For years, I've been accused of twisting, perverting, misquoting, and excusing sections of the Bible in order to fit my own moral code.
I realized recently those accusations are true. My ideas of morals are different from those presented in the Bible, but I always chose to make the Bible fit rather than giving it up. Now that it's come to a point . . . well, I'm more willing to jettison the Bible than my moral beliefs. I know which I prefer.
And yes, I know, you're supposed to change yourself for religion. Which would make sense if I believed the mystical aspects of Christianity.
But I have not done so for quite some time. I simply continued to accept them because I liked the moral code enough (or thought I did) that I decided it was worth holding onto the mysticism.
This came to a head when I realized I was coming to dislike Christianity. Now that I've thought about it, I think I stayed Christian out of habit--I was afraid to let part of myself go. All that's left, I think, is a residual gut fear of Hell. And I'm not sticking with anything out of fear.
This is very strange and very new for me. I've always described myself as Christian as a major part of my identity . . . now I don't know.
I think for a while I will be an angry atheist, which kinda stinks. I'd rather not.
I think I still really like religious people, just not religion specifically.
I think it's nice to gloat at my brother. He's been trying to convert me to atheism these past four years, and yet he had nothing to do with me finally doing so. In fact, sometimes I think I stayed Christian to act as a foil to my brother.
I think the most immediate problem is that I'm 4000 words behind on NaNoWriMo and my novel has a lot of religious themes . . . that I no longer accept.
I think I still like most Judeo-Christian mythology, I'm just not sure I buy it.
I'm very, very scared. A large part of me still believes in Hell. I feel like I'm venturing into the fires here.
But I refuse to let that stop me.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: A large part of me still believes in Hell. I feel like I'm venturing into the fires here.
Don't kid yourself. When you do venture into the fires, it will be a heck of a lot worse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Joldo, it sounds like organized religion was more of an obstacle to peace for you than a path to it. The way you are describing your Christianity is, honestly, foreign to me and sounds pretty horrifying.
I hope that this choice gives you the freedom to find what works for you.
FWIW, I don't think you are venturing into any fires.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Well, all I can say is welcome.
Your membership card and bi-weekly newsletter, outling the Atheist Agenda, will be in the mail in 4=6 days. Further, you'll get one year of the Liberal Agenda, the Black Agenda, the Gay Agenda newsletters all free. (They're all the same agenda, after all.)
Though you'll have to pay $666 for lifetime membership.
Seriously, though, I understand what you're going through. I went through a lot of the same feelings. The truth is, the worry about hell was significant, and I was CAtholic, where they don't focus on it as much as some other religions.
It'll still linger there, all those memes and ideas, all those worries, and I don't know if I can ever purge them all. The brainwashing runs deep.
But, even if you never succeed in eliminating these things entirely, you can learn to deal with them, over time. Just remember this: You would have gone to Islamic hell anyway if they'd been right, and they had no less evidence for their religion. That sort of thing helps.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Heh. I already have the Gay Agenda newsletter. I'm furthering the Gay Agenda on campus.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Dobbie:
I doubt he'll have to deal with that.
I say this not only with no less evidence than is presented in this world for hell, but also with the advantage that the concept of hell, being one of an infinite number of concepts we could dream of, should require evidence before you believe that one over any of the other equally unlikely magic kingdoms you go to after death.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: I'm very, very scared. A large part of me still believes in Hell. I feel like I'm venturing into the fires here.
FYI, if you still believe in Hell, you're not an atheist. Just because you no longer belong to an organized religion does not mean you're an atheist. If you're scared of some place that does not exist (IMO) you're not an atheist.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Joldo:
Ha. Well, unfortunately there's no discount. The $666 pricetag is there for aesthetic reasons, after all.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: A large part of me still believes in Hell. I feel like I'm venturing into the fires here.
Don't kid yourself. When you do venture into the fires, it will be a heck of a lot worse.
quote:A mind not to be changed by place or time. The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n.
Milton, putting words in Lucifer's mouth. I thought it ironically appropriate, and it does rather fit my feelings.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonnyNotSoBravo:
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: I'm very, very scared. A large part of me still believes in Hell. I feel like I'm venturing into the fires here.
FYI, if you still believe in Hell, you're not an atheist. Just because you no longer belong to an organized religion does not mean you're an atheist. If you're scared of some place that does not exist (IMO) you're not an atheist.
My gut believes in Hell. Just as much as it does zombies, vampires, and Idaho.
Intellectually, however, I do not.
The trouble is, a gut belief in vampires only comes out at night to scare you, while a gut belief in Hell can haunt your every thought.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"FYI, if you still believe in Hell, you're not an atheist. Just because you no longer belong to an organized religion does not mean you're an atheist. If you're scared of some place that does not exist (IMO) you're not an atheist."
It's harder than that, less clear cut.
As he said, it's a part of him that thinks about it. Psychologically, the concept of hell is ingrained in his mind. Ingraine something deep enough, and even if you learn or know it's not true, it'll still give the emotional responses for quite awhile, in some cases forever.
That's the power of repetition on the brain.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"The trouble is, a gut belief in vampires only comes out at night to scare you, while a gut belief in Hell can haunt your every thought. "
Precisely the problem.
Anyway, you'll find it interesting, as you live life without Christianity, and eventually step far enough away from it to look at it from the outside. It's quite the interesting perspective, at least it seems so to me, who lived from deep within the Christian mindset for the vast majority of my life.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
...your gut belief in Idaho? Lawl. Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Sure.
Ever heard the story of Freud, who, when he finally went to Greece and saw the Parthenon, said to himself "Wow. It really DOES exist!"
Same sort of thing.
'Course, you and I live in Spokane, Ear, right next to Idaho's border, and I know I go over the border occasionally, though I dunno about you.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Welcome to the club.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
If there's no hell then where does Satan live?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Club?!
Well, isn't it obvious you're just another religion, just like the Boy Scouts and all D&D gaming groups?! What hypocrites!"
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Sure.
Ever heard the story of Freud, who, when he finally went to Greece and saw the Parthenon, said to himself "Wow. It really DOES exist!"
Same sort of thing.
'Course, you and I live in Spokane, Ear, right next to Idaho's border, and I know I go over the border occasionally, though I dunno about you.
More often than I'd like. But seriously Joldo, you do whatever makes you the best human being. If that requires believing in The Great Pumpkin, then so be it!
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"If there's no hell then where does Satan live? "
Same place Santa Claus lives.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:And yes, I know, you're supposed to change yourself for religion. Which would make sense if I believed the mystical aspects of Christianity
I am honestly interested in hearing you explain what aspects of Christianity you found mystical. I can't remember off the top of my head which denomination you identified with, but as far as protestantism goes, I feel like Christian mysticism pales in comparison with other major religions. Again I am merely interested in hearing you explain this point more at this point.
As far as the rest of your post, I am glad that you are taking charge of your own belief system. At the same time your post concerns me.
"I think I stayed Christian out of habit--I was afraid to let part of myself go."
"I think it's nice to gloat at my brother. He's been trying to convert me to atheism these past four years, and yet he had nothing to do with me finally doing so. In fact, sometimes I think I stayed Christian to act as a foil to my brother."
"I'm very, very scared. A large part of me still believes in Hell. I feel like I'm venturing into the fires here."
"All that's left, I think, is a residual gut fear of Hell. And I'm not sticking with anything out of fear."
What happened to God in all of this? Christianity for all its complexity is still at it's very core, a system designed to reconcile man with God. A departure from Christianity at least for me would be a departure from that belief system, not necessarily from God. Or is Christianity the only religion you feel could ever explain the concept of God? How much time have you spent examining the other takes on Christianity, to say nothing of other religions?
Much of what I will say now are questions just to think about, but consider them honestly. I do not think I know the answers to any of them. If you wish to answer them here I'd be happy to discuss them with you. Of course I am a believer in Christ, and of course I have a vested interest in helping people believe in him, but I promise my goal is primarily to discuss, not to persuade.
Your reasons for being afraid of your decision is that you may have just taken a step towards hell, are you completely unconcerned with taking a step away from God? I do not think you made this decision lightly, and yet you made it. Is a world bereft of the requirements of Christianity easier to live in? Was it just that Christianity couldn't answer the questions you had? Or was Christianity simply giving you the wrong answers completely?
Since you are giving up Christianity, are you still just as dedicated at being a good person, and seeking the truth? Or will your quest for God end here and now, along with your interest in ever believing in God again?
Are you so certain the Bible is really so wrong? Are you certain your understanding of it was adequate to begin with?
If there is in fact no God, why should anger ever be a part of your outlook on the universe? Were you wrong by the religion you subscribed to? Did they trick you into believing? Do you think the people who told you to believe in the God of the Bible were con men/women with ulterior motives? Are you mad that God would allow to believe in a lie if there even is a God?
You said you at one time liked the moral code of Christianity, what do you think that is? What about it do you dislike now? What was the straw that broke your camel's back?
You said you still like religious people just not religion itself, why is that? What is it about religion you do not like? Could a religion fix the part you don't like and thus make it more true?
I have other questions, but those are the ones I think are important to me. I honestly hope that if this choice suits you better you will follow it, but I also want you to know that we can reject the existence of God but that does not mean he in turn rejects us.
The choice to cease believing in God is not a one way ticket to hell, the choice to abandon goodness is.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "If there's no hell then where does Satan live? "
Same place Santa Claus lives.
