by VorJack
We’re coming up on All Hallows Eve. According to one version of the story, this is the night when the gates of Purgatory are opened, and all the souls wander the earth.
So it seems like an appropriate time to recognize all the good folks for whom reading this blog must be a sort of purgatory. (Remember kids, only professionals should attempt segues like that.)
Of course, I’m talking about the Christian readers — and other theistic readers — who read and contribute to this blog. Let’s face it, atheist blogs can quickly become boring echo chambers. Sure there’s a bit of disagreement, but most of the fun comes from the believers who show up. From the drive-bys who hassle us once and provoke a flurry of responses, to the long term contributers who routinely wade into the discussion and try to prove that all Christians are not Ray Comfort.
Thanks to all of you. And particular thanks to Christians like brgulker and JonJon, who’ve been sticking it out in the comments for a while. And John C, whatever the hell you are, thanks to you too.
I’m sure that if there is a God, he’s looking down on you with a smile, saying, “… what the hell are they at that site for? That does it, next time I create a people, I’m making fewer masochists.”
“to prove that all Christians are not Ray Comfort”
Interesting… You mean that there is only One Christian, Ray Comfort, disguised as different persons? Or is it some type of hive mind?
I’m guessing that it’s a disguise. It would explain that obviously fake mustache he wears in his Ray Comfort persona.
We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
The Star Trek: Voyager version: We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Unless the writers decide that Janeway has to tech the tech, in which case there will be no assimilations. So, resistance is not necessarily futile. We really ought to rethink our introduction.
LOL! The Borg are this.
That site is marvelous.
Haha! Another is snared!
The drive bys (dwade, Donny Pooling, Eric Kemp to name but a few) are fun but they also reinforce the negative stereo-types of believers as a whole. JonJon and brgulker help remind me that not all believers are not complete fruit cakes and there is a complete spectrum of believers as there are non-believers. I may not personally get on with brgulker (what a boring world it would be if everybody was basically the same) but I can appreciate that he helps make this blog more interesting and does post more thoughtful posts than just goddidit, you’re going to burn in hell and I’ll pray for you. Saying that I’m always skeptial of judging someone’s personality on something as impersonal as a blog and as emotive as relgion.
Probably what I like most about the blog is it has a good deal of interesting debates interspersed with humour and some socialising without things generally getting out of hand and degenerating into personal insults. For that I think you can thank all the contributors and also some of the regulars in setting a good standard of post and comments.
Well that’s enough for now, back to playing Borderlands as I’ve got some midgets to shoot … and thanks VorJack for another guest post.
Infidel. Midgets are his noodleiness the most holy FSM chosen people. You’ll burn for that.
Well that’s enough for now, back to playing Borderlands
I’m not sure how we got off on the wrong foot. I really have no idea.
But if you’re playing Borderlands, then we may have just found our common ground. I haven’t played it yet, but it’s on my must-play holiday purchase list.
Bygones be bygones, Jabster?
We can but try …
Borderlands is defiantly a good yet simple shooter. Don’t expect the depth of either FO3 or Stalker, it’s more of a Diablo FPS i.e. shot everything in sight, pick up the loot and then collect the reward.
I love borderlands.
Never got into it really which was a shame as I thought it was going to be far more like FO3 that it turned out to be.
We have millions of guns … well about five really!
I never comment, but I am a theist (of the more Jesus-y persuasion), and today is as good a day as any to say that this is probably the best blog I read. (and I read a lot) I truly appreciate the quality of the writing and content here, the light you’re shedding on hypocrisy and ridiculousness, and the laughs I get from the videos you post. I regularly (almost every day) share UF posts on Google Reader or e-mail them out to friends. I can say with honesty that this site has ironically been an important piece of my spiritual formation. I know, huh?!
Anyway, keep doing what you’re doing.
Thanks Steve, that’s encouraging to hear!
I’m in the exact same boat as Steve H. This is one of my favorite blogs and has been equally important, if not more important, in my spiritual formation, than any other blog out there.
