The Gospel of Jesus vs The Gospel of Paul

Originally posted by @romans1009
Yawn.

And what about the substance of my post? It was a head-on reply to your question "Have you personally met, spoken with and examined the heart of every Muslim on the planet?" You have sidestepped my answer.

Originally posted by @fmf
This sounds very weak and partisan to somebody who does not have the same superstitious beliefs as you, I assume you are aware of this.

Yes, but I think this is persuasive beacuse, if philosophy has taught us anything, it is its own inability to clearly articulate an agreeable, universal set of values.

The various logics and rationales employed come to different conclusions because we always begin with different value judgments.

So, in a sense, we really cannot know the good without God.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Then what is your notion of a soul or spirit? Or is this yet another question you will refuse to answer?

Then what is your notion of a soul or spirit?

I think as humans ~ whether we be theists or atheists ~ we are endowed with a capacity for projecting ourselves in abstract ways and also we are affected and influenced and shaped by the abstract projections of other people.

Added to this, we clearly have individual spirits ~ perhaps the same thing that most religionists refer to as a "soul" - although they would almost certainly define it [and explain it!] differently from non-religionists and atheists ~ which comprise personality, uniqueness, relationships, and other abstract aspects all bound together in the singular personal narrative that each of us accumulates as we live our lives.

This is the nature of the human spirit and is therefore ~ to my way of thinking ~ the domain of the “spirit” and "spirituality" [i.e. concerned with or affecting or being affected by the human “spirit” or "soul"]. I think it is clear that both theists and atheists exist and live out their lives in this domain.

For Christians, their human spirit ~ and all the metaphysical facilities and capacities attendant thereto (which I observe non-believers to also possess) ~ has taken them into the philosophical realm of religious belief. I see this as an inevitable and very common upshot of the human condition.

For Christians (and other theists), "spirituality" is intricately bound to a supernatural being with whom they perceive themselves to be in a relationship of some kind, which may be as simple as one between the creator and the created, with no further details, or as convoluted and contrived as the Abrahamic religions.

For an atheist, the same ability and inclination ~ their spirit in action ~ to contemplate themselves [and what it is that they seem to be part of here in this world as they live their lives] has not resulted in them perceiving themselves to be in a relationship with a supernatural being, but it is the spiritual nature of both theists and atheists have in common that has led to these two different outcomes.

I think this 12 minute answer addresses your question 'What is your notion of a soul or spirit?'

Originally posted by @eladar
So you believe that Jesus' death on the cross served no purpose.

Look at Luke 4 to see what Jesus declares is the purpose for which He was anointed, i.e., the purpose for which He was the Christ.

17And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written,

18“THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME,
BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR.
HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES,
AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND,
TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED,

19TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.”

It basically boils down to 3 things:
1) To preach His gospel
2) To give sight to the blind - He provides understanding of the will of God via the words in His gospel.
3) To free the captives - which He later explains are those who abide in his word and are freed from committing sin (John 8)

That's it. No mention of a "redemptive work on the cross for salvation", an "atoning sacrifice" or anything like it. It wasn't a part of the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Yes, but I think this is persuasive beacuse, if philosophy has taught us anything, it is its own inability to clearly articulate an agreeable, universal set of values.

One possible answer to this would most likely have you reaching repeatedly for your No True Scotsman fallacy, but I am not interested in going there.

Another answer is that the key reason for the popularity of Christianity and Islam is that they simply plug into what some would say is "an agreeable, universal set of values" that are the product of human nature.

Originally posted by @fmf
A response to the substance of my post would be more interesting than this kind of stuff.

This what it was:

Not every Muslim on the planet, no. But I've known plenty enough Christians and Muslims on various parts of the planet to be able to say that your assertion about religious people ~ [b]"As humans, we are quick to take credit when something good hap ...[text shortened]... it. I would not need to have spoken with every Muslim on the planet to be able to agree with it.

It is an interesting tactic, certainly, to discuss the prayers of Muslims versus the prayers of Christians, with the assumption that God does not answer prayers of one group but would do so for the other group, and so one group is simply lying or mass hallucinating when speaking of the veracity of their tprayers coming true.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with another Christian at lunch, who is a conservative Protestant and a Korean...

We mused about, say, a young girl in the 16th century who would be a typical Korean, believing only in the shaman gods with perhaps a vague idea of the Buddha. What if she prayed and wished very fervently, and concentrated her powers reaching out, despearately, for a miracle for her sick father or mother...?

The conclusion was that such people can have their prayers answered by God, because all who legitimately seek the Spirit and wish for the good in a selfless way, surely, are doing no bad, but doing a very good and beautiful thing.

Just as how they would not be denied salvation due to ignorance, why would they be denied a fervent wish and prayer in a time of need, if their heart does appeal and receive some element of grace? That would not be in line with an omnibenevolent God.

