What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Religious Affiliation, If Any - A Poll (2 Viewers)

Which One Closest Describes You

  • Atheist

  • Agnostic

  • Buddhist

  • Christian

  • Hindu

  • Jewish

  • Muslim

  • Unaffiliated / Don't Know / Don't care

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.
Just chiming in with my requisite need to say atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I'm an agnostic atheist which means I don't have a god, nor do I believe it's knowable if there is one.

ETA - I find most people who label themselves agnostics are really agnostic atheists. They either don't know it or don't like the perception.
Yeah, agnosticism is sometimes used as a cop-out to avoid the stigma of being atheist imo. And technically, we can never really “know” there isn’t a higher power.

correct, we can't really know. Which begs the question...how can anybody really claim to be an atheist?
It’s quite e easy actually.
“Do you believe in any gods?”
“No”
“Congrats. You’re an atheist.
Not at all. As has been pointed out above, to deny something in that way gives it an existance. I'm what one of my college friends called an apathist. It just doesn't matter at all.

I'm more interested in philosophy. Comparative religions interest me for that reason.
It’s literally the definition of the word
Not really. I neither believe nor disbelieve. Your definition is limited in that way.
It’s like you are without theism.
 
  • Laughing
Reactions: Zow
Just chiming in with my requisite need to say atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I'm an agnostic atheist which means I don't have a god, nor do I believe it's knowable if there is one.

ETA - I find most people who label themselves agnostics are really agnostic atheists. They either don't know it or don't like the perception.
Yeah, agnosticism is sometimes used as a cop-out to avoid the stigma of being atheist imo. And technically, we can never really “know” there isn’t a higher power.

correct, we can't really know. Which begs the question...how can anybody really claim to be an atheist?
It’s quite e easy actually.
“Do you believe in any gods?”
“No”
“Congrats. You’re an atheist.
Not at all. As has been pointed out above, to deny something in that way gives it an existance. I'm what one of my college friends called an apathist. It just doesn't matter at all.

I'm more interested in philosophy. Comparative religions interest me for that reason.
It’s literally the definition of the word
Not really. I neither believe nor disbelieve. Your definition is limited in that way.
It’s like you are without theism.
I dine at the Big Bang Burger Bar.
 
Just chiming in with my requisite need to say atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I'm an agnostic atheist which means I don't have a god, nor do I believe it's knowable if there is one.

ETA - I find most people who label themselves agnostics are really agnostic atheists. They either don't know it or don't like the perception.
Yeah, agnosticism is sometimes used as a cop-out to avoid the stigma of being atheist imo. And technically, we can never really “know” there isn’t a higher power.

correct, we can't really know. Which begs the question...how can anybody really claim to be an atheist?
It’s quite e easy actually.
“Do you believe in any gods?”
“No”
“Congrats. You’re an atheist.
Not at all. As has been pointed out above, to deny something in that way gives it an existance. I'm what one of my college friends called an apathist. It just doesn't matter at all.

I'm more interested in philosophy. Comparative religions interest me for that reason.
It’s literally the definition of the word
Not really. I neither believe nor disbelieve. Your definition is limited in that way.
What is a theist?
An atheist with a space?
 
I'm on team Zow here...Mormonism not too different than Christianity....basically just an added chapter and prophet...they still have the old testament and new testament in their "Book of Mormon"

That's not accurate. The Mormon Bible has far more variances and additions than that. They also don't adhere to the Nicene's Creed - father and son being one. I like the description I've read that Mormonism is essentially Christian Fan Fiction.

But for this thread, call it Christianity. That makes sense foe building a Pie Chart of FBG belief or not.
Incorrect. . The Book of Morman (and The Docterine and Covenants) are in addition to the King James Bible. They don't change any of the Bible. Its a set of 3 books including the King James Bible. Their book of Mormon happens primarily before Christ adding new prophets in the Americas. Pretty smart when you think about it back then although now it's geologically and genetically proven to me 100% made up.

It still all revolves around christ, his crucifixion and most importantly his resurrection. Definitely Christian.
 
