I placed this post in the Hub because I have had other atheists treat me badly.
First of all, I love this site.
And the majority of people here (respondents as well as the Admin team) are really cool.
But I do not think that most people here apprehend (or if they do, keep in mind) the limitations of the threads, and therefore accusations are cast about (of posters being stupid, or fallacious, or downright illogical, etc.). Though most of this accusatorial language occurs in the spokes of the Debate room, the Hub, though vaccinated against, is not immune to it.
Now, it is understandable that Controversy is the heartbeat of debate. But the lifeblood of debate, if not open-ended and tolerant as it should be (if, that is, a thread is to lead to anyone learning anything, of sharing anything meaningful), then shows itself up as rancid, and Controversy, instead of inspiring curiosity on however many sides there may be of an issue, becomes rather to a bicker and a cutting of threads.
I am not asking that everyone get along (which would be naive), but that there be practised here on this awesome site a little more open-mindedness to the views of others.
And if someone commits a fallacy, then call them on it in the mature tone of diplomatic toleration, rather than railing against them for it, or telling them how they think, etc.
For one cannot explicate all possible dimensions of a query per post. If that were the case, then each post and each response to it would be the length of a book.
The point of a thread is to tap out a web, a little at a time; and, if we are patient enough, catch some flies. That is, to draw out (to educe) via post-and-response what is being thought on a particular issue at this time right now by people who more likely than not think differently, even athiest-to-atheist.
We should be educating each other (hence the above 'educe').
I believe that the ‘Republic’ in "Atheist Republic" implies Diplomacy as the arch principle governing the conversations held therein.
On a last note: I myself am guilty of the things I speak against here; which is why this site is so important to me; it refines me by constantly reminding me to be more patient and tolerant with the views of others.
(Unfortunately, there ARE some free radicals, as there are on every site, who cannot be calmed down to the point of reasoning together; but fortunately they are of the smallest percentage.)
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"For one cannot explicate all possible dimensions of a query per post. If that were the case, then each post and each response to it would be the length of a book."
Um, given my average post length, I should probably refrain from response.
LOL.
Dammit, Travis, that took me 5 hours to read.
Ha ha ha ha ha :)
Damn, it took me less time than that to read the first Harry Potter novel...
Yea I agree, there are some intolerant people on this site.
Hey Jeff, I assume this is directed at me concerning our previous conversation.
I felt that what you brought to the table was off topic.
I simply need to learn to not let this bother me so much.
-peace.
Nope it wasn't, remind me what was "our previous conversation"?
Hey Jeff,
So, being a writer, I keep records of everything I write as well as the context of what I've written in.
The thread itself has been deleted from the site but I saved a copy of it:
So on
Fri, 03/20/2015 - 09:36
Jeff Vella Leone
[quoting me:] "People have been, and are being, led to worship their own Self as being essentially someone else under the idea of their own Self. As it were the wedding = the divorce. And this equation is what I call the devil; centripetally diabolical (more than historically speaking).”
[And then you:] Yep you are onto something there theists do mistake their good self as the voice of god, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU
And yes it started from a Gnostic christian perspective where jesus is seen as an allegory on how you should behave and that god IS YOU, IS WITHIN YOU.
The literal in history killed all the Gnostic Christians and destroyed most if not all their text.
So the only reason we have a historical Jesus as the christian view is because the Literals killed all the Christians that disagreed with them.
BTW The Gnostic Christians were more in quantity then the literals Christians.
The Literals had the support of the roman empire since it is easier to control people if the power is taken from the person and put in the hands of the priests and the state.
If one studies the history of Christianity well, there is no reason to remain a christian at all.
Who authored and published the gospels:
https://vimeo.com/69145519
>>
Then on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 21:19
HomunculusThor
I do not mean to come across as a curmudgeon, but I do not think that the import of my post, considering the 4 responses it has received so far, is being understood.
Simple comments are not debates.
The debate angle (from myself an atheist who was unfortunately 'reared' a Christian) concerns the kernel of truth within the myth. And no one has even asked what I am referring to as that kernel of truth; I'm simply dropped comments as if The Imagination itself were not entailed in a miasma of conundrum concerning the Christian Myth.
I tried to be clear enough in order to garner interest in what I am talking about; but it seems that, more and more as time goes on and as the internet becomes more and more a dominant factor in our lives, that people question less and less, and find solace in a mere comment.
I wanted this post to open up a debate, atheist head-to-head with atheist, about that philosophical kernel of truth in this bogus Religio.
But no one seems interested.
