“The work of God”?

[Paladin]

That's interesting. It's fine not to answer this question (as it is a personal one) but what caused you to change your mind?

It's usually far more common to travel in the opposite direction. Bertrand Russell is a famous example of someone who followed that trajectory, after having initially accepted Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God.

However, Anthony Flew is known for embracing a form of Deism towards the end of his life.

During my career in teaching, it was actually quite unusual for me to encounter colleagues in Religious Studies departments that subscribed to any kind of traditional belief in the God of classical theism e.g. omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, personal etc.

None were evangelical in the slightest, or subscribed to a form of Christianity that was spirit-driven.

This even included school Chaplains.

The number of atheists teaching the subject is almost certainly higher than many might imagine. Typically, they would be graduates in Philosophy who found Religious Studies congenial as a subject to train in because a lot of the content is philosophical and involves the study of renowned atheists like Hume, Russell, Ayer, Mackie, Dawkins, and others. My own ex-Head of Department and good friend is an atheist but highly critical of characters like Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Harris. And that's not unusual too.

As for me, I am agnostic and was always far more interested in Buddhism, which is non-theistic, and philosophical Taoism, which has an entirely different conception of the nature of reality.

When I was first starting out in teaching, not being a Christian could mean that you wouldn't be considered for appointment in some schools. Of course, no-one would actually say it to your face, but I am sure that I was discriminated against because of this in one or two interviews.

Fortunately, that has now all changed.

Anyway, hope your missing cat has returned.

Interesting. My dad served in WW2 as a stretcher bearer. He refused to disobey the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' due to his Christianity. He saw a lot of front line action.

After the war, while he was in his late 20s, he became a RE teacher and worked his career for Manchester Education Committee, teaching at an medical asylum in Colwyn Bay, then Yew Tree School, Sharston and South Wythenshawe Tech.

He became a teacher purely because of the opportunities it would give him to evangelise children, and he succeeded in his goals greatly. I don't think he would have taken the same career path today.

 

[urban genie]

How come your religion and God is the right one? And not the millions believed in by others?

Well for the

Bábist, Baháʼí, Druze, Mandaeist, Shabakis,​

Samaritanist, Rastafar, Jewish, Christian & Islamic faiths​

It is all the same god but non the fuckers can decide who interperates him best.

(no idea why my type is in bold btw)

---

 

[urban genie]

Slightly off topic, but popped into my head as I was reading.

Have you ever been on your own or even walking down the street and are sure ypu heard someone call your name pr talk to you?

Think it has happened to me maybe 20 odd times in my life. A bloke at work teaes ago whp was religious used to say it was your gaurdian angel checking on you, personally I just think your mind sometimes fuckabout subconsciously

 

[urban genie]

The Gospels contain teachings by Christ that are incredibly difficult for man to do. If we obeyed it though, the world would look totally different and for the better.

The gospel of John is pretty much is a retelling of the greek stories of Dionysus, nearly all theologians now agree that to be the case and is mainly myth over true events.

The ealier gospels however were told by word of mouth much more closer to Jesus time and so it is unlikely that they would drift from the narative of thier faith and use pagan influences.

Matthew wrote mainly to convert his fellow jews to Christs teaching hence why he heavily uses the old testament and calls jesus the son of david, and his birth and conception is directly lifted from Isiah also why actual sermans jesus made are included

Mark the earliest one and luke is aimed at non jews and so kinda spices it up, especially with the miracles.

It is widely considered to take the gospels as myths and legends wrapped around some historical truths rather than a com0lete guide to Jesus life and actions

One truth in them all is that a man named Jesus lived in that period, and was crucified by the local governance .

It is up to the individual to then decide if this man was the son of god and part of the holy trinity or not.


And I will say again I ain't knocking your faith, but as I commented the other day I toyed with the 6th sacriment so 20+ yeaes ago I could recite most of the bible old and new tesrament and was well versed in all the gospels, acts, letter, etc.

 

[East Level 2]

So - “no one comes to the Father but through me”

Sounds a bit cultish. Not quite Scouse but cultish nonetheless. And arrogant too unless you agree other beliefs are wrong, or other "Fathers" exist.

 

[tonea2003]

The gospel of John is pretty much is a retelling of the greek stories of Dionysus, nearly all theologians now agree that to be the case and is mainly myth over true events.

The ealier gospels however were told by word of mouth much more closer to Jesus time and so it is unlikely that they would drift from the narative of thier faith and use pagan influences.

Matthew wrote mainly to convert his fellow jews to Christs teaching hence why he heavily uses the old testament and calls jesus the son of david, and his birth and conception is directly lifted from Isiah also why actual sermans jesus made are included

Mark the earliest one and luke is aimed at non jews and so kinda spices it up, especially with the miracles.

It is widely considered to take the gospels as myths and legends wrapped around some historical truths rather than a com0lete guide to Jesus life and actions

One truth in them all is that a man named Jesus lived in that period, and was crucified by the local governance .

