Friendly Atheist

[...] you’re an atheist who would like to ask questions to Christians, go to this thread. Technorati Tags: atheist, atheism Share This Popularity: 1% [...]

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”.)

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?

Does infinite eternal torture seem like a fair and just punishment for finite human crimes?

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?

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:

Is something good (moral) because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?

God doesn’t “command” anything. He just “is.” I believe morality came from humans. (other Christians may disagree.)

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?

Yes, and yes. I grew up in a non-religious family in a society dominated by a non-Christian religion.

Philosopher David Hume said “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” Do you agree?

Yes, to a degree. But what qualifies as “evidence” seems to be different for different people. Is personal experience considered evidence?

Does infinite eternal torture seem like a fair and just punishment for finite human crimes?

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.

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?

Is something good (moral) because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?

You could always ask Socrates.

Is personal experience considered evidence?

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

Ellen said: 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?

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.

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.

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?

Claire said:

What is the emotional appeal for that person? Why all this frenzy over such an inane story?

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.

J.S. Brown said,

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!

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.

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.

Claire said:

“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.”

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:

“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?”

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?

Viggo the Carpathian said,

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.

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…

We donâ??t see worship as â??sucking up,â? we see it as a natural response to the God we believe in.

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?

Viggo the Carpathian said,

December 17, 2007 at 11:01 am

Linda,

I appreciate your views but I fear that you are fundamentally a humanist at heart.

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.

Viggo the Carpathian said,

December 17, 2007 at 11:14 am

Linda,

I’ll say it again… you are a humanist at heart.

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.

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.

a good view of what a lot of very theologically based Christians believe.

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?

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.

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.)

Odgie 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.

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.

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.)

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.

Linda,

You said,

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.

and

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?

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?

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)

In fact, the preachers I grew up with would declare poor Linda damned. (sorry Linda)

Hallelujah! That’s the best compliment I heard all day! The heck with Woo.. Woo Hoo for me!

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.

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.

Mriana,

I was not stating my thesis. I was merely answering Claire’s question of where the mainstream Chrsitians’ mentality may come from. It’s not at all where I’m at.. Sorry if I wasn’t clear…

Linda said,

December 17, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Mriana,

I was not stating my thesis. I was merely answering Claire’s question of where the mainstream Chrsitians’ mentality may come from. It’s not at all where I’m at.. Sorry if I wasn’t clear…

It maybe the same reason the hardliners do not understand my worldview. They can’t put themselves in other people’s shoes and see what harm they can sometimes do. Sometimes blinkers to keep such beliefs can do more harm. Maybe they can’t see the concepts of others are beneficial and come from experience too. That’s not a judgement call, but rather an observation.

Nowoo,

Have you talked to Woo? He may know more than me. But then again, your name… awww forget it. it’s getting old…

Okay, seriously,

I never listen to hearsay and believe it at face value. When I believe something about anything, it’s because it makes logical sense to me. If the logic comes from past personal experiences, I don’t see the harm in going with that until proven otherwise. The difference between you and me seems to be that I usually like to give the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong; and you like to have the proof in hand before giving anything a chance.

All I can say is, I jump into things without fear most of the time, and I do often get burned or hit rocks on the bottom. And it hurts like hell. But then on rare occasions, I land on balloons. Life is exciting because of those times. And the rocks can be fun too, depending on how you look at them.

But again, that’s just me.

Linda & Arlen, you guys are doing a great job. Told you it was a lot of work!

However, it seems to me that the biggest difficulty here is that neither of you represent the kind of Christianity that most of these questions are being asked of. You are doing a great job of describing what it is that you believe – and I agree with a lot (not all) of what you are saying – but of course most of the atheists here have been primarily exposed to much different forms of Christianity – the fundamentalist or evangelical varieties – and their questions are for those people. It’s too bad we don’t have more of those kind of Christians around here to answer them. Well done Karen to think back to when you were one and attempt to give an answer. I suppose I could do the same, but I don’t really want to waste my conversational capital here describing views that I no longer hold and risk having my own views confused with them.

I experience guilt and shame constantly, and I’m sometimes actually thankful for it. It doesn’t have anything to do with “original sin,” but I do feel guilt that I’m not doing everything in my power to help those around me.

I wasn’t saying it was “original sin” or that it was unique to Xians, Arlen. I was just talking about my great uncle, my mother’s family as a whole, and their insanity.

Fathers, mothers, and others will try to stop you from acting the way that is right because it is against tradition or current religious mores, but you should be strong in your conviction even if it divides your family.

Well then, I’m on the right track with my own worldview.

Arlen said:

Okay, I’m back for some more.

nowoo: “At best, reports of subjective experiences can point to possibly real phenomena…”

I’ll take it. If you were walking through Ireland when you happened across a leprechaun sitting at the end of a rainbow holding a pot of gold, you would absolutely believe in leprechauns. Having no objective proof would make you no less sure. I hope that you can accept that I believe (in God, not leprechauns) whether or not I can prove it to you. I certainly accept that you don’t.

I can understand why you think that would make me believe in leprechauns, and maybe at one time it would have. I’ve learned enough about human perception and scientific skepticism over the last couple of years so that now I’d be more likely to attribute an experience like that to a hallucination based on common folk tales, and probably a bit too much time spent exploring the Irish pubs. Or maybe someone was playing a trick on me. Or it was a vivid dream that I mistook for reality. Or I made up the experience but I told the story so many times that I started to convince myself. Or I was hypnotized and a false memory was planted while I was hypnotized. Or…

“Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among ‘multiple working hypotheses,’ has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.” – Carl Sagan.

Thing is, I was raised with both mind sets, Karen. I got the Humanist/atheistic view better, while the Evangelical Fundie view made no sense at all to me and it was twisted.

Good for you for having the smarts to see through that mindset from an early age, Mriana. I actually got some glimpses into humanist philosophy from my dad, who was a secular Jew, but I rejected that at a very young age due to my family dynamic, unfortunately.

Mike C. said:

the fundamentalist or evangelical varieties – and their questions are for those people. It’s too bad we don’t have more of those kind of Christians around here to answer them.

Oh I see… I guess I missed the objective. I was just trying to demonstrate that there are Christians who completely disagree with the fundies. I can do my best to act like one, but I don’t think I’d be very good. I was never very good at it even when I was trying for real.

My question, then, would be: Are we trying to understand their views or discredit their views? I don’t know too many fundamental Christians who would come to this blog to answer questions in an honest way. They are afraid of you.

My question, then, would be: Are we trying to understand their views or discredit their views? I don’t know too many fundamental Christians who would come to this blog to answer questions in an honest way. They are afraid of you.

Well, it is really not that difficult to understand me and there is no reason to fear me, even when I get upset with dogma and call people on it. Just talk to me and you can learn many things about me.

I don’t think attempting to discredit views it going to do much good. Views are neither right or wrong- they just are and they are the perceptions of the individual. Some atheists have issues with ALL Christians, and some, like myself, are capable of getting along with liberal and progressive Christians- not necessarily agreeing, but getting along.

Linda said:

My question, then, would be: Are we trying to understand their views or discredit their views?

I get tons of opportunity to discredit their views, and read how other people have done so.

What I don’t get a chance to do often is get a question about religion answered by people who are knowledgeable and articulate enough to answer it, but won’t mistake it for an opportunity to proselytize.

I’m kinda sorry now that that was the only thing I was seriously puzzled about.

Mike C. said:

..the fundamentalist or evangelical varieties – and their questions are for those people. It’s too bad we don’t have more of those kind of Christians around here to answer them.

I am an atheist that goes to an evangelical Baptist church and participates in an adult Christian small group. My motivations for going to church and spending time with fundamentalist Christians is complex and besides the point here. But I can share some insights into the fundamentalist mindset.

Each of the following are beliefs that have been expressed in the Christian small group in which I participate. It is interesting that some of the more fanatical (and fundamentalist) in my group refer to themselves as previously being non-believers.

People in my small group have said:

We are all guilty of original sin.
We are also all guilty of sin in our lives.
The penalty of sin is burning in Hell.
Hell definitely exists.
All people who do not accept Jesus as their personal savior go to Hell after death.
Jesus is the ONLY path to heaven.
Jesus died to save those who accept Him as their savior.
All other religions are false.
God answers prayers. Even little trivial ones.
God is continually involved in the world answering prayers.
One should pray about everything in one’s life.
The bible is an expression of God’s love for the world.
Everything in the bible is true from Genesis to the last paragraph of Revelation.
Basically, if anything good happens, it is because of God.
Bad things happen because people are separated from God.
Where people reject God, the devil (Satan) reigns.
Satan definitely exists.
Satan must be fought and resisted.
We can not do it alone.
We must walk with Jesus armor.
Atheists are under the spell of Satan.
Liberal Christians are also under the spell of Satan.
Evolution is wrong and should not be taught in school.
Ideally America should be a theocracy.
Only Christians are loving and altruistic.
Non-Christians will be consumed by evil thoughts and do wicked things.
It is everybody’s duty to try to save the unsaved.
Everybody can get closer to God.
Everyone should continually give praise to God.
Jesus loves everyone and wants everyone to be saved but you must accept Him to be saved.

