10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

[Ray Jones]

HEY! My answers were totally consistent, and coherent. Granted, I am not a Christian, or following any god, but...you know.

 

On the other hand, it doesn't even matters if we all are gonna die today, because in the end, who cares?

[Maxstate]

I've seen questions like this before and it's almost like they're all from the same guy. You know the one. "RE:FW:FW:FW:FW WHY DO BLACKS GET HISTORY MONTH BUT WHITES DON'T", that one.

 

There's only one question atheists should ask themselves, if I may take the liberty to equate the word atheist to science-believer or science-follower, secularist; does it really matter? If you presume that the entire premise they believe in is false, then how can the answers based on questions, in turn based on a source that is not valid, be valid?

 

Goddamnit if some of us AY THEE ISTS aren't as goddamn stupid as some christians..

[Kylilin]

Being someone who was raised as a Catholic, and has since had at the very least, an uneasy time dealing with spirituality, I have arrived at my own view of life as it relates to a higher power:

 

I believe there is a higher power, but I don't know what or who that power is and I know I am not it either.

I believe the Bible is a book written by man, and what is in that book reflects the best wisdom of its day. Other than the message that certain parts portray, I find the literal interpretation of that wisdom to be outdated.

I don't subscribe to atheism either, life would seem way too empty and pointless if I knew for a fact that there was nothing to look forward too after death, or if I knew that there no sort of mystical force guiding us all to some unnamed and unforseen destiny.

I don't view any one religion as more right or wrong over any other.

 

A very wise man once sang: "Whatever gets you through the night." I think I believe in that most of all.

[Achilles]

There's only one question atheists should ask themselves, if I may take the liberty to equate the word atheist to science-believer or science-follower, secularist; does it really matter?

Absolutely it matters.

 

Ask the victims of all the people that died on September 11th, 2001 if belief in Islam "really matters". Ask the global warming crowd if the fundamentalist christians who believe that none of it matters anyhow because Jesus will be returning soon if that belief "really matters". We're all in this together, so yes, what other people believe is crucial.

 

If you presume that the entire premise they believe in is false, then how can the answers based on questions, in turn based on a source that is not valid, be valid?

If a crazy guy has a gun pointed at your head, do you think your acknowledging his being crazy is going to anything to save your life? You think reasoning with him will work?

 

I don't subscribe to atheism either, life would seem way too empty and pointless if I knew for a fact that there was nothing to look forward too after death, or if I knew that there no sort of mystical force guiding us all to some unnamed and unforseen destiny.

So life cannot have value unless there is a payoff after death? There's no cause to appreciate today for what it is or to acknowledge and treasure the people that you love in your life unless you're guaranteed to see them after you've all died?

 

I disagree, my friend. The way I see it, the idea of destiny and afterlife suck the meaning out of life, not add to it. But of course, I probably read too much Bertrand Russell as a young man too, so...

[Samuel Dravis]

If you presume that the entire premise they believe in is false, then how can the answers based on questions, in turn based on a source that is not valid, be valid?

The question's possible answers are fairly irrelevant. The point of asking these questions is not necessarily to come up with any specific answer; it is to demonstrate that no answer to them is good enough, no answer explanatory, no answer sufficient.

 

It's like someone asking you "Do you have a mind?" and you say, "sure." But then the other guy asks you: "well, if you have it, then where is it? Show it to me." Etc. He's not really asking for an answer to where your mind is; he's trying to get you to recognize that a problem exists...

 

Similarly here: this guy asks these questions because they don't seem to have any good answers-- and they should have good answers, shouldn't they?

[Kylilin]

 

So life cannot have value unless there is a payoff after death? There's no cause to appreciate today for what it is or to acknowledge and treasure the people that you love in your life unless you're guaranteed to see them after you've all died?

 

I disagree, my friend. The way I see it, the idea of destiny and afterlife suck the meaning out of life, not add to it. But of course, I probably read too much Bertrand Russell as a young man too, so...

 

 

I am enjoying my life right now, but I don't think looking forward to something else possibly bigger and better, whether it be a new life or something else entirely is really something so offending or so out of line that it would devalue the life I lead right now. It's not something I would expect anyone else to understand, nor am I asking anyone to understand it, it's just they way I feel.

[Achilles]

I am enjoying my life right now, but I don't think looking forward to something else possibly bigger and better, whether it be a new life or something else entirely is really something so offending or so out of line that it would devalue the life I lead right now.

With all due respect, this doesn't seem to jive very well with the "life wouldn't be worth living" sentiment above.

 

If we agree that this life is the only one that we have evidence for and therefore should be the only one that matters, then an afterlife (a prospect for which we have no reliable expectations) should be considered "gravy" at best, not a reason for living, in and of itself.

[Kylilin]

With all due respect, this doesn't seem to jive very well with the "life wouldn't be worth living" sentiment above.

 

If we agree that this life is the only one that we have evidence for and therefore should be the only one that matters, then an afterlife (a prospect for which we have no reliable expectations) should be considered "gravy" at best, not a reason for living, in and of itself.

 

 

You misunderstand me. I do consider an afterlife "gravy" at best. Why can't I look forward to that gravy or icing on the cake? It doesn't define the very nature of my being, far from it. It doesn't make me act extra good (or bad) for hopes of reward in the beyond. It was not my intention to give off a "life wouldn't be worth living" sentiment. Do not peg me as someone who is hoping to die so I can see what happens next, please, I love video games and my wife's tits way too much to give up my life, to put it bluntly.

[Achilles]

You misunderstand me. I do consider an afterlife "gravy" at best. Why can't I look forward to that gravy or icing on the cake? It doesn't define the very nature of my being, far from it.

Again, per my previous post, this seems to contradict this statement made by you:

I don't subscribe to atheism either, life would seem way too empty and pointless if I knew for a fact that there was nothing to look forward too after death, or if I knew that there no sort of mystical force guiding us all to some unnamed and unforseen destiny.

Emphasis added.

 

Not trying to call you to the mat, just trying to reconcile which of these two positions you want us to accept as being your actual viewpoint.

[Kylilin]

I don't see a contradiction at all. So, good for me.

 

I don't believe that believing in some sort of life after death devalues the current life I lead, just as I believe that its kind of nice to have the afterlife to hope for or look forwad to.

 

Maybe my wording in earlier posts were too strong, but find the contradiction in the above statement.

[Achilles]

Life is empty and pointless without the prospect of an afterlife = the prospect of an afterlife is simply gravy.

 

This jives for you? Okay.

[Kylilin]

You take my words too far.... so screw it, I'm tired of this nonsense. Yeah, it jives for me, so don't worry about it so much. I'll just have to live with my contradictions, poor me.

[tk102]

Ah yes, the "either-or" dilemma. Higher power or no higher power. Monotheism or atheism.

 

Perhaps you might consider opting out by considering "both-and" or "neither-nor" positions. The former is akin to Hinduism, the latter Buddhism. The former I've espoused in other threads and won't elaborate on it again too much here except to say that pantheism and panentheism both fit into "contradictory" both-and dialectic.

 

Regarding neither-nor, I found a nice quote from my old philosophy teacher online:

The Buddha was frequently asked questions such as the following: (1) Is the world eternal or not eternal? (2) Is the soul the same as the body or different from the body? (3) Is there life after death or no life after death? The secret of the Buddha's famous Middle Way is to ascertain the difference between desires that can be fulfilled (they are not karma accruing) and cravings, i.e., desires that cannot be satisfied and hence karma crediting. One of the most subtle and deep-seated desires is a "craving for views," typically expressed in metaphysical queries such as the ones above.

