New Atheism and Your Probs With It, If Any

[compared2what?]

Oh, I know the Nazi state had an extensive relationship with the church, however, it was strictly business I also believe Nazis infiltrated the Vatican. But Hitler wanted no part of Christianity except to exploit it for his own purposes.

I do believe Nazism was/is very definitely a religion or religious movement.

religion -
1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers
3. something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion
4. archaic
a. the practice of sacred ritual observances
b. sacred rites and ceremonies

I keep getting tripped up by (4), no matter what interpretations of "practice," "sacred," and "rites" I try subbing in. But that's really just me quibbling with myself. Point taken.

[Canadian_watcher]

lunatic because he claimed to be the son of God?

are we all absolutely sure that we know what he meant when he said that? I mean is it possible that the myths that have sprung up around Jesus - the stories of his life, etc, are inaccurate? I'm not sure they are all that reliable, really - I am quite sure I'm in good company on that score. That being the case is it conceivable that the literal 'son of God' thing was an interpretation? I mean, I think we're all sons and daughters of god (small g) and in this crazy mixed up world I can see a day in the future where I might be thought of as a lunatic for having said so - especially if my mother gets to tell the story of my life and attribute to me her own interpretation of my meaning and state of mind at any given point. And doubly especially if she's figured out a way to exploit me & my reputation. Triply so if somehow my mother gets to live for hundreds of years after I die and connects herself up to Kings or other powerful people in lands that don't speak English.

just sayin'

[divideandconquer]

Not just a lunatic for claiming to be the Son of God, but for all of the other claims as well. You have to admit, Jesus said some far-out things, especially for that time period...I mean, BC was BC. Here's the thing. If Jesus was just some guy, why all the publicity over the last 2000 years? He did very little to earn that kind of acclaim. What was it? 3 years of hanging out with losers, preaching to let people punch you in the face?? He wasn't exactly Alexander the Great, or any of our other great leaders who conquered nations, yet who is better known than Jesus Christ?

Seriously, if not divine, you have to ask yourself, what's the big fucking deal? And maybe you do, but billions of people over 2,000 years sure think otherwise. And, this is way before Internet.

[compared2what?]

Not just a lunatic for claiming to be the Son of God, but for all of the other claims as well. You have to admit, Jesus said some far-out things, especially for that time period...I mean, BC was BC. Here's the thing. If Jesus was just some guy, why all the publicity over the last 2000 years? He did very little to earn that kind of acclaim. What was it? 3 years of hanging out with losers, preaching to let people punch you in the face?? He wasn't exactly Alexander the Great, or any of our other great leaders who conquered nations, yet who is better known than Jesus Christ?

The Beatles?

Seriously, if not divine, you have to ask yourself, what's the big fucking deal? And maybe you do, but billions of people over 2,000 years sure think otherwise. And, this is way before Internet.

I don't know if that's really the rule-out it looks like. I mean, I would never question the divinity on those grounds. (Meaning: Just because I could explain to whom it was useful to exploit the concept for purposes of social and political control over the centuries and how they did it and so forth and so on.) Because it would be highly exploitable either way. And I believe that it would also be truly divine to those who knew divinity through it either way, although that part is literally a matter of belief. But you know what I'm saying, right? Faith is its own proof. Reason is indispensable for other stuff, but it just doesn't get you there. And can't, really.

Besides, most of those 2000 years were a pretty cutthroat affair for both Christian lands and the Christian church in its various iterations. I don't think that it would really be fair or right to evaluate the merits of Jesus or Christians or Christianity by hashing through what was done by all the people who have used those labels as a justification for this or that unholy act over the years. On the contrary, even. But you'd kind of have to if that's how you were evaluating the holiness. Seems like a slippery slope to me.

[Sounder]

divideandconquer wrote...

Here's the thing. If Jesus was just some guy, why all the publicity over the last 2000 years?

Why are you so sure he existed as an historical person at all? Fact checkers were notoriously poorly paid back in those days.

He gets the publicity because 'he' was used to perform a primary psy-op function. That is to enforce the notion that it is a very rare thing for 'divinity' to appear on earth in the form of an historical man. When in fact the opposite is true in that divinity is expressed through each one of us and all the time. The holy writings were compilations of existing material, some of it quite sublime and produced by wise and good people. We forget our history. Many early 'believers' saw Jesus as being like God rather than being God. These more subtle understandings were later subsumed by a common doctrine spread through conniving priests and tax breaks.

It's simple really, the big money is found by inverting truth.

(the Source of all that is good and true will collect on the debts that these inverters falsely pass on to us. Enjoy your money while you can boys.)

We have had our unconscious programmed with feelings of worthlessness that we then project out on others, leaving most of us mutually stymied in our efforts to understand or express our natural divine birthright.

The flowers of divinity will bloom in vast fields that stretch far beyond the horizon, as soon as we integrate the different layers of our psyches, and chase that crazy bald-head out of town.

Welcome divideandconquer

[Hammer of Los]

...

God bless you Sounder.

I always liked you.

...

