Deconversion: Letting go of one's religious belief and accepting reality on its own terms.

[Nathan_Jr]

41 minutes ago, Charity said:

Yes, but I heard it taught in twi without, I think, any mention of Oral Robert.  The thought just came to me that this topic was discussed on GSC and with a search, it shows 160 places where it has. 

So, my question was how did the continuity of this idea make its way all through the OT.  This is one of the points that was used to show God had to have been its author.

The original was from Oral Roberts, I think. This idea may go back to the early church fathers - Augustine, maybe? Maybe not. I don't know. Someone does.

The gospels deliberately linked their narratives and theologies to the OT (and to Virgil and Homer, according to D.R. MacDonald, et.al.) The writers of the epistles did the same. This is obvious, right? Connect it backwards so you can now connect it forward.

It's an interpretive framework. It's reading into the text something not conceived by the OT authors and editors. It's a theological perspective. It's academic. Pretty neat way of looking at it.

But it doesn't mean God wrote anything. It just means the writers were clever, as was Oral Robert's. I'm not knocking this interpretive perspective. That's just what it looks like to me. Again, it's academic. It's a glove. If it fits, wear it.

[Raf]

  yu vThe red thread is, um, how to put it politely... Bulls hit.

It's a way for Christians to force their interpretation of scripture onto the O.T. when it's just not there. 

Like that verse about "he shall be called a Nazarene," which had flupall to do with Jesus.

Yeah, the song in Psalm 119:54 his not Christ. 

Neither is Hosea's latter rain

[Nathan_Jr]

RAF is more succinct than I.

[Charity]

15 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

The original was from Oral Roberts, I think. This idea may go back to the early church fathers - Augustine, maybe? Maybe not. I don't know. Someone does.

The gospels deliberately linked their narratives and theologies to the OT (and to Virgil and Homer, according to D.R. MacDonald, et.al.) The writers of the epistles did the same. This is obvious, right? Connect it backwards so you can now connect it forward.

It's an interpretive framework. It's reading into the text something not conceived by the OT authors and editors. It's a theological perspective. It's academic. Pretty neat way of looking at it.

But it doesn't mean God wrote anything. It just means the writers were clever, as was Oral Robert's. I'm not knocking this interpretive perspective. That's just what it looks like to me. Again, it's academic. It's a glove. If it fits, wear it.

 

12 hours ago, Raf said:

  yu vThe red thread is, um, how to put it politely... Bulls hit.

It's a way for Christians to force their interpretation of scripture onto the O.T. when it's just not there. 

Like that verse about "he shall be called a Nazarene," which had flupall to do with Jesus.

Yeah, the song in Psalm 119:54 his not Christ. 

Neither is Hosea's latter rain

Thanks.  I listened to an interview yesterday about how the verses used in the Gospels to show the fulfillment of OT prophecies about the Messiah are not accurate.  The Rabbi Tovia Singer appears to know the Hebrew bible very well.  He was pretty critical of how NT writers took Hebrew verses out of context as well as misinterpreted and/or changed them so they seemingly look like they've been fulfilled in Jesus.  This makes sense with what you are both saying above.

For anyone interested, the website is below.  (I have only listened to the video - I have not studied it yet.)

 

 

[chockfull]

15 hours ago, Raf said:

  yu vThe red thread is, um, how to put it politely... Bulls hit.

It's a way for Christians to force their interpretation of scripture onto the O.T. when it's just not there. 

Like that verse about "he shall be called a Nazarene," which had flupall to do with Jesus.

Yeah, the song in Psalm 119:54 his not Christ. 

Neither is Hosea's latter rain

I mean like is it OK for me to view it as foreshadowing scriptures about the promise of the Messiah?  Every single one of them is metaphorical so there is not one single literal reference.

