Religion II

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...the word "founder" is misapplied when it is used in religious circles. While it cannot be disputed that Ray Kroc was the "founder" of McDonald's...it could be easily disputed that Jesus was the "founder" of Christianity, or that the Buddha was the "founder" of Buddhism. The vast majority of the Christian scholars agree that Jesus's intention wasn't to establish a new religion...nor was the Buddha likewise preoccupied. These great religious figures were only concerned with transmitting the "truth" -- as they saw it -- to a group of disciples...and their teachings were meant to promote a certain "way of life" that was mainly centered around DEEDS. They didn't want to be put upon a pedestal and be prayed to....they wanted to serve as examples for others to follow.

When you create a "religion" around the master's teaching...then the master becomes a "founder", or a "god". But when the teaching remains as a "path of truth"...then the master is just another -- albeit more enlightened -- traveler on the path.

Greetings, Thaskalos.

The Christian maintains that the Way isn't a set of of teachings to be internalized primarily, but a Person. The teachings could only be consistently lived out by the reception of Christ through grace--"charis"--his very life "infused" (Catholic & big "O" Orthodox, et.al...Boxcar would say "imputed") to the Christian. The power to love as God loves--total self-giving, agape love returned to God and fellow man. A necessary ingredient of this state of being is the presence of gratitude, which for the contemplative is not a deep dive into the teachings, but rather into the inner life of the Trinity, and by extension the implications of that Trinitarian love for man (the teachings, Christ's incarnational interactions with man, etc.)

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

That is an interesting academic question...I do not purport to say that ALL is determined...obviously, there are many things that demonstrate choices being made...we can choose to flip a coin or not....choose to get out of bed now or in ten minutes from now...Life is full of choices that demonstrate that we do indeed have some “free will” over certain things...BUT ALSO....

...many things are obviously deterministic...like “Can we choose NOT TO DIE....? Can we choose to not eat and not drink water for a year and still be healthy if not dead...? So it is a matter of specifics, categories of phenomenon, etc...

Your use of the word ANY and ALL is confusing here...It is not like I am maintaining that ALL IS DETERMINISTIC or conversely that ALL IS FREEWILL...

With regard to the Baron D’Holbach, he died in 1789, and it is clear that he was a genius of extraordinary talent and learning...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

I think he did fantastic with the topics he engaged in considering he was born over 300 years ago...I don’t know about you, but I if I possessed 1/10th of his intellectual acuity, I would considered myself a very fortunate person...

I'm not referring to you at all, but solely to D’Holbach. By what notion of consistency can he denounce anything or anyone, thereby implying an objective morality, while holding to the illusion of free will, since everything is governed by the laws of nature regarding his hard determinism. My last attempt.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Greetings, Thaskalos.

The Christian maintains that the Way isn't a set of of teachings to be internalized primarily, but a Person. The teachings could only be consistently lived out by the reception of Christ through grace--"charis"--his very life "infused" (Catholic & big "O" Orthodox, et.al...Boxcar would say "imputed") to the Christian. The power to love as God loves--total self-giving, agape love returned to God and fellow man. A necessary ingredient of this state of being is the presence of gratitude, which for the contemplative is not a deep dive into the teachings, but rather into the inner life of the Trinity, and by extension the implications of that Trinitarian love for man (the teachings, Christ's incarnational interactions with man, etc.)

I would welcome the opportunity to ask the Christian what he believes that Jesus intended to be during his life among us. Did he endeavor to play the role of the religious "master", or did he intend to be subsequently viewed of as a "God"...to whom people pray for "salvation". When Jesus told his disciples that they themselves were capable of even more "miracles" than the ones that Jesus had performed...what could have been the intent behind such a declaration?

Yes...I agree. The teachings can only be actualized through the grace of God. But Boxcar believes that no human "self-improvement" program could act as a conduit for this divine grace...and this doesn't sit well in view of the "to-do" list that Jesus would often hand out to his followers. I am reminded of a famous Chan master that I had the good fortune of spending some time with many years ago. After narrating to us the Buddhist code of ethics which were a necessary part of the journey to "enlightenment"...he would proceed to tell us that enlightenment was always an ACCIDENT. "If enlightenment is really an accident, then...why all the rules of conduct?"...he was once asked. To which he mischievously replied: "They will make you more accident-prone".

[Buckeye]

I lost track of this, but I do agree there is no such thing as free will.

There are forces controlling everything (Good and Evil) not Free Will.

No need to complicate it.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

I lost track of this, but I do agree there is no such thing as free will.

There are forces controlling everything (Good and Evil) not Free Will.

No need to complicate it.

Who decides how I reply to this post of yours...ME, or some "outside force"?

[Buckeye]

Do what you do.

I'm basically happy no matter what.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I'm not referring to you at all, but solely to D’Holbach. By what notion of consistency can he denounce anything or anyone, thereby implying an objective morality, while holding to the illusion of free will, since everything is governed by the laws of nature regarding his hard determinism. My last attempt.

Some initial comments:
1. I need to think about your question more and study his position better to make an informed response to this question, but I will get back to you after that, ok...? Thank you for this dialogue, I do appreciated it.

