Agnostic Theist

[damnthing]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

You can do better.  There are worse things than being alone.  Having bad friends is one of them.

 

I kid, a few good friends are all that's needed. Quality over quantity all day long

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

32 minutes ago, damnthing said:

I kid, a few good friends are all that's needed. Quality over quantity all day long

 

 

Yes.  Just so.               

[RevBogovac]

11 hours ago, Cornelius said:

[...]

 

8 hours ago, damnthing said:

[...]

 

That being said, I hope we see more of you around.

[damnthing]

2 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 

That being said, I hope we see more of you around.

I've been popping in for a while, but it's often quiet...

[Cornelius]

10 hours ago, damnthing said:

"So if someone wears a cross they should put it inside their shirt? How about a star of david? "

Did not say or suggest that...at all

"I thought it was appropriate to wear necklaces outside of the shirt and not hidden away?"

It's neither appropriate nor inappropriate, wearing a cross, any religious symbol, was not my point.

"Or is this just your special rule for religious pendants?"

Intentional or not this is what came across as 'attitude'. In any case perhaps go back an read the conversations leading up to my comments, it's about context.

"Is it only the cross?

It is indeed, in this particular case. It's a bout a person who is shilling his product (which, while another discussion altogether, is perfectly acceptable), but wearing his cross as he does on his tv ads is done for one reason only, to signify HIS religious position. Note any recent pictures of him in Washington or elsewhere, not a sign of the cross (pun intended). His use of the cross was a signal, it was indeed a prop, a way to let people know where he stands on major issues in the hopes that they will 'support' him by buying his product. If you have read anything about him you'll know that his business practices defy his supposed x tian principles.

 

As this is the first time 'we' have chatted I'll chalk up both our comments as simple not being able to read the other's intent clearly due to unfamiliarity and chat-room sound deadening.

 

And Jonathan's take was dead accurate of my intent and probably much more clearly stated than I could/would have. But then he's more practiced in the art of both philosophy and nuance. I tend to be more direct, think sledge hammer whether necessary or not.

It's fine, it happens all the time. I am aware that I can come across as blunt and abrasive as well. The only emotion I assure you that was attached to my post was bewilderment. those were merely some of the many questions that flitted across my mind. What I've gathered is your problem isn't necessarily with people wearing their preferred religious symbol but perceived disingenuous display of their preferred religious symbols.

 

I am still confused as to some of your specifications on the appropriate display techniques. It seemed like you were implying it's ok for people to wear a cross but they must wear it hidden inside their clothing unless it's a part of their uniform or accidentally falls out. 

 

"Intentional or not this is what came across as 'attitude'. In any case perhaps go back an read the conversations leading up to my comments, it's about context."

Well if this is indeed what you were stating this would be your own special rule for religious pendants because it is not societal or held by many and may be entirely peculiar to you. 

 

Also if I'm here I've read the conversations.

 

Thank you for the clarifications. I hope you soon realize that my straightforwardness and lack of tact is not an attitude just a flaw of my character. I come off much better in person where body language and tone come into play. I find through text online almost always I am misunderstood and have emotions and motivations projected onto my statements. I am actually very well received in person by most people and adored I assure you.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Cornelius

[Cornelius]

2 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 

That being said, I hope we see more of you around.

I'm always around. You just don't see me.

[Pete]

I think the nearest I have come to seeing someone as an agnostic theist is possibly John Shelby Spong. He professes Christianity, but does not believe the bible is the word of god and believes there was a person called Jesus who was crucified but does not believe in the resurrection or that he was god. Believes that there are many truths and that there is not one single true one. Believes god is a mystery. Does not claim none believers go to hell and does not believe in hell.

[Pete]

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=249144579914428&id=100044566624215&set=a.214170743411812&source=48

He is hated by fundamentalists and one tried to shoot him. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

37 minutes ago, Pete said:

I think the nearest I have come to seeing someone as an agnostic theist is possibly John Shelby Spong. He professes Christianity, but does not believe the bible is the word of god and believes there was a person called Jesus who was crucified but does not believe in the resurrection or that he was god. Believes that there are many truths and that there is not one single true one. Believes god is a mystery. Does not claim none believers go to hell and does not believe in hell.

 

 

 

This is his definition of God?  God is a mystery?

• How is that different from Atheism?  Do you believe in a mystery?
• How is that different from Agnosticism?  Do you know that a mystery exists?
• How is that different from Deism?  There used to be an active mystery, which is no longer active?
• How is this different from Pantheism?  The totality of everything is a mystery?

This is a deepity.  Something which at first glance, looks impressive.  On deeper examination, it's nothing.

 

It's also the problem with theologians.  They love making simple things complicated.  When there are too many lawyers, the law gets complicated.  When there are too many seminaries, theology gets complicated.  When it comes to religion, less is more.

 

•  

 

 

[Pete]

I would say the main difference between his view and atheism is he believes there is a god, but not one we can understand. He thinks people have projected human attributes on to their view of god. i.e. An angry person sees an angry god and a judgemental person sees a judgemental god. ect.

He does not believe god is knowable in a human sense. There he has suspended knowing god but believes god and life is about love and life. 

I know there are lots of holes in that stance but it is where he stands.

[Pete]

He also does not believe Jesus died to forgive sin. He died as demonstration of his willingness to give the whole of himself for others as a show of god's love for everyone. He does not believe in him being a sacrifice of any sort.

i used to follow this argument but this is also a human projection on an unknowable god. It is also missing the point of why is there so much suffering in the world if there is a loving god and not all man made.

Like most of religion there are so many holes in the stance.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

54 minutes ago, Pete said:

I would say the main difference between his view and atheism is he believes there is a god, but not one we can understand. He thinks people have projected human attributes on to their view of god. i.e. An angry person sees an angry god and a judgemental person sees a judgemental god. ect.

He does not believe god is knowable in a human sense. There he has suspended knowing god but believes god and life is about love and life. 

I know there are lots of holes in that stance but it is where he stands.

 

 

Fair enough.  It does leave a few questions hanging.

 

Does any of it matter?  Why does it matter?  How do we know any of this is true?

 

It goes against Christian tradition.  I thought the point of the Incarnation was to make God understandable.  God is still a mystery?  All right.  So what?

 

God is beyond my comprehension?  Alright.  Why should I bother about it?

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 minutes ago, Pete said:

He also does not believe Jesus died to forgive sin. He died as demonstration of his willingness to give the whole of himself for others as a show of god's love for everyone. He does not believe in him being a sacrifice of any sort.

i used to follow this argument but this is also a human projection on an unknowable god. It is also missing the point of why is there so much suffering in the world if there is a loving god and not all man made.

Like most of religion there are so many holes in the stance.

 

 

We can cut to the chase.  Even if it's all true -- big assumption -- so what?  Why does any of this matter?

 

     

 

 

[Pete]

16 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Fair enough.  It does leave a few questions hanging.

 

Does any of it matter?  Why does it matter?  How do we know any of this is true?

 

It goes against Christian tradition.  I thought the point of the Incarnation was to make God understandable.  God is still a mystery?  All right.  So what?

 

God is beyond my comprehension?  Alright.  Why should I bother about it?

 

 

 

 

I am not preaching his view to you. I just think he is the closest to an agnostic theist I know. The main view of the tradition of christianity has changed through the years. It has changed from Jewish, to gnostic, to church of Rome, prodestant reformation,  and all its later splinters since.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Pete

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

I am not preaching his view to you. I just think he is the closest to an agnostic theist I know. The main view of the tradition of christianity has changed through the years. It has changed from Jewish, to gnostic, to church of Rome and all its splinters since.

 

 

I know.  It's also clear that these views are not your views.  At least, not any more.  I'm simply reacting.  As conversation.

• As an Atheist, I'm wondering why I would believe.
• As an Agnostic, I'm wondering what the evidence is, that any of this is true.
• As an Apatheist, I'm wondering -- so what?

It's all so very clever.  Years of contemplation and pondering.  I hope that Rev. Dr. Spong got some pleasure from all that effort.  Seriously.  In the end.  So what?  Does it change anything?  Anything at all?  God is an impenetrable mystery.  All right.     

 

[Pete]

The only good that I can see is that rather than the know it all attitude associated with many branches of christianity he has met most religions half way including agnostic, atheism, Judaism, and others, without seeking conflict. He even speaks highly of Richard Dawkins. (Much to the upset of more fundamental groups). He was among the first to perform gay marriage. Even his own church leaders have struggled with his forward looking beliefs. Some have refused to discuss things with him. For him to be christian is to be best human being he is capable. We can find holes in his belief structures but his motives have been admirable as a humanist all be it in the religious sense.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

23 minutes ago, Pete said:

The only good that I can see is that rather than the know it all attitude associated with many branches of christianity he has met most religions half way including agnostic, atheism, Judaism, and others, without seeking conflict. He even speaks highly of Richard Dawkins. (Much to the upset of more fundamental groups). He was among the first to perform gay marriage. Even his own church leaders have struggled with his forward looking beliefs. Some have refused to discuss things with him. For him to be christian is to be best human being he is capable. We can find holes in his belief structures but his motives have been admirable as a humanist all be it in the religious sense.

 

 

A metaphysical humanist?  I'm sure it's harmless.  I don't see the point.

 

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

A metaphysical humanist?  I'm sure it's harmless.  I don't see the point.

 

I am sure. He however does. I can live with that. Live and let is okay by me but I  do not like those who live and make you live their way too. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

I am sure. He however does. I can live with that. Live and let is okay by me but I  do not like those who live and make you live their way too. 

 

 

I have seen a few Sponge videos.  What he's against is clear enough.  I'm rather vague about what he does believe.  This is not the way of someone pushing doctrine.  In style and in manner, he reminds me of Reform Judaism.  It's mostly about rejecting doctrine.  There's not a lot of substance to replace it.  It's mostly empty.

 

It's like a homeopathic remedy.  It's harmless because there's no content, but what good is it?

 

[Pete]

What good does religion bring at all is a good question. In the right hand it can bring people together to improve themselves and their community and on the left hand it educates a bunch of annoying bigots that are full of prejudice. I think Spong belongs to the right hand. That said I do not wish either.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Pete