Greg Boyd: Pathology of the "Religious" - Part 2 (Audio Fix!

[gjsterp]

This man has a very good message, but it is not the normal Christian message that most people are getting.

Does he have his own church or following?

Is he ordained?

He seems to me to be a renegade preacher.

If you still haven't read scripture, don't.

[GnosisMan50]

@gjsterp

I don't think he's a renegade. he's trying to dispel the myth among Christians that their love for God. for Jesus depends on our capacity to love him, but we can't reach a higher level of awareness on loving God unless we break free from what he referred to as a "facade". But it's hard for may Christians to see it in themselves much less the harm it creates

[gjsterp]

@GnosisMan50 Loving God or Jesus is like loving Santa Claus. All are myths.

Loving a myth does nothing, except in a person's mind.

Doing the right thing for the wrong reason, does not make it any less right, but what we should do is change our reasons for doing the right thing, that way we never need to question our reasons.

Right now I see a lot of people doing the right things for the wrong reasons. What happens when they find out their reasons for doing the right things has no basis in fact?

[GnosisMan50]

@gjsterp

YES I agree with you gjsterp and Matt Chandler would agree with you as well wholeheartedly. In just 2 min he explains what happens when we interpret myths literally. Type in "Matt Chandler - De-churched" here in YouTube and see him express his disappointment- and even feelings of betrayal for having believed in an INTERPRETATION of the Bible that did not have the transforming power he thought it had. It was a facade as Boyd described it and as Matt said it doesn't transform.

[gjsterp]

@GnosisMan50 I tried to send you a message, but you only rec messages from friends.

If you are interested, send me a friend request, and I will email you the message.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp - but what IS the RIGHT thing? and how do we decide what is "right" and "wrong"?

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont Right and wrong is usually determined by the tribe, culture, etc.

The ancient Egyptians had a moral code long before the Jews.

There were certain things an Egyptian should not do, if he or she wanted to be admitted to eternal life, which they also believed in before the Jews. The Jews did not believe in punishment by a god after death. They believed god was punishing them because they were transgressing. A difference.

Find somewhere the OT Bible addresses Heaven.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp -I agree that this isn't the "normal" message that many, not most are getting. I believe that Boyd is talking about here IS the truth and the way the church (church=people ie: body of believers, NOT an institution or building...) was always supposed to be, the way it was before it became nationalized in about the 4th century. Yes, he has his own church, and I suppose, a "following" - people who like his style and message - about 6,000 at the Woodland Hills church in Minneapolis

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont One can love a philosopher, and his or her philosophy. There have been many one can love. The philosophy of Jesus handed down to us is bastardized. There are some good parts in the Gospels, but it's hard to determine what Jesus might have said and what was added later by others. Keep in mind that the Gospels were not written till AFTER Paul, and Paul never knew Jesus. Jesus had already become a myth to people, and not all made him a God. That came later Council 0f Nicea 325.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp the council of Nicea was NOT about Jesus' divinity... that is the Dan Brown nonsense that most sheeple have bought, hook, line and sinker... I nkkow, 'cause a few years ago, I bought that nonsense. Jesus was recognized as God when he walked on this earth and all of the discples believed that at that time and certainly after his ressurection. and yes, all the Gospels were all written after Paul's writing, but ALL were written, arguably within 20-70 years of Jesus' death -historically -

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

- historically - almost instantly. No other ancient document/documents has so many copies all very consistent, and with much supporting evidnce from other sources - eg Josephus. As more time goes by, I am even more and more convinced that the Gospels are true. And I have read some of Spong's stuff - most real biblical scholars wouldn't agre with him because he's so far off the mark it's not funny.

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont Did Josephus claim Jesus was God? No, he just wrote a line or two about him, because of the rumors going around at the time. He did not know Jesus or if he really existed.

His story is proof of nothing. Hearsay.

Have you read Spong's This Hebrew Lord. He explains the god phenomenon very logically and why god is dead. I think Spong should have been a Buddhist.

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont "The council did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ (as is sometimes claimed) but it did settle to some degree the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ...The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father." wiki.