I originally found your blog by looking for articles regarding faith beyond reason. I have this suspicion that the very reason I keep coming back to theism in my journey, is because it is something that is beyond reason. It’s a very unsettling feeling, and it’s extremely difficult to live in that tension, in the uncertainty. My opinion is, that unsettling feeling is the main reason why folks choose a particular religious expression – to comfort the unsettled-ness they all too often experience. The ironic thing is, Christian fundamentalists believe that their faith is highly reasonable – it all fits into a very nice little package! And it seems to be a lot easier – and Americans, sadly, like things to be easy.
Through my readings of the Bible it seems to me that Christianity at it’s core, is fundamentally Anti-Christian; a hard thing to say in the glitz and glam, watered down americanized version of Christianity that we see around us today. One generations heresy is the following generations orthodoxy. I’m just hoping that we can all choose to take the risk and truly kill every assumption we have about God(s) so that something truly wonderful can emerge.
Once again, ironically, I find that your blog makes a case for a much bigger God than most of the world has settled for; A God that contradicts what the Bible says, and what Christians, Muslims, and Jews express. If that isn’t heretical, I don’t know what is.
My heartfelt thanks for what you do here, you have a much greater impact, to a much greater audience than I think you realize.
IMHO most Atheists have no problems when religion is presented as something subjective rather than objective.
I’m personally a rabid atheist, but I find entirely legitimate for someone to believe in something irrational, or unreasonable, as long as she is aware of it.
I do it myself for other things, for example I delude myself that everyone loves me, true or false it makes me live better.
For many people being believers -does- indeed make them better persons, and this is great.
“IMHO most Atheists have no problems when religion is presented as something subjective rather than objective.”
Absolutely … there’s one thing to say that vanilla is my favourite ice cream, i’t's quite another to say everyone has to like vanilla ice cream and that should be enshrined in law, and yet another thing to claim that those who say they don’t like ice cream at all really just want to deny that they do.
It’s the category of believer who is unwilling to admit that their beliefs are based on faith yet will not apply the same rules to their own religion that they use to dismiss other religions that I have a real problem with. That’s probably the thing I will never understand
“For many people being believers -does- indeed make them better persons, and this is great.”
… but how many does it make a worse person and indeed how many would have done exactly the same thing (either good or bad) without religion?
Thanks VorJack, your kind and thoughtful words were warmly received. All my very best to each and every one of you today.
Great post!
Agreed. This post also reminds me how kind and understanding some (haha, definitely not all) of my theist friends have been through my “de-conversion”, whether they understand what I’m going through or not. I’ll make sure to thank them.
Thanks for the kind words, VorJack. As others have mentioned, this blog is one of the highest-quality blogs that I read. You and Daniel (as well as the occasional post from Lorette – did I forget anyone?) are very well-done. I will never (I don’t think, anyway) reach the conclusions that you have reached, and you will never return to the conclusions that I’ve reached — but still, I always thoroughly enjoy hearing your perspective. Please take this as a complement — I often feel that you bring a very prophetic perspective (in the same way that I think Jon Stewart often does to contemporary Evangelicalism. Your painfully honest, often satirical criticism are often spot-on — and frankly, it’s not easy for a Christian to hear accurate criticisms when they’re coming from an atheist … So props for what you all do.
There have been some heated debates lately, and I’m sure I’ve been off-putting to some of the UF commenters (LRA and Jabster come to mind). I do strive to not be a jerk, but I’m sure I have been on occasion. My apologies if the debate ever turns personal, and I fail to live up to what I strive to be.
Thanks for the words.. I enjoy the blog and read more than comment.. I am still trying to figure out what the driving force is behind the “typical” atheist (if there is such a thing). Seems like a lot of comment contributors here are anti-Christian and anti-organized religion verse pro-atheist.. would love to understand the draw to a life without God. Got to be careful what you say over here if you are a Christ-follower cause you get eaten alive..(I guess that it probably true for the atheist on the Christian sites as well I am sure, sorry about that)… the thing that is true is that “people are people wherever you go” and we are all a little out of control.. but that aside, I appreciate the olive branch.. it is refreshing..