...--If someone told you that 'the Bible' is entirely allegorical and metaphorical--Would you not be interested in those analogies as contra the literalistic absurdities which have dropped anchor throughout our known history?
When the New Testament says that, after Jesus was resurrected, he met those two believers on the road to Emmaus and blew their minds by "opening up the scriptures to them," What do you think was meant than that he took a literal spat of scriptures and revealed their allegorical/ metaphorical meanings, their interior meanings. (For example, in the Old Testament, Abraham willing to sacrifice his son Isaac to God {whose name, Isaac, equates to "Thanksgiving"}, means that Abraham was willing to offer up Thanksgiving to God).
Etc...,
I am no Hebrew scholar, but I do apprehend the import, and the importance of understanding the "meaning" of the New Testament, as it is the most recent historical mass-example of our birthright, our humanistic philosophy of conscious evolution, bungled up and couched within a politic of lies--which 'Testament' also happens to be the foundation of the current Civilisation of this modern version of our human unkind.
It is not that the New Testament is false, or wrong, or a lie, or a continuation of the obscurities of Jewish Mysticism.
The New Testament is a negatable system of mental phenomena, the which, so being altogether understood and so reflexively negated (--being the whole purpose of the "evidently set forth" {read "crucified"} textxual apparatus) does render the apprehender, the negator, the personal meaning of...:
the Virgin birth [or the result of the virgin contemplation of God],
the crucifiction [or the self-reflexive negation of the primordial 'ideal Self'],
and the resurrection of JC [or the Rememory of we having always having been being beyond compare to the image of ourself, as is God continuously, God Being Who is ever Becoming, Who Is What Who Is]; what martyrdictical poster-child of self-overcoming, unto SELF: Who is God, God Who Is What Who Is, being the next stage in our human evolution.
To say, "Jesus Christ crucified," is referring to the prerequisite sacrifice of our own ideal Self--like a psycho-biological sign/signature on the future of the human race, sealing it, where our evolution to this next phase is concerned; which mental negation of the a priori, archetypal symbolism, does release in us, here and now, the a priori knowledge bristling behind the energically bright symbol; having been already done, as preordainedly (but only if we realise it.)
ALL OF THIS is to say that the human mind, in regard to its own self-conscious evolution, is a rote behavior of our understanding of the cultural forum in which religion scurries to live.
To that: 'The Ideal' (read 'Christ') must be crucified SO THAT the reality of Christ may live; which is to say: The investment is the Divestment, for, Christ as the seal on our future is a negatable seal,, what 'gift of God,, but only by those who apprehend the self-reflexive negation of the pre-established image of their own higher Self.
And Amenace!
>>
And then you responded
Sun, 03/22/2015 - 21:34
Jeff Vella Leone
[quoting me:] "If someone told you that 'the Bible' is entirely allegorical and metaphorical--Would you not be interested in those analogies as contra the literalistic absurdities which have dropped anchor throughout our known history?"
Did you prepare this speech before reading the actual replies?
You seem to have ignored my reply entirely. I gave you more then enough material about the gospels and why they were an allegory to something else.
Check the reply out and comment on it instead of insulting my intelligence and preaching this nonsense.
I also gave you a link of who actually created the allegories.
From where I am standing, the only one who does not care is you.
Show some interest and read the replies before commenting on them.
*
I felt insulted by your comments, and in my responses probably came across as intolerant.
But seemed like I asked a few questions, and then you strode in and said 'I know the answers to those questions--here's some links.'
And the links did not address my questions. And perhaps that was the fault of my writing not being descriptive enough.
I was trying to get across a workable psychological process of metaphor and allegory, and not a literary or analogical reference referring to the outside world. That was my bad. I should have been more descriptive up front.
I viewed it as an insult since your entire reply did not reflect my own reply.
You made some claims, I replied to those very specific claims and gave you material to go and check for yourself and expand your knowledge.
Your reply was instead to promote your message and to put insult to injury you also wrote "But no one seems interested."
That really pissed me off.
If you even cared to look at the link I gave you you would understand what the allegories were on about and why some of your assumptions and conclusions are a misunderstanding of something completely different.
EG:
"When the New Testament says that, after Jesus was resurrected, he met those two believers on the road to Emmaus and blew their minds by "opening up the scriptures to them," What do you think was meant than that he took a literal spat of scriptures and revealed their allegorical/ metaphorical meanings, their interior meanings."
This was an allegory to a roman myth, the myth of Romulus
The similarities are the link same distance, similar names, etc.. while the differences is the message of the allegory.