It is up to the individual to then decide if this man was the son of god and part of the holy trinity or not.


And I will say again I ain't knocking your faith, but as I commented the other day I toyed with the 6th sacriment so 20+ yeaes ago I could recite most of the bible old and new tesrament and was well versed in all the gospels, acts, letter, etc.

there is virtually no evidence that the man portrayed in the gospels actually existed, not one contemporary writer of the time and there are quite a few, mention this man and his deeds, that in itself is rather strange.
by the way jesus was a very common name at the time, so of course there was a man named jesus, there was lots of them.

 

[urban genie]

there is virtually no evidence that the man portrayed in the gospels actually existed, not one contemporary writer of the time and there are quite a few, mention this man and his deeds, that in itself is rather strange.
by the way jesus was a very common name at the time, so of course there was a man named jesus, there was lots of them.

Most schollars, and historian accept that a man named jesus was crucified, every other aspect in his life is still argued over.

They also believe such a sect or group could not grow so large withput some histprical base to draw off, much like many legends of that period, they are very loosly based on historical figures made myth.


The chances that this Jesus is Jesus of the bible is also up for individual opinion.

Never understood why there is a need to completely proved or deny the man existed, he probably did, but he had fuck all to do with being celestial.

His moderday depiction was taken from several roman gods images during the empires conversion hence why god looks like zeus and Jesus like Hermes rather than somene of middle easterm origin


Not arsed either way of he was real or not, to me he certainly wasn't a diety or that diety even exists anyway

 

[tonea2003]

Most schollars, and hostorian accept that a man named jesus was crucified, every other aspect in his life is still argued over.

They also believe such a sect or group could not grow so large withput some histprical base to draw off, much like many legends of that period, they are very loosly based on historical figures made myth.


The chances that this Jesus is Jesus of the bible is also up for individual opinion.

Never understood why there is a need to completely proved or deny the man existed, he probably did, but he had fuck all to do with being celestial.

His moderday depiction was taken from several roman gods images during the empires conversion hence why god looks like zeus and Jesus like Hermes rather than somene of middle easterm origin


Not arsed either way of he was real or not, to me he certainly wasn't a diety or that diety even exists anyway

like i say there were lots of them and yeah a man may well of been crucified named jesus, its a bit so what.

none are first hand accounts, the first decades later if not more, so couldn't have been there
and its generally agreed we dont know who wrote the gospels and they don't agree on lots of things

i think we broadly agree, and yes tales of wonder and deeds passed through generations have obviously gained traction to the point of this global religion and i'd say well done to them, a business model that has worked very successfully.

is any of it based on deity fact ?

what i do know is they ain't getting any of my hard earned coin

 

[somapop]

I would see regard selfish ignorance rather than sin as the cause of any 'fallen' state. It possibly stems from having a limited view of things, rather than the more expansive one allegedly conferred through mystical experience. Jesus even states in Mark's gospel that to become a disciple one has to 'leave self behind', and I cannot see how you can love your neighbour as yourself without seeing yourself as not separate from them in terms of some kind of unio mystica.

As far as Leon Morin goes, I haven't gone over to streaming yet but secondhand copies of the DVD are cheap to acquire off Amazon.

Another good one is The Mission with Robert De Niro and Jeremy Irons. I have always found that movie to be very moving and it also has a remarkable sequence on conversion.

Have you seen (or even read) Black Robe?

Great film aa book I’ll read soon too.
Unfortunately it’s pretty difficult to view at the moment (remarkably given how well made the film is).
Tells the story of a Jesuit priest off to convert Native American Indians in North East America.

Must’ve been a torturous event for these priests (literally & figuratively) and fir what ultimately?

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/30/...-huron-indians-a-disaster-for-both-sides.html

 

[Ban-jani]

The gospel of John is pretty much is a retelling of the greek stories of Dionysus, nearly all theologians now agree that to be the case and is mainly myth over true events.

The ealier gospels however were told by word of mouth much more closer to Jesus time and so it is unlikely that they would drift from the narative of thier faith and use pagan influences.

Matthew wrote mainly to convert his fellow jews to Christs teaching hence why he heavily uses the old testament and calls jesus the son of david, and his birth and conception is directly lifted from Isiah also why actual sermans jesus made are included

Mark the earliest one and luke is aimed at non jews and so kinda spices it up, especially with the miracles.

It is widely considered to take the gospels as myths and legends wrapped around some historical truths rather than a com0lete guide to Jesus life and actions

One truth in them all is that a man named Jesus lived in that period, and was crucified by the local governance .

It is up to the individual to then decide if this man was the son of god and part of the holy trinity or not.


And I will say again I ain't knocking your faith, but as I commented the other day I toyed with the 6th sacriment so 20+ yeaes ago I could recite most of the bible old and new tesrament and was well versed in all the gospels, acts, letter, etc.

Maximalists won the argument in the 20th century, minimalists are in the minority and it’s a small minority.