I just wish some of you lurker folk would come out more often and comment! :-)
I wonder what the ratio of lurkers to regular posters is. The headline says 3,200 subscribers, but that can’t be right surely as there’s probably only 30 or so regular posters.
It’s actually over 3,500 now.
Wasn’t it only a few hundred not that long ago?
It’s almost time for the first post of UF isn’t a good as it used to be … :-)
It’s almost time for the first post of UF isn’t a good as it used to be
It really started going downhill around March of this year …
maybe if you regulars weren’t so rude we might.. not that you are looking for my opinion but I will give it anyway.. it’s funny to me that the same rudeness that you are offended by with your “drive by rude christians” (and rightly so) is the same kind of stuff that if offensive to me.. we don’t have to agree, but who wants to fight with a total stranger every time you comment.. I wrote an article about how I am trying to raise my son on a blog and some atheist drives by and blasts me for being an ignorant soul.. and the main thing we disagreed on was our truth source.. I am basing my life on the truth of the Bible and he on his intellect.. we come at life from completely different pages but that doesn’t give him the right to call me an idiot because he disagrees with me.. that the purpose of a conversation is to put out different ideas and evaluate.. am I wrong? and where I come from the guy who is calling people names is usually the idiot..
I haven’t seen the post but saying someone is ignorant is very different from saying someone is an idiot.
An atheist generally doesn’t base his position solely on his intellect. Usually it’s on a ton of evidence supporting one side and absolutely zero evidence supporting the other side. It’s like the statue at court-houses with the scales and the blindfold, you know? Weigh up what’s in front of you impartially, and atheism is the only real conclusion.
Also, “basing my life on the truth of the bible”: I have a problem with that statement. I cannot definitively say that the bible is entirely untrue, but I can point out that whole swathes of it are factually incorrect and a lot of it is morally repugnant. There might be some truths hiding in their somewhere, but calling it “the truth of the bible” is a giant stretch.
“Also, “basing my life on the truth of the bible”: I have a problem with that statement.”
Well for one thing its an emotionally laden variable phrase meaning only what the original speaker intends and not an objective definition.
Might as well say, “I’m basing my life on the TRUE path of Bobwehadababyitsaboy.” Nobody will even know what I mean.
There’s a big difference between arguing and quarreling. It sounds like you are equating the two. I’d like to invite you to read a book I read recently that was really wonderful (and short too!). It’s called “Being Logical”, by D.Q. McInerny. It’s a wonderful little book about logic, and by a theist, no doubt! I highly recommend it.
I just wish some of you lurker folk would come out more often and comment! :-)
Elemenope,
Take this title from a UF forum thread as an example: “Fresh Christian/Theist Meat”
That was a thread that one of the regulars created in the forum. If you were a theist, and you knew that the people from a particular forum/blog thought of you and your ideas as meat (presumably to be devoured), would you be inclined to post?
No. I was irritated by that title as well. But to say that it is representative of the interaction in general would be, I think, a bit inaccurate.
I agree. I would say that there are a lot of UF regulars who are very friendly, yourself included.
But, and I think you would agree, there are others who are just as hostile as the most hostile fundamentalist Christian.
Oh, sure, every community has its jerks, or sometimes simply people who are cranky or have shorter tempers, or even just have odd berserk buttons. But I have to say that this blog is one of the more tame I’ve seen around the Internetz (that is, tamest I’ve seen that wasn’t policed to death).
But Gulker, on the issue of abortion for example, you and I have argued the exact same point of view despite your christianity and my atheism. Differences in faith (or lack thereof) don’t have to define us as completely different people. I will always try to interract well with anybody, but some people attract and fully deserve a verbal beat-down. On those people, I will not hold back.
But I like to lurk. :-)
Lurking is too much fun to stop now!
So long as you’re not doing it in a dirty raincoat and sunglasses, it’s okay.
thanks for the great post. All Hallows Eve used to mean something to me. In my search for spirituality (and I tried many different persuasions), my last stab was Wicca. Like all the others, when my science background got in the way, it was toast.
and like others here have said, I love the debate and back and forth with all here that show respect.
it’s great
I have gained a great amount of understanding and insight from this web site and everyone here.
