Friendly Atheist

Much as I hate to say it MikeC, you are a decent guy. This board is richer for your presence.

I don’t hate to say it at all. So, for the record, Mike rules!

Actually, you sound like most ordinary Christians, perfectly reasonable people who have worked out a way of seeing the world that works for them. We atheists only hyperventilate–correction. reasonable atheists only hperventilate–when the suggestion comes up that these are the only lens and that we are grieviously injuring the rest of humanity by not espousing them. Otherwise it is a rather wonderful free-thought world, where what works in the particular for person X is just as valid as what works in the particular for person Y.

I can see how this would present a not-quite-so-easy conundrum for scientists, and those who feel the urge to convert others, or to arrange the world according to their version/vision, on the other hand, but for the rest of us, it really should remain something that has to do with very basic freedom of thought. I can also see that for fundamentalism, the particular instance of what should be taught strikes at the very heart of freedom to believe (in creationism, for example, or in assorted miracles) and that it seems to them that the scientists are looking to brainwash them and their children. I don’t really have an answer to that, except to say that science seems to be an area in which people of various beliefs and non beliefs can work together, so that is becomes quite weird to talk about Hindu physics, or Muslim biology or Christian mathematics. I think atheists have become worked up at the threat to the neutrality of science. Of course, we think it IS neutral. If one doesn’t agree, then we’re back to square one about who gets to be the Prefered Thought authority.

I have to say, I really enjoyed your responses/posts, as far as I can say, that I understood them. Since I´m not a native speaker I may sometimes have been wrong to fully get what you were writing about. But there´s a certain thing, that really bothers me and it´s your remarks on atheism as a belief.
I´m sure you know what will come next and may have heard/read many times before, but I have to write it anyway.
To some extent I think I understand why you tend to think of atheism as a belief system similar to religious beliefs. But this allegedly suppressed belief that for many religious people seems to shine through all these rational and more or less reasonablec scientific studies is headed towards a totally different goal or target. It may be a belief but – for lack of words – let´s say it may be a belief of a different quality than those beliefs of religion or spirituality. A quality of probability to more precise.

Scientific belief means to trust on the data, information and knowledge that has been gathered all around the world to produce even more precise assumptions of what the world is or may be about. This, from my point of view, hints on why scientific belief, if one has to call it so, promises and in many cases is more accurate than any other model or assumption of the world.
To think that science will certainly provide universal truths is premature, or at least highly improbable. Universal truth possibly goes beyond the borders of human imagination, cognition and perception of the universe and everything that´s in it. But at least science has developed much better methods of explanation how and why human beings feel, experience and interact with their surrounding world. These methods, of course, won´t be universally consistent, but still they will evolve to even more sophisticated ones. There will be dead-ends, misinterpretations and even manipulations, that´s human nature. Nevertheless, I think, one can say that scientific belief can hardly be described as a belief at all. Scientific belief is based on tested methods, complex rules of argumentation and – as far as possible for human beings – on proof.

Scientific belief is an expectation of what scientific work may provide in the future. It´s a belief so stripped down to assumptions of what might possibly known in the future, that it hardly is a belief anymore. It´s more or less knowledge- and experience-based expactations. Not universally true. But probably more accurate than anything else before.

All the best and thanks for your posts

science seems to be an area in which people of various beliefs and non beliefs can work together, so that is becomes quite weird to talk about Hindu physics, or Muslim biology or Christian mathematics. I think atheists have become worked up at the threat to the neutrality of science. Of course, we think it IS neutral.

Although that might not strictly be true… you might find this book interesting.

In Mriana’s message it says

1. Mt 10:34 RSV says: “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.” This and many other sayings in the Bible, some said by JC and some from the OT, has started many a Crusade, Inquisition, and other wars and cruelity to people. Yes, at one point JC does say “Put away your sword” to his disciples, but those who follow the first statement, and others like it, live by the sword and sometimes die by it.

I come not to bring peace, but a sword, means that the truth comes inside of me to help me cut away the lies I have hidden there. Put away your sword meant that is was not the time to fight back. It was time to let Him do His redemptive work. The Spirit deals with our hearts. Not someone else’s.

Jesus allegedly called people broods of vipers, hypocrites, blind fools.

Mike simply refuses to have any dealings with people who use language one hundredth as strong.

‘Steven, given the tone & spirit of your comments both here and at Hemant’s site, I have no interest in discussing any of these questions with you at either blog. Feel free to go on talking to yourself if you like but you’ll get no debate out of me.’

Can Mike find anything I ever said, which was one hundredth as bile-filled as the words that come from the person he adores?

Why does Mike have one rule for Jesus and another rule for everybody else?

Take these phrases , allegedly uttered by the Son of God, in Revelation –

‘I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan’

‘I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.’

And let us not forgot that Jesus used a parable to compare himself to a king who wanted his enemies fetched and killed in front of him…

Sorry Mriana, I can see that I was unclear with that statement. Let me address your concerns:

Mt 10:34 RSV says: “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.” This and many other sayings in the Bible, some said by JC and some from the OT, has started many a Crusade, Inquisition, and other wars and cruelity to people. Yes, at one point JC does say “Put away your sword” to his disciples, but those who follow the first statement, and others like it, live by the sword and sometimes die by it.

I think I already addressed this exact same question in another thread, but perhaps you missed it. The short answer is that very often pursuing a way of justice, peace and radical inclusion very often will lead to division and even violence from those whose power and wealth depends on maintaining injustice and exclusion. What Jesus is saying is that we must pursue the way of justice and peace regardless even though we know it will lead to persecution and conflict. But those who take his words to justify violence and oppression are actually turning his entire message on its head.

Now, IMHO, there is nothing wrong with holy texts, but rather it is what people do with these texts that makes them good or bad, be the texts from the Torah, the Bible or the Qu’ran etc. How can you say that JC’s teachings are “ultimately the only hope for our self-destructive race”? Isn’t that a bit bias and prejudice? Couldn’t the Upanishads, the Tao, the Analects, the Theravada, or even the Humanists’ Manifesto be just as much of value as JC’s teachings?

This comes back to what I’ve said in several threads about believing that God is speaking to us in all cultures and religious traditions. If those other traditions and teachings have things that are true and valuable then they are as much a part of the “way of Christ” as anything Jesus himself said. It’s not an either/or, if these teaching are in agreement or if they complement each other (i.e. expand or fill in the gaps others leave out) then the are not in competition but actually each pointing to the same thing.

But I’m afraid that you’ve misunderstand the thrust of my comment in the first place (which is totally my fault for not being clear). When I said that the way of Jesus is our “only hope” I was never intending to contrast it with other religions (like I said, I think many of them are likewise contributing to our understanding of this same Way) – rather, I was contrasting it to the greed and violence and exploitation and prejudices and oppression that so often characterizes humanity. And so often in human history we think that the solution to these problems is simply more of the same – we fight violence with violence (cf. our current War in Iraq for example), hatred with hatred, oppression with more oppression (cf. the way nearly every liberation movement in history has ended up simply turning the oppressed into a new batch of oppressors), and greed by increasing our consumption. I think if we continue down this path humanity is likely to destroy both ourselves and this planet, or at least our current civilization.

It is in contrast to these ways of life that I think Jesus’ way of inclusive love, restorative justice, generosity & simplicity, and non-violent but active peacemaking is truly the only hope for things to ever change – these are the only things powerful enough to overcome evil and not simply replace it with more evil. And truthfully, I don’t care if people put Jesus’ name on it or not (though it is interesting that while MLK learned his tactics from Gandhi, Gandhi said that he learned his tactics from Jesus), what is important is not who gets the credit but that the way of love and justice and peace is actually practiced. If other traditions teach these same principles then fantastic! So much the better.

I hope that clarifies the point I wanted to make. Thanks for pushing me on the issue!

-Mike

P.S. How do you make the eye-rolling emoticon? There have been so many times I’ve wanted to use that lately. I don’t know of any other way to clearly communicate sarcasm online.

The Bible tells of the perfect family. Jesus is the Father of the House. He isn’t here right now, but we know what He said to do. It is His Holy Spirit that brings us to His Redemption. It works inside of us. The Holy Spirit does not convict me of the sins of the world. It convicts me of my sins against the world. My personal relationship with the Father. My Father treated all of us the same. My Father was a hero. I can show you His Bronze Medal. He is your Father, too. Mother said He was coming back. She has never lied to me either.

The perfect family is Jesus as the father? Who is the Mother? Bronze medal, is that for 3rd place in the long jump at the olympics? And where are Marsha, Jan, and Cindy? Sorry, Tommy, you lost me on this post.

I feel that when confronted by this, Pastor Mike has taken the dodge that many Christians do.

EnoNomi, you are welcome to disagree with my method of interpretation, but please don’t do me the discourtesy of implying that my views are simply some rhetorical dodge intended to win arguments or to artificially make my beliefs seem more palatable (to myself or to others). These are my actual beliefs based on a lifetime study of scripture and how I think it is best interpreted. I don’t hold these beliefs simply to win debates in online forums.

Steven, are you the same Steven Carr who is the author of “The UK’s Leading Atheist Page”? I see there you have conducted several online debates with Anglican clerics and apologists. I think your efforts to shoehorn this multi-voice conversation into a one-on-one debate format have been completely inappropriate. I do think it is possible to ask difficult questions in this type of conversation, but you might want to reflect on what level of discourse is best suited to this particular communicative act.

Dropping your attempt to write the script of your imaginary debate is a good start, though.

This is the last of the series, so thanks to Pastor Mike for offering to answer so many of the questions

*A round of applause* Thanks for taking a position in our spotlight for a week, Mike.

On a philosophical level when I look at the world around me, with it’s beauty and complexity and appearance of having been designed, it still just makes sense to me to think that it was in fact designed by someone.

I’m afraid you’re falling in the “how well my glove fits” trap there: our world appears beautiful to us because we evolved to live in it. In a way, I have to think this is better in some aesthetic sense, because it suggests that wherever life evolves to an extent of being capable of appreciating beauty, it will also have evolved to be happiest where it is. (Also, don’t forget that “Truth is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies,” as Emerson says.)

I’ll have to admit I’ve never understood the whole “appearance of having been designed” idea. I look at a mesa and see erosion over millions of years or at a mountain range and see two plates along a boundary pushing together. From this, I have to conclude that we live in a universe where everything happens for a reason rather than being the whim of a deity.

On a more personal level, there are just too many “spiritual” experiences that I’ve had throughout my entire life to just suddenly explain them away by some other means

Fair enough. I once had a dream in which I was called by a god to come to it and it never shook my atheism, so as I’m content to explain my “spiritual experiences” by phenomena in this universe, I can’t complain if you’re content to do so the same by phenomena outside of it.

However, I’m not sure about the “bigger tent” metaphor: as I see it, science goes far beyond the results it produces to the methods used to produce them. And NOMA aside, these results really don’t lead to a belief in god, so I can’t help wondering whether you’ve given up the best parts of science in order to keep god, in which case I’d say you’ve traded away a bigger tent in favor of two smaller tents. Of course, since I doubt anything said here is going to make you decide to renounce Christianity and pastorhood (or that that’s even the point of any of this), I suppose that agreeing not to torch each others’ tents is probably a fair compromise.

This is the last of the series, so thanks to Pastor Mike for offering to answer so many of the questions

*A second round of applause* It’s been interesting.

Douglas Adams wrote:

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Mike, I used to think like you about how things looked designed, and then I started reading about evolution and natural selection and that pretty much put the nail in the coffin on design. I found myself arguing that well “Perhaps God just set everything up so that humans eventually evolved”, but the problem with that is that humans are not the end product of evolution. Evolution does not an an “end”. Every species alive on earth right now is the same age, they are all just as evolved as we are. It’s an extraordinary coincidence that we happened to evolve at all.

In my journey to atheism, I went from Methodist, to liberal Christian, to Deism to Atheism. My suggestion to you is to take a class on biological evolution. It would probably make you rethink the idea you have of “design” needing a designer.

Actually, my main question is very similar to EnoNomi’s, even if the particular phrasing came off as if accusing you of rhetorical trickery. The question I would ask is the following:

The Old Testament really is full of terrible things — God ordering horrible voilence and genocide, cruelty, slavery etc. If you disagree with these valuesand belive God would not behave that way, why continue printing, distributing, and revering it as a holy book? Why not print just the New Testament or just the gospels (maybe with Ecclesiastes) so that you don’t encourage people to apply the bad stuff in their lives and laws?

No, I mean rewriting everything as if it were the transcript of a one-on-one debate as you did above.

HANSON
The Old Testament really is full of terrible things — God ordering horrible voilence and genocide, cruelty, slavery etc.

CARR
All allegedly endoresed by Jesus.

Indeed , Jesus went out of his way to assure people in Matthew 15:3 that the commandment was truly from God that – ‘He who curses his mother or father must be put to death.’

Jesus even compares God to the cruellest of masters, who torture their slaves. Matthew 18:34 ‘And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he should pay his entire debt. So my Heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart.’

A striking metaphor of Jesus , comparing God to the sort of person Mike hates.

Why not print just the New Testament or just the gospels (maybe with Ecclesiastes) so that you don’t encourage people to apply the bad stuff in their lives and laws?

The Bibles that the Gideons distribute at schools take this approach: just New Testament+Psalms+Proverbs. Although I have to doubt that they’re intending the censor the OT–probably just a cost issue.

In any case, I think it’d be far better to just encourage people to read critically; the mere fact that it is written doesn’t have to be enough to get people to apply it in life and law. Putting footnotes in a Bible that say “Wow, this is a really bad passage. Please don’t take it literally.” is probably a bad idea, but only just barely. (On contrast, the first Bible I ever read had a footnote at Jesus’ crucifixion explaining that that was why god had caused the Holocaust. Yes, seriously. It really did.)

The best advice I’ve ever heard for reading books like these is to reflect after reading a passage whether you think it was good, bad, or irrelevant. And if you answer with one of the first two options, the passage is worth marking to read again later. For one thing, you may find some good in what you saw as bad earlier. And if not, at least you’ll understand why it’s bad, which can be just as useful as understanding why something is good.

Wha??

I’m not sure if there’s a question there, but if there is, check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edicts_of_Ashoka#Proselytism_beyond_India

for a history of Buddhist expansion into Egypt a few hundred years earlier. As Egypt was basically the cosmopolitan center of the world under the Ptolemys, no one religion could really be said to be dominant, but Buddhism definitely established as firm a foothold as anything else. While there’s some mystery about the formation of the pre-Christian Therapeutae sect, for example, there are some very marked similarities to Therevadan Buddhism and “Therapeutae” could very well have even been derived etymologically from “Therevada.”

(Since we’ve all seemingly decided that Wiki is worth citing.)

BTW, what is your opinion on JC’s temper tantrum in the temple when people were selling things, along with the money changers, in it? Wasn’t that rather violent and a loss of self-control?

Indeed, it was. Being a peacemaking doesn’t mean simply being passive in the face of injustice. A God who doesn’t get a little upset when the poor are being exploited and oppressed is not a very good God IMHO.

You have to understand that when Jesus walked into the Temple what he saw was not simply an ordinary marketplace. In the historical context of that time period there were two things going on that would have rightfully made any just person very angry:
1) The poor were being exploited – the Temple leaders who profited off this religious system were living in luxury (archaeologists have found $5000 bottles of wine in some of the villas where these 1st century Temple leaders lived!), while the vast majority of Jews lived in abject poverty – on the level that most people in the Third World live today. So Jesus, by getting angry, takes a stand against oppression in the name of religion.
2) Outsiders were being excluded – the part of the Temple where this money changing was going on was known as the “Court of the Gentiles” and was intended to be the place where people from all nation, Jews and non-Jews, could pray and worship God. It was a place of inclusion. But by setting up this market in that space instead, the Temple leaders were excluding people of other races from their religion. This is why Jesus exclaims: “This was meant to be a place of prayer for all nations, but you have made it into a den of thieves!” In this statement Jesus is standing against both economic, racial and religious exclusion.

So yes, Jesus got angry and a little violent (though in a very mild way comparatively speaking), but he did so in reaction to gross injustice, which again, is what I think the Way of Jesus is all about and is why I follow him.

BTW, if you’re interested, my Palm Sunday sermon is online and addresses this scene and what led up to it.

Is it possible that JC learned his tactics from Krishna or Buddha? Or even others? Humm… Sort of brings new meaning to killing the Buddha.

There’s no direct indication in the sources but I suppose anything is possible. Jesus did grow up in Galilee which was a major cultural crossroads during that time period. He very well could have been exposed to some of these other philosophies. Though I’m still personally convinced that the heart of his message is quintessentially Jewish.

Mike: thanks for answering my question at last. I may address your reply a bit later, but, for now, let me just say that it was a great answer, and that I really, really wish more (or all) Christians were like you.

Pedro

In atheism by contrast I’m forced to reject the one in order to embrace the other.

I beg to differ. It is certainly possible to live a spiritual and purposeful life — and to have spiritual experiences — without believing in the supernatural or being a theist.

writerdd said,

May 22, 2007 at 1:35 pm

In atheism by contrast I’m forced to reject the one in order to embrace the other.

I beg to differ. It is certainly possible to live a spiritual and purposeful life — and to have spiritual experiences — without believing in the supernatural or being a theist.

As a Spiritual Humanist, I agree 100%.

I beg to differ. It is certainly possible to live a spiritual and purposeful life — and to have spiritual experiences — without believing in the supernatural or being a theist.

I think I probably agree as well, but how are you defining the word ’spiritual?’

MIKE
This was meant to be a place of prayer for all nations, but you have made it into a den of thieves!”

CARR
Yes, according to Acts, some of the religous leaders who met regularly in the Temple would demand that followers would hand over the entire proceeds of property sales, and people would be struck dead if they did not hand over all the money.

Where exactly does Mike expect the market to be where people like Mary could buy a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons? (see Luke 2:24)

Certainly priests prospered through the offerings of people like the mother of Jesus, but it was God himself who had decreed that priests should recieve tithes.

Was Jesus angry at the injustice caused by people obeying the word of God in the Old Testament?

People have “twisted” the word to force THEIR word on others. The Bible says to look inside of ourselves at the “spirit” of the words we say. God wants us to look at our life and honestly answer the question “What have YOU done?” It is the worship of the True Spirit of the word. It is the worship of the Creator of all things. It is the worship of Truth.

Mike said,
1) The poor were being exploited – the Temple leaders who profited off this religious system were living in luxury (archaeologists have found $5000 bottles of wine in some of the villas where these 1st century Temple leaders lived!), while the vast majority of Jews lived in abject poverty – on the level that most people in the Third World live today. So Jesus, by getting angry, takes a stand against oppression in the name of religion.

So, what else is new. Have you looked at the Religious Reich lately? They aren’t much different.

Mike said,
2) Outsiders were being excluded

This still exists today in some churches.

Oh absolutely! Jesus didn’t come to establish another “religion”. He criticized the religious more than anyone else during his ministry. In the words of Rob Bell, “Jesus wants to save Christians” – we need to figure out how to start living the way of Christ more than anyone these days.

If you’ve ever read my blog or my other comments I hope you’ll notice that I try to follow Jesus’ example of challenging the religious as well. I’m more disillusioned with the contemporary Church these days than most of the atheists here!

The problem with the fundamentalists is that they actually believe the teachings of this primitive tome; the problem with the liberals is that by picking and choosing and reinterpreting the Bible’s language they avoid doing the right thing and repudiating Christianity.

Many fundamentalists would claim that the liberals are repudiating ‘true’ Christianity.

DARRYL
It is what it is: the fundamentalists accept this, and the liberals simply deny it and rationalize the denial with talk about interpretation.

CARR
Yes, you will have noticed that nothing annoys liberals more than quotes from the Bible.

Of course I totally agree that non-religious people can have such experiences. The difference, as you say, is in what we think those experiences mean.

You know, a major turning point for me on the path from believer to doubter was when I realized that virtually every time I cried in church was when I had my period. Uhoh. You mean, maybe I’m not being moved by the spirit? Maybe I’m just having a hormone surge? Huge eye opener for me.

The thing is, I can still bring about the same feelings I had in church by reading familiar scripture passages or singing worship songs. However, I can also bring up the same feelings in many other ways: by listening to other music that I love, by takikng a walk on the beach, by drinking wine outside on a warm summer night.

I don’t know what makes some people think these feelings have a supernatural origin while others are content to understand them as a reaction of our bodies to various stimuli. At some point along my journey, I just stopped having a need to look outside myself and outside of the physical universe to look for meaning or joy.

Darryl, surely you realize that both sides “interpret” the Bible? . . . In my case, I came to believe that my former, “fundamentalist” interpretation was not the right one, so I traded it for a different one that I believe is truer to the actual nature of the text.

Yes, Mike, I realize this. I also realize that your response makes my previous point.

Do my ESP powers sense a forthcoming “both/and” type of response from Mike C.? Yes, yes, I’m getting a clear signal…

Well, I wasn’t actually going to say it, but yes, that was the basic thrust of my senior thesis.

MIKE C
In my case, I came to believe that my former, “fundamentalist” interpretation was not the right one, so I traded it for a different one that I believe is truer to the actual nature of the text.

CARR
And how did you intepret Matthew 18:34-35 where Jesus likens God to a cruel master who tortures his slaves?

Carr, we get the idea. You don’t like Jesus. How do you get up in the morning?

Miko, I’m with you–I can’t understand a thing izzy says.

I think the most appropriate Python sketch here is The Argument Sketch, wouldn’t you say?:

Michael Palin: Oh, this is futile!
John Cleese: No it isn’t.
MP: I came here for a good argument.
JC: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
MP: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
JC: It can be.
MP: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
JC: No it isn’t.
MP: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
JC: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
MP: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
JC: Yes it is!
MP: No it isn’t!
JC: Yes it is!
MP: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
JC: No it isn’t.
MP: It is.
JC: Not at all.
MP: Now look.
JC: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
MP: What?
JC: That’s it. Good morning.
MP: I was just getting interested.
JC: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
MP: That was never five minutes!
JC: I’m afraid it was.
MP: It wasn’t.

Mriana
The treatment of women in the bible is the symbol of what men do to their emotional feelings. It is not a reference to how women should be treated outwardly. It’s just a book on how to control our feelings and to recognize the ones that lead us to trouble. Women are emotional creatures incapable of rational thought (that’s a joke, but the men understand it). The Holy spirit leads us to understand our feelings. We learn that we can look for the truth in the storms, the earthquakes, or in the fire. But to find the truth, we have to listen for that small voice inside of us.

I am not as smart as most of you appear to be. I hope that my simple language has not offended anyone. You can have one of my bananas.

Darryl,
I am what I guess you are calling a Fundie. After skimming these comments on these threads, I think you have discerned the truth about Pastor Mike better than anyone when you said:

But, I do think that you’re fooling yourself about what the Bible says. It is what it is: the fundamentalists accept this, and the liberals simply deny it and rationalize the denial with talk about interpretation.

When you can explain why there is something instead of nothing, please come over to my blog and let me know. I believe a supernatural intelligent explanation is certainly more rational than believing that uninteligent matter/energy has the power of self-existence. Something obviously has to or their would be nothing.

Dear God… we’ve degenerated into Monty Python references

Miko said:

I’ll have to admit I’ve never understood the whole “appearance of having been designed” idea. I look at a mesa and see erosion over millions of years or at a mountain range and see two plates along a boundary pushing together. From this, I have to conclude that we live in a universe where everything happens for a reason rather than being the whim of a deity.

Ironically Miko, that is exactly the kind of thing I mean when I say that the universe has the appearance of design – things happen for a reason. Everything is apparently well-ordered according to all these “natural laws” that are somehow also comprehensible and discoverable by the human mind. That fact, far from making me think that belief in God is not necessary, is precisely what makes me think that the existence of Creator God is a likely possibility.

In a similar vein, Bart said:

Mike, I used to think like you about how things looked designed, and then I started reading about evolution and natural selection and that pretty much put the nail in the coffin on design. I found myself arguing that well “Perhaps God just set everything up so that humans eventually evolved”, but the problem with that is that humans are not the end product of evolution. Evolution does not an an “end”. Every species alive on earth right now is the same age, they are all just as evolved as we are. It’s an extraordinary coincidence that we happened to evolve at all.

But that’s exactly the kind of thing I mean. Evolution itself leads me to wonder whether someone designed this universe so that a process like evolution could work in the first place and lead to these “extraordinary coincidences”. And even if humanity isn’t the “end” of evolution, so what? The process itself is still pretty amazing. I can’t wait to see what comes out of the evolutionary chute next! Evolution actually reinforces my belief in a designer who set up the process as his means of creating.

MIKE C
Seems a rather pretentious title for a website…

CARR
MIke will not dialogiue with me, but he has no objection to cheap shots.

I guess that’s the Christian love coming through.

When I started the site , in 1996, UK’s Leading Atheist Web Page was very accurate.

When you can explain why there is something instead of nothing, please come over to my blog and let me know. I believe a supernatural intelligent explanation is certainly more rational than believing that uninteligent matter/energy has the power of self-existence. Something obviously has to or their would be nothing.

Jazzy, I am not smart enough, and I do not know enough to explain why there is something rather than nothing. This is a riddle that we are trying to understand.

What I can say is that what we know today versus what we knew when our species began to explore our universe indicates that we have a wonderful capacity to uncover the workings of the cosmos. Our successes are remarkable, and they reinforce our confidence in the methods we are using. There was a time in our history when we thought the universe was much different than we know it to be today. We preached from our pulpits that the Earth was only a few thousand years old. Thanks to our inquisitiveness, that error was corrected. I don’t have to generate a list of all the incorrect beliefs that we have discarded over the centuries in order to make this point. We see now in hindsight that what we thought were truths about our universe were combinations of ignorance, superstition, and imagination.

If our methods of inquiry have shown themselves so powerful and fruitful to the enhancement of our lives, and if the beliefs we once held, rooted in holy books, have been shown to be relics of a more naive past, isn’t it reasonable to keep on this path? In view of all this, isn’t it more likely that our methods of investigation will yield answers to important questions about cosmology than all our holy books?

Jazzy, I doubt that it was solely the contemplation of the riddle of our past that led you to believe in God. It is more likely that you were already a believer and that this argument came after as an answer to people like me–people who threaten your faith. It is even more likely that you were born and raised in a culture that believed in God (maybe your parents were believers), whose people were mostly ignorant of science, and who, to this day, are skeptical of any theory that seems to challenge their beliefs. This is how these ideas are spread. Many of the believers who argue here spend much of their time suppressing doubts, avoiding uncomfortable problems, anguishing over their fears, justifying their faith, rationalizing it, and looking for better arguments to fend off people like me. Once people are ready to admit to themselves that this is what they have been doing–lying to themselves–and when they are tired of it, and especially when they realize how much of their lives they have wasted on religion, then they are ready to take off the blinders.

Evolution itself leads me to wonder whether someone designed this universe so that a process like evolution could work in the first place and lead to these “extraordinary coincidences”. And even if humanity isn’t the “end” of evolution, so what? The process itself is still pretty amazing. I can’t wait to see what comes out of the evolutionary chute next! Evolution actually reinforces my belief in a designer who set up the process as his means of creating.

Be careful what you wish for, Mike. For the evolutionary process to change things requires wholesale death. It’s not the slow, steady pressure of classical natural selection. The more recent model of evolution, catastrophism explains the long periods in the fossil record where things don’t change much, punctuated by massive extinction events that are followed by a surge of mutations by the stressed survivors. There have been many mass extinctions and at least three super massive ones: End Permian, Cretaceous-Tertiary, and Mankind. We are the third great extinction. Species are disappearing at a rate many times faster than the background average. The only forms of life that are increasing in population are humans, vermin and disease microbes.

As for the universe being designed for life, well, if you grow up in a nice neighborhood don’t assume the rest of the world is as nice, or that your neighborhood will always be as nice as it is.

We live on an eight thousand mile diameter ball of magma covered by a thin, cracked, unstable candy coating of rock, thinner to the earth than an eggshell is to an egg, with a failing protective magnetic field, bathed in deadly radiation, revolving around a variable star in a shooting gallery of asteroids and comets. In the last five years three asteroids big enough to wipe out a major city passed within the orbit of the moon. They were all discovered after they had gone past. It gets nastier the further out you look. So it could also be argued that the universe was designed for death.

We need to stop squandering our time and intelligence arguing amongst ourselves about whether it’s the best or worst of all possible worlds and tend to the garden. We need to stop using that malignant growth in the front of our heads for inventing reasons to hate each other and clever ways to annihilate each other, and use it to be the first species ever, ever to not go the same way of the trilobite, the dinosaur and the dodo.

We can argue that it’s Gods grace or dumb luck that we’ve survived so far until we’re all blue in the face, but we’d better wise up to the reality that this planet and this universe is one dangerous place. The thing I like about your version of religion, Mike is that it inspires you to do actual things for other people in need, and to argue for tending instead of fouling the garden. And you know I love you for it. What I don’t like about slightly different versions of the same religion is that it lulls people into a stupor, thinking that God is going to save them from the catastrophe that we could have seen coming, or that he’ll save them in heaven instead.

Now that I’ve cheered everybody up, hi, I’m back!

Most commentators here seem not to doubt your sincerity, as I do not. But, I do think that you’re fooling yourself about what the Bible says. It is what it is: the fundamentalists accept this, and the liberals simply deny it and rationalize the denial with talk about interpretation. The problem with the fundamentalists is that they actually believe the teachings of this primitive tome; the problem with the liberals is that by picking and choosing and reinterpreting the Bible’s language they avoid doing the right thing and repudiating Christianity.

Darryl, I have heard this argument from more than one person, so some of this post may apply more to others than to you personally. I do not presume to know all that makes you tick. Here goes …

As a Christian more conservative than Mike C., I fully acknowledge that each person who reads the Bible interprets … whether they fall on the very liberal end of the spectrum, the very conservative, or somewhere in between. To speak against interpreting is to speak against knowledge itself, not Christianity.

During my conversations with atheists, this is one of the arguments that has caused me to grow significantly more confident in my faith. As a young man, the fundamentalist Christians I knew would argue with someone until they professed fundamentalist positions. They would then declare them saved. In some encounters with atheists, the atheist tries to force the Christian to profess fundamentalist positions. They then declare the Christian to be in error/delusion.

Christians who are not fundamentalist are more similiar to Jesus, not less. Please stop insinuating – however vaguely – that Mike C. and other non-fundamentalits are not true Christians. This is the ugliest of all arguments. Karen hates qualifiers, and so do others on both sides of the line. Atheists would do well to stop dismissing Christians who will not assume the fundamentalist straw man position.

To speak against interpreting is to speak against knowledge itself, not Christianity. Keith

As I recall it, interpreting the Bible as opposed to accepting some other authority is just about a requirement of Christianity. The law leads to death but it is the sprirt gives life, God is spirit and must be known in spirit, etc. It’s not the fault of Jesus that things got tacked on by other people to what was a quite liberating view of things. I blame the neo-Platonists, the Romans, the other Europeans etc. who essentially grafted on their biases onto a rather good system. Jefferson, the one that atheists like to talk about, said that the moral system of Jesus was superior to the rest of the ancients. If I could find the book where Molly Ivins points it out I’d type out the entire passage. You’ll just have to believe me that it’s there until then.

In some encounters with atheists, the atheist tries to force the Christian to profess fundamentalist positions. They then declare the Christian to be in error/delusion.

I’ve noticed this tactic too. My wife and I were just talking/laughing about it last night actually. Oh and she was ranting about it at her blog.

Richard Wade, it could be that the universe was constructed for more than one purpose. It’s only if someone claims that the evolution of life, including human life is the exclusive end of the creation of the universe that this is far fetched (though even that position isn’t impossible). It could be that that is true and only one of many motives in the creation of the universe. It strikes me as being entirely possible that the “personal God” that is the favorite target of some atheists, especially of the fundametalist variety, could be valid but since the God in question is defined as infinte in all ways that even that view of God would have to be an incomplete description.

The people of Israel were looking for an earthly king to free them from their bondage. Jesus came to free their hearts. We today are looking for God to come and right the world. To explain why we have hurt our children. To explain why we have war. To explain why we have disease in our lives. To explain why others treat us unfairly. But it is still Jesus (truth) that will free our hearts.

KEITH
Atheists would do well to stop dismissing Christians who will not assume the fundamentalist straw man position.

CARR
I’m not.

I dismiss Christians who refuse to discuss the historical facts of their belief, such as the undoubted fact that early converts to Christianity just did not believe God would choose to raise corpses.

I also dismiss Christians who do not react as any feeling human being would to the threats of Jesus, as recorded in the New Testament.

For example, who could love a man who tells a crowd of people that they are faithless and perverse, and regrets that he has to put up with them.

Mike cited Matthew 25:31-46 as exemplifying all he adores about Jesus.

These verses include the chilling ‘You that are accursed , depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’

Mike adores the guy who said that.

I think Mike should love people who do not threaten others with eternal fire.

These verses include the chilling ‘You that are accursed , depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’

Mike adores the guy who said that.

I think Mike should love people who do not threaten others with eternal fire.

You know Carr, your insistant behaviours and concern about all of this shows your insecurity about your own beliefs. If you’re not insecure, why worry about it, unless he says or does something to act upon what he reads in the Bible?

CARR
Jesus looked at the opppressed and subjugated and decided not to free them from their oppression and subjugation?

Well, yes. Read the Beatitudes Matt 5:2-12. He makes promises by saying blessed is that or that group of people for they will receive this. One man alone cannot free people though.

If Mike follows Matthew literally then he MIGHT see 5:11-12 being applicable right about now and see himself as blessed for his reward will be great in heaven. This might be a good reason to stop harassing and nailing him, esp if you are so opposed to him.

Carr, you accuse Mike C. of being unwilling to engage in dialogue with you.

You also clearly spell out what would be the only acceptable utterances Mike C. could make in this proposed “dialogue”.

Can you appreciate that this particular communicative strategy lies well outside the normative definition of dialogue?

You also clearly spell out what would be the only acceptable utterances Mike C. could make in this proposed “dialogue”.

Perhaps “uncle”?

Mriana, you quoted me,

We are the third great extinction. Species are disappearing at a rate many times faster than the background average. The only forms of life that are increasing in population are humans, vermin and disease microbes.

Then you asked, “You think humans will turn out more advanced?” I’m not sure if your question is addressed to me because I was not implying that at all. Just to clarify, increasing our population does not insure our survival as a species; in fact it seriously threatens it. Our reducing the world’s biodiversity is like sitting on a tree branch while sawing it off.

I agree with you that our numbers will drop dramatically (soon, I fear) and it will be either because we choose it or because nature will do it for us. Six and a half billion people cannot be sustained on this planet without a constant use of dwindling, non-renewable and highly polluting resources such as oil, as well as a constant influx of ever more complex and ever more fragile technology.

We should avoid using the word “advanced” when talking about evolution. As someone here pointed out there is no ultimate end or goal to evolution. Because we’re “top dog” around here lately it’s our vanity to call our species the most advanced. We, along with all other present life forms are simply the latest. As I’ve said elsewhere, big brains are not necessarily a good idea evolutionarily speaking. Of the handful of big-brained primate species that we find in the fossil record only we still survive. The latest results are not promising. Small-brained animals exhibit small-brained stupidity. We exhibit big-brained stupidity. There’s a good example of it in a troll-like commentor on this posting.

Whoever, if anyone survives the next catastrophe be it plague, climate upheaval, volcanism, impact or whatever, and its aftermath may survive because of inherited traits or just dumb luck. It all depends on the nature and duration of the stressors.

All this may be off topic since we’re discussing Mike’s beliefs and views, or it may be the essential underlying root of everything being said here: survival.

Mike C. simply refuses to engage in dialogue with people who quote the words of his Saviour.

STEELMAN
In summary: Mike will always find a positive angle from which to interpret any given scripture. He subscribes to a theology that blunts even the horrors of eternal damnation. Mike’s beliefs demonstrate religion’s malleability in that it can be formed to the underlying ethical beliefs of modern western culture (or any culture).

CARR
This is all very true, but how exactly do you actually *be* such a Christian?

Apart from professing a faith in a god, you behave just like other people, getting on with your life, trying to do the right thing, trying to avoid doing the wrong things, and not always succeeding at either.

Even if I ever wanted to convert to such a form of Christianity, I wouldn’t know how to go about doing it.

MRIANA
Just because two people don’t view things the same way, doesn’t mean they cannot have a civilized discussion about it.

CARR
Sadly it takes two people to discuss things. Mike claimed he was not interested in discussing Biblical exegesis on an atheist website, and he has been true to his word ever since.

He will not have a civilised discussion with me.

What can I do? I can forgive him and forgive him, and explain that the door is always open.

More can I not do.

CARR: I don’t think anybody here is trying to convert you or saying that you are not a good person becaiuse you don’t believe a dead man came back to life.

-bowing-

May you be happy and free from suffering.

I always see skeptics criticizing post-modernism, but when you describe it, Mike, I think there is a lot of common ground between skepticism and post-modernism. Both involve doubting everything. The differences are just a matter of emphasis.

STEELMAN
You could try the last part of Pascal’s Wager, which encourages non-believers to just fake it.

CARR
That is a bit unfair on Pascal, who knew that training yourself to ‘fake it’ would lead to genuine belief after a while. Training yourself to think in certain patterns leads you to think in those patterns.

Pascal knew that if you started to explain what you see around you in a Christian world-view, 9 times out of 10 your explanations would start to make sense to yourself, and you would become a true believer.

So Pascal’s wager is not as cynical as is often made out to be.

CARR, who here is saying that you have to fake anything or believe anything?

MONKEYMIND
CARR, who here is saying that you have to fake anything or believe anything?

CARR
Pascal, but he is dead…

I hope you are not expecting a response then.

Keith and Carr, don’t make us ask you boys to take it outside.

Carr, I can’t speak for Mike, but here is my reason for not engaging you on an on-going basis. Many of us are here for interesting discussion and to learn from people different from us. Others are here to try to argue and prove others wrong. You seem to be the latter, while I am the former. As such I don’t think there could be much productive dialog, since our goals are so different. I suspect Mike’s reasons are similar.

If I’ve got you wrong, please correct me, but you might also want to change the tone of your posts, as I bet most people here see you the same way I do.

Do you think Jesus was an admirable person when he compared God to a cruel master who has his slaves tortured when he is angry with them?

You do know that Pascal was a Jansenist. I think it was declared a heresy of the Catholic church. I’d say that only other Jansenists have to answer for that ideology. I don’t think many people took it seriously.

EnoNomi, you are welcome to disagree with my method of interpretation, but please don’t do me the discourtesy of implying that my views are simply some rhetorical dodge intended to win arguments or to artificially make my beliefs seem more palatable (to myself or to others). These are my actual beliefs based on a lifetime study of scripture and how I think it is best interpreted. I don’t hold these beliefs simply to win debates in online forums.

My bad. I TOTALLY missed Part 3 of your response. So I appologise for using the word “dodge”. I will go read part 3 now.

The ground rules are that Keith must give his honest opinion about what Jesus is alleged to have said.

The goal is to see if Keith is a compassionate human being who is horrified by God being compared to a cruel master who has his slaves tortured.

Now that I have laid down the ground rules and goal of this ‘dialogue/debate’, I look forward to it.

Stephan does not. If he wishes, he may ignore all posts about God having people tortured.

Darryl,
Actually, I am an engineer by education and a former Air Force pilot and my college roommate who has a PhD in engineering led me to Christ when I was past 50. I was an agnostic before then. I am all for science as are most Christians. If you’ve never noticed, higher education in the United States was started by Christians. (Yale, Harvard, Princton, etc.). It seems that in the advance of science a lot of the new discoveries through the centuries corrected prior scientific error rather than correcting religion.

I will take your I don’t know on my question as your way of saying you can’t prove atheism. However, your position needs to do more than deny a God. You need to prove there is not a God (supreme being if you like). Until you do that, the game is tied and we are in overtime.

To be honest, I am rather curious about whether Keith is a compassionate human being.

My money is on ‘Yes, he is.’

I do not expect to be proved wrong, as I am sure that he is really a great guy, who disapproves of slaves being tortured.

You really see skeptics criticizing post modernism? Could you steer me toward some examples? I’m not doubting you, I’m just a little confused. Like you I see them as very closely related. The only person I’ve encountered so far who eschewed post modernism per se was a Christian fundamentalist posting elsewhere on this website.

I would like to formally eschew post modernism as a skeptic and atheist. I think it is a pile of crap. There, I said it.

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to go into the details of why, but basically I think postmondernist theory is all hot air and no subtance. Plus, I certainly am not a multiculturalist, which seems to be one major requirement for being postmodernist. I in no way believe that the mysoginist theocratic fascism of, say Saudi Arabia, is equal in moral standing with the free democracy of the West, even though we are not always perfect in practice.

Steelman,

I agree with you about hard post-modernism. This kind of thing is sinking western Europe.

Carr said, “The ground rules are that Keith must give his honest opinion about what Jesus is alleged to have said.

The goal is to see if Keith is a compassionate human being who is horrified by God being compared to a cruel master who has his slaves tortured.

Now that I have laid down the ground rules and goal of this ‘dialogue/debate’, I look forward to it.

Stephan does not. If he wishes, he may ignore all posts about God having people tortured. ”

Carr, your ground rules and goal seem to be distinctly one-sided . I am not confident that our discussion will be anything other than similiarly one-sided. Through your responses, please convince me that I am wrong to worry so.

You asked, “Do you think Jesus was an admirable person when he compared God to a cruel master who has his slaves tortured when he is angry with them? ”

The passage in Matthew you cite is a parable. Jesus concludes the parable by “allegedly” saying, “In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.”

In your opinion, does each character in each parable have a corresponding person whom they represent? Is it acceptable to attribute each action of a character in a parable to the corresponding person whom they may represent? Are all parables a direct comparison, or might a parable incorporate elements of contrast?

These questions directly relate to our goal of seeing whether I am a compassionate human being who is horrified by God being compared to a cruel master who has his slaves tortured.

If you’ve never noticed, higher education in the United States was started by Christians. (Yale, Harvard, Princton, etc.).

Except for the University of Virginia–Jefferson was no Christian.

It seems that in the advance of science a lot of the new discoveries through the centuries corrected prior scientific error rather than correcting religion.

Science corrects both–itself and religious error.

I will take your I don’t know on my question as your way of saying you can’t prove atheism. However, your position needs to do more than deny a God. You need to prove there is not a God (supreme being if you like). Until you do that, the game is tied and we are in overtime.

I don’t need to do anything. Since I can’t prove a negative, I can’t prove there is not a god. But, I don’t need to prove it. I am comfortable with my view on these matters, and I doubt that true believers would even accept a proof if it was possible. Look at how most Americans don’t believe the theory of evolution–should I expect them to believe something that threatens their beliefs about God?

Maybe Hemant could create a separate posting just for the two of you, with everybody else blocked.

That might be most appropriate. We could have a debate-with-Carr area, much like the try-to-convert-Hemant thread. What do you think, Carr? Richard, I appreciate the wish of good luck.

What everyone doesn’t seem to understand is the bible is talking about man’s inner struggle with his emotions. All the things that take place in the bible are those things between our rational mind and our feelings. What?, you don’t have feelings? Your feelings are refered to as the woman. The bondage is talking about controlling those feelings. The poor are those feelings that make a man feel worthless. This is what I mean about the earthly king. Jesus is INSIDE of us, not coming on a big horse to defeat your enemies. If monkies wrote it, why is it that we can’t seem to figure it out. IT IS SPIRITUAL. The words we say have a spirit to them. They make people feel things. The early man felt this spirit in the first words they learned. They began to worship this spirit. You can say that there is no God, but why be mixed up about the ONE God? It is the spirit of the word. It is God’s Holy Word. It is the Holy Spirit of God.

Steelman, olvlzl, Miko, writerdd, and Darryl,
Thanks for all the responses to this issue of post-modernism. Since I feel like a pencil neck among philosophical WWF Smackdown wrestlers, I’ll mainly just listen, but I will venture one question:

From what you say it would seem that just like most other ideas there are various ways and degrees to which it can be applied, and that thinkers who would fall under it’s broadest definition can be diametrically opposed on details.

I’m certainly no moral nihilist. I have my ethical/moral framework and of course like everyone else who has one I think it is valid. I’m open to the viewpoints of other cultures, but it doesn’t mean I’m going to accept everything there that is repugnant or abhorrent to me.

Does post-modernism have to be portrayed as one side of a conflict between the two extremes of “my way or the highway” vs. “anything goes”? Maybe “lite” post-modernism as Steelman described Mike’s version can be pragmatically useful in preventing cultural and ideological blind spots.

Okay musclemen, please don’t pound me into the mat too hard.

Oh Karen, thanks for your response and references too. You posted while I was writing my foolhardy question.

I’m certainly no moral nihilist. I have my ethical/moral framework and of course like everyone else who has one I think it is valid. I’m open to the viewpoints of other cultures, but it doesn’t mean I’m going to accept everything there that is repugnant or abhorrent to me.

I’d say this is a good way to view the world. Leaving postmodernism for a bit, I see some similarity to Thoreau’s ideas in Civil Disobedience:

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?

Unfortunately, Thoreau’s ideas can easily be subverted by groups like Moral Majority that operate under the misapprehension that they have a conscience. By arguing that “any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one,” Thoreau basically suggests we need not respect the views of those we disagree with, without explaining how we can determine whether our views are more right than our neighbors. I like to keep the expediency test in mind: if, say, another nation does something we don’t like, is it a matter of expediency in which both ways are equally valid, or a matter of morality in which we have a duty to try to convert them to our way of thinking?

Does post-modernism have to be portrayed as one side of a conflict between the two extremes of “my way or the highway” vs. “anything goes”?

I would cast it more in the light of “objective” vs. “subjective” or of “universal” vs. “local” although some would undoubtably disagree with one or both of those characterizations. It may not have to be portrayed as an extreme, although I think quite a few of its adherents would (ironically) choose to portray it as one. Perhaps it’s best that it is: defining the extremes makes it easier to find a position in the middle.

Does post-modernism have to be portrayed as one side of a conflict between the two extremes of “my way or the highway” vs. “anything goes”?

Richard W, I’m no philosopher, but the way I understand it, postmodernism basically says that there can be no objective viewpoint, that nothing is “really real” so to speak. In postmodern literary criticism, for example, the idea is that the text has no inherent meaning, regardless of what the author intended to say, it only has the subjective meaning assigned to it by each reader.

In essence, postmodernism embraces both “my way or the highway” AND “anything goes.” How’s that for a pile of kaka for thinking?

Postmodernism doesn’t need to be taken to extremes – and very few do take it so far as some of you are suggesting (with the exception of perhaps a few philosophy students late at night after smoking too much weed ).

While there is, admittedly, the tension between the universal and the local (what I call the “King & I” dilemma – how do you simultaneously respect a differing culture while also challenging the injustices you see in that culture?) postmodernism, in actuality, is supremely concerned with questions of justice. Derrida, the father of postmodern theory, has said that “justice is unable to be deconstructed” insofar as it is itself the basis for deconstruction; and Levinas, another postmodern philosopher, has suggested that ethics is the foundation for all other philosophy (including epistemology) because our experience of the Other precedes all of our attempts to explain, objectify and control the world.

In other words, postmodernism is not so much a relativization of ethics as it is a relativization of epistemology in light of ethics. We hold our ideas about “Truth” more lightly because the history of Western civilization over the past 400 years demonstrates that “Truth” often gets in the way of extending justice towards the Other.

Richard Wade,
I often see skeptics characterizing postmodernism as being the view that everything is equally uncertain, as opposed to skepticism, which views everything as unequally uncertain. Postmodernism cannot even probabilistically discern truth (as can science), so it is useless. There is actually a paper about this that is often cited. Also criticized, are the concepts of “other ways of knowing” or other kinds of truths (yeah, but you only know if they’re really true by comparing them to the accepted ways of knowing). I think these are all valid criticisms.

However, if Mike is representative of postmodernists, then it is only a criticism of a mischaracterization. The saddest thing about strawmen is that they divide people who actually agree.

On the flip side, I think some skeptics could learn a thing or two from postmodernism. Debating about the truth can be important, but sometimes, civility is more important.

BTW, if you want me to respond to or read any replies, please put my name in the text, so I can find it.

Mike, you attended Wheaton College, right? Did you also attend Wheaton Seminary? Have you ever worked outside of a religious/church setting – i.e., in a secular job? Just curious.

Wheaton College (B.A. Philosophy) and then Wheaton Grad School (M.A. Intercultural Studies). Wheaton doesn’t have a Seminary.

And truthfully the only “secular” job I’ve ever had have been the two coffee shops I’ve worked at the last few years while we’ve been getting this new church off the ground. Sadly I’ve been far too much within the Christian bubble my entire life (except for public high school). As one of my friends exclaimed (as he was helping me move and in the process of carrying in my fifth big box of theology books) “Mike, you need to get another hobby besides God!”

That’s why sites like this are good for me. I need someplace where I can engage with differing viewpoints.

Richard Wade, I’m just a plodder. You’ll notice there isn’t much out of the ordinary in what I’ve written, it’s just that I don’t skip as many steps. One of my favorite composers, Kenneth Gaburo once said that the forms he liked were the exhaustive ones. I’ve got to settle for the merely exhausting and exhausted. But you can find a few interesting things that way. Like freedom of belief.

Tommy, you don’t need anything to understand the Bible. It was written by man, and even Spong has said it’s not the word of God, but of man and is errant. I understand it very well and I don’t need any supernatural being to help me understand it.

Tommy, I can’t for the life of me figure out if you’re serious or not… Do you really believe what you’re writing or are you just trying to mock Christians?

From the way too bitter to the way too sweet…

Mike C said,

May 23, 2007 at 11:29 pm

Tommy, I can’t for the life of me figure out if you’re serious or not… Do you really believe what you’re writing or are you just trying to mock Christians?

He makes no sense most of the time and sometimes I wondered if it was just me. Apparently, it’s not just me. I’ve even told him once that he makes no sense.

MIKE
This is why I cite NT Wright so often. He’s one of the ones (via Brian McLaren originally) that has presented me with this “new” reading of the Bible that has begun to challenge my old assumptions. Every time I read his stuff I’m left saying “Wow, if he’s right, then everything about my faith has to be rethought.”

CARR
Relax, the Bishop of Durham is wrong on the important points, although he is not wrong on everything.

Although I know you don’t like people disputing what he says.

When I did, you immediately ceased communication…..

MIKE
You all would be wrong to assume that I’ve simply tamed Jesus to be universally nice and non-threatening. There are still plenty of things that Jesus says that I find immensely challenging

CARR
Yes, Jesus reaction when somebody came to him pleading for help with their son challenges us all.

The son had fits and would often fell into fire and water.

Who can forget the words of Jesus when somebody pleaded for Jesus to help them with their son? ‘You faithless and perverse generation , how much longer must I be with you? How much longer must I put up with you?’ (Matthew 17:17)

Compare these words of Jesus with the reaction of , say, Benny Hinn , when somebody comes to him to be healed.

People think of Jesus , and when they see Hinn, they know that that is not real Christianity.

Jesus, of course, had no hesitation in curing the boy of epilepsy by driving a demon out of him.

(Modern medical science scoffs at the idea that epilepsy is caused by demon-possession. Sometimes I wonder if modern medical science is all it is cracked up to be)

Atheism doesn’t have to prove there is no god for the simple reason that there’s absolutely no reason to suspect that there is one.

Imagine that the god-idea had never been conceived by our predecessors, and today someone made the claim that there is such a being as god, how many people would believe it? We find it difficult to imagine a world without the god-idea; but not because it is such a compelling idea in itself, but because it is so imbedded in our cultures. If anyone doubts this, let them ask themselves, if someone were to invent some other entity similar to god and claim that it exists, how many people would believe it? As many as believe in the god-idea? Wouldn’t there be at least a bit more incredulity? I doubt that it is only non-believers that scoff at Scientology. Why do Christians not believe the stories of L. Ron Hubbard?

Maybe “lite” post-modernism as Steelman described Mike’s version can be pragmatically useful in preventing cultural and ideological blind spots.

It’s possible.

Levinas, another postmodern philosopher, has suggested that ethics is the foundation for all other philosophy (including epistemology) because our experience of the Other precedes all of our attempts to explain, objectify and control the world.

In other words, postmodernism is not so much a relativization of ethics as it is a relativization of epistemology in light of ethics. We hold our ideas about “Truth” more lightly because the history of Western civilization over the past 400 years demonstrates that “Truth” often gets in the way of extending justice towards the Other.

These ideas make alarms go off and red lights flash for me. They are too easy to misuse. It should be our goal to separate epistemology as much as we can from ethics. It’s like the separation of church and state–you mix them, you get trouble.

I like the path Julia Sweeney takes in “Letting Go of God.” She starts by talking about Santa Claus

I was born again the same year I stopped believing in Santa. Something I just remembered a couple of weeks ago.

Julia Sweeney’s “Letting Go of God” is great. Something everyone could listen to and enjoy. It’s about her spiritual journey, which just happened to end in atheism. A great example of how you can be spiritual without faith.

Atheism doesn’t have to prove there is no god for the simple reason that there’s absolutely no reason to suspect that there is one.

Imagine that the god-idea had never been conceived by our predecessors, and today someone made the claim that there is such a being as god, how many people would believe it? We find it difficult to imagine a world without the god-idea; but not because it is such a compelling idea in itself, but because it is so imbedded in our cultures. If anyone doubts this, let them ask themselves, if someone were to invent some other entity similar to god and claim that it exists, how many people would believe it? As many as believe in the god-idea? Wouldn’t there be at least a bit more incredulity? I doubt that it is only non-believers that scoff at Scientology. Why do Christians not believe the stories of L. Ron Hubbard?

Darryl,

Good points. Do you feel that the god-idea being conceived by our predecessors provides a reason to suspect that there is one? I agree with your post – if the god-idea was proposed for the first time in the present, more incredulity would exist. Therefore, the beliefs of predecessors must have a role in decreasing that same incredulity. Please help me understand in what way the beliefs of predecessors are not a valid reason to suspect that God could exist. Thank you as always.

By the way, I have no counter-point coming … I am more interested in learning to be kind than right. Hope my debate with Carr has not hindered the trust afforded me when I began posting here. I appreciate that trust. Thanks.

The puppy is just an example of things we feel. I don’t make a lot of sense. If I made sense to anyone and they said “Oh I see God now” then it would be me that gave the understanding. That would say there is no God. But when God gives the understanding you WILL know eternal life. You will know love. You will know happiness. You will know peace in your heart. The confusion over what I say is caused by the Holy Spirit. The understanding comes from Jesus. You just have to listen to Him. Let me introduce you. Close your eyes really tight. Really, really tight. You see that little light. Just keep looking at it. It will grow until you recognize it. I don’t know how to make all those faces so put them in where you see fit.

I’ve got no problem with people “letting go of God” if that’s what they conclude their experience to be. I think atheists are fully able to do what’s good, what I might conclude is the “will of God” even while they are full fledged atheists. That’s only my opinion of their actions, it’s not something I have any right to assert publicly. People are the only ones who are able to give us an explaination of their actions. I know atheists who fully hold that all these matters are individual and essentially private matters and they have no problem with religious people being religious, as long as they don’t try to push it on the unwilling.

I first came here researching the presence of fundmentalist atheism on the leftist blogs, finding that the “liberal atheists” I’ve known in real life were almost non-existent on the blogs. And the few times they reared their heads the fundamentalist-atheists, yeah, PZ, I’m talking about you, would shoot them down as “Neville Chamberlain Atheists”. I mentioned on another thread here that I wrote a while back advising atheists that someone like John Mortimer, the guy who wrote the Rumpole stories, would be a much better public face of atheism than Dawkins or Kurtz or the other fundamentalists who grab all the attention.

I mention this now because I’m going to be here a lot less often, from now on. Though I’ve enjoyed this place more than any of the other atheist blogs I’ve looked at. I just hope that the liberal atheists here can resist the pressures to conform to fundamentalist orthodoxy.

I will be looking in to see if the question I posed gets answered but my time is limited.

Thanks for the fun.
olvlzl

STEPHAN
The point of the story is that God has shown us mercy and He expects us to show mercy to others.

CARR
Jesus parable is comparing God to a cruel master who forgives his slaves, and then hands them over to be tortured when he is angry with them.

I didn’t choose the mataphor. Jesus did.

And he certainly made his point, using hyperbole.

Jesus must have thought to himself. ‘Let me use hyperbole and compare God to the most extreme example of unjust cruelty.’

Jesus could have compared God to somebody who only got mildly annoyed with people, but where was the hyperbole in that?

I have to admit that Keith really rubbed my nose in it, when he pointed out that it meant that God would allow Satan and his angels to torture people.

It was a very good job that God had shown great mercy to the people he was angry with.

Or else who knows what he would have done?

To Mike C.
I said:

“In summary: Mike will always find a positive angle from which to interpret any given scripture. He subscribes to a theology that blunts even the horrors of eternal damnation. Mike’s beliefs demonstrate religion’s malleability in that it can be formed to the underlying ethical beliefs of modern western culture (or any culture).”

To which you responded:

“You more or less did a good job of summarizing my approach Steelman. Thank you for that – though I will continue to assert that (from my vantage point at least) it doesn’t seem like I’m deliberately trying to form my faith to fit the “underlying ethical beliefs of modern western culture”. In truth, for most of my life I was a pretty conservative…”

Mike, I think it’s true that the formation of, and changes in, any theology can be traced backward to reveal the cultural and ideological influences involved in its formulation. You gave a summary of your own theological journey, in the rest of the post that I cited above, that detailed your move from a more conservative to a more liberal stance. Since the U.S. is, and has been, an environment that allows a proliferation of Christian ideologies and cultural influences, there are many factors present to allow a seeker to move in either direction. Regardless of which way a person moves, liberal or conservative, they move in a direction that represents their perception of truth according to their surrounding influences and (I hope!) serious thought about the issues involved.

You say you aren’t “deliberately trying to form my faith to fit…”, but you’re saying that while living in a cultural situation that allows an individual to “try on” literally hundreds of different Christian ideologies, as well as, as you’ve said, finding truth from other places. Yes, I know you say you’ve gone back to a more “original” Christianity (i.e., early church). I accept that claim to a degree. Nonetheless, the Emerging Church seems, like any other modern religious ideology, to be syncretistic; especially in light of what you’ve said about other “lenses” being valid, but not the best fit for you. In a marketplace of ideas, there’s plenty to choose from in order to assemble what makes the best sense to you. I think you’ve done this, and continue to do so.

However, I want to make clear that I’m not denigrating the process you’ve used to arrive at your faith, so I need to address something I said earlier:

In light of the vast number of Protestant denominations extant, it’s obvious that Christians have a penchant for concocting their own favorite flavors of religion. Looking at the two examples above I’d say that Mike and those he influences, and is influenced by, have mixed up a batch they like best.

I stand by what I said in the paragraph I quoted at the top of this post, and the first sentence quoted just above. Yes, there are several reasons why different denominations form, but ideological differences are a prominent one. However, the way I characterized your own process infers that your beliefs are contrived or dishonest in some way. I don’t believe that. I think your conclusions are wrong, of course, but I think we’ve both arrived at our current understandings of the God question in a way that was contemplative and rational. Anyway, mea culpa for making it sound like I thought your process was trivial.

Mike C. said: “One more thing I should clarify: You all would be wrong to assume that I’ve simply tamed Jesus to be universally nice and non-threatening. There are still plenty of things that Jesus says that I find immensely challenging.”

I don’t think the objections here are about your theology prescribing an easy way of life. They are about what I quoted at the top of the post about your “…theology that blunts even the horrors of eternal damnation.” See, damned if you’re a fundamentalist, damned if you’re not.
Although, the points that follow your quote above regarding sacrifice, and the difficulty of living up to high ethical standards, are well taken.

OK, just keep believing that it doesn’t come from God. You can see the external stimuli. Sit in your room. Turn out all the lights and say “Jesus I Love You, What would you have me do?” You think it is god in us. You will find that it is God in us. Helping us learn by the feelings He gives. You will know He is real when He won’t let go. You can only find peace when you answer His call. He is the potter, we are just clay. The potter will cut into the clay to make a design that he wants everyone to see. It is very painful.
You got me? Maybe God got you.

: colon ; semi colon : colon ; semi colon : colon ; semi colon. Maybe I’ll get that right next time. These computers confuse me. I don’t think they really exist.

Guy who bought soul

Look at the soul I bought!

Friend of guy

Looks OK, but it seems a little skeptical. You’ll have to do some work on it.

Guy who bought soul

I know, but I think I can fix it if I take it to church.

Friend of guy

Only Jesus can fix that. Do you have Jesus at your church?

Guy who bought soul

I hope so. If He isn’t, I just wasted 500 bucks!

Tommy, you’re not making sense again. Reality check: No one actually bought anyone’s soul. Souls cannot be bought. Even my Church of Christ friend got the joke right off the bat and said no one can buy a soul.

I just hope that the liberal atheists here can resist the pressures to conform to fundamentalist orthodoxy.

Sigh. Why can’t people understand that there is no such thing as atheist orthodoxy or fundamentalism, because there is no frakking atheist holy book to provide orthodox or fundamentalist dogma.

Sigh. Why can’t people understand that there is no such thing as atheist orthodoxy or fundamentalism, because there is no frakking atheist holy book to provide orthodox or fundamentalist dogma.

Wow… now I feel silly for bowing down towards Oxford five times a day and chanting “There is one no-god, and Dawkins is his prophet.”

Seriously though, I agree completely. And not just because of the lack of holy book(s): we also lack the Grand Inquisitioner willing and able to torture and kill in order to promote his/her view as orthodox.

I know you don’t buy a soul. That was my joke. . Your soul is your spirit. (The way you make others feel). Words have a spirit. That is why He was named Jesus. That is why we are not called “by any other name”. It is the spirit of the word. Life is a gift. Gifts are given. We are made in an awesome and wonderful way. God made us this way so He could talk to us with His Spirit. You feel what God wants. You want God to talk to you, so you ask a question. You don’t hear any answer so you say He isn’t there. You suddenly think of something in your past. Maybe along time ago, or maybe last week. You wonder what brought it to mind. God knew you wanted an answer to the question, so He answered it before you asked it. Your feelings have been stirred by the Spirit. Like the pool of water the lame people wanted to get into. When the Spirit moves, you better jump in.
Rock and Roll makes you feel good, but it won’t get you to heaven.

Tommy Huntsman said,

Rock and Roll makes you feel good, but it won’t get you to heaven.

And the Gnostic said, “I studied religious texts and soon I discovered Jesus never really lived. Heaven was among us all along and the rapture already happened. I just needed to wake up to realize it.”

Honey, you’re already there. You just need to wake up.

I just hope that the liberal atheists here can resist the pressures to conform to fundamentalist orthodoxy.
…
Sigh. Why can’t people understand that there is no such thing as atheist orthodoxy or fundamentalism, because there is no frakking atheist holy book to provide orthodox or fundamentalist dogma.

writerdd, I think olvlzl uses the term “fundamentalist atheist” to refer to atheists who are intolerant, rude, closed-minded, rabidly anti-religious, and are generally hostile jerks. The proper term for such an atheist is “poopy-headed atheist.” This term was coined by a Christian friend of Mike C’s whose name escapes me right now. Good examples of “poopy-headed atheists are Penn Jillette and Christopher Hitchens. Some scholars of atheist taxonomy would also include Harris and Dawkins, but that remains controversial.

The rest of us, the “level-headed atheists” (I coined the term) are tolerant, polite open to considering other’s views and interested in genuine dialogue for mutual understanding.

I’m not sure but I think olvlzl has made a similar mistake that I made in assuming that the poopy-headed atheists represent the majority of atheists in general, just as I once assumed that the worst ultra right wing, bigoted fundamentalists represented the majority of Christians in general. We tend to characterize groups by the individuals who most get our attention.

Using a term like “fundamentalist atheist” is probably originally intended to simply get our attention because it carries a lot of emotional impact for atheists. Unfortunately it causes confusion because it’s really referring to a mind set of intolerance and hostility rather than specific views about scripture, orthodoxy or dogma, which as you point out, don’t apply very well to atheism.

olvlzl, I’ll miss your input. May you fare well. Don’t let the poopy-heads get you down. They’re not really the majority, in case you think so.

How do you pronounce your name?

But the difference is that science has proven those old notions to be wrong, so we can change those beliefs. But science has proven nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God, so it cannot influence a change in that belief.

Yes, science can’t prove or disprove those notions, old or new. So then what has changed the notions from old to new? One explanation for ancient people believing in gods was to explain the forces of nature that were at that time beyond their understanding in more mundane terms. Another explanation is that these god concepts were the first primitive glimpses of a true god who would reveal himself more clearly later. If the first explanation is correct, then why have most people switched from many gods to only one god to explain nature? And if the second explanation is correct, then why was it “revealed” incorrectly at first and corrected later?

But the difference is that science has proven those old notions to be wrong, so we can change those beliefs. But science has proven nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God, so it cannot influence a change in that belief.

The original context was “why shouldn’t we believe things just because they’re old.” And you’re correct that science is exactly the key: we don’t believe them when they said the Earth was flat because that view was based on ignorance and has now been corrected by science. We do believe them when they say that matter is made of atoms, but that’s not because the opinion is old but again because the view has now been verified by science. Regarding god, the only evidence offered was its presence in old books, which, by the same standard that all other contents of old books are judged by, should only be accepted as true when evidence is provided for it. As Mike C has pointed out, if god exists, it should be a part of the natural world and work “miracles” through natural causes. Science is pretty good at examining nature these days, so I’d say we’re getting to the point where “absence of evidence” starts to indicate “evidence of absence.” It’s not so much the case that science is trying to influencing a change in belief on god as that science (or pretty much any epistemic method other than ‘faith’) is indicating that such a belief shouldn’t have existed in the first place.

“That’s what I mean. It is the same for everyone. We all live under the same gravity. That means there is only one God, one gravity, one truth to anything.”

What the HECK does that mean?

Hey, my body is made up of 13 elements. That must mean we live under 13 gods.

All atoms are driven by four fundamental forces…. that must mean there are four gods!

And gravitation is by far the weakest one!

Please help me understand in what way the beliefs of predecessors are not a valid reason to suspect that God could exist.

In exactly the same way that their views on the shape of the Earth aren’t a good reason that we should believe it’s flat or that the Sun revolves around it.

Agreed. We should not believe things just because our predecessors believed them. I was trying to suggest that there is worth in trying to prove that there is no god, much like there has been worth in proving that the world was not flat, etc.

Darryl had stated, “Atheism doesn’t have to prove there is no god for the simple reason that there’s absolutely no reason to suspect that there is one.” I was positing that the belief of ancestors could be a reason to suspect that there is one … not that we should immediately believe based on that fact. I agree with you that belief of predecessors is not evidence of God’s existence. I believe we are on the same page in that regard.

I sold my soul to Rock and Roll.

LOL And all Rock and Roll asked is that you attend some concerts and blog about the experience online.

Wow… now I feel silly for bowing down towards Oxford five times a day and chanting “There is one no-god, and Dawkins is his prophet.”

LOL, Miko

But the difference is that science has proven those old notions to be wrong, so we can change those beliefs. But science has proven nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God, so it cannot influence a change in that belief.

Miko said,

The original context was “why shouldn’t we believe things just because they’re old.” And you’re correct that science is exactly the key: we don’t believe them when they said the Earth was flat because that view was based on ignorance and has now been corrected by science. We do believe them when they say that matter is made of atoms, but that’s not because the opinion is old but again because the view has now been verified by science. Regarding god, the only evidence offered was its presence in old books, which, by the same standard that all other contents of old books are judged by, should only be accepted as true when evidence is provided for it. As Mike C has pointed out, if god exists, it should be a part of the natural world and work “miracles” through natural causes. Science is pretty good at examining nature these days, so I’d say we’re getting to the point where “absence of evidence” starts to indicate “evidence of absence.” It’s not so much the case that science is trying to influencing a change in belief on god as that science (or pretty much any epistemic method other than ‘faith’) is indicating that such a belief shouldn’t have existed in the first place.

Miko, wonderful answer. I think the Greeks got lucky with the atom business, because when you compare our present understanding of the atom with, for example, Epicurus’s ideas, you see that pretty much all they had in common was that everything is made from tiny bodies that we can’t see with the naked eye. According to Epicurus, atoms are bodies that are in an eternal free fall, in parallel paths, through a void. Every once in a while, for no apparent reason, an atom will swerve and glance off another. These collisions form all the things we see.

“That’s what I mean. It is the same for everyone. We all live under the same gravity. That means there is only one God, one gravity, one truth to anything.”

I’m just saying that it was all made according to one truth. All of the things in the universe work together for one purpose. All of the elements in your body and those forces have one truth associated with them. Anything else is chaos. God calls all people to Him.

In any sense other than anthropological or historical, the beliefs of ancestors are worthless.

Wow! That’s a rather absolute statement. So you really see nothing of value in reading the great thinkers of the past beyond mere historical curiosity?

I’m just speaking personally, but when I read Aristotle or Seneca or Confucious or whoever, I don’t just want to know what they thought, I want to know if they have anything to teach me – without automatically assuming that they don’t.

Their view of atoms was not so ignorant as the view of a flat Earth since Greece actually did have some philosophers aspiring to the status of scientists.

I’m not sure if this was what you meant to imply, but the majority of ancient Greeks (and most others who followed them) believed the world was round.

Tommy Huntsman said,

May 24, 2007 at 4:24 pm

That’s what I mean. It is the same for everyone. We all live under the same gravity

You’re missing my point entirely, Tommy. You are pushing your theology. Not everyone see it as the same god, nor does their theology consider JC the saviour. Some people would be insulted to have their god associated with a supernatural anthropomorphic Trinity deity.

Brahman is not a theistic god. Buddha is not a deity, his more like a prophet or wiseman, so to speak. Confusious was a wiseman and the Tao has no deity. On top of it all, some Islamics would get mighty ticked with you considering JC as a saviour. He is a prophet to them but not the Son of God. Some Islamic Extremists would call you an infidel and sooner have you stoned to death at dawn, as well as say you are going to hell for saying such. Humanists have no need for a supernatural being.

Sorry, but your theology is not the only religion nor is it necessarily the right religion. Everyone has to chose their own path, whether or not you see it as right for them. For them, it is right.

Wow! That’s a rather absolute statement. So you really see nothing of value in reading the great thinkers of the past beyond mere historical curiosity?

I’m just speaking personally, but when I read Aristotle or Seneca or Confucious or whoever, I don’t just want to know what they thought, I want to know if they have anything to teach me – without automatically assuming that they don’t.

I was speaking of value in sense of physical truth. Since they lacked means of distinguishing truths of reality from appearances, their statements are about as valid today as a volume from Borges’ Library. On the other hand, Aristotle is worth reading today for his views on rhetoric or ethics and so on, just as Homer is worth reading as literature. However, Aristotle’s claim that quintessence moved in circles did nothing more than set astronomy back 500 years.

The distinction I draw is along the lines of metaphysics: their views are valid so far as they don’t try to describe things that actually exist or are thought to exist. Ethics, rhetoric, democracy, mathematics, art, etc. are concepts with no physical existence. Gods, the four/five elements of nature, the stars, etc. are concepts with potential physical existence. The truths in the former category will exist forever; the truths in the latter will not. And it’s not entirely just an ancient phenomenon: Newton and Einstein were giants in their time, but they’re not worth reading for the sake of scientific knowledge today. In their case, that’s more because those “on their shoulders” went so much further, clarified, and expunged errors. But there are certainly modern examples of scientists making wrong claims without evidence. For example, Maxwell proposed the concept of “luminiferous aether” as a medium for waves in a vacuum to travel through without any evidence of its existence solely because he thought they needed a medium to travel through. And the idea was widely accepted until experiments demonstrated that no such medium existed. My point was that ideas like this should not have been accepted because there is no reason to think that they represented things in reality other than the fact that the person who thought of them noted that it would explain an apparent whole in understanding.

He argues that our experience of responsibility towards the Other (to treat them as truly Other and not simply a part of ourselves) is primary and irreducible and is the starting point for all further discussion about what is just.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Because the way I’m interpretting it can’t possibly be what you mean.

I would think conversely that treating the Other as part of ourselves is the underlying foundation for the existence of justice. Isn’t that the basic premise of, say, the Golden Rule?

Hmm, yeah, as I re-read what I wrote I can see how it might come across the wrong way. Sorry about that. Treating the Other as Other does not mean excluding them as different. Quite the opposite in fact. What Levinas means is that we respect people as unique beings in and of themselves apart from our attempts to limit and define them. When we force someone to conform to our ideas about them (e.g. our labels and definitions and rules and attempts to control) we objectify them – i.e. we basically try to make them just another object in our self-centered “universe”. What Levinas is saying is that we need to respect others as not merely being an object in our own universe, but as the centers of their own unique universe, and then treat them as such (exactly the idea of the Golden Rule in fact: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? – i.e. treat the Other as a being just like yourself, and not as just a part of your own subjective world).

Levinas describes this in terms of both “proximity” and “distance”. In other words, when we encounter the Other we become simultaneously aware of their similarity and connection to ourselves (proximity – they are one of “us”) and yet also the fact that they are not just simply part of ourselves (distance – they are unique individuals who are not reducible to my ideas about them).

Think of this in terms of developmental psychology. When children are young (we are told) they have no conception of the Other. To an infant, mommy and daddy are simply extensions of themselves that they control through crying. As they grow older they start to realize that mommy and daddy are not just appendages to themselves, but neither are they completely capable of realizing that other people are just like themselves – with real feelings, desires, needs, etc. (This is something my wife and I are always trying to teach our two year old daughter – that when she steals toys from her friends or knocks them down she is actually hurting them, and that she wouldn’t like it if they did the same thing to her – it’s what psychologists call “perspective taking”.) So what Levinas is saying is that the beginning of ethics is this realization that others are in fact Other – not mere appendages or lesser beings – and that they therefore demand the same level of respect and love that we desire to be shown to ourselves.

Is that any clearer? I know the terminology can be somewhat confusing. It is French Continental philosophy after all.

Love God and Love Others. (Which of course are really two ways of saying the same thing.)

That could only possibly be the case if you assert that atheists are incapable of love.

Not at all. In loving others, one is expressing a love for God, even if one doesn’t recognize the existence of God, because human beings are created in God’s image (i.e. we are representatives of God to each other). When you love others, you honor that image, even if you don’t recognize it as such. For instance, in 1 John 4:16 we are told that “God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.” (Please don’t flip this verse around. It doesn’t say that only those who live in God can love. It says that anyone who loves is already in God (whether they know it or not).

(Of course, all this is just according to my theology. If one doesn’t believe in God in the first place then all this is probably just meaningless verbiage.)

If you ask Islamic “mercy killers” why they did it, they’ll tell you it was for love of their victims, in order to protect the victims from “shame.” Love sounds good in the abstract, but in practice it can be used to justify just about anything.

Indeed it can, but then, so can “Truth”. What argument will you use to prove that protecting people from Shame is not a legitimate application of love? I’d suggest that you’re probably not going to be able to simply argue that your “rational scientific” (or Christian, or liberal democratic, etc.) worldview is so much superior to their Muslim one that they should therefore give up their behavior. You’re probably going to do better to appeal to the more basic phenomenological experience of the Other that Levinas talks about (though probably not in those terms) – i.e. suggest that real love would mean treating their victims as they themselves would likewise want to be treated. Of course, this is not the kind of thing that can really be “argued”. Either they get it or they don’t – either they’re aware of their responsibility to the Other or not.

(Of course, in the short term, justice towards the victim may also require standing in the way of their oppressor and preventing them from doing her harm.)

Everyone has them, no matter what they believe or don’t believe. Beliefs are rational responses to feelings or events.

And the feelings part is much more central than we would have thought, say, a decade ago. I don’t recall the details, but there was an experiment a couple of years back in which patients with a certain type of brain injury were asked to do logic puzzles. The interesting thing about it was the type of brain injury, which was one which was thought to solely affect emotional judgement. They found, however, that those with this injury had severely diminished capabilities to solve logic puzzles when compared to the control group.

Since we don’t know why exactly this should have been the case, we have to be careful drawing conclusions. But I think that it is reasonable to conclude that logic is not total rationality as was previously thought, but rather, perhaps, the synthesis of rationality and emotionality–the midpoint between two extremes. Pure rationality reduces the Noumenal to interactions between particles. Pure emotionality reduces it to god. I find both extremes rather unsatisfying.

So what Levinas is saying is that the beginning of ethics is this realization that others are in fact Other – not mere appendages or lesser beings – and that they therefore demand the same level of respect and love that we desire to be shown to ourselves.

Is that any clearer? I know the terminology can be somewhat confusing. It is French Continental philosophy after all.

Much clearer, although I would describe that same argument by saying that we are realizing that others are in fact not Other, because they share a common primacy with the Self. For example, the Wiki page you linked gives Cahoone’s definition of Other as: “Other phenomena or units must be represented as foreign or ‘other’ through representing a hierarchical dualism in which the unit is ‘privileged’ or favored, and the other is devalued in some way” and goes on to describe how the concept is used to exclude those “who they [a society] want to subordinate.” Unless I’m misreading those quotations (which is possible–I’m not entirely sure what the second usage of the word ‘unit’ above refers to), they seem to be the opposite of your definition of Other.

Pure rationality reduces the Noumenal to interactions between particles. Pure emotionality reduces it to god.

Yes, but the only way to experience this numinous feeling of the Other is through the human. Love from another human can be enough to trigger the numinous feelings that cause transendence.

In loving others, one is expressing a love for God, even if one doesn’t recognize the existence of God, because human beings are created in God’s image (i.e. we are representatives of God to each other).

That would seem to make god rather trivial, to me. Plus I can’t imagine you actually believe it: if you did, how would you justify loving your wife more than the smell of napalm in the morning?

For myself, I love others specifically because they weren’t created in God’s image or in anything’s image, because we voluntarily choose to band together against an amoral universe to create something grander than the sum of our parts.

You’re probably going to do better to appeal to the more basic phenomenological experience of the Other that Levinas talks about (though probably not in those terms)…(Of course, in the short term, justice towards the victim may also require standing in the way of their oppressor and preventing them from doing her harm.)

And in some ways these two are the same thing. It’s justice MLK style: if someone is beating beaten, protect them by interjecting your own body. Of course, the Buddha beat Jesus to this realization: “Others do not realize ‘We here are struggling.’ For those that realize this are quarrels therefore quelled.”

I’d suggest that you’re probably not going to be able to simply argue that your “rational scientific” (or Christian, or liberal democratic, etc.) worldview is so much superior to their Muslim one that they should therefore give up their behavior.

I think that the Levinas argument of the Other is a “rational scientific” one. (With the emphasis on the rational part.)

I can’t for the life of me remember who said it right now, but it has been suggested that the best way to determine the laws of a society would be to have every member vote democratically on them before any member knew where in society they would be born. Unfortunately, we obviously can’t do this. The best we can do, then, is to approximate this by pretending we don’t know. And that, is best accomplished through rationality.

God gave early man the desire to seek Him. But it is He that decides when He will reveal Himself to us. Why keep bringing up all the other guys

Because your basic premise is wrong. Until the primacy of a god is established, its opinions are no better than anyone elses. And primacy goes far beyond mere existence.

I offer the following challenges: In each of the following, take the full scriptures of each tradition into account. Can a Jew honestly say that their teachings are better than those of Mohammad? Can a Muslim say that their teachings are better than those of Jesus? Can a Christian say that their teachings are better than those of Buddha? Can a Buddhist say that their teachings are better than those that the average person today could come up with if they took the time to comb all of the older traditions and synthesize the “good parts?”

Did we start off in episode 4 or did we evlove?

Well, if you’re talking Star Wars…

Yeah star wars…biblical, except for the twist.

I’m just trying to say that it is really a decision. I know that the world was spoken into existence. It came from the mouth of God. If he started the world from a tiny seed and grew it, if he exploded into existence, or if he just opened up the book and said go. It really doesn’t change anything about God. If He can speak a world into existence, He is quite capable of speaking into existence a book about it. His Book.
But I will point out that is very important for you to know that it is not any man that gives you the understanding of His Book. He gives you the knowledge of what He wants you to have and use. Listen to the words with your heart and you begin to feel His presence. Then when someone trys to tell you what it means you know it right away because you will recognize the Truth in it. It is not the word of any man it is the Spirit of God’s Word that speaks to us. The God that could speak the world into existence can bring about these feelings of understanding in us. We get to know God personally as a real person.
This is because He became a real person. He did this to reveal Himself to us. You have heard the Word of God in your heart before and there are parts of the things you’ve heard still there. These are the seeds that God has planted, so that He can bring you to understand in the time He has appointed. In the fullness of His time He will bring you to the decision.
The Bible says that God’s Spirit will not always strive with man. This means that there will come a day when God will not be with the man. It says that we have about 80 years, give or take, and then we will die. It will be at that moment that each of us will be alone. God was not with Jesus as He died, because He carried the sin of the world. We are sinners because of the words we have said and the things we have done. We will have to make a decision. Is there a God that has been talking to me throughout my life, or not? Did He come to earth and live as a man and die for my sin? Will He be with me when I die so I won’t be alone?
All those people can talk and say whatever they want. Those things are written about in the Bible, too. The Bible is better, because it is God’s Word, not the word of men. If you really want to spend time with God, just read it. The Word itself will let you feel His Spirit. You can look around for God, but He is only in His Word. It is His Spirit. He loves everyone because He is Love. From God we get Love, because of God we are able to share Love.
People say and do the wrong things and they say and do the right things . We make our decisions based on the things in our life that seem rational and responsible. We all have a certain amount of moral fiber. Life is good. Life is eternal because of Jesus. Death is not something we want to face, but it will come.
I want to make a rational decision based on the things in my life that seem rational and responsible, too. I feel God’s Spirit in the things around me. The external stimuli that comes from all things we come in contact with. I feel the spirit of the words that men say to me when they make me laugh and when they make me cry. I know that it is rational to theorize that these feelings come from God. It seems rational because something had to start it up. I think it is rational that this was the SPOKEN Truth. More rational than a bunch of suff just flying out of nowhere. It is also rational to believe that this is normal human behavior, biological and all that. But it seems more rational that the creator made it all just the way it is. My rational mind says there can be only one Truth and it came from His mouth. So there can be only one God. The God of all things. And I know in my rational mind that I will die.
Based on this I know that my only responsible decision is to accept God’s gift of salvation. I know He is alive, because He lives in me. When I close my eyes I can see His light in my heart. He died on the Cross for my sins. He died for me so I won’t be alone. He died for everyone. He will be with each that ask Him to come in. I don’t know all about how He does it, but I know He speaks to each of us and asks us to make that decision. It is responsible to settle that decision as soon as possible. So God can soothe my heart and I can go share my bananas.
I can joke around and laugh at the debates going on about how to prove God, but it is really just a decision that proves it. When you make the right decision you will feel it. The Spirit moves the water and we decide to jump in. Be ready to answer. Be ready with that simple prayer to ask Him to be with you.
Admit your sin. Believe He died for you. Confess He is Lord. A, B, C. Never forget it. It may save your life. God Loves everyone.

I’m just trying to say that it is really a decision. I know that the world was spoken into existence. [etc.]

Tommy’s post is a perfect example of what I referred to as a faith-based epistemology above: since truth really IS just a decision, the distinction between knowledge and belief breaks down and the above is completely consistent internally.

The problem I see comes with:

We will have to make a decision. Is there a God that has been talking to me throughout my life, or not? Did He come to earth and live as a man and die for my sin? Will He be with me when I die so I won’t be alone?

Human language was developed by people who accepted a primitive version of the rationalist framework as opposed to the faith-based framework, so the above may sound weird to us. (It certainly does to me.) After all, is whether or not Jesus was a real person really a question that involves us making a decision rather than a matter of historical fact? From a perspective inside the faith-based system, it really is nothing more than a personal decision, as Tommy notes. And that is why I don’t accept faith as an epistemic method.

(Aside: How did this conversation drift into hardcore epistemology anyway?)

Tommy Huntsman said,

May 24, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Yeah star wars…biblical, except for the twist.

I’m just trying to say that it is really a decision. I know that the world was spoken into existence. It came from the mouth of God.

No Tommy, you don’t know this. Just because the Bible tells you so, doesn’t mean it is necessarily right. The Hindu version of how the world was created could be right and it is more fitting with the idea of evolution.

God has no mouth in which to speak. There is no anthropomorphic deity, not even a reincarnated Zeus. Now IF you are talking about something that is like the wind and natural to the earth and everything on it, then that is something else, but even that is not anthropomorphic.

Again, you are pushing YOUR theology. This is belief, not knowledge that you talking about.

Miko said,

(Aside: How did this conversation drift into hardcore epistemology anyway?)

Oh Tommy was babelling on again about something that concerned his beliefs in an imposing way, and I got on him about several posts back- once I understood him. He won’t let it go and is continuing to impose his beliefs on others. At least he’s more coherant right now. Makes me wish I had not told him when he was making no sense again. I should have let him continue on being a Jabberwock.

Even Pastor Mike seemed astonished by him once, asking him if he really believed what he was saying or if he was mocking Christians. He believes what he’s saying and trying to impose it on others. Guess he has a goal of being the next Jerry Farwell.

Sorry? I don’t follow you.

I mean to say that if love of humans (and presumably everything else capable of being loved) is soley an expression of love of the god whose image we reflect, then we should love everything and everyone unconditionally without distinction, since love for each should involve the same amount of love of god. If that’s the case, as one example, you should wake up in the morning and tell your wife, “I feel exactly the same way about you that I do about Hitler.”

If you don’t do this, I’d have to think that there must be some component to the love that is separate from love of god.

Makes me wish I had not told him when he was making no sense again.

I’ll agree that it’s a struggle to understand what he’s saying, but I think that’s more a characteristic of the English language. We speak a language in which it’s very easy to draw distinctions between things and to partition qualities into an exhaustive set of mutually exclusive possibilities (for example, true and false, up and down, left and right, the colors of the rainbow, numbers, existence and nonexistence and so on). These work perfectly for the rationalist viewpoint, which is based off of the Law of the Excluded Middle and its correlaries that guarantee that every properly formed proposition is exactly one out of true and false.

Tommy’s argument relies, to the extent I understand it, on a system of knowledge in which these distinctions don’t exist and suffers from the fact that English isn’t really able to express it. (A language like Sanskrit, in which there’s actually a word for the concept “neither-true-nor-false” would probably do a much better job of it.). I may disagree that knowledge is dependent upon individual decision, but disturbingly I know of no way of proving that defining knowledge based upon rational argumentation leads to a superior epistemology. And I’ve really love to find such a proof, because I’ve been looking for one for years.

Not just once – I’m confounded by every one of his posts. I don’t recognize anything he says as corresponding to any particular Christian group I’ve ever heard of. It’s like he’s spouting a weird mix of fundamentalist Christianity and flaky New Ageism. That’s why I still really wonder whether he’s actually serious or if he’s just trying to make Christian beliefs sound as absurd as possible.

I think he must be serious, because I couldn’t write stuff that sounded like Tommy’s no matter how hard I tried.

Either way, he is doing a good job of making Christian beliefs sound absurd. But ultimately, aren’t you making the exact same leap of faith that he is? You’re building a rational foundation first, but you have to leave it eventually since it’s impossible to know there is a god with our current scientific understanding. That involves accepting something such as revelation that lies outside of rationality (i.e., what Andrews Norton called the “unrational” as opposed to the “irrational”–that which is not rationally justified but not rationally disproven either).

I don’t think most Christians assume that you need to (or even could) have the same amount or even the same kind of love for everything and everyone. We are finite creatures. Maybe God can love everyone and everything equally unconditionally, but we only reflect him. We are not him. Our abilities are more limited.

This is exactly what I mean when I assert that loving others and loving god are distinct concepts.

Besides, most Christians would easily distinguish between different kinds of love. In Greek there are four words we typically translate “love”: storge (familial affection), phileo (friendship or brotherly love), eros (romantic love), and agape (self-giving love). C.S. Lewis has a fantastic little book about the differences between these Four Loves and how our experiences of the first three prepare us for but never perfectly attain to the fourth (agape) – which is the kind of love 1 John is talking about and which we are called to have for the Other.

Based on the context of your original comment on the subject, I imagine you’re referring to agape when you say that loving god and loving others are the same concept. Then I must conclude that 1 John 4:16 (”God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.”) is incorrect. If God has no existence separate from that of love, it would be both simpler and clearer to assert that god does not exist and worship love instead. If God does have existence separate from that of love, then it’s certainly possible to love Other without loving God. And if god doesn’t have any existence whatsoever, it’s all just semantics.

Mike C said,

May 24, 2007 at 11:57 pm

Even Pastor Mike seemed astonished by him once, asking him if he really believed what he was saying or if he was mocking Christians.

Not just once – I’m confounded by every one of his posts. I don’t recognize anything he says as corresponding to any particular Christian group I’ve ever heard of. It’s like he’s spouting a weird mix of fundamentalist Christianity and flaky New Ageism. That’s why I still really wonder whether he’s actually serious or if he’s just trying to make Christian beliefs sound as absurd as possible.

Oh I think he’s serious. He just makes no sense. I don’t mean to be insulting with the jabberwock deal, but that is what he sounds like. Reminds me of my great uncle, a Free Methodist minister with some of the things he says- the more coherrent things that is.

Miko said,

Either way, he is doing a good job of making Christian beliefs sound absurd.

Oh yeah.

Mike C said,

May 25, 2007 at 12:27 am

But ultimately, aren’t you making the exact same leap of faith that he is?

I have no idea. I haven’t even bothered to try and follow him.

Don’t even try or you’ll be sitting there thinking, “What the hell is he talking about.” Then cleaning it up enough that you don’t sound offensive.

Mike C said,

And I’d also say that rationality begins with the unrational as well.

Oh I don’t know. I spent my whole childhood at awe with the world, feeling numinous transendent feelings even with my pets (including a horse and a cow) when they showed affection. It was most profound when I held my first newborn son in my arms for the first time and we looked into each others eyes. That was the most awesomely transendent experience I have ever had and if you’re a parent, you may know exactly what I mean.

As an adult I tried to find out what it was and through my psychology studies, I have a good idea of what it is. It’s a completely normal human experience though.

Miko said,
Then I must conclude that 1 John 4:16 (”God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.”) is incorrect.

How so? That verse makes a very good case for Anthony Freeman’s “God in us: A Case For Christian Humanism.” Not to mention what Bishop Spong said to me about it being through the human that we experience the Holy the Other. When a human shows love and compassion, it brings about good feelings to the receiver, sometimes being mildly transendent. Put in terms of psychology, it stimulates serotonin in the brain, which can easily change a bad mood into a good mood. In which case, one would experience the Ground of All Being, the source of all life.

I could expand upon this further with in ways that would not involve any supernatural anthropomorphic being- if it weren’t 1 a.m. I needed to get some sleep.

Sorry, Pastor Mike, but he was sort of stepping into my territory, if you know what I mean.

Once upon a time a village idiot sat beneath an enormous tree. This tree happened to be the place that several wise men and philosophers from all across the land had agreed to meet that very day, to discuss many an important thing.

When the wise men and philosophers arrived they found the village idiot sitting there, babbling nonsensical things. They took pity on him and offered him some of the food and drink that they had brought with them for their long journeys and for their sustenance during their discussion. The village idiot accepted their kindness gladly and blithered more of his incomprehensible absurdities.

As they all sat together in the shade of the great tree and began to talk about many an important thing, the village idiot would occasionally make some random, ridiculous remark that would spur the wise men’s and philosophers’ conversation on, as they spun ever more elaborate arguments over many an important thing, such as what is reality, what is truth, what is knowledge, and what is love. After all, this was why the wise men and philosophers had agreed to meet, for discourse on many an important thing.

Whenever the conversation lulled, they would give the village idiot more of their food and drink and he would say another new bizarre, incoherent inanity, and building upon what he had said the wise men and philosophers would launch into yet another esoteric debate about many an important thing, like what is madness, what is sanity, what is faith and what is God.

Finally the day had waned and though the wise men’s and philosophers’ minds had been satiated their bellies were empty, for they had given most of their food and drink to the village idiot. So they left the village idiot under the tree to go to the village to buy food and drink before their long journeys home.

After the wise men and philosophers had left, sitting with his abundant gifts of food and drink the village idiot didn’t say anything; he just smiled in a wise and philosophical way.

Oh I never make fun of anyone unless I include myself.

Miko said,

In which case, one would experience the Ground of All Being, the source of all life.

I would argue that such a thing doesn’t exist.

It’s a Spong-ism. For want of a better description, because there are no words for it, it is that numinous feeling inside you when you experience the awe and wonder of what is coming from the world or the universe. So much easier to say Ground of All Being. Less of a mouthful. Surely you can’t say you haven’t experience this awe and wonder.

Great parable Richard! Like all good stories it can sort of go either way can’t it?

I didn’t know Jerry Fallwell. I heard him say that it was because of the homosexuals and other sinners that America was having problems. This is inconsistent with God’s Word. God said “if MY people would humble THEMSELVES and pray and seek my face, then I will heal their land” It is the responsibility of the Christian to follow God. It is the responsibility of the Christian leaders to follow God. Just like it was for all the kings of Israel. Those that follwed God led the people in God’s way and were blessed. Those that did not led them to destruction.

Monkeymind, that’s a good story. Thank you. The Mullah Nasrudin link doesn’t work but I’ll look up the stories anyway. I had never heard of them.

As I’ve said elsewhere, when I gave up my quest for enlightenment I concluded that enlightenment should not be thought of in metaphorical terms of light, as in “to see the light”; it should be thought of in terms of weight, as in “to lighten up.” Ever since I’ve been trying to do just that. Not to be flippant but to discern the useful wisdom in a given situation. Very often the “truths” or kernels of wisdom in life are packaged in humor. If we use our sense of humor (our real sixth sense) to sense the humor that is built into a situation then we can benefit from the wisdom in it. If we ourselves are the “butt” of the joke, if we can see our own foolishness of taking ourselves too seriously and then laugh, then that is growth, that is the gaining of wisdom.

There are many stories about people who strived to experience the ultimate truth, the essence of reality, or the ground of being as people have mentioned here. Often when the seekers in the stories glimpse their goal they burst out into hilarious laughter.

My attempts at levity here sometimes work and sometimes do not. Sometimes when you guys get into theology and epistemology it gets too heavy for my ability to keep up. I try hard not to try too hard, but if I sense that there is humor I’m going to go for it. My intention is not derisive but loving.

In levitas veritas.

What is 1 plus 1? He looked around and saw some rocks, He picked up one and then he picked up another. He looked at them and said that “I have it! 1 plus 1 is 2!”. He felt so good that he ran to tell his friend the answer, too. His friend looked at him and said “Why can’t it be 3?” and so the debate was formed…

Like god, it’s not something we can debate except from a position of ignorance. Russell and Whitehead have about six hundred pages of solid mathematics leading up to the justification of 1+1=2 in Principia Mathematica. From a naive perspective, 2 and 3 are meaningless formal symbols that can well be defined as solutions to 1+1 and 1+2 (axiomized arithmetic does this: e.e:se and e.se:sse). From a fundamentals perspective, it’s been so justified that only an expert could stand to read the details. From any perspective, there is an answer to the question beyond debate.

The curiosity to know something comes from the Creator. The clues to find the answer comes from the Creator. The answer comes from the Creator.

If this were the case, all answers would cease to have value. God told me that he doesn’t exist. And he’s god, so you believe him, right?

If this were the case, all answers would cease to have value. God told me that he doesn’t exist. And he’s god, so you believe him, right?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (with applause)

I get it. I can’t count so there is no god. Or what I say is too hard for anyone to understand. I just need to listen to all the other people’s theology and teachings to find out who and what god is. So far I’ve heard buddha is the way, hindu is the way, spongebob is the way, humanism is the way, and a host of others. All of them saying how to find some secret path. I have told you what you need to find the truth. Whenever you need it, you will remember it. God comes to everyone in His time. You won’t find Him until you bow your head.

status – newbie

so hi there…

Mike C. – interesting…, don’t agree with some of your views (the god thing being a blatant example), but i like the fact that you’re not trying to beat my views into submission with your holy tome…

Tommy Huntsman – woah, down boy. god loves you (and oh boy, you should be grateful), and he listens to you – why not go talk to him instead? aw, bless…

Miko – you hurt my head. in a good way, but damn you make me feel stoopid.

so back to the point – Mike C., i want to know about this quote –

“I don’t feel as if I have to “reject” a lot from the Bible or Christianity to maintain my faith. Rather, it has been a re-discovery of what I think was there all along and just got buried by our theological systems.”

how does this affect your readings of some of the more unpalatable biblical stories (i.e. sodom + gomorrah)? what is your stance on organised religion as opposed to individual faith? can a rational tolerant christian be part of a long established church tradition given that christian church’s have been historically involved in gross human atrocities, power and wealth garnering and were not initiated or authorised by jesus himself? also, what’s your position on women in christianity – as there is no unequivocal endorsement of equality in the bible, and several quotes of womens inferiority to men.

if you’ve covered these subjects in previous posts, please point me to them – it took me 2 hours to trawl through this one!

I seem to have upset some of you. That was not my intention. I was just trying to let it be known how to find Jesus. I apologize to everyone. I believe that everyone is loved by God, even the village idiot.
What I find oddly curious is that those that say there is no god, try to say how they think that god should be. How He should reveal Himself and solve all the problems in the world. Make everyone happy right away. If there is no god why would it matter?
I don’t really understand how god spoke and said he didn’t exist. If he spoke doesn’t that prove he exists? But I do get the point, as most people do not think that god speaks or leads them. My only point is that there can only be one God. He has to be the same God for everyone. One correct answer for every question.
I believe God allows us to do as we please. We can talk to Him as we please. He knows our hearts and knows all the things we will do. I believe the Holy Spirit convicts us when we get to a point in our lives that God knows we will respond. Sometimes that is as a child and sometimes it is when we are older. It took me along time to find out how God works and what He wants. How to follow His guidance. How to spend time with Him. How to forgive those those that may not do exactly what I think God’s servants should do.
It is only because of my belief that Jesus is the only way, that I wanted to tell everyone how to find Jesus. You may not care now, but you, or someone you meet may have a need to know. I did not mean to upset anyone by the things I have said. Most of the things I say are my attempts at humor. I find most of the things written here to be contradictory and humorous.

how does this affect your readings of some of the more unpalatable biblical stories (i.e. sodom + gomorrah)? … if you’ve covered these subjects in previous posts, please point me to them – it took me 2 hours to trawl through this one!

I’d be interested in hearing whatever else Mike has to say on the subject as well, although I worry about wearing him out. He doesn’t address those specific questions, but part 3 and its comments sort of went in this direction.

P.S. S&G gets my vote for the ‘most unpalatable Bible story’ award.

I”d have to put Lot throwing his daughters to the crowd to be violated, in order to protect the angels visiting his household near, if not, #1.

I’m not overly interested in enumerating the bad things in the Bible (since that’s practically a life’s work), but I could see any of the following as worst:

1. Sodom and Gomorrah
2. Holy Spirit killing Egyptian firstborn males
3. Joshua at Jericho
4. Jephthah’s daughter
5. Abraham and Isaac
6. The Flood
7. Saul and the Amalekites (at least it’s short.)
any many more…

If we’re judging by death count, the Flood would have to take the cake. If we’re judging by unfairness, the Holy Spirit in Egypt and Jephthah are certainly in the running. But Sodom has to be the story with the longest lasting negative influence on our society.

I must admit it’s a bit disturbing that this list also includes some of the more popular Bible stories.

If we were talking individual Bible verses, I can’t imagine any competition for Exodus 22:18 (”Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”) under the same standard of measuring the harm it has caused.

Huntsman, you’re trapped inside a room full of mirrors.