Canandiandude, pardon if I copied only a piece of your post to focus on. The subject can be large and you touched on several considerations.
I am sort of following Physics Guys comments which covered my first thoughts. You are correct to my understanding in your outline of development in Christian history. That path was of course not just random accident it was the result of the careful consideration of quite a few people. There are basic events and perceptions which formed the foundation and impetus for Christianity becoming a movement and faith. I think first was the hope for a better world which Jesus projected as a preacher. That was a combination of his social instructions and the hope of a renewed relationship with God. But Jesus was executed afterwhich the belief that he had risen from the dead took hold. People trying to understand that found the idea of atonement as a basic clue. This would have arisen from a combination of religious patterns they were familiar with and the hope that Jesus had encouraged.
Atonement implied that in Jesus God was taking an action but people thought of various possible ways of seeing that. Jesus could be an assigned representative like a king of Israel. He could in some sense have been adopted by God. He could have been a spiritual being with a special closeness to God or perhaps God being present. The New Testament materials all point to the idea of some special closeness but do not work out details beyond the John statements, in the beginning was the word and the word was God.
I think the atonement idea has a chance of making sense only if it is understood as God taking an action for us not as a human dying for us. There were plenty of Jews dying. I think the trinity was a generalizing statement agreed upon to protect that one idea.
I can see how agreed upon means a social construct ,one constructed by people for a purpose.
Cool. As an agnostic atheist myself don’t need nor want any atonement, but I appreciate you sharing politely your view, and agree that social constructs are very important for societies. I love that quote from the last Harry Potter movie (not a Rowling fan but I don’t have to be to appreciate many things about the series and franchise)
Dumbledore beamed at him, and his voice sounded loud and strong in Harry's ears even though the bright mist was descending again, obscuring his figure. “Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?
Social constructs might be arbitrary- even self-contradictory at times- but that doesn’t mean they lack utility or legitimacy.
Human rights are social constructs- they are useful social artefacts for protecting the pluralism and wellbeing revolving around multiple kinds of interests as held by multiple groups and individuals.
Canandiandude, pardon if I copied only a piece of your post to focus on. The subject can be large and you touched on several considerations.
I am sort of following Physics Guys comments which covered my first thoughts. You are correct to my understanding in your outline of development in Christian history. That path was of course not just random accident it was the result of the careful consideration of quite a few people. There are basic events and perceptions which formed the foundation and impetus for Christianity becoming a movement and faith. I think first was the hope for a better world which Jesus projected as a preacher. That was a combination of his social instructions and the hope of a renewed relationship with God. But Jesus was executed afterwhich the belief that he had risen from the dead took hold. People trying to understand that found the idea of atonement as a basic clue. This would have arisen from a combination of religious patterns they were familiar with and the hope that Jesus had encouraged.
Atonement implied that in Jesus God was taking an action but people thought of various possible ways of seeing that. Jesus could be an assigned representative like a king of Israel. He could in some sense have been adopted by God. He could have been a spiritual being with a special closeness to God or perhaps God being present. The New Testament materials all point to the idea of some special closeness but do not work out details beyond the John statements, in the beginning was the word and the word was God.
I think the atonement idea has a chance of making sense only if it is understood as God taking an action for us not as a human dying for us. There were plenty of Jews dying. I think the trinity was a generalizing statement agreed upon to protect that one idea.
I can see how agreed upon means a social construct ,one constructed by people for a purpose.
Cool. As an agnostic atheist myself don’t need nor want any atonement, but I appreciate you sharing politely your view, and agree that social constructs are very important for societies. I love that quote from the last Harry Potter movie (not a Rowling fan but I don’t have to be to appreciate many things about the series and franchise)
Dumbledore beamed at him, and his voice sounded loud and strong in Harry's ears even though the bright mist was descending again, obscuring his figure. “Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?
Social constructs might be arbitrary- even self-contradictory at times- but that doesn’t mean they lack utility or legitimacy.
Human rights are social constructs- they are useful social artefacts for protecting the pluralism and wellbeing revolving around multiple kinds of interests as held by multiple groups and individuals.
Canadiandude, I see your comments as an understandable view. Often explanations about atonement are limited in ways making the idea repulsive to non theists,(and sometimes theists as well) I thought your switch to observing mythical meaning in stories interesting. I got the sense you did not intend continued argument and I do not wish to argue yet I found your comments inviting my interior thoughts to attempt stepping a bit further. I might write those up to see if I am able to clarify my own thoughts. (if I do pushback is ok of course)
Naaaa. Kish, don't be stupid. It's more about Mormonism using New Testament words and pouring meaning into them that are obviously at variance with the biblical evidence (and beyond) and pretending to have the true Christianity and asserting that all the other creeds (interpretations) are an abomination. Strong words. The Mormonites started it.
Sometimes bigotry is well placed. This is one of those cases. The Mormonites are trying to shift ground and downplay the very radical differences in Mormon theology with the rest of New Testament Christianity (and Judaism). Yes, their have been, and still are, fights within the rest of Christiandom, but Mormon theology is quite radical by comparison, right down the line. Surely you know this.
(I am neither New Testament believer nor Mormon)
Don’t be a stupid bigot, bill4long. People have been creatively interpreting the words of Jesus since 30 AD. If you want to believe that one group and one group only is allowed to do that, then you are a moron.
Sorry it took so long to reply.
Your reply is beyond bizarre. Me? A bigot? How so?
I'm not a believer in the New Testament. So, well, tweak your weird response based on that.
Try again.
The views and opinions expressed by Bill4Long could be wrong and are subject to change at any time. Viewer discretion is advised.
Your reply is beyond bizarre. Me? A bigot? How so?
I'm not a believer in the New Testament. So, well, tweak your weird response based on that.
Try again.
By holding different people to different standards, which shows a strong bias toward one side.
Try again.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to
explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
Your reply is beyond bizarre. Me? A bigot? How so?
I'm not a believer in the New Testament. So, well, tweak your weird response based on that.
Try again.
By holding different people to different standards, which shows a strong bias toward one side.
Try again.
-_-
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