Tim Mackie is a guy I like. He co-founded and runs the Bible Project in Portland. He's a bible scholar and self described "bible nerd".

I thought this was good as it's a little different view of what Christianity is about.

 
I thought this was good as it's a little different view of what Christianity is about.

I watched it, Joe. Is he a deconstructionist or a close reader? I’m wondering if he’s described himself in any of those terms.
What do you mean by "closer reader"?

I've never heard him use the term deconstructionist, but I doubt he'd deny that he has deconstructed some previously beliefs. I mean, that video alone is a deconstruction of sorts for quite a few people. I believe his story is one where he didn't grow up in church, so I'm not sure how much he would have deconstructed. He started attending a skateboarding ministry, where some people allowed teens to use a skate park but they had to sit through a Bible study. He became a Christian through that and then went on seminary at University of Wisconsin. I think he learned under, among others, Dr. Michael Heiser who recently passed away.
 
I thought this was good as it's a little different view of what Christianity is about.

I watched it, Joe. Is he a deconstructionist or a close reader? I’m wondering if he’s described himself in any of those terms.

I'm not sure. As @dgreen said, he challenges some popular assumptions. Not sure where that fits with labels though.

Did you have something in particular in mind there? How did the video land with you?
 
I'm 99.99999....9999% sure there's no god, gods, supernatural beings, souls, afterlife, etc. I think that puts me closest to Atheist of anything, so that's how I respond to questions like these.
 
I thought this was good as it's a little different view of what Christianity is about.

I watched it, Joe. Is he a deconstructionist or a close reader? I’m wondering if he’s described himself in any of those terms.

I'm not sure. As @dgreen said, he challenges some popular assumptions. Not sure where that fits with labels though.

Did you have something in particular in mind there? How did the video land with you?

The video was interesting and reframed how I would have understood Christianity. The first path he diagrammed on the board was exactly the linear path I would have believed to be the way to live. So I ask about deconstruction because when that happens, I begin to get my antennae up about what exactly the speaker is doing. When a speaker comes in and totally subverts a model I’ve been taught and followed through his “close reading” of a text, I immediately think of deconstructionism, the concept put forth by Jacques Derrida around about 1967.

Deconstructionism can be of the text or faith.

Deconstruction is difficult to define. I’m not trying to be cute about it. Its very essence seems undefinable. Here is what Cambridge Dictionary says, which is about the best I can do:

Cambridge Dictionary states that deconstruction is "the act of breaking something down into its separate parts in order to understand its meaning, especially when this is different from how it was previously understood.” - That’s per Wikipedia’s section on Deconstructionism, found here:


Here is what a deconstruction of faith often includes—an examination of faith through a close attention to the component parts of one’s overall belief

 
I thought this was good as it's a little different view of what Christianity is about.

I watched it, Joe. Is he a deconstructionist or a close reader? I’m wondering if he’s described himself in any of those terms.

I'm not sure. As @dgreen said, he challenges some popular assumptions. Not sure where that fits with labels though.

Did you have something in particular in mind there? How did the video land with you?

The video was interesting and reframed how I would have understood Christianity. The first path he diagrammed on the board was exactly the linear path I would have believed to be the way to live. So I ask about deconstruction because when that happens, I begin to get my antennae up about what exactly the speaker is doing. When a speaker comes in and totally subverts a model I’ve been taught and followed through his “close reading” of a text, I immediately think of deconstructionism, the concept put forth by Jacques Derrida around about 1967.

Deconstructionism can be of the text or faith.

Deconstruction is difficult to define. I’m not trying to be cute about it. Its very essence seems undefinable. Here is what Cambridge Dictionary says, which is about the best I can do:

Cambridge Dictionary states that deconstruction is "the act of breaking something down into its separate parts in order to understand its meaning, especially when this is different from how it was previously understood.” - That’s per Wikipedia’s section on Deconstructionism, found here:


Here is what a deconstruction of faith often includes—an examination of faith through a close attention to the component parts of one’s overall belief


Thanks. I don't know his specific motivation of course, but I don't think it was as much a deconstruction thing as it was "Here's what most people think and I don't think it's the correct way to see it. And here's what I think is the correct way".
 