Exactly. In books, in imaginations, and in the hearts of little children everywhere...oh wait-
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Well, in the hearts of little children who have the sort of parents who think Chick tracts are pretty cool little stories, at least.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
In the hearts of little Dungeons & Dragons players everywhere.
Welcome to the 'club' Joldo.
quote:Your reasons for being afraid of your decision is that you may have just taken a step towards hell, are you completely unconcerned with taking a step away from God?
Your reasons for being afraid are your own. But, if I had to guess, I would say that you are afraid because you've spent a good portion of your life being force-fed the 'threat' that many religions have. When your gut finally catches up with your head, you'll be fine.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:The choice to cease believing in God is not a one way ticket to hell, the choice to abandon goodness is.
I don't want to start anything, but where did Joldo say he was abandoning goodness? Why do you assume that leaving religion goes hand in hand with leaving goodness? (If you do indeed assume that.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:as far as protestantism goes, I feel like Christian mysticism pales in comparison with other major religions
I don't want to get into it too much, but you guys (since, IIRC, you're a Mormon) have a pretty elaborate baptism ritual for the dead, a fairly extensive "sealing ceremony," and specially-designed underwear that's supposed to protect you from harm.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:The choice to cease believing in God is not a one way ticket to hell, the choice to abandon goodness is.
I don't want to start anything, but where did Joldo say he was abandoning goodness? Why do you assume that leaving religion goes hand in hand with leaving goodness? (If you do indeed assume that.)
I was not assuming that at all. Joldo said he felt that to some degree worried he might be heading for hell because he no longer believes Christianity is right. I was merely saying I do not believe that to be the case.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:as far as protestantism goes, I feel like Christian mysticism pales in comparison with other major religions
I don't want to get into it too much, but you guys (since, IIRC, you're a Mormon) have a pretty elaborate baptism ritual for the dead, a fairly extensive "sealing ceremony," and specially-designed underwear that's supposed to protect you from harm.
Tom: Please reread the word, "protestantism" in the quote. After doing so I respectfully request you edit your post.
I was guessing Joldo was protestant, I base that purely on my memory which I already admitted was not sharp on the matter.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
i feel frustrated with Christianity. but I am not an athiest. I am not sure what I am. Shame there's not a way to go back to Christianity in its purest form.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Just curious, but what does the purest form of Christianity look like and what keeps you from practicing that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Don't Mormons refer to themselves as a protestant faith?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Just curious, but what does the purest form of Christianity look like and what keeps you from practicing that?
I don't know... But frustration with a lot of aspects of mainstream Christianity make me want to run in fear.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Don't Mormons refer to themselves as a protestant faith?
No we do not. Mormons, (and indeed most Christians) classify those churches that followed the Great Reformation movement as Protestants. Churches that sought to reform the Catholic Church or other protestant sects are protestants.
Mormons consider what Joseph Smith did to be a restoration of the church that existed legitimately during and after Jesus' time on earth. As I am sure you know, we believe that legitimate church was completely lost and beyond repair within a few hundred years after Jesus returned to heaven. There was no way to simply take an existing church and fix it, God personally had to restore the authority to recreate His church.
Protestants reformed Christianity, Mormons restored it.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Don't Mormons refer to themselves as a protestant faith?
I've never heard other LDS do so, except by way of mentioning that we're sometimes grouped with Protestants by default.
(This is not counting the many, many, MANY tracts, pamphlets, and books some unkind people have thrown my way about how Mormons are not Protestant, certainly not Christian, and going straight to Hell.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Don't Mormons refer to themselves as a protestant faith?
No we do not. Mormons, (and indeed most Christians) classify those churches that followed the Great Reformation movement as Protestants. Churches that sought to reform the Catholic Church or other protestant sects are protestants....
(Without saying which side is correct, but just trying to clarify the issue)
Alternatively, we can look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ChristianityBranches.svg The issue is whether the solid line is correct or whether that dashed "Claimed separate lineage" line is correct.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
All religions have mystical elements. In Christianity, it's a beard in the sky, a worldwide flood, and other such things.
At a certain point, I realized I believed more in the threat of Hell than the existence of God. That's the essence.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And the "god in the sky" idea and biblical literalism once again are presented as core Christian doctrine.
Seriously, is there no transfer of learning from one thread to another or are you deliberately persisting in untruths because it suits you?
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: I say this not only with no less evidence than is presented in this world for hell, but also with the advantage that the concept of hell, being one of an infinite number of concepts we could dream of, should require evidence before you believe that one over any of the other equally unlikely magic kingdoms you go to after death.
Great. So now you're telling me that Disney owns the afterlife?
Ipso facto, there is no heaven.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Just remember, the first rule of atheist doctrine is: There is no atheist doctrine.
quote:FYI, if you still believe in Hell, you're not an atheist.
An irrational fear does not a belief make.
I've never met an atheist who became a theist, but I've known a number of theist to atheist conversions. The thing that strikes me is how lonely the decision making process is. Theism is a support network for conversions, and until recently, atheism was so socially unacceptable that there was no such support. I'm jealous, because for many years such a thing as this thread was not available to me.
quote:I think for a while I will be an angry atheist, which kinda stinks. I'd rather not.
You don't have to be. Remember that you can still converse with theists on their terms. The hard part is that they will rarely return the favor.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Joldo: But I have not done so for quite some time. I simply continued to accept them because I liked the moral code enough (or thought I did) that I decided it was worth holding onto the mysticism.
This came to a head when I realized I was coming to dislike Christianity. Now that I've thought about it, I think I stayed Christian out of habit--I was afraid to let part of myself go. All that's left, I think, is a residual gut fear of Hell. And I'm not sticking with anything out of fear.
I've never personally understood how anyone can read the bible and find a coherent moral structure in it. There really isn't one. The bible (whatever you do believe about it), promotes prejudice, hatred, murder, and sexual discrimination in various ways.
The positive (to my thinking) aspects of Christian ideology are most informed by Augustine of Hippo and the like, people who's philosophies were essentially classical in nature, wrapped in a christian cloak. I've never understood why people would believe in a religious tradition that has already been responsible for the ruination of western society once before. It's like trying to rebuild a bridge that fell down because of a structural flaw, but not fixing the plans to make it more stable. The bible is for me the great barrier that challenges Christians to overcome its mystical, backwards origins and to still manage to find some good in it.
Listening to religion teachers talk about the bible in my high school was like listening to a debate team defend a position given to them as a challenge- the last thing any of them ever wanted to do was talk about the book on its own merits.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Just remember, the first rule of atheist doctrine is: There is no atheist doctrine."
It's like Fight Club.
The funny thing is, there are some real fight clubs out there, whose members were inspired by the movie. Some of them are actually composed of devout unmarried Mormon college boys. That's just what I heard. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Just remember, the first rule of atheist doctrine is: There is no atheist doctrine.
quote:I think for a while I will be an angry atheist, which kinda stinks. I'd rather not.
You don't have to be. Remember that you can still converse with theists on their terms. The hard part is that they will rarely return the favor.
So true. I stopped being an angry athiest when I realized that I was the lucky one. Today I feel sorry for theists- it being so easy for me to see the transparency of their arguments. I imagine it frustrates some of them more than dealing with more radical athiest types, who think they have a chance of convincing anyone that God doesn't exist. It's a basic assumption that defeats argument; that is why it is still widespread.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:My ideas of morals are different from those presented in the Bible, but I always chose to make the Bible fit rather than giving it up.
What, in your view, do you think the Bible suggests morality should be? The way you've mentioned fear of Hell does not sound a lot of what I consider Christinaity to be. In truth, I would think the idea of doing something solely to avoid Hell is nearly the opposite of what Christ taught.
My view is that Christian morality boils down to two basic ideas: Love God. Love other people. And really those are both two sides of the same coin. The Bible doesn't always seem consistent on this, but the overall story of Christ sure seems to be.
And in truth, most atheists I know typically act in accordance with this Christian ideal - the main difference being they think the coin only has one side.
quote:I feel sorry for theists- it being so easy for me to see the transparency of their arguments.
And this is one spot where I think atheists tend to go wrong - they often think the issue is about which arguments are better. Religion isn't really founded on arguments at all, and neither is atheism.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Religion isn't really founded on arguments at all, and neither is atheism.
Correct. Atheism is based on the lack of evidence for religion's claims.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Religion isn't really founded on arguments at all, and neither is atheism.
Correct. Atheism is based on the lack of evidence for religion's claims.
Perhaps you did not mean it that way Javert but that sounded a little snarky.
I might as well say atheism is based on a failure to identify the evidence indicative of God.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And the "god in the sky" idea and biblical literalism once again are presented as core Christian doctrine.
Seriously, is there no transfer of learning from one thread to another or are you deliberately persisting in untruths because it suits you?
No, friend, I know they're not. I was simply using these as examples of what I considered the mystical elements. I said earlier I had stopped believing the mystic elements long ago but went through the motions because I liked the moral system. Someone asked what I meant by the mysticism: I mean all the supernatural that makes its way into Christianity and religion in general.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Religion isn't really founded on arguments at all, and neither is atheism.
Correct. Atheism is based on the lack of evidence for religion's claims.
Perhaps you did not mean it that way Javert but that sounded a little snarky.
I might as well say atheism is based on a failure to identify the evidence indicative of God.
You could, but you'd be wrong.
Okay, that was a little snarky. But none intended the first time.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I've never personally understood how anyone can read the bible and find a coherent moral structure in it. There really isn't one. The bible (whatever you do believe about it), promotes prejudice, hatred, murder, and sexual discrimination in various ways.
