JCC Arena The Theist/Atheist Thunderdome™

As I said, I spoke about my relevant religion classes, such as Hebrew and ancient near eastern religions, plus Christian Theology. All those things could have been relevant to the religious content of the show, which deals with Abrahamic religious views on modern possible miracles.

The thing is, I didn't bring up those classes initially, I just mentioned Hebrew and archaeology because those were not specifically religious. I really didn't want to talk about my religion. I only brought those up when asked, "How Christian are you?" to try to pivot away from faith questions and back to classes I'd taken that I thought might help with research, one of the job responsibilities.

And I don't know about where you live, CT, but in California it absolutely is illegal to ask about someone's religion. There may be exceptions for non-profit organizations, though, which may be religious. I know my Christian College had a statement of faith that professors had to sign. It was controversial on campus because many profs wanted Jewish professors for some of our classes. So that may be alllowed for non profits, but asking about religion for a for profit endeavor is illegal in CA.

CT, I appreciate your perspective as well. It's one I sadly don't doubt at all. But it does sound eerily similar to things I experienced and heard at multiple workplaces in Hollywood. It is okay to be anything except Christian, and it is okay to openly bash and make fun of Christians in writers' rooms. Happens constantly. That translates to often focusing only on the worst Christians actually on the screen, with some exceptions (the Taylors in Friday Night Lights are Christians and are portrayed very well). This in turn leads heartland Christians to feel Hollywood is an evil place filled with ultra liberal elitists with an anti-Christian agenda.

Thing is, it's not an agenda, but it's definitely a bias. And it goes both ways. This sort of stuff just widens the divide.

Another issue is that hiring isn't done by HR. Just by showrunners and their assistants directly. Oddly, at an internship years ago, they saw Hebrew and Jewish-American lit on my list of classes and that my name was Rachel and assumed I was Jewish. I let them roll with that, because they at least were smart enough not to directly ask. That worked in my favor because the producer was Jewish.

Suffice it to say, I think biases occur both ways for sure. It's a real thing. There definitely isn't broad systemic oppression of Christians the way there is of atheists Nationwide, though. I can only speak to the pocket I know where it is real.

The thing is, I don't want this major company to ask someone if they are Jewish or Muslim or Atheist or anything. Asking is itself introducing unfair bias.

 

The Pope has said there is no Hell.

 

Well, if Hell doesn't exist, how's he gonna keep his sheep from sinning?

Sent using Tapatalk.

 

The Vatican have clarified the Pope wasn't making a theological remark (?), but His Grace said 'sinners' souls disappear and contemplate God until they're allowed into Heaven.

Hard to see how it's anything else, but a theological remark.

 

The Pope is an idiot.

 

Since it is Good Friday, I hope a little blasphemous joke is tolerated:

"Jesus liked his crucifixion like he did his women: tied down and nailed hard."

Sorry, I'll see myself out....

Sent using Tapatalk.

 

He's obviously never been to Luton .

 

I rarely get super in-depth in terms of my personal spiritual beliefs, into the technical and theological aspects of them, I mean. But it's worth talking about today, I reckon, if just briefly. Partly inspired by that article just posted, which is very good if somewhat incomplete to my mind in how far it's willing to pursue its central thesis. I'm typically not home from work on Good Friday, but my vacation happens to have fallen this week this year, so I have a little time to consider and share.

The value of Jesus in my life has always been about kicking the props out from under the conventional wisdom and the easy ways out. Jesus taught a worldview that was substantially out of step with the worldviews put forth by both the political and the religious authorities of the time and there are passages in the gospels that still move me deeply every time I read them as he puts forth a message of the essential worth of those who are devalued and of an essential love that God has for humanity.

I'll just ruminate on one passage. We all know this story I'm sure. A woman has been caught in the act of adultery and she has been taken by an angry mob to be stoned to death for her sin. (The man that would have, of necessity, also been present during the "act" of adultery just kind of wandered away seemingly or, more likely, is now himself among the angry mob, gender power dynamics being what they were . . . and still are). This story is justly famous for Christ's "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" mic-drop moment and that phrase and concept remain deeply powerful. But I've always been even more powerfully moved by the last thing Jesus says in that story, after the angry mob has dissolved under the power of its collective guilt. Jesus asks the woman what has happened to those who condemned her and she replies that they are gone. "Neither do I condemn thee," Jesus says, "Go and sin no more."

The incredible power of those two simple statements remain mind-blowing to me. The first is a statement of fact and of intent. "I do not condemn you," Jesus says and Jesus is speaking here in the person of God. (Even if you don't believe Jesus was God, Jesus clearly spoke many of the things that he did in the person of God, ie. believing himself to be God and/or to be speaking the words of God; whether you think he was God or not, Jesus was consciously presenting an image of God.) The simple power of this statement from the mouth of God is mind-blowing, earth-shattering, universe-exploding . . . To those who are guilty (this woman was assuredly guilty of what she was accused of), the word of God: "I do not condemn you."