I haven’t had the time to get involved in conversations lately, but I do keep checking things out.
Thanks everybody. I love the community here and I never fail to be interested by the discussion. I’m sure I’ll stick around, and I hope I can avoid ruffling too many feathers with my occasional snarkiness and admitted agenda. Many of the regular posters on this blog are extremely intelligent, insightful people who have truly valuable things to say about their own experiences and the meaningful transitions they’ve made from a theist worldview to a non-theist one. I love reading what you all have to say, and I love the fact that I am included in this community.
Thanks especially to Daniel, VorJack, Ty, trj, phrankygee, elemenope, LRA, and rodneyAnonymous– I’m sure I’ll remember more names later, but you have all engaged in lengthy, intelligent, and interesting debates with me over a broad spectrum of topics. You correct me when I make silly assumptions, and you are willing to listen to my rambling even when I make your lives difficult. I salute you!
PS– Daniel, this is a wonderful place, and I really appreciate the effort you put into it. I admire your commitment to the stated purpose of this blog, and I think you have helped a considerable number of people understand the ways that the newly de-converted can move forward with their lives. Best of luck for the future!
Thanks Jon, and same to you!
Good post, funny.
Until just a moment ago I hadn’t been counted in the “subscribers.” Usually when I frequent a site I make a bookmark and hit it when I think of it or when I can’t think of anything else to do. I usually try to keep my email inbox from filling up with distractions.
I wonder how many very frequent (I usually check a few times a day for new posts) viewers there are that just don’t exhibit the online behavior that can be tracked like those that subscribe.
Anyway, I’d like to shout out to flash-in-the-pan peanut. Wasn’t that a treat. I have a feeling she hasn’t been back for a while. Maybe later.
I’m a daily reader, but not a subscriber. I seem to be allergic to having my email laden with notifications, so I tend not to subscribe to things if I can just go there and look.
I still consider myself a Christian of some sort, so I guess I’m part of the group allowed to have a wander around today :-) I’d also like to thank Daniel for running this site. I’ve had a massive year re-evaluating my entire belief system, and the contributors on this site have been a big part of that (I love your posts, Vorjack). I’m glad that I can hang out here where people are usually able to have a great, thought-provoking discussion, which often inspires me to start a discussion with my friends, both Christian and not, as well.
Well done, guys.
The email notification system it’s indeed terrible. =(
I’ve also been one of those Christians who’s learned much from this blog. I’ve had my immature moments but heck, I’m just 22. Once I got past the feeling that my computer my explode from spending too much time reading this blog, I came to appreciate the candid, honest dialogue regarding the religion of Christianity.
Honestly, this blog is one of the larger reasons I’m completely rejecting religion and have reanalyzed much of what I believe. Do I still believe in Jesus Christ? Yeah. But do I agree with the way many Christians handle that belief? Do I support Christianity the way I used to? Not as much. I still think God is real, as well, but I’ve learned how to more kindly respond simply by coming to understand the atheistic mindset.
So basically what I’m saying, Daniel and others, is thanks. Someone else mentioned it up there: the writing here is great. It’s not like other blogs. And I love the design.
To that end, I’m out…I need a beer. Been a long week capped by a long day. And next week won’t be much shorter.
If you completely reject religion, why do you believe in Jesus?
It is not a q of whether Xianity can exist w/o religion. But whether Xianity, at its core, is a protest against religion. – Peter Rollins (an Irish philosopher that explores doubt http://peterrollins.net/blog/ )
Is suspect Brandon is trying to distinguish between personal religion and organised religion. It’s a tricky one, because at some point, every organised religion has started out as somebody’s personal one. Except scientology, which was started as L Ron Hubbard’s get-rich-quick scheme.
I think I get him. I used to believe in a creator-deity, but I’ve always despised organised religion. Now, of course, I’ve gone the whole nine yards and accepted that there is no god. Brandon might do the same, he might not.
Called it organised or call it personal but it’s still a relgion so Brandon isn’t “completely rejecting relgion” he just wants his own version of it.
