Four Different Ways To Reject Jesus

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


that don't believe anything exists so J certainly didn't.



[/ QUOTE ]

thats me.

I subscribe to the theory that nothing really exists - that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively - life is just a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves.

That for lack of a better easy to understand metaphor - we are all living in "the Matrix" (you think that's air you're breathing?) and that eventually we will wake up and return to our real life non corporeal existance - and that probably there are different levels of dreaming so some people die(wake up) and then start a different human dream some start the heaven dream - others start the hell dream and so on.

I'm still not sure whether that makes me an atheist or something else. And I'm definitely unsure as to which Jesus rejection category I fit into.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not fair, I try to come up with a catagory as silly and empty as DS's and someone wants to join.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that there are actually four different categories of what some might call "rejecting Jesus". And that it would be useful when discussing non believers, to know which category they are in.

1. The Adam type category. Someone who has no doubt about God's existence and power but wants to defy it. Adam was about God. But I am sure there are also examples more recently, of people who defied what they believed to be a divine Jesus.

2. The Jewish type category. Someone who believes in God, has no wish to defy him, but simply thinks the Jesus story is untrue. Not because he wants it to be untrue. He agrees with most of his teachings. But he also thinks that God is at least a bit miffed at those who fell for the ressurection story and he doesn't want to be one of them.

3. The genial scientist type category. This fellow also has no problem with most of the things the bible claims God desires, and would be perfectly pleased to discover that God, with or without Jesus exists. In spite of the probability/logic/science/magician evidence against it. Included in this category are the less scientifically oriented who actually think there is a decent chance that God/Jesus exists but consider it less than even money. (Those people are presently screwed real bad but I'm going to try to help them in another thread.) Another subcategory are those people who have no problem with God but think their high falootin philosophical arguments force them to disbelieve in him. (A classic case of being probably right, but for the wrong reason.)

4. The 1-3 combination type. These people hate God/Jesus similar to type One. And talk about why belief in him is deleterious even if he existed. But they also claim a scientific and/or philosophical reason to disbelieve. Can you spell "ulterior motive"? Another name for these people is "cannon fodder for Not Ready". They throw him fastballs that he hits out of the park. And allow him to ignore the much tougher problem of categories two and three above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunate that Group 4's obvious ulterior motives are held against them to a greater degree than NR's obvious ulterior motives.

[PairTheBoard]

I'm a little puzzled by what constitutes Category 4. These are people who believe, say, NotReady's version of God and Jesus is objectively true but like Adam don't like having to obey the rules of the religion so they rebel against it by doing what they want? Then to justify their rebellion they argue against the objective truth they believe to be true?

I guess I don't get it. Do we really have people like that around here?

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

That would be Not Ready's take, not mine. I am sure that most in this category are full fledged unbelievers. But like the researcher who's favorable findings were bankrolled by a drug company, you have to wonder a little bit.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
That would be Not Ready's take, not mine. I am sure that most in this category are full fledged unbelievers. But like the researcher who's favorable findings were bankrolled by a drug company, you have to wonder a little bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would your take be on Category 4 precisely? If these are full fledged unbelievers, what differentiates them from those in Categories 2 and 3 ? How are they related to Category 1? I think Adam was pretty much a full fledged believer. He just didn't like doing what he was told.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

Is this what you're trying to say? Category 4 people are those who find the religion more or less despicable for reasons other than its possible objective truth. When such people than argue against the objective truth of the religion you can't help but suspect their arguments to be tainted by prejudice from their distaste for it. Furthermore, their arguments are weakened when they include observations about the despicable nature of the religion.

Is that about it? An application of the Priciple you've stated in the past that if two people have an opinion on an issue, all other things being equal, you should give more weight to the one who has no personal interest in it, ie. doesn't care one way or the other what the truth is.

I'm not sure how well that principle applies here. For example, suppose you're talking to someone who believes in the old Aztec Religion where it is essential to make human sacrifices to please the gods. He is convinced that the rains will not come and the crops will not grow if the gods are not appeased. You find this religion despicable and ridiculous. Considering the hypothetical, "even if the religion is objectively true" you might claim that you "would" rebel against it. Are your arguments against its objective truth suspect? Is the despicable nature of the religion really irrelevant in the discussion?

PairTheBoard

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


that don't believe anything exists so J certainly didn't.



[/ QUOTE ]

thats me.

I subscribe to the theory that nothing really exists - that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively - life is just a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves.

That for lack of a better easy to understand metaphor - we are all living in "the Matrix" (you think that's air you're breathing?) and that eventually we will wake up and return to our real life non corporeal existance - and that probably there are different levels of dreaming so some people die(wake up) and then start a different human dream some start the heaven dream - others start the hell dream and so on.

I'm still not sure whether that makes me an atheist or something else. And I'm definitely unsure as to which Jesus rejection category I fit into.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHA if you really believed this why the hell would you by typing messages on a keyboard which is a figment of your imagination to other figments of your own imagination and expecting a response???

[David Sklansky]

Theoretically speaking the arguments are suspect.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically speaking the arguments are suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. I get your point. And I think it's generally a sound principle. I think it gets applied every time a Lawyer hires another attorney to defend him rather than defending himself. His attorney is more believable to the jury because he has only a professional interest in the case rather than a personal one.

There's something else to consider with discussions about religion though. If the religion presented itself as being despicable but unavoidably so because it happens to be objectively true, then complaints about its despicableness would have little relevence. But when the religion holds that part of its objective truth is its nondespicable wonderfulness, then observations about its despicableness go directly to its objective truth.

PairTheBoard