Christians are Revolting - Sean Lauren

Debate specific books

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Christians are Revolting - Sean Lauren

Post #1

Post by otseng »

This thread will debate the book Christians are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress, by Sean Lauren.

We will go through the book one chapter at a time and discuss the contents of each chapter. I anticipate we'll spend several days on each chapter and then move on to the next one. Please avoid jumping ahead, but you're free to discuss previous chapters (for those that join late). We'll end the debate with each person giving a general overview of the book. The thread will then be closed.

If you'd like to participate, sign up here.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Ch. 1 - Are most Christians filled with hate and bloodlu

Post #21

Post by Divine Insight »

ElCodeMonkey wrote: [Replying to post 15 by Divine Insight]

I find it strange that you're unwilling to recognize that things can change in a religious climate. You cling to what Christianity is today and act as if it could never have been anything else. I have absolute proof that it was indeed something else based on the very fact that the Bible didn't even exist when Jesus preached and you acknowledged that fact. So why now must Christianity 100% be whatever it is now and today when we know it was not the same in the past? I think you ultimately agree with me that it was different and could have been any amount of who knows what in difference, but that you simply don't believe that I could possibly know what that difference is. Is that an accurate summation?
I have no problem with a religion changing due to social pressures or interactions. The problem I have with your claims is that I hold that there is absolutely no way that you could possibly have a clue what Jesus might have been trying to teach prior to the writings of the Gospels. From whence would you obtain this information? <--- That's the question right there.

You claim to have "absolute proof" that it was something different. I personally wouldn't argue with that at all. However, I will argue against the idea of you knowing what that something different was. All you can do is guess, and your guess is as good as the next person's guess (or as worthless), depending on how you want to look at it.
ElCodeMonkey wrote: As for what the differences are, I believe I can make a perfectly coherent story and plausible explanation which is the best anyone can do with any religion that must be taken on faith. I argue that my coherent story makes far more sense and lacks all the contradictions that you found in modern Christianity which led you away from it to begin with. Therefore it is far more likely to be correct than current Christianity even if it still lacks an absolute proof. And given your understanding, it sounds like you may be doing and thinking similar things as I but without writing a book about it.
First off you are wrong when you say that the contradictions I found reside in "Modern Chrsitianity". Nothing could be further from the truth. The contradictions I found reside in the Biblical Scriptures from the Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation. :D

Those books were written thousands of years ago, they are not a product of "Modern Chrsitianity". I will grant you that they have undergone massive editing, revisions, and translations. None the less, the contradictions I've found are central to all versions, because none of the versions change the stories dramatically enough to eliminate these self-contradictory themes. But this certainly has nothing at all to do with any so-called "Modern Christianity". I reject, "The Bible", not "Modern Christianity".

And yes, I have proposed EVIDENCE that strongly suggests that Jesus was most likely a "Mystic Jew" (there were many mystic Jews in those days), who learned of the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism (even if he wasn't aware of the origins of this philosophy). There were many mystic Jews at that time that adopted philosophies that were no doubt influenced by Eastern Theology, and especially in those days by Mahayana Buddhism in particular. Even if they weren't aware that these philosophies came from Mahayana Buddhism.

I can make a very strong case for this. However, why bother? Christians most certainly aren't interested in buying into a mortal Jesus who was nothing more than a mystic Jew who had his own personal religious ideas.

Christians aren't interested in any Jesus who isn't the Son of God. Because a mortal Jesus may as well be Mahatma Gandhi. No claim of divinity, not promise of eternal life, no authority to speak of heaven, etc. Just another human who has opinions.

Christians aren't interested in a mortal Jesus. Period.

Atheists might find my evidence that Jesus was a mystic Jew trying to bring the higher moral values of Mahayana Buddhism into Christianity. But I'm not about to write a book to try to convince atheists that this was the origins of the Jesus myths.
ElCodeMonkey wrote: As for what Christians want, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to lump them all together as one complete unit. When I was a Christian, I simply wanted truth and I was indeed willing to look at it. I assume there are others out there, like me, who are interested in reason and better answers. I wrote the book for them even if they be few. The more that are reached, the more likelihood of success at eradicating what I deem to be a hostile Christianity. Not to say all Christians are hostile, but the current Christianity can breed the hostility so I'd like to see the mindset eradicated or redirected. It still contains eternal life as well even though I don't personally believe in that part.
What do you mean it still contains eternal life even though you don't personally believe in that part of it? If you ignore that part of it, no Christian is going to take you seriously. Because in order to give up that part of it then would need to become a "non-Christian".