 

The Buddha called such problems "questions that do not tend to edification," and he usually answered with what I call "neither/nor dialectic": (1) The world is neither eternal nor not eternal; (2) the soul is neither the same as the body nor different from the body; and (3) there is neither life after death nor no life after death. This dialectical technique was perfected by the great Mahayana philosopher Nagarjuna, but its effect was just as powerful in the Buddha's original words. "Neither/nor dialectic" essentially destroys "craving for views" by negating it to death.

 

See also Mindstream. Or not.

[Achilles]

You take my words too far....

At every point I've asked for your help to reconcile those statements. Rather than do so, you've opted to simply state that they aren't contradictory and now you're just leaving the thread. If you don't offer clarification when it's asked for, then I don't see how I can be guilty of misconstruing your statement.

Yeah, it jives for me, so don't worry about it so much.

Yet another example of the type of thinking the author sought to address.

I'll just have to live with my contradictions, poor me.

Sounds good. Take care.

The Buddha was frequently asked questions such as the following: (1) Is the world eternal or not eternal? (2) Is the soul the same as the body or different from the body? (3) Is there life after death or no life after death? The secret of the Buddha's famous Middle Way is to ascertain the difference between desires that can be fulfilled (they are not karma accruing) and cravings, i.e., desires that cannot be satisfied and hence karma crediting. One of the most subtle and deep-seated desires is a "craving for views," typically expressed in metaphysical queries such as the ones above.

 

The Buddha called such problems "questions that do not tend to edification," and he usually answered with what I call "neither/nor dialectic": (1) The world is neither eternal nor not eternal; (2) the soul is neither the same as the body nor different from the body; and (3) there is neither life after death nor no life after death. This dialectical technique was perfected by the great Mahayana philosopher Nagarjuna, but its effect was just as powerful in the Buddha's original words. "Neither/nor dialectic" essentially destroys "craving for views" by negating it to death.

So the best way to answer the question is to propose a third choice that simply circumvents the need to answer the question altogether? Definitely an alternative, but it doesn't seem to be very intellectually honest. In fact, I would say that it's simply a variation on the point that the author was trying to address.

[tk102]

Ah oops, I meant to address the former post towards Kylilin. I don't believe the author of the Youtube video isn't addressing Eastern religions which do not have a personal, montheistic deity. The evidence that a basic stuff exists in the universe pretty much physicists have been trying to discern for centuries. The belief that a basic stuff exists is the leap that I suggested.

[Jvstice]

 

For those of you that want to skip the video (not recommended) and go straight to the questions, here they are:

 

#1 Why won't god heal amputees?

Deuteronomy repeatedly quotes God as saying "I will show mercy to whom I choose to show mercy." A statement that God loves some people more than others.

 

#2 Why are there so many starving people in our world?

see #1

 

#3 Why does god demand the death of so many innocent people in the bible?

see #1

#4 Why does the bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

 

God's words, in the words of men. It may not give a full or complete view of God or the universe in terms of specific tangible data. It's primarily stories about the Hebrews and early Christians and earlier people's relationships with God and vice versa, the historic details were afterthoughts at best.

 

#5 Why is god such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible?

 

Being in favor of something is not the same as not caring enough to intervene yourself to stop it. The Bible never states that God prefers a government system of slavery, but does go with the assumption that slavery's pretty thoroughly ingrained and goes with setting social rules on how to treat them, including a time and place they should be freed.

 

Though related somewhat, there is one point where Jesus is talking about something else not being prohibited in the Hebrew scriptures, as a concession to people's stubbornly sinful & hard hearted nature toward one another, and just focusing on the problem of how to act assuming that this other thing was going to be thoroughly ingrained in the culture

 

#6 Why do bad things happen to good people?

 

Never really found an answer I like to this, and I've thought of it a lot. Most answers that make any sense point to God enjoying our suffering, indifferent to our suffering, or having a purpose to which the quality of life of good people are a secondary consideration. I do try to give benefit of the doubt, but .... *shrug* who can really say what's in God's mind.

 

#7 Why didn't any of jesus' miracles in the bible leave behind any evidence?

 

Part of the definition of miracle and part of the definition of science. A miracle is a 1 time event. Science is by definition replicable. If it can't be replicated, it can't be studied scientifically.

 

#8 How do we explain the fact that jesus has never appeared to you?

 

I'm not owed anything in life. Why would I expect that?

 

#9 Why would jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

 

I'm not catholic, so I'm not such a literalist on this matter and normally would say that the bread and wine represent some very uncomfortable events, the literal shedding of Christ's body and blood and a call to accept his actions and suffering as being on our behalf. The point of the crucifixion was that it was a repulsive way for anyone to die. It's a matter of appologizing more sincerely to God so that you can get beyond whatever distances you from God, to move on with life.

 

I'll assume the literal for the sake of this discussion. In the first millenia after Christ, most Christians were illiterate peasants, both in the Roman empire, and after. You are told that this becomes the blood and body of Christ. You'd feel revulsion. And this would weed out those that weren't really dedicated to the idea of becoming a Christian and really following Jesus.

 

#10 Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?

 

Because they're people.

[Achilles]

Deuteronomy repeatedly quotes God as saying "I will show mercy to whom I choose to show mercy." A statement that God loves some people more than others.

But no one enough to replace their missing limb? Even though certain species of reptile do it all the time. He loves the lizards more than us

 

see #1

So rather than kill them off with a flood or brimstone, he starves them to death (this included children)? Quite the conundrum for the "omnibenevolent" myth.

 

see #1

See above.

 

God's words, in the words of men.

Huh? God's words or men's words. Which is it?

 

It may not give a full or complete view of God or the universe in terms of specific tangible data. It's primarily stories about the Hebrews and early Christians and earlier people's relationships with God and vice versa, the historic details were afterthoughts at best.

Is this an argument for god needing a better editor for his next publication?

 

Being in favor of something is not the same as not caring enough to intervene yourself to stop it. The Bible never states that God prefers a government system of slavery, but does go with the assumption that slavery's pretty thoroughly ingrained and goes with setting social rules on how to treat them, including a time and place they should be freed.

Well, some of them anyway. Odd that he would speak out on behalf of livestock but not people. Hmmm...

 

Never really found an answer I like to this, and I've thought of it a lot. Most answers that make any sense point to God enjoying our suffering, indifferent to our suffering, or having a purpose to which the quality of life of good people are a secondary consideration. I do try to give benefit of the doubt, but .... *shrug* who can really say what's in God's mind.

Well, if nothing else, you've at least posed a pretty strong argument for why apologists are hypocrites.

 

Part of the definition of miracle and part of the definition of science. A miracle is a 1 time event. Science is by definition replicable. If it can't be replicated, it can't be studied scientifically.

Not exactly true. If scientists can reproduce conditions that satisfactorily explain a phenomenon, then that is considered science. However since "miracles" cannot be ruled out via this method (or any other for that matter) I suppose your argument and my response are really moot points.

 

I'm not owed anything in life. Why would I expect that?

Not a question of expectation: If he exists, why hasn't he physically appeared to you? Whether you feel it would be "owed" to you or not is really quite beside the point.

 

I'm not catholic, so I'm not such a literalist on this matter and normally would say that the bread and wine represent some very uncomfortable events, the literal shedding of Christ's body and blood and a call to accept his actions and suffering as being on our behalf.

That's fine, however people that are catholic disagree with you.

 

I'll assume the literal for the sake of this discussion. In the first millenia after Christ, most Christians were illiterate peasants, both in the Roman empire, and after. You are told that this becomes the blood and body of Christ. You'd feel revulsion. And this would weed out those that weren't really dedicated to the idea of becoming a Christian and really following Jesus.