That's . . . a lot of what I came to realize.
quote: What, in your view, do you think the Bible suggests morality should be? The way you've mentioned fear of Hell does not sound a lot of what I consider Christinaity to be. In truth, I would think the idea of doing something solely to avoid Hell is nearly the opposite of what Christ taught.
My view is that Christian morality boils down to two basic ideas: Love God. Love other people. And really those are both two sides of the same coin. The Bible doesn't always seem consistent on this, but the overall story of Christ sure seems to be.
And in truth, most atheists I know typically act in accordance with this Christian ideal - the main difference being they think the coin only has one side.
That is mostly my moral system. And I used to say the Bible boiled down to that. Now I think I was just lying to myself. I feel like it doesn't match my moral system, and if I choose one to toss out, well . . .
quote: And this is one spot where I think atheists tend to go wrong - they often think the issue is about which arguments are better. Religion isn't really founded on arguments at all, and neither is atheism.
That is rather the issue. Religion is founded on faith, even down to the moral codes. There are numerous instructions--things that you're told not to do. You're almost never told why not. At most, you're told it's because it's abominable. That's no longer enough for me. It doesn't sound like free will--it sounds like "Do what I tell you".
At a certain point, the Bible stopped sounding like the word of God to me.
More recently, it stopped sounding like the words of many enlightened, good, and kind men over the centuries.
Now it begins to sound (to me, at least) like the jumbled and incoherent ideas of various madmen, dreamers, historians, storytellers, and power-hungry tyrants. I used to think when people used scripture to defend their power that they were twisting it or justify another's disenfranchisement. Now I think they're interpretting a lot of it correctly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Now it begins to sound (to me, at least) like the jumbled and incoherent ideas of various madmen, dreamers, historians, storytellers, and power-hungry tyrants. I used to think when people used scripture to defend their power that they were twisting it or justify another's disenfranchisement. Now I think they're interpretting a lot of it correctly.
Could you be so kind to elaborate?
quote:All religions have mystical elements. In Christianity, it's a beard in the sky, a worldwide flood, and other such things.
Come now, if there is mysticism to Christianity surely you can find an instance Christians all agree on. How is a worldwide flood mystical? Do you know of some sect that believes their leader can conjure up another one?
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
*sigh* By mysticism, I mean supernatural beliefs without substantiation that often defy evidence. Such as the belief in the past existence of a worldwide flood.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: How is a worldwide flood mystical? Do you know of some sect that believes their leader can conjure up another one?
Well, a worldwide flood seems very unlikely when there isn't enough water to do so.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I find that unconvincing. Surely a god can just vanish the extra water or create it when needed. Heck, even the whale probe from Star Trek 4 could boil water away.
The trickier bits might be tinkering with the geological record, messing around with the DNA of the animals and people on the Ark to avoid the kind of bizarre effects that would be caused by suddenly reducing to and then inbreeding two of every animal (except the ones in the ocean), depending on the date of the flood, fixing the archaeological record...
Granted in the end, all of these issues *can* be solved by an omnipotent deity (the why is a bit trickier, I expect something like "there is no faith without free-will" ... but its just that extra water or required water sounds so....mundane.
Even I can flood pots of flowers with water...
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
But I'd call believing in the presence of that God mysticism.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
If the polar ice caps were completely melted, would the earth not be covered with water? (curious, not challenging)
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
A friend of mine pointed out that for the water to cover even the highest peaks within one day (as the Bible specifies) it would have to fall (or rise) at nine inches per second, far too fast for anything, even the ark, to sustain the sudden increase in pressure.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Joldo, there's an easy answer to that problem:
God did it.
There. Problem solved.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
And that's largely why I'm an atheist.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yes.
Even better is when they put limits on God's actions, for no reason other than their own beliefs.
I mean, who do they think they are, limiting God to doing only good, or making him give us free will, or not permitting him to forgive us in a more efficient way?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I too am an atheist, as the common use of the word us used. But I'm actually an agnostic as I'm in constant search for truth of the Universe.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
<imho>Glad to hear it, Joldo. A free mind seems to come up with a better morality anyway, while being less schizophrenic about it. Get out there and contribute to the orthodoxy-free meme pool!</imho>
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: I too am an atheist, as the common use of the word us used. But I'm actually an agnostic as I'm in constant search for truth of the Universe.
I like this. I subscribe. What a pity Telp that you live on the other side of the Atlantic, because otherwise we could get together for a non-prayer non-meeting... Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:A friend of mine pointed out that for the water to cover even the highest peaks within one day (as the Bible specifies) it would have to fall (or rise) at nine inches per second, far too fast for anything, even the ark, to sustain the sudden increase in pressure.
Okay-- but you're wrong about what the Bible specifies.
Here's what the text says:
quote:Genesis 7: 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in. 17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and ait was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Furthermore, the text of the Bible suggests that it was more than just rain that caused the Flood; I'm not exactly sure where the "fountains of the great deep" are located, but since it mentions rain in the same verse, one would think they're different items.
I think the Flood is a mythic story; I'm not convinced it happened literally.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If the polar ice caps were completely melted, would the earth not be covered with water? (curious, not challenging)
No, I don't believe it would.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm an atheist in the bible belt. Who went to 13 years of Catholic schooling, and who's extended family are all pretty serious about their faith (Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist).
*shrug*
They don't give me a hard time about it, and I try not to roll my eyes when they say, "I'd love to be able to do X, but God didn't bless me with that ability." Or something else along those lines.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: I take it you are declining my request to edit your post?
Joldo:
quote:*sigh* By mysticism, I mean supernatural beliefs without substantiation that often defy evidence. Such as the belief in the past existence of a worldwide flood.
Why the sigh? If you are not interested in discussing this you are more then welcome to opt out.
You realize that even if the flood did not literally happen, (I'm not sure either way) that you are not required to know one way or the other in order to subscribe to Christianity right? Christianity doesn't hinge on Moses' staff turning into snakes, David slaying Goliath, or Elijah ascending in a chariot of fire. Of course if every event in the Bible was a lie or completely inaccurate that would make it something less then it claims to be. For me at least, the core tenant that I would stop believing if I left Christianity would be that Christ, the son of God, took upon Himself the sins of the world, died on the cross and was resurrected, thus preparing a way for us to repent of our sins and rise again from the dead.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
BB, if you don't think god can do the 'simple' stuff like the flood and fire chariots, then it's unlikely you'll believe the 'dying for our sins' part.
(Strangely, I just want to point out that I've never seen anything particularly supernatural about David and Goliath. It has all the earmarks of a real event that became legend over many a retelling.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:That is mostly my moral system. And I used to say the Bible boiled down to that. Now I think I was just lying to myself. I feel like it doesn't match my moral system, and if I choose one to toss out, well . . .
So is it Christianity you have a problem with, or is it the Bible?
I see the Bible as somewhat like my old math textbook. If the textbook occasionally gives me the wrong answers, I'd assume the author made some mistakes, but I'd still trust it in general. If the textbook consistently gives me the wrong answers, I'd no longer believe the textbook. But in neither case would the failures of the textbook lead me to abandon math altogether - because even without a textbook, I see how math holds true.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: Today I feel sorry for theists- it being so easy for me to see the transparency of their arguments.
And they feel sorry for you because you're missing out on one of the most wonderful things about life. ^_~
But snarking aside, if your religion was nothing but restrictions and fear, then good thing that you've decided to let it go. If you've been studying the Bible without believing in God or the 'mystical aspects' of Christianity, it is pretty terrifying.
I would like to make a couple of suggestions though, before you completely toss religion and God out the back door. If you like religious people, then maybe there is something redeeming in religion that you haven't found yet, and maybe it's worth looking for. I'd recommend some Christian writings other than the Bible--St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis are the first that come to mind.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:If you like religious people, then maybe there is something redeeming in religion that you haven't found yet, and maybe it's worth looking for.
Does one have to take religion as a whole? If I like some of the things that religions do (and I do), I will take those things. Why do I have to take everything else with it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Who says that you do?
It is perfectly possible - even usual - for Christians to not believe that the Bible is to be taken literally. Faith is not about magic tricks with geology or some bearded guy who lives in the sky.
I (and others) have explained that to you. Over and over again. Do you think that I (and others) am lying about that? If not, why do you keep going back to the same stale, deceitful arguments? It may be easier and funnier to caricature Christianity that way, but at this point you knows it is untruthful. It isn't ignorance anymore. That you keep doing it, indicates that you are only interested in mockery and not interested in either understanding or any kind of sincere discussion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Faith is not about magic tricks with geology or some bearded guy who lives in the sky.
For many people, it actually is.
boots, I think you that insist your beliefs about religion are the only ones that really count far too much.
What you believe is very rare in the multiplicity of Christian thought, but you seem to me to often insist that people address your beliefs as definitive Christianity, even when they are talking about their own experiences.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Who says that you do?
It is perfectly possible - even usual - for Christians to not believe that the Bible is to be taken literally. Faith is not about magic tricks with geology or some bearded guy who lives in the sky.
I (and others) have explained that to you. Over and over again. Do you think that I (and others) am lying about that? If not, why do you keep going back to the same stale, deceitful arguments? It may be easier and funnier to caricature Christianity that way, but at this point you knows it is untruthful. It isn't ignorance anymore. That you keep doing it, indicates that you are only interested in mockery and not interested in either understanding or any kind of sincere discussion.