I pull my punches with this group…it is part of the price of admission. Interestingly, most of the people in the group have family members that are atheists or otherwise non-religious. I view each of these small group members as a friend. Individually, each of them is a very nice person even though they have strange beliefs. It has been an interesting experience.

Well, Jeff, I don’t think I’ll be getting much sleep tonight. Too damn scared….

Seriously, though, since you know these people – how do they reconcile their beliefs about how generally bad/evil atheists and non-believers and liberal christians are with how they feel about the ones they know and like? Or do they not try to do that and just live with the cognitive dissonance?

Oh, and what is a “small group”?

Arlen said in response to my comments (sorry, double block quotes aren’t working for me here):

“Does infinite eternal torture seem… fair…?”

No. I don’t know that I believe in Hell. I haven’t found a lot of convincing justification for it.

Yeah, those “divinely inspired” biblical references to Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna, the lake of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment, etc. were probably typos. It’s better not to believe something so irrational. I’m sure the rest of that “holy” text is far more reliable.

“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?”

Nope to all. I don’t kill folks… or torture them, for that matter.

Should Christians gladly and gratefully accept salvation from their own failings by means of an alleged obscene, unnecessary human/god torture and sacrifice in their place, a sacrifice that they didn’t ask for and would have opposed if they could have?

“If a person hears a disembodied voice telling them to kill their child, should they do it?”

Of course not. There may be great reasons to kill one’s child, but that probably wouldn’t be one of them.

So do you agree that Abraham, rather than being a hero of faith of the three major monotheisms for his attempted filicide, is better understood as a misguided, schizophrenic, hallucinating almost child murderer along the lines of Andrea Yates? Or more likely as a completely fictional character who didn’t really exist, much less live to the age of 175, father 8 children (all sons?), including 6 unimportant ones with his second wife Keturah AFTER his “miraculous” son Isaac in his old age?

J.S. Brown,

so often, the answers have nothing to do with what was asked. That’s certainly the case for the question I posted.

That’s so unfair. I was in a frenzy yesterday. You asked some great questions that I often wonder about myself, and they made me think some more. I did what I could for the moment so you don’t think that you’re being ignored. I was hoping for a continued dialogue and evolving thoughts. I thought your question deserved more than just a short, one-time, simple answer.

You jump in unannounced and unexpected, throw out a loaded question, then you jump out saying that it wasn’t worth your time? What kind of crap is that?

Now I’m glad I didn’t waste too much time trying to answer your question.

Claire said,

…how do they reconcile their beliefs about how generally bad/evil atheists and non-believers and liberal Christians are with how they feel about the ones they know and like? Or do they not try to do that and just live with the cognitive dissonance?

Oh, and what is a “small group”?

Christianity didn’t start with a big organized church. Christianity started with small groups of like-minded people meeting in someone’s house to religiously bond. Many denominations today continue this early Christian tradition of “small group” meetings . These are groups of perhaps 4 to 8 adults who have a guided spiritual bible lesson usually from a Christian workbook. We bring our kids and the kids play upstairs while the adults talk downstairs. These meetings are not in lieu of church. They are in addition to church. My church fully expects a good member to do each of the following:
1. go to church on Sunday and participate in a church ministry
2. go to church on Wednesday
3. participate in a small group
4. Give till it hurts (well I don’t do that part)
5. go on occasional mission trips

As for reconciling the belief that atheists are going to hell and personally knowing some atheists, I have observed the following:

1. One woman has separated from her husband because he is an atheist. I have heard of no other reason. The husband wants the marriage to work. The husband is not part of the small group.
2. One couple was very happy when their daughter broke up with her boyfriend who wasn’t religious enough for their tastes.
3. Some hold out that God, due to his loving Grace, could spare some atheists from eternal burning. They hope (and pray) that some of their loved ones may be so spared.
4. Some reflect on their own godless period and are proud about how far they have progressed towards God.
5. There is definitely some cognitive dissidence in the group.
6. I sense that the beliefs of some may not be as strong as they let on… there is a bit of “play-acting” going on… but I’ve only been in the group a year. It takes a long time to build trust and have people truly and freely express themselves in person especially when the group has so much Christian framing about what to believe.

My wife is the one liberal Christian of the group. The group perceives me as a “recovering atheist” who is trying to understand Christianity. They are all to happy for the opportunity to save a soul (or two). My blog site is blowback to these fundamentalist Christian experiences.

Vincent,

What??? I painted a picture of accepting my impotence and submitting to authority? OMG! Get the white-out!! Quick! AHHHHHH!! I’m sinking!!

Perhaps I meant to say accepting my IMPORTANCE and submitting to the TRUTH?

I did not say you have Jesus. I was just suggesting that perhaps Jesus is not who you think He is… and perhaps he stood for something you already believe in.

MikeClawson:

the biggest difficulty here is that neither of you represent the kind of Christianity that most of these questions are being asked of

That’s probably true, but I’ll keep on answering so that everyone knows that the fundamentalist/literalist/evangelical/etc. Christians do not represent all Christians, or even most Christians. They are actually a fairly small, fairly recent phenomenon (in their current incarnation).

The type of atheists who visit FriendlyAtheist need to know (though I’m sure they already do) that the type of Christians who visit FriendlyAtheist are a.) out there, b.) willing to engage in dialog, and c.) represent a great opportunity to work together for the common good and against those who would usurp the name of Christianity to increase their power over others.

nowoo:

If you can demonstrate that hearsay, mythology, and subjective impressions are more reliable than hard objective evidence I might be convinced to adopt your standards of evidence.

That’s a silly claim, and I would never make it; of course objective evidence is better than subjective evidence. If I had any objective evidence (or if anyone did) I’m sure you’d all be Christians too. I’m afraid you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on what evidence “counts,” otherwise our argument will just be circular.

BTW: I totally love Carl Sagan; that’s a great quote.

Mriana:

I wasn’t saying it was “original sin” or that it was unique to Xians, Arlen.

Oh, I know that; I didn’t mean to imply that that was the case. Sorry.

Well, it is really not that difficult to understand me and there is no reason to fear me, even when I get upset with dogma and call people on it.

They prefer ignorance over knowledge. I don’t understand why.

I hesitate to make this comment, because it’s probably not productive in terms of debate, but I just want to assure you that it’s not your fault that the fundamentalists aren’t showing up to the picnic. I’ve been very close to many fundamentalists; I’ve gotten to know their viewpoints very well; I’ve seen the extent to which some of them will go to account for things like eons-old fossils. For the very large part, Christian fundamentalists are incredibly insular. I think that they have to be in order to survive. They have had to create their own books, music, television stations, schools, churches, community events, etc—their own culture—because too much exposure to different ideas too easily topples their house-of-cards worldview. Their way of life depends on no one asking questions.

That said, many fundamentalists are wonderful people, and I mean absolutely no disrespect toward them. I just don’t believe that a lot of what they believe is very productive.

jeff:

My motivations for going to church and spending time with fundamentalist Christians is complex

I get it… there’s totally a hot girl you want to meet there! (I’m just kidding of course.) Good for you for going and being a part of that. I think that it’s really important for everyone (especially fundamentalists) to have polite, subtle pressure put on them to question their beliefs. I’m sure you learned a lot from them and they from you. Kudos!

nowoo:

Yeah, those “divinely inspired” biblical references to Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna, the lake of fire, eternal fire, eternal punishment, etc. were probably typos.

After looking at the scripture and its historical context (outside of the centuries of Christian storytelling and mythology), I have found very few references that cannot be interpreted as references to either actual places, allegorical states-of-being, or something else. In the end, whether I believe in Hell or not doesn’t really matter. There either is one or isn’t, and I’ll either go there or not. Neither of those factors is going to have much impact on the way that I live my life.

It’s better not to believe something so irrational. I’m sure the rest of that “holy” text is far more reliable.

As I’ve said above, I, like most Christians, am not a literalist. I am probably in the minority in that I question the existence of Hell, but I’m in no way inconsistent. Generally speaking, I really try not to get too hung up on exactly what Hell, Heaven, God, Angels, etc. are or look like. I accept that it is impossible for the living to know, so I believe that my time is better spent helping others than pondering the explicitly unknowable.

Should Christians gladly and gratefully accept salvation from their own failings by means of an alleged obscene, unnecessary human/god torture and sacrifice in their place, a sacrifice that they didn’t ask for and would have opposed if they could have?

Your question is somewhat obscured by your snark. I think what you’re asking is, “Is it right for Christians to accept the salvation offered to them by an agent of God as he was ruthlessly murdered?”
Short answer: that’s the offer we got, so we should be glad to take it. Would it have been better if Jesus didn’t have to die? Yes! He showed up to teach us how to love and get along and help each other, and we responded by killing him—harsh! I think given our treatment of him, it’s a miracle that he decided to give us the gift of salvation anyway; we certainly didn’t do anything to deserve it.

So do you agree that Abraham, rather than being a hero… for his attempted filicide, is better understood as a[n]… almost child murderer along the lines of Andrea Yates?

