Comments on Ambassador Watch: Sentimental Christianty

What?

2016-08-17T03:38:27.911+12:00

What?

Mostly psychopaths. Very few sincere - and none t...

2016-08-10T07:45:50.899+12:00

Mostly psychopaths. Very few sincere - and none to my knowledge at the very top.

Reading what Paul says in his own words, where would you place him?

Minimalist, And your questions are easy? :) Skept...

2016-08-09T10:26:00.279+12:00

Minimalist, And your questions are easy? :)

Skeptic, Yes: psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, or something very close! However, as you noted in your earlier remarks, there have been some sincere and brilliant founders as well (still human though).

I agree, understanding the past is important to un...

2016-08-09T08:37:51.009+12:00

I agree, understanding the past is important to understanding the present and shaping the future.

I think there is much to be learned from millennia of Christian, Jewish and Islamic history. We certainly see what evils religions can inflict when they have the power. And we can see some benefits as it is applied locally.

Trying to discern the original intent of the founders? I'm not sure (1) it is even possible to come close to understanding the thinking of the founders and (2) how beneficial it would be if we could.

One approach would be to look at founders for which we DO have some information. As I stated in a prior post, it seems the "top man" in a religion, i.e. THE founder, generally displays many characteristics of a psychopath. I'm talking about people like HWA, Sun Yun Moon, Ron Hubbard, Mohammed, Maharaj Ji, etc. The list goes on and on. Do you agree these founders appear to be psychopaths? Or something very close to it?

"..he never seems to answer my questions...Do...

2016-08-08T16:48:46.072+12:00

"..he never seems to answer my questions...Do you think that the founders of Christianity envisioned..?"

That's because your questions are tough: For instance, we don't know how Xianity was founded.

In October is the Price/Ehrman debate (they have different theories on Xian origins.)

Skeptic, I have made that same point about evoluti...

2016-08-08T13:12:10.715+12:00

Skeptic,
I have made that same point about evolution in some of my more recent posts and comments. It is my hope that religion will evolve in a more positive direction going forward. In that context, however, I do think that it can be instructive/constructive/positive to attempt to discern original intent. As a student of history, I've always been fond of the statement attributed to Cicero: "To know nothing of what happened before you were born is to remain always a child." Don't you believe that the effort to understand what happened in the past can be extremely beneficial in trying to understand the present and plan for or attempt to shape the future?

Miller, I'm not sure the christian founders ha...

2016-08-08T12:58:34.199+12:00

Miller, I'm not sure the christian founders had anything in mind beyond their own lifetimes. I agree with you, I doubt they had any idea Christianity would evolved over the last two thousand years is quite the way it did.

I have observed in life that nothing is static. Everything requires maintenance, else it decays. That goes for our bodies, our houses, our roads, our customs, everything. With this in mind, I am not an "originalist". I don't think there is much to be gained by trying to discern the original intent of the bible writers, or the writers of the U.S. constitution, etc. and apply it to today's situation. Religion, government etc. needed to be maintained and to evolve and adapt to changing cultural conditions.

Skeptic, I'd say that's a pretty good anal...

2016-08-08T10:58:28.708+12:00

Skeptic,
I'd say that's a pretty good analysis. Your observations are entirely consistent with things that most of us have observed in the behaviors and motivations of each other. You're right - we're all a mixture of bad and good, and the men and women who founded Christianity were no different. They were the same degree of human as you and me and subject to the same weaknesses and failures that plague us. That said, however, given the kinds of notions extant in that time period which you referenced in your remarks (regarding weather, demons, etc.) do you honestly think that any of them could have anticipated the discussions and divisions that subsequently arose over a canon and various doctrines? I just can't bring myself to believe that the Christianity that has evolved over the last two thousand years is quite what they had in mind at the founding.

Miller, You ask "Do you think that the found...

2016-08-08T09:50:28.933+12:00

Miller,

You ask "Do you think that the founders of Christianity envisioned the development of an elaborate theology with positions on things like the trinity, proper observance of rituals, prophetic scenarios, etc? Or do you think that it was more likely that those folks intended for it to satisfy emotional/spiritual needs?"

That's a complicated question, but I'm sure of one thing: it's not either/or between those two choices. There are no doubt a myriad of motivational factors involved.

Also, "the founders of Christianity" would not have been a monolithic group. Each "founder" would have had his own unique blend of motiviations.

Finally, we must acknowledge that mankind in general living in the first century CE had a much different mindset than ours in the educated western world today. Life for them was short, ignorant and brutal. The average lifespan was 30-35. The average years in school was zero. The vast majority were illiterate. To them, the weather was caused by gods, mental problems were caused by demons and illness was a result of your own sins. Just to name a few of their misconceptions. Frankly, we can probably barely comprehend what their thinking must have been like.

That said, I think there are probably similarities among founds of religions - be it HWA, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Billy Graham, Ron Hubbard, you name it. For the "founder" himself - the top leader - I doubt satisfying emotional/spiritual needs had much to do with it. Psychopathy, narcissism, overconfidence, greed and self-importance seem to be among the main drivers.