Your Christ's divinity was NOT settled prior to Nicea.

See also Chap 4 History of God

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp - yes, he is ordained (philos. degree from U of Minnesota, master's from Yale, and Doctorate from Princeton...) and I know he would take the "renegade" label as a huge compliment... he consistently comes against what most people's view of Christianty/Christians are... dull, uneducated, non-thinking, judgemental, right-wing, homophobic a-holes - and if this is your view, sadly, to a large degree, you'd be right... I believe, as many do that Greg describes Christians a we really are to be

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont Religion offers many people, especially those who have had a difficult life, a consolation prize - Heaven. There is also not enough love in the world, and for someone feeling lonely or unloved, thinking God or Jesus loves them is another consolation. There are some positive things to be said in favor of belief, but these only apply to the individual. When you get a group of Fundies together they become dangerous, and that is what Hitchens, and other atheists, rail against.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp you and other people like you who have never felt the love of God actually personally touch your life willnever understand that it's not really about that! Do you just think that we're "white-knuckling it" through all the pain and crap in this world with our eyes on the prize, so that we put on rose-coloured glasses to ignore or deny some of the ugliness and pain in this world? man, if that's all there was I know I wouldn't "sign up"...

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

positive things that only apply to the individual? are you serious? I'm reading the Autobiography of MLK Jr (put together by clayborne Carlson) - his application of the gospel his refusal to hate his oppressor, his decision to love those who bombed his house, beat and killed his supporters, is all based on Jesus' teachings and because of that he had an inner peace and joy IN THE MIDST of the storm - he wasn't looking for himself to go heaven, but was trying to bring a slice of it here!

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont I admire King. One of my heroes, though I his motives rested on misguided beliefs - Christianity.

Non-violence freed India, not by a Christian but by a Hindu - Gandhi.

Who came before; King or Gandhi? Who was King's hero besides Jesus?

Jesus' 'revolt' failed. He caused no immediate change. It was after the myth was blown out of proportion that it appealed to the pagans and some Jews then it became a movement.

Only 4 Gospels is a poor showing for supposedly such a person.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp - Jesus revolt did not fail, it only appeared to by those who were looking for something entirely more shallow and superficial. Before Constantine, Christianity spread throughout the world as a movement that transformed lives, freed slaves, made women absolutely equal, and King would be the FIRST to admit that he accomplished nothing but what God Himself was trying to accomplish, that he was only an instrument.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

and, you're absolutely right. a Hindu, Ghandi (whom King emulated, as you say), freed India - after applying Jesus's teaching of non-violence! Ghandi was quted as saying he liked Christ but didn't like Christians so much, a pretty common secular view, and well-founded - many many people claiming their allegiance to Christ certainly don't reflect His love and non-judgemental love very well.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

there was no "myth" TO be blown out of proportion. IF it was falsifiable, it would have proved itself to be very early on, as there were many opponents to the radical movement of those who decided to follow Christ. Other first century writers write about and elude to the events contained in the gospels and also Paul's many books (MUCH more than "just" 4 gospels) Luke, a really 1st-class historian who through archealogy, and other written accounts

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

has repeatedly silenced critics throughout the centuries denotes the time in which these events occurred and locates them accurately in time and make references to important contemporay people and invites his audience to check out his story - many of whom would love to prove his story false if they could have but couldn't

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

please tell me - if this is a "myth", as you say, WHAT would be the disciples' motive for propagating and continuing this "myth"??

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

C.S. Lewis, who studied myths and ancient documents for much of his academic carreer in his atheism, saw nothing in the gospels that looked like what myths normally look like. Myths generally take hundreds of years to be birthed and grow, the gospels and Paul's writings occur within decades of Jesus' ministry and death - EYEWITNESSES of original events were around when they were written.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

The ancient Jewish culture was as critical-minded and resistant to myths if not more so than our western society is today. some cultures seem to birth and support mythology without too much criticism, and even many in a modern western culture will believe the most errant nonsense; a quick perusal of the tabloids will attest to this... the Jews hated myths and absolutely would NOT embrace a myth about some nonsense of a man being God - which is the main reason why they kept trying to and

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

eventually killed Jesus - that was the worst form of blasphemy the deistic claims Jesus made for himself only angered the religious establishment of His day. - so you don't have enough time for a legentd to be birthed, and you definitely have the wrong culture and there is ample outside writings and supportive documentation that what is siad to have occurred in the gospels actually happened over 30 separate other documents like the writings of Josephus and others

[humanistheart]

@rkbuttonindrydenont "30 separate other documents like the writings of Josephus and others"

Blatantly false.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@humanistheart umm... actually NOT blatantly false. There, I just countered your argument with equally compelling evidence...

[humanistheart]

@rkbuttonindrydenont "was as critical-minded and resistant to myths if not more so than our western society is today."

They Israelite' mythologized their entire past, so how can you say that?

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@humanistheart - who said their past is mythologized? Certainly the people who agree with you, but I don't, not at all, and millions of Jews, Christians, scientists and historians alike wouldn't agree with you either. Something is so, just because you say so... that's pretty narrow-minded, dude. 

[humanistheart]

@rkbuttonindrydenont "who said their past is mythologized? "

How about actual history. We did not start as 2 people, there was no world wide flood, the reason we have multiple languages is natural lingual drift not some stupid tower, the hebrew people were never even in egypt let alone enslaved there, as so on. It's all myth.

"scientists and historians alike wouldn't agree with you either." No, they do agree with me, there's this thing called education, go get one.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@humanistheart - actually time after time archeaology is proving the Bible correct, and some of the world's top geologists believe there was a world-wide flood, and as difficult as it may be for an aducated person to believe some of the stories in the old testament, I do. Because I believe it to be the inspired word of God, and because I can trust and believe those parts for which there is ample proof, I can trust those other areas which may require belief on faith.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

and by the way, I do have an education. I am a graduate of the University of Manitoba - Pharmacy 1999.

[humanistheart]

@rkbuttonindrydenont That's obviously false.

[humanistheart]

@rkbuttonindrydenont Wrong, we know herod committed no mass infanticide, the hebrews were never in egpyt, jericho fell long before the isrealites existed as a people, there was no world wide flood, etc etc.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@humanistheart - I'm sure it sounds like nonsense to you. You have a closed mind and more importantly and sadly a heart that refuses to believe in a loving personal God, and you see the universe in purely humanistic and materialistic terms. You would be at a loss, in those terms to explain love and sentiment as these things cannot be measured or quantified, yet they exist and point the way to a much more important reality in Jesus Christ. I am sorry for you.

[humanistheart]

@rkbuttonindrydenont "You have a closed mind " Basing conclusions based on facts and evidence is the ultimate open mind, it is you that have a closed mind.

"in a loving personal God," Do what I say or suffer is not loving, it's deranged and tyrannical, you sully the word love by using it in such a context.

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont "Felt the love of God"? This is a self induced feeling. And yes I felt it too once, then I realized it for what it was - self induced feelings. No one created the feeling but myself.

Everyone is as happy as they want to be, and ignorance is bliss.

But knowledge is blissful. No god needed.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp - so you say...

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

and I 100% agree, that when you get a bunch of Fundies together that they become dangerous... ever since Constantine (no friend or ally of Christianity, I can assure you...)decided to make the Roman Empire officially "Christian", people have been using tribalism laced with religion, yes the Chiristian religion to perpetrate the most horrible acts of persecution, torture, oppresion and violence this world has ever seen. I hope Hitchens and others continue to rail against that nonsense!

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp - this renegade, leading up to the last US election refused to get caught up in the nonsense of - if-you-want-to-be-a-real-Chris­tian-you-have-to-be-a-conserva­tive/Republican and lost over 1,000 of his congregation for his trouble... and Geo, seriously? if you haven't read scripture, don't?? what, only read & affirm the opinions of those whom you agree with? you mean, don't have an open mind? just buy the same-old crap being pumped out by the culture at large and don't question??

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont I don't recommend reading scripture because it is pointless, although I find the Gospels a beautiful myth, except for the crucifixion. If one reads the Bible critically one will find it is contradictory and comes from a time when people were superstitious and ignorant by our standards.

I recommend reading Armstrong's The History of God, and then read the parts of the Bible that she addresses. The Sins of Scripture by Bishop S. Spong is another good book.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

the gospels are far from myth, but rather the most trustworthy historical account we hvae of the ancient world. No other ancient account has as much evidence for it yet most people treat it as you do; sad, really, that a different set of historical criteria are applied to the gospels... and the crucifixion is the most beatiful part OF the gospels, it's like Leonardo DiCaprio's character in the Titanic who dies for the one the one he loves, sacrifices himself out of love...

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

why do you think scenes like that really tug at our heartstrings? The crucifixion is a scene like Leo's character, only Jesus is doing it out of love for us who didn't even love him back, in fact - we spat on him, denied him, mocked him, (and continue to do so) nailed him to a cross and gave him vinegar to drink... and he said "forgive them father, for they know not what they are doing..." - incredible, really... he loved us and died for us anyway...

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont That is what the crucifixion is suppose to do - pull at ones' heart strings, especially children, which is a good reason not to teach it to then. The people who wrote the story understood psychology very well. Inflicting guilt on the innocent. It is a gem for that reason. i.e. "we spat on him' ??? No one living today was there, so 'we' is a word trick to make you feel guilty - did it work?

Religion taught to children before they are 18 is a form of child abuse.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp - to understand that we, as human beings have ALL committed sin (sin = ANYTHING that falls short of the glory and perfection of God, not just some of the favourites of the "fundies" - ie homosexuality, abortion etc) anyone who has harboured a resentment against anyone else, anyone who has objectified and lust after another, anyone who has been less than honest in any financial deal, when the bar is raised this high, we find we all fall short of the ideal of perfection

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

Jesus raised this bar and showed us that of our own volition and of our own doing, we can never please God, but that He loves us unconditionally in all of our sin, no matter how relatively good or bad we appear to the world - and that ALL sin however minor or major, from stealing a chocolate bar to rape and murder is unacceptable in His sight, but that ALL can and will be forgiven, if we only accept Him. I'm sure you've heard all this before as you're obviously well-read on the subject...

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

the point of all this is to explain the "we spat on Him" - meaning if we've all just gone our own way, said "no thanks" to God as I did for many years, expounded the "truth" of a universe explainable without God, said no to His grace, mercy, love and guidance, in that way we have all metaphorically spat on Him (of course I wasn't there... I was born in the 1960's!) - you call it a "trick" to make one feel guilty - and for sure organized churches have for centuries tried to use guilt to

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

control people's behaviour... but the whole point of the gospel is FREEDOM from guilt and shame!!! It is only a religious "cultural Chiristian" that would try to use guilt or shame to try and control another's behaviour! This is best illustrated in Jesus' encounter with the woman at the well. She recognized Him for who He was and probably felt some guilt and shame over her lifestyle (she'd been quite promiscuous and had lived with 5 different men outside of marriage) but after her

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

encounter she rushed off to town to tell everyone of the One "who knew everything about her" - if she felt guilt and shame why would she do this?- especially in a paternalistic almost misogynist, male-dominated society as 1st century Palestine? - because she realized that God knew EVERYTHING about her, everything about her past and present, all of her behaviour and thoughts, yet the offer of love, acceptance, forgiveness and ultimately eternal life STILL STOOD.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

so, in light of this kind of absolute and unconditional love and forgiveness, I fail to see how this is a form of "child abuse"... please explain...

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont Gospels trustworthy? I'm sorry, but that made me laugh. Only a very credulous person would believe this. Many of the people who have spent their lives studying them would not agree, unless they are still on the dole.

There are those who would not want to admit that they spent their entire lives spreading a falsehood and myth. It would be very hard to admit to oneself and others, so there are some who would agree with you.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp - so who are these many people? and what is THEIR motive for not agreeing? So everyone who believes the Gospel accounts are true is on the dole? seriously? now THAT sounds like the very condescension you were accuing me of! So pride is the only reason why someone intelligent would maintain their stance? wow, that is really grasping. I may not agree with your view but I respect that you honestly believe the view you are promoting

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

you know, C.S. Lewis is considered by many to be one of the greatest intellects of the 20th century. He actually STUDIED history, literature, ancient literature, and mythology, and knew, probablybetter than anyone on the planet what myths are, how they are contrived, born and propagated. and, after being an atheist for the 1st 33 years of his life, and studying constantly, came to the conclusion that the one thing the gospels are not, is myth. if your intellect exceeds Lewis', congratulations

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont He may have been a great intellect, but I read his Mere Christianity, and his logic is non-existent.

Intellect does not guarantee reasonableness. Lewis thought with his heart, which is reflected in his stories.

He was looking for transcendence (a feeling) like so many others. He thought he found it in Christianity.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp - I find it interesting that many atheists consider that only those with faith "think with their hearts" while those "purists" or apparently scientifically-minded use facts only and don't let their emotions, their upbringing, cultural norms, and experiences shape their current belief system. This view is unbelievably arrogant, myopic, and subjective. The fact is, we ALL think with our hearts and minds...

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont Please read Isaiah 7, and tell me in what context the (14) child 'born of a virgin' is placed.

When was the child to be born? In Ahaz' time, not in some distant future. The writer of the NT took this passage out of context to fit his needs for a 'prophesy'. But it does not work.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp I suppose you can try to apply a 20th or 21st century view on the contest of this passage and many others to support your view (or Spong's, whatever the case may be) but where in this passgage is there any temporal reference? Pretty weak argument especially in light of the many prophecies like Isaiah 53 which (if you have an open mind and heart), is clearly talking about Jesus, hundreds of years before He was born.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp - I will check out Armstong's book... but I don't think I'll read Spong's... I've read some of his nonsense, his arguments are incredibly weak...

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont Read Spong's This Hebrew Lord. It's short, but contains a lot of ideas.

Armstrong's The Great Transformation is another very good read.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp - wow! All good arguments. I guess you were right, and I was wrong, I don't know why I even botherd to try to have this conversation. So, good for you, you win, take a bow.

cheers, Rob

[gjsterp]

@rkbuttonindrydenont Rob, that sounds rather insincere and condescending.

I have no delusions about convincing anyone, one way or the other, here on YT.

There are too many really good books and vids that should be able to do that.

My hope is that people will begin to look critically at their religious beliefs as I did.

Enough said.

[rkbuttonindrydenont]

@gjsterp sorry, you're right, that is condescending. but I disagree with your premise that you're not trying to convince anyone, if you really believed that your channel and your posts would not reflect your obvious atheist doctrine. You believe that you are right, and you want to share your enlightened views with those of still live in the "dark ages" or at least, to help prevent those who are considering a move toward faith to consider only what they can see, feel and touch...

[brainouty]

Spot on. Fav'd and 5/5'd, just as Part 1. That's why Bible is so adamant about showing the flaws of its heroes. For they REALLY LOVED God. God then did what HE did to help them have the outers, to go with the inners. INNER is what matters, that's what Bible keeps on stressing.

[brainouty]

Another layer of application: children are fundamentally sociopathic. That's the old sin nature. So they ape behavior and consider themselves grown-up. As they age, they LEARN love, learn empathy, going from the me thing, to the He thing.

So an adult sociopath is really someone who never grew up.

[jesseakers]

@brainouty YAY- am so glad that you liked-- will be emailing you soon...

[thefly191]

I love how Boyd, a Christian theologian/pastor, does a better job dismantling the religious mindset than most of the so-called New Atheists.

[Bunnydancer777]

Awesome message..thanks for putting these up.

When i was a little girl i used to think that all the love songs (this was before they got so explicit) were about me and God. It took years of religion to terrify me of God and when i had genuine conversion experience and deliverance, had nowhere to really turn to find out what was going on except the churches that were religious.

Dr. Boyd has so much insight, it totally bowls me over.

I have many of his books.

Thanks again!

[seekHim1]

Good stuff deepcoffee...I sent you a personal message, don't know if you got it or not. I promise - we're not psycho or stalkers. :)