Posted by Hemant Mehta in Per user suggestion, consider this an open thread for atheists (or anyone) to pose questions to Christians.
Anyone is welcome to respond. (Keep it clean, please.)
If you’re a Christian who would like to ask questions to atheists, go to this thread.
[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]
[...] you’re an atheist who would like to ask questions to Christians, go to this thread. Technorati Tags: atheist, atheism Share This Popularity: 1% [...]
Is something good (moral) because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?
Two related questions:
1. Do you think you’d be a Christian now if you had grown up in a society dominated by a non-Christian religion?
2. Do you think you’d be a Christian now if you had grown up with no religious influence at all?
(Obviously, if you actually did one or the other, then you can answer “yes”.)
Philosopher David Hume said “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” Do you agree?
If the only evidence in favor of religious miracle claims is untestable two thousand year old anecdotal hearsay testimony (among the least reliable kinds of evidence), isn’t it appropriate to be extremely skeptical of their truth?
Why does one, offering condolences to someone who has experienced tragic loss say “God bless you”?
Hasn’t God made his point to the bereaved very clear already at that point?
Hm, I’ve got one I got from Dan Barker (or at least I heard Dan Barker say it first. Here’s the premise: If God knows the future he would know his own future. If God knows his own future he would not be able to make an action or a decision he already did not previously know he is going to make. Since he cannot alter his choices because they are already fore-known by his omniscience - does God have free will?
Does infinite eternal torture seem like a fair and just punishment for finite human crimes?
Is people’s degree of gullibility with respect to ancient miracle claims a good criterion for determining which ones should be exempt from infinite torture after they die?
Would you be in favor of torturing and killing an innocent person in order to clear yourself of guilt for crimes you committed? What about for crimes you didn’t actually commit but only “inherited” from your ancestors?
Would you consider scapegoating by human sacrifice a valid form of justice? How about by deicide instead of human sacrifice?
If a person hears a disembodied voice telling them to kill their child, should they do it?
I’m sure Mike C. will have some good answers, but allow me to slip in and give you my opinions on a few questions:
God doesn’t “command” anything. He just “is.” I believe morality came from humans. (other Christians may disagree.)
Yes, and yes. I grew up in a non-religious family in a society dominated by a non-Christian religion.
Yes, to a degree. But what qualifies as “evidence” seems to be different for different people. Is personal experience considered evidence?
You have it all wrong. That’s not what Christianity is about. It’s not about sin or no sin, right or wrong, or doing good deeds. It is, however, about life or no life. It is about freedom from fear, guilt, and shame.
Given two contradictory religious books and no outside information, how does one decide which is correct? Each of them say that they are the revealed word of God, and that the other book is wrong. Let’s call the two books The Kible and The Buran just for the sake of discussion.
Why does the God of Christianity reward belief itself? If for some reason I were separated from my son (my creation) and he couldn’t see me, but I had some kind of power to punish or reward him from afar, I certainly would not choose to punish him because he didn’t think I existed. It seems like a non-issue to me. I would care about how he was living his life. Was he helping or hurting people? A teaching that focuses on and requires belief just strikes me as a clear example of the meme theory of religion, where an idea inoculates itself from doubt.
On another topic, I suspect some Christians might rebut the questions above about infinite torture not fitting the finite crime by saying sinning against an infinitely good god IS an infinite crime. My counter-rebuttal to that is the goodness of a judge should NOT affect the degree of punishment. Should a criminal get only 2 years in prison under a judge who shop-lifted once in his life, but 3 years under a judge who never committed any crime? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
Another rebuttal I have heard is that God doesn’t send you to Hell, you choose to go there by rejecting God. I think this idea is also absurd, since if God was obvious to me, why would I reject him? In this line of discussion the description of Hell has usually changed from literal fire roasting you, to some kind of limbo like state which is somehow lacking the attention or love of God. If this “Hell-lite” version is actually true, and dead people are actually choosing to go there, how is this punishment? But if there is some kind of punishment involved, and it is eternal, why would anyone choose to go there unless they were somehow misled about the actual choice in front of them?
If you don’t believe the Bible is literally true, how can you honestly say you know anything about it? Are you just assuming it’s “directionally correct”?
How can you be sure you’re interpreting its teachings accurately rather than according to 1) what you would like it to mean or 2) what your pastor/teacher/parents said it means?
You could always ask Socrates.
No thanks Linda. I’ve already played this game once back in May. It ate up waaay too much of my time. This one’s all yours.
Untestable, unverifiable, irreproducible, subjective experience by human beings who are known to be susceptible to misperception, faulty memory, logical fallacies, and a host of other cognitive errors (think how easily we can all be fooled by simple magicians’ tricks) can only lead to anecdotal hearsay testimony, which is among the least reliable kinds of evidence.
At best, reports of subjective experiences can point to possibly real phenomena, but unless they produce some kind of objective, measurable effect in the observable universe or lead to testable predictions, there’s no good reason to believe them, especially if they’re the kind of experiences or beliefs that would be well explained by superstition, indoctrination in mythology, self-deception, delusion, or wishful thinking.
In the case of “religious” experiences, there are reports of the same kinds of ecstatic, out-of-body, near-death, and transcendent “one with the universe” experiences coming out of all the mutually incompatible religious traditions, and similar experiences have been produced through non-religious meditation and in the lab by manipulating brain chemistry, drugs, and trans-cranial magnetic stimulation. This suggests a reproducible human physiological explanation for these experiences, rather than a supernatural, religious one. It also means they can’t be considered evidence for the truth of any one religion.