The next level down, just below the founders, shows more variety. It includes a good measure of the above characteristics but also various mixtures of sincerity, looking for answers, wanting to help others, etc. In WCG, I have met high-level men who seemed to me to be sincere and caring. They were rare, but they did exist. Many others were a mix. After all, none of us is all good or all bad.

Below this level is an even more mixed group. Many of these people are sincere, caring people looking for answers. Many others are not. None of this group has power so it doesn't much matter.

That's the best answer I can give you. It's not an expert analysis, just my impression based on my life experiences and observations.

Now you can't say I never answer your questions, LOL.

Exactly, BB. I've commented before about the a...

2016-08-07T12:59:17.608+12:00

Exactly, BB. I've commented before about the arrogance and evangelical zeal of some atheists in times past. Some (I would say a minority based on my own experience) atheists seem to believe that the absence of God or anything supernatural/spiritual automatically makes their belief system superior to any theistic one.
Still, I see value in looking at questions from both perspectives (atheist/theist). In fact, I would say that it was intended/anticipated that we would do just that.
And, while there has certainly been way too much anthropomorphic thinking regarding the Divine among religiously inclined folks, I wouldn't say that such thinking is devoid of any value or merit. In other words, it makes sense to me that some of our attributes are almost certainly shared with the Divine (at a minimum, most theists would say that they have their origin in that entity).
I agree with your standard - evaluating the fruit (I believe that's scriptural). Moreover, how efficient that system is in producing "good" results has to be a major factor in evaluating its merit. Great comments - as usual.

Actually, Lonnie, as I sure we both agree, not ha...

2016-08-07T12:09:09.275+12:00

Actually, Lonnie, as I sure we both agree, not having God in one's belief system does not guarantee that that belief system will then be improved. Either way, it all ends up being a function of human thinking, anthropomorphic thinking in some cases. I've come to look at both secular and non-secular belief systems in terms of whether they produce good or bad, and, if good, how efficient they are in producing good. This is setting aside matters such as salvation, I know, but since that isn't even our prerogative to judge, I usually leave that issue alone.

BB

Byker Bob, I guess I was writing my comment at the...

2016-08-07T10:44:41.998+12:00

Byker Bob,
I guess I was writing my comment at the same time you were writing yours! Yes, good point. Sometimes we unintentionally talk past each other.

Skeptic, I see how my remarks could be interpreted...

2016-08-07T10:39:12.274+12:00

Skeptic,
I see how my remarks could be interpreted as implying that Minimalist has "pieced together a religion." The clumsy wording is entirely my fault. I meant to suggest that he has formulated his own belief system (I acknowledge the fact that he does not claim any supernatural component to those beliefs). Moreover, we can all speculate about possible motivations for biblical writers, but it's still speculation at the end of the day. In answer to your question about which scenario seems more likely, I think we've both made our answers to that one very plain.
By the way, I usually enjoy Minimalist's comments (yours too), but he never seems to answer my questions (I always try to answer his). We're having a discussion. I respect your opinions, and I'm not trying to "convert" anybody.
What about the premise of my original post? Do you think that the founders of Christianity envisioned the development of an elaborate theology with positions on things like the trinity, proper observance of rituals, prophetic scenarios, etc? Or do you think that it was more likely that those folks intended for it to satisfy emotional/spiritual needs? Even from the perspective of a non-believer, I think that those are important questions - especially in light of where religion has taken mankind and where we are today. What do you think?

Could this be a case of semantics or parsed meanin...

2016-08-07T10:12:22.079+12:00

Could this be a case of semantics or parsed meanings? Religion vs system of beliefs? Beliefs are beliefs. If any one of us holds a system of beliefs composed of 50-1/2% truth, we would be classified as winning by a slight margin. There are so many unknowns, and our very excellent five senses can't even pick up radar. We can't see the vast areas of space between the atoms and molecules in "solid" objects, or detect the relatively low frequency at which they are vibrating.

BB

Miller, Regarding your comment to Minimalist, I h...

2016-08-07T08:59:54.670+12:00

Miller,
Regarding your comment to Minimalist, I have to disagree. He has not pieced together a religion. He makes no claim to supernatural involvement. He points out that the many of the bible's stories are similar to stories from other belief systems that predate the New Testament. And he points out possible motivations of the bible writers. One has to ask, which scenario is more likely? Minimalist and I have drawn our conclusion and you have drawn yours. But let's be clear: yours is a religion, ours is not.

Skeptic, Thank you. We have obviously arrived at d...

2016-08-07T00:53:38.943+12:00

Skeptic, Thank you. We have obviously arrived at different conclusions about what the available evidence indicates that Jesus taught on the subject.
Minimalist, Why not "piece together your own do-it-yourself religion"? Haven't you essentially done the same thing? After evaluating some of the available evidence, you have arrived at some conclusions that you believe to be superior to other possible conclusions. And how do you know what was borrowed, and that it was borrowed more than 40 years after the fact? What about the evidence that contradicts your statements? (And don't ask me what evidence, reference our past discussions - I'm not going to plow that ground over here)

who wrote "Mark"? A clever writer >40...