Unless you consider yourself to still be a "Christian". But it seems to me that even you know better than to try to make that claim.

The following was your reply to Tam, but I'd like to comment on this as well,...
ElCodeMonkey wrote: [Replying to post 17 by tam]

Excellent insight, tam. You actually make a good point that I should not be trying to reform Christianity. Jesus even said that if salt loses its saltiness it's good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled. What, then, do I call this... thing... that I am re...vealing?
You aren't "revealing" anything provable. All you are doing is imagining that you can guess correctly what the "Real Jesus" was all about, while claiming that the actual people who wrote about him (Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John), had no clue.

And you don't even have any actual evidence that your "guess" of what you think Jesus might have actually been teaching is true. Where are your documents?

All you can do is point to what Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John wrote, and say, "I disagree with their conclusions and think that Jesus probably meant this other thing instead".

That's all you can do.

Hey, you might have an interesting idea of what you would have liked for Jesus to have been about. But as far as having any actual evidence or proof that your ideas are correct, I'm afraid you've stepped way 'out-of-bounds' on that one, apparently without realizing it.

Your ideas of what you think Jesus might have been like most certainly cannot be labeled as "Christianity" as far as I'm concerned. And I hold that this is true even if your guess about what Jesus was all about is perfectly true and correct.

Apparently "Christianity" NEVER went in that direction. It's not that it started out in that direction and then got off track. Christianity is based on the Gospels, not on what you might think Jesus "really meant".

You're just making a huge mistake in thinking that you could redefine Chrsitianity based on what you think Jesus might have been like. That's not even remotely doable.

Sorry, but that's just reality. :D

Your ideas are interesting!

Your book is well-written!

You even have my full support in terms of what Jesus might have really been!


But you're not about to redefine "Christianity". That just ain't gonna happen. :D
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Ch. 1 - Are most Christians filled with hate and bloodlu

Post #22

Post by Divine Insight »

[Replying to post 19 by amortalman]

To Amortalman,

I understand. There are indeed quite a few churches that seem to have very little or nothing to do with even traditional orthodox Christianity. I've been in some churches that were so weird I felt like I was in a "den of iniquity". Other's that seemed like nothing more than a party at a bar without alcohol. :D

I agree that there are many churches that don't even remotely behave in a way that seem compatible with the teaching of Jesus and the Bible.

But we really can't condemn a "religion" based on how a few churches behave. I try to keep my focus on the Bible, and tend to ignore what any actual churches might be doing.

By the way, the church I was raised in was really nice. Very friendly. Very much in harmony with the teachings of Jesus. They never preached fire and brimstone. In fact, on the rare occasions when we had guest pastors come in who did preach fire and brimstone, our pastor would make it a point to apologize for that the following Sunday. :D

I can honestly say that the church I was raised in was very "Christ-like". Unfortunately even that doesn't make the religion true.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Re: Ch. 1 - Are most Christians filled with hate and bloodlu

Post #23

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

[Replying to post 20 by Divine Insight]

I never have and never will claim absolute proof to my ideas of what Christianity used to be. I have a coherent understanding/potential that makes more sense than modern Christianity and it is indeed derived via the Bible and the coherent story still contains eternal life. Just because I have a coherent story and understanding that I believe is far more likely to be accurate than modern Christianity does not mean I have to subscribe to that story. I derived it as a Christian and reject what I have derived as an atheist. I believe that I have a far better understanding of what Jesus taught based upon the pure logic of what is written in the Bible without actually believing what it claims. For example, one could somehow conclude via reading the Bible that it seems to indicate a giant elephant created the world, but then still not believe that's true. What I believe it says and whether I believe what I believe it says are two different things. You are doing the exact same thing when you say you believe it is likely that Jesus simply tried to add Buddhist ideals into the religion. If you believe that, and you believe it is more likely, then you are doing exactly what I am doing except that I have a different understanding which has yet to be revealed in the story. Again, you are right, I have no more actual proof about my interpretation than you do about yours. But that doesn't mean that it's not a better and more cohesive story without any contradictions in the final conclusion. Lastly, I did not say that the contradictions you found were created in modern Christianity, I said that modern Christianity contains them. Which they do. When the contradictions were created is entirely beside the point.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #24

Post by Divine Insight »

ElCodeMonkey wrote: You are doing the exact same thing when you say you believe it is likely that Jesus simply tried to add Buddhist ideals into the religion. If you believe that, and you believe it is more likely, then you are doing exactly what I am doing except that I have a different understanding which has yet to be revealed in the story.
Agreed 100%. :D

However, you seem to have missed the main point.