I thought this was good as it's a little different view of what Christianity is about.

I watched it, Joe. Is he a deconstructionist or a close reader? I’m wondering if he’s described himself in any of those terms.

I'm not sure. As @dgreen said, he challenges some popular assumptions. Not sure where that fits with labels though.

Did you have something in particular in mind there? How did the video land with you?

The video was interesting and reframed how I would have understood Christianity. The first path he diagrammed on the board was exactly the linear path I would have believed to be the way to live. So I ask about deconstruction because when that happens, I begin to get my antennae up about what exactly the speaker is doing. When a speaker comes in and totally subverts a model I’ve been taught and followed through his “close reading” of a text, I immediately think of deconstructionism, the concept put forth by Jacques Derrida around about 1967.

Deconstructionism can be of the text or faith.

Deconstruction is difficult to define. I’m not trying to be cute about it. Its very essence seems undefinable. Here is what Cambridge Dictionary says, which is about the best I can do:

Cambridge Dictionary states that deconstruction is "the act of breaking something down into its separate parts in order to understand its meaning, especially when this is different from how it was previously understood.” - That’s per Wikipedia’s section on Deconstructionism, found here:


Here is what a deconstruction of faith often includes—an examination of faith through a close attention to the component parts of one’s overall belief

Scot McKnight has this blogpost on the current "deconstruction" movement. It primarily talks about what people are deconstructing and briefly touches on how the term is being used a little differently than that classic philosophy definition.

McKnight is an author I have not read yet, but many people who I like are fans of his so I'm confident he's someone I will enjoy.
 
I thought this was good as it's a little different view of what Christianity is about.

I watched it, Joe. Is he a deconstructionist or a close reader? I’m wondering if he’s described himself in any of those terms.

I'm not sure. As @dgreen said, he challenges some popular assumptions. Not sure where that fits with labels though.

Did you have something in particular in mind there? How did the video land with you?

The video was interesting and reframed how I would have understood Christianity. The first path he diagrammed on the board was exactly the linear path I would have believed to be the way to live. So I ask about deconstruction because when that happens, I begin to get my antennae up about what exactly the speaker is doing. When a speaker comes in and totally subverts a model I’ve been taught and followed through his “close reading” of a text, I immediately think of deconstructionism, the concept put forth by Jacques Derrida around about 1967.

Deconstructionism can be of the text or faith.

Deconstruction is difficult to define. I’m not trying to be cute about it. Its very essence seems undefinable. Here is what Cambridge Dictionary says, which is about the best I can do:

Cambridge Dictionary states that deconstruction is "the act of breaking something down into its separate parts in order to understand its meaning, especially when this is different from how it was previously understood.” - That’s per Wikipedia’s section on Deconstructionism, found here:


Here is what a deconstruction of faith often includes—an examination of faith through a close attention to the component parts of one’s overall belief

Scot McKnight has this blogpost on the current "deconstruction" movement. It primarily talks about what people are deconstructing and briefly touches on how the term is being used a little differently than that classic philosophy definition.

McKnight is an author I have not read yet, but many people who I like are fans of his so I'm confident he's someone I will enjoy.

Just want you to know that I read it. I’m not sure I understood what he was trying to say, and time is limited, so I’m not going to try again. It seemed like he was saying that the deconstruction is not an issue of deconstructing one’s faith, but deconstructing what evangelical churches are doing with the truth and how certain things Jesus did or would teach are either unaccounted for (systemic racism and poverty) or bastardized (the Middle East and Revelations). So thank you for the posting, dgreen. I appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
I thought this was good as it's a little different view of what Christianity is about.

I watched it, Joe. Is he a deconstructionist or a close reader? I’m wondering if he’s described himself in any of those terms.

I'm not sure. As @dgreen said, he challenges some popular assumptions. Not sure where that fits with labels though.

Did you have something in particular in mind there? How did the video land with you?