2. I suspect this question involves a fallacy of sorts, but unlike Actor, I really couldn’t name it off the cuff...But it has the feel of apples and oranges...

...when I think of “hard determinism” I think of processes that are physical, elemental, chemical, etc, in nature...material things that are subject to well established natural laws of physical interaction, etc....

...D’Holbach’s critique of religion was, from what little I have read, a MORAL critique...I am not sure the ideas of determinism apply to such categories of topics...

...there is no such thing as “objective morality”...ultimately both religion and critiques of religion swim in the same sea of SPOOKERY...

...so it must be that Paul (D’Holbach) at some level thought his ideas of morality, his SPOOKERY, was superior to an even baser form of SPOOKERY.

If that is the case, then you are right, he is not being consistent...very few of us have the stomach to renounce ALL MORALS....All LAWS...., etc., as delusions or merely AGREED UPON CONVENTIONS which, of course, IMO, they without a doubt, are.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by TJDave

How many believers here would choose martyrdom over a public renunciation of faith?

No takers?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by TJDave

No takers?

If you had said a PRIVATE renunciation of faith...then your post would have been way more popular.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If you had said a PRIVATE renunciation of faith...then your post would have been way more popular.

That sorta takes the fun out of it, don’t it?

[Buckeye]

Originally Posted by TJDave

How many believers here would choose martyrdom over a public renunciation of faith?

False question alert.

Both options make no sense.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Acts is not a verifiable source.

Name one whose existence can be verified from a secular source.

Jesus never existed is a reasonable and logical explanation. If he never existed then of course there was no body.

That's your claim. Since all but two of the epistles in the NT are to Greek churches, and with one possible exception were all written in Greek, it is possible that the sect was primarily Greek. Yours is the burden of proof.

Scripture proves nothing.

Paul is another figure whose existence cannot be proven. He doesn't even have a Josephus, Pliny, et al, for you to claim as confirming his existence.

Circular reasoning! How do you produce the body of someone who never existed?

The last sentence is circular reasoning. "The body did exist because Jesus never existed" is circular! You're the one making the claim that Jesus never existed, but the lame theory is so intellectually bankrupt that you have yet come up with one first century source that agrees with you.

However, on the flip side of the existence question, scripture, written by various writers, verifies Christ's existence, as do Christian extra-biblical sources. And additionally, all secular extra-biblical sources presume Jesus' existence.

And there is not so much as one first century source that calls into question Jesus' existence.

If Jesus didn't exist and his disciples were preaching fake news, everyone would have known it because the disciples were on fire for Christ from Pentecost on -- just 10 days after Jesus ascended into heaven. Their gospel message would not have been received by anyone because no one would have ever seen Christ. And all the miracles that Christ performed would have been non-existent as well. The disciples would have never gotten to first base with their fake news to their contemporary countrymen if Jesus never existed.

Acts 2:22-23
22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know —
NASB

As far as the Greek language -- this was the common and virtually universal language of the ANE. Even the Hellenistic Jews who lived throughout Asia Minor were fluent in Greek. You conveniently forget that Israel, prior to the rise of the Roman empire, was under the dominance of the Greek empire for a long time. The only difference between the Greeks and the previous empires is that the Greeks allowed the Jews to remain in their land, as did Rome.

Lastly, Acts is a verifiable source because the book is in harmony with the rest of scripture, and the extra-biblical writings of the Early Church Fathers also affirm much of Acts.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

I lost track of this, but I do agree there is no such thing as free will.

There are forces controlling everything (Good and Evil) not Free Will.

No need to complicate it.

There most definitely is "free will". In fallen mankind, the "force" that controls men's choices is [spiritual] DEATH. In regenerated saints here on earth, the "force" that controls the saints' choices is [spiritual] LIFE, since all saints are born again by the Holy Spirit -- the Spirit of Life.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Greetings, Thaskalos.

The Christian maintains that the Way isn't a set of of teachings to be internalized primarily, but a Person. The teachings could only be consistently lived out by the reception of Christ through grace--"charis"--his very life "infused" (Catholic & big "O" Orthodox, et.al...Boxcar would say "imputed") to the Christian. The power to love as God loves--total self-giving, agape love returned to God and fellow man. A necessary ingredient of this state of being is the presence of gratitude, which for the contemplative is not a deep dive into the teachings, but rather into the inner life of the Trinity, and by extension the implications of that Trinitarian love for man (the teachings, Christ's incarnational interactions with man, etc.)

Not entirely true. "Boxcar would say 'imputed'" in terms of Justification -- this being intrinsically a legal transaction. Sanctification, on the other hand, is very different in nature -- as the sanctified, holy life is experientially lived through born again believers by the active power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The title of the thread is Religion II.

Context. I thought we were discussing the existence of the founder of Christianity. Try to keep up.

That's another or your claims. Totally irrelevant.

Everything that is religious is irrelevant to you -- which brings me to ask: Why do you even post here?

Google "syncretism".

Hmm...so this guy "syncretism", who founded Hinduism, is fact or fiction?