The idea being that Christians could look at Jesus Christ like the saving latter rain in Hosea for the crops as to similar to the Saviors effect in their life.  But nobody would think he literally melts into clouds and his blood transforms into rain or anything (except maybe one Christian sect)

I mean Oral had another logic jump to associate all that with the 4th man in the furnace.

 But whattarryougonnado?  Preachers gonna string together pictures.  People gotta be inspired by something.

Fundamentalists dictating others lives is a different story they can shut it.

 

[Raf]

First of all you are free to look at these verses any way you want. If you're asking for my response, I will offer it: Foreshadowing is a deliberate literary device. You would have to ask yourself whether the authors/writers actually intended the one to foreshadow the other.

I contend they were human authors and had no such intention.

 

[chockfull]

20 hours ago, Raf said:

First of all you are free to look at these verses any way you want. If you're asking for my response, I will offer it: Foreshadowing is a deliberate literary device. You would have to ask yourself whether the authors/writers actually intended the one to foreshadow the other.

I contend they were human authors and had no such intention.

 

I would respond that the authors themselves had no knowledge about how their words would be foreshadowing the Messiah.  If there was any element of inspiration from God in their words (way different from the theopneustos trap of every word being automatic writing from God) then God as the orchestrator could be in charge of the foreshadowing.  Hosea was just writing about a drought and tying it to Israel’s lifestyle.

I would agree that they are human authors.  I differ in viewing them of having a “spark of the divine” in their writings.  

I would contend that scripture is Gods intention for humans to connect with that spark for inspiration but was never designed for Pharisee and Scribe exercises in predicting the future or coming up with unfulfillable levels of detail in laws and customs.  That would be man’s natural proclivity for controlling things and adding to the narrative.

Others views may vary of course

[oldiesman]

On 4/14/2024 at 1:54 PM, Charity said:

Over the past six months, I have struggled quite a bit with my relationship with God for two reasons: seeing the suffering of my 8-year-old grandson with non-verbal autism beginning to have seizures again (as well as other health issues), and the doctrine of the rapture and the great tribulation.  As part of this second issue, I have seen a dear brother in Christ become very focused on warning others of the terrible wrath of God that will soon be upon those who are left behind.  I won't get into specifics about these two issues right now, but instead of what I've learned in the last week or so.

I began watching videos on the MindShift website.  They are done by a man named Brandon who was raised up in a fundamentalist religion and was very active in it for decades as an adult.  He no longer believes there is a God and therefore believes that the Bible was written by men alone.  He uses a lot of the Bible to show how the Christian god is not a good god.  He also talks about how Christians defend these verses to show the opposite - that God is a long-suffering and merciful God. 

I have found that what he says makes sense.  I am attaching one of his videos about how living a life as a slave to Christ is very similar to what real slaves to real masters here on earth had to suffer and endure.  I would really appreciate hearing what you think about this.  He covers a lot in 40 minutes so it's not necessary to listen to the whole video to bring up topics for discussion. 

Thanks!

 

It appears that Brandon very clearly lost the faith he once had.   Am curious what he thinks will happen to him after his death?   I didn't get to that part if he said something about that.   Thx.

[Raf]

On 4/27/2024 at 12:36 PM, chockfull said:

I would respond that the authors themselves had no knowledge about how their words would be foreshadowing the Messiah.  If there was any element of inspiration from God in their words (way different from the theopneustos trap of every word being automatic writing from God) then God as the orchestrator could be in charge of the foreshadowing.  Hosea was just writing about a drought and tying it to Israel’s lifestyle.

I would agree that they are human authors.  I differ in viewing them of having a “spark of the divine” in their writings.  

I would contend that scripture is Gods intention for humans to connect with that spark for inspiration but was never designed for Pharisee and Scribe exercises in predicting the future or coming up with unfulfillable levels of detail in laws and customs.  That would be man’s natural proclivity for controlling things and adding to the narrative.

Others views may vary of course

And I would not argue with that response as far as foreshadowing is concerned. 

I would argue in the sense of fulfilling prophecy, like the verse about the virgin beIng found with child.

[Charity]

4 hours ago, oldiesman said:

It appears that Brandon very clearly lost the faith he once had.   Am curious what he thinks will happen to him after his death?   I didn't get to that part if he said something about that.   Thx.

Hi Oldiesman, I should rename the title of this thread to "letting go" instead of "losing" one's faith.  I have listened to quite a few interviews on Harmonic Atheist and when this topic comes up, the answer is usually "nothing" happens after death.  Another answer is maybe reincarnation based on research of memories of a past life by some people. 

The pain/fear of letting go of the belief in an afterlife with Christ where there is no more tears, death, sorrow or pain and where one is reunited with loved ones becomes a non-issue when one sees that the Bible was authored by man alone.  What is left is not living a pitiful life but living one with all your heart, strength, mind and soul for the here and now.

 

[Charity]

On 4/27/2024 at 12:36 PM, chockfull said:

I would respond that the authors themselves had no knowledge about how their words would be foreshadowing the Messiah.  If there was any element of inspiration from God in their words (way different from the theopneustos trap of every word being automatic writing from God) then God as the orchestrator could be in charge of the foreshadowing.  Hosea was just writing about a drought and tying it to Israel’s lifestyle.

 

 

1 hour ago, Raf said:

And I would not argue with that response as far as foreshadowing is concerned. 

I would argue in the sense of fulfilling prophecy, like the verse about the virgin beIng found with child.

I'm a bit confused by your posts.  For there to be any foreshadowing done by God, wouldn't the following ideas have to be taken as truth:

- the God of the bible is true

- the fall of man is true

- the need for a messiah is true

therefore, the foreshadowing of this messiah by the God of the bible is true?

Edited April 29 by Charity

[Nathan_Jr]

Do you remember what it was like before you were born?

How then do you know what it’s like after you die?

What’s wrong with the answers “nothing” or “I don’t know”?

[waysider]

39 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Do you remember what it was like before you were born?

The gypsy woman told my mother, right before I was born, " You got a boy child comin', gonna be a son of a gun."

Or, so I've been told.

[Raf]

2 hours ago, Charity said:

 

I'm a bit confused by your posts.  For there to be any foreshadowing done by God, wouldn't the following ideas have to be taken as truth:

- the God of the bible is true

- the fall of man is true

- the need for a messiah is true

therefore, the foreshadowing of this messiah by the God of the bible is true?

"I wouldn't argue."

Because it's not worth it. Chockfull thinks my answer fails to consider a possibility. I think Chockfull's position is batcrap crazy [heh heh heh]. Nothing to argue. We disagree and neither will budge.

Who wants tea?

[Nathan_Jr]

3 hours ago, waysider said:

The gypsy woman told my mother, right before I was born, " You got a boy child comin', gonna be a son of a gun."

Or, so I've been told.

I knew it all along. I knew that I knew that I knew you were the hoochie coochie man. 

[oldiesman]

4 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Do you remember what it was like before you were born?

How then do you know what it’s like after you die?

What’s wrong with the answers “nothing” or “I don’t know”?

I've heard stories that some people believe they lived before.

Just for clarification that we are all on the same page in this thread:

Does not believing in God also necessarily mean not believing in ANY and ALL spiritual beings?    Thx.

 

 

[Nathan_Jr]

5 hours ago, oldiesman said:

Does not believing in God also necessarily mean not believing in ANY and ALL spiritual beings? 

Good question. Short answer, not necessarily. I don't think being atheist precludes one from accessing or perceiving the spiritual (best word available at the moment) or mystical.

I've been thinking about this lately. How could I describe my position for the sake of dialogue and understanding? The labels are poorly tailored gloves. Technically, I'm atheist. I don't believe in Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu, Isis, Baal, Yahweh, Zeus, or any of the other thousands of gods that man has believed in as fervently as you do your god. And, as I may or may not have made clear, I don't believe in belief.

All nontheists are atheists, but not all atheists are nontheists. (I think that's right.) For my position, nontheist is also technically correct and may be more accurate. There's probably a spectrum with this one. One might argue Christians can be nontheistic - Meister Eckhart and Thomas Merton, both Catholic monks, come to mind.  Then there's pantheism and panentheism. Those may also fit in the spectrum.

I would consider Taoism and Buddhism to be atheistic/nontheistic.

Edited April 30 by Nathan_Jr
Gloves

[chockfull]

21 hours ago, Raf said:

And I would not argue with that response as far as foreshadowing is concerned. 

I would argue in the sense of fulfilling prophecy, like the verse about the virgin beIng found with child.

I would agree that the fulfilling prophecy part of Christs life and the fulfilling prophecy idea in general has been very problematic for certain Christian groups.  One in particular has a history of multiple failed prophecies and still people listen to them, which itself contradicts scripture guidance.

[chockfull]

10 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Good question. Short answer, not necessarily. I don't think being atheist precludes one from accessing or perceiving the spiritual (best word available at the moment) or mystical.

I've been thinking about this lately. How could I describe my position for the sake of dialogue and understanding? The labels are poorly tailored gloves. Technically, I'm atheist. I don't believe in Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu, Isis, Baal, Yahweh, Zeus, or any of the other thousands of gods that man has believed in as fervently as you do your god. And, as I may or may not have made clear, I don't believe in belief.

All nontheists are atheists, but not all atheists are nontheists. (I think that's right.) For my position, nontheist is also technically correct and may be more accurate. There's probably a spectrum with this one. One might argue Christians can be nontheistic - Meister Eckhart and Thomas Merton, both Catholic monks, come to mind.  Then there's pantheism and panentheism. Those may also fit in the spectrum.

I would consider Taoism and Buddhism to be atheistic/nontheistic.

There is so much “label soup” in this post I really don’t know what to do with it.

I am really just trying to work out my own salvation truly as instructed.  Some things about certain labels ring true to me.  Other things about other labels.

I am getting to the point of saying screw the labels as they are not particularly helpful in identifying philosophy or belief.

[chockfull]

17 hours ago, Raf said:

"I wouldn't argue."

Because it's not worth it. Chockfull thinks my answer fails to consider a possibility. I think Chockfull's position is batcrap crazy [heh heh heh]. Nothing to argue. We disagree and neither will budge.

Who wants tea?

Yeah you aren’t seeing any divine spark.  I guess religion to you consists of an illogical social construct that people use to explain the unexplained or try to.  I can respect that position but personally find it a touch too cynical for me.  YMMV.

Yes I’ll take some leaf oolong.  I have a friend with a tea shop who made a special blend for the eclipse and sold a ton.

[Nathan_Jr]

1 hour ago, chockfull said:

I am getting to the point of saying screw the labels as they are not particularly helpful in identifying philosophy or belief.

And this is the implication of Oldies’ question. 

[waysider]

Labels are a way of avoiding meaningful discourse.

[oldiesman]

16 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

And this is the implication of Oldies’ question. 

Yes.   "God" isn't the only spiritual being that has been purported to exist and spoken about by man so I was thinking it might be good to know (for purposes of this thread only) we agree that no spirits exist?

[Nathan_Jr]

5 minutes ago, oldiesman said:

Yes.   "God" isn't the only spiritual being that has been purported to exist and spoken about by man so I was thinking it might be good to know (for purposes of this thread only) we agree that no spirits exist?

Trying to understand. Spirits? Spirit beings? Like ghosts? Or devil spirits?

[oldiesman]

2 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Trying to understand. Spirits? Spirit beings? Like ghosts? Or devil spirits?

All spirit beings believed to exist by man.   God, Jesus, Holy, Gabriel, Michael, Lucifer, Watchers, Angels, Demons etc. etc.