I'm not trying to be deceitful. Whether or not I'm stale is certainly up for debate.
I'm not trying to caricature Christianity. When people, both here and in my real life, say 'oh, we don't take the flood and stuff like that literally', that's fine. I believe you. But generally that's followed with "by the way, Jesus died for your sins."
Again, this is fine. Yet it seems like some people are trying to keep others in Christianity by saying that you don't have to believe the supernatural claims when the main tenet of the religion is a supernatural claim.
(edited to fix 'tenet')
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Tenant != Tenet
That's just a general musing -- not directed at anyone in particular.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote:Faith is not about magic tricks with geology or some bearded guy who lives in the sky.
For many people, it actually is.
boots, I think you that insist your beliefs about religion are the only ones that really count far too much.
What you believe is very rare in the multiplicity of Christian thought, but you seem to me to often insist that people address your beliefs as definitive Christianity, even when they are talking about their own experiences.
When you are trying to decide whether to believe a certain religion or philosophy, what "many people" believe is mostly irrelevant. What matters is the validity of the very best possible formulation of the religion - because if you accept the religion you don't have to accept what "many people" believe about it; you only have to accept what you consider to be the religion in its best form.
quote:Again, this is fine. Yet it seems like some people are trying to keep others in Christianity by saying that you don't have to believe the supernatural claims when the main tenet of the religion is a supernatural claim.
I don't think it's "All or None" when it comes to accepting supernatural claims. You can believe an extremely important supernatural claim without accepting a relatively minor supernatural claim, if you think the latter probably didn't happen but the former probably did.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For me at least, the core tenant that I would stop believing if I left Christianity would be that Christ, the son of God, took upon Himself the sins of the world, died on the cross and was resurrected, thus preparing a way for us to repent of our sins and rise again from the dead.
Now that you bring it up, that does bring up one question that has always bugged me.
Why (historically) hate the Jews/Judas? Why the anti-semitism, Christian or Islamic?
Given that historically the Jews have been persecuted for their role in Jesus's death, that Judas does not fair much better (fictionalized as one of the three people punished by being directly chewed on my Satan no less), the question is why?
* I realise that many modern Christians do not share this hate and it may very well be "theologically" incorrect to hate, but I am trying to understand the hate in the historical context, not why it might be wrong ** I also realise there were political or economic reasons to hate Jews, but I'm more interested in the theology of it
So imagine you're a Christian a few centuries after the crucification about to go on a progrom. My question is why hate the Jews? If Jesus had not died, he would not have been able to take the sins of the world upon him, perform the harrowing of hell, etc. If the Jews had totally accepted him, then what?
Wasn't the whole death thing necessary, even predestined to a certain extent? Are we (Christians) not better that Jesus died and repented for all our sins? Is it not called 'Good' Friday, as in a good event? Or could he have done the whole repenting thing anyways when he died as an old man (and the crucifixion and suffering itself was not strictly necessary)?
For that matter, what would have happened if he had not died? Would we skip directly to God's Kingdom on Earth as in Relevations or something else?
Sorry if this seems impertinent, but I never quite got this part.
Edit to add: This is open to anyone. But preface your comments which which kind of Christian you are, I suspect the answers may very well differ between (mainstream?) Christians and Mormons for a variety of reasons.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I don't think it's "All or None" when it comes to accepting supernatural claims. You can believe an extremely important supernatural claim without accepting a relatively minor supernatural claim, if you think the latter probably didn't happen but the former probably did.
Well, for me it is close to all or none. I see no evidence for the supernatural, so I believe none of it until there is some. If I see evidence for even one supernatural event, it doesn't prove the others, but it certainly makes the others more likely.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom: I take it you are declining my request to edit your post?
Oh, sorry! I figured it wasn't necessary since you clarified the protestantism bit in your own post immediately following, and don't like to edit my own mistakes out of existence.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote: Why (historically) hate the Jews/Judas? Why the anti-semitism, Christian or Islamic?
Honestly, this has always completely stumped me. Anti-semitism in general, I mean. I can at least comprehend the 'reasoning' behind many other types of racial, religious, or cultural prejudice, but anti-semitism makes the least sense of any of them.
I'm Catholic, but I doubt you'll get any real answers to this question because I don't think there are any good reasons.
My best stab at an answer is that there is absolutely no Christian theological basis for anti-semitism. Church figures may have spoken out against Jews in the past, but they did it out of simple human hatred, there was nothing of God or Jesus or the Bible in it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:And yes, I know, you're supposed to change yourself for religion. Which would make sense if I believed the mystical aspects of Christianity.
Just out of curiosity, do you still feel a need to change and grow as a person? Do you still have ideals and principles along which to grow? It sounds as if you are motivated in this choice by a desire to be honest with yourself, and I guess that's good. I wouldn't worry to much about the hell thing. But Mormons never do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Faith is not about magic tricks with geology or some bearded guy who lives in the sky.
For many people, it actually is.
boots, I think you that insist your beliefs about religion are the only ones that really count far too much.
What you believe is very rare in the multiplicity of Christian thought, but you seem to me to often insist that people address your beliefs as definitive Christianity, even when they are talking about their own experiences.
See, that's the thing. It isn't "rare". I have yet, in decades of spending a pretty good perccentage of my time with religious people of many denominations, never to my knowledge met a biblical literalist except through the internet. What I have said about understanding scripture is perfectly in line with what is taught be professors and students of theology in our RCIA class - which is almost certainly the largest in Chicago.
What I believe isn't at all "rare". It is just made to look that way. It is bad enough when people who do believe that stuff publicize it as the only way to be Christian. It is even more aggravating when people who don't believe portray it as the only way to be Christian.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes it is rare. I'm not talking about Biblical literalism versus interpretation. Your specific, individual beliefs are very rare. Yet you respond to people's issues with real, widespread interpretations of Christianity with something akin to "That's not really Christianity. What I believe is Christianity."
I have no problem with you offering it as another interpretation, but you seem to go far beyond that to me.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't agree with Kate very often (being somewhat of a literalist), but I wouldn't call her Christianity particularly rare.
I've never felt she was saying my Christianity wasn't Christianity.* She often says what professed non-Christians say is Christianity is not Christianity.
*isolated doctrinal squabbles excepted
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, pooka.
MrSquicky, except for the possible difference in the ability and effort I put into being able to articulate it*, my faith isn't any more rare than most.
Mine isn't the only interpretation. But it is rarely (at least here) the interpretation that atheists decide to use as an example when they are listing "what's wrong with Christianity". I think that if there were a sincere desire for engagement, they wouldn't always go for the "easy pickin's" as if they were representative.
Does that make sense?
*and that, badly, I'm afraid.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
kmbboots, is every supernatural event depicted in the Bible considered by you to be "easy pickin's"?
(Asking that seriously, btw.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: Understood.
Mucus: Well you ought to remember that for the first hundred or so years after Christ died, the Jews did not suddenly stop persecuting Christians after Christ left. Remember Saul of Tarsus who later became Paul was one of the more enthusiastic persecutors of Christians. He himself admits to being responsible for the arrest and deaths of many Christians.
Eventually Christianity through in large part because of missionaries spread far beyond Palestine, and so Christians outnumbered Jews. Where once almost all Christians were Jews eventually alot of gentiles filled the ranks, which created the conflict on whether circumcision was required of Christians. As the years went by Jewish distinction was less important as the original founding members all died and it started to make little difference if you converted from Judaism or Gnosticism.
The Jews were eventually forced out of Palestine by the Romans in a bloody seige and many of them immigrated into Europe, where they like most immigrants were treated as second class citizens and highly expendable. Many of the original inhabitants of those countries or even the current residents saw the Jews as invaders. Now convert all these people to Christianity and you have the combined aggression against immigrants and the belief that the Jews killed the son of God and you have a pretty volitile situation, easy to exploit.
edit: I know it's confusing but I use Jewish and Jews in two ways. 1: Jews who are religiously Jewish, and 2: Jews who are Jews by ethnicity. Hence you can have Christian Jews, but also have Jews persecuting Christians.
Javert:
quote:BB, if you don't think god can do the 'simple' stuff like the flood and fire chariots, then it's unlikely you'll believe the 'dying for our sins' part.
I never said God couldn't do those things. I also said that if none of those stories were even in part true it would invalidate what the Bible claims to be. I do not see what your contention is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nope. For example, if you wanted a supernatural event that is considerably more central to the core beliefs of most Christians, you could choose the Resurrection as an example.
That would be a more interesting discussion.
Not for this thread, though. I think that I have sidetracked Joldo's thread enough already.
To reiterate. I, personally, feel that Joldo is far better off as an atheist than being forced to believe what he described out of fear. I just don't want him or anyone else thinking that those are the only possibilities.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Javert:
quote:BB, if you don't think god can do the 'simple' stuff like the flood and fire chariots, then it's unlikely you'll believe the 'dying for our sins' part.
I never said God couldn't do those things. I also said that if none of those stories were even in part true it would invalidate what the Bible claims to be. I do not see what your contention is.
Bad grammar. I should have said "if one doesn't think".
I was pointing out that if Joldo, or anyone, is having trouble believing in things like the Flood it is less likely that they will believe in the bigger (in importance to us) claims like the Resurrection.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BB: See I get most of that, thats kind of what I kind of what I classified as **. The only new part to me is the persecution of Jews part, that is a good point.
