The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2016, 08:38 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2016 11:06 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 05:01 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
Quote:Why share this ROT on an atheist forum? Even if an atheist did suddenly decide to run back to religion, they would probably go back to the conventional brand of Catholicism/Protestantism, not some one-off cultic ROT.

I thought the problem was that I don’t share my religious views, that I tend to deflect question asking for elaboration. So i’m not sure why you’re suggesting otherwise. I’m just a self-identifying Christian, who just so happens to participate in atheists forums, interested in a short list of topics that I engage in here, who finds questions about my religious beliefs in the unrelated topics I engage in, to be a distraction.

[quote]doesn't depend on Jesus' existence. How does this work? Why would you call this ROT Christian if this is the case? Tomasia has stated he doesn't believe in atonement. How does this work? Why would you call this ROT Christian if this is the case?

I believe in atonement, but atonement has a variety of different views, even among christians that are considered a part of the orthodox tradition. If there’s a particular one I’d align myself with, it would be Rene Girard’s Scapegoating view. And Girard is a respected Catholic thinker, I doubt many catholics would want to label him an apostate.

I believe Jesus existed, just like most other Christians. Some christians might say that they would no longer be Christians if Jesus did not exist as a historical person, I wouldn’t, though I think the view that Jesus didn’t exist is absurd. If it worked for the supposed earlier form of Christianity, or Paul, as mythicist suggest, I’m not sure why it couldn’t work for me.

The question in regards to historicity, here wouldn’t really about apostasy because that would be about one’s actual beliefs, where is in this case it would be whether such and such would lead you to no longer believe. If I believed Jesus didn’t exist perhaps the apostate label might be more applicable, but I don’t, I hold that he did, and that I would still hold to Christianity as true even if he didn’t.


I’ll say this, what’s ultimately true for me about Christianity, has always been true, and is not dependent on whether we acknowledge it or not. It just didn’t become true 2000 years ago, anymore so than the Theory of Evolution became true when Darwin penned it, or when we came to acknowledge it’s legitimacy as a species. Perhaps if the Gospels were never penned, if Jesus never appeared, or was never written about, we’d still be in the dark about it, but what’s true, is true regardless if we acknowledge it or not.

I don’t expect you or others to understand this, or what I mean by the truth here exactly, but this is my view.

Quote:Tomasia dismisses accounts in Matthew about zombies walking the streets. But do you accept that Jesus rose from the dead? How does this selective dismissal work? What is your criteria for dismissing one and accepting the other?

Yes, i do believe the resurrection. It’s multiply attested to. Even if we want to label it as a “mischievous superstition” that caught on, like Tacitus wrote. Unlike the Zombie bit that only Matthew writes, of, and the other Gospels writers didn’t. Something did happen after Jesus’s humiliating defeat, that led to a different trajectory here than what’s routine for failed messiah claimants, in which their following dies along with them. Instead something lit a fire in that movement, in which his early followers were willing to die for the truth of it. Perhaps it was some sort of mass hallucination, perhaps it was some sort of spiritual epiphany, that they labeled the resurrection, but something did happen, to kindle the fervency that lit that age, that set rome on fire. That breathed life back into his devastated followers upon witnessing his humiliating defeat.

Quote:Why go to the trouble in creating this ROT, when all of the other sects of Christianity will declare you an apostate destined for hell?

I don’t run across many Christians who would label me an apostate. I do run across a bunch of atheists attempting to speak on their behalf.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 08:49 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 08:00 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 05:28 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Many people don't believe that jesus was Christ.
Therefore someone who is waiting for Christ to appear could be called a Christian.

The definition of Christian would change from those who strive to be like Christ, to that of someone waiting for Christ to appear.

In all reality Tomasia is just trying to stand out from the crowd.
"I'm not like them. Look at me. Pay me some attention. Listen to what I have to say."

It's just teenage mentality.

Well, wait a second. A Christian explicitly believes that Jesus was the son of God and the Christ. That's what the term means. Jews are still waiting for their Messiah, not Christians. The latter are just awaiting his Second Coming.

Even though just being a follower of Jesus as a regular preacher would be in serious conflict with that and with calling him "the Christ" in the first place. So then why call him that? I don't think it makes sense.

