Jump to content
Burl

On modern substitutions for religion

Recommended Posts

I don't know about the actual Church services but I do know that most of the best biblical scholars and theologians don't ignore this at all.

For me it is not an intentional twisting but a rather human reaction: they expected the End, it didn't come, the so called old age just went on and on and Rome remained in power, even destroying their Temple and trying to noodle on this they allowed, it seems, there was another, a different way to look at things in light of their reality. If the End didn't come..........maybe it's not the End, now what do we do? They thought they knew what Jesus meant and believed but faced with reality, they didn't believe Jesus was wrong, so they figured they didn't get it right the first time. I opt for saying Jesus, a man, could not know the future or the timing of the end..........he was wrong!

I do agree that this was taken way too literally and Christianity chased it down the rabbit hole and got stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thormas said:

I don't know about the actual Church services but I do know that most of the best biblical scholars and theologians don't ignore this at all.

I've been to a few churches in my time - never came across one that preached Jesus being wrong about the Kingdom.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

For me it is not an intentional twisting but a rather human reaction: they expected the End, it didn't come, the so called old age just went on and on and Rome remained in power, even destroying their Temple and trying to noodle on this they allowed, it seems, there was another, a different way to look at things in light of their reality. If the End didn't come..........maybe it's not the End, now what do we do? They thought they knew what Jesus meant and believed but faced with reality, they didn't believe Jesus was wrong, so they figured they didn't get it right the first time. I opt for saying Jesus, a man, could not know the future or the timing of the end..........he was wrong!

I do agree that this was taken way too literally and Christianity chased it down the rabbit hole and got stuck.

It was an intentional twisting, but in regards to making sense of what hadn't actually come to pass as Jesus had preached, not a deceitful interpretation - we seem to agree on that.  You seem to agree that the early Christians needed to find a new way of viewing Jesus (in contrast to Jesus' actual message about the Son of Man heralding in the Kingdom imminently) and from there, stories were made up about Jesus, new 'interpretation' of his message and stories were concocted and a different path was chosen.  Hence why I am highly sceptical that we have anything like a genuine portrayal of Jesus, in his fullest, in the NT.

Christianity became cult worship of Jesus rather than about preparation for the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God to overthrow Rome, as preached by Christ.  Once the Kingdom didn't come, Christian needed to develop a new Christianity.  What was a cult became legitimised eventually when the Roman government endorsed it hundreds of years later.

I have no issue with the NT 'speaking' to people if it offers them some sort of peace/sense/meaning for their lives.  I'm just saying that I don't think for a minute that this was the original intention of the person who sparked it all - Jesus.  So to me it seems odd that Christianity so strongly aligns itself with Jesus' beliefs, as those beliefs are actually different to what traditional and mainstream Christianity understands and even preaches today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I've been to a few churches in my time - never came across one that preached Jesus being wrong about the Kingdom.

My point exactly.

21 minutes ago, PaulS said:

stories were made up about Jesus, new 'interpretation' of his message and stories were concocted and a different path was chosen.  Hence why I am highly sceptical that we have anything like a genuine portrayal of Jesus, in his fullest, in the NT.

Stories were made up, new interpretations and stories were concocted and a different path was chosen - sounds like a sinister conspiracy. 

Presented with a new reality, they looked back to their scriptures and tried to understand and explain the delay of the Endgame. Thus new stories were created to capture their new understanding. Again, a very human response for people who reverently believed in Jesus and had to understand the new reality they found themselves in. Actually, this change has been evident and told since I first began studying theology and the bible decades upon decades ago. What progressive Christian does not know this? It's not a secret.

29 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Christianity became cult worship of Jesus rather than about preparation for the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God to overthrow Rome, as preached by Christ.  Once the Kingdom didn't come, Christian needed to develop a new Christianity.  What was a cult became legitimised eventually when the Roman government endorsed it hundreds of years later.

Actually, it was the opposite: they return to and settled in Jerusalem because that is where the Kingdom would be established and where the 12 tribes and the 70 nations would come to the House (Temple) and worship the true God. This wasn't 'cult' worship. But you are correct about the response to the delay but it wasn't a 'new Christianity' - it was a reinterpretation, there was no denial of Jesus original teaching, it was made part of the canon (without it, we would never know about his apocalyptic understanding. Christianity became legitimate for political reasons by Constantine.

