The idea of a Restoration of Christ’s New Testament “church” was unoriginal

[sock puppet]

If so, that would dictate your "cafeteria Jesus" outlook, right? I mean the part about Jesus resurrecting from the dead, Son of God, etc.

Regards,
MG

Oh, the supernatural nonsense parts? Yea, those are a bridge too far for those that think rationally.

[Res Ipsa]

He is so hung up on his belief that life is a means and not an end that he can’t conceive as life as an end.

I wouldn't put it quite that way. I see life as a beautiful gift. One in which I relish. Family, friends, food, learning, love, reading, nature, running, cycling, hiking, traveling, and many other pleasures/joys of living in the world. I suppose where we may separate/diverge is in our outlook towards eternity and/or life after death.

You see life ending and that's it. I see life ending and then continuing on into whatever awaits in the afterlife for all the souls that lived on the earth.

So, I think we are pretty much aligned in a lot of things except for the fact that when you take your last breath...that's it...or at least you think so.

Earlier in a thread (this one?) I was challenged in my use of the word "nihilist". I suppose I ought to correct that and say, "materialist". I wouldn't think, from what I've heard you say and my interaction with you, that you are a nihilist. I would think that many if not most people here aren't. It would be more accurate to say materialist.

Does that fit in your case?

If so, that would dictate your "cafeteria Jesus" outlook, right? I mean the part about Jesus resurrecting from the dead, Son of God, etc.

Regards,
MG

So, here’s what you said that I reacted to:

“If you believe that there isn't anything after you die isn't that more or less being nihilistic?”

That’s a very common claim by believers: that without belief in life after death, this existence has no meaning. That’s the black or white meaning. Nihilism is the term commonly used by believers when making this claim, so I wouldn’t quibble with your use of the word. “Materialism” is accurate, but it changes the claim. If you call me a materialist, I would respond with something like “Yes. So what?” But if you call me a nihilist, which is the common claim by believers, I would argue, as I just did, that belief in God or Nihilist is fallacious black or white thinking.

I think you meant nihilist and that’s okay. Substituting “materialist” changes the meaning of what you said.

I think we don’t just differ on whether death is permanent. Your original statement implies that this life has no meaning unless existence continues after death. I disagree. But I argue further that your position is based on a false consciousness. My position is that the meaning of life is internally generated by each of us. But you experience it as if it is determined by someone other than you.

Now, if you want to modify what you said, that’s cool. That’s how conversations go. I don’t think I’m a nihilist — I think I’m a dancer. I do my best to find meaning in my life, just as the vast majority of people do.

I think the accurate term for me is a methodological materialist. Or you can substitute “naturalist” for “materialist” if you prefer. I don’t think there is a necessary link between being an MM and my cafeteria everyone approach. Good and helpful ideas can be found everywhere. And sometimes people who have expressed good and helpful ideas have also expressed bad and unhelpful ideas. What is it people say? Take the best and leave the rest? Something like that.

I don’t just reject the supernatural parts of Jesus. He made statements about the family that I find troubling. And the part about giving no thought to things like meals and clothing is not a good idea, at least in modern times. If I give everything to the poor and devote my life to Christianity, people that depend on me will be homeless and hungry. So, I reject that stuff. But, his teachings about how to treat others has, in my opinion, some great stuff. I don’t treat what Jesus said any different than I treat any other source of potential wisdom.

[MG 2.0]

I wouldn't put it quite that way. I see life as a beautiful gift. One in which I relish. Family, friends, food, learning, love, reading, nature, running, cycling, hiking, traveling, and many other pleasures/joys of living in the world. I suppose where we may separate/diverge is in our outlook towards eternity and/or life after death.

You see life ending and that's it. I see life ending and then continuing on into whatever awaits in the afterlife for all the souls that lived on the earth.

So, I think we are pretty much aligned in a lot of things except for the fact that when you take your last breath...that's it...or at least you think so.

Earlier in a thread (this one?) I was challenged in my use of the word "nihilist". I suppose I ought to correct that and say, "materialist". I wouldn't think, from what I've heard you say and my interaction with you, that you are a nihilist. I would think that many if not most people here aren't. It would be more accurate to say materialist.

Does that fit in your case?

If so, that would dictate your "cafeteria Jesus" outlook, right? I mean the part about Jesus resurrecting from the dead, Son of God, etc.

Regards,
MG

So, here’s what you said that I reacted to:

“If you believe that there isn't anything after you die isn't that more or less being nihilistic?”

That’s a very common claim by believers: that without belief in life after death, this existence has no meaning. That’s the black or white meaning. Nihilism is the term commonly used by believers when making this claim, so I wouldn’t quibble with your use of the word. “Materialism” is accurate, but it changes the claim. If you call me a materialist, I would respond with something like “Yes. So what?” But if you call me a nihilist, which is the common claim by believers, I would argue, as I just did, that belief in God or Nihilist is fallacious black or white thinking.