I really don't think "Christian" has a precise definition.
One could say "Those who attempt to live their lives with how they think that Christ would or in such a manner that meets with Christ's approval."

Then you have to answer the questions "Who is Christ ? And what behaviors are you trying to live by ?"

I could think of several more definitions.
Even Christians would say "He may be a Christian, but he's not a true Christian."

It's a fluid term, that for me, only tells me that this person is gullible, delusional and desires to be lumped in with an entire group of people that may be in the majority in his or her community.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 08:58 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 05:01 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
Quote:Why share this ROT on an atheist forum? Even if an atheist did suddenly decide to run back to religion, they would probably go back to the conventional brand of Catholicism/Protestantism, not some one-off cultic ROT.

I thought the problem was that I don’t share my religious views, that I tend to deflect question asking for elaboration. So i’m not sure why you’re suggesting otherwise. I’m just a self-identifying Christian, who just so happens to participate in atheists forums, interested in a short list of topics that I engage in here, who finds questions about my religious beliefs in the unrelated topics I engage in, to be a distraction.

[quote]doesn't depend on Jesus' existence. How does this work? Why would you call this ROT Christian if this is the case? Tomasia has stated he doesn't believe in atonement. How does this work? Why would you call this ROT Christian if this is the case?

I believe in atonement, but atonement has a variety of different views, even among christians that are considered a part of the orthodox tradition. If there’s a particular one I’d align myself with, it would be Rene Girard’s Scapegoating view. And Girard is a respected Catholic thinker, I doubt many catholics would want to label him an apostate.

I believe Jesus existed, just like most other Christians. Some christians might say that they would no longer be Christians if Jesus did not exist as a historical person, I wouldn’t, though I think the view that Jesus didn’t exist is absurd. If it worked for the supposed earlier form of Christianity, or Paul, as mythicist suggest, I’m not sure why it couldn’t work for me.

The question in regards to historicity, here wouldn’t really about apostasy because that would be about one’s actual beliefs, where is in this case it would be whether such and such would lead you to no longer believe. If I believed Jesus didn’t exist perhaps the apostate label might be more applicable, but I don’t, I hold that he did, and that I would still hold to Christianity as true even if he didn’t.


I’ll say this, what’s ultimately true for me about Christianity, has always been true, and is not dependent on whether we acknowledge it or not. It just didn’t become true 2000 years ago, anymore so than the Theory of Evolution became true when Darwin penned it, or when we came to acknowledge it’s legitimacy as a species. Perhaps if the Gospels were never penned, if Jesus never appeared, or was never written about, we’d still be in the dark about it, but what’s true, is true regardless if we acknowledge it or not.

I don’t expect you or others to understand this, or what I mean by the truth here exactly, but this is my view.

Quote:Tomasia dismisses accounts in Matthew about zombies walking the streets. But do you accept that Jesus rose from the dead? How does this selective dismissal work? What is your criteria for dismissing one and accepting the other?

Yes, i do believe the resurrection. It’s multiply attested to. Even if we want to label it as a “mischievous superstition” that caught on, like Tacitus wrote. Unlike the Zombie bit that only Matthew writes, of, and the other Gospels writers didn’t. Something did happen after Jesus’s humiliating defeat, that led to a different trajectory here than what’s routine for failed messiah claimants, in which their following dies along with them. Instead something lit a fire in that movement, in which his early followers were lying to die for the truth of it. Perhaps it was some sort of mass hallucination, perhaps it was some sort of spiritual epiphany, that they labeled the resurrection, but something did happen, to kindle the fervency that lit that age, that set rome on fire. That breathed life back into his devastated followers upon witnessing his humiliating defeat.

Quote:Why go to the trouble in creating this ROT, when all of the other sects of Christianity will declare you an apostate destined for hell?

I don’t run across many Christians who would label me an apostate. I do run across a bunch of atheists attempting to speak on their behalf.

Ok, thanks for the answers.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 09:02 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2016 09:06 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 08:49 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 08:00 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Well, wait a second. A Christian explicitly believes that Jesus was the son of God and the Christ. That's what the term means. Jews are still waiting for their Messiah, not Christians. The latter are just awaiting his Second Coming.