While the Romulus myth message was that:
"All roads lead to Rome"
The road to Emmaus story delivers the message that:
All roads come from Jerusalem
This is exactly how allegory was made in the first century by Greek-roman authors.
The Gnostic Christians arose from people that were Gnostic already and mixed the christian theology because the emperor was spreading that religion all over the empire during the Flavian period.
That is the most reasonable explanation.
Gnosticism predates Christianity and there is evidence of that if you dare to do your research.
The Greek-roman understood that the best way to attract more people under 1 religion(i.e. 1 god= 1 emperor), the best thing to do is to include the most popular concepts, so the Gnostic would get a Gnostic version of Jesus and the warmongers would get a more dramatic and physical Jesus since they needed more inspiration.(that is why there are so many gospels(1 for each roman province with a different theology)
When the church later in history wanted more unification in the christian dogma those difference that the Romans allowed before, started to become a problem.
The roman did not care about consistency, all they cared was that everybody would call himself a christian thus venerating the emperor as divine. They did not care about details, whatever works is fine.
The church on the other hand, since it did not have that agenda wanted unification, this is when u have heretics burned and persecutions.
Here is a better link since the old one is now dead:
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/174117/Caesars_Messiah__The_Roma...
This time, watch it first before commenting and see how obvious those allegories are.
It really leaves no room for Jesus in the Gnostic context, no room for your "workable psychological process of metaphor and allegory".
It is all allegory for an agenda using useful and working themes already in existence at the time of the 1's century ad.
Nothing is original to Jesus, thus there is no psychological message by Jesus at all but psychological techniques used before in previous religions.
Unless you can refute that theory, there is really no point in making new assumptions about Jesus and "his" message.
That is why you need to address my reply before you continue to make new assumptions and ask questions on those assumptions.
You need to be humble enough to accept the fact that those are assumptions and question those assumptions before you start making even more assumptions.
You asked questions that made no sens if you understood the link I linked here.
EDIT:
some of the parallels taken from previous myths in the NT including the Emmaus story link to Romulus.
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/ed-neumann-biblical-stories-mirr...
No, I was not referring to you being intolerant, I saw you disrespectful on that occasion, but not intolerant.
Hey Jeff, I'm afraid we remain at odds:
You said “I viewed it as an insult since your entire reply did not reflect my own reply.”
And I will say again here that your reply did not address my questions, so of course there would not be any reflection. You did not understand my point.
2) You said, “You made some claims, I replied to those very specific claims and gave you material to go and check for yourself and expand your knowledge.”
This is what is called an insult, or talking down to another person because they do not think like you do.
3) You said “Your reply was instead to promote your message and to put insult to injury you also wrote "But no one seems interested."
That really pissed me off.”
It does seem that way. And why would a seeming piss you off?
I could understand you being pissed off if I declared “No one cares!”
But I said "But no one seems interested," because that is how it seemed as no responses addressed my topic, let alone specifically addressed them as you state to have done.
4) You said “If you even cared to look at the link I gave you [[I did]] you would understand [[here you are insulting me with dogmatism as if I only thought like you think, then I would understand, just like a Christian would say]] what the allegories were on about and why some of your assumptions and conclusions are a misunderstanding of something completely different.” --My misunderstanding according to what? According to what YOU believe, or THINK to be the truth; what some historiography has passed into culture as learning? Or what?
5) Then you apply more history (Romulus, etc.), which ‘history’ misses my whole point.
6) In the next two paragraphs you lay down more history, which ‘history’ misses my whole point.
7) I watched your link it, and it is irrelevant to my post. More historical stuff that does not address my questions: which you call assumptions because my questions don’t tally with your historical knowledge of the religion. Arrogant.
Then you say “It really leaves no room for Jesus in the Gnostic context, no room for your "workable psychological process of metaphor and allegory".”
--No room for MY workable psychological process of metaphor and allegory? How would you know? And what kind of thing is that to say to someone, the point of whose post you have entirely missed?
8) You said “ there is no psychological message by Jesus”. --What does that have to do with my post? Nothing. Who knows if Jesus even existed? No one.
9) You said “That is why you need to address my reply before you continue to make new assumptions and ask questions on those assumptions.”
I can think of nothing more arrogant a person could possibly say to another person, O brow-beater thou!
10) Overall, you come across as a know-it-all because, yes, you DO know your history of religion. Well, good for you, so do I; so do a lot of people. So what? What does religious history have to do with the question of my post? Nothing.
11) You said “You asked questions that made no sens if you understood the link I linked here.” --Another arrogant statement from a know-it-all.
