Book debate on Christians Are Revolting

[otseng]

It's been suggested to debate the book "Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress":

viewtopic.php?t=34841

We'll start the debate soon in the Book Debates subforum. And who knows, we might even be able to get the author of the book to participate also!

Reply below if you'd like to be added to the book debate group to participate.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Of course, special kudos and props to those who bought the Paperback already! Even still, might be worth the free digital copy for it's searchability.

[Divine Insight]

Thanks Sean,

I opted for the free Kindle version, in part to be able to copy text from the book. Although, it take a bit of wizardry to actually copy text from a Kindle book. I also had to join the Kindle Cloud in order to get it free, and they are threatening to charge me $9.99/mo. after the first free month. I can cancel before that happens, but then I'll no doubt lose access to your book at that time as well.

In any case, when I read the following I certainly identified with this:

"I did not seek my own way and I did not desire to be different—it just so happened that I became an outcast via the pure intention of being a devoted follower of Christ."

The more Christ-like a person becomes the more Christians seem to hate that person. So true! When I was a Christian my greatest antagonists were other Christians who didn't like my views on what Jesus stood for.

So yes, follow the teachings of Christ and the Christians will definitely cast you out.

I also agree with what you've said about Trump. I can't understand how any Christian could support Trump. I personally don't believe in Christianity and the concept of the "Anti-Christ". But if there were such a thing as an anti-Christ Trump would certainly fit the bill to be sure. He clearly worships money and ego above all else. And he's also clearly bigoted and racist as well.

Yet ironically the vast majority of evangelicals appear to be supporting this anti-Christ.

The husband of my own cousin next door to me is a devout Catholic who passionately supports Trump and all his bigoted inhumane policies. It's amazing to me how someone can hold the Bible in one hand along with a crucifix of Christ proclaiming to worship Christ, and in the other hand be holding anti-gay, anti-immigration, anti-social services, signs etc.

It's like they are using Jesus hanging on the Cross as justification for extreme bigotry and hatred toward others.

It's the precise anti-thesis of what Christ was all about.

It makes me wonder if there are ANY Christian Evangelists who actually support the teachings of Christ. And, if so, where are they? Why aren't we seeing a major divide between Evangelicals? Instead they appear to all be in support of bigotry and hatred toward others in Jesus' name.

So yeah, I'm probably going to agree with much of what is in your book.

[otseng]

[Replying to ElCodeMonkey]

Thanks. I already bought the book, but it's nice to have a digital copy also. I hope more people download it today so we can have more participation in the debate.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to ElCodeMonkey]

Thanks. I already bought the book, but it's nice to have a digital copy also. I hope more people download it today so we can have more participation in the debate.

I'm curious what there is to actually "debate"?

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but from what I've seen thus far Sean appears to be making the following points: (Sean can correct me if I'm wrong)

1. Most of Christendom appears to hold values and positions that are not in harmony with the values and positions attributed to Christ.

Perhaps there are Christians who would like to "debate" that conclusion.
However from my perspective this is a very accurate observation made by Sean, and one that I too have personally made over the course of my life.

2. Sean appears to have embraced "atheism" or at least agnosticism.

In other words, (and Sean can correct me if I'm wrong), but it appears to me that Sean's major points are that Christians simply aren't following the values that Jesus taught. Sean does not appear to be arguing that Yahweh and Jesus are actual supernatural deities. Or if he does take this position I haven't yet seen this in the short excerpts I've read thus far.

Again, Christians may want to debate that conclusion. But from my perspective this is also a very keen and correct observation.

3. So the bottom line appears to be that the main theme of the book is that Christians simply don't follow the teachings of Christ, regardless of whether there is any supernatural deities behind it or not.

Once again, I would agree with this observation. Christians may wish to "debate" those conclusions.

The Bottom Line for Me:

From my perspective the value of the teachings of Christ is not an important issue. There are many philosophers and sages throughout history that have taught similar values.

The bottom line when it come to this religion is whether or not Jesus was the "Son of God". That's the only important question as far as I'm concerned.

As a "Christian Atheist", (i.e. not believing in the deity nature of Jesus or Yahweh), I do not argue that the moral teachings of Jesus are not valuable. I agree with most of them as far as I can see. But that doesn't make Jesus the Son of God, nor does it make any promises of any eternal afterlife valid.

In fact, even if the moral values that Jesus taught are "impeccable", if he's not the Son of God, and his promises of an eternal life after death are empty. Then he was teaching false hope. Perhaps hope that even he himself may have believed, but if he was just a human like the rest of us with great hopes of an imagined afterlife that doesn't give him the right to profess that such things are true when he really didn't know.

So unless Sean is going to state somewhere in his book that he has come to accept that Jesus is a supernatural deity (the Son of God), then I'll most likely agree with almost everything else he has to say.

I certainly agree with what I've read thus far. I don't understand how Christians can support Trump either, and I too have observed that the more Christ-like a person's values become, the more outcast they are in Christendom.

In short, unless there are going to be "surprises" somewhere in the rest of the book, there's certainly nothing in it that I would need to "debate".