Or it would help endear pagan converts that were used to consuming animal sacrifices. *shrugs*

 

Because they're people.

^^^^ non-answer

If Christian couples are subject to the same divorce rates, martial problems, etc as non-christians, then what the heck's the point of the religious institution of marriage. Might as well just default to the legal status of civil unions and keep it real, if you ask me.

[Maxstate]

The question's possible answers are fairly irrelevant. The point of asking these questions is not necessarily to come up with any specific answer; it is to demonstrate that no answer to them is good enough, no answer explanatory, no answer sufficient.

 

It's like someone asking you "Do you have a mind?" and you say, "sure." But then the other guy asks you: "well, if you have it, then where is it? Show it to me." Etc. He's not really asking for an answer to where your mind is; he's trying to get you to recognize that a problem exists...

 

Similarly here: this guy asks these questions because they don't seem to have any good answers-- and they should have good answers, shouldn't they?

Maybe I'm getting misunderstood because of my tendency to use over-pretentious vocabulary. What I'm trying to say here is that they, "intelligent" christians, have no reason to answer these questions from "intelligent" atheists. Since if these atheists were in fact intelligent, they wouldn't be asking these questions.

[Samuel Dravis]

Who's to say that the target of the questions is primarily "intelligent" christians? From what I've seen, most outrage others have over religion is not caused by these "intelligent" ones. If it's targeted mainly at the more ignorant ones then it does makes sense to ask the questions. Their purpose is not to convert someone to atheism; their purpose is to make someone stop ranting long enough to realize they don't have all the answers...

[Achilles]

Since if these atheists were in fact intelligent, they wouldn't be asking these questions.

Why is that?

 

I have to assume that you didn't watch the video because the author explains precisely why the target audience is "intelligent christians".

[Jvstice]

But no one enough to replace their missing limb? Even though certain species of reptile do it all the time. He loves the lizards more than us

Well we were given minds, and the capacity to learn how to develop cures for our own betterment over the long run. It sounds callous to put it like that though.

 

So rather than kill them off with a flood or brimstone, he starves them to death (this included children)? Quite the conundrum for the "omnibenevolent" myth.

I've never claimed omnibenevolence, and the Deuteronomy quote actually shows God showing that he plays favorites, loving some intensely and despising others with no regard to any merit and no person being intrinsically worse than others. We're told by Jesus not to play favorites that way though.

 

See above.

ditto.

 

Huh? God's words or men's words. Which is it?

When someone attempts to quote another individual, the biases of the person doing the quoting sometimes creep in, even though the basic substance of the message is that of the originator of the message. Little things, like different emphases might end up having a bigger role. So it's actually something of a hybrid.

 

Is this an argument for god needing a better editor for his next publication?

It's an arguement for not using a tool for more than it's purpose. The purpose of the Bible is to illustrate what relationships between human beings and God look like, and to serve as a call to faith. When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I wouldn't have thought that you and the fundamentalists would have that much in common.

 

Well, some of them anyway. Odd that he would speak out on behalf of livestock but not people. Hmmm...

Well, that wouldn't be my priorities, but I wouldn't presume to speak for someone else without hearing the why from them first.

 

Well, if nothing else, you've at least posed a pretty strong argument for why apologists are hypocrites.

Of course, having an axe to grind and only opening a debate because you have an emotional investment in how the opposing side answers, and how you can paint them, often leads a person being dishonest with themselves.

 

Not exactly true. If scientists can reproduce conditions that satisfactorily explain a phenomenon, then that is considered science. However since "miracles" cannot be ruled out via this method (or any other for that matter) I suppose your argument and my response are really moot points.

Even the bible makes pretty clear that there's no methodology to dividing a loaf of bread in such a way to feed hundreds or thousands of people. Elisha prays and feeds a 200 man army, where Jesus feeds 4000 people following to hear him preach one time, and 5000 another. I don't see how this is supposed to leave behind some evidence of a universal law that you could then put into effect and feed the world's hungry.

 

By their own admission, these were special cases, and not some undiscovered application of E = mc2 energy to mass conversion.

 

 

Not a question of expectation: If he exists, why hasn't he physically appeared to you? Whether you feel it would be "owed" to you or not is really quite beside the point.

I'm on an entirely different wavelength then you and don't see what you're getting at. We're told have faith, or don't bother at all, because it's impossible to please God otherwise. Why act in a way that makes the one thing you're calling on people to do irrelevant?

 

That's fine, however people that are catholic disagree with you.

I can live with that. And they're probably relieved at not having to answer for me as well.

 

Or it would help endear pagan converts that were used to consuming animal sacrifices. *shrugs*

Considering that to be Christian under the declining roman empire was a death sentence if you were caught, and secrecy was a major part, I'd think that disuasion and pushing casually interested people away was probably a bigger factor initially. What you're talking about might well have entered into it later once there was a centralized church body focused on missionaryism at any cost. Much the same as the sainting of pagan gods was done during this time too.

 

^^^^ non-answer

If Christian couples are subject to the same divorce rates, martial problems, etc as non-christians, then what the heck's the point of the religious institution of marriage. Might as well just default to the legal status of civil unions and keep it real, if you ask me.

In the eyes of the law, that would probably be the best way to see that no one's liberties are crushed by the government whose job is to stay a neutral party other than to enforce that everyone does get their liberties.

 

But just because someone gives you the ideal makings of a garden, wouldn't mean that the person who puts theirs together from scratch can't have a worthwhile one. It also doesn't relieve the person given the garden the responsibility of upkeeping it themselves, to reap the benefits regardless of their actual competence to do so.

[Achilles]

Well we were given minds, and the capacity to learn how to develop cures for our own betterment over the long run. It sounds callous to put it like that though.

That's fine however it does not address the question. If some people experience "miraculous" cures and those "miraculous" cures are the direct intervention of god, then why does god not intervene to replace missing limbs? Your points are good, however they have absolutely nothing to do with the question.

 

I've never claimed omnibenevolence...

And I never said that *you* did.

 

...and the Deuteronomy quote actually shows God showing that he plays favorites, loving some intensely and despising others with no regard to any merit and no person being intrinsically worse than others. We're told by Jesus not to play favorites that way though.

And I agree. However, since modern judeo-christian theology tends to argue that god is omnibenevolent, these points tend to create a problem for that myth. Within the scope of this belief, the question is legitimate and your response is rather unrelated.

 

ditto.

Are we at match point yet?

 

When someone attempts to quote another individual, the biases of the person doing the quoting sometimes creep in, even though the basic substance of the message is that of the originator of the message. Little things, like different emphases might end up having a bigger role. So it's actually something of a hybrid.

Sorry, this point is rather important, so I'm not going to be able let you squirm on this one: Is the bible the word of god or the word of man? Please read John 1:1 before responding.

 

It's an arguement for not using a tool for more than it's purpose. The purpose of the Bible is to illustrate what relationships between human beings and God look like, and to serve as a call to faith. When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I wouldn't have thought that you and the fundamentalists would have that much in common.

"not using a tool for more than it's purpose". "The purpose of the bible is to illustrate what relationship human being and god look like and to serve as a call to faith". First, let's please recognize that this is *your* interpretation. It's not bad, or wrong, or evil, in fact in many ways I'm sure it's fine, however it is still the equivalent of an opinion (e.g. not a fact). Second, if the purpose of the bible is to lay out "the ground rules" set forth by our perfect creator, then why does it contain so much bad information (as pointed out by the author). I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.

 

Well, that wouldn't be my priorities, but I wouldn't presume to speak for someone else without hearing the why from them first.