I think you meant nihilist and that’s okay. Substituting “materialist” changes the meaning of what you said.

I think we don’t just differ on whether death is permanent. Your original statement implies that this life has no meaning unless existence continues after death. I disagree. But I argue further that your position is based on a false consciousness. My position is that the meaning of life is internally generated by each of us. But you experience it as if it is determined by someone other than you.

Now, if you want to modify what you said, that’s cool. That’s how conversations go. I don’t think I’m a nihilist — I think I’m a dancer. I do my best to find meaning in my life, just as the vast majority of people do.

I think the accurate term for me is a methodological materialist. Or you can substitute “naturalist” for “materialist” if you prefer. I don’t think there is a necessary link between being an MM and my cafeteria everyone approach. Good and helpful ideas can be found everywhere. And sometimes people who have expressed good and helpful ideas have also expressed bad and unhelpful ideas. What is it people say? Take the best and leave the rest? Something like that.

I don’t just reject the supernatural parts of Jesus. He made statements about the family that I find troubling. And the part about giving no thought to things like meals and clothing is not a good idea, at least in modern times. If I give everything to the poor and devote my life to Christianity, people that depend on me will be homeless and hungry. So, I reject that stuff. But, his teachings about how to treat others has, in my opinion, some great stuff. I don’t treat what Jesus said any different than I treat any other source of potential wisdom.

Fair enough. Live and let live. I suppose in a certain sense we're all making it up as we go. Take the best and leave the rest. That process varies from person to person. What makes sense to one doesn't to another.

Methodological materialist. Sounds impressive!

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

The problem with the "cafeteria Jesus" retort is that it's more of the same circular reasoning.

The accusation of "cafeteria Jesus" makes perfect sense for people who already believe in the divinity of Jesus. I would use the term myself in that context. It doesn't make sense in the context of somebody who doesn't believe Jesus is divine. MG has mentioned he believes Trump has done some good things -- oh, cafeteria Trump, eh? The accusation makes no sense unless the person is already fully invested and there is no a priori reason to believe a person should be fully invested in Trump or Jesus or Einstein or Newton or anybody. Except maybe Dr. Scratch.

[MG 2.0]

The problem with the "cafeteria Jesus" retort is that it's more of the same circular reasoning.

The accusation of "cafeteria Jesus" makes perfect sense for people who already believe in the divinity of Jesus. I would use the term myself in that context. It doesn't make sense in the context of somebody who doesn't believe Jesus is divine. MG has mentioned he believes Trump has done some good things -- oh, cafeteria Trump, eh? The accusation makes no sense unless the person is already fully invested and there is no a priori reason to believe a person should be fully invested in Trump or Jesus or Einstein or Newton or anybody. Except maybe Dr. Scratch.

I would agree that the term 'cafeteria Jesus' would apply only to those that believe in Jesus, either historical and/or divine. For those that don't believe at all you're right, my statement would be more or less a non sequitur.

We are talking past each other.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

I would agree that the term 'cafeteria Jesus' would apply only to those that believe in Jesus, either historical and/or divine

mmmmm....I actually believe Jesus was historical so no, that doesn't work. Don't get caught into the trap of thinking if Jesus was historical he was most likely divine.

PseudoPaul could easily believe Jesus was historical and a good teacher while thereby making him an inappropriate target for a "cafeteria Jesus" remark.

[Res Ipsa]

So, here’s what you said that I reacted to:

“If you believe that there isn't anything after you die isn't that more or less being nihilistic?”

That’s a very common claim by believers: that without belief in life after death, this existence has no meaning. That’s the black or white meaning. Nihilism is the term commonly used by believers when making this claim, so I wouldn’t quibble with your use of the word. “Materialism” is accurate, but it changes the claim. If you call me a materialist, I would respond with something like “Yes. So what?” But if you call me a nihilist, which is the common claim by believers, I would argue, as I just did, that belief in God or Nihilist is fallacious black or white thinking.

I think you meant nihilist and that’s okay. Substituting “materialist” changes the meaning of what you said.

I think we don’t just differ on whether death is permanent. Your original statement implies that this life has no meaning unless existence continues after death. I disagree. But I argue further that your position is based on a false consciousness. My position is that the meaning of life is internally generated by each of us. But you experience it as if it is determined by someone other than you.

Now, if you want to modify what you said, that’s cool. That’s how conversations go. I don’t think I’m a nihilist — I think I’m a dancer. I do my best to find meaning in my life, just as the vast majority of people do.