36 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I'm just saying that I don't think for a minute that this was the original intention of the person who sparked it all - Jesus.  So to me it seems odd that Christianity so strongly aligns itself with Jesus' beliefs, as those beliefs are actually different to what traditional and mainstream Christianity understands and even preaches today.

I agree the endgame piece wasn't the the belief of Jesus and he was wrong, wasn't he?  However, it seems evident that his disciples, even when adjusting for the delay, were faithful to his message about God, man, Love. So, of course they and their descendants align themselves with his teachings. Some beliefs have been reinterpreted because of events 'on the ground' but not all - how normal, how human is this? And mainstream Christianity goes with it all: the reinterpretation and the original teachings and beliefs of Jesus, for which the only sources we have  are the NT sources.

Given all this, I still think it is imperative to make this clear and to continually retell the Christian Story for the present, whether that present is ours, 100 years from now and on into the future.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 6:48 PM, thormas said:

I am just going by the definition of atheists, reading the works of atheists and my friends who are atheists. Most atheist in my experience do not merely reject theistic notions of God, they reject any and all ideas of God.

I think you are likely misunderstanding your atheist friends. So which atheists have you read that claim there is not a god? 

While I reject the vast majority of concepts of god … including panentheism (which I find incoherent and irreconcilable with my experience of the world). I don't reject pantheism  … it is where theism and atheism meet. The differences just sublime into semantics. For example everything is divine … well then it sort of does not matter.

Dawkins called pantheism sexed up atheism. 

And speaking of Dawkins … briefly on his agnosticism.

 

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romansh said:

I think you are likely misunderstanding your atheist friends. So which atheists have you read that claim there is not a god? 

While I reject the vast majority of concepts of god … including panentheism (which I find incoherent and irreconcilable with my experience of the world). I don't reject pantheism  … it is where theism and atheism meet. The differences just sublime into semantics. For example everything is divine … well then it sort of does not matter.

Dawkins called pantheism sexed up atheism. 

And speaking of Dawkins … briefly on his agnosticism

 

I'm understanding what they're saying, maybe they misunderstand atheism??? However, these self defined atheist believe, state and claim, there is no god. 

So Dawkins is not an atheist (supposedly a #7) and considers himself an agnostic (a 6) but then amends this to a  6.9. So here is an agnostic right on the cusp of the atheism position: there is no god or a the #7 indicates, "I know God doesn't exist." So Dawkins was basically claiming not only is there no God but he 'knows' God doesn't exist. I guess we can be cute and say he is 'only' a 6.9 but if it quacks like a duck..........

Dawkins actually goes further than my friends; the difference being they don't 'believe' there is a god and Dawkins states that a #7 'knows' there is no god. However all this is belief, there is no evidence, no proof one way or the other. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, thormas said:

So Dawkins was basically claiming not only is there no God but he 'knows' God doesn't exist. I guess we can be cute and say he is 'only' a 6.9 but if it quacks like a duck..........

No he is not. 

You are claiming he is claiming there is no god.

Are you intentionally misrepresenting Dawkins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, romansh said:

No he is not. 

You are claiming he is claiming there is no god.

Are you intentionally misrepresenting Dawkins?

Actually I watch and enjoyed the exchange. But Dawkins defined #7 as "I know God doesn't exist." He defines himself as a 6.9 so basically a 7. He claims it for himself according to his own standards. Why are you trying to backpedal from his own assertions?

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 12:03 PM, thormas said:

Stories were made up, new interpretations and stories were concocted and a different path was chosen - sounds like a sinister conspiracy. 

Not sinister - just reality.

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 12:03 PM, thormas said:

Presented with a new reality, they looked back to their scriptures and tried to understand and explain the delay of the Endgame. Thus new stories were created to capture their new understanding. Again, a very human response for people who reverently believed in Jesus and had to understand the new reality they found themselves in. Actually, this change has been evident and told since I first began studying theology and the bible decades upon decades ago. What progressive Christian does not know this? It's not a secret.

Of course it's no secret to PC, but it is denied in traditional Christianity - most Christian churches simply don't preach Jesus being wrong about the coming Kingdom and neither do they speculate that what was later written in the NT as just somebody's thoughts and opinions.  Those who are lucky enough to belong to more open-minded churches may experience this better understanding, but by and large, Christianity regards the NT as the word of God and believe rather passionately that what is written is truth about God.

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 12:03 PM, thormas said:

Actually, it was the opposite: they return to and settled in Jerusalem because that is where the Kingdom would be established and where the 12 tribes and the 70 nations would come to the House (Temple) and worship the true God. This wasn't 'cult' worship. But you are correct about the response to the delay but it wasn't a 'new Christianity' - it was a reinterpretation, there was no denial of Jesus original teaching, it was made part of the canon (without it, we would never know about his apocalyptic understanding. Christianity became legitimate for political reasons by Constantine.

No, not the opposite - it became cult worship of Jesus after he didn't return in that generation as expected.  That's when Christianity started to morph into cult worship of Jesus and Jesus started to become God.  Up until then, Christianity was nothing more than Jesus revealing the coming of the Kingdom and possibly believing or being believed to be the Son of Man who would be heralding it in.  You've just come a bit further forward in the story than what I was saying - I agree that the immediate followers of Jesus in the first few decades after his execution, expected God's impending reign to arrive but when it didn't, Christianity started to become something else - a Jesus cult.

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 12:03 PM, thormas said:

I agree the endgame piece wasn't the the belief of Jesus and he was wrong, wasn't he?  However, it seems evident that his disciples, even when adjusting for the delay, were faithful to his message about God, man, Love. So, of course they and their descendants align themselves with his teachings. Some beliefs have been reinterpreted because of events 'on the ground' but not all - how normal, how human is this? And mainstream Christianity goes with it all: the reinterpretation and the original teachings and beliefs of Jesus, for which the only sources we have  are the NT sources.

Given all this, I still think it is imperative to make this clear and to continually retell the Christian Story for the present, whether that present is ours, 100 years from now and on into the future.  

 

Yes, Jesus was wrong.

The disciples may have been faithful to 'some' of Jesus message when they reinterpreted things, but clearly the main thing that Jesus believed he was there to do, his life purpose, was to warn of the impending kingdom and encourage repentance before it was too late, was simply wrong.  Jesus primary view of God coming to reign was wrong.  So to ignore that but still say Christians are aligned with Jesus' views of God, is a stretch for me.  But I agree, it was and is completely human to make interpretations, assumptions and conclusions on things one might passionately believe in when the evidence doesn't stack up for it as it was previously understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PaulS said:

Not sinister - just reality.

My point.

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

Of course it's no secret to PC, but it is denied in traditional Christianity - most Christian churches simply don't preach Jesus being wrong about the coming Kingdom and neither do they speculate that what was later written in the NT as just somebody's thoughts and opinions.  Those who are lucky enough to belong to more open-minded churches may experience this better understanding, but by and large, Christianity regards the NT as the word of God and believe rather passionately that what is written is truth about God.

Quote

Where is it denied? It is in their scriptures, always has been. But the later gospels have already felt the impact of the delay of the Kingdom and adjust: traditional Christians then come after those gospels so we can't expect them to go back to the apocalyptic mindset of Jesus and Paul. 

Also, I'm saying he's wrong however the understanding in traditional Christianity is that if Jesus preached that the endtime was imminent and it didn't happen, there must be more to the story, more to understanding Jesus. They also don't think it is mere opinion because these writers looked to their scriptures (OT) to help explain the delay. This is the belief of not just the masses but the Church leaders. I disagree but it is what they believe. I also agree with you that many think the bible is the word of God. What's one to do except move forward with their insights?

7 hours ago, PaulS said:

No, not the opposite - it became cult worship of Jesus after he didn't return in that generation as expected.  That's when Christianity started to morph into cult worship of Jesus and Jesus started to become God.  Up until then, Christianity was nothing more than Jesus revealing the coming of the Kingdom and possibly believing or being believed to be the Son of Man who would be heralding it in.  You've just come a bit further forward in the story than what I was saying - I agree that the immediate followers of Jesus in the first few decades after his execution, expected God's impending reign to arrive but when it didn't, Christianity started to become something else - a Jesus cult.

Quote

This is an interesting one: was Jesus ever just the messenger? Or how soon after his death and 'resurrection' did some begin to see him in different ways?  Paul in his writing, before even Mark and still believing the end would be in his lifetime, thought of Jesus as the Son of Man or the cosmic Judge who would come. Paul, thought to have converted in the mid 30s, already held this view from some early period along with his apocalyptic views which he took to his death in the 60s. 

I agree there was an later and continuing 'evolution' in thought about Jesus and I do believe Christian went overboard with this later 'cult worship' but from a very early time he was already being thought of as more than a regular guy. This understanding predates the reality that he didn't return as originally expected.

We are probably not far off from one another.

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

Yes, Jesus was wrong.

The disciples may have been faithful to 'some' of Jesus message when they reinterpreted things, but clearly the main thing that Jesus believed he was there to do, his life purpose, was to warn of the impending kingdom and encourage repentance before it was too late, was simply wrong.  Jesus primary view of God coming to reign was wrong.  So to ignore that but still say Christians are aligned with Jesus' views of God, is a stretch for me.  But I agree, it was and is completely human to make interpretations, assumptions and conclusions on things one might passionately believe in when the evidence doesn't stack up for it as it was previously understood.

The disciples were faithful to all of the message of Jesus. It was a later generation that experience the ongoing delay, looked to the scriptures and reinterpreted. I see only the timing as wrong. His primary view of God remains intact, only when God would finalize things or perhaps what that would look like was wrong.

I or we can say this but, again, mainline Christianity doesn't believe he was wrong (only that he was not properly understood) so, for them, it is not a stretch. What's one to do?

I think many tried their best and as they believed literally that Jesus was 'from' God or his Son or God the 2nd Person, they couldn't comprehended that he would or could be wrong. This is theism. Others, seeing Jesus as a man who 'became the likeness of God' realize one can be 'truly or fully human' but it still doesn't mean you can then do higher math, speak every known language or predict the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, thormas said:

Actually I watch and enjoyed the exchange. But Dawkins defined #7 as "I know God doesn't exist." He defines himself as a 6.9 so basically a 7. He claims it for himself according to his own standards. Why are you trying to backpedal from his own assertions?

I am trying to get you to understand 6.9 is not the same as 7. 

For the following gods (literal versions) I am a good old 7. Norse, Roman, Greek, Abrahamic (and similar)

For deistic type gods I would be a good old 6.99, they don't make sense to me. But I don't not how to test for these.

For  panentheism I would be a 6.999 … I find the apologetics for this type of god so convoluted and bordering on mumbo jumbo.

And for pantheism … a good ol'4 will do. 

But effectively I live my life as godless. 

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawkins moves from a 6 to a 6.9 in the blink of the eye (on this video) and with a twinkle in that eye. He is for all intents and purposes a 7.  Even Dawkins says he has no disproof but states clearly that a 7 is "I know God doesn't exist."  

For fun, I am a 7 on your first group of gods (leaving the God of Abraham to the side since one can make the case for panentheism within it), on a deistic god and on pantheism. I vote for panentheism.

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thormas said:

Dawkins moves from a 6 to a 6.9 in the blink of the eye (on this video) and with a twinkle in that eye. He is for all intents and purposes a 7.  Even Dawkins says he has no disproof but states clearly that a 7 is "I know God doesn't exist."  

For fun, I am a 7 on your first group of gods (leaving the God of Abraham to the side since one can make the case for panentheism within it), on a deistic god and on pantheism. I vote for panentheism.

Can I have a reference for Dawkins saying I know god does not exist. I have seen him speak, read some of his books. I have never got the sense he is a 7. And to my knowledge he has never claimed to be a 7.

Regarding Abrahamic god; no doubt with creative apologetics we can make a case for the first group of gods as well.

And out of curiosity … are you a 1, 2 or a 3 on panentheism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 hours ago, thormas said:

Where is it denied? It is in their scriptures, always has been. But the later gospels have already felt the impact of the delay of the Kingdom and adjust: traditional Christians then come after those gospels so we can't expect them to go back to the apocalyptic mindset of Jesus and Paul. 

I think where it is denied is when synoptic gospel writers start interpreting the Jesus story as prophecy fulfilled, as Jesus as a deliberate sacrifice, when John starts calling Jesus God and the Son of God, etc.  Because what Jesus had told them about the coming Kingdom did not happen, they started to make up other stories.  They denied the reality that Jesus was about and created new stories based on their own interpretation.  Common Christianity does not look at the Gospels and other NT texts like that - they preach it and abide by it and sell it as the 'truth' about God and Jesus.  That's why I say Jesus' truth is denied.

Quote

Also, I'm saying he's wrong however the understanding in traditional Christianity is that if Jesus preached that the endtime was imminent and it didn't happen, there must be more to the story, more to understanding Jesus. They also don't think it is mere opinion because these writers looked to their scriptures (OT) to help explain the delay. This is the belief of not just the masses but the Church leaders. I disagree but it is what they believe. I also agree with you that many think the bible is the word of God. What's one to do except move forward with their insights?

It's not surprising that Christianity went down a certain path as a result of influences by Church leaders and 'the masses' as you say (which weren't much of a 'mass' for several hundred years after Jesus).  They may have believed things different to Jesus I'm sure.  But where this conversation started was with you questioning why some people who don't align themselves with Jesus' teachings would refer to themselves as Christian (or something like that).  I was just pointing out that typically what Christianity today teaches as Jesus' teachings, aren't, in many, many ways.

Quote

This is an interesting one: was Jesus ever just the messenger? Or how soon after his death and 'resurrection' did some begin to see him in different ways?  Paul in his writing, before even Mark and still believing the end would be in his lifetime, thought of Jesus as the Son of Man or the cosmic Judge who would come. Paul, thought to have converted in the mid 30s, already held this view from some early period along with his apocalyptic views which he took to his death in the 60s. 

Personally, I'm not sure if ALL immediately following Jesus' death considered him to be the Son of Man returning in glory soon or not.  It seems biblical scholars are divided on whether Jesus regarded himself as the Son of Man or not too.  Jesus possibly only thought he was empowered to deliver the message and wasn't in fact the Messiah to come.  Paul clearly had some differences of opinion with the early Christian's basing themselves in Jerusalem - perhaps they extended to who they regarded Jesus to be also?

Quote

I agree there was an later and continuing 'evolution' in thought about Jesus and I do believe Christian went overboard with this later 'cult worship' but from a very early time he was already being thought of as more than a regular guy. This understanding predates the reality that he didn't return as originally expected.

Teacher/rabbi is a term often used in the NT, so clearly some regarded him as wise.  No argument.

Quote

We are probably not far off from one another.

Probably more than we realise.

Quote

The disciples were faithful to all of the message of Jesus. It was a later generation that experience the ongoing delay, looked to the scriptures and reinterpreted. I see only the timing as wrong. His primary view of God remains intact, only when God would finalize things or perhaps what that would look like was wrong.

I don't know how you can be so certain about the disciples, but I won't argue with you, and I agree that later generations (in only decades after Jesus' death) reinterpreted Jesus when he didn't return as expected.  Jesus' primary view of God was viewed through a lense of the imminent arrival of the Son of Man, which didn't happen.  I don't think that remains intact at all.  I'm not sure how that can be ignored whilst people perhaps say "but the rest is all okay".  I mean will the meek inherit the earth now that the Son of Man is not coming imminently?  Should I really hate my family and only love God, even though that God isn't imminently coming as Jesus said he was?  If Jesus was wrong about a major plank in his God belief, what else was he wrong about?  Side note - I think there is a difference to what Jesus believed and what words attributed to him that we may take as inspiration or guidance.  I don't deny that some things he spoke of give people direction, inspiration and even hope.  But that doesn't mean they are 'gospel' is my qualifier.