But I was more interested in the theology of it.
quote:... the belief that the Jews killed the son of God and you have a pretty volatile situation, easy to exploit.
See thats the part that I thought was the major theological reason and thats what I was more interested in and hence the questions after the ** which I was more puzzled about.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
kmbboots, I'm curious as to what beliefs of yours are uniquely Christian. If you don't take the Bible literally then what distinguishes you from a Jew who does not take the Old Testament literally either? If you views have evolved beyond those uniquely expressed in the Bible then it doesn't make sense to insist on the term "Christian".
EDIT: I hope it doesn't sound like I'm accusing you or anything. I just don't know the details about what you believe.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:See thats the part that I thought was the major theological reason and thats what I was more interested in and hence the questions after the ** which I was more puzzled about.
Sorry I'll try to be more to your point. Theologically there really is not any GOOD basis for Christians persecuting Jews.
There was tons of selective quoting and willful ignoring of the entire NT picture. There was lots of talk about Jews being Christ killers and traitors against the God they professed to worship, but that flies in the face of Jesus' admonition to forgive. There was little mention of the fact that Jesus never advocated revenge on his behalf. People were much more interested in trying to find allowances in Christianity for their wrong behavior rather then being good Christians.
IMO it was human beings that persecuted the Jews, not Christianity.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
C'mon, there's lots of mysticism in Chrisitianity, but that's not a bad thing. What makes mysticism bad? It's things that happen, or believing things happen, that can not be explaned naturally. I mean, if you pray to God, and believe he hears you, that's mysticism, right? If you call upon the powers of God to change wine into the blood of Christ, whether you believe in transubstantian or not, merely the act of calling upon God is mysticism, right? If you believe when good Christians die they go to heaven, that's mysticism. If you believe God has any actual effect on people or the world, that's mysticism. Right?
Edit: Hey, look at that! This thread has a whole second page. Missed that.
[ November 20, 2007, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Religion isn't really founded on arguments at all, and neither is atheism.
Correct. Atheism is based on the lack of evidence for religion's claims.
No, it is not possible to prove a negative, and that is why theism is inherently weak intellectually, imo. My ideas about the world are not based on lack of evidence, they are based on the evidence of my own eyes.
This is a rather pigheaded thing to say frankly, I'm surprised at you for it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Religion isn't really founded on arguments at all, and neither is atheism.
Correct. Atheism is based on the lack of evidence for religion's claims.
No, it is not possible to prove a negative, and that is why theism is inherently weak intellectually, imo. I mean to say that the basic underpinning of theism is an irrevocable, inarguable assumption, and defending it is hardly difficult.
My ideas about the world are not based on lack of evidence, they are based on the evidence of my own eyes.
This is a rather pigheaded thing to say frankly, I'm surprised at you for it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, it is not possible to prove a negative, and that is why theism is inherently weak intellectually, imo. My ideas about the world are not based on lack of evidence, they are based on the evidence of my own eyes.
This is a rather pigheaded thing to say frankly, I'm surprised at you for it.
I didn't say that my ideas about the world were based on lack of evidence. I said that my opinion on the single question of whether or not there is a god or gods is based on the lack of evidence for it.
It's very simple. If there is evidence for something, I believe it. If there isn't evidence for something, I withhold belief. But this is only talking about beliefs. I have plenty of other ideas about the world.
Is that pig-headed? If it is, please explain how, rather than just giving it a label.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:I mean to say that the basic underpinning of theism is an irrevocable, inarguable assumption, and defending it is hardly difficult.
Apparently it is arguable, as there are many here who argue against it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sorry I'll try to be more to your point. Theologically there really is not any GOOD basis for Christians persecuting Jews. ... IMO it was human beings that persecuted the Jews, not Christianity.
Perfectly ok, nothing to be sorry for. Perhaps you're a bit hesitant to go into the details, due to the question of blame as implied by the last line. I assure you that for the purposes of this tangent, I really have no interest in assigning blame. For brevity, we can agree for this tangent that humans (perhaps motivated by bad theology) did it and Christianity was not the "primary factor".
Well, let's try it from a different angle and see where that leads.
Let's say that the Jesus had not gone through the crucification, that the persecution of the Christians had been a bit more reasonable and the Roman governor had been a little more uncooperative with the Jews. Jesus lives past the Last Supper and a few weeks later, dies of food poisoning or the plague or something.
Question: Was it necessary for Jesus to suffer on the cross to "[take]upon Himself the sins of the world ... thus preparing a way for us to repent of our sins and rise again from the dead"? Or was only his eventual death, peaceful or otherwise, necessary?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: kmbboots, I'm curious as to what beliefs of yours are uniquely Christian. If you don't take the Bible literally then what distinguishes you from a Jew who does not take the Old Testament literally either? If you views have evolved beyond those uniquely expressed in the Bible then it doesn't make sense to insist on the term "Christian".
EDIT: I hope it doesn't sound like I'm accusing you or anything. I just don't know the details about what you believe.
Well, one thing that would distinguish me from a Jew would be that I believe that Jesus Christ was/is the Messiah. And that Jesus was/is fully God. One in being with the Creator.
That is probably the biggest thing.
Christians in general (not all, but most I would think) throughout history and particularly Catholics base their beliefs on more than the Bible. As a matter of fact there wasn't a Bible as we know if for the first few centuries of the Church.
And I do take some of the Bible literally. Depends on what you are talking about.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I was pointing out that if Joldo, or anyone, is having trouble believing in things like the Flood it is less likely that they will believe in the bigger (in importance to us) claims like the Resurrection.
This is probably true, although I have heard many theists argue that their belief in things like evolution and materialist principles in general (not to mention their skepticism of things like the six day creation and the flood) does not hurt their faith. I suspect them to be at least slightly delusional.
On the flip side, if something, some new information or new way of interpreting things, make it easier to believe that the Flood may have happened, does that translate into an easier time believing in the resurrection?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Yes, actually - at least in the sense that as a whole the accounts in the bible are not quite as incredulous as they were before.
So that really doesn't amount to much - especially to an atheist that doesn't believe in the validity of the bible anyway, but it does make a bit of a difference.
edit: I hope that makes sense. My brain is fried after writing a paper for the past six hours that I've known about for weeks but thought until the day it was due that I still had plenty of time.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Reskpeckobiggle seems to think that I - and every priest I know (for example) is "delusional". I am comfortable saying that most educated Catholics have no problem with evolution. When the question, "Do Catholics believe in evolution," was asked of the priest in class recently, he looked bonestly surprised that the question was even asked in the 21st century and said, "Well, of course."
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Joldo, there's an easy answer to that problem:
God did it.
There. Problem solved.
Which one? ;D I've been an atheist all my life... well, actually, I started out as an agnostic when I was 7 or 8 years old. It just doesn't make sense to me to believe in a specific, more or less superior being just because I happen to be born in a country / culture in which Christian denominations dominate and to discard all the other religions at the same time.
In this point I'm rather with Thomas Jefferson:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
I don't think it matters if you believe or not... and which image of a deity (including dogma and doctrines) you are taught to prefer. After all, if you're, for example, a Christian, Muslim or Jew, there's just one God less you don't believe in.
The only thing that REALLY matters, is the way you lead your life and treat other people. Atheist, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Bokonist... as long as one at least tries, sincerely, to live according to the content of the following "creed", no hell would accept you as a member. ;D
A Poem by Robert Ingersoll:
"My creed: To love justice, to long for the right, to love mercy, to pity the suffering, to assist the weak,
to forget wrongs and remember benefits, to love the truth, to be sincere, to utter honest words, to love liberty, to wage relentless war against slavery in all its forms,
to love family and friend, to make a happy home, to love the beautiful in art, in nature, to cultivate the mind, to be familiar with the mighty thoughts that genius has expressed, the noble deeds of all the world;
to cultivate courage and cheerfulness, to make others happy, to fill life with the splendor of generous acts, the warmth of loving words;
to discard error, to destroy prejudice, to receive new truths with gladness, to cultivate hope, to see the calm beyond the storm, the dawn beyond the night, to do the best that can be done and then be resigned.
This is the religion of reason, the creed of science. This satisfies the brain and the heart."
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
" no hell would accept you as a member"
Well, the hell that some of the people I know believe in would.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: On the flip side, if something, some new information or new way of interpreting things, make it easier to believe that the Flood may have happened, does that translate into an easier time believing in the resurrection?
Yes. But that 'yes' comes with a qualifier. If some new information or evidence came around for the Flood and it was exactly (or at least close) to how it was described in the Bible...then yes, the Bible would get a little more solid factual footing and believing in the resurrection would thus be easier.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
But I'm sure you get my point. =D
I know this kind of person, too. Who doesn't? This holier-than-thou attitude is really tedious and quite medieval, isn't it? I can't stand it. Especially because they don't know more about hell than I do! In the end, there's just one question one has to ask oneself: are you the Merciful Samariter or a Levit?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:Question: Was it necessary for Jesus to suffer on the cross to "[take]upon Himself the sins of the world ... thus preparing a way for us to repent of our sins and rise again from the dead"? Or was only his eventual death, peaceful or otherwise, necessary?
Correct, it was necessary for Jesus to take upon himself the sins of the world as well as rise from the dead. Personally I think it's theologically sound that if Jesus had not been executed he would have eventually allowed himself to die and still risen from the dead.