Even though just being a follower of Jesus as a regular preacher would be in serious conflict with that and with calling him "the Christ" in the first place. So then why call him that? I don't think it makes sense.

I really don't think "Christian" has a precise definition.
One could say "Those who attempt to live their lives with how they think that Christ would or in such a manner that meets with Christ's approval."

Then you have to answer the questions "Who is Christ ? And what behaviors are you trying to live by ?"

I could think of several more definitions.
Even Christians would say "He may be a Christian, but he's not a true Christian."

It's a fluid term, that for me, only tells me that this person is gullible, delusional and desires to be lumped in with an entire group of people that may be in the majority in his or her community.

I think every Christian has their own, personal model of perfection and that model is the avatar of Jesus. That's about the only commonality that exists in Christianity- Jesus=perfection.

Of course every single Christian has their own idea of what perfection is and that's why we have as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians.

That is also why one group will call the other group un-Christian over silly things such as full immersion or sprinkles for baptism.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
29-06-2016, 09:18 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2016 09:24 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes, i do believe the resurrection. It’s multiply attested to.

I will point out, right off the top of my head, using that standard nixes the birth accounts of Jesus along with the alleged prophecies he fulfilled as part of that narrative. This standard can provide quite a few difficulties for the Jesus mythos I suspect.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 09:47 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 09:18 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I will point out, right off the top of my head, using that standard nixes the birth accounts of Jesus along with the alleged prophecies he fulfilled as part of that narrative. This standard can provide quite a few difficulties for the Jesus mythos I suspect.

That's quite true. The virgin birth nor birth narrative made the cut in the other two gospels. Not only they didn't care to mention this, but didn't really care to say much of anything of Jesus life prior to his ministry and death. And prophecies were read in after the fact, and faced a number of hurdles, such as placing a man from Nazareth, in Bethlehem, a point that makes the likelihood that Jesus didn't exist even less believable.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 10:00 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 08:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It just didn’t become true 2000 years ago, anymore so than the Theory of Evolution became true when Darwin penned it, or when we came to acknowledge it’s legitimacy as a species. Perhaps if the Gospels were never penned, if Jesus never appeared, or was never written about, we’d still be in the dark about it, but what’s true, is true regardless if we acknowledge it or not.

Nonsense. There was nothing unique in Christianity's message that "was always true" and YOU STILL have not told us that is.
No Christian scholar would agree with that BS ("heresy") you made up about what is "true about Christianity's truth always being true".
You've constructed a cult of your own, and tell yourself you're a Christian.

So yeah. The mysterious ROT remains mysterious ROT.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-06-2016, 10:06 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 10:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nonsense. There was nothing unique in Christianity's message that "was always true" and YOU STILL have not told us that is. No Christian scholar would agree with that BS ("heresy") you made up.

I don't think it's a question for historical scholars. Cormac McCarthy is likely better suited for it than a Bart Ehrman, or a Marcus Borg.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 10:12 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 10:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 10:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nonsense. There was nothing unique in Christianity's message that "was always true" and YOU STILL have not told us that is. No Christian scholar would agree with that BS ("heresy") you made up.

I don't think it's a question for historical scholars. Cormac McCarthy is likely better suited for it than a Bart Ehrman, or a Marcus Borg.

You don't think what is a question for scholars? You think that it is taken without question that chrisitianity is "the truth" or that theologians take it without question that chrisitianity is "the truth?"

Or do historians take it without question that people who followed Christianity viewed it as "the truth?"

Whichever bullshit you've pulled from your ass, I'd like to see the data from which you're inferring that it isn't a question for "historical scholars."

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2016, 10:27 AM
RE: The Religion Of Tomasia-What is this ROT?
(29-06-2016 10:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 10:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nonsense. There was nothing unique in Christianity's message that "was always true" and YOU STILL have not told us that is. No Christian scholar would agree with that BS ("heresy") you made up.

I don't think it's a question for historical scholars. Cormac McCarthy is likely better suited for it than a Bart Ehrman, or a Marcus Borg.

It's still your made up opinion, and TOTALLY "unorthodox". You have invented your own religion. That's nice. But don't call it "Christianity". By NO definition is it "Christianity". It's just like all the other New Age woo Christian knock-offs.
Whatever floats your boat.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: