Today is Ascension Thursday.

[hrmjustin]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_the_Ascension


http://m.

#

[JNelson6563]

1. A truly magical event!

Jesus ascended into the sky, body and all! Magic!

Julie--who marvels that she used to believe such things

[hrmjustin]

2. I imagine it was a magical event.

[JNelson6563]

3. It's as if "miracle" is a word

from an ancient language that tranlates into "magic" in modern English.

I know believers take offense at "magical thinking" but really, think about it, a body just rising into the sky...

We've been in space, much less in the sky, to date no location has been sighted where a body could be headed for. Ascension Thursday is the most magical thinking laden event on the church calendar. I'm rather hard pressed to believe anyone buys it. I'm more inclined to believe that a.) it was a good story to put out in order to let a body lie in peace, inviolate or b.) one way to explain why there's no body for someone you claim existed but really didn't

It's a good story that was created for good reason. I don't think we'll ever know for sure what that reason was.

Julie

[hrmjustin]

4. You should not presume no one buys it.

We know our faith is not scientific.

[JNelson6563]

5. I said "anyone", not "no one".

Not to split hairs or anything.

Peace,
Julie

[hrmjustin]

6. Point taken.

Peace.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Hey, the GOES-15 satellite stopped working about a year ago.

Who knows, maybe it hit the guy.

[cbayer]

8. I know this is an important day for you, justin,

and it is sad that others feel the need to mock you when you put up something like this. It says much more about them than it will ever say about you.

I hope you have a wonderful day.

[hrmjustin]

9. Thanks cbayer.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Why do you insist on personifying this as an attack on hrmjustin?

Is it not possible to point out an idea is incongruous/illogical/nonsense, without directly 'mocking' the person holding it?

Why do you have to make this a 'personal attack'? Neither myself, nor JNelson6563 directly mocked hrmjustin as a person.

[cbayer]

13. Sure you did. He put up an innocuous post marking a day that is important to him

and you took the opportunity to make fun of it.

It is indeed possible to point out an idea as all of those things without directly mocking it.

But that's not what you did.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. The day represents an alleged actual event.

The event does not seem likely.

It is not a personal attack upon him to suggest the IDEA is not credible. No matter how convenient it would be for you to get away with painting it in that light.

[cbayer]

19. If you don't consider it mocking, so be it.

I do.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I mocked an idea.

I don't deny that.

You construed that as directly mocking the person holding the idea. This is an idea held by a vast swath of society, an idea that did not originate with hrmjustin.

By what logic do you assume I mock him, personally?

[madamesilverspurs]

32. Just curious about something:

Do you go to your local church or synagogue or mosque on their holy days and interrupt their observances to engage them in "debate" about the validity of their beliefs?

Likewise, do you go to Pizza Hut and berate them for not being Red Lobster?

Have you ever considered practicing your own non-belief system without requiring that you go out of your way to insinuate your unbelief onto everyone else?

[AtheistCrusader]

33. No, but this is not a church nor a synagouge nor a mosque.

This is a public debate/discussion forum.


The pizza hut comparison does not compute. However, if a vegan engaged me in conversation about the merits of me stuffing my face with dead cow, I would engage that person in reasonable, meaningful discussion.

I have not 'insinuated' my unbelief onto anyone. Questioning a particular claim of a particular faith doesn't do that. So. whatever.

[Goblinmonger]

38. The more apt analogy would be

if you are sitting in a park talking to people, and someone comes up and says "I love eating oysters" would it be rude to say "I don't."

This is an open forum, not a place of worship.

[trotsky]

45. Just curious here -

under what circumstances are you willing to tolerate a non-believer expressing their opinion about a religious belief?

Are there any?

[madamesilverspurs]

46. Interesting.

Shouldn't tolerance go both ways?

Maybe it's more a matter of comfort. It's one thing if I ask a question for anyone who cares to answer. It's another matter entirely if I come across one person wishing another "Merry Christmas" (or any other greeting) and I jump in to tell them why their beliefs should be questioned. Sharing a sentiment publicly with like-minded believers should not be construed as invitation for dispute.

For what it's worth, my annual Christmas party has always been attended by a variety; my late Buddhist friend never once challenged my beliefs, my Jewish friends have always brought much fun to the party, my atheist/agnostic friends enjoy themselves immensely. In 25 years, no one has ever used the occasion to question anyone else's beliefs, obliquely or otherwise. That sets the bar rather high for me.

[Goblinmonger]

47. Do you think that any atheist here

if they were your friend and were invited to your Christmas party would come in questioning your beliefs? I can be pretty cool at a party.

But this isn't me going to the party of a Christian friend. This is a Christian stating a belief in an open forum.

[trotsky]

48. Do you think this open discussion forum is analogous to your Christmas party? n/t

Keep in mind there are subgroups on DU where disbelief is not allowed. This group, however, is not one of them. ALL viewpoints are allowed.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. No.

You know why? When we pass legislation like the ACA, making, for instance, certain forms of birth control covered and widely available, we're not forcing anyone to use it.

When certain religious parties get in a huff and sue to block it, they are making a material move to DENY that availability to people who aren't even members of that faith.

These are not equal, nor tolerable positions.

If they kept their faith to themselves, at least, limiting the doctrine of their faith to their own members that electively chose of their own free will to JOIN that faith, then yes, tolerance goes both ways.

But that's not what is happening right now.

[Leontius]

57. There is a world of difference between a goverment mandate and making it widely available

and the force of law is being used to force someone to provide it.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. And yet

we don't see the Jehovah's witnesses suing because they are forced to cover things like blood transfusions.

Noting that they are being 'forced to pay' is not improving your situation any better than the RCC suing for being 'forced to pay' gas taxes for their vehicles that also pay to maintain roads that connect planned parenthood clinics to the rest of the road system.

[Leontius]

59. There are quite a few things the government uses the force of law to require the people

to do and I support their right to petition their government to correct what they feel is wrong. Whether or not it improves my position is irrelevant because that right is I believe a fundamental right of the governed.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. And I am not a libertarian, so that argument does nothing for me.

The ACA is cornerstone legislation for the President's legacy, and an ENORMOUS public health issue.

[Leontius]

62. So the right of the people to petition the government means nothing to you.

Acts of the government are then Divine proclamations that all should bow down to as if received from Heaven. Your opinion of one of the cornerstone of democratic governance is that it's "libertarian".

[AtheistCrusader]

64. You seem to have misunderstood me.

Picking/choosing taxes cafeteria-style by justification of "force of law to require the people" as an offense to the people, etc. I hear this argument several times a day, from that camp. Sorry, I don't give a shit if some people think contraception is a sin. This is a nation-wide public health issue, and the RCC and friends can pound sand. Just like they can pound sand over opposing same sex marriage. Or abandoning adoption programs because they cannot license it with the state while simultaneously discriminating against same-sex couples.

It is not the fact that they have chosen to contest it that bothers me, mechanically, it is the particular public health programs they have selected to attack, that bothers me.

[Leontius]

83. I am glad that you do agree that it is not the right to oppose that you disagree with.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. I will try to be more clear/nuanced in the future.

I feel like I may have wasted your time there, by not being specific.

[Leontius]

88. Not a problem and when all was done clarity was acheived.

But you did have me worried with the libertarian post for a minute.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. I, too, was worried about the 'force of government' bit, thinking 'DOG WHISTLE! DOG WHISTLE!'

but it seems you were concerned about something very specific, and troublesome to both of us.

[Goblinmonger]

21. Nowhere in the OP does he say it is important to him.

Just says that it is today.

[trotsky]

27. Well, here we have the lesson to be learned.

A patronizing tap on the head for a believer is preferable to having an adult discussion about the legitimacy of the beliefs.

[DesertFlower]

78. i agree. nt

[Goblinmonger]

11. So do you see this as a literal event or a metaphor?

[hrmjustin]

12. Literal.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. What is your view on the physical location of heaven to ascend 'to'?

I would expect, but could be wrong, that the point of him allegedly 'ascending' indicates a direction where heaven must be, and without getting into orbital mechanics, etc, it generally suggests 'up', but where?

[hrmjustin]

15. I don't know.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Do you think the location/destination is discoverable by humans?

[hrmjustin]

18. I doubt it.

I don't believe it is in this universe.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. If that's the case (and I tend to agree, if it exists, it would have to be elsewhere)

what is the purpose of 'ascending' 'up'? What does 'up' mean in this case?

Also curious as to your opinion of similar claims by other faiths, such as the ascension of Muhammad, and how or what you would base that decision to accept or reject on, evidence-wise.

[hrmjustin]

23. I think he ascended up to show his followers that he was going.

I don't think that he went into the upper atmosphere and shot into space. I think once he could not be seen by his followers in the air he vanished.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. I agree that is a credible interpretation of the claim.

Still curious what you feel about similar claims of other faiths, such as the ascension of the prophet Muhammad.

Real or no? If no, what evidence suggests to you that 'no' is the correct answer?

[hrmjustin]

25. Make no claims on other faiths.

If they believe he rose then I respect their faith.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Mutually exclusive claims do not trouble you?

Not on any level?

[hrmjustin]

28. Other people's faiths or their claims do not bother me.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Even though they both cannot simultaneously be true? That would immediately cause me to

interrogate my assumptions. (In fact, this imbalance between major faiths has been a reinforcing factor in having remained an atheist my entire life.)

[hrmjustin]

30. All I can say id0s the claims of other faiths do notbother me nor cauee me to question my faith.

[trotsky]

31. But the claims of those with no faith certainly bother you.

As you have made clear on multiple occasions. Why the double standard?

[AtheistCrusader]

34. I don't have 'faith' in anything in a comparable context so maybe this is part of the disconnect

but I would view such competing faith claims as an opportunity to test my beliefs and see if they hold water.

Is that just not a thing one does when holding positive, religious faith? No test required? Or perhaps, to put it another way, no desire to test?

[hrmjustin]

36. I do question my faith but other faiths do not cause me to question my faith.

[Goblinmonger]

40. So if someone holding a faith-based belief that would contradict yours

is not an affront to you, why is it an affront when someone says that your belief is highly unlikely and requires magical thinking which contradicts the laws of our universe? Both are saying your belief is false.

[hrmjustin]

41. I have no issue with someone saying I am wrong.

I do not like mocking and just rude behavior. If someone tells me I believe in fairy tales and I am deluded or mentally ill I am supposed to think that is acceptable?

Sorry but you will get a response.

If a person of another faith got into it with me and claimed I was wrong I would give my opinion back. But thr fact id in real life that other believers don't do that to me nor do they do it on DU. I am more likely to be told I am wrong by another Christian or Atheist.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. When I am laboring under a delusion, I actually appreciate it when people point it out to me.

Some day, given my family history, it may be helpful for people around me to also point out declining mental faculties to me as well.

But that's an outlier here. Delusion != Mental Illness, outside a non-standard not common parlance DSM-V diagnosis.

[hrmjustin]

52. I am glad for you.

Btw I am not delusional. I know your n8t saying I am delusional but I wanted to get that out there..

[AtheistCrusader]

54. And I believe you, and would not imply such.

[hrmjustin]

55. Thank you.

[okasha]

35. The belief in Jesus's ascenscion

and Muhammad's ascent to Paradise are not mutually exclusive.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Actually they are.

Jesus's ascension is part and parcel of the resurrection narrative, and his divinity. Muhammad is just a prophet.

The son of god/resurrection/ascension story is mutually exclusive to the claims of Islam.


(by itself, ascension as a means of locomotion are not mutually exclusive between the faiths, sure.)

[okasha]

39. Wrong.

But you're welcome to try to sell that viewpoint to a few hundred million Muslims.

[trotsky]

43. Would you care to explain the reasoning?

Or is your statement of "Wrong" to be taken as a declaration of proof?

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Oh, I guess that poster was referring to the idea that muslims claim god raised jesus to heaven.

Super descriptive and helpful reply though.

[cleanhippie]

60. Here, borrow this.

Justin gets kudos for being up-front and honest about his beliefs. I respect that. It's more than we can expect from most other believers here.

Getting anything resembling a more coherent answer than 'because I believe it' response to seemingly reasonable questions such as you have asked will never get anything more than what he has offered, and is all any believer will offer.

Using this instead is much easier on the ol' cabeza, for sure.

[okasha]

63. Gee, AC, I'm so very sorry

that I can't devote 24 hours a day to you and your posts. Unfortunately, you're just going to have to live with that.

If by Muhammad's "ascension" you mean the Night Journey from the Temple Mount to Paradise, then there is no mutual exclusivity here. Muslims believe Jesus was raised to Paradise by God without first experiencing death, a mark of favor that he did not extend even to Muhammad.Many contemporary Muslims also believe that Maryam (Mary) was also taken bodily into Paradise, a view which is shared by Catholic Christians.

Nor is Jesus the only Biblical figure to ascend to heaven. Elijah is taken up in a "fiery chariot," and in some interpretations Enoch also goes to heaven in his living form. Two pieces of advice flow from this:
1. Do not attribute fundamentalist bekiefs to all Christians; and
2. Realize that your opinion and reality are not necessarily the same thing.


In the New Testament, Paul says that he was
"caught up to the third heaven" and is unsure whether it was a bodily or a strictly spiritual experience. This may be more closely comparable to the Night Journey.

So--Muslims certainly do not regard Muhammad's Night Journey and Jesus's ascension as "mutually exclusive. " Nor do liberal Christians who do not believe that their religion is the One True Faith.

And by the way, Jesus is more than "just" a prophet in Islam. He is one of only three Messengers sent by Allah to reveal Islam with increasing clarity to the world.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Show me

Muslims that accept that Jesus was the son of god/god that died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven either under his own power, or as a duality god-man.

Show me Christians that accept the claims of Mohammad's ascension to heaven (night journey).



I don't know any of either. Do you? Ascension is the bookend or fulfillment of Incarnation. It's not really a separate thing.

[okasha]

69. But that's.an entirely different issue.

If you want to raise it, fine.

But don't move the goalposts.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. I don't feel I moved them.

I feel I clarified.

How can a Christian accept the claims of the 'night journey, without the rest of the baggage that Mohammed brings to the table?

And the reverse is true. How can muslims accept jesus as the incarnation of god, dead, resurrected, ascended, without also accepting the full baggage of Christianity?


That's what I meant by mutually exclusive. I feel I was not descriptive enough when this conversation forked off the main thread. (My fault)

[okasha]

73. Ok, thanks for clarifying.

I will come back to this sometime this weekend. Tomorrow's going to be hectic, so may not get to you before Saturday or Sunday.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. No worries, take your time.

I look forward to further discussion, and apologize for being short with you earlier.

[okasha]

100. You are correct, of course,

that Muslims do not believe in either the divinity of Jesus, nor in his death and resurrection. They do, however, believe in his ascension to heaven. Along with many Jews and Christians, they also believe that Elijah was taken up to heaven in a chariot, and many Muslims and Catholic Christians believe that Jesus's mother Maryam was also raised bodily into Paradise without experiencing death. The belief in ascension, therefore, is entirely separable from belief in the ascended's divinity or resurrection.

You argue that the ascension is theologically necessary to the narrative of Jesus' s life and death. If you read Paul and the gospels, however, you will find that it is the resurrection and the post-resurrection appearences to his disciples that carry the weight of soteriology. I don't mean to be flippant, but the chief function of the ascension is narrative, not theological. The evangelist needed some way to get his Saviour off-stage after his appearances to the disciples, preferably something.dramatic and symbolically linked to the OT prophetic literature. Hence the ascension, prefigured by Elijah's fiery chariot. (See Father Bruce Chilton's Rabbi Jesus for a discussion of Jesus and chariot mysticism.)

I'm not sure why you seem to think that belief in Christianity precludes acceptance of the inarguable fact that non-Christians can and do have mystical experiences. I think you will find, if you do a bit of research, that liberal Christians in general consider other spiritual paths entirely valid. For an example, I offer an Episcopal priest I know whose spiritual advisor is Hindu.

[trotsky]

82. No goalposts were moved, okasha.

The post you originally called "Wrong" contained this:

Jesus's ascension is part and parcel of the resurrection narrative, and his divinity. Muhammad is just a prophet.

The son of god/resurrection/ascension story is mutually exclusive to the claims of Islam.

Don't claim someone is moving the goalposts simply because you can't back up your claims.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. They are not equal beliefs.

One believes Jesus was a prophet and ascended 'normally' to heaven as a mere prophet not having risen from the dead.

The other believes the ascension is the fulfillment of the Incarnation. And they don't accept that Muhammad ascended. For many Christians the culmination of the triune god thing.



They are not equal claims. Religious wars have broken out over differences far more minor than these. There are some subtler differences, such as islam holds jesus was 'raised up' by god, and the bible indicates he ascended, apparently the implication is under his own power. Some other things, like Muhammad doesn't stay, he just talks to old prophets, and then zips back to medina where he lives many more years. Etc.

[rug]

42. Good post, Justin. It's an important day.

It's interesting to observe its effect on posters.

[hrmjustin]

44. lmfao!

[goldent]

76. The thing I most enjoy about this group

is the great concern for our beliefs shown by the posters above. Who would have known that Christian and Islamic beliefs are different?

[PumpkinAle]

56. Not sure who is singing, but it sweet.

And apparently at first there were no Allelujahs - they were added, I think it makes the song

[kwassa]

66. hrmjustin, I am amazed that you have ...

the patience, the good will, the forbearance, the centered-ness ....

to put up with all the bullshit posting your belief in this forum entails.

I hope you have a wonderful day.

[hrmjustin]

67. Lol thank you kwassa!

It takes a stomach.

[cbayer]

70. It takes a man. A grown up man.

[kwassa]

75. A mensch. And all that entails.

I admire both hrmjustin and you for patience I will never find in this lifetime, in dealing with some of the voices in this forum.

[trotsky]

80. Well that's fucking sexist.

WTF??

[rug]

91. Faux outrage, on cue. You need an "aghast" smiley.

Here's one.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. John Kerry? Is that you?

[cbayer]

92. Lol. Point taken.

I often object to the "man up" phrase, but have been known to use it.

I'm a feminist and I am sure you know that, but I can see how this might be misinterpreted as sexist.

I was directing it at someone I know to be a man, a grown up man, but it was a matter of speech and probably poorly said.

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Yeah, I think

it's a deplorable term, for obvious reasons, but I'm not going to make a federal case out of it.

Go forth and sin no more, lol

[cbayer]

94. I thank you for your understanding and forgiveness.

The one that really gets to me is "Grow a pair", lol.

[Leontius]

95. We use "man up" all the time on the court, it's not sexist it just means

we're switching to a man to man D from that weak girly zone D.

[cbayer]

96. Er, "weak girly zone" sounds pretty sexist to me.

[Leontius]

97. Really, well I never would have thought

Have a great weekend.

[cbayer]

98. I'm guessing that you are pulling my leg here,

but I'm not really sure.

I hope you have a great weekend, too.

[Leontius]

99. Yeah I am about the weak girly part.

But man up really does mean switch from zone to man to man defense in this part of the country at least.

[Goblinmonger]

86. Women are clearly too frail

to put up with the atheist nonsense here.

But what about the female atheists that spout nonsense? Where do they get the fortitude to spout it? Or maybe it's easy for a woman to act all crazy just not easy for a woman to put up with the crazy?

I guess I'm confused about all this. I'm getting a different message from #yesallwomen than I am from you on a progressive site.

[cleanhippie]

87. I wonder if HoF would feel the same way. That's pretty sexist of you, cbayer.

And you should be ashamed.

[Starboard Tack]

77. You rock Justin!

And you roll beautifully with the punches.
Respect.

[hrmjustin]

90. Thanks.

[okasha]

72. +10

[Goblinmonger]

79. But my thoughts

that current religion is no different than any other form of previous mythology is something you feel free to just say I should stop.

Why is that?

Don't worry, I know the answer. It rhymes with smivilege.

[trotsky]

81. Correct. n/t