I think the cross was significant only because God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified, and that even spelling it out in advance would not deter the people from doing it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: But I'm sure you get my point. =D
I know this kind of person, too. Who doesn't? This holier-than-thou attitude is really tedious and quite medieval, isn't it? I can't stand it. Especially because they don't know more about hell than I do! In the end, there's just one question one has to ask oneself: are you the Merciful Samariter or a Levit?
You forgot the third priestly option.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think the cross was significant only because God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified, and that even spelling it out in advance would not deter the people from doing it.
Does that mean that even if god spelled it out he wouldn't let the people not do it, or that the people would have gone and killed him anyway even if god spelled it out for them?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Correct, it was necessary for Jesus to take upon himself the sins of the world as well as rise from the dead. Personally I think it's theologically sound that if Jesus had not been executed he would have eventually allowed himself to die and still risen from the dead.
I think the cross was significant only because God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified, and that even spelling it out in advance would not deter the people from doing it.
Ok, just trying to understand. So Christ was required to suffer on the cross in order to take upon the sins *and* rise from the dead. However, only his death (peaceful or violent) was required for the second part, the resurrection.
Question: So in some sense, is it "better" that he died on the cross rather than peacefully (for Christians that is ... obviously not better for Christ I guess, or is it)?
The second bit is interesting too. I've had the impression, like you, that God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified. However, I never had a source for this impression. Is there actual foreshadowing in the Bible, were there opinions by scholars/figures in the church? Or is this just a trivial personal deduction from the fact that God knows all and could predict it (presumably not being bound by Heisenburg's Uncertainty)?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Ok, just trying to understand. So Christ was required to suffer on the cross in order to take upon the sins *and* rise from the dead. However, only his death (peaceful or violent) was required for the second part, the resurrection.
Err not exactly. Mormons believe that most if not all of the atonement (paying for sins) took place in the garden of Gethsemane. The most difficult part of Christ's mission took place in that garden. Many other Christians do not believe this however, some see the entire ordeal garden + cross as Christ suffering for the sins of the world. But you are right that his death is to ressurection as his suffering is to redeeming mankind.
quote:Question: So in some sense, is it "better" that he died on the cross rather than peacefully (for Christians that is ... obviously not better for Christ I guess, or is it)?
Not in any sense I can think of. People killing the son of God is still considered by God to be horrendously sinful.
quote:The second bit is interesting too. I've had the impression, like you, that God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified. However, I never had a source for this impression. Is there actual foreshadowing in the Bible, were there opinions by scholars/figures in the church? Or is this just a trivial personal deduction from the fact that God knows all and could predict it (presumably not being bound by Heisenburg's Uncertainty)?
A solid reading of the Old Testament yields quite a few verses that speak of crucifixion and Christ's atonement. For Mormons the Book of Mormon foreshadows it even clearer.
I really need to rush off to work, when I get back I'll pull out my scriptures and quote you a few, or perhaps another hatracker can do that in the mean time. I'll be back from work in about 5 hours.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Remember that for Trinitarian Christians (most of us) Jesus is God. God didn't just sacrifice a son (somebody else), God was that son.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Mormons believe that most if not all of the atonement (paying for sins) took place in the garden of Gethsemane.
That's not official doctrine, though. It's not like there was a sin-o-meter that weighed how many sins were expiated when.
quote: The most difficult part of Christ's mission took place in that garden.
I'm not sure that's true either-- in the Garden, an angel was sent to comfort him. On the cross, he suffered alone-- utterly, completely alone, without God or the Holy Spirit present so that he could take on the pains of even the worst sinners. That's the reason he cried out "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Not in any sense I can think of. People killing the son of God is still considered by God to be horrendously sinful.
Sorry, maybe I should rephrase that, I do not mean for the people at the time. I mean for a Christian now, living after Christ's time when (assuming his human form had a normal human lifespan) Christ is long dead, one way or another. For someone that does not share the sin of killing Christ, aren't you kind of better off that Christ died by suffering on the cross to redeem the rest of mankind rather than Christ dying some kind of natural death, accomplishing only the resurrection but no suffering and redeeming?
quote:A solid reading of the Old Testament yields quite a few verses that speak of crucifixion and Christ's atonement. For Mormons the Book of Mormon foreshadows it even clearer.
Cool. I'd be particularly interested in the verses from the Old Testament, verses that have some kind of analogue/parallel with the Torah.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: A solid reading of the Old Testament yields quite a few verses that speak of crucifixion and Christ's atonement.
*cough* Try instead "a Christian reading." There are plenty of "solid" readings that do no such thing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Getting back to the OP, I don't quite understand how you reason from "The Bible's morals are not my morals" to "I am an atheist". To coin a term, you seem to be more of an a-Bible-ist - you don't believe in the Bible. That doesn't, strictly speaking, have any bearing on whether or not you believe there is a god, or even the Christian god. I think you should set this straight within yourself before you go about proclaiming your atheism.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The Christian/atheist false dichotomy is pervasive in our society, especially amongst Christians. I don't blame him for defining his atheism in terms of his inability to reconcile himself with Christianity and his comments about mysticism indicate to me that he's not looking for another religion to join. Given that Christianity was the only theism that he really experienced, his rejection of it is sufficient to define him, at least provisionally, as an atheist.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I think the cross was significant only because God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified, and that even spelling it out in advance would not deter the people from doing it.
Like others have mentioned, isn't it in people's best interest that Christ dies on the cross for everyone's sins? Would you kill one man(or allow him to be killed) to ensure the salvation of all men for all eternity?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:I think the cross was significant only because God knew from the beginning that Christ would be crucified, and that even spelling it out in advance would not deter the people from doing it.
Like others have mentioned, isn't it in people's best interest that Christ dies on the cross for everyone's sins? Would you kill one man(or allow him to be killed) to ensure the salvation of all men for all eternity?
And if you were that man, wouldn't you allow yourself to be tortured for three days, or even try to make it happen, if you were going to be the ruler of the universe afterward?
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: But I'm sure you get my point. =D
I know this kind of person, too. Who doesn't? This holier-than-thou attitude is really tedious and quite medieval, isn't it? I can't stand it. Especially because they don't know more about hell than I do! In the end, there's just one question one has to ask oneself: are you the Merciful Samariter or a Levit?
You forgot the third priestly option.
Not really... But it would have sounded strange to mention the priest here too, wouldn't it? As if every priest were the opposite of this Samariter.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Scott: I could have sworn I said, "Most Mormons" but I clearly did not. But beyond that, James E Talmage makes a point of speaking about Gethsemane and how the atonement was accomplished there not on the cross, but then he also talks about some step in the atonement happening on the cross namely God removing his presence from Christ. But I agree saying many Mormons believe...etc would be more true.
Rivka:
quote:*cough* Try instead "a Christian reading." There are plenty of "solid" readings that do no such thing.
Sorry Christian habit of saying Christ instead of Messiah. As for crucifixion, I don't think you have to be a Christian to see some of the references in The Old Testament about the Messiah and things that would happen to him. Christians do take some of the things that happened to Christ and tie them to those verses in the Old Testament. But I'd rather not argue with you as I do agree with you that plenty of people read the Old Testament and see nothing that references Christ, but *I* can hardly call those solid readings when I believe the point of the entire Old Testament is to point towards the advent of Christ.
Mucus: I'll make a new thread about Old Testament references to the Messiah that I think are worthy of note.
Strider:
quote:Like others have mentioned, isn't it in people's best interest that Christ dies on the cross for everyone's sins? Would you kill one man(or allow him to be killed) to ensure the salvation of all men for all eternity?
Jesus makes this point many many times. But it was not requisite that Jesus be crucified IMO. I think he could have laid down his life without others trying to kill him. I personally believe that Jesus was not actually killed on the cross, he simply finished what he had been commanded to do, and chose to forfeit his life while on the cross.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Getting back to the OP, I don't quite understand how you reason from "The Bible's morals are not my morals" to "I am an atheist". To coin a term, you seem to be more of an a-Bible-ist - you don't believe in the Bible. That doesn't, strictly speaking, have any bearing on whether or not you believe there is a god, or even the Christian god. I think you should set this straight within yourself before you go about proclaiming your atheism.
I reject Christianity and other religions on realistic grounds: I accept Christ's virgin birth and resurrection, the visions of Joseph Smith, the ascension of Mohammed, the laws of Moses, the probability of Ragnarok, the idea of karma, the war between Zeus and his father, and the tales of Shiva equally. As myth.
I reject them on moral grounds. Almost all religions seem to be bent on the elimination of the ego--the self. I can understand the elimination of material attachments--these are usually weaknesses that draw one away from one's purpose. But I detest the idea of eliminating the self in favor of--what, some sort of enlightenment?
In my English 1102 class, we wrote bios for our portfolios. We peer-reviewed them. Of the five I read, all of them were one quarter to two thirds composed of something like, "Jesus is the most important thing in my life, and so is the Bible. Without Jesus I am nothing. Everything I do I owe to God. Nothing I do is worth anything without Jesus. Jesus is what defines my life. I owe it all to Jesus. I plan to give my life to Jesus totally and completely, and do everything for Him."
The will to give over one's life to a cause is understandable; in this, however, I saw the elimination of the self. There is an abasement in this to the point that one loses one's dignity and self-respect: if nothing you do is your own, what matters to you, exactly? It allows you to become a tool--not just for God, but anyone you believe is in God's service. Worse, if taken far enough, it allows you to treat others as tools. It eliminates one's humanity. And almost every religion requires something of the kind.