Oh Linda! If my Free Methodist Minister Great Uncle were still around… he was terrible with laying on fear, guilt, and shame, even when someone didn’t do anything. Why if you didn’t go up to his alter, you were living in sin and going to hell. Women had to be submissive to their husbands, no matter how abusive they were and children, well let’s say the Best Little Girl In the World doesn’t have anything on what they expect, they had be even more good. Very much the source of misery.
However, the no guilt part you might fit well with Spong’s group. Thing is, the Bible speaks of sin everywhere and as Spong says, the first layer of guilt and shame was laid on people with the story of Adam and Eve. There is no freedom if one is in fear of going to hell for whatever- something so many Evangelical Fundamentalist churches are famous of doing to their congregations. Your definition of Christianity doesn’t even fit the Catholic view either for that matter. Therefore, I’m not sure where you get your ideas, because they are pretty foreign, even in the Bible.
I mentioned the OT, I will now mention the NT: Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword (Matt 10:34). Then he goes on to explain his family values: He comes to set man against his father, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law, and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. 37 states “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; 38) and he wo does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Um… personally, that doesn’t sound too good to me. Seems to me he’s suggesting tearing up families. Are we suppose to honour our father and mother? Geeze contradiction right off the bat with these values- man against his father?
No, don’t tell me that mumbo jumbo about not understanding the Bible, I can read. The thing is, what you are saying doesn’t sound one bit like Christianity. Now to me, Humanism means freedom, but that’s another topic.
If you could would you have saved Jesus?
And a possible follow up, if nobody was willing to “sacrifice him for our sins” would you do it yourself?
(I think this question comes from Hitchens)
update: I see nowoo has asked this already in a different way.
One thing that has always puzzled me is, what is the emotional appeal of the crucifixion story? I’m not talking about why a christian thinks it’s true, but wondering where the emotional resonance comes from, because it’s just a bad story. I love stories, I get stories, I truly understand why people will live and die for a particular story, but not this one. It’s pointless, it makes no sense, and most of all, it’s a cheat - the “son of god” knew perfectly well he wasn’t going to really die. It was, as they say, a bad weekend, no more.
And while I know that theologians have many explanations/excuses for why it “had” to happen, and how someone dying 2000 years ago atones for the sins of someone today, those aren’t the people I’m talking about. It’s the more-average christian that tells you, in all seriousness, that jesus died for your sins, and sometimes get nearly hysterical about it, and expects that to be an argument that will convince someone to believe (while completely unable to answer the questions the aforementioned theologians delight in), the kind of person who made “The Passion of the Christ” into a major moneymaker. What is the emotional appeal for that person? Why all this frenzy over such an inane story?
The Christian God (and others) is commonly described as being omnipotent and omniscient. Omnibenevolence is also included regularly. Belief that God exists is said to require faith because it is not observable. Some even go so far as to say that humans lack the capacity to comprehend it. Stipulating the existence of God and its revelation…
How can any human know or have any amount of certainty that God isn’t actually evil, having lied about it’s nature?
An omnipotent, omniscient God would know just how to deceive humankind, and be able to do so with ease. And since there is no way to observe the nature of God, we are without the ability to overcome such deception. Some will immediately respond by saying that God can’t or won’t lie because it is good. The problem is, their information about its goodness was revealed by God itself, which could be false.
An extension of this would be to ask if Satan might actually be good rather than evil. Consider that all of the information in Christianity about Satan comes from God. That poor devil has never been able to share his side of the story!
Linda said, “You have it all wrong. That’s not what Christianity is about. It’s not about sin or no sin, right or wrong, or doing good deeds. It is, however, about life or no life. It is about freedom from fear, guilt, and shame.”
Linda, I really hope that you have found a branch of form of Christianity that does not convict its member with all forms of misery because I never did.
A cousin of mine recently told me how happy he is with his new church. He is now going to a Reformed Orthodox Presbyterian church. He told me what a relief and freedom there was to the teaching, all he has to do is focus daily on how he is an inherently corrupt sinner.
I can imagine what is like to walk around with that daily burden because that is how I was raised. I groaned silently when he told me this because it took so much pain, misery and guilt for me to break free from that mind set. And here he is just revelling in it… for the moment. The misery will come later, it always does. They he will change churches again.
I know that when I was going to church, I waisted years and years wrapped up in self-annihilating guilt. I ended up with a marriage on the rocks, a pocket full of psychological medication, and a suicidal diagnosis. It took a lot of time, a really good therapist and some very good non-religious friends to get me back to normal.
The very concept of original sin now makes me so angry I can’t speak. No greater injustice has ever been conceived of by man… and make no mistake it is the invention of man.
(My apologies if this is not ‘friendly’ enough)
Question for a Christian:
What is more noble? Doing good things because doing good things is good? Or doing good things to please God?
A follow-up question is why would someone do good things to please God?
The bible gives plenty of reasons to fear God: plagues and other “Acts of God” in the here and now and eternal torturing in the hereafter. It seems a strong motivation for pleasing God would be self-serving: to get on God’s good side so He won’t bestow those bad things on you.
How is this “sucking-up” behavior to God any different than “sucking-up” behavior to any other person who you may want to get favors out of later on? Is this “sucking up” noble? Is it worthy? Doesn’t the whole idea of a heavenly reward corrupt religion?