I think the accurate term for me is a methodological materialist. Or you can substitute “naturalist” for “materialist” if you prefer. I don’t think there is a necessary link between being an MM and my cafeteria everyone approach. Good and helpful ideas can be found everywhere. And sometimes people who have expressed good and helpful ideas have also expressed bad and unhelpful ideas. What is it people say? Take the best and leave the rest? Something like that.

I don’t just reject the supernatural parts of Jesus. He made statements about the family that I find troubling. And the part about giving no thought to things like meals and clothing is not a good idea, at least in modern times. If I give everything to the poor and devote my life to Christianity, people that depend on me will be homeless and hungry. So, I reject that stuff. But, his teachings about how to treat others has, in my opinion, some great stuff. I don’t treat what Jesus said any different than I treat any other source of potential wisdom.

Fair enough. Live and let live. I suppose in a certain sense we're all making it up as we go. Take the best and leave the rest. That process varies from person to person. What makes sense to one doesn't to another.

Methodological materialist. Sounds impressive!

Regards,
MG

It doesn’t really roll off the tongue, does it? An MM is distinguished from a philosophical materialist. A PM takes the stance that only the material (or natural) exists. An MM takes the position that, because the existence of the nonmaterial is untestable, it makes no practical sense to treat the nonmaterial as real. Something like that.

I think that “we’re all making it up as we go” is a pretty fair summary of how I see things.

[Res Ipsa]

The problem with the "cafeteria Jesus" retort is that it's more of the same circular reasoning.

The accusation of "cafeteria Jesus" makes perfect sense for people who already believe in the divinity of Jesus. I would use the term myself in that context. It doesn't make sense in the context of somebody who doesn't believe Jesus is divine. MG has mentioned he believes Trump has done some good things -- oh, cafeteria Trump, eh? The accusation makes no sense unless the person is already fully invested and there is no a priori reason to believe a person should be fully invested in Trump or Jesus or Einstein or Newton or anybody. Except maybe Dr. Scratch.

I would agree that the term 'cafeteria Jesus' would apply only to those that believe in Jesus, either historical and/or divine. For those that don't believe at all you're right, my statement would be more or less a non sequitur.

We are talking past each other.

Regards,
MG

I don’t see the talking past part. You and Gad just agreed on a point pertinent to the discussion.

[Limnor]

I would agree that the term 'cafeteria Jesus' would apply only to those that believe in Jesus, either historical and/or divine.

This “cafeteria Jesus” concept breaks down externally. If someone believes in Jesus (even believes He’s divine) but rejects the LDS depiction of him, that doesn’t make them a “cafeteria believer.” It just means they don’t accept the Mormon version of Jesus.

“Cafeteria” only makes sense within doctrinal beliefs—when a person selectively accepts pieces of a belief system they otherwise claim as their own. It doesn’t apply externally.

[Gadianton]

It might be worth separating the evidential problem from the circularity problem.

This is a mythologized version of how it went down but it illustrates the point. Let's say I'm a lone fisherman in the meridian of time. I'm tired, my body is breaking down, I haven't caught a fish and I'm hungry. I want to give up. But then, a stranger approaches me and inquires of me. I rattle off my problems. The stranger informs me that these are all temporary concerns and tells me there's something greater. Believe upon him, and I shall live again after death. What? Live after death? I've never heard of such a thing! And in that life, there is no hunger. But lots of rest. I'm feeling a little better already. I don't catch a fish that night, but I don't let it get me down, I think of the greater things I've been taught and hope for that better world, and the next night, I do catch a fish! Perhaps the stranger new of what he was speaking?

We can debate whether I'd been taken in by a confidence man or the son of God, but I don't see a problem of circular reasoning.

Instead of picking on MG let's take a more extreme version of the circularity problem from Islamic Scholar Dan Peterson. Dan teaches that without living forever, everything is meaningless, but he goes beyond meaning as in "do I have a purpose", but meaning as in the intelligibility of the very words on this page. Without an afterlife, the words on the page are just random dots clumped together. And there is actually a Christian apologetics argument along these lines, the "transcendental argument" that says for anything to make sense in the world at all, from the words on this screen to convey information, to the choices to and from the grocery store to buy milk, nothing can have any meaning at all without the Christian gospel.

Okay, but now the Bible is circular. If the Christian gospel is required for the very words on a page to make sense, then I must believe in the Christian gospel before I read the Bible to learn about Jesus. They will try to avoid this conclusions but I don't think they can. Most people don't take it this far. But, we must be on the lookout for more subtle ways in which preachers of the gospel manipulate their interlocutor into accepting the conclusion as a premise for a search that leads to the conclusion they want. Such as, if the debate is about the evidence for Jesus as divine or not from the historical record, breaking out of that conversation and suddenly suggesting that life sure would be pointless if he weren't divine, now wouldn't it?