Moral systems tend to be reactive rather than proactive. A proactive moral system decides what is Good, and everything that is not is Bad--simply undesirable. A reactive system defines what is Evil first, and then makes everything else Good or neutral. Evil is a particularly bad concept because it seems to migrate from defining an act to defining a person, to the point that they are dehumanized. Perhaps it is bitterness, but having been treated this way enough before--I rather dislike it. I'll not have anyone deny me my humanity. I'd rather have a proactive moral system than the reactive one of religion.
Religions seem to discourage questioning. Notice how many moral laws are given in the Bible; now, how many are explained? How often are we told the reason something is bad, in comparison to how often we are simply told that it is wrong or abominable? We are not encouraged to find the basic principles of morality and then work out moral codes ourselves. We are simply given instructions. I find the idea of free will that theists like to harp on rather silly. We are also often told that authority figures are in place by the will of the divine in scripture itself. This is a reason that it makes me think most religions exist as an instrument to maintain power on the part of the ruling class.
I can seize bits and pieces of each religion that I like. But that does not make me a follower of that religion.
Here's my problem with each religion I've encountered: Buddhism: seeks the obliteration of the ego Hinduism: so mixed up in mythologies and folklores that it easily encourages atrocity Islam: violence inherent in its message, oftentimes, despite the efforts to excuse it. Confuscianism: barely a religion, but if so, demands one utterly submit to authority Christianity: I've said quite a lot.
Paganism and Judaism I quite like: Paganism for its proactive approach to morals and Judaism for its emphasis and study, learning, and understanding. Sadly, I can't really buy into the mythologies that go with either of these.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Question: Was it necessary for Jesus to suffer on the cross to "[take]upon Himself the sins of the world ... thus preparing a way for us to repent of our sins and rise again from the dead"? Or was only his eventual death, peaceful or otherwise, necessary?
I think "The Last Tempation of Christ" answers this quite well. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, cannot understand what is like to be limited by human frailty. In order to forgive humans their sins, he must become a human, and suffer human temptation. Only then is he capable of having sympathy for us poor imperfect humans. Thus only then can we be forgiven our sins.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:I mean to say that the basic underpinning of theism is an irrevocable, inarguable assumption, and defending it is hardly difficult.
Apparently it is arguable, as there are many here who argue against it.
We can only go so far as to suggest that this assumption is incorrect. This forces the athiest to try to prove the negative, which is again, impossible. The problem is that for me, the assumption is baseless and for all practical purposes perfectly useless. I find theism frustrating because if there are real believers, people who base all their perceptions on the concept of a God created world, (which I actually doubt), then those people are capable of viewing my suggestion within the framework of their beliefs- and so become incapable of understanding any concept of the world outside that framework.
Religion is to me not unlike the second half of 1984- whatever peace submission may entail, it's a ghastly sight to me.
The reason I called your statement pigheaded was this: you summed up the core of athiesm in the way that religious people are trained to view it. This description carries the added bonus of being wrong, at least for many many atheists. Unfortunately this description is widespread, and I've encountered it many times- religious people looking upon me as if I just don't get it, as if someone could explain the faith thing to me in another way and I would be out of the woods.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I think "The Last Tempation of Christ" answers this quite well. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, cannot understand what is like to be limited by human frailty.
Wouldn't being omniscient necessarily include a perfect understanding of human frailty and its limits? I'm not a watchmaker (nor a watch), but I understand that a spring can only undergo so much stress.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Originally posted by anti_maven:
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: I too am an atheist, as the common use of the word us used. But I'm actually an agnostic as I'm in constant search for truth of the Universe.
I like this. I subscribe. What a pity Telp that you live on the other side of the Atlantic, because otherwise we could get together for a non-prayer non-meeting...
hehehe...
I have great respect for religion in some ways, as in the inspiration to create some of the greatest works of art/music/architecture.
But dogma is also the greatest evil to humanity as it also limits free thought and the belief that the followers of whatever faith are the true holders of the truth and have their fingers on the ethical heartbeat of the Universe. Very arrogant imho.
In the end I'd describe myself as a Humanist, as the only judge of right and wrong are Humans and what is good for the Human species.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
The only main reason that Christians persecuted Jews: - the Christians were treated by the Roman government as some Jewish sect. They were desperate to be recognized as their own religion so they did everything they could to demonize the very people from which they came from.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Actually, the early Christians wanted to be seen by Rome as the legitimate successors to Judaism. Judaism had some level of respect in Rome as an "ancient" (old, established) religion and thus Jews had exemptions from a lot of the otherwise required civic religious duties. Being seen as something completely new was not an advantage in that setting.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Wouldn't being omniscient necessarily include a perfect understanding of human frailty and its limits?
That is the point, actually. This goes back to the logical conundrum: Can God create a rock so large he cannot lift it?
As a single omnipotent being, he cannot understand what it means to be limited, which is a limitation unto itself. But by creating a subset of himself that is wholly independent, he can experience the limits that go with NOT being omnipotent and omnicient, thus bypassing the logic problem.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:As a single omnipotent being, he cannot understand what it means to be limited
Why not. I mean, I can try to imagine what it means to be black, in poverty, an astronaut, a woman, or a zillion other things that I am not likely to ever actually experience. I may or may not be pretty close to the mark on any of those things, but that's because of my limited -science and -potence. If God is omnipotent/omniscient, shouldn't he be able to understand these things without having to actually experience them himself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: The only main reason that Christians persecuted Jews: - the Christians were treated by the Roman government as some Jewish sect. They were desperate to be recognized as their own religion so they did everything they could to demonize the very people from which they came from.
I'm sorry but early persecution of Christians BY Jews almost certainly qualifies as one of the main reasons for a later reversal of the roles, it's too bad so many Christians failed to live up to expectations.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Can we also point out that anti-semitism had a lot to do with power?
After the first few centuries, the church had temporal as well as spiritual power, but it all depended on recognition of them as spiritual authority. The Jews did not grant them this, and were therefore a threat.
Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:As a single omnipotent being, he cannot understand what it means to be limited
Why not. I mean, I can try to imagine what it means to be black, in poverty, an astronaut, a woman, or a zillion other things that I am not likely to ever actually experience. I may or may not be pretty close to the mark on any of those things, but that's because of my limited -science and -potence. If God is omnipotent/omniscient, shouldn't he be able to understand these things without having to actually experience them himself.
Yeah, but all those things you listed are experienced by other people with basically the same tools you have--human bodies, human senses, human mind, etc. Can you understand what it's like to be a worm, a bacterium, a fish? That's a closer comparison, I'd say.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Can you understand what it's like to be a worm, a bacterium, a fish? That's a closer comparison, I'd say.
Well, they aren't made in my image...
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: Can you understand what it's like to be a worm, a bacterium, a fish? That's a closer comparison, I'd say.
If I were omnipotent and omniscient...yup.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm sorry but early persecution of Christians BY Jews almost certainly qualifies as one of the main reasons for a later reversal of the roles, it's too bad so many Christians failed to live up to expectations.
This is not supported by any historical evidence I am aware of.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What, that early Christians were persecuted by the Jews? Of course they were. Ethnic cults tend to do that to heretics. That this early persecution was the cause of the later reversal, well, I think BlackBlade is on rather shakier ground there. I don't believe there is much institutional continuity between the early heretic-Jew cult and the later widespread state religion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That this early persecution was the cause of the later reversal, well, I think BlackBlade is on rather shakier ground there.
Precisely.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I never said it was THE cause I said one of the main reasons. James the Just was executed by Herod purely so that the Jews would like him more.
Saul of Tarsus was also executed because the Jews demanded it. Look maybe the Christians just ignored these events and didn't really mean it when they called the Jews Christ killers, but I find that very difficult to reasonably establish. I have no problem believing that Jewish persecution of Christians did nothing to embitter the Christian population towards them, but from what I have seen, it just is not that way. I'll look some things up and see what I can come up with, it's not as if I need to find a reason for the early Christians to dislike the Jews.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: The only main reason that Christians persecuted Jews: - the Christians were treated by the Roman government as some Jewish sect. They were desperate to be recognized as their own religion so they did everything they could to demonize the very people from which they came from.
That statement is fatally simplistic.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Wouldn't being omniscient necessarily include a perfect understanding of human frailty and its limits?
That is the point, actually. This goes back to the logical conundrum: Can God create a rock so large he cannot lift it?
As a single omnipotent being, he cannot understand what it means to be limited, which is a limitation unto itself. But by creating a subset of himself that is wholly independent, he can experience the limits that go with NOT being omnipotent and omnicient, thus bypassing the logic problem.
Doesn't omniscience remove all doubt? Isn't the idea of being omniscient the ability to already know everything? If that is limited, then nothing is unlimited- so what is god?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
What exactly does it mean to "understand" a concept anyway?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that God became human so God could understand us; I think that God became man to help us better understand God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What do you understand about God that you would not understand if He hadn't become human?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that God became human so God could understand us; I think that God became man to help us better understand God.
And given the huge differences in understanding, just among Christians, let alone the rest of the world, do you think he succeeded?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
We now understand that he really does love all people. A lot of prophets and Isrealites of the Old Testament didn't get that. We now understand that God too is willing to make sacrifices so that people can get to heaven. We now understand that the Messiah need not be a warrior to drive out whichever conquerers that occupy Isreal at the moment. We also now fully understand that God meant us to be his friends and his companions, as he became our friend and companion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think he could have laid down his life without others trying to kill him.