Holy crap!!! I see what Mike C. means…
I happen to have somewhat of a free day today, so I’ll do my best to give you my views.
First of all, spirituality is something very personal. You have to decide for yourself which is correct. What I hate about all religions, including Christianity, is the fact that they try to force everyone else to see things their way. It’s just like trying to make everyone else eat jalapenos just because I love them. For me, I love the Kible because it teaches love to me. It speaks love to me. I learn about the people and the stories (fact or fiction - i don’t care) and I see myself in every one of them. I identify with them, and through their trials and triumphs, I learn bit by bit who I am and how to live my life more freely. It makes me a better person.
I’ve never studied the Buran but have heard and seen what it can do. You may say to me that Kible has done much damage also in the past. But I’ve never been hurt personally by it. I have, however, been hurt by the Buran. The people who studied it destroyed a part of me by flying planes into buildings that meant so much to me. So I choose Kible over the Buran. I choose love over hate. But if you can find love in the Buran, I have no problem with that. When I read The Kite Runner, I saw love in there. The love was written by someone who knows the Buran. To me, love is love.
NYCatheist,
You seem to think that Christianity is about crime and punishment, but it is not. I know that many Christians believe in our sinful nature that needs to be forgiven by some great judge that sits above. I’ve been there also. But you’re right in saying that it’s a non-issue.
To me, God is not anything that can be described. That’s why many Christians equate God with love. Unconditional love. And yet, they still put a condition on it. That is what’s contradictory and hypocritical.
When you have a spiritual experience (and I’ve talked to other people who have), you cannot put words to it. You cannot really label it. The only thing that I am sure of is that we are spiritual beings as well as physical beings.
Given the experiences that I’ve had (now twice), Christ makes more sense. When I read the Bible, I understand why they had to write what they wrote. Not fully; but little by little, it all makes more sense. But as I’m looking around as of late, I’m beginning to see similar truths in other places as well.
It’s not as simple as that. For example, you can read everything that I write and take it literally at its face value (which you would surely misunderstand); but if you knew me personally, or if you’ve had similar (life) experiences that I’ve had, then you would be able to understand why I wrote the words and what I meant to convey. You don’t need someone else to tell you what it means.
I meant your own personal experience being your own evidence. As you have said, humans are easily fooled. You cannot even believe what you see and hear as concrete truth. Only you, yourself, can know for sure what you have personally gone through, such as love… and pain.
And here’s an interesting link that demonstrates how our senses can easily fool us. (a friend sent it to me a while back)
http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html
No, it doesn’t sound like Christianity that you know. But perhaps what you call “Humanism” follows the true Christ more than your own perception of Christianity. Have you ever considered the possiblity that you are living the real Christian life more so than your mother or whoever else that tries to preach the religion to you?
Wow! Hmm… No. I couldn’t save Jesus. No one could. He, himself, knew that and accepted it. I believe there were plenty of people who could have saved him. But they were afraid. They let him die. Pilate didn’t have the balls to listen to the truth. Jesus’ followers were paralized by fear. He knew that.
We have to stop and think… who killed him? God? No. We killed him. Fear killed him. He was a radical, liberal, and a polemicist. He was about to change the whole concept of religion. The way of life back then. He came and told people that they don’t need to listen to religion… that they need to be free thinkers. And people started listening to him, especially the ones who were smart, imaginative, and felt suffocated by religion… the ones who were tired of listening to the Pharisees. Do you see why he had to die? Because he was not willing to stop telling the truth to save his own ass. He’s my hero.
Would I do it myself? I honestly don’t think I’m that strong or worthy… or brave.
I may be accused of all kinds of things by talking so frankly. But so be it. Jesus, I believe, was one person who fully comprehended the truth of who/what God is. He knew that God fully resided in him. He knew the way and the life. He fully accepted death, because he knew that death would not be the end of him. That does not mean he was not afraid. I believe he went through every turmoil a human can go through when faced with death.
No one can know what comes after death until they die. I don’t know if he knew. He just knew there was more. I don’t know if he knew all that would come after his death. But he trusted and accepted, sticking to his conviction of telling the truth no matter what. And he was free from having to listen to anyone else. That’s the Jesus who was fully human.
Now, the Jesus who was fully God… That’s where my faith has to come in. I can only believe in the spiritual because I have felt it. Before that, I couldn’t help but deny it and be skeptical. People could testify or preach to me until they were blue in the face; but until it was true for me, I could not be fully convinced. And I think anyone would be a fool to believe something that’s not real for them.
I would lose respect for anyone who “let” me or anyone else convert them. I am not that powerful.
Thanks for that answer Linda, I actually learned something.
I’ll never understand that but then to me if Jesus existed he was just another human and I would never kill another human and if possible I would save another human from death (depending on if I knew crimes were commited by said human but even then it would be extremly hard to kill myself and I would equally feel really bad in allowing another human to be killed, and there is also self defence off-course)
But your religion seems to be able to attach certain magic qualities to other humans that can make you allow another human to be killed, your answer even alludes that being able to kill Jesus would make a person more brave, strong, worthy. That’s pretty twisted in my worldview.
That’s an interesting and fun concept. We should write a book.