Abraham had simple instructions. Have a kid. He messed it up. In his humiliation, he was willing to kill his own son if it would mean putting the world right again. In the end he made an animal sacrifice to God rather than kill his son. He avoided murder even though he knew that that choice would lead to incredible hardship down the road. Abraham is the hero of monotheism not because he was perfect guy, but because he was a regular guy, chosen by God to do something miraculous.

J.S.Brown:

the answers have nothing to do with what was asked

I’m sorry; I thought I gave a pretty straightforward answer. Is there something you’d like me to clarify, or can you rephrase your question so that I could better get at what you are after?

All:
Wow! That’s the end of the thread so far! Any other questions that I can help answer or are there any of my answers that I can clarify for anyone? Thanks to all of you for your great, thought-provoking questions!

Thanks for answering all the questions, Arlen. I like hearing what you have to say.

That’s probably true, but I’ll keep on answering so that everyone knows that the fundamentalist/literalist/evangelical/etc. Christians do not represent all Christians, or even most Christians.

I’m glad you are Arlen! Someone needs to, and I have filled that role here at times, though it can get tiring. Be prepared to hear many of the atheists here accuse you of not being a “real” Christian because your views don’t match their stereotypes of fundamentalist Christians. Ironically I hear this accusation of not being a “real Christian” just as much from atheists these days as I do from conservative Christians. Though I suspect some of the former might actually intend it as a compliment!

I’ll be the last one to say that, because I’ve been there and it’s no fun. You get shoved around like a half-breed. I can empathize somewhat with my sons.

I’m telling you, there is nothing like Fundamgelicals shoving you over to the atheist realm, when you yourself don’t consider yourself as such and the militant atheists (I must clarify both sub-groups here) shoving you back again to the other side. I spent years dealing with that until I decided that I was a non-theist and decided that I am a Humanist. It’s hell.

If you declare yourself a theist/Christian/progressive/liberal etc or you declare yourself an atheist, non-theist or part of any sub-group on either side, who am I to question you?

It’s a horrible feeling to be shoved back and forth. My sons get that just based on their skin colour, behaviour, and the fact they were raised by a White woman and not by their Black father. Therefore, I can empathize with them too.

I would never propose you are not Christian or propose one is not an atheist based on their statements alone- regardless if they jive with my definition or not. I avoid judging anyone as much as humanly possible.

I think there’s a function of: what we experienced as kids definitely shapes our sense of things. I grew up in a mainline church, where I had never heard there was a “conflict” between evolution and faith until I was in college. Most of the evangelical subculture I had never ran into until college. Most folks I knew growing up were Catholic or Lutheran.

But now living in a fundamentalist dominated area (old school Pentecostals and a ton of baptist churches), I can see how religion can often look quite different. The point is that neither experience told us the whole story. There’s a lot of good and bad, beauty and sometimes weirdness in any religion..it’s a very human affair after all.

Jeff, your experience as an atheist peacefully existing within a conservative Christian church (would you say it is truly “fundamentalist” or simply “evangelical”?) is very fascinating. I hope you’ll tell us more about it sometime.

I’ll second that sentiment. I don’t know how you do it, Jeff. As an ex-fundy, it would be way too tough emotionally for me to re-immerse myself in that kind of group.

But I’d love to be a fly on the wall at some of your small group meetings. My small groups never contained nonbelievers so I don’t know what it would be like to see some serious questions introduced (what Helen calls comments “outside the range of acceptable answers”). I imagine you shake the group out of their self-contained worldview from time to time!

Robin:

Is homosexuality sinful?

No. I think that the evidence is in that homosexuality is not a “choice,” but an inseparable part of who a person is. If God created a person who is homosexual, it would be the height of hypocrisy to call that creation sinful. I just saw a great documentary on this issue called “For The Bible Tells Me So.”

Do you believe that gay and lesbian people have the right to marriage, and all the rights and responsibilities that marriage entails?

Yes. My church welcomes and embraces homosexuals. The denomination won’t yet allow our pastor to perform a homosexual marriage, but that doesn’t stop us from celebrating marriages performed elsewhere. This is an incredibly frustrating issue for gays and their allies in the church; I assure you that folks are working hard to change hearts and minds about this issue at high levels in several denominations. I think that we are going to witness, over the next ten to twenty years, a remarkable transformation within the Church regarding homosexuality. I can’t wait.

Is homosexuality sinful? (This is a “yes” or “no” question.)

Do you believe that gay and lesbian people have the right to marriage, and all the rights and responsibilities that marriage entails?

People can answer yes or no until cows come home. But what I would ask my fellow Christians are the following questions:

Would you invite Robin into your homes to play with your sons? To babysit them?

Would you invite Robin and his husband to your family Thanksgiving dinner?

Would you invite them into your fellowship who oppose homosexuality and announce them as close friends of yours?

That’s what I really want to know…

Linda: excellent questions.

As for GLBT inclusion:

Some churches were ahead of the game. Some Quakers came out in support of equality in 1962. Other churches are fighting over the issue, like the Methodists. Other churches are out to fight gay and lesbians (too many Baptist churches)

There are three churches in my town of 20k (admittedly a college town) that will bless gay unions. As a gay person I’ve been involved with a Disciples church that is not there. But we’re moving on these issues and I have some optimism.

Now I have found a second question. Why do homophobia and fundamentalism (and sometimes some moderate churches, too) go hand and hand so often? For many liberal christians, the whole gay thing these days is just, meh, who cares what a person is? For some christians, it seems a core value to fight over, and I don’t know why this one thing. Yes, I know it’s prohibited in the bible, but so are a whole hell of a lot of things. Why is this one singled out? What causes the level of fear I see?

To Arlen,
I’m willing to help out with defending other types of Christians. I understand where you are coming from about being the perceived “few” of non-fundamentalist Christians and how draining it can be to defend yourself. You’re not alone

Now I have found a second question. Why do homophobia and fundamentalism (and sometimes some moderate churches, too) go hand and hand so often? For many liberal christians, the whole gay thing these days is just, meh, who cares what a person is? For some christians, it seems a core value to fight over, and I don’t know why this one thing. Yes, I know it’s prohibited in the bible, but so are a whole hell of a lot of things. Why is this one singled out? What causes the level of fear I see?

Hmm I have wondered this too. Honestly, I think there is a personal fear of homophobia for these people that is apart from their Christian beliefs (i.e fear of the unknown or foreign)and certain verses in the Bible only encourage their bias.

I think there is a personal fear of homophobia for these people that is apart from their Christian beliefs (i.e fear of the unknown or foreign)and certain verses in the Bible only encourage their bias.

Exactly. Homophobia is not exclusive to Christians. It exists everywhere. It is the fear of the unknown. Even the people who say they are not biased, when crunch time comes, will be leery of completely accepting those who are different. I have done it, and I have been a victim of it.

I’ll bet even the minority groups themselves have certain types of poeple that they avoid for one reason or another. We all have our prejudices. You cannot point fingers at anyone else, and you cannot deny that you have your own biases.

I just don’t like people who pretend to be above it all, which prompted me to ask the few questions that I asked earlier.

re; homophobia

just thought i’d share with you what a christian friend who takes most instruction from the bible said to me on this subject…(she believes in the divinity of christ and that jesusu came ‘to fulfil the law’, i.e., although the OT is true, we are no longer expected to adhere to all of the rules + regs within, as jesus took the place of old laws of purity + sacrifice)… she pointed me to I Corinthians 6:9-10, which clearly states that sodomy is wrong, although it makes little comment on the sexual orientation of individuals. i.e., homosexuals are to be respected, homosexual behaviour is not. not sure on the status of lesbian behaviour, although that may be covered by Romans 1:26-27 (as an aside, why is it usually male homosexual behaviour that is focused on ?). i was actually quite impressed by the fact that she was able to be logically consistent with her condemnation of behaviour, rather than the individuals who practise such, whilst also holding true to her views on OT vs. NT. not that i agree with any of it .

my question for any christians here who care to answer…

i have another christian friend who is currently trying to address a relationship problem; that of sex before marriage.

i would like to be able to discuss this with them from a christian, preferably biblical, angle. where in the bible can i find information pertaining to this? is marriage a christian, biblical or social norm? where does the proviso originate from that sex is ok, but only within a marital context? is this a question of purity (and therefore rooted firmly within an OT context)?

any and all info (but especially from a christian perspective) welcomed…

Dwight, in the copies of the bible i have (NRSV + KJV), the word ’sodomy’ is used in one, “abusers of themselves with mankind,” in the other. i think this is what my friend was alluding to when she condoned the practise rather than the practioners, but yes, i’ll agree wholeheartedly with the issue of translations. just trying to give a christian perspective i’ve personally heard.

Perhaps I can write something up and send it to you as an email to start a new post.

That’s a great idea Jeff! I’d gladly post it for you.

Is that cool with you Hemant?

I have quite a few issues with Christianity, but one of them is a bit more important to me than the others, and that one involves homosexuality. Being gay, and being raised in a very homophobic Christian tradition caused no end of problems for me as a young man; it eventually came down to a simple choice: either reject who I was, or reject Christianity.

I rejected Christianity. And I haven’t looked back since. It was the right decision.

I can respect your decision to give up on Christianity Robin. I can’t imagine what it must have been like for you.

I have another Christian friend who recently came out, both to herself and to everyone. She faced a similar dilemma, but it included a third option: find a different kind of Christianity – one that had room for people like her. Fortunately it is out there.

I’m not saying that option is right for you, I just wanted to affirm that being gay and being a Christian don’t always have to be mutually exclusive.

To answer your questions:

Is homosexuality sinful?

10 years ago I would have said “yes”.
4 years ago I would have said “sometimes”.
2 years ago I would have said “I don’t know”.
Today I say unequivocally “no”.

Just thought you should know that as a recovering evangelical and former Baptist, it’s been a journey for me. I hope that’s okay.

Do you believe that gay and lesbian people have the right to marriage, and all the rights and responsibilities that marriage entails?

On this one I say absolutely, unequivocally “yes”. And I would have said “yes” even 10 years ago.

And to answer Linda’s questions:

Would you invite Robin into your homes to play with your sons? To babysit them?

Would you invite Robin and his husband to your family Thanksgiving dinner?

Would you invite them into your fellowship who oppose homosexuality and announce them as close friends of yours?

Absolutely, unequivocally, yes. Already done it in fact. (Not with Robin of course, but with others.)

ash, I have seen this happen here with Mike.

yes, I guess I should have also pointed out that it has already happened in this thread to both Arlen and Linda. Several different posters in fact have made comments suggesting that they are perhaps not true Christians.

‘True Christians’? ‘Sneering comments’? Being told you ‘were no longer welcome’?

Can you imagine Jesus castigating people for not being ‘True’ Christians?

Can you imagine Jesus making ’sneering comments’ about people not being ‘True’ Christians?

Matthew 7
21″Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Jesus says that ‘many’ people who call themselves Christians are not ‘True’ Christians at all.

As I said before, scratch a fundamentalist Christian and you will find Jesus underneath.

It is one reason why fundies are such easy targets for atheists , unlike more liberal Christians.

Linda said:

That’s so unfair. I was in a frenzy yesterday. You asked some great questions that I often wonder about myself, and they made me think some more. I did what I could for the moment so you don’t think that you’re being ignored. I was hoping for a continued dialogue and evolving thoughts. I thought your question deserved more than just a short, one-time, simple answer.

I’m sorry you were in a frenzy. I didn’t ask anyone to stress themselves to answer. You reacted to my question, but didn’t offer an answer. That’s fine. I responded accordingly. I had no way of knowing that you wanted to begin a dialog, since you didn’t mention it. How was I to know your answer would come, later, after I engaged you in an exchange of messages?

Linda said:

You jump in unannounced and unexpected, throw out a loaded question, then you jump out saying that it wasn’t worth your time? What kind of crap is that?

I apologize for my ignorance. I had no idea I needed to be announced and expected before posting. As for my question, it isn’t loaded. I listed the generally accepted presuppositions on which it was premised.

Linda said:

Now I’m glad I didn’t waste too much time trying to answer your question.

So am I! It seems you were in a frenzy and didn’t have any time to spare. My apologies on every point.

J.S. Brown

Oh my! Feisty, arent’ we? You made me start out this morning with a good laugh! Thanks! You’re funny! I love it.

I’m sorry
I apologize for my ignorance.
My apologies on every point.

AND… you apologized THREE times in your comment. Gosh, no need for groveling… I forgive you!! because, after all, I have Jesus! Yay!

However, I’m still pondering over your original questions.

Mriana,

I thought about your “rhetorical” question, and I found this link.

http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txh/chrisdef.htm

Interesting…

ash said:

i have another christian friend who is currently trying to address a relationship problem; that of sex before marriage.

i would like to be able to discuss this with them from a christian, preferably biblical, angle. where in the bible can i find information pertaining to this?

Ash, I am not a Bible scholar by any means, and from what I hear, I’m not even a “true Christian,” but let me give you my take on this issue.

In his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 6:12-13), Paul states,

“Everything is permissible (allowable and lawful) for me; but not all things are helpful (good for me to do, expedient and profitable when considered with other things). Everything is lawful for me, but I will not become the slave of anything or be brought under its power.

Food [is intended] for the stomach and the stomach for food, but God will finally end [the functions of] both and bring them to nothing. The body is not intended for sexual immorality, but [is intended] for the Lord, and the Lord [is intended] for the body [[a]to save, sanctify, and raise it again].

I often study the Amplified Bible, because it explains in more detail what the original text may indicate.

What I personally get out of this passage is that it’s not about following the religious law or what’s morally right or wrong. There are things that are just not good for you. There are things that are harmful just because of the nature of things and/or actions. Sex in itself is not bad, but if you allow it to have power over you, then it becomes harmful. If you begin to obsess over it, or anything else for that matter, and it clouds your mind to a point of affecting other parts of your health (mental or physical), then it is harmful.

In the end, we all live and die. Years down the road, no one will remember nor will they care if you had sex before marriage, not even God. What’s important is that you find freedom in who you are (in my case it is in Christ) and live as free and complete loving beings. I happen to believe that my freedom lies in my identity in Christ and that the freedom that awaits me after death will be more awesome than I can possibly imagine.

I have seen this passage in different translations that take it totally out of context. NIV is one of them. NLT is worse (see below). They make it sound like you are claiming freedom because of your rebelliousness. But it is not so. We claim freedom because Jesus told us we are free.

(NLT)
12 You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. And even though “I am allowed to do anything,” I must not become a slave to anything. 13 You say, “Food was made for the stomach, and the stomach for food.” (This is true, though someday God will do away with both of them.) But you can’t say that our bodies were made for sexual immorality. They were made for the Lord, and the Lord cares about our bodies.

Mike C., ‘vitriol’ was far too strong a word choice, sorry, i wrote that when i was pished. i also am intrigued by the ‘true christian’ concept, although i have to admit i kinda agree with whoever it was on this site that suggested the whole ‘not a true christian’ thing tends to be bandied about by people who don’t wish to engage with forms of christianity they don’t agree with – for most christians; fred phelps type beliefs, for pissy atheists; emergent how-dare-you-be-reasonable christianities. that said, i did miss where Arlen + Linda were accussed of such, and especially if it was offensive in a subtle way, i’d personally find it useful to see examples (if indeed either felt they were accused + found it offensive?…guys…?)

Monkeymind –

ash, I have seen this happen here with Mike.

yep, said i expected it was so, however, my point was more that because i’d missed seeing any examples here, what he said seemed both pre-emptive and unnecessary. if it’s wrong to judge a christian as not being a proper christian because their form of christianity is not one you wish to recognise, is it not also wrong to judge an atheist on the negative behaviour you presume they might display because of bad past experience?

but, as Mike assures me they were examples here, i shall take his word for it, and this becomes a moot point…

Linda said,

December 19, 2007 at 9:13 am

Mriana,

Please don’t think that I am promoting the site that I found. (I know you don’t, but others might.) I don’t even know who they are. I just found it and thought it was interesting…

No I don’t, but you are right, others might. I does show that some people have a broader view than others or is that a narrower view? Now I’m confusing myself.

i did miss where Arlen + Linda were accussed of such, and especially if it was offensive in a subtle way, i’d personally find it useful to see examples (if indeed either felt they were accused + found it offensive?…guys…?)

Go back towards the beginning of this thread and look for posts by Vincent, Viggo, and Obscurifier. Each of them had made several comments to the effect that “many Christians theologians wouldn’t consider Linda (or Arlen) real Christians.”

And if you go back and read my original post about this you’ll notice that I didn’t say they were being “offensive”. In fact, just the opposite – I suggested that they were actually attempting to be complimentary in their own minds. (I.e. if an atheist being a real Christian is a bad thing, then I suppose it’s a compliment for an atheist to tell me I’m not a real Christian – and according to their definition I suppose I’m not.)

LINDA
Years down the road, no one will remember nor will they care if you had sex before marriage, not even God.

CARR
Really?

An omniscient being like God just forgets about your sin, and ‘years from now’ (isn’t God timeless), God doesn’t even care whether you sinned or not.

This is one reason why ‘Ask a Christian’ threads are useless.

Theology is all make believe and any person’s opinion is just as good as anybody elses

So asking one Christian a question will get you one answer, and asking a second Christian the question will get you the opposite answer.

And then if you say ‘But I was told X was the answer to that question, and now I am told the exact opposite is true.’, Mike C. will accuse you of saying that some people are not True Christians.

Can’t all the Christians get together and get their story straight , instead of criticising atheists for pointing out that Christians have no idea what True Christianity actually is?

Carr, now you make no sense. How can anyone know the “Will of an invisible parent in the sky”"? If such a being talks to you, I’d have to wonder if you need a psychological test done on you.

Omnipotent. Well, I won’t go around with you about the word. I’m sure you have heard it before.

No, I don’t think any of that makes anyone a Christian or not, because it allows for too much human judgement, but (not to be snide) it is all a human concept in the first place.

There once was a good post on FA
Topics ranged from free thinking to gays
Some tried our best
to engage the rest
But this brain game gets too hard to play

do you have any comment to make or directions you can point me in regarding marriage as a theological/social/cultural concept?

Well, i’m not Mike, but my take is that the attitude of the early church to both sex and marriage was “just say no.” There were a lot of other sects around at the time, like the Essenes, who practiced celibacy so that attitude may have come from there. When you remember that sacred prostitution was a big draw at pagan temples, it’s a wonder that Christianity ever got off the ground! Of course, there were questions raised at the time about the “love feasts” at christian churches where men and women and slaves worshipped together.

A big reason why the Romans persecuted Christians was because they were undermining family values by rejecting marriages that their parents had arranged. There are a lot of Catholic women saints who got out of marriages by miraculously growing beards overnight and what not. Marriage was a purely civil arrangement, I don’t know when it became a sacrament blessed by the church but it certainly wasn’t at the beginning of Christianity.
As for why any culture or religion has rules about sexual behavior and marriage, it usually to do with property ownership (usually to the advantage of males) and with concepts of purity and uncleanness, which are big part of the moral universe of traditional societies. I guess early christianity was more equal than the pagan world in that they valued chastity for everyone, not just female children of wealthy families. In practice, though, the double standard rules.

Dwight is correct to say that if you ask different atheists the same question you would get different answers. I don’t think the Patriots will have a perfect season, other atheists might differ to me. I guess atheism is just self-contradictory, when you see atheists contradicting each other like that.

Atheists have very little in common, except a lack of belief in gods.

Why should they answer questions the same? Who would expect that?

Apart from questions about atheism. There is only 1 question. Do you believe in gods?

And a True Atheist says that he or she does not believe in gods.

But Christians are all supposed to be inspired by the same alleged god, and they even have the same book to work from (more or less, they can’t even agree on that).

So if you ask Christians what beliefs they have in common with other Christians they should at least not give totally contradictory answers.

DWIGHT
‘God as invisible sky parent? Don’t believe in it.’

You mean you have seen God?

When Jesus referred to his Father in Heaven, why did Christians decide that the Greek word for ’sky’ was the ideal Greek work to express their non-sky concept of Heaven?

Why did early Christians write about the disciples looking into the ’sky’ when Jesus ascended into Heaven?

Because early Christians thought Heaven was somehow above the sky, and that very special people could make that journey. So they wrote a story of Jesus doing just that.

Of course, we now know that early Christianity was full of strange beliefs that sensible Christians have long ago abandoned.

BTW, what should be painted over the Sistine Chapel, as apparently the Vatican was infiltrated by atheists, intent on portraying Christian beliefs in the most literal minded fashion possible.

These atheist caricatures of religion get everywhere, even into the heart of the Vatican….

on another note, do you have any comment to make or directions you can point me in regarding marriage as a theological/social/cultural concept?

Honestly, not really. This is an area that I’m less certain about as of late. Contrary to the claims of most conservative Christians, I don’t think the Bible lays out one simple ethic of sexuality and marriage. It’s complex. And yet I do agree with Linda that marriage is looked at as a sacred thing in the Bible, and also that sexuality is a powerful thing that shouldn’t be abused – but beyond that there aren’t always clear commands about the specifics.

Anyhow, I don’t have much else to say about that. I haven’t taken the time to really work out what I think about those issues anymore – it’s not really a pressing concern for me at the moment. I grew up in a Christianity that was obsessed with sexual ethics, and frankly I’m just tired of it. There are far more important ethical issues in the world for me to be concentrating on right now – e.g. poverty, slavery, discrimination, the environment, etc. My thinking about sexual ethics is on hold for a while.

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.

I disagree. I believe that the one thing the Bible IS, is a fantastic story. How else would it still be around after 2000 years and have millions of people obsessed with. Tolkien has some intense fans, but the Bible, the Torah, the Quran have him beat hands down.

Mike, Linda, monkeymind, thankyou.

Well, even if Paul in his letter to the Corinthians had come right out and said, “It’s wrong to have sex outside of marriage,” it would still be just Paul’s opinion. I cannot understand how one can claim to know that when Paul wrote that he was somehow writing for God and for all eternity. It just seems to me so much more likely that Paul was a learned scholar and charismatic leader who imparted his own fallible wisdom on the people of Corinth. Good stuff, for what it’s worth, but it’s still 2000 year old fallible human wisdom. For me, the weakest link in the Christian argument is the Bible itself.

HappyNat:

Thanks for answering all the questions, Arlen. I like hearing what you have to say.

Thanks very much! I’m happy to share my take on things. I hope you’ll jump into this discussion or another so that I can hear your viewpoint!

Claire:

Now I have found a second question. Why do homophobia and fundamentalism (and sometimes some moderate churches, too) go hand and hand so often?

I think this is about people who have biases that are extra-Biblical trying to justify their hate or fear through Biblical means. If God says I should hate gays, then it’s okay to do so. It wasn’t so very long ago that churches broke off from one another over the issue of civil rights, and before that over slavery. Groups who are intensely focused on hate and exclusion (of gays, blacks, slaves, or otherwise) would rather break off to form their own churches than progress with the rest of the world. The good news is that these splinter churches rarely survive longer than their founding members (or their founding members’ children at the longest). The progressives have history on our side, here.

kwrigh5:

I understand where you are coming from about being the perceived “few” of non-fundamentalist Christians and how draining it can be to defend yourself. You’re not alone!

Thanks very much!

ash:

I was actually quite impressed by the fact that she was able to be logically consistent with her condemnation of behaviour, rather than the individuals who practise such, whilst also holding true to her views on OT vs. NT.

With nothing but the upmost respect for your friend, I would probably caution against looking to Paul’s letters for advice on sex. I love him to death, but he was absolutely convinced that the final coming of Christ was *immenent,* like, any minute now. Paul was actually against having *any* sex—premarital, straight, or otherwise (or even getting married)—because he saw it as an unneccesary diversion from getting right with God before judgement. This ties directly in with your question about pre-marital sex.

I have another christian friend who is currently trying to address a relationship problem; that of sex before marriage.

Unfortunately, there’s just not a whole lot to go on in the New Testament in terms of sex. Even if there was strong a admonishion against premarital sex in there, I’m not sure how much relevance it would hold in today’s world. The fact is that abstenance make lots more sense when folks got married in their early teens. We live in a different world, now; the best advice today is probably different than the best advice back then. The only advice that I can offer (and this is in no way Biblically based) is to try to abstain from sex outisde of a long-term, committed relationship. It’s probably not advisable (for lots of reasons) to just go around having sex willy-nilly, but there has been some evidence that folks who try to hold to that no-sex-until-marriage thing can be doing themselves mroe harm than good. I had a good friend in college who saved kissing for marriage… but that’s a whole other story.

MikeClawson:

10 years ago I would have said “yes”.
4 years ago I would have said “sometimes”.
2 years ago I would have said “I don’t know”.
Today I say unequivocally “no”.

Wow… those could have been my words, exactly. This is why I have so much hope and anticipation for the future of homosexual rights in the church. This is something that folks almost always seem to become more comfortable with over time.

Steven Carr:

Why do you follow somebody who threatened people with hell-fire, drowned pigs, called people ‘dogs’, claimed he was going to kill followers of Christians teaching false doctrine (See Revelation 2), and told people not to sell ointment to raise money for the poor.

I’m curious what passage you’re refurring to with Jesus threatening folks with “hell-fire” so that I can reread it. As I’ve mentioned above, my jury’s still out on the existance of Hell, but almost every passage that aludes to what is commonly thought of as Hell has some other explaination. Jesus did drown pigs, but he did so to help people. I’d take healthy people over healthy pigs any day. Both instances that I can recall where Jesus mentioned dogs he was speaking metaphorically (”Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw pearls to swine” and “it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs”). Maybe you are thinking of some other example; I don’t actually have a Bible in front of me, so I’m not sure. Revelation is not a gospel, and should in no way be read literally. Anything that Jesus does in there is either symbolic or nonsense (I tend to think of Revelation as a fair mix of both). Jesus didn’t tell “people” not to sell the ointment, he told Judas not to sell the ointment. This is important for two reasons: Judas was the purse-keepe for the diciples and was probably embezling from them all along, and Jesus needs the ointment to be literally anointed before his execution. The implication of the story (and the parable of the “bridegroom,” as I recall) is that *these folks* (as opposed to folks in general) have a unique opportunity to see and hear and witness Jesus and they ought to be (literally) following him every minute of every day; once Jesus is gone there will be plenty of time for them all to go about doing wonderful, altruistic deeds. I hope that sheds some light on those stories for you.

Mriana:

…what in the world is a true Christian?

In my mind, a “true” Christian is one who loves God and looks to the example of Jesus to learn how to express that love.

Linda:

There once was a good post on FA
Topics ranged from free thinking to gays
Some tried our best
to engage the rest
But this brain game gets too hard to play

Bravo!

Dwight:

I imagine if I ask atheists questions I’d get varied answers too. Why be surprised if you find that to be the same when asking Christians? Or any other group of folks?

Thanks for beating me to that response.

Sure. But to be inspired doesn’t mean know everything, have stuff figured out, escaping the finitude and limits of being human. We’re trying to work through these things like anyone. But we’ve got a 2000 year tradition to work out of, resources, tools in doing just that.

Right on. I would just add that a non-zero portion of that 2000 year tradition is utter crap and/or lies made up to perpetuate a certain power structure, and seperating out that garbage from what truth is in there is not easy work.

Mriana:

…what in the world is a true Christian?

In my mind, a “true” Christian is one who loves God and looks to the example of Jesus to learn how to express that love.

I wasn’t really expecting an answer, Arlen- thus rhetorical, but OK, since you answered, isn’t that still a judgement call?

I have a Christian friend who tries to look at the heart and decides from there if one is a Christian. Thing is, that is a judgement call in my mind too, for we can only make this call by their behaviour and the thoughts they share.

Here’s another question: What or who is God?

Spong describes it as rauch or the wind. Not a who, but a what. Cupitt again describes it as a what and labels it Love. Others think of it as an anthropomophic being. The list goes on and on. It’s all a human concept.

Then there is who was Jesus?

Some like Price and me say there was no historical Jesus or IF there ever was a man named Jesus he is so buried in myth we cannot find him (Religious Humanism- having atheists beliefs). Others say he did exist as depicted in the Bible and others will add he exists as the H.S.

What is the H.S.?

OK it could be as simple as the wind. Who knows. Or it could be Brahma. or it could be the ghost of Jesus. Or it could just plain be a myth.

Plain and simple all I see are various human concepts of all these things and no one definition is necessarily right or wrong. I have met professed Christians who do not believe in a metaphysical deity (Christian Humanists) nor do they believe in the supernatural- no H.S., yet they believe a man named Jesus may have lived, but not necessarily as described in the Bible. They, like Cupitt and Spong, live their lives without supernaturalism and at the same time live their lives by the humane teachings of Jesus, but they do not believe Jesus died for their sins- it’s all metaphorical, right down to a deity, which they turn into love. The Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God, but rather written by man, inspired by no one, and nothing by a series of stories. They believe it, (rauch for example) resides within us as love, compassion, and reason (humanistic views). They are, as I mentioned, Christian Humanists, who do not believe in supernaturalism, but practice non-realism, as well as, humanistic beliefs.

Are they (Christian Humanists that is) not Christians by your view?

Thanks for the clarification Vincent. Sorry for the mischaracterization.

Vincent, I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out what the normative definition of Christianity may be, and attempting to get clear about terms, it it’s helpful to the dialogue.

What I find objectionable is claims by Sam Harris and others that fundamentalists are the only ones who “really believe” and really follow their religion. (the quotes are out there, but I don’t time right now to google them up) First of all, statements like this just accept at face value fundamentalists’ claims about their centrality or “trueness” in relation to a particular tradition. It’s offensive to believers who also “really believe” but are less interested in political domination over non-believers.

I also think it’s interesting that there is this readiness to ascribe “trueness” to harsh , punitive, violent versions of a tradition. Could be something hard-wired in human nature. Violence (verbal or otherwise) is somehow more salient. In relationships for example, we sometimes give more weight to something negative a partner says about us in the heat of an argument than the hundreds of loving actions over the course of months. It’s hard not to feel that “that’s what he really thinks about me” even though it might have been the expression of a fleeting thought brought on by defensiveness.

Mriana:

I wasn’t really expecting an answer, Arlen…

I think I accidentally skipped this post earlier, sorry. Let me see if I can address some of your questions.

…isn’t that still a judgement call?

Yes it is. I don’t think there is an objective way to tell who is Christian (or Jewiish, or atheist, or Republican, etc). There’s an old song that says “they will know we are Christian by our love,” and I like that idea, but (thankfully!) Christians don’t have a monopoly on love, so that’s just not enough information. I think, realistically and objectively, self-reporting is the only means of identifying a Christian.

What or who is God?

I don’t know. And I actually don’t spend a lot of time trying to figure it out. I think that the nature of God is largely unknowable. I believe that God is a loving force for good in the universe and wants the best for God’s Creation (that’s not in any way to say that I’m a creationist). Therefore, I’d rather spend my time demonstrating my thankfulness and love of God by following the example of God’s agent, Jesus, than trying to discern God’s nature.

Then there is who was Jesus?

It is my honest opinion, even in the absence of strong, objective evidence, that Jesus was a real, historical person. I hold no grudge against people who disagree with my assessment. I think that he has doubtless been mythologized. I don’t waste a lot of time pondering whether he performed a bunch of miracles or commanded evil spirits, because that has very little relevance to the world today. I think that the true blessing of Jesus is that his teachings and example are every bit as important and effective today as they were in his time. I am thankful for his example.

What is the Holy Spirit?

I’m embarrassed to say that sometimes I confuse the HS a little bit with “the Force” from Star Wars. I’m only half serious, but I admit to you that I don’t have a particularly good feel for this third of the Trinity. I’m sorry. I’d love to hear and play off of what other Christians may have to say.

… Are they (Christian Humanists that is) not Christians by your view?

To play off of my idea above, I really don’t think it’s my place to label people; I’m 100% sure that people do a better job labeling themselves, anyway. I’d love to hear more about what they believe and how they came to believe it.

MonkeyMind:

Vincent, I don’t see anything wrong with…

Great post, a very good read! I admire your insight.

Claire:

I already had that figured out, too, in other contexts. I don’t know why I didn’t put two and two together. Thanks, Arlen!

Thank you! I’m happy that I could help, if I did!

I think, realistically and objectively, self-reporting is the only means of identifying a Christian.

I can accept that answer and it seems most reasonable.

What or who is God?

I don’t know.

Good answer, although I think it benefits us all to eventually ponder, at least once in our lives, “Who or what is God?” if nothing more than to define what we mean and if we really believe that concept, or to come to a conclusion for ourselves as to whether or not our concept actually exists or if there is even a possibility of its existance. Some may fear this could lead to atheism. I say it all depends on the person and how they define “human concept”. If it does lead to atheism, it is not the worst thing in the world, but as you see, even atheists re-evaluate their ideas every now and then. It is, without a doubt, part of the human condition to ponder these things every now and then.

Saying “I don’t know” is the first step in learning and nothing to be ashamed of. The more you ponder and question, the more you are able to form an opinion that is yours and one you can firmly stand by.

I can accept your answer concerning Jesus and it is not one I would attempt to refute based solely on my own concept, opinion, and understanding.

What is the Holy Spirit?

I’m embarrassed to say that sometimes I confuse the HS a little bit with “the Force” from Star Wars. I’m only half serious, but I admit to you that I don’t have a particularly good feel for this third of the Trinity. I’m sorry. I’d love to hear and play off of what other Christians may have to say.

That’s cool- even your own “Star Wars” concept and note, I say concept only because other Christians will have different descriptions/ideas and probably only a few will match another. Their description will also depend on their Christian background and what they were taught, as well as what they have come to believe as adults.

… Are they (Christian Humanists that is) not Christians by your view?

To play off of my idea above, I really don’t think it’s my place to label people; I’m 100% sure that people do a better job labeling themselves, anyway. I’d love to hear more about what they believe and how they came to believe it.

Again, good answer and one I can accept. However, I cannot tell you how Christian Humanists came to believe what they believe except to refer you to those who have wrote books on the matter and to the Sea of Faith website. I don’t know if that will tell you how they came to believe what they believe, but you could learn more about what they believe.

You are obviously a thinking Christian, which is good. I encourage you to continue to think for yourself, regardless of the labels you attach to yourself. IMHO, our beliefs and ideas develop, change, and grow for as long as we live- as long as we continue to think for ourselves, evaluate and re-evaluate our ideas/beliefs, and come to our own conclusions.

Humanity has been around in it’s present form for about 200,000 years. Christianity has existed in various forms for about 2,000 years. Judaism has existed for about 4,000 years. These are established facts supported by evidence. Granted, you could argue that the human race is only 100,000 years old from archaeological evidence alone but it’s still an awful long time.

My questions is this: Given that the human race has existed for so long, what took God\Jesus so long to get round to “saving” His children?

Don said,

Why do I need Jesus to die for my sins when in Matt 6:14 it says that God will forgive me when I forgive other peoples sins against me?

In my opinion, Jesus did not “need” to die for our sins, he had to die because he was not afraid to testify to the truth and challenge religion. Reglion was a way of life back then. If truth threatens everything that you know and believe, then truth has to be killed. I think Jesus knew this better than anyone.

What is sin? I believe every sinful act stems from fear, and shame and guilt adds to the fire. Fear of the unknown. Fear of being explosed. Fear of being vulnerable. Fear of failure. Fear of losing control. Fear of abandonment. Fear of insecurity.

What the passage you mentioned says to me is that if we are to embrace each other’s weakness and failties, understand each other’s mistakes and failures, and know that we are not all that different; then we can begin to be free from fear and free from sin. The forgiveness comes from the freedom of knowing that we are not perfect, and we don’t have to be. If we are free to forgive others, then we can be free to forgive ourselves.

Hoverfrog

God is older than Christianity, Judaism, the human race, etc so I assume that God was at work before hand as well.

Hoverfrog

The heaven’s declare God’s handiwork says the psalmist. Folks have been engaging, writing, singing, developing rituals about the source of life, of value, of good before my religion was around. Maybe that’s because God was being “revealed” for all that time?

hoverfrog

A few thoughts come to mind

a. There is a difference between descriptions of God and God.
b. I’m a monotheist meaning I believe in one God
c. I’m a theist meaning I believe that God is the creator, source of existence

If we go with these (and that could be for a different discussion if you like) God has had some dealings with humans, just by virtue of being the creator. Being the source of all that is, means that God’s been doing this longer than humans have been around.

Because there is only one God, that means there can’t be a Christian God or a Muslim God, etc.There are only differing descriptions of God from various traditions over time. God was prior to those descriptions and if these religions were to die out, God would still be.

I don’t think I’m making a controverial claim, within the logic of theism. As far as I can tell, if you let those things go, it’s theism that would suffer. Making God the handmaiden of us and our descriptions, and not a reality that is wider than any of us would be the result.

OK Dwight, Linda, I understand what you’re saying and perhaps the comment about citing a passage was a little off. However I am after some evidence to support your beliefs. As far as I know there is no evidence that the world (or the universe) was created at all. Saying it was without evidence is precisely like making up a story to explain something that you don’t understand. I don’t blame you. I don’t understand the forces involved in forming our universe. At best my understanding could be described as ‘vague’ or ‘incomplete’.

OK Dwight you say that God has had some dealings with humans but why would a being capable of creating…well everything…bother with superstitious apes who walk on two legs and can barely go a day without trying to murder one another. Humanity would simply be beneath god’s notice. I can just about accept that there is a possibility of a creator intelligence (just about) but surely such a being has better things to do than notice humans except perhaps as a plague.

@Linda,

The thing about truth is that it doesn’t need to be validated with a reference and proven with an evidence.

I’m afraid that it does. Truth doesn’t care what your opinion is (or mine) it simply is. We validate the truth through testing and certainly reference other sources of evidence to determine the veracity of a given idea. We do not simply make something up and say: This is truth. Or read something and accept it without exploring it. OK, you have the freedom to make that choice if you wish but it sounds a bit unreliable to me. How on Earth can you ever know if you’re right or alter your viewpoint if you are shown to be wrong?

Yes, maybe I can agree that truth in science does. But spritual truth doesn’t. I was trying to point out that in spiritual matters, no one can tell or convince another person what is true regardless of what credentials or magical tricks they have up their sleeve. It’s sad that so many blindly follow another and fail to search for truth for themselves. I want to put my sights on things above, things outside of what can be seen and heard with human eyes and ears, and that is where my hope and faith lie. Looking beyond the obvious and finding the small meanings in every speck of dust and every moment in time, and then imagining how it could all fit in to the big picture makes life exiciting. Even the most horrific events become bearable. And life itself becomes precious and well worth putting every effort into making the most of every moment. Not only our own lives, but lives of every other human being that we come in contact with. Nothing and no one goes un-noticed or dismissed as unimportant.

Religion or a belief in a supernatural “God” isn’t required to appreciate the little things in life.

No… I wasn’t talking about truth in science. I was talking about life. Then again, I’m a hopeless idealist.

You aren’t alone.

BTW, I like your blog.. it’s nice… clean, simple, and… green.

and grumpy. Don’t forget gumpy/

I’m probably going to regret this but you say that your understanding of God is incomplete in a similar way to my understanding of the formation of the universe is incomplete. With my incomplete knowledge I can always get a book and read up on the subject, study a bit, take some advanced astrophysics classes, buy a telescope, etc till I’m an expert.

With God you have a really old book that’s been edited and translated so many times that there’s more to argue about in the translations than their is in the content. You can’t even go back to the original because they no longer exist (if they ever did). You just have the Greek translations. In historical study this is called tertiary evidence.

In case you’re not familiar with the levels of evidence in historical study I’ll list them here.

Primary sources are original materials. They are from the time period involved and have not been filtered through interpretation. For example records of the Roman Census of 6AD.
Secondary sources are accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. They are interpretations and evaluations of primary sources. Secondary sources are not evidence, but rather commentary on and discussion of evidence. The original Bible books could have been called secondary evidence if it existed.
Tertiary sources consist of information which is a distillation and collection of primary and secondary sources. For example the King James Bible.

My point is that an understanding of the Christian God is limited to the source material which is a very poor source of information and to personal experience which is also a very poor source of information.

But I do believe there is an importance in responding to such forces

What forces? Do you mean supernatural forces? In order to properly respond to these you’d first need to understand them. For instance a ghost making it’s presence known would need to do so in such a way as to be different from a draft of cold air or a dust particle reflecting light. It would need to be able to repeat the supernatural force so that the response can be properly gauged. For the record I don’t believe in ghosts either.

Well such humans developed rituals (isn’t there graveyards for instance for Neanderthal?), some recongition of a world wider than their immediate environment.

It’s true that primitive man interred their dead and may well have included gifts for an afterlife but this in itself isn’t evidence of an afterlife. Merely primitive superstition.

I don’t think humans are beneath God.

For what it’s worth neither do I but only because I believe that God is an invention of man.

Just to expand a bit: if we are looking for what makes for good, what makes for life, what makes for living well together, we’re going to want to look at as many resources, disciplines, traditions as we can. It’s a shame when some resources are shut off by people (evangelicals scared of the sciences, some atheists who are dismissive of religious traditions, anyone who is scared of new knowledge and learning)

“My point is that an understanding of the Christian God is limited to the source material which is a very poor source of information”

I would argue that any source of knowledge that increases our understanding of this world, from religious traditions to the modern sciences increases our knowledge of the God of the universe.

Well said Dwight. As they say at my alma mater: “All truth is God’s truth.” In other words, everything is our source material. Scientific truth (or any other kind of truth) is as much part of it as the Bible is.

hoverfrog,

That’s really a tough question. I thought about it, and I wrote a poem for you:

I used to define him as love
But that seemed no longer enough
I defined him as the truth
But what exactly is Truth?
I thought maybe the universe
The endless – limitless – infinite
Yet it seems somehow limited
to describe the indescribable

Oh so many have attempted
since the beginning of time
to put a face, a voice, a name
to who, the what, the one, the all
The one who holds the meaning
to the nothing and the everything
Though we search, knowledge remains
forever just beyond our reach

Yeah, I know… it’s poorly written, but it sums up my ever-searching-for-answers state of mind. I guess it all boils down to faith and hope. Faith in whatever will reveal itself next, being completely open to it; and hope that whatever it is will be much bigger than what I had ever hoped for.

Sorry if I don’t make any sense. I’ve been accused of that before.

—————————————————————
hoverFrog said,

December 26, 2007 at 4:20 am

I’m probably going to regret this but you say that your understanding of God is incomplete in a similar way to my understanding of the formation of the universe is incomplete. With my incomplete knowledge I can always get a book and read up on the subject, study a bit, take some advanced astrophysics classes, buy a telescope, etc till I’m an expert.

With God you have a really old book that’s been edited and translated so many times that there’s more to argue about in the translations than their is in the content. You can’t even go back to the original because they no longer exist (if they ever did). You just have the Greek translations. In historical study this is called tertiary evidence.
—————————————————————

Gee, it sounds like you have quite a grasp of the historicity of Biblical texts. Where did you study Biblical transmission and historicity? I have a NIV Bible in front of me. Exactly, how many times has it been translated?

hoverfrog,

It’s just that, to me, your faith is groundless.

Well, of course, silly! If it was grounded and based on solid evidence, then it would not be “faith.”

I require something significantly more robust in order to change my mind when reason and knowledge has served me so well in my life. I’m not going to abandon that

I would never ever want you to abandon whatever it is that makes you who you are. I would hate that, because then you would no longer be genuine. And to tell you the truth, being a Christian is not all that it’s cracked up to be. Too bad that I can’t seem to shake it off, otherwise I would – because your way seems so much easier and makes more sense to me at times…

hoverFrog said,
Honestly the Greek translations are still around so why not put all the edited out stuff back in?

Of course the main issue with the bible is not how it has been mis-translated from the original Greek, but the selection job that was done by those who made the decisions of what works should be included in the bible out of all the possible writings existing at the time.

Another issue is what was so special about that particular time in human history as opposed to times earlier or later. Why couldn’t a “bible” be assembled today out of contemporary philosophical writings with a supernatural bent? And I don’t view Revelation 22:18 &19 as being a reason not to. That was just a clever stunt. Anyone can write a couple of lines like that to the end of a bible to try to “make it stick”.

Excuse me for jumping into the conversation at this point without following everything up to this point.

hoverfrog,

“faith” should still be based on something otherwise it’s just wishful thinking.

It is based on something. It is based on evidence but not the kind that is acceptable to those who cannot believe. And faith cannot be ‘grounded,’ (at least not for me) because I have to keep myself open to take in any new surprises that God throws my way. That’s just me. I don’t expect anyone else to believe what I believe. Not anymore, anyway.

Being human in this human world and trying to hold on to something spiritual that only comes in quick (and perhaps vague) glimpses is most definitely NOT easy.