You ask me to be humble and bow before your historical knowledge?
This is ridiculous. Everything that you have posted to me as a reply to my post has nothing to do with my post. Still.
How can one not treat you disrespectfully when you come across as a know-it-all and do not even address the questions of the post, but instead heap up a bunch of historical hoo-ha?
Paraphrase of your general attitude, as if you speaking: “If you looked at and understood what I sent your way, you would understand that what you have claimed are nothing but assumptions.”
How much more arrogant can you get?
All of this, and you have yet to address my post.
I don’t understand how you could read my post and then bombard me with irrelevant links accompanied by your arrogance. It, all of it, makes no sense.
I don’t know what else to say. You don’t understand what I’m talking about, and then flurry me with irrelevancies all the while putting me down so that I might be humbled and realise that YOU know the truth.
Again: How much more arrogant can you get? Are you a Christian posing as an Atheist, because you sound just like a Christian and are definitely as arrogant and dogmatic as one
You are, hands down, the most arrogant and offensive person I have ever come across on any website, ever.
If I pissed you off, sorry; that was never intentional.
But now it is. I hope I piss you off enough for you to see that all this historical information you have thrown at me doesn't even reach my question.
If you do not respond, I’ll understand.
If you do respond, then I’ll consider what you have to say as I have from the beginning of our dialog.
But, please, don’t throw me more historical crap which has nothing to with what I have asked.
Sincerely yours,
Seriously sincerely,
HT.
You keep repeating that I did not answer your questions but never say which questions.
This is a very dishonest way to judge someone.
My replies were for this question:
"The debate angle (from myself an atheist who was unfortunately 'reared' a Christian) concerns the kernel of truth within the myth."
The "kernel of truth within the myth" MUST be related to history and thus I started explaining the history that COULD have created the myth.
"All of this, and you have yet to address my post."
I did but you are just finding an excuse to dismiss my reply which is very pathetic.
"You ask me to be humble and bow before your historical knowledge?"
I never asked you to accept what I said as the truth but:
"That is the most reasonable explanation."
You are free to question, research and present something to debate this claim, but you chose personal attacks and trying to make my reply not addressing your (never specified) questions.
"This is ridiculous. Everything that you have posted to me as a reply to my post has nothing to do with my post. Still."
I did, go and read what you wrote, and admit that a myth is best explained by a historical approach.
I also addressed the "worship their own Self as being essentially someone else under the idea of their own Self."
So really, your accusation is completely dishonest and unfounded.
I was right to be pissed of at your dishonesty.
Repeat your questions maybe then people might actually understand what you are talking about because once you mention allegory and myth, the historical context is automatically implied.
You cannot explain those things without having a basic understanding of the history of that period.
If you dare claim otherwise then we have nothing to talk about sincy you would prefer to never find the truth like all Christians.
"You are, hands down, the most arrogant and offensive person I have ever come across on any website, ever."
I don't care for your opinion of me, support your claims and maybe I will consider your opinion.
I never said that what I said is not just my opinion, so all this is drama and BS.
"concerns the kernel of truth within the myth."
If you care about the truth then it wouldn't bother you to learn more about the history of those allegories and the context they were created.
Still you haven't watched the link I gave you, so the only arrogant person here is you, to think to know already if the link answers your question or not without actually seeing it.
But it seem that truth is not what you are looking for, actually you must make your "questions" more clear first since no one here actually understood what exactly you wish as a reply.
http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?
Looks like you're in it for the long run, then.
Dew Drop: I must admit that I am surprised at this post from you.
Here you seem happily carefree as well as concerned; whereas in the last three posts between us, we seemed at war with each other.
I understand your independent use of words as art (I myself am a writer, of poetry, philosophy and fiction), so this aspect is not at all lost one me. I get it.
But I must disagree with you here on this very post where you say that "It is just a bunch of words." And yet I also apprehend even this as being true on a certain abstract, impersonal level.
But nations go to war with other nations over what is considered here as "...just a bunch of words." Please understand this angle as also being true, although it be to the side of the 'absolute' mindset in regard to language.
Words can hurt and words can heal: it is not "...just a bunch of words."
As for example, as you just said right here above, seemingly contradictory: "It is just a bunch of words. If those words lead to helping someone, learning something,unwinding my mind,getting creative, great."
By which I mean you just contradicted yourself in an amiable manner, that if your "just words" end up helping someone, great. Which if they did, would then have proved themselves as more that "just words."
I hope that makes sense.
-peace