, especially with the hebrew language. Acknowledge that the hebrew language uses concrete words to describe abstract things and you will see where I'm coming from.

Surely you jest being that the New Testament (where we find the death and resurrection accounts of Jesus) is translated from Greek. The Old Testament (where Jesus, as a man, was not yet born) is translated from Hebrew and Aramaic. As far as "where you're coming from" is concerned, and with all due respect, I think you don't know what the heck you're talking about. If you want to "troll properly" perhaps you should pick a book or topic you are more familiar with or just stick to abstract philosophy where the truth can be whatever you make it. Or heck, you could hunker down and study the crap out of the actual bible and have a good laugh at yourself in a few years for saying things like "it doesn't matter if he literally rose from the dead" or "I haven't been shown anywhere in the bible that would make me think it is a history lesson". It does matter. I'm not going to hold your hand on that one though. If you ever get off your butt and dive in you'll answer your own questions / accusations. As far as history goes I'll post a link but let's be honest, since you haven't emitted even a half ass hint of devotion to studying the bible I doubt you'll even skim the information. Perhaps someone who is actually interested in the history in the bible will have a look.

http://www.forumterrace.com/Questions/Historically.html

I realize I'm coming across as a bit of a jerkface. Forgive me. I lack the eloquence of sweet rebukes. I do care about you as a person. Please don't mistake my love of scripture as a hatred toward you. For whatever it's worth, I'm much less of an ogre than I used to be though I've got a long road ahead as you can clearly see. Goodnight to you.

 

[Barnabas]

I'm not saying he didnt rise from the dead because i know he did. Having your body being raised up from the dead can be looked at more than one way, especially with the hebrew language. Acknowledge that the hebrew language uses concrete words to describe abstract things and you will see where I'm coming from. Unconditional love is achievable since we've seen someone do it, and we havent even seen it. That is one of the main ideas I get from the death- as for the rebirth, that explains there is no end. Time is not like a timeline, it is cyclical like a clock. It is a bunch of beginnings and ends, starting with who? Ending with who? Should we see just the symbol or what the symbol stands for?

Just going to throw out that most of the NT was written in Greek.

As for the poll, I believe in a literal resurrection, and that without the literal Resurrection our religion means very little.

[FONT=Charis SIL, charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[GracieRuth]

I didn't realize you were talking about 'creating'… it seemed like you were saying that atheists have no appreciation of beautiful things, or that the religious aesthetic is superior to all others, which is just not true.

Oh, no nono, not at all. Most of the atheists I know do appreciate beauty, both natural and manmade.

You are correct in that I was referring to the phenomenon that occurs in religion quite commonly where the assemblying of similarly religious people results in the co-creation of incredible moments of great beauty. I also acknowledge that you can have the individual atheist who is the artist or the composer, but you just don't have groups of 100s or 1000s of atheists getting together and bringing a composition to life in the name of G-dlessness. There are a lot of things religion has to offer that atheism AS YET has nothing similar. It could be this will change.

Meandering...I know that there are atheists who have realized that they are missing out on religious community, and they are trying to establish similar communities but based on more skeptical scientific materialist principal. It's a brand new endeavor, and we have yet to see if it works out. My suspicions are that without the creative spiritual imagination they will lack the glue that makes it all stick. However, if they succeed they will be happier and healthier people, and so I do wish them the very best.

Remember too that I spend my hours in prayer with many Jewish atheists who, although they have no belief in G-d, have personally found that the benefits of a religious community simply outweigh being dogmatic about the existence (or not) of the divine.

Also, most/all of that religious 'beauty' you're so keen on was still created by an individual-- the group performs it, but they're interpreting/reproducing, not actually creating.

This is a valid question to raise, and I'm glad you have done so, and actually I'm finding our little chat very enjoyable. I think that on the surface what you are saying is "obvious," that you make the "prima facie" case. I would like to suggest that it is not quite so simple. A music composition is worthless if no one will perform it, interpret it, breath life into it. Every time a piece is performed it is different, and this is especially true of music improvisational forms such as the Taize collection. You may travel down the same river, but the river itself is not the same, for a long endless list of random chaotic variables gives the river a new life every moment. I always loved being a cantor when we'd do a Taize piece, because there is always a certain thrill to improvisation, to not knowing exactly what you are going to do until you actually do it, and so you listen to your own voice in suprise and and awe like, "Did I just do that? Or did the song do that to me?" I'm sure it wasn't that experience for every cantor--some are very "these are the exact notes and the exact words and so what else would I sing?" LOL But what I'm saying is that OVERALL the experience is indeed co-creative. Without singers and musicians, a composition is nothing but meaningless ink on a page.

Still, many extremely beautiful pieces of music are not religious-themed-- Beethoven's 6th is one of my favorites, and it's mostly about going for a walk in the forest on a really nice day.

Who doesn't love Beethoven? My fav is Symph 7 the Allegretto (2nd mvt).

The difference is that atheists don't end up turning it into a tribute to something which they believe does not exist.

I would think that atheists could still have "something greater than ourselves" that they could celebrate, even if it is abstractions such as Beauty, Love, Justice, etc. In fact, I find it rather odd that NF's who are atheists don't form such groups. Anyhow, just me thinking.

In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy the great works of art, literature, and music that come to us through the creative religious mind, even with all its quirks.

 

[barbad0s]

Yes, yes I believe he did, because fuck logic.

 

[Apone]

I know that there are atheists who have realized that they are missing out on religious community, and they are trying to establish similar communities but based on more skeptical scientific materialist principal. It's a brand new endeavor, and we have yet to see if it works out. My suspicions are that without the creative spiritual imagination they will lack the glue that makes it all stick. However, if they succeed they will be happier and healthier people, and so I do wish them the very best.

I think one of the problems is that atheists don't really have a specific spiritual identity--it's extremely difficult to build a community/coherent sense of your spiritual self around a lack of beliefs.

I can definitely identify with atheists who enjoy the sense of community that comes with being religious... it's extremely difficult to exist in a vacuum, or in a purely solitary fashion where your beliefs are so tailored to your own inclinations that you couldn't possibly 'click' with anyone except in that you both reject organized religion.

I wouldn't even know how something would begin to qualify as 'atheist art'... but on the other hand, with something like music, I'm not completely sure that it is ever inherently religious-- the lyrics can be religious, but most of religiousness attached is a product of conditioning. This probably does color your experience of the music... but I'm not sure that there isn't a point where music always inevitably becomes something more universal... as you were saying, something beyond what its creators, or even its performers intended. So yeah, I might argue that the concept of 'religious music' is actually only interpretation after the fact.

If a group of atheists broke through the stigma and gathered together to perform a 'religious' piece (changing the lyrics, of course), would it still be religious? Would it sound terrible? Or would it be pretty much the same thing? Would the context, or the fact that it was suddenly about giving your dog a bath make it less beautiful? I don't think that music necessarily has to celebrate anything... it can be about itself, or maybe about something that can't be articulated.

I could also argue that religiousness/irreligiousness translates best to media where the creator retains a larger degree of control over the interpretation of the final product. The film 2001: A Space Odyssey is, for me, an example of truly transcendent, irreligious art. Kubrick was an atheist and yet he obviously recognized a very visceral form of beauty in experience itself... the entire film can be read as an ode to/celebration of science and the universe. But of course, it's still ambiguous enough that you could interpret it religiously-- so yeah, I guess the trouble is that if you were to make it any more direct, it would probably suck.

A lot of true science fiction (the non-action kind) could be read as atheistic... though I suppose literature is actually the most solitary art form. Jorge Borges (agnostic, but still) is probably my favorite author, along with William S. Burroughs... and both of those authors embrace the weirdness and confusion of just being alive-- you can have moments of transcendence that are continuous with banality, or completely insane juxtapositions of profundity and nonsense without reaching for a religious explanation...

And I'm enjoying this conversation too... I'm actually starting to think about things.

PS: I love the 7th's second movement-- absolutely gorgeous... very somber though.

 

[Kmal]

Surely you jest being that the New Testament (where we find the death and resurrection accounts of Jesus) is translated from Greek. The Old Testament (where Jesus, as a man, was not yet born) is translated from Hebrew and Aramaic. As far as "where you're coming from" is concerned, and with all due respect, I think you don't know what the heck you're talking about. If you want to "troll properly" perhaps you should pick a book or topic you are more familiar with or just stick to abstract philosophy where the truth can be whatever you make it. Or heck, you could hunker down and study the crap out of the actual bible and have a good laugh at yourself in a few years for saying things like "it doesn't matter if he literally rose from the dead" or "I haven't been shown anywhere in the bible that would make me think it is a history lesson". It does matter. I'm not going to hold your hand on that one though. If you ever get off your butt and dive in you'll answer your own questions / accusations. As far as history goes I'll post a link but let's be honest, since you haven't emitted even a half ass hint of devotion to studying the bible I doubt you'll even skim the information. Perhaps someone who is actually interested in the history in the bible will have a look.

I know of Rome's persecution of the Christians in history. As well as their faith to continue preaching in chains to show truth. While I wasnt aware of the NT being translated from greek, that doesnt mean since their language already had abstract words in it they had a reason to use them in favor of concrete words when they knew the hebrews would be reading it. Maybe they thought their audience would respond better if it were made out to look like it happened physically, maybe they thought it would help them believe better- maybe the miracles really happened. I dont doubt it! I'm not declaring it didnt happen, or happen. My mind requires I make no judgement as long as I understand it can be done, and I know it can, because I believe it without having seen it. I know what the spirit can do. Jesus said we would do greater things than he! He edified people, never judging them or breaking them down,

2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Love is like art to me. To love someone and uplift someone requires creativity! Sometimes I may go over the top to squeeze something out of someone, but I'm certainly trying get love out of them.

Just going to throw out that most of the NT was written in Greek.
As for the poll, I believe in a literal resurrection, and that without the literal Resurrection our religion means very little.

For some reason, I keep thinking humans translated the original manuscripts hundreds of times until now, and humans are now interpreting the bible. I keep wanting to allow for error on the humans part. The ideas and spiritual feelings I get, but the human part is fun to play with.

 

[Saru Inc]

[SUB]​[/SUB]