I dig it, kind of, if someone wants to cling to a “creator-deity” belief. That’s cool, they haven’t yet learned how irrational and far-fetched that idea is. But why Jesus? The only reason to believe in Jesus is organized religion, isn’t it?
Quick, John C! Swoop! Swoop!
Glad to hear the blog is making you think. That’s really all I can ask for.
I, too, am a daily reader of UF, but not a subscriber.
I *LOVE* this blog.
Daniel, you do a fine job of pointing out idiocy and repugnant behavior with eloquence and humor.
And yes, I even enjoy your more vocal detractors and spouters of woo, they’re great stress-relievers.
Thanks. See you tomorrow.
Thanks Shrubber!
I just really hate the idea of Christianity as a religion. That’s all.
I think what’s confusing folk is that you are using the word “religion” in a way other than how it is usually used. To clarify, what do you mean by “religion” and why should Christianity not be one?
Me too!
There’s actually quite a few theists today who claim that what we call Christianity is actually an anti-religion (take Jesus’ subversion of religious powers in his day). Check out Peter Rollins and Kester Brewin for some interesting nuances of what we call Christianity.
Rollins actually elevates Judas in the Christian story for betraying Christ and thus setting a precedent of “fidelity by betrayal” toward the church. Brewin calls out for “Christian piracy” as an act of social and institutional resistance.
Some of you may not be able to stomach the thought of people actually believing in a higher power, but at least know that influential people in the church are offering a radically different narrative than that of the fundamentalists, the conservatives, the liberals, and yes, even the religious. Christianity as the anti-religion and a subversive act of resistance … an interesting concept!
“religion noun 1 a belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods. 2 a particular system of belief or worship, such as Christianity or Judaism. 3 colloq anything to which one is totally devoted and which rules one’s life • mountaineering is his religion. 4 the monastic way of life. ”
Hardly anti-religion is it unless you’ve decided to re-define the meaning of religion. Would you care to put forward your defintion of religion?
Well, maybe I would like to change the definition of religion … I’d have to think on that for a bit.
I will say that when I refer to Christianity as an anti-religion, I mean the way of life put forth by Jesus and not necessarily how mainstream Christianity defines itself. Inevitably, a prophet or sage comes along preaching a radical, subversive message (like Jesus) and humans codify it, create rituals, make laws, determine who’s “in” and “out”, and splinter into factions over seemingly minor differences. That , and not the original ideal put forward, is religion. The task as I see it is not to see how closely I can follow a religious system as greedy humans have invented it over thousands of years, but to figure out what the original intent was all along and lead my life in that manner.
“Do unto others…” “Love your neighbors…” “Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with God…”
But that’s just me.
“I will say that when I refer to Christianity as an anti-religion, I mean the way of life put forth by Jesus and not necessarily how mainstream Christianity defines itself.”
That is not anti-religion unless you redefine religion. I sort of understand why you want to distance yourself from main stream religion but you don’t get to redefine the meaning of words because it suits your needs.
“I will say that when I refer to Christianity as an anti-religion, I mean…”
“…as I see it…”
“But that’s just me.”
It’s obvious that you don’t like your ideology being pitched in with all the other “non-true-christians”, but it’s just a different flavor of the same old kool-aid. Like Jabster said, you don’t get to change the definition of words to suit your whims. Words are a means of communication that derive their usefulness from the consistency of their definitions. If everyone picks a subjective definition of a word to suit their fancy, the word loses symbolic value and becomes ineffectual as a means of communication.
There’s actually quite a few theists today who claim that what we call Christianity is actually an anti-religion (take Jesus’ subversion of religious powers in his day)
We know. You can’t be online for very long before you run into someone from the “emerging church” or some arguing that “it’s a relationship and not a religion.”
On one hand, I support the younger generation in their attempts to define a type of Christianity that fulfills their needs. On the other, it remains to be seen if this ever amounts to more than just another odd sect of Christianity, which has always produced odd sects throughout history.