Remember the Centurion who had his servant healed through Faith and merely speaking a bit with Christ? He was never even baptized nor was he a Jew, but his prayer was essentially answered.

Like so.

What do you think about that?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
It is an interesting tactic, certainly, to discuss the prayers of Muslims versus the prayers of Christians, with the assumption that God does not answer prayers of one group but would do so for the other group, and so one group is simply lying or mass hallucinating when speaking of the veracity of their tprayers coming true.

If you feel someone is using such a "tactic", you should confront them.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
It reminds me of a conversation I had with another Christian at lunch, who is a conservative Protestant and a Korean...

Are you addressing me? If so, what does "it" at the beginning of the above sentence refer to?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
What do you think about that?

Which bit? I can't tell which bits are a genuine response to what I said or which bits are supposed to be addressing me and which bits are about you talking to someone with more or less the same religion as you. What specifically is it you want me - an atheist - to tell you what I think about?

The new covenant prophesied to come by Jeremiah consisted of four parts. One of those parts was that God would no longer remember their sins by any means. That is justification. That is redemption.

That that is not the ONLY section of the new covenant predicted by Jeremiah is evident. And no section should be neglected.

Here we see the four sections:

"Indeed the days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make A NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them out from the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was their Husband, declares Jehovah.

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares Jehovah:

[1.)] I will put My law within them and write it upon their hearts;
[2.)] and I will be their God, and they will be My people.

[3.)] And they will no longer teach, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for all of them will know Me, from the little one to the great among them, declares Jehovah,

[4.)] for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34 , my editing)

Please notice that [4.)] concerns forgiveness of sins.
Please notice that Jesus specified THIS particular aspect of the NEW COVENANT when He spoke of the pouring out of His blood to accomplish redemption:

"And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is THE NEW COVENANT established in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luke 22:20)

Is there neglect to the other three aspects of the new covenant? Yes, often. Of course both Christ and His apostle Paul stressed the OTHER aspects as well.

Originally posted by @fmf
One possible answer to this would most likely have you reaching repeatedly for your No True Scotsman fallacy, but I am not interested in going there.

Another answer is that the key reason for the popularity of Christianity and Islam is that they simply plug into what some would say is "an agreeable, universal set of values" that are the product of human nature.

Human nature is way too complex, with way too many variables and way too much ability to adapt to divers situations, to produce something that we could say is truly universal minus the desire to avoid pain, but that is hardly a measure of anything.

We can even think of weird exceptions to that.

Our postmodern times even show us this more clearly than anything before now could have -- with the era of men becoming women, and vice versa, on a scale probably unheard of prior to now. Not even biological realities are immutable.

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]Then what is your notion of a soul or spirit?

I think as humans ~ whether we be theists or atheists ~ we are endowed with a capacity for projecting ourselves in abstract ways and also we are affected and influenced and shaped by the abstract projections of other people.

Added to this, we clearly have individual spirits ~ perhaps the same thing tha ...[text shortened]... I think this 12 minute answer addresses your question 'What is your notion of a soul or spirit?'[/b]

Why would you use a word like spirit, though?

In a materialist world... wouldn't this just simply amount to some more neutral word like a personality or an identity?

And for the bulk of people, who have IQs below 110, there'd be very little variation that couldn't be purely attributable to the cultural and temporal factors. There'd some that'd only be able to be ascribed to quirks due to experiences. There'd be very few things about the personalities of 100 given people of IQ 95 that could be thought of as very unique, interesting variants based off of innate personality...

You could say that virtual templates and profiles that are nearly interchangeable exists.

Why would you believe that very regular people, of very regular means, who fit very regular patterns of behavior for their culture & time, have some kind of 'individual spirit?'

That's certainly a bit romantic, a bit too much of a wishful reading into the hard, material reality, don't you think?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Human nature is way too complex, with way too many variables and way too much ability to adapt to divers situations, to produce something that we could say is truly universal minus the desire to avoid pain, but that is hardly a measure of anything.

I disagree. I think, when all is said and done, based on a lifetime spent living in various parts of the world, engaged in a range of endeavours, and interacting with people with different and ostensibly complex belief systems, human nature is a remarkably homogenous thing.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Why would you use a word like spirit, though?

Could you not glean it from the piece of writing you are responding to?

I contend that our human spirit is the only "spirit" we have. What I reject, I suppose, is what is manifested by religionists when they pick up the "human spirit” ball and run with it in the direction of conjecture and hope regarding the supernatural.

Surrendering the words “spirit” and "spirituality" to those who end up believing in supernatural beings just seeks to lend credence to their imaginings, explanations, and their solutions to their hopes and fears because they can turn around to those humans who do not settle for these kinds of theist/religionist packages and say they are not qualified to discuss it because they don't have spirituality and don’t understand what spirits/souls are.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Why would you believe that very regular people, of very regular means, who fit very regular patterns of behavior for their culture & time, have some kind of 'individual spirit?'

Are you being serious?