So if god had a very good reason for allowing/promoting slavery then why isn't the practice commonly accepted today? You see how this kinda fluffy thinking doesn't hold up to scrutiny?

 

Of course, having an axe to grind and only opening a debate because you have an emotional investment in how the opposing side answers, and how you can paint them, often leads a person being dishonest with themselves.

So people don't need to be intellectually honest or take responsibility for their own thinking? Sorry, not buying that one. Participation is not mandatory.

 

Even the bible makes pretty clear that there's no methodology to dividing a loaf of bread in such a way to feed hundreds or thousands of people. Elisha prays and feeds a 200 man army, where Jesus feeds 4000 people following to hear him preach one time, and 5000 another. I don't see how this is supposed to leave behind some evidence of a universal law that you could then put into effect and feed the world's hungry.

 

By their own admission, these were special cases, and not some undiscovered application of E = mc2 energy to mass conversion.

And once more the author's point strikes home. I really do get that you, personally, don't feel the need for their to be evidence, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the question: why isn't there any?

 

I'm on an entirely different wavelength then you and don't see what you're getting at. We're told have faith, or don't bother at all, because it's impossible to please God otherwise. Why act in a way that makes the one thing you're calling on people to do irrelevant?

Fair enough.

 

Have you seen the movie No Country For Old Men? There's a scene where the antagonist is in a gas station purchasing Corn Nuts or something of the like. The cashier says something that makes him upset, so he pulls out a quarter, flips it, and then insists that the cashier call heads or tails. The scene is long and I won't try to recreate all the dialog for you, but the point that the audience gets but the cashier doesn't is that if the cashier call it wrong, the antagonist is going to kill him.

 

The fact that he is going to kill him has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the cashier want to die, wants to call either heads or tails, or even cares about calling it correctly. Similarly, whether *you* feel a physical appearance is "owed" to you or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that he has not. Saying "I don't feel that Jesus owes me a cameo" is the equivalent of the cashier in the scene babbling on about why he's being asked to call it: it doesn't change reality/answer the question.

 

To the second part of your point, Muslims will tell you that if you don't accept Islam then you won't please god either. Is it similarly wise to blindly accept that calling as well? You have just as much evidence for their version of god and the christian one, so what criteria are you using for your decision. Also, are you prepared to accept the consequences of making the wrong choice? Might want to think about it.

 

I can live with that. And they're probably relieved at not having to answer for me as well.

That's probably true, but once again, we've completely skirted anything that might pass for an answer. What we do have is an elaborate mental gymnastics plan for how we're going to get out of having to answer the question, which is the point the author was trying to address with his video.

 

Considering that to be Christian under the declining roman empire was a death sentence if you were caught, and secrecy was a major part, I'd think that disuasion and pushing casually interested people away was probably a bigger factor initially. What you're talking about might well have entered into it later once there was a centralized church body focused on missionaryism at any cost. Much the same as the sainting of pagan gods was done during this time too.

Interesting conjecture. I don't think I've ever heard anyone propose that the eucharist was concieved as an attempt to "separate the men from the boys" before. Too bad Darth InSidious doesn't roam these parts; I'm sure he'd have a field day with that one.

 

In the eyes of the law, that would probably be the best way to see that no one's liberties are crushed by the government whose job is to stay a neutral party other than to enforce that everyone does get their liberties.

 

But just because someone gives you the ideal makings of a garden, wouldn't mean that the person who puts theirs together from scratch can't have a worthwhile one. It also doesn't relieve the person given the garden the responsibility of upkeeping it themselves, to reap the benefits regardless of their actual competence to do so.

This doesn't address the point: if christian marriage is somehow superior to some other flavor of marriage or even civil union, then why isn't this demonstrated in divorce rates? The question isn't going to change no matter how much we try to avoid it or put it off with responses that aren't related.

[Jvstice]

That's fine however it does not address the question. If some people experience "miraculous" cures and those "miraculous" cures are the direct intervention of god, then why does god not intervene to replace missing limbs? Your points are good, however they have absolutely nothing to do with the question.

God's not being concerned with all suffering is an answer for a good bit of it, but you're right that it isn't a direct answer, because there are a number of people that have faith and have certain kinds of illnesses that have never been observed and recorded as having been cured. And you're right. There is no proof that they don't hope in vain that I can drag out and show you.

And I never said that *you* did.

Since faith is a personal matter, I'm not going to be drawn into defending ideas that I don't personally believe are true, regardless of who holds to the idea. I'll confess to being somewhat a Calvinist in my interpretation of Christianity, so the idea that God's already decided that He doesn't love some people, but universally calls all His children to love every person that God has created is an idea I've had to reconcile to long ago.

 

But that is a bit of a dodge, because there are too many people to be dismissed that suffer greatly and still have hope of meaning to be found in the afterlife, and lumping the people in as all one and the same doesn't entirely address this.

And I agree. However, since modern judeo-christian theology tends to argue that god is omnibenevolent, these points tend to create a problem for that myth. Within the scope of this belief, the question is legitimate and your response is rather unrelated.

Who argues that? It's certainly not something I've given any credence to since I was a teen.

 

Are we at match point yet?

I wonder

Sorry, this point is rather important, so I'm not going to be able let you squirm on this one: Is the bible the word of god or the word of man? Please read John 1:1 before responding.

All in all as it was originally given, I live my life as though it was the word of God. It has been corrupted by men though, with translator errors, changing definitions of words as languages evolve, and cultural context that the original hearers of a message have that doesn't get passed on to later hearers.

 

I've considered the possibilities both ways, and I hedge in the direction of it may not be perfect, but it's the best we have, and I choose to live my life depending on what has worked for me. I know that view would not make me popular in any major denomination.

"not using a tool for more than it's purpose". "The purpose of the bible is to illustrate what relationship human being and god look like and to serve as a call to faith". First, let's please recognize that this is *your* interpretation. It's not bad, or wrong, or evil, in fact in many ways I'm sure it's fine, however it is still the equivalent of an opinion (e.g. not a fact). Second, if the purpose of the bible is to lay out "the ground rules" set forth by our perfect creator, then why does it contain so much bad information (as pointed out by the author). I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.

Well if you're trying to convince me that "I'm" wrong (which is the entire point of this thread from what I can see) you'll have to deal with this point of view at some point, because it's central to how I understand my faith. As to how fundamentalists think, every religion has them, and I refuse to take the blame for the ones that claim to be affiliated with my religion. A lot of the stuff they spout I find embarassing and doing a major disservice to what I hold sacred.

 

As to your second point, the New Testament contains bad information about how to live a life? That's essentially what ground rules are. I mean, you've got idiots that try to go out and legislate obscure points of bible poetry into the education system or legislate morality, but that has nothing to do with following the ground rules or not. That's just people getting worked up about making non Christians act like Christians (thus precluding the possibility that they'd ever actually want to be a Christian by being so militant over trivial stuff) so they don't have to deal with the hypocrisy in their own lives. That has nothing to do with the "ground rules," other than by negative example.

 

So if god had a very good reason for allowing/promoting slavery then why isn't the practice commonly accepted today? You see how this kinda fluffy thinking doesn't hold up to scrutiny?

It's still commonly practiced in much of the world. There is a widespread and growing sex slave industry. Additionally, in developing nations, economic conditions are bad enough that the same work gets done in the same miserable conditions without calling it slavery much of the times. There are a lot of people still who see sweatshops as a step up from how they have to live.

 

And you're right. It doesn't make it okay, but it's still present and modern ideas haven't really gotten rid of it. Just driven it "underground." Not saying that it shouldn't be stigmatized, but if it was so terrible when it was legal in much of the ancient world, what's made it less so now that it's illegal in much of the world and still goes on?

So people don't need to be intellectually honest or take responsibility for their own thinking? Sorry, not buying that one. Participation is not mandatory.

As much as you attempt to use the socratic method to lay traps for people who haven't thought about their faith, of course you would say this. Believe it or not, I agree that self consistency of a world view is important.

 

And once more the author's point strikes home. I really do get that you, personally, don't feel the need for their to be evidence, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the question: why isn't there any?

Personally I don't need other than what my own experiences in life tell me. You'd never get to the same point in life as I have, having not lived the same life, so there really is no point in debating how I see things.

 

Q: How do you know who your daddy is?

A: Your mom told you.

 

Do you feel the need to run out and get this tested? Most people are happy enough to accept their family relationships are what their family tells them and not dig deeper demanding genetic tests. What would you find that would change what was or was not already true anyway? How would this make your life more complete?

 

I've considered the possibility that I'm right. I've also considered the possibilty that I'm wrong. I think Vicktor Frankl had it right.

 

Fair enough.

 

Have you seen the movie No Country For Old Men? There's a scene where the antagonist is in a gas station purchasing Corn Nuts or something of the like. The cashier says something that makes him upset, so he pulls out a quarter, flips it, and then insists that the cashier call heads or tails. The scene is long and I won't try to recreate all the dialog for you, but the point that the audience gets but the cashier doesn't is that if the cashier call it wrong, the antagonist is going to kill him.

 

The fact that he is going to kill him has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the cashier want to die, wants to call either heads or tails, or even cares about calling it correctly. Similarly, whether *you* feel a physical appearance is "owed" to you or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that he has not. Saying "I don't feel that Jesus owes me a cameo" is the equivalent of the cashier in the scene babbling on about why he's being asked to call it: it doesn't change reality/answer the question.

True. Reality exists. The presence or absence of a higher power doesn't depend on my belief or nonbelief in that higher power's existence.

 

Something I've already considered, and is central to everything you've tried to say. You believe I'll look at my beliefs at this point and conclude that it doesnt matter what I believe, and conclude you're right. Actually the opposite is true. I look at my life and beliefs, and conclude that life such as you advocate would be largely meaningless. Overall I see a downward quality of life (not in terms of comforts, but if you are familiar with Frankl, you'll know what I mean) if I started living like you were correct instead of what I believe now.

 

To the second part of your point, Muslims will tell you that if you don't accept Islam then you won't please god either. Is it similarly wise to blindly accept that calling as well? You have just as much evidence for their version of god and the christian one, so what criteria are you using for your decision. Also, are you prepared to accept the consequences of making the wrong choice? Might want to think about it.

Well I don't pray towards mecca, I do eat pig (though rarely), I don't believe that Mohammad spoke for God, and I haven't ever done Ramadan. They probably wouldn't be too thrilled with my attachment to the belief in the trinity. Otherwise, I live a life that most muslims would consider me to have lived decently, and their religion does make provision for modern Christians having been "misled" by the early apostles, so that God doesn't judge us harshly for that in their own belief system.

That's probably true, but once again, we've completely skirted anything that might pass for an answer. What we do have is an elaborate mental gymnastics plan for how we're going to get out of having to answer the question, which is the point the author was trying to address with his video.

Personally, I found much of the video irrelevant to my actual point of view because it tries to punch a hole in people's beliefs in an omnibenevolent god (which I don't believe in. God does play favorites both in terms of physical benefits and salvation according to his own word, and the beneficiaries of one often are not the beneficiaries of the other, often sitting aside and watching as small children suffer, or tortured, and die.) and goes from assuming that the audience will be so shocked by the audacity of saying that people suffer and there are prayers that aren't answered that they'll happily accept the solution the maker of the video offers to the viewers.

 

Interesting conjecture. I don't think I've ever heard anyone propose that the eucharist was concieved as an attempt to "separate the men from the boys" before. Too bad Darth InSidious doesn't roam these parts; I'm sure he'd have a field day with that one.

Well references in the Bible say that the early Christian church were accused of canibalism as the Bible was still being written. It does point to a lot of people contemporary to that time taking Jesus' words at face value and running with the literal interpretation, since there's nothing else I could think in any interpretation of Christianity that could be interpreted as condoning canabalism.

 

And it would have fit with their purposes. Attracting people that were going into it with the expectation that it would be hard. Secret societies under the penalty of death would want some method of making sure that only those that weren't going to spill their guts about something disasterous to the Romans were ever given enough information to potentially be dangerous.

 

This doesn't address the point: if christian marriage is somehow superior to some other flavor of marriage or even civil union, then why isn't this demonstrated in divorce rates? The question isn't going to change no matter how much we try to avoid it or put it off with responses that aren't related.

Not in terms of durability obviously. Simply in the matter that a Christian marriage a gift from God and something more to be thankful for a show of trust from God in return for. Not that the marriage is likelier to perform better if people take it for granted than any other marriage, or that the people that get into them have it made or anything.

[Achilles]

God's not being concerned with all suffering is an answer for a good bit of it, but you're right that it isn't a direct answer, because there are a number of people that have faith and have certain kinds of illnesses that have never been observed and recorded as having been cured. And you're right. There is no proof that they don't hope in vain that I can drag out and show you.

Okay.

 

Since faith is a personal matter, I'm not going to be drawn into defending ideas that I don't personally believe are true, regardless of who holds to the idea. I'll confess to being somewhat a Calvinist in my interpretation of Christianity, so the idea that God's already decided that He doesn't love some people, but universally calls all His children to love every person that God has created is an idea I've had to reconcile to long ago.

Okay. So for the purposes of this part of the conversation, you're not going to comment on the first three questions because they are based on the commonly held belief that god loves us and answers our prayers. Fair enough.

 

Who argues that? It's certainly not something I've given any credence to since I was a teen.

Well according to theologians and apologists, the bible does *shrugs*.

 

Probably good that we're acknowledging that you have your own flavor of christianity here. Difficult to answer questions about god's nature if you have your own take on what that is. The obvious question I'm dying to ask is why *your* version is "right" and these others are "wrong" is probably fodder for another thread through.

 

Suffice it to say that many christians do believe that god loves them and answers their prayers and these individuals will hopefully opt to try to answer these important questions at some point.

 

All in all as it was originally given, I live my life as though it was the word of God.

Okay, and how do you know what it said when it was originally given?

 

It has been corrupted by men though, with translator errors, changing definitions of words as languages evolve, and cultural context that the original hearers of a message have that doesn't get passed on to later hearers.

Agreed, but if that's all we have to go on, how does one know what it said *before* it was changed? Seems to me the best we can do is guess. Wouldn't you agree?

 

I've considered the possibilities both ways, and I hedge in the direction of it may not be perfect, but it's the best we have, and I choose to live my life depending on what has worked for me. I know that view would not make me popular in any major denomination.

That's cool. But if you've decided to use your own powers of observation and deduction to determine right, wrong, etc, why choose to have religion at all?

 

This is the thing that get's me: it's almost like getting sucked into a black hole. Once you pass the event horizon, there's no going back. So if one chooses to accept theism, it would seem to me that it would be of paramount importance to figure out which flavor is right and then do every single thing that ideology told me to do. It's like knowing that daddy will whoop the bejesus outta ya for riding your bike in the house, but doing it anyway. If you're going to accept god, it seems to me the smart money is in doing it all the way.

 

As much grief as I give the fundamentalists, I have to tell you, they're the ones who's actions make the most sense to me.

 

Well if you're trying to convince me that "I'm" wrong (which is the entire point of this thread from what I can see) you'll have to deal with this point of view at some point, because it's central to how I understand my faith.

Not trying to convince anyone of anything. If you answer the questions honestly, I don't have to.

 

The reality is that your take is one opinion. Fundamental catholocism is another. Mormonism a third, et cetera, et cetera. If you want pass your opinion off as fact, then yes, I imagine that we are both going to have to address that at some point. However, if you acknowledge that you interpretation has equal weight and is as equally valid as any of these others then I don't think there's any conflict.

 

Of course, you are still left to resolve the question as to why the bible has so much bad information in it, but that's not something that you and I necessarily need to discuss any more so than you care to.

 

As to how fundamentalists think, every religion has them, and I refuse to take the blame for the ones that claim to be affiliated with my religion. A lot of the stuff they spout I find embarassing and a discredit to what I hold sacred.

I understand the sentiment, but I guess I don't understand why. They're just behaving like the bible tells them to. Of course, the problem is that other messages can be cherry picked out of the bible too.

 

As to your second point, the New Testament contains bad information about how to live a life?

Sure. No doubt it also contains some great stuff too, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have it's share of whoppers as well.

 

That's essentially what ground rules are.

Ok, so what is the old testament then? And how do you feel about the parts of the new testament that advocate the positions laid out in the old testament?

 

I mean, you've got idiots that try to go out and legislate obscure points of bible poetry into the education system or legislate morality, but that has nothing to do with following the ground rules or not.

Well, just as you have arbitrarily determined that these verses are meaningless, they have arbitrarily determined that they are not. Let's be fair: if you get to pick and choose and call it "good" then so do they.

 

That's just people getting worked up about making non Christians act like Christians (thus precluding the possibility that they'd ever actually want to be a Christian by being so militant over trivial stuff) so they don't have to deal with the hypocrisy in their own lives.

Well, technically they have orders from god to kill us, so forgive me if I don't considering school prayer as "militant" as you do.

 

That has nothing to do with the "ground rules," other than by negative example.

Sir, it sounds as though you've opted to cherry pick your "ground rules". You're not the first and you won't be the last, but let's at least acknowledge that fact.

 

It's still commonly practiced in much of the world.

In predominantly christian nations? If not, then your valid point does not apply to the discussion.

 

And you're right. It doesn't make it okay, but it's still present and modern ideas haven't really gotten rid of it. Just driven it "underground." Not saying that it shouldn't be stigmatized, but if it was so terrible when it was legal in much of the ancient world, what's made it less so now that it's legal and still goes on?

I think you might be very close to making my point here: if god never pulled the plug on the whole slavery thing, then who are we to suddenly decide that it's wrong? Clearly we did not get to that conclusion via a literal interpretation of the holy bible.

 

As much as you attempt to use the socratic method to lay traps for people who haven't thought about their faith, of course you would say this. Believe it or not, I agree that self consistency of a world view is consistent.

I'm not entirely clear on what your point is here. Your contention seemed to be "shame on the atheists for posting such things". My argument is that no one is being forced to read or respond to these posts. If you choose to participate, please don't expect the kid gloves.

 

Personally I don't need other than what my own experiences in life tell me.

That's fantastic. I promise that I really got it the last time you said it. However, that doesn't change the fact that *your expectations* have nothing to do with the question. Your experiences and your expectations do not have any bearing on whether or not the question is important to anyone other than you. If you would like to make a compelling argument for why it shouldn't matter to anyone, I'd be happy to hear it but repeating this point isn't moving the dialog forward.

 

Q: How do you know who your daddy is?

A: Your mom told you.

Actually no. There was this guy, that I kinda look like, that I grew up calling Dad. To the best of my recollection, my mother never offered a formal introduction.

 

Do you feel the need to run out and get this tested? Most people are happy enough to accept their family relationships are what their family tells them and not dig deeper demanding genetic tests. What would you find that would change what was or was not already true anyway? How would this make your life more complete?

 

I've considered the possibility that I'm right. I've also considered the possibilty that I'm wrong. I think Vicktor Frankl had it right.

Please help me understand the relevance of this train of thought. Thanks in advance.

 

True. Reality exists. The presence or absence of a higher power doesn't depend on my belief or nonbelief in that higher power's existence.

 

Something I've already considered, and is central to everything you've tried to say. You believe I'll look at my beliefs at this point and conclude that it doesnt matter what I believe, and conclude you're right. Actually the opposite is true. I look at my life and beliefs, and conclude that life such as you advocate would be largely meaningless. Overall I see a downward quality of life (not in terms of comforts, but if you are familiar with Frankl, you'll know what I mean) if I started living like you were correct instead of what I believe now.

Without knowing precisely what you assume about "what I advocate", I really can't comment intelligently here.

 

Well I don't pray towards mecca, I do eat pig (though rarely), I don't believe that Mohammad spoke for God, and I haven't ever done Ramadan. They probably wouldn't be too thrilled with my attachment to the belief in the trinity. Otherwise, I live a life that most muslims would consider me to have lived decently, and their religion does make provision for modern Christians having been "misled" by the early apostles, so that God doesn't judge us harshly for that in their own belief system.

I think you're taking the same risk with Islam that you're taking with your own religion: you're cherry-picking parts of it and assuming that it represents the whole. The argument that you've gone out of your way to avoid acknowledging is this: what if your beliefs are wrong?

 

With all due respect, you've appeared to invest almost no critical thought into religion in general yet still somehow managed to arrive at the conclusion that it's central to your being. How does one do that?

 

Personally, I found much of the video irrelevant to my actual point of view because it tries to punch a hole in people's beliefs in an omnibenevolent god (which I don't believe in. God does play favorites both in terms of physical benefits and salvation according to his own word, and the beneficiaries of one often are not the beneficiaries of the other, often sitting aside and watching as small children suffer, or tortured, and die.) and goes from assuming that the audience will be so shocked by the audacity of saying that people suffer and there are prayers that aren't answered that they'll happily accept the solution the maker of the video offers to the viewers.

As I pointed out earlier, the omnibenevolent god myth is not some fringe concept within religion, so it's not as though the author it trying to appeal to some radical sect of christianity. You've apparently decided at some point to adopt a worldview that crappy things happen and it's all part of god's plan. I can't help but think that has to foster a profound sense of apathy ("nothin' I can do about it - god's plan" *shrug*) which with seem to fly in the face of the the parts of the new testament you attempted to point me towards earlier. And furthermore, this is somehow better than "the life I advocate" (?).

 

The point remains that we're still left with mental gymnastics. I'm sorry to hear that the author's point passed you by, but hopefully you at least got an enjoyable discussion out of it.

 

Well references in the Bible say that the early Christian church were accused of canibalism as the Bible was still being written. It does point to a lot of people contemporary to that time taking Jesus' words at face value and running with the literal interpretation, since there's nothing else I could think in any interpretation of Christianity that could be interpreted as condoning canabalism..

 

And it would have fit with their purposes. Attracting people that were going into it with the expectation that it would be hard. Secret societies under the penalty of death would want some method of making sure that only those that weren't going to spill their guts about something disasterous to the Romans were ever given enough information to potentially be dangerous.

I'm trying to imagine what kind of individual would be attracted to this early christian church you're proposing. The results aren't flattering.

 

FWIW, you may or may not enjoy the PBS documentary From Jesus to Christ.

 

Not in terms of durability obviously. Simply in the matter that a Christian marriage a gift from God and something more to be thankful for a show of trust from God in return for. Not that the marriage is likelier to perform better if people take it for granted than any other marriage, or that the people that get into them have it made or anything.

This still doesn't address the point, but I suspect that doing so is not a priority for you.

 

Take care and thanks for the interesting discussion, sir.

[Jvstice]

Okay. So for the purposes of this part of the conversation, you're not going to comment on the first three questions because they are based on the commonly held belief that god loves us and answers our prayers. Fair enough.

Just it may or may not be true. It's not a dogmatic thing to me on either side whether someone who hasn't at this point entered into a relationship with God is or is not loved by God.

 

Well according to theologians and apologists, the bible does *shrugs*.

Some theologians. And others not.

 

Probably good that we're acknowledging that you have your own flavor of christianity here. Difficult to answer questions about god's nature if you have your own take on what that is. The obvious question I'm dying to ask is why *your* version is "right" and these others are "wrong" is probably fodder for another thread through.

I don't think it would be possible to carry on an honest discussion without admitting biases, so I did.

 

Suffice it to say that many christians do believe that god loves them and answers their prayers and these individuals will hopefully opt to try to answer these important questions at some point.

And hopefully they'll be better off for facing their doubts. That's really the only way a person can make their faith their own. And it's really not until you've come out the other end of doubt that you can be said to have faith at all. (I differentiate faith from belief in this. Faith is trust. Belief is intellectual assent. Intellectually believing that a chair will hold your mass is a different thing than trusting your weight to it).

 

 

Okay, and how do you know what it said when it was originally given?

That's why it's best to be extremely lenient what you advocate for other people's actions to be or how you judge them, and go with the stricter standard in regards to oneself. At least that's the way I try to see things.

 

Agreed, but if that's all we have to go on, how does one know what it said *before* it was changed? Seems to me the best we can do is guess. Wouldn't you agree?

Often. Though there are certain near universals that most major groups agree on.

 

That's cool. But if you've decided to use your own powers of observation and deduction to determine right, wrong, etc, why choose to have religion at all?

Because my faith in God has and does bring increased meaning to my life.

 

This is the thing that get's me: it's almost like getting sucked into a black hole. Once you pass the event horizon, there's no going back. So if one chooses to accept theism, it would seem to me that it would be of paramount importance to figure out which flavor is right and then do every single thing that ideology told me to do. It's like knowing that daddy will whoop the bejesus outta ya for riding your bike in the house, but doing it anyway. If you're going to accept god, it seems to me the smart money is in doing it all the way.

Well the one thing I keep coming back to is grace. One time, Jesus gave the example of a Pharisee and a Saducee both approaching God in prayer. He'd already said that the Pharisees were much closer to God's actual views on a lot of their theology than the saducees. The basic point of the parable was that the Pharisee just prayed "thank you for making me myself," where the saducee prayed "have mercy on me, a sinner." The saducee is portrayed as recieving god's approval and forgiveness.

 

That and other things lead me to believe its' not primarily a matter of being right, but being humble about your own view of things.

 

As much grief as I give the fundamentalists, I have to tell you, they're the ones who's actions make the most sense to me.

Perhaps in terms of doctrine. Not to me in terms of actions matching their beliefs.

 

I have control over my own actions. I don't have control over the actions of others, nor do I aspire to have that kind of power in order to bring what I percieve as right to be used against others who see things differently than me.

 

Not trying to convince anyone of anything. If you answer the questions honestly, I don't have to.

I haven't tried to be dishonest. I largely entered this discussion because I didn't like the either or presented in the video and thought best to include enough of my own approach within Christianity to show that there is a vast segment to whom the guy in the video's thought process is largely irrelevant, though not wholely off the mark.

The reality is that your take is one opinion. Fundamental catholocism is another. Mormonism a third, et cetera, et cetera. If you want pass your opinion off as fact, then yes, I imagine that we are both going to have to address that at some point. However, if you acknowledge that you interpretation has equal weight and is as equally valid as any of these others then I don't think there's any conflict.

I don't think I've attacked the validity of those interpretations of reality. I do have some problems with the power grabbing elements within any religion in that they use their religion as an excuse rather than a tool to get closer to God at that point, but that's a matter of behavior, and not belief. I know what I believe, and I am willling to learn from anyone. Yes. I do learn from you as well even if you think I'm totally closed minded to all you have to say.

 

Of course, you are still left to resolve the question as to why the bible has so much bad information in it, but that's not something that you and I necessarily need to discuss any more so than you care to.

Either way. I don't feel the need to reconcile genesis 1 & genesis 2 or the like.

 

I understand the sentiment, but I guess I don't understand why. They're just behaving like the bible tells them to. Of course, the problem is that other messages can be cherry picked out of the bible too.

I disagree with the word "just." There is no mandate for a culture war. Frequently in the Bible, both old and new testaments, God's people are shown suffering under cruel rulers and told to bear up. And the ones that often meet God's approval aren't either the ones that let all injustice pass, nor are they the ones that act militant and have a predisposition to rebel against their leaders. Frequently what you see in biblical heroes is a person who starts out not looking to be the center of things, but that they are thrust into a unique position where if they do rebel, that certainly wasn't their first inclination.

 

I have a dispute with the whole posture of being predisposed to rebel against hte greater society in the name of God or against a president because you don't like his politics. If a specific issue requires being rebelled against to bring change, that's one thing. It is wrong to come at things with the predisposition that it needs to be rebelled against though. You see the difference?

 

Sure. No doubt it also contains some great stuff too, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have it's share of whoppers as well.

Specific examples you're refering to?

Ok, so what is the old testament then? And how do you feel about the parts of the new testament that advocate the positions laid out in the old testament?

Personally what do I think? The word testament means covenant. The Old Testament or covenant was God's covenant with the Israelite/Hebrew/ and later Jewish people, and had specific terms and conditions spelled out for both parties.

 

The New Testament /Covenant is a 1 sided covenant where God says God will save whomever he chooses regardless of any merit of the individual being chosen. And if you're chosen, then something in your mind and heart will find that a good thing and draw you towards God, and changing you. And if you're not, you won't really have any internal draw to that point of view anyway and find nothing really compelling about Christianity or following Christ.

 

Well, just as you have arbitrarily determined that these verses are meaningless, they have arbitrarily determined that they are not. Let's be fair: if you get to pick and choose and call it "good" then so do they.

I haven't denied that anybody does a certain amount of that either consciously or unconsciously. But I do it to apply to my own life, or answer what I think when asked. Not all of them are willing to return the courtesy of leaving it at personal application. They betray a major principle to push a more minor one.

 

Well, technically they have orders from god to kill us, so forgive me if I don't considering school prayer as "militant" as you do.

Orders from God to kill us? That doesnt' appear in the new testament any where, and I certainly don't recall seeing it as a general kill everyone thing in the old testament.

 

Saying that "we've been marginalized and persecuted" then reacting to a percieved persecution in such a way that people that are still forming their opinions about what you are all about react hostilly is counterproductive, no matter what they think. The Jesus camp video illustrates this happening better than anything else I could say.

Sir, it sounds as though you've opted to cherry pick your "ground rules". You're not the first and you won't be the last, but let's at least acknowledge that fact.

Actually, I look at if people use their faith primarily as personal application, or as a weapon or tool to control others as my main criteria. My main complaint against most fundamentalists and fundamentalist groups isnt' that they're fundamentalists. It's that they've thrown out the spirit of their interpretation of God's word for it's letter.

 

There's a twin danger. You point out that I get "murky" and cherry pick in that I don't look at as a letter of the law thing. There may be some justification to that. I'm more concerned with the opposite danger, and from my understanding a greater sin and does harm to more people.

 

People get more legalistic when they look for loopholes to excuse their own behavior and justify not giving others a benefit of the doubt. It does happen that people get legalistic for good reasons, but that's not the norm. As a society, we've lost our ability to differentiate between what is good, and what is our role? Should an organization do something that is good, if in the process it compromises it's role or capability of fulfilling its purpose which is a greater good?

 

In predominantly christian nations? If not, then your valid point does not apply to the discussion.

Some of them are I think. Trinidad? The Philipines? Jamaica? I've heard them mentioned among other nations which are definitely not predominately Christian.

 

I think you might be very close to making my point here: if god never pulled the plug on the whole slavery thing, then who are we to suddenly decide that it's wrong? Clearly we did not get to that conclusion via a literal interpretation of the holy bible.

I have nothing wrong with people who live by a literal interpretation of the bible as far as personal application goes. I do, however, think that the whole cultural movement often do more harm than good by focusing on the political at the expense of the spiritual. Jesus's command to his disciples was pretty straightforward that their concerns were to be in worshiping God with their lives then as a 2nd priority making disciples of others.

 

In the book of John during the last supper, Jesus tells his disciples not to desire to lord it over one another "like the heathen do." The whole amish/menonite/quaker/shaker anabaptist branch of protestantism claim, and with some merit I think that hunger for political power over others is incompatible with the attitude that Jesus tried to bring about in his followers, and that one cannot truly follow Christ if your primary goals are political. So there is a good case that the fundamentalists are taking Christian principles and turning them into legislation, but ignoring the central message of what Christianity is supposed to be about in order to achieve a "lesser" goal, according to the values expressed in the gospels.

 

 

I'm not entirely clear on what your point is here. Your contention seemed to be "shame on the atheists for posting such things". My argument is that no one is being forced to read or respond to these posts. If you choose to participate, please don't expect the kid gloves.

I resist emotional manipulation from within Christian groups too. Don't get offended that I don't think highly of it.

 

That's fantastic. I promise that I really got it the last time you said it. However, that doesn't change the fact that *your expectations* have nothing to do with the question. Your experiences and your expectations do not have any bearing on whether or not the question is important to anyone other than you. If you would like to make a compelling argument for why it shouldn't matter to anyone, I'd be happy to hear it but repeating this point isn't moving the dialog forward.

 

Whether a Christian is protestant or catholic, they believe they are called to faith, if they are serious about their religious beliefs at all. There's some debate on how we're judged, about whether God looks at the mix of faith and works. Most modern protestant clergy will admit that for a person's salvation to be sincere that works must be present for it to have ever been a real commitment &/or relationship to God, even though its been the Catholic position that faith and works are what save you. Likewise, most Catholic clergy I've heard from will freely admit that it may be the faith itself that saves you, and that no single work a person can do can merit a person's being "owed" salvation. But both groups have never come together to work out an agreement in spite of how close their points of view have grown other than the face saving statements of saying that they weren't wrong 4 centuries ago.

 

There are certain universals and commonalities, and even people in both protestant & catholic groups who say they are interested in greater ecumenicism and respect.

 

Actually no. There was this guy, that I kinda look like, that I grew up calling Dad. To the best of my recollection, my mother never offered a formal introduction.

 

Please help me understand the relevance of this train of thought. Thanks in advance.

What is gained in undercutting the faith in the relationships that matter to you? I include my relationship to God in this category for me personally. I considered the person's arguements who made the video. I just didn't find them compelling and I found them to be manipulative.

 

Without knowing precisely what you assume about "what I advocate", I really can't comment intelligently here.

I think you advocate that religion and faith are dangerous, just like the video said the creator of the video believed as well. Was I wrong in this assumption or do you invest so much effort in disproving all faiths because it's a matter you're indifferent about?

 

I think you're taking the same risk with Islam that you're taking with your own religion: you're cherry-picking parts of it and assuming that it represents the whole. The argument that you've gone out of your way to avoid acknowledging is this: what if your beliefs are wrong?

 

Then my beliefs would be wrong. I've already said that I am not that worried. Either they are or they're not. I'd be in the same boat if I were an athiest, a theist, an agnostic, or any specific flavor of any of them, like muslims, jews, christians, budhists, or hindu on the theist side; or budhists, humanists, objectivists, communists, social darwinists, or other groups on the atheist side. Presumably all of them are wrong on at least some points. Presumably myself as well. I've never held myself or anyone else to a standard of perfection in that regard or expected that they'd have to live by my rules. I look for the personal application. Let others worry about their own behavior. I've got enough to deal with making sure of my own, and keeping safe my loved ones to really see myself as anyone else's judge.

 

I was pointing out that a good many muslims would say that modern Christians aren't necessarily hell bound or evil in the sight of God, merely misguided for having beliefs that differ from their own.

 

Where a lot of the anger in many of the muslim community comes from (not all by any means, but a significant portion) towards some of the Christian community in many cases is that Christian wealthier, western governments treatment of islamic governments is often arrogant and high handed.

 

You can't be all things to all people. And there are other points of view within any community. All any person can do is to struggle towards what they percieve as the truth and do the best they can in life with what tools they have been given to get through it.

 

With all due respect, you've appeared to invest almost no critical thought into religion in general yet still somehow managed to arrive at the conclusion that it's central to your being. How does one do that?

I've critically thought about it. Just I don't think that are reasonable to come to apart from experiences of life which you've made clear that you don't share. So I just don't think my reasons or experiences in life would be compelling to you, so I really didn't feel the need to bother trotting them out.

But you did say that unless a person did x, y, and z, mental gymnastics, then they couldn't have faith in light of a, b, and c arguements. So I entered the discussion because I found both the video presenter's conclusions and the assumptions about what alternative we msut start at both to be unsatisfying.

 

As I pointed out earlier, the omnibenevolent god myth is not some fringe concept within religion, so it's not as though the author it trying to appeal to some radical sect of christianity. You've apparently decided at some point to adopt a worldview that crappy things happen and it's all part of god's plan. I can't help but think that has to foster a profound sense of apathy ("nothin' I can do about it - god's plan" *shrug*) which with seem to fly in the face of the the parts of the new testament you attempted to point me towards earlier. And furthermore, this is somehow better than "the life I advocate" (?).

There have been a lot of people that have gone that direction with it. That is true. I try to never take a defeatist direction in that in that our effort has to have been planned for as well. And both crappy and good things happen all the time.

The point remains that we're still left with mental gymnastics. I'm sorry to hear that the author's point passed you by, but hopefully you at least got an enjoyable discussion out of it.

I did. Thank you for an enlivening debate.

 

Edit: I just had it pointed out to me the point about christian mariages. You make the assumption that I believe that by becoming a Christian, God makes a person a better person than they'd ordinarily be, and thus more dedicated to a marriage or making it work. No. That's not my assumption at all and never has been.

 

Being a Christian makes you forgiven and desire to pursue a relationship with God. The other is a separate issue. If that's not your question please clarify.

If that's not an answer to it, please tell me what exactly you're looking for.

 

 

I'm trying to imagine what kind of individual would be attracted to this early christian church you're proposing. The results aren't flattering.

I really don't think it's that much of a reach.

 

FWIW, you may or may not enjoy the PBS documentary From Jesus to Christ.

thanks. I'll get a look at it when I've got a bit more time and perhaps get back to you.

This still doesn't address the point, but I suspect that doing so is not a priority for you.

Hopefully this post answers more of what you were getting at, but you're right. I really don't have any axes to grind other than seeing that my view is represented at least somewhat. Not that it has to convince any one.

 

Take care and thanks for the interesting discussion, sir.

Look forward to the next one. And thank you.