On the third hand, (I’m going as a mutant this year) I find the notion that Jesus intended to create an “anti-religion” very dicey. He was in the Jewish context, and seemed to accept the basic Jewish practices. Seriously, how many time did the man argue by quoting the scriptures? Why would a man who’s supposedly rejecting the legalistic Pharisees (who weren’t really legalistic. but that’s another story) adopt their methods of scriptural interpretation?
BTW, where has Peter Rollin’s been that he’s only now hearing about the “Hell House” phenomena? They’re already passe. They’re being replaced by Judgement Houses.”
Self Projection As God.
It seems to me that every generation and, perhaps, every individual redefines the meaning of god to reflect the values they most esteem. They project their values onto the god figure. It’s more a form of self-worship than anything else.
They project their values onto the god figure. It’s more a form of self-worship than anything else.
I don’t think that’s quite fair, insofar as the God is an idealized version of those values. One might argue that this God and these rules are an aspiration rather than as a self-worship vehicle. After all, many people will readily admit that they don’t live up to their God’s standards.
Values vs. ideal – you are making them sound as if they are vastly different. Whichever label you use, it is a projection of a subjective and personal opinion about good / evil / morality / etc. They don’t worship an ideal that they don’t personally agree with, after all.
So even with your statement – as I read it – it seems that the self-projection as god thing works. A person not living up to those values/ideals is not the issue. It is that they view their personal values as manifest in a god that created the universe and rules over it according to those personal values.
Thanks L
You elaborated on my sentiments perfectly. I prefer to leave comments when they’re fresh in my mind because it allows me to go back and analyze the preconceived notions that are floating around my head. Gotta expose those memes! The only problem is that sometimes what comes out is poorly qualified, but hey, that’s what I like about this blog. I can bounce my ideas off people who are smarter than I am and it gives me an opportunity to explore new perspectives.
Vorjack,
How’s it going, buddy? Thanks for the comments. First-off (and this applies to Lowrack as well), not every generation reinvents God. It’s probably more accurate to say that every 500 years or so (several scholars have done extensive research on these shifts), people step out to re-think how they conceive of God. The current shift (post-whatever) is nothing like the world has ever seen, so this shift might be the most interesting/important. But to say every generation reinvents God is inaccurate … the modern conceptions of God lasted more or less unscathed since the Reformation! That’s a long time. Current scholarship are re-thinking those assumptions.
Second, you can say “we know” about the emergent church, alternative conversations, etc., but the content of much of the criticism of theism by the atheists still assumes many of the old assumptions about God, religion, religious texts, etc. The masses still may believe many of the old assumptions, but in any shift of thought, change is slow and incremental, and there is much resistance at first. For instance, I love the video content on this blog (hi-larious) highlighting the silliness in modern religion, but so much of it still reflects the lowest common denominator and not the mainstream. (and certainly not the more radical streams out there) The streams of religion UF pokes fun at (and rightfully so) on a daily basis aren’t thoughtful/intelligent expressions in the least … not even in the same league as you or others who argue atheism from a rationalistic point of view. I’d like to see some critiques of more thoughtful streams, theologians, and arguments within religion today. Seems that might be a more balanced comparison.
Re: Jesus and religion, Judaism being an entire culture as well as a religion, it’s no wonder that a man born and raised Jewish would carry on some of the customs. The simple fact that he resisted or reinterpreted many of the customs/laws is what really stands out to me — he was reinterpreting much more than religious customs, but a culture. Even the fact that he left so little in the way of common practices leads me to believe that he wasn’t trying to start a religion, but to set forth a way of being that would be the fulfillment of every religion before or after, including Judaism.
Rollins has been in Ireland, where they don’t have Hell Houses (or Judgment Houses). He just moved to the US, though. You might be interested that his “performance art collective” (not church) in Belfast participates in Atheism for Lent. Like I said, he makes even the most liberal Christians squirm, so that alone makes me lend him my ear.