I'm not claiming that my understanding of Jesus bringing the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism into his home culture represents a "restoration" of what Christianity really means.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #25

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

Divine Insight wrote: I'm not claiming that my understanding of Jesus bringing the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism into his home culture represents a "restoration" of what Christianity really means.
Well why not? If you believe that's what he originally taught, and if you think it's a more benign and less harmful perspective, then why wouldn't you want to share the viewpoint? And if you believe the viewpoint is indeed correct, why would it not be a restoration of what you believe truly happened? It's all the same except I wrote a book about it in hopes to bring about what was once a religion/philosophy bent on self-improvement and love for others rather than blood sacrifice and intolerance which is the very thing Jesus tried to get away from according to the scriptures which seem to be the very cause of the sway.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #26

Post by Divine Insight »

ElCodeMonkey wrote: And if you believe the viewpoint is indeed correct, why would it not be a restoration of what you believe truly happened?
Being a restoration of what truly happened, is nowhere near the same as being a restoration of Christianity.

Besides, even though it appears to be a valid explanation of things to me, there's no way to prove that this is what happened.

You claim to be able to "prove" your ideas.

Well, we're just starting in on your book. I'll let you know at the end whether you have convinced me that you have any "proof" of anything. I'll be absolutely shocked and amazed if that were the case. :D

At best, I might agree that your scenario sounds plausible. But that's a far cry from having proven it to be true.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Post #27

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

[Replying to post 25 by Divine Insight]

I think I made it quite clear two posts prior that I do not have "proof" any more than Christians have "proof" for the current conception. I cannot and will not ever claim to have proof. It's simply more plausible and coherent. As for Christianity, it seems you're simply unwilling to call anything Christianity if it is not what we understand to be Christianity today. That's fine, but note that I am going to continue to call the original followers of Jesus "Christians" and thus the "original Christianity". Knowing that as my definition will help with conversation.
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
ElCodeMonkey
Site Supporter
Posts: 1587
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:49 am
Contact:

Re: Ch. 1 - An Infidel's Progress

Post #28

Post by ElCodeMonkey »

otseng wrote: Not too many Christians will read a book from a "heretic" and one who denies the faith. However, atheists would enjoy reading a book to affirm their negative opinions of Christianity.
I'd like to jump back to this statement. While I agree that Christians likely won't be terribly willing to hear the opinions of a heretic, is this a justified decision? I mean, God used an "ass" in the old testament, so surely, he can use an atheist, no? I also derived all this as a full-fledged seeker of God so that should be worth something then, no? As for the negative opinions toward Christians, the book tries to separate Christians into two categories: The Sheep and The Goats. The book is very pro-Sheep and anti-Goat but it is not anti-Jesus. While the goats will certainly hate it, the sheep should probably quite like it and agree on many points or at the very least be willing to take it seriously and consider. Only a goat, in my opinion, would shut someone out without listening. Granted, time is limited and books are nearly infinite, so why give me the time of day? My hope is that sheep will notice the goats, notice Jesus' warnings, and look for something unique which is what I provide. I simply need to make it more... nice... to draw them in initially. I was personally fueled by my noticing a problem within Christianity so a book like this, as a Christian, would have drawn me in. If one notices a problem within Christianity, I'd think they'd likewise want to see my book. But maybe I need to first convince the sheep that goats even exist among them? That might require me, once again, to spout negativities, but what else can I do? If I purport that goats are many and sheep are few and I wish to reveal this fact to the sheep, how can I do it without slinging what looks like insult?
I'm Published! Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress
My Blog: Friendly By Nurture
The Wisdom I've gleaned.
My Current Beliefs.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #29

Post by Divine Insight »

ElCodeMonkey wrote: It's simply more plausible and coherent.
Christians aren't interested in what's plausible and coherent. Are you kidding me?