This is obviously very speculative, but how do you guess that would have happened if no one was trying to kill him?
Joldo: Reading your posts, I'm starting to think you may be more of a genuine anti-theist rather than an atheist
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I think "The Last Tempation of Christ" answers this quite well. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, cannot understand what is like to be limited by human frailty. In order to forgive humans their sins, he must become a human, and suffer human temptation. Only then is he capable of having sympathy for us poor imperfect humans. Thus only then can we be forgiven our sins.
That is certainly an interesting idea and vaguely reminiscent of the many compelling stories about gods and aliens taking human form. From a story point of view, it would at least "humanise" God as a character and explain why he becomes so much more compassionate after the Old Testament.
Is this a widespread or mainstream belief though? Although I am not privy to the details, IIRC "The Last Temptation of Christ" courted a fair amount of controversy from Christians for its depiction.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Couldn't He have taught essentially the same lessons from the beginning by, say, not exterminating so many people and ordering regular genocides? I mean, why should His willingness to temporarily suffer a little pain be such an important and useful lesson when contrasted with millennia of behavior?
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
quote:Joldo: Reading your posts, I'm starting to think you may be more of a genuine anti-theist rather than an atheist
I am. It takes a genuine revulsion for me to fully reject a part of myself, as I do with Christianity now. If I'd simply felt neutral or apathetic, I'd still let it dangle like an atrophied limb.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:This is obviously very speculative, but how do you guess that would have happened if no one was trying to kill him?
Jesus said in regards to His own life, "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."
If we are to believe Jesus it sounds like he was given the power to die whenever He so chose, but would only exercise that power when commanded to by His father. IMHO I think Jesus could have simply laid down and died.
Tom:
quote:Couldn't He have taught essentially the same lessons from the beginning by, say, not exterminating so many people and ordering regular genocides? I mean, why should His willingness to temporarily suffer a little pain be such an important and useful lesson when contrasted with millennia of behavior?
Regular genocides seems likes an exaggeration Tom. Especially in light of the fact that nobody knows the situation, all we have is the record of the people who did the killing. Also I take issue with your statement that God only endured, "Temporary suffering." It supposes that God is mentally indifferent towards what His children do, have done, and will do. I don't think that is accurate. I believe Jesus came down to demonstrate what perfection is. Love for all men, a complete willingness to be humble before God, and a life devoted to the service of others.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Perhaps if God had suffered for all eternity, rather than 3 days, he would do away with Hell entirely.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom, I think that the limitation is not the lesson but our ability to learn what God has to teach.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Perhaps if God had suffered for all eternity, rather than 3 days, he would do away with Hell entirely.
Mormons (this Mormon anyway) believes that Christ suffered the pains of Hell just as he did the pains of life. Within my understanding of our theology, even those in "hell" can repent and be forgiven.
AND, anyway-- Mormons don't believe in an eternity of suffering.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Doesn't omniscience remove all doubt? Isn't the idea of being omniscient the ability to already know everything? If that is limited, then nothing is unlimited- so what is god?
You're assuming a lot about what omniscience means. Bear in mind that I'm an atheist, so I don't believe there is a God in the first place, but assuming there is, we limited humans can't possibly know what Gods limits are.
Virtually all of theology is an attempt to understand that which is beyond understanding.
We say God is omnipotent and omniscient. Ok, what does that mean? Omnipotent means being capable of anything. Well, I'm capable of taking a trip to France. I'd have to buy the ticket, get on the plane, and go over and struggle with the language in order to have the experience. But I've never done that. So being capable doesn't mean I've actually made the journey.
We say God is omniscient. Does that mean he understands everything? Or does it merely mean that he has access to all information? I understand that going to France would require me to struggle with the language, but that's very different from the actual experience of doing it.
Even if God is capable of understanding what it's like to be human, that doesn't mean that he really does understand until he buys the ticket and takes the journey.
They say that one of the hardest things to do is to watch someone try to do something that you know how to do, without stepping in and doing it for them. Teachers comprehend that the student needs to struggle through the learning process, but it's frustrating to watch the student struggle with something that seems so easy, because the teacher already understands it. Think how hard it must be for God, because he knows EVERYTHING.
I find the whole idea fascinating because it matches my own philosophy, which I call "intrinsic love." You can love anyone (or everyone), because everyone is intrisically lovable.
We can only see a fraction of what makes up a whole person, and so we must act on very limited information to decide whether a person is "a good person" or not. But we can also act on information that we don't have. No matter what sins an individual has committed, in their own experience, those sins were driven by an overwhelming human experience. The Christian concept that we are all sinners is important, because inwardly, we understand that although we each have committed sins, we also recognize that we are lovable despite our sins. Call it rationalizing if you will, but we couldn't live with ourselves if we didn't believe that we deserve to be loved.
Take that inward understanding outside of ourselves, and we can forgive the sins of others by recognizing our shared human experience. It all fits with the other teachings of Jesus: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," "Judge not, lest ye be judged," "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive others who trespass against us," and of course, "Do unto others as you'd have done to you."
What the "Last Temptation" postulates is that in order to "take the journey" and understand human frailty, God had to become human and experience human limitations in order to feel sympathy for our weakness and sinful nature. The movie doesn't claim that this is the truth, it's merely an attempt to understand God.
Yet you don't have to believe in God in order to gain from the lesson.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I've never met an atheist who became a theist, but I've known a number of theist to atheist conversions.
Then you never met Tatiana on here. She was an atheist(I think, correct me if I'm wrong) for many years before she converted to LDS.
And I'm an atheist (if only a weak one); I'm just bringing this up because I didn't like your argument. Kind of a Devil's advocate, if you believe in that sort of thing.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who have gotten "saved". You can probably find testimonials on some Christian websites.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
There's Kirk Cameron, for instance.
*snort*
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who have gotten "saved". You can probably find testimonials on some Christian websites.
Well that's the thing, there are countless reasons to become an atheist. Some people, and this is the minority, still do believe but are just angry at god/the religion for whatever reason. So of course those atheists would be 'saved'.
And some, like Kirk, were atheists but never really thought about it. So when they get scared by Pascal's Wager, they turn quite easily.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Most of the open atheists (that is, atheists who make it a point that they're atheists, instead of simply being passive about God) I've known are atheists either because they grew up in an openly secular family, and/or they have something against their former religion or religion in general.
Unfortunately, this gives atheists a bad name because that means their passion is derived from annoyance, rebelliousness, disgust, or even, in the most extreme cases, hatred. Many of the former atheists who converted were among the passive crowd.
But to provide a famous example of atheist-Christian conversion, may I present C.S. Lewis...
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: But to provide a famous example of atheist-Christian conversion, may I present C.S. Lewis...
I don't want to be rude, but I don't really understand what everyone sees in Lewis.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: But to provide a famous example of atheist-Christian conversion, may I present C.S. Lewis...
I don't want to be rude, but I don't really understand what everyone sees in Lewis.
Oh no...you've done it now!
Actually, I somewhat agree. I mean, he was a great author, but there is/was certainly much more brilliant and original talent out there.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Oh no...you've done it now!
Actually, I somewhat agree. I mean, he was a great author, but there is/was certainly much more brilliant and original talent out there.
I agree. He is a great writer.
But as far as his arguments...I lost all respect for his abilities in that sense when I read his trilemma.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I don't agree with Lewis on everything either, though I respect him a great deal. Anyway, Glenn did ask...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Lewis was never an atheist, he was a lapsed Christian.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
My favorite philosophy professor, Wielenberg, used to teach a first-year seminar called "Introduction to Philosophy through the Works of C.S. Lewis." It was a good class, but mainly (as another professor put it) because Wielenberg made Lewis into a better philosopher than he was. I think the class was so popular because the student body was largely Christian.
Of course, Wielenberg is an atheist, and is the author of a book entitled "Godless Universe" ...
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Most of the open atheists (that is, atheists who make it a point that they're atheists, instead of simply being passive about God) I've known are atheists either because they grew up in an openly secular family, and/or they have something against their former religion or religion in general.
Unfortunately, this gives atheists a bad name because that means their passion is derived from annoyance, rebelliousness, disgust, or even, in the most extreme cases, hatred. Many of the former atheists who converted were among the passive crowd.
But to provide a famous example of atheist-Christian conversion, may I present C.S. Lewis...
Lewis' own description of atheism is someone who is angry at God. That's impossible. You can't be angry at something you don't believe exists. Of actual atheists, there is most certainly anger at religion, and especially at fundamentalism and evangelism. But Lewis' arguments are all quite transparent. He simply couldn't grasp the idea that atheists actually don't believe in God.
quote: Anyway, Glenn did ask...
Actually, no I didn't. I merely stated that I'd never met someone who had converted from atheism to theism. And while quite a few Christians used to come to alt.atheism and claim they had once been atheists, their language always gave them away.
My actual quote was:
quote:I've never met an atheist who became a theist, but I've known a number of theist to atheist conversions. The thing that strikes me is how lonely the decision making process is. Theism is a support network for conversions, and until recently, atheism was so socially unacceptable that there was no such support. I'm jealous, because for many years such a thing as this thread was not available to me.
This was on the first page. Pity no one has any interest in discussing my post from the beginning of this page. I find it much more interesting.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But seriously Joldo, you do whatever makes you the best human being. If that requires believing in The Great Pumpkin, then so be it!
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
This is not supported by any historical evidence I am aware of.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)