[divideandconquer]

Thank you, Sounder.

In answer to your question, I'll answer with another one: Why are you so sure that any of the historical figures existed as historical people? It seems that no one questions the existence of historical figures that existed before, during or after the existence of Jesus. Moreover, how do you know all of the "holy writings" were not a function of psy-op? In other words, it appears that people who deny the existence or divinity of Jesus seem to accept, without question, the writings and existence of historical figures that came before Jesus.

I understand that what separates Jesus from other historical figures is His claim of divinity, however, His greatest criticisms were against the people-the wealthy, all-powerful elite- who you are claiming created this figure to suppress the masses. If all of the people truly followed Jesus these people would have no power over us, over our minds. The conditioning and brain-washing of the masses that takes place today would not succeed if everyone TRULY followed Jesus. Consumerism? Profit? War? Status? Materialism? Forget about it. Those concepts would be meaningless. The only thing that would mean anything is the way we treat each other, and therefore the definition of success would not be represented by these wealth-gathering, power-grabbing poster-children psychopaths who rule the earth today.

[JackRiddler]

It seems that no one questions the existence of historical figures that existed before, during or after the existence of Jesus.

Looking for evidence about past times and people is the daily labor of historians. They constantly ask such questions. If you think that "no one" does, you are lucky, because that means there are so many great books for you to read that will correct that misconception.

The evidence for one Jesus who supposedly lived the life described in the gospels set down decades later is thin. Basically the account of Josephus. But, okay, he may have existed. There were a lot of messiahs running around that Roman province.

Moreover, how do you know all of the "holy writings" were not a function of psy-op? In other words, it appears that people who deny the existence or divinity of Jesus seem to accept, without question, the writings and existence of historical figures that came before Jesus.

Please name the people who supposedly deny this and accept that "without question," and specify the this and the that. Make comparisons of evidence. Bother to research the relative evidence for Jesus vs. Hamurabi. Jesus vs. Socrates. Jesus vs. Tutankhamen. Everything's subject to question, but not every statement of fact bears equivalent evidence.

I understand that what separates Jesus from other historical figures is His claim of divinity, however, His greatest criticisms were against the people-the wealthy, all-powerful elite- who you are claiming created this figure to suppress the masses.

The claim is that it makes for a good slave religion. Suffer through your burdens here on earth, you'll get your reward after death, and the evil will go to hell. The doctrine is powerful and variable enough in interpretation that at other times it's been a revolutionary religion. It very much depends on the group or nation practicing the religion. Irish Catholicism in the 19th century was not the same church or the same Jesus as Anglican or Presbyterian.

If all of the people truly followed Jesus these people would have no power over us, over our minds. The conditioning and brain-washing of the masses that takes place today would not succeed if everyone TRULY followed Jesus.

Even if your supposition were true, do you see the problem here? Why should you ever expect that "all of the people truly follow Jesus?" No matter how successful your conversion efforts, a great many never will. How do you plan to get to this happy time where everyone on earth is of one mind? Also, what about the Christians right now who do not share your interpretation of the teachings? What about Christians who believe in the Elect, or who have a "Prosperity Gospel," or who believe God wants one country to dominate all others, or who think it's more important to execute homosexuals than to love their neighbors as themselves. I'm happy to say these are not Christians, since I don't see them following the Christ teachings, but they insist that they are, and that all other Christians are fakers. How do you know which is the real Christianity?

[brainpanhandler]

Catching a wave.

“Nones” on the Rise
One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation
POLL October 9, 2012


The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.

In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).3

....



http://www.pewforum.org/unaffiliated/no ... -rise.aspx

[divideandconquer]

Looking for evidence about past times and people is the daily labor of historians. They constantly ask such questions. If you think that "no one" does, you are lucky, because that means there are so many great books for you to read that will correct that misconception

.
Well, I'm no historian, but from my understanding, professional historians, almost unanimously, accept the historicity of Jesus, just as they do for Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Constantine, etc.

The claim is that it makes for a good slave religion. Suffer through your burdens here on earth, you'll get your reward after death, and the evil will go to hell. ...Even if your supposition were true, do you see the problem here? Why should you ever expect that "all of the people truly follow Jesus?" No matter how successful your conversion efforts, a great many never will. How do you plan to get to this happy time where everyone on earth is of one mind? Also, what about the Christians right now who do not share your interpretation of the teachings? What about Christians who believe in the Elect, or who have a "Prosperity Gospel," or who believe God wants one country to dominate all others, or who think it's more important to execute homosexuals than to love their neighbors as themselves. I'm happy to say these are not Christians, since I don't see them following the Christ teachings, but they insist that they are, and that all other Christians are fakers. How do you know which is the real Christianity?

I understand the claim that it makes a good slave religion, but I disagree for the reasons I stated. I never said everyone SHOULD truly follow Jesus. I said IF they did, the powerful psychopaths who rule the world now would cease to have the power over our minds that they do today. The conditioning and brain-washing of the masses that takes place today would not succeed IF everyone TRULY followed Jesus. Again, I never said everyone SHOULD follow Jesus. My point being that to claim that Jesus is a psy-op to control the masses is silly, since he hated everything the powers that be stood for and value. Just because Jesus did not advocate for violent revolt is not enough reason to make that psy-op claim. Non-participation in their value system, what Jesus preaches, would be much more destructive. That's why the rulers at the time put Him to death.

And regarding interpretation, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out Jesus advocated for the poor, the weak, the marginalized. That he advocated for non-violence. That he advocated for non-materialism, etc... Anyone who says otherwise is LYING. The psy-op is the co-option of Jesus Christ's message and life. And just the fact that leaders throughout the last 2,000 years felt it necessary to co-opt his message and use Him for their own agenda should be enough to convince anyone Jesus was real and not a psy-op. .

[compared2what?]

The psy-op is the co-option of Jesus Christ's message and life. And just the fact that leaders throughout the last 2,000 years felt it necessary to co-opt his message and use Him for their own agenda should be enough to convince anyone Jesus was real and not a psy-op. .

Okay. Let's say the cooptation was a psy-op necessitated by the message. If the argument is that the proof of Jesus Christ's divinity is that there's no other explanation for billions of people having believed in it for 2000 years, such as...

Here's the thing. If Jesus was just some guy, why all the publicity over the last 2000 years? He did very little to earn that kind of acclaim. What was it? 3 years of hanging out with losers, preaching to let people punch you in the face?? He wasn't exactly Alexander the Great, or any of our other great leaders who conquered nations, yet who is better known than Jesus Christ?

Seriously, if not divine, you have to ask yourself, what's the big fucking deal? And maybe you do, but billions of people over 2,000 years sure think otherwise. And, this is way before Internet.

...how is the necessity of the psy-op/cooptation that's supposed to prove the reality not exactly, precisely, and in every way another explanation for what's supposed to prove the divinity?

And you actually can't lose one without losing both, I don't think. Hypostatic union.

[Sounder]

Great responses Jack and C2W?, thanks.

divideandconquer wrote....

If all of the people truly followed Jesus these people would have no power over us, over our minds. The conditioning and brain-washing of the masses that takes place today would not succeed if everyone TRULY followed Jesus.

divideandconquer, I salute you for your efforts to TRULY follow Jesus, really.

However and whatever the historical components involved, these events became an effective psy-op when Jesus was declared to be God, rather than being said to be like God. This as many of the early people of faith took it to be. We call them heretics now, but they were simply people filled with enthusiasm from the idea of a more universal God to replace their more localized versions of the nature of our relationship to ‘God’.

If Jesus is ‘like’ god, then we (common man) might also be ‘like’ God, but if Jesus is God, well we can’t BE God. The common doctrine was put in place to control enthusiasm.

Now, my opinion is that the psy-op was designed much earlier, but even if not, the narrative was taken over by Priests in much the same way that media controls our narrative today (whether done before or after the fact). It’s done through saturation and their position as mediators between us and actual events.

Our connection to TRUTH is thereby debased.

[divideandconquer]

However and whatever the historical components involved, these events became an effective psy-op when Jesus was declared to be God, rather than being said to be like God. This as many of the early people of faith took it to be. We call them heretics now, but they were simply people filled with enthusiasm from the idea of a more universal God to replace their more localized versions of the nature of our relationship to ‘God’.

If Jesus is ‘like’ god, then we (common man) might also be ‘like’ God, but if Jesus is God, well we can’t BE God. The common doctrine was put in place to control enthusiasm.

Now, my opinion is that the psy-op was designed much earlier, but even if not, the narrative was taken over by Priests in much the same way that media controls our narrative today (whether done before or after the fact). It’s done through saturation and their position as mediators between us and actual events.

Our connection to TRUTH is thereby debased.

Are you saying man is god? Or an emerging deity? If so, I don't think man is god or has the potential to become god. But debating this issue is somewhat futile, I guess, because the fact is that what we are really dealing with is two religious worldviews. And even though those who argue against the divinity of JC claim a monopoly on objectivity, most fall under the umbrella of the religion of the enlightenment scientism, which in my view, is the real psy-op here.

[DrEvil]

And even though those who argue against the divinity of JC claim a monopoly on objectivity, most fall under the umbrella of the religion of the enlightenment scientism, which in my view, is the real psy-op here.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Science is not a religion. The entire point of the scientific method is to test theories, and discard them if they turn out to be wrong.

The point of religion is that you take things on blind faith. That's why they call it 'faith' and not "the verifiable truth about the divine being commonly referred to as God".

If anything, religion is the anti-thesis to science.

[wintler2]

..If anything, religion is the anti-thesis to science.

Beautifully true, science is a revolutionary method .. which is why we've made a religion out of it (change is scary!). There are alot of tech cargo-cultists around giving mere lipservice to science: "I'm sure they/science/the govt/batman will think of something" is the classic line, selfserving abdication of responsibility and unscientific article of faith all in one. The more specialist in partic. field a person is, and the more symbolic reality time they spend (include all screen, text & talking time), the more susceptible they are to such beliefs about science.