Personally, I don’t see Satan as someone with horns and a pitchfork. I try not to put human qualities on God, and I do the same for Satan. If God is love, then Satan is fear. Love and fear go hand and hand. I say fear instead of hate, because I believe hate comes from fear.
The way I see it, In those moments when we can love without fear, we have heaven on earth. In those moments when we cannot love because of fear, we live in hell.
A good friend told me recently, there’s no good and bad or right and wrong. Just what works and doesn’t work. I’m still contemplating that concept.
Thanks, Linda. I’m very surprised at your answer and it’s refreshing to hear a Christian say that morality is not supernatural.
But I’m slightly confused by your claim that God doesn’t command anything. Didn’t God command Abraham to kill his son Isaac? What about the 10 Commandments? And Jesus’ teachings about loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, etc? Aren’t all of these things moral commands?
Oh, Hugo…
I think you misunderstood me. But it happens.
I was trying to point to the fact that people were too afraid to stand up and stop the killing of Jesus. And that I am not strong or brave enough to die for a cause, even if it meant saving the whole of mankind. I am often “one of those people” who are too afraid to stand up for Jesus.
You tell me… Is it humanly possible to obey every one of the commandments written in the Bible? Just ask that guy who wrote that book.. J.K. Rawling, was it? In my opinion, the purpose of the commandments is to merely point to the fact that we cannot obey them to perfection. They are pointing to human frailties. Paul says that no one is righteous– not even one. Jesus said that too.
We are all humans, and we are all imperfect. No one can put themselves above anyone else. That’s what the commandments teach me. But that’s just me.
Claire said:
The emotional appeal is in the idea of the Creator caring enough to die for the world. And as far as ‘the bad weekend;’ that’s not our story. We believe that he did actually die.
Jeff said:
We don’t see worship as “sucking up,” we see it as a natural response to the God we believe in. Furthermore, the Bible doesn’t promise believers a free pass through this life. I don’t know if our worship is “noble” or “worthy” by your definition, whatever that may be, it is simply a response of faith.
I have found some good discussions at this blog from time to time, but this one is somewhat disappointing. To everyone using this thread as an opportunity to ask loaded questions, rant, and unload some snark, do you feel better now?
Linda,
I appreciate your views but I fear that you are fundamentally a humanist at heart. I can point you to any number of Christian theologians who would tell you that what you believe is not Christianity. The entire faculty at the Dallas Theological Seminary for example.
You want a good view of what a lot of very theologically based Christians believe. Check out these sites
http://www.rbthieme.org/
http://www.gbible.org/
I’m sorry to hear that about your cousin. The problem with most Christians is that they’re always trying to find someone to follow… someone to tell them what to do. If you put your all your faith in another human or a human organization, sooner or later, you’re bound to be disappointed. That’s not just in Christianity. It’s a fact of life.
About the original sin… To me, the original sin was looking at ourselves and seeing the flaws. When you go back and study what happened in the garden, the moment the human decided that it should be up to us to know what’s good and evil, we started judging ourselves and also others. Fear, guilt, and shame entered the picture. Before that, as you will read, there was no evil. Things just were. The serpent was a thought that was introduced. We tried to cover ourselves to hide the flaws, and God allowed the shedding of blood of an animal to cover our shame. Shedding of blood to cover our flaws. Sound familiar?
Yes, it’s a story. Fact or fiction — does it matter? What’s important is that our fear, guilt, and shame causes shedding of blood. That’s been the story of mankind throughout history. Jesus tried to free us from that, and ended up as the sacrificial lamb.
The way religion teaches Christianity goes against everything that Jesus was about. He is about freedom, not religion. So yes, the way it is taught makes me angry too…
Linda,
I’ll say it again… you are a humanist at heart.
While I agree that the question was a bit snarky, I find your answer to be rather unspecific. What’s the goal of worship? In a personal relationship, there can be many reasons to show excessive gratitude or appreciation - you want something from your partner, or you want to help them feel better about themselves by showing your appreciation. Both of these seem a bit pointless in regards to an omnipotent being, and I’m not sure they’re your reason anyway.
So my question - though it’s really more of a request - would you be able to go a bit more in depth as to why you worship? What are the specific reasons, goals, and feelings motivating worship, at least in your own life, and do you find these compatible with the notion of an omnipotent, omnipresent God?
Take it another step further and you have Cupitt’s concept: Love is God. He has a non-realism approach to Xianity.
That’s the problem. IF you are going to make love and compassion a god concept, then there should be no conditions placed on it. Otherwise it is not love and compassion.
I think I mentioned that I have a Church of Christ friend who says she considers me more Christian than some Christians she knows and yes, I have often pondered your last question. If that is the case, then IF Jesus were to appear in this day an age, he’d take one look around and declare himself a Humanist. The thing is, to declare that I am living the real Christian life as a Humanist, would be very arrogant, conceted, and judgemental of me. I try to avoid such judgement calls. I rather call people on their behaviours than how I think the titles they give themselves should be defined.
BTW, Linda, it is just a story and not the inerrant word of some deity. The authors could have written it or rewritten it any way the wanted. So, yes, humans could have stopped it- even in reality, IF it had been real and not all allegorical. IF I were to look at from a non-realist POV, such as Spong or Cupitt, Christ did not die for our sins and any resurrection he had was all spiritual and not a bodily resurrection. How does Spong phrase it? Something like, Christ metaphorically arose into the word of God. That’s not a literal quote. I’d have to look it up to get an exact quote.
Now, IF I were a deity, I’d throw away that crap of John 3:16, because it instills not only fear, but also changes the situation in which people just want the freaking reward. This in turn makes Pascal’s Wager VERY flawed. If one believes to avoid punishment, then it is not from the heart. If one believes to gain a reward, it is not from the heart. BUT if one acts (regardless of belief or disbelief) from the heart without any regard of punishment or reward, they, IMHO, should be the ones who get rewarded- even if that was not what they were seeking.
As a deity, I would give those who believed in hopes of a reward, a punishment, because it was not from their heart. Those who believed out of fear and avoidance, it still was not from their heart, so off they go. Yes, yes, I’d be such a cruel deity, but I would not want anyone believing just to avoid punishment or to receive a reward. IMHO, it is what comes from the heart that really counts- not some superstitious head trip. So, this would mean, as a deity, even non-believers could receive reward, because they did things from their hearts out of love and compassion- not from fear or what have you.
So, IF one were to be technical, it could be said that love and compassion, along with reason is/are my god(s), but that is OK, by definition, I cannot argue that. However, I can argue about John 3:16 and Pascal’s wager. So anyone who throws those two things out, I have to wonder why, because any deity worth their salt would want it to be from the heart, not as a means of avoiding punishment or seeking a reward.
It’s like the child being told, “If you do this, I’ll give you ice cream”. Well, they are doing it for the reward, not because they love their parent and want to please them. It’s all a bribe and not worth my time, but then again, I don’t believe in an actual heaven or hell- earth is what we make it. Of course, I could even take this back to the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas if I wanted to, just to appease some of the religious who accept Thomas, but even so… Keeping it real, it makes no sense to me if actions are not from one’s heart.
Yet some Xians will argue their belief is from the heart- well not if you fear going to hell and really truly want that eternal reward so you don’t burn forever and ever.
Think about it. When you get down to it, heaven and hell are JUST human concepts- nothing more. So, what is it that Christians and other religious people are afraid of really? I don’t understand it. Thus why I say it is freedom not to worry about such human concepts being real or not- what’s in the heart seems to me more important and any deity worth IT’s salt would look at the heart, if you ask me.
Like I said, I just don’t understand the religious and their god.
I have to agree, but I would have to say it is more in keeping (probably) with Christian Humanism- such as Spong, Cupitt, Freeman, and the Sea of Faith.
Yup! And I would highly recommend that Linda reads Anthony Freeman’s God in Us: A Case for Christian Humanism and there is another by Daniel C. Maguire called The Moral Revolution: A Christian Humanist Vision. I’m more of a Religious Humanist, so there is a bit of a difference between Christian Humanism and Religious Humanism. Xian Humanism deals with a lot of non-realism and god-talk, as well as a non-metaphysical entity. Religious Humanism is more cultural and doesn’t even believe in any sort of entity. You can compare the two with any of Robert Price’s online articles about Religious Humanism.
Screw them! Tell any one of them to come and talk to me about Christianity, minus their scholarly hats and their PhD arrogance, which I would like to call PhkD arrogance. (sound it out.)
There are quite a few questions so forgive me if this has already been posted.
Is the Christian Heaven still a paradise if you get to sit next to Jesus while your friend or family member is being punished in Hell. What if you are the only one of your social group who “got it right” and everyone else is spending eternity being tortured? Even if you discount the torture aspect and the concept of Hell and your friends and family are merely exiled from Heaven is it still a paradise if you must spend eternity without them?
OK more than one question.
Linda,
All I was trying to say by the reference to Dallas, is that its hard to separate a religion from the word of its own authorities. I could have used the Vatican, but I thought that I’d try a new target, one closer to home. Theologians steer and shape a faith, and as for those particular shapers, they would say that you have no ability to say because the ’spiritual gift’ to interpret scripture is only given to certain ‘men’.
Oh well, as you said, ‘Screw Them!’.
Vigo, I do have a good view of what the theologically based Christians believe. I deal with them all the time. They preach to me all the time. There was a time when I bought it hook, line, and sinker. Thank God my own (current) church is not like that. But I have to say 90 percent of all Christians that I come in contact with (outside of my fellowship.. and some within) subscribe to the theology that you speak of. They can’t live out what they believe, but they still believe it. Go figure! I bet you my whole retirement savings that every one of those PhkD
profressors at the seminary struggle with their inability to practice what they preach at some level. Either that or they are in complete denial.
Atheism is about life/no life, freedom from fear, guilt and shame.*
So what would I need Jesus for?
*you’ve probably heard of “Jewish Guilt” or “Catholic Guilt” but when’s the last time you heard “Atheist Guilt”?
Vncent,
Would it be considered blasphemy by the Christians, or would you be terribly offended if I suggested that you don’t need him because it sounds like you already have him?
As I mentioned somewhere else before, if you have vital signs of life, you are alive, regardless of what you or anyone else wants to call it.
I hate labels.
Linda, thank you for trying, but I’m still don’t see it. You aren’t the first person I have asked this of, by the way. One person tried to explain, but couldn’t (still just a bad weekend), two others saw it as an opening to try to sell me the message, but couldn’t explain. That’s when I stopped asking, at least in person.
It’s a genuine question, by the way. I can think of about 3700 questions I could have posted here that were really just versions of “how can you be so stupid as to believe THIS particular piece is insanity?” but this one truly puzzles me. The whole idea of the narrative (in general) and its effect on people interests me enormously. Many religions do without a central story (does islam have one? I think judaism and buddhism have lots of them but no real central one, don’t know if islam has any..) but the crucifixion story seems central to one kind of christian.
Anway, Linda, I’m not sure if you are the right or wrong person to answer this. You don’t seem like one of that breed of christian, so your beliefs don’t really help to explain it. But then, if you know enough of the other kind, maybe you can explain them better than they explain themselves. If you would like to give it another try, I’m still interested.
Claire, I’m no longer a Christian but I was one (the fundamentalist type) for 30 years and was deeply moved by the crucifixion story. I’ll try to explain the appeal for me back at that time.
First, there are some deep-seated “givens” for Christians that you probably don’t share:
Given 1: Humans are inherently sinful, filthy, blind, lost and unworthy of any good thing because of original sin.
Given 2: God is wholly righteous. Nothing sinful can survive in god’s presence.
Given 3: Adam and Eve’s sin separated people from god eternally.
Given 1, 2 and 3, there seems to be no hope for humankind and god to reconcile. Then, along comes Jesus: God incarnate, sent to earth to become a sacrifice for our sins.
This self-sacrifice is the only way that humans and god could ever be reconciled. And though we didn’t deserve it (remember the utterly unworthy description of humans, above), god took it upon himself to initiate the reconciliation, and even suffered and went to hell on our behalf.
That story is extremely moving and overwhelming to Christians of all kinds, but particularly fundamentalists who are really, really into the doctrine of original sin. This means they have a lot of guilt and self-hatred. The idea that of a god who loved them SO MUCH that he’d die for them - the author and creator of the very universe himself! - is very beautiful and appealing.
Your point, that this was just a “bad weekend,” never came up in fundy circles in the 30 years when I heard Easter sermons, etc. In fact, Jesus’s suffering is almost fetishized; I never saw it being downplayed. The idea is that Jesus was “fully man and fully god” - a tough concept. So the part that was “fully man” suffered and died and went to hell just like a human would. He was not considered to have been spared any of the suffering or grief or harm or pain just because he was also fully god.
Does that help? (Remember, I’m not arguing for this position now - I see the flaws in it fully. I’m just trying to explain the appeal for many.)
Sorry, I haven’t read all of the comments yet (though I plan to). Here’s as far as I’ve gotten so far.
Andrew:
I would probably say neither, necessarily. The Old Testament is full of examples of God telling folks to do truly terrible stuff. I wouldn’t really ever call those things moral just because “God commanded” them. Perhaps they were necessary for the greater good, but I can’t possibly know that. God has never commanded me to do anything. God commands lots of things that are good, sure, but there are lots of things that are good that God doesn’t command (like baking cookies!)
Shishberg:
1. Probably not. Depending on more precise circumstances, it is not impossible at all that I would be/become a member of whatever religious group was dominant. Religion is just too interesting a subject to not become fascinated with.
2. Depends on what you mean by none. If I had never heard of Christianity, and didn’t know anything about it, then of course I wouldn’t be a Christian. If I grew up in an atheist household but had other, standard Christian influences, it’s hard to say what I would believe.
nowoo:
Usually, yes. But belief also needs to be proportional to the importance of the issue. I’m no climatologist. I don’t, personally, have lots of evidence of global climate change. Neither of those facts keeps me from working with others to try to get people to become more energy efficient. Neither keeps me from campaigning for candidates who advocate progressive environmental policies. For me, even a modicum of evidence for something of potentially monumental importance drives me to act in such a way that may otherwise be reserved for those with profound evidence.
I reject your premise. Just because you reject other evidence doesn’t make it any less valid for me. If I walked outside 100 times and started shivering each time, I wouldn’t need a thermometer to say it’s cold. Others may certainly need more evidence; I respect that.
richard:
I usually just say that when someone sneezes. Regardless, it can never be a bad thing to wish someone else well. Your question seems to presuppose that God had a hand in that person’s loss; I wouldn’t make that assumption.
Anatoly:
I don’t know how God works. That’s really not of interest to me.
nowoo:
No. I don’t know that I believe in Hell. I haven’t found a lot of convincing justification for it.
Nope to all. I don’t kill folks… or torture them, for that matter.
Of course not. There may be great reasons to kill one’s child, but that probably wouldn’t be one of them.
richard:
Within the premise of your question, there is no way to tell. Outside information would be necessary.
ellen:
I’ve read it, studied it, studied the cultures from which it came, and developed relationships with others who know more about it than I do. I understand the value of what it contains and the power of what it teaches. Something doesn’t have to be literally true to convey truth; that’s why we have fiction. On the matter of interpretation, no, there is no way to separate out one’s own experiences from one’s interpretation. The best one can do is to understand the historical context of the original. That, and see how well a particular interpretation holds up in practice (trial and error).
MikeClawson:
Yeah… I hear you, but I hope that if you have anything to add or question from what I’ve said you will do so.
Odgie said:
Thanks for trying, but while that restates it, it still doesn’t explain the appeal. Everybody dies, every living thing dies, it’s just not that big of a deal.
The “he did actually die” is what was explained to me once before, so I know that part. It just still seems to me that if you know that it’s not permanent, if you know you’re coming back, it’s a cheat, a bad story device.
To have emotional resonance in a story, a death needs to mean something, to accomplish something, and it needs to be real. Nothing visible was changed by this death, and the only reason as to why it was necessary is that it was to save humanity in some vague and inexplicable way that seems, well, completely unnecessary, and worst of all, from the story perspective, it wasn’t real.
When I was twelve, I found it comforting that when they killed off a main character on “Star Trek”, I knew he wasn’t really dead. I’m not twelve any more, and I want my narratives to have genuine resonance.
When Amelia Earhart disappears mysteriously, doing what she loved, that has emotional resonance. When Marie Curie dies as a result of the studies that brought knowledge into the world, that means something. When a firefighter dies trying to save someone from a burning building, even if he fails, it means something.
The crucifixion? Meh.
I’ve heard this many times before, Karen, and even when I did attend church, I never did understand it. It made no sense and it was totally wrong to me for anyone or anything- even in sacrifice for what we did wrong. It is insanity to me and always has been. The story was never moving to me, I never believed he died for my sins, and I sure as hell didn’t want anyone to be killed on a damn cross (or impaled) for any reason. It was and is barbaric to me. I was appaulled by the idea even as a child and thought it was the cruelist thing on earth that people could ever conceive of and no one could convince me differently, although they tried hard. Personally, if it actually happened and I was there, I would have fought tooth and nail to stop such an inhumane act- even if it meant my own death. Therefore, no one died for my wrongs and I don’t want them to either. That’s on me and me alone. Such a story is the most inhumane act and the worst act of cruelty I’ve ever heard in my life and to this day, I still believe it should be stopped. No child should be told such a violent and horrifying story.
Wow Claire! That’s quite a challenge. The whole concept of Christianity rests on the cross. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I’ll do my best.
Most of the Christians believe in the “sinful nature” of humans. They believe that humans, left to their own ways, are inherently bad. We look at the history of mankind, the people who have hurt us I the past, and our own self-reflection and come to the conclusion that we ultimately cannot save ourselves. You cannot understand this unless you’ve had events in your life that caused you great sorrow and pain, along with having made some bad choices to have done some physical or emotional harm to yourself or someone else. You have to have experienced certain amount of self-hatred, self-condemnation, and self-pity. You have to have had enough failures in your life despite your desperate attempts to better yourself.
That’s the mindset of a person before Christianity is introduced. I’ll post this much for now, as I think through what comes next.
(I see that Karen has posted her thoughts on this already.)
Karen:
Thank you, that really does explain it. I’ve never really gotten the whole guilt thing, although I have known a lot of people who seemed to feel guilt for everything in their life. I’ve never bought the whole “god is good” thing, because he’s a rat bastard in the old testament and not even that nice in the new one. I’ve always thought the whole Adam and Eve thing was just another big cheat - here’s this tree, don’t touch it, no explanation given, who wouldn’t go right for it at the first opportunity, and what’s so bad about knowing good from evil?
No wonder the story has no resonance for me. Thank you so much, Karen, that’s been bothering me for years, and now I know.
Linda said, “You cannot understand this unless you’ve had events in your life that caused you great sorrow and pain, along with having made some bad choices to have done some physical or emotional harm to yourself or someone else.”
In the most affluent, pampered society in the history of the world, are there so many who have known pain and sorrow? Are there really so many who even know what it means to miss a meal? We have it better than all of our fore-bearers including the royalty and nobles and yet we have this zealous adherence to religion.
I am not buying that its the product of pain or sorrow, the bad choices maybe.
Thanks, Linda, this does expand some on what Karen said. Karen’s explanation made it clear why the story doesn’t resonate with me, and who the people are that it does resonate with. Now you are adding something about how these people got to be that way.
I think it must also be partly the personality a person is born with, because all those things you mention above have happened to me. Bad things have happened to me, I have hurt other people and myself, but somehow, that never translates into a feeling that I need to be saved from anything or by anyone. I learn from the mistakes, I try to correct them, I make what amends I can to other people, then I go on with my life. Someday I will die, that’s not a problem either. It’s not even like I’m toughing it out, bad stuff happens along with the good and that’s just how life is.
I have never felt, even in passing, that I needed to be saved. I still don’t understand why other people do. I suspect that I won’t ever really understand that on an emotional level, even if I now have some understanding on an intellectual level, thanks to all you people who were so kind as to answer my question.
Linda,
You said,
and
Please don’t take this as a personal attack, but I’m having trouble phrasing this question in a way that doesn’t appear to be aggressive. What gives you, or anyone for that matter, the authority to speak to what Christianity really means? The Catholics claim that their pope derives his authority directly from Jesus, and therefore can speak to what true Christianity is. Many Protestant sects claim that God’s will is revealed directly to Christians. Woo gets to decide what Christianity is or isn’t?
As to your second statement, if the true teachings of Jesus are all about happiness and love, and a secular humanist or atheist can “have” Jesus without acknowledging that connection, then it almost sounds as if belief in Jesus is similar to the magic feather that Dumbo carries in the movie. If one can have the benefits of the thing without the thing itself, then the thing is irrelevant, right?
Wow. Major Freudian typo there - “Woo gets to decide what Christianity is or isn’t?” should be “Who gets to decide…”
Obscurifer,
Your comments tie in with what I was saying earlier about how Linda’s description would not be considered Christianity by most theologians. I know that the Christianity I was raised with (see links posted above) would not agree. In fact, the preachers I grew up with would declare poor Linda damned. (sorry Linda)
Obscurifer,
Before you corrected yourself, I was going to say who is Woo? If Woo gets to decide Woe is me. Woo Hoo for Woo, and boo hoo for me! But it’s not that funny anymore…
Anyhoo, my first comment that you quoted is just what I believe personally. In no way do I want to force that on anyone else. I think I said somewhere else in these many comments that everyone should decide for themselves and not “let” me convince them. The proof is in the fruits. When you look at the fruits of the tree, you can tell what kind of tree it is. Trees that have rotten roots produce no fruit. And you have to decide for yourself if the fruit is something you want to taste.
The second comment that you quoted was purely hypothetical. And a question also to myself. I was not stating a fact or a concrete conclusion. Just trying to think along with everyone, that’s all. I like to keep an open mind at all times, and when ideas and thoughts come to mind, I blurt it out. Can’t help it…
Hallelujah! That’s the best compliment I heard all day! The heck with Woo.. Woo Hoo for me!
Linda said, “Hallelujah! That’s the best compliment I heard all day! The heck with Woo.. Woo Hoo for me!”
I paint myself with BBQ sauce everynight just in case.
Linda, that is what I have seen so much among people who are fundamentalist Evangelical Christians, esp those of the Religious Reich. The pain and sorrow was not what I did, but what others did to other people. What I call the source of misery.
Let me explain:
As a child, I thought as a child. (Yes, that is scriptual, from Paul)
I had a great uncle who was a Free Methodist minister. He scared me with his hellfire and damnation alter calls, so much so I wanted to run out of his church. Everytime my mother tried to leave my abusive father they’d make her repent and send us back. Why? Paul again. Women are to be submissive to their husbands… No matter what, even if the husband was abusive to wife and child. Divorce was sinful- even if it meant potential death to wife and child to stay with the husband.
Now why would I want a cookie if it meant I had to have pain and discomfort inflicted on me first? No, far better to risk being beat than to submit to the will of an immoral patriarch. Far better to refuse the cookie/food and to risk being forced to do something that felt innately wrong. Sometimes taking the beating for my pets seemed better than they getting hurt or even killed for something that was uncalled for. It was something I had to indure in the name of religion because the adults in my life said I had to “honour my parents” even the abusive one.
Finally, after my mother told the full story to my grandfather was she given permission by her father to divorce the immoral man, but it too came with a price- I was not allowed to prosecute the man who did me far more harm than those who scared me religiously. My grandfather said, “We have you away from him, that is enough. God will take care of him.” What about Man’s law? Oh no, anger was a sin. NO! That was wrong! It says, “Be angry and sin not.” To prosecute him by Man’s law, Human law, was not a sin, but rather holding another human being accountable for his crimes. Vengence is mine sayth the Lord. Not in that case, he still should have been accountable to Human law too. Therefore, it was not vengence nor was it sin.
Such twisted account of what the Bible said and it was a source of misery. I still see it today- even in the Episcopal church. The Conservative Episcopalians, if they had their way, would oppress women and other groups, in the name of God/the Bible. No, not even they are dignifying to the human, esp with how they use scripture.
IF this is Christianity, I want no part of it. That which comes from the heart, with the use of reason from the mind, is far better than any religious text, esp if it gives people human dignity.
I learned a long time ago, in childhood, that my “god” was not that of most Christians. What I knew as a child as a god was empathy, compassion, and love for a fellow human being or other animal on this planet. I saw it in the eyes of pets and felt it in nature. IT is one that does no harm to anyone or anything. That was the god I knew as a child and it was innate within me.
However, this “god” that I knew as a child was purely intense emotion- thus why it had no form, sex, or mass. It was most definitely lobe, of the mind, and without a doubt a human concept. Thinking as an adult, it is numinous- an external stimulus that triggers a reaction in the brain and manifess itself as intense emotion. There was the innatenous, the source, of what I knew as a child as being “god”. It is definitely not the god of religion, but rather the desire to give everyone human dignity and to give other creatures dignity too.
I don’t need any religious text to tell me how to do this, but I will admit that the closest religious text I have ever stumbled upon that describes my experience is in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. Am I afraid I will burn in hell because I have never known the god of religion? No, because I’ve already been through hell here on earth and now that I am an adult, I can attempt to make my own heaven here on earth and I can try to give people a taste of heaven on earth too. Thus why I do not believe in a supernatural world beyond this one nor a supernatural deity. IF there is a god, one that is worth its salt, it will look at my heart, not what my mental thoughts conceived, but I have a strong feeling it is all innate. All else is just a human concept, which is of the mind.
Does this make me an atheist? Many hardline Xians say that I am. An infidel or heathen? Hardline Xians say that I am. All I know is that I do not ascribe to any supernatural god of religion. This I will contend makes me a non-theist, esp since I no longer label this numinous feeling as being a deity, but not necessarily an atheist or agnostic nor does it make me a deist, because I do not ascribe to something that is out there in the beyond somewhere and unseen/invisible.
So, long story short, I don’t see how experience supports your thesis that I quoted above. IMHO this does not contribute to Christianity nor does it do the opposite either. It is a human concept. Of course, if you would like to clarify more, I am open to listen.
Vigo, I missed this comment before. It’s a very interesting thought and one that I have also wondered about the American culture. I’m not sure that it is a “zealous” adherence as much as “arrogant” or “entitled” adherence, though. I’ll have to think about it some more…