OK, this is dragging on…
In my estimation, every individual reinvents god. We take what we like and discard the rest. Sometimes people do so openly, and sometimes they just ignore the parts they don’t necessarily agree with. This explains why one xian spends a lifetime sacrificing time and effort to help other people, while another xian who lives down the street parades around with signs saying how god hates fags. They take from the religion what they put into it. It is merely a projection of each individual’s character. God then, is nothing more than a mirror reflecting back upon the “believer” an idealized image of self. The christian religion is arbitrary. It is this very arbitrariness that allows it to persist from one generation to the next. It gets passed along because it can be adapted to fit anyone, any time. I’m not exactly sure if I regard religion as a well-adapted parasite or as a well-adapted meme. Perhaps the two are synonymous? I’m not sure.
As to your point about cultural shifts in religion, perhaps every generation does not reinvent god per se, if you grant that the basic tenets of the religion remain intact. But I wasn’t implying any major shifts in religious culture at generational intervals, so it seems you are knocking down a straw man here.
“but so much of it still reflects the lowest common denominator and not the mainstream.”
I’d be interested in hearing what you define as the mainstream, and what the views of the mainstream are, exactly. I think you’ll find it an impossible task without diluting the matter to it’s “lowest common denominator”. Furthermore, change (I assume you meant cultural change here) is not always “slow and incremental” as you stated.
It’s probably more accurate to say that every 500 years or so (several scholars have done extensive research on these shifts), people step out to re-think how they conceive of God.
Surely you realize that this is grossly simplistic. I remember reading one biblical historian – I think it was Charles Kimball – who was talking about one class he had in Christian history. The professor offered them a challenge: come up with a brand new, never-been-done-before heresy, and you could skip the finals.
Everyone in the class tried. None succeeded. No matter how inventive they thought their idea was, someone in Christian history had preached it. Check out wikipedia’s list of heresies and understand that these are only the big names. There are scores of heresies that never got big enough to make it into the encyclopedias.
So, no, Christians are constantly finding new ways to view God. Perhaps every 500 years the situation is right for one of those ideas to catch on with a sizable chunk of Christianity, but frankly even that’s very simplistic. Remember, the Protestant Reformation was maybe 20% theology and about 80% politics. Even the theology wasn’t new; St. Augustine had invented the notion of “saved by grace through faith” way back in the fifth century. One historian called the entire Reformation “a battle in the mind of Augustine,” since it seemed like a conflict between Augustine’s idea of salvation and his desire for a strong Church.
Second, you can say “we know” about the emergent church, alternative conversations, etc., but the content of much of the criticism of theism by the atheists still assumes many of the old assumptions about God, religion, religious texts, etc.
*shrug* Probably. Perhaps I should have said “we know of the emergent church.” But frankly, this still sounds like a Courtier’s Reply.
Yes, we’re all aware that your unicorns are very different from their unicorns. Yes, it’s very nice that they only eat organic shade-grown clover. We’re all suitable impressed by the volunteer collective that maintains the unicorn stables in rotating shifts. But … unicorns?
The simple fact that he resisted or reinterpreted many of the customs/laws is what really stands out to me — he was reinterpreting much more than religious customs, but a culture.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it. And considering the Christian history of stereotyping Jews, I’m not sure that you do either. There’s no reason that Jesus had to embrace the methods of the Pharisees, but judging from the text, he did. Frankly, based on my admittedly limited understanding of the history, Jesus sounds like a liberal Pharisee, something like the School of Hillel, with a sip of cynic philosophy and a big gulp of apocalypticism. I don’t see anything in the text that makes him stand out as someone “reinterpreting” Judaism, at least no more than Hillel and others like him had already done.
Purgatory is a realm. If we can agree on what a “realm” is then discussion can follow. I’ll never forget John C’s comment that something was from the “soulish realm”. These realms apparently exist somewhere – or maybe nowhere – but nonetheless we have this strange idea of a “realm”.
What is a realm and why does it oddly have some characteristics of our physical world? Why do Catholics pray for the “speedy” return of the soul from the Purgatory realm to the Heaven realm? Doesn’t “speedy” imply time? You die then you jump from “realm” to “realm”? Even when you get to heaven we have the “Beatific vision” for those that were extra good and those that were not quite so good…. blurry vision of “God”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatific_vision