They believe in a God who curses a serpent to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days.

They believe in a God who at one moment is sorry he ever created mankind and drowns out the whole planet, only to turn around later and offer undeserving sinners unwarranted amnesty.

They believe in a Jesus who had cast evil demons out of humans and into pigs.

They believe in a Jesus who cursed a fig tree because it wasn't bearing fruit out of season.

They believe a God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son.

They believe God caused an earthquake that meticulously opened the graves of saints so they could physically crawl out of those graves and go into the holy city to show themselves to the people there.

They believe Jesus was raised from the dead and was lifted up to heaven on a cloud to sit at the right-hand of God in a monotheistic religion.

Does it sound to you like Christians are interested in anything that is coherent or plausible?
ElCodeMonkey wrote: As for Christianity, it seems you're simply unwilling to call anything Christianity if it is not what we understand to be Christianity today. That's fine, but note that I am going to continue to call the original followers of Jesus "Christians" and thus the "original Christianity". Knowing that as my definition will help with conversation.
If I believed that simply agreeing with the moral teachings of Jesus qualifies as "Chrsitianity" then I'd be a "Christian" right now too.

By the way it would be hard to "follow" someone who actually agrees with my moral values. The best I can do is agree with Jesus and give him my seal of approval in the deportment of moral values. It would make no sense to say that I'm "following" him when he already agrees with me.

And yes, I totally reject the idea of calling "Chrsitianity" simply the act of following the teachings of Jesus. That would be a gross misrepresentation of what the religion has ALWAYS been about.

Christianity is about God having supposedly given his only begotten Son as the ultimate sacrificial lamb of God who can offer undeserved amnesty (salvation) to anyone who asks for it.

Any attempt to redefine Chrsitianity from this religious theology is, IMHO, utterly absurd and a misuse of the term "Christianity".

But yes, I understand that there do exist people who will accept such an utterly absurd notion.

But surely you can see where it would be grossly confusing to have two "Christianities". One where God gives his only begotten Son as the sacrificial lamb for human salvation. And the other one that simply says that if you agree with the moral values of Jesus then you're a "Christian".

I mean, you are free to define things however you like. But from a theological perspective you'd then have two distinctly different religions laying claim to the same label of "Christianity".

I just don't understand why you would want to create such an incoherent theological situation.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Ch. 1 - An Infidel's Progress

Post #30

Post by Elijah John »

otseng wrote: The book is an autobiography detailing the author's journey to Christianty and to atheism. He notes the primary audience of the book is for Christians.

"I write this mostly for Christians since it is their faith which has been corrupted and which I wish to see restored."

I suspect though more atheists would read the book than Christians.
And Theistic skeptics of conventional orthodox (small "o") Christianity.

otseng wrote: Not too many Christians will read a book from a "heretic" and one who denies the faith. However, atheists would enjoy reading a book to affirm their negative opinions of Christianity.
Except for other "heretics" like myself. And those of us who smell something fishy in the conventional Pauline Christianity that we have inherited from our Church, our parents and our culture. There are more of us than you may imagine. ;)

Many of Sean's theological and practical objections to Christianity as we have it today, are shared by historical Jesus scholars as well. Even some clerics, like Bishop John Shelby Spong.
otseng wrote: It seems the primary thesis of the book is this:

"I believed it then and I believe it now that Christianity has lost what made it most beautiful and has traded it in for a disunified mess of opinions and the blind followings of Molech, Baal, and Mammon."

I would not disagree with this, even as a Christian. Like many religions, Christianity has become more a cultural religion and is far from its original intent.
I am wondering if what you see as "original intent" and what the author sees as the original intent of Christianty are one in the same. I have my doubts that you mean the same thing.

otseng wrote: This is an interesting situation: "I became an outcast via the pure intention of being a devoted follower of Christ." The first part of the book will detail his devotion.
I can relate to that. Sean took it a decisive step futher than I did though by virture of his becoming an atheist, wheras I retain my belief in the Father and God of Jesus (YHVH), but not in the Divinity of Jesus himself. All us "heretics" are outcasts in one way or another.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

Post Reply