2016-08-07T00:38:21.837+12:00

who wrote "Mark"?
A clever writer >40 yrs after the 'fact'

Might as well piece together your own do-it-yourself religion like Lonnie Hendrix.

And like 'Mark' pieced together a string of borrowed sub-plots:
"In the story that emerged, the Gospel of Mark, essentially, the author composites more than fifty 'micro-stories' (mainly healings and miracles, of the type told of Apollonius), sandwiched between a put-down of John the Baptist (whose followers were serious rivals to the early proto-Christians) and a dying-saviour sequence (of the kind then being officially promoted for the dead Antinous."
- jesusneverexisted.com/mark.htm

Miller, sorry, I glossed over the phrase "Jes...

2016-08-07T00:03:24.680+12:00

Miller, sorry, I glossed over the phrase "Jesus is reported to have said..." I was responding to assertions like "Christ clearly gave more weight..." and "it appears that Christ felt".

Yes, I realize all three stories have their differences. "Matthew" took many Mark stories and added details - often making them more fabulous - to put his desired spin on them. "Luke" also took many Mark stories and added different details, to put his/her different spin on them. The fact that two authors took the original story and embellished it hardly confirms the veracity of the original story. All three were writing many years after the alleged events and all three were writing with a motivation to convert others: hardly the hallmarks of true objective reporting.

Minimalist, Lonnie Hendrix doesn't have a chur...

2016-08-06T23:48:52.176+12:00

Minimalist, Lonnie Hendrix doesn't have a church, and what is your justification/proof that a mere 5% of Scripture is positive? Sounds like some of HWA's sweeping comments about how much of the Bible was history, prophecy, etc.
Skeptic, you may have noticed that I said in my remarks "Jesus is reported to have said..." You also may have noticed that the story in Mark is different from the story in Matthew, and that the scribe/lawyer/Pharisee validates and expounds on Christ's answer in that version. You have probably also noticed that the account in Luke (10:25-28) puts the statement in the mouth of the lawyer with Jesus confirming it. John quotes Christ as saying that love for God and each other is vital in several passages. By the way, we (Minimalist, you and I) agree that we don't know who wrote these books. Nevertheless, for me, this documentary evidence indicates that there is a strong probability that Jesus said/taught that love for God and each other was of preeminent importance.

True, much of Matthew was plagiarized from Mark .....

2016-08-06T07:53:45.555+12:00

True, much of Matthew was plagiarized from Mark ... with a new spin on it. But who wrote "Mark"?

the anonymous author of "Matthew" Didn&...

2016-08-06T02:01:44.014+12:00

the anonymous author of "Matthew"
Didn't Mark write most of Matthew?
But don't worry about Bible problems; come to Lonnie Hendrick's church
where the Book is mined for the 5% of its content that's happy.
Slim pickings, but better than trying to find any joyful stuff in the Koran!

Or at least the anonymous author of "Matthew&...

2016-08-05T07:39:37.711+12:00

Or at least the anonymous author of "Matthew" felt that way.

Tom, the Greek word translated into English as &qu...

2016-08-04T11:58:24.004+12:00

Tom, the Greek word translated into English as "heart" denotes both thoughts and emotions. It suggests the internal center of the person- the innermost soul of the person. In this connection, it is interesting to note that Christ clearly gave more weight to the emotional side of this understanding. For instance, when asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus is reported to have said: "Thou shalt LOVE the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt LOVE thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang ALL the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40, emphasis mine). Hence, it appears that Christ felt that an intellectual understanding of the law was unimportant compared to the actual internalization of the principle.

Tom: Legalists attach faith to knowledge. This i...

2016-08-04T10:57:42.542+12:00

Tom:

Legalists attach faith to knowledge. This is a type of latter day Gnosticism. In principle, it says that only perfect knowledge can underpin faith. And with perfect knowledge you can successfully defend your faith. In essence it turns worship away from God and towards knowledge. The idea is that if your theology is not comprehensive and correct, you faith is not correct. Hence, sermons and bible studies that focus on having the correct knowledge.

HWA was a respository and marketer of this "saving" enlightenment. Chief on the list was British-Israelism. The high regard that Arstrongists place on the correct knowledge has prevented them from progressive understanding. They want to hold onto what they understood when HWA died as if that were their savior.

While knowledge has its place and is desirable, it is neither comprehensive or perfect. Faith, then, involves trusting god even though knowledge is incomplete and so much is unknowable. We see through a glass darkly.

But Jesus allegedly also said "Thomas, becaus...

2016-08-04T07:53:37.544+12:00

But Jesus allegedly also said "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Isn't this saying it is most holy to believe in ignorance?