The video was interesting and reframed how I would have understood Christianity. The first path he diagrammed on the board was exactly the linear path I would have believed to be the way to live. So I ask about deconstruction because when that happens, I begin to get my antennae up about what exactly the speaker is doing. When a speaker comes in and totally subverts a model I’ve been taught and followed through his “close reading” of a text, I immediately think of deconstructionism, the concept put forth by Jacques Derrida around about 1967.

Deconstructionism can be of the text or faith.

Deconstruction is difficult to define. I’m not trying to be cute about it. Its very essence seems undefinable. Here is what Cambridge Dictionary says, which is about the best I can do:

Cambridge Dictionary states that deconstruction is "the act of breaking something down into its separate parts in order to understand its meaning, especially when this is different from how it was previously understood.” - That’s per Wikipedia’s section on Deconstructionism, found here:


Here is what a deconstruction of faith often includes—an examination of faith through a close attention to the component parts of one’s overall belief

Scot McKnight has this blogpost on the current "deconstruction" movement. It primarily talks about what people are deconstructing and briefly touches on how the term is being used a little differently than that classic philosophy definition.

McKnight is an author I have not read yet, but many people who I like are fans of his so I'm confident he's someone I will enjoy.

Just want you to know that I read it. I’m not sure I understood what he was trying to say, and time is limited, so I’m not going to try again. It seemed like he was saying that the deconstruction is not an issue of deconstructing one’s faith, but deconstructing what evangelical churches are doing with the truth and how certain things Jesus did or would teach are either unaccounted for (systemic racism and poverty) or bastardized (the Middle East and Revelations). So thank you for the posting, dgreen. I appreciate it.
Yes, I think that's correct regarding what he's saying. I think he's also reacting to those in Christian circles who are critical of this deconstruction.
 
i am a catholic born and raised which means that i wake up every morning feeling guilty about stuff i havent even done yet take that to the bank brochachos
 
Regardless of labels, was wondering what folks thought of Mackie's video and the point he's making? https://youtu.be/ykH8E9wTCcQ?si=askjbx4LHjXrOi0R

It reminded me of something I was anticipating sharing in the other thread. I didn't because the replies didn't stay on topic and address the question me and another were asking.

Anyway, I had a neighbor who was 7th Day Adventist. When facing the assumption in Mackie's top line, he explained his understanding similar to what's in the video.

From AI:

Key points about the Adventist view on hell:
  • No eternal torment:
    Unlike some Christian denominations, Adventists do not believe in the concept of eternal conscious suffering in hell.

  • Destruction of sin:
    "Hell" is seen as the ultimate destruction of sin and those who cling to it, not a place of punishment.

  • Focus on God's love:
    Adventists emphasize that God is a loving God and that the concept of hell should not be used to instill fear, but to motivate people to choose salvation through Jesus.

A more exhaustive explanation. I sure prefer Mackie and the Adventists to the eternal torture guys.
 
Last edited:
i am a catholic born and raised which means that i wake up every morning feeling guilty about stuff i havent even done yet take that to the bank brochachos
:hifive: and you can take that to the confessional.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: SWC
It reminded me of something I was anticipating sharing in the other thread. I didn't because the replies didn't stay on topic and address the question me and another were asking.
I’d be interested in hearing whatever topic this is referring to, if you want to bring it back up in the other thread.
 
It reminded me of something I was anticipating sharing in the other thread. I didn't because the replies didn't stay on topic and address the question me and another were asking.
I’d be interested in hearing whatever topic this is referring to, if you want to bring it back up in the other thread.

:)

Well the cat's out of the bag now with Mackie and the Adventists so that takes the fun out of it.

But sure, I'll get around to that in a bit.
 
It reminded me of something I was anticipating sharing in the other thread. I didn't because the replies didn't stay on topic and address the question me and another were asking.
I’d be interested in hearing whatever topic this is referring to, if you want to bring it back up in the other thread.

:)

Well the cat's out of the bag now with Mackie and the Adventists so that takes the fun out of it.

But sure, I'll get around to that in a bit.
I posted that Mackie video in that thread so there was a little bit of discussion on it many pages back. But not sure if we touched on whatever specific aspect you’re interested in.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top