But I guess Christians will want to debate Sean's conclusion that they don't actually follow the moral teachings of Jesus, or that Jesus may not actually be the supernatural Son of Yahweh?

If that is indeed his position?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 14 by Divine Insight]

There is certainly far more to it worth discussing and it's more than simply not following the morals of Jesus. I believe he taught an entirely different message. Whether or not I agree with that message anymore is not as important . Each chapter should have enough statements about things that could be discussed and debated about what Jesus truly taught even from a non-Christian perspective. I believe Jesus existed and taught something and that might be the backbone of debate. If you don't believe Jesus existed and taught something, then "what he taught" might not be as easy to discuss. I'd like to wait for the debate forum though and take it a little piece at a time.

[Divine Insight]

I believe Jesus existed and taught something and that might be the backbone of debate.

I accept this as being the most likely scenario. But then we run into the problem of how we "define" this person we're calling Jesus.

Unfortunately there are many ways to approach this. None of which are well-defined.

Here are three examples:

1. A person's best intellectual guess of what a "real Jesus" might have been trying to teach.

You and I could probably have a good discussion from this perspective.

My view is that Jesus was most likely trying to bring the spiritual philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism into his home religion. I discovered this when I took a course on Buddhism and learned of Mahayana Buddhism. The teachings and behavior of Jesus matches Mahayana Buddhism like a glove. This was also at its peak right at the time when Jesus would have been living. I can make very good arguments for why this is an extremely plausible scenario.

Of course, by taking this position, I also have no problem at all embracing the idea that Jesus' own disciples were misunderstanding him. Therefore I don't need to give every quote they attribute to Jesus total merit. Or I can explain what I believe they had misunderstood about what Jesus actually meant.

Of course, there is no compelling evidence that this was the case. But it makes a lot of sense, IMHO.

Your best intellectual guess of what Jesus might have been trying to teach may be just as valid.

2. The Gospel Truth Jesus:

This is a more theological position. The idea here is not to discuss what an actual historical Jesus might have been like, but rather we start by accepting that the Gospels are the absolute truth inspired and preserved by God. Therefore, we're talking about the "Gospel Jesus". If the Gospels have Jesus saying something, or doing something, then that's what he said or did.

I personally won't even bother starting with this premise because once we accept this then we're stuck with having Jesus saying, "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the Father but by me".

Now we're already getting into things that are difficult to discuss if we are forced to accept them as verbatim truth. Not only this but if we have already agreed that the Gospels represent God-inspired and God-protected truths, then we also have the Gospels saying that God himself spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son. If we have to accept that, then how could their be any argument against the idea that Jesus was the Son of God?

So I have no interest in debating anyone from this second premise.

Finally we have,...

3. A person who claims to hear the voice of Christ telling us what Christ is all about and what he truly means.

With all due respect to anyone who takes this position I just see no point in discussing anything with them. What's the point in discussing anything with a person who claims to be in direct communication with a living Jesus?

What could you possibly say to them? They are always right, and you are always wrong because they have a living Jesus on their side.

At that point it's no longer a discussion. It's just one person trying to dictate to another person what they claim Jesus stands for. And there's nothing more that can be said because they have already claimed direct communication with a living Jesus.

[jgh7]

FYI to everyone interested, I have managed to make the book free on Kindle for TODAY (Sunday Nov 4, 2018) only! So if you're interested in reading it digitally or sharing it with a friend, now is your chance! You can even read on a computer, so you don't need a special device to do so. Free Digital Kindle Copy of Christians Are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress

Glad I saw this. I downloaded the book and thank you for making it free for today. Do we have a tentative date for the debate to start? I just want to know what kind of timeframe we have to read the book.

[otseng]

[Replying to jgh7]

We can start anytime. Perhaps Nov 12?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to jgh7]

We can start anytime. Perhaps Nov 12?

Sounds good to me. If we're going one chapter at a time, we don't really need to "finish" the book before we start like jgh7 seemed to be thinking. It might help to have a better picture, but it could also hinder if some people don't know what points are made from future statements in the book. Of course, I already know what's in the rest of the book so that will already be hard for me

[tam]

Peace to you DI,

I do not know if the author hears the voice of Christ,

What are you calling "The voice of Christ"?

I meant just what I said.

My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. John 10:27

I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in as well, and they will listen to My voice. John 10:16

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me. Rev 3:20

Are you claiming to actually hear the voice of some entity other than yourself? Or are you just using this as a metaphor for your own conscience?

I am not using this as a metaphor for my own conscience. Our conscience is what convicts or releases us, depending upon whether we have obeyed or disobeyed that voice.

For example, if I were walking past a homeless person and the Spirit reminded me to give to those in need, and I did not listen to Him, then my conscience would be what would 'convict' me (and I would feel shame, especially if harm came to this person that would have not come had I simply obeyed. I would not even be able to claim ignorance even to myself, because I'd been told TO give to that person in need). On the other hand, if I listened, my conscience would be what released me.





Just wanted to clear up that misunderstanding. It is not my understanding that we are debating on this thread (or that this thread is meant to discuss me and my faith).





Peace again to you!