The second half of the statement is just as powerful: "Go and sin no more." Some take this turn of phrase to be a command to the woman that she must now live a life of complete goodness; but it is something much more powerful than that, much more moving and beautiful. It is again, a statement of fact: a life of goodness and wholeness is possible. God remains, in something like irony, a true humanist. It IS possible for us to be better than we are, to love more than we do. In my hours of frailty and weakness and, well, downright meanness, this has been a consolation to me. A life of love is possible. Difficult? Certainly. As near impossible as anything that is possible? Yes. But "I can do all things through Christ." To him who believes, all things are possible. The command of Christ has always been to love, to love God and your fellow person. But in that command is a great truth; to love is possible. There are moments when I've doubted my ability to love a certain person and other times when I've doubted my ability to love, well, anyone, doubted that I was even capable of love. But to the fear that whispers to me that I am not able to love, that there is not love enough, I whisper back the command of Christ: "Thou shalt love." Not "Try to love," not "do your best," not "be as nice as you can." The command: "You WILL love." Love IS real; Love IS possible; Love IS. To my soul, that struggles to truly, selflessly love, "thou shalt love."

I almost decided, very last minute, not to post this because I kind of don't want to get into a big debate and pick this whole thing apart to really parse what I meant and argue about foundational ideas and such, because I do know most of you disagree with me on a lot of this stuff and I never want to be that obnoxious preachy guy. But maybe you'll find this encouraging. We'll just think about it, okay? You disagree, that's totally fine, but I don't really want to argue about it right now. I've kind of written myself into a pretty intense emotional place right now.

 

This is 100% true. During this era there were several Jewish sects that presented discomfort for the Romans: the zealots, the Essenes, etc.

But you don't hear about them being crucified for it. And let's please also put the kabosh on any medieval nonsense about the Jews being responsible for Jesus' death. It was the Romans. But also, per the Bible, God's plan.

Anyway, yes, Jesus' radical ideas were seen as a threat to Rome and the Emperor's demigod status. Moreover, they were radical ideas for the time. They were scary. Forgiving people, mixing with people you disagreed with?

Amazingly, they have not gotten less scary to people. If taken seriously, Jesus' commandments and examples would threaten our own society. That's what to me makes them continually relevant. They threaten to make us care about others in a real way and lay aside our selfishness. That to me is why they are still radical and relevant teachings. And is obviously why the Romans killed him.


Thanks Stephen for your own perspective as well.

 

I really enjoyed sj and Rogue1.5 posts, which deserve responses.

But I'd like to address the article AG Obama shared first. I actually found it somewhat problematic, and a mirror to what I think is very wrong about the Franklin Graham and his cohort. At several points I feel like the essay just skews into weird political commentary.

For instance, a "labor movement for Galilean fisherman?" Really? There were only 12 disciples, and not even half are identified as fishermen. They never organized around any principles of their working conditions. They never tried to make specific outreach to fishers over other parts of the population. They literally stopped practicing that profession in favor of being itinerant preachers.

This is not to say that support for a unions is un-Biblical. Indeed, concern about the disadvantaged is a major theme in all Biblical texts. Some of the worst curses are reserved for people who are exploitative in their business dealings, and Jesus himself makes the point several times, both explicitly and via parable. But somehow, all this wealth of content wasn't enough for him. He literally had to arrogate the biography of God to the cause of trade unionism. Because. . .why, exactly?

It's the same sort of anachronistic nonsense as saying "swords were the AR-15s of Jesus time." There was no "equivalent" to such an insanely destructive weapon. How much can your religion really mean to you if your that ready to contort it in the name of winning one stupid argument about a transient political issue? I just really wish people on both sides would try show more restraint--or dare I say reverence?--than that.

 

As a Christian who thinks Christianity should mostly NOT be about the afterlife and fear, Pope Francis's response to a boy who asked if his Athiest father was in heaven warms my heart.

 

Even though I am an atheist, I must say, I am thankful for religion sometimes. For example, if not for Christianity we might not have this:

 

I love it because without it we wouldn't have my favorite band, Five Iron Frenzy

 

Epic.

 

Wait, is his argument that "Elton John was never here" supposed to mean "God doesn't exist so Israelis and Palestinians are fighting over something of no value"? I feel like that's going off into a completely unrelated tangent. I mean, if you can convince both sides that their religions are fake and not worth fighting over...okay well great. But seeing as how there's not going to be a mass wave of conversion to atheism anytime soon, the only thing left to do is to try to work out some arrangement that both sides can live by. Religious conflict has been resolved in the past, and still does, as long as people are willing to be reasonable. The two Elton John fans should not be fighting over that glass regardless of whether he exists or not.

 

He was countering Peterson's argument that since God is an idea, and ideas are things, God exists.

 

It's hard to tell as we only have 2 minutes of or so to go by but it really boils down to the subjective nature of 'value'. The glass had value because of the claim that Elton John had used it, so to Elton John fans it had value - the higher the level of fandom the higher the value. You could have two Elton John fanatics willing to spill each other's blood over it. But the 'value' is itself is only based upon the claim that Elton John used it and the extent to which people are fans of Elton John. The only objective fact is that there is a glass.

 

55:50-ish

Has anyone listened to their infamous first conversation where they debated about the meaning of truth? it was funny

 

I have no desire to see two bigots “debate” each other.

 

I've never heard of Jordan Peterson but Sam Harris is definitely awful.

 

I don't really understand the point of these debates anyway. I guess it's just entertainment, like posting in a theist/atheist thread on a messageboard.

 

Pretty much yeah - I think it is like a training ground for subsequent internet arguments about religion. Like boot camp. There was this one atheist 'intellectual' who pretty much marketed one of his books along those lines - "how to win on the internet against religious freaks". Edit: His name is Richard Carrier I just remembered.

 

May I ask in what way?

 

Ordinarily yes, but right now I'm preparing for an overseas work trip so my posting is limited to the drive by variety..so perhaps let's park that discussion for another time?