Quote

I or we can say this but, again, mainline Christianity doesn't believe he was wrong (only that he was not properly understood) so, for them, it is not a stretch. What's one to do?

Acknowledge Jesus' was wrong.  Be honest about biblical scholarship and history.  I'm not saying you're turning a blind eye but Christianity in general, does.  Progressive Christianity is a step in the right direction and maybe eventuality the rest of Christianity will see the light.  Maybe not.

Quote

I think many tried their best and as they believed literally that Jesus was 'from' God or his Son or God the 2nd Person, they couldn't comprehended that he would or could be wrong. This is theism. Others, seeing Jesus as a man who 'became the likeness of God' realize one can be 'truly or fully human' but it still doesn't mean you can then do higher math, speak every known language or predict the future.

That's fine, if we acknowledge theism as a speculative sport with no correct answers.  As PC's we acknowledge that Jesus is NOT the only way to understanding the Divine.  'Theism' per se allows all sorts of theories about God to develop based on how others and ourselves think, interpret, get influenced by others and feel 'spoken to' about such matters.  I have no issue with people deciding for themselves that they see Jesus as fully or truly human, but I think that is simply their interpretation of the matter.  I don't think Jesus was any more fully human that you or I - warts and all (but nobody talks about Jesus' warts!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, romansh said:

Can I have a reference for Dawkins saying I know god does not exist. I have seen him speak, read some of his books. I have never got the sense he is a 7. And to my knowledge he has never claimed to be a 7.

Regarding Abrahamic god; no doubt with creative apologetics we can make a case for the first group of gods as well.

And out of curiosity … are you a 1, 2 or a 3 on panentheism?

Rom,

The reference is the video you supplied. He gives his scale and that is what a 7 is ("I know God doesn't exist" ). He denies, actually tells the host he is wrong and that he (Dawkins) does not have a disproof of God) but this is what 7 means and he identifies as a 6.9. Good enough for most people.

I would be a 1.1 for panentheism with the caveat that the statement is now, "I believe panentheism" is the best model or philosophy for trying to speak about God and man - as opposed to pantheism, theism, atheism, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, thormas said:

I would be a 1.1 for panentheism with the caveat that the statement is now, "I believe panentheism" is the best model or philosophy for trying to speak about God and man - as opposed to pantheism, theism, atheism, etc.

So you know panentheism is true. 1 - I know panentheism is true. as 1.1 is close enough 1 for most people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, romansh said:

So you know panentheism is true. 1 - I know panentheism is true. as 1.1 is close enough 1 for most people?

No, remember my caveat: "I believe panentheism" is the best model or philosophy for trying to speak about God and man - as opposed to pantheism, theism, atheism, etc.

There you go 1.1 is 1 for most people and Dawkins' 6.9 is close enough to 7 for most people: Dawkins 'knows God doesn't exist." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope; 1.1 is close enough to 1 … You can define the space between 1 and 2 however you want. But 1.1 is close enough.

A quote from Bertrand Russell on what is an agnostic?

His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romansh said:

Nope; 1.1 is close enough to 1 … You can define the space between 1 and 2 however you want. But 1.1 is close enough.

A quote from Bertrand Russell on what is an agnostic?

His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

Exactly what I have been sayings, congrats. 1.1 is close enough to 1 so effectively a 1.  

So too, Dawkins' 6.9 is close enough to a 7 ..........so effectively a 7.

Now you have it (at least I think?).

So Bertie is a 7 also............it's all coming together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I will iterate … you know panentheism is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, romansh said:

OK I will iterate … you know panentheism is true.

No Rom, look at the above posts............................b....e.....l.....i......e........v..........e.

But I do like your sense of humor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then in that case Dawkins does not know there is not a god either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, romansh said:

Then in that case Dawkins does not know there is not a god either.

Well, I take Richard at his word (in your video): "I know God doesn't exist"

So he may not know there is not a god but, as he said, he knows that God doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK at which second does he say there is not a god?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, romansh said:

OK at which second does he say there is not a god?

There you go again Rom: your video, do the work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thormas said:

There you go again Rom: your video, do the work.

I did I could not find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...