The authors’ inspiration to write came from within themselves, but not from a deity.

The diety that lives within them, called the Spirit.

What evidence?

That’s just it. It’s evidence to me and also a mystery. Something that cannot be put into words. I’ve tried many times and failed miserably. Those who have it are powerless to explain it. And those who claim they can explain it, I don’t buy it. The only thing that you can see are the fruits. For me, it has nothing to do with religion, going to church, or any of that evangelical stuff. All I know is that I’m free. You would have to have met the old me to believe the new me, and I don’t know what to do about that. You’ll just have to take my word and the testimony of those around me, just like those looney writers that wrote the Bible.

hoverFrog said,
Honestly the Greek translations are still around so why not put all the edited out stuff back in?

There is no possible way to translate Greek into English and get the exact meaning that the original writers wanted to convey. If you’ve studied Latin or any of the ancient languages, or even a current language, you would understand how difficult it is to translate from one to another and not lose something in the process.

Jeff said,

Another issue is what was so special about that particular time in human history as opposed to times earlier or later. Why couldn’t a “bible” be assembled today out of contemporary philosophical writings with a supernatural bent? And I don’t view Revelation 22:18 &19 as being a reason not to. That was just a clever stunt. Anyone can write a couple of lines like that to the end of a bible to try to “make it stick”.

Jeff, I found a great link (disclaimer: I don’t know them) and it’s pretty much how I see the book of Revelation, and possibly others as well. You always have to keep in mind when and to whom the words were written, and why… what was happening at that time in history among those people that they would need those words… etc…

Here’s the link: http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/Rev/revelation.htm

Yes, I thought the testimony/teste thing was funny when I heard it too. I’ve heard it more than once from scholars.

It’s really hard to concentrate while watching “Chuck and Larry” with the kids, but here it goes:

hoverfrog said,

The ‘evidence’ for your faith that you spoke of, is it personal experience? I ask because that’s up there with the very worst kinds of evidence that there are. It comes just before hearsay and innuendo.

Personal experience + confirmation from the scripture + sharing with others with similar experiences = belief & faith & hope for more to come. And yes, I agree it is the worst kind of evidence, because I can’t prove it. But then there is that Latin phrase: Res Ipsa Loquitur. It describes evidence in a courtroom. I adopted it as my #1 motto. I don’t want to attempt to produce evidence, because I know I can’t. I just try to become it. I just say, “This is who I have become,” and be as genuine and real as I can be, and not be afraid to fall on my face and look foolish on occasion. Who will deny me that?

Having said that, if it works for you then who am I to judge you for it? *grabs balls*

Hold right there! Keep your hands up where I can see them! This is for your own protection!

Linda *hands up* forgive me for saying this but that sounds awfully tenuous. It seems to me that you don’t have a firm basis for your beliefs. If you reevaluate your experiences or a part of scripture is shown to be wrong doesn’t that cause you to question your faith? I suppose what I’m saying is that the “transformation” of you into the person that you are today does not require a theistic belief system. Is it not possible that a grounded philosophy could have served just as well but been more stable in the long term?

Dwight, they sound like good reasons to adhere to a political viewpoint or a philosophy but you’re talking about a leap beyond that. Beyond an idea to an actual being. I think that this is the key problem that I have with theism. You have some essentially good ideas in Christianity (be excellent to each other, don’t overindulge, don’t bother with stupid traditions) but then go and make a belief system of it that limits you from building on the ideas that started the whole thing in the first place.

Mriana you are an amazing resource.

Did you know testimony had to do with men’s testes? Yes, when they made a statement, they would grab their testes because if it were not true, they’d be ripped off him. Thus the name testimony.

Finally a way for atheists in court or taking public office to swear on something with credibility! Forget swearing on the Constitution or law or science books. The original tradition of swearing on something meant that you authorized whatever you swore on to be taken away from you if you were false. So swearing on your mother’s honor or on your life meant that was what you were putting up as collateral. Can you imagine someone holding a handful of their own private parts on the witness stand or in front of one’s constituency as they are sworn in? Gonads would probably be a lot more convincing of someone’s sincerity than a Bible.

Now for female atheists, trying to grab their own ovaries would probably not have the same dramatic effect, so maybe they could swear on Leonidas chocolate.

Richard Wade said,

maybe they could swear on Leonidas chocolate.

NOOOO!! Not the chocolate! Don’t yank the chocolate from me! I sware I’ll be good and never tell another lie!

Vincent, I have no idea what you are referring too, even though I went back in the thread to figure it out and could not.

Monkeymind and Arlen:
You seem to be discussing the issue of biblical literalism. The progressive view is that nothing in the bible can be taken literally, and I think one or both of you may have this view. Harris nods to the fundamentalists because they are consistent. They say the bible is the literal truth, from Genesis 1 to Revelations.
Most Christians I think believe that the OT is mythical/metaphorical while the NT is true but with some errors in the transcription. Harris sees this as inconsistent: either the bible is the word of god or it is not.

Your description of the options is too “all or nothing” Vincent. While most fundamentalists do say that the whole Bible is “literal”, most progressives do not say that none of it is. Most progressives who have studied the issue would say that “entirely literal” vs. “entirely mythical/metaphorical” is a false dichotomy.

The problem with taking an all or nothing view is that the Bible isn’t a single document. It is a compilation of many different literary genres created over the space of centuries. A far more intelligent approach to the Bible is to understand each genre according to the rules that pertain to that genre and according to it’s historical context. Some of it will be interpreted “literally”, some of it will be interpreted in other ways. That is not “inconsistent”, it is simply consistent to the rules of literary interpretation. Harris’ (and the Fundamentalists’) suggestion that it ought to all be read in exactly the same way is exceedingly naive and unscholarly. It’s comments like this that really make me wonder if Harris has any clue what he’s talking about. How does one study English at Stanford and get a degree in Philosophy and yet not understand basic hermeneutics?

Vincent, I don’t hold a brief for any definition of christianity. I also think you’ve been very clear that you are not implying any sort of judgment about anyone. My objection to how some critics of religion seem to be really offended by or contemptuous of christians who don’t claim a “literal” belief in the Bible. And my problem with that is that many of these so-called literal believers are quite selective in their interpretation of the Bible, they just pick out the bits that will support their harsh judgmental worldview. To me, it’s offensive for Sam Harris to say that fundamentalists “really believe” and chrisitians with more generous worldviews have “watered down” beliefs. Is a guy who claims literal belief in the Bible, and adheres strictly to the fundie’s narrow version of morality, more of a true believer than someone in the catholic worker movement who has undertaken voluntary poverty and service to the poor?

Vincent said:

how do you determine when god meant for you to read a passage as literal and when not; when to obey a commandment and when it’s optional, etc. etc.

If I may insert my two cents here…

The way I see it, understand it, and believe it, the Bible is not meant to be taken apart in bits and pieces. The many books in the OT, as well as the NT, are intricately woven together with the four books of the gospel as the ribbon that binds them. It’s to be taken as a whole. One giant materpiece.

If you have not read a piece of literature in its entirety and you do not understand the main theme and the message the author is trying to convey, it is useless to discuss individual chapters or singular ideas represented therein.

All of you are avid readers. You should understand this concept better than anyone.

The scripture is NOT a book of rules, commandments, and instructions. It’s not a ‘how-to’ guide. From the very first page to the very last, it is about one thing and one thing only — Christ. Christ as God, Christ as Man, and Christ as Spirit. You can take that as the truth or just a story. That is the choice we have.

At the same time, I believe there is so much more to the mystery of the divine than just one book.

Claire said,

Ok, then – which whole? Considering that which books belong and which don’t is still a different list depending on the religion.

It’s not how many books that’s important as the same thread that connects them to the whole. The whole being the concept of Christ.

Yes, if there is a single author, but that’s not the case here. This collection of writings spans centuries, why shouldn’t it be legitimate to look at the pieces separately?

As Christians believe that the scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, there is only one author – written by people but authored by God. But that’s the amazing thing with the many books. Although the writings span centuries and written by various people, they all somehow fit together to make one book, and they all point to one theme, one God, one Christ.

Also, if viewing it as a whole is the only way it can be discussed, that’s a conversation stopper.

The whole concept of Christianity is based on Christ. The Bible, and all books therein, is about Christ. All I meant was that one has to understand who, what, where, and why of Christ and God’s unconditional and unfailing love as the main theme in order to understand the separate passages that may come up for discussion.

I don’t believe in the single author you postulate, so I can’t discuss it on that basis. It’s a compendium of ancient writings, which could be examined book by book, but to insist that the only way to look at it is as a whole, when to me it so clearly isn’t, means that we can never discuss the same book.

So you would rather discuss it with the hard-core evangelical fundies who take everything apart to take each word literally? I don’t even claim to know the scripture all that well, so I agree that we can never discuss the same book if the only interest is in dissecting it. That may work very well in science, as that’s what sciecne is all about, but you cannot apply that principle to things that are spiritual. Not always. But I understand that you don’t agree, and that’s fine.

Hi Linda,

You wrote,

The Bible, and all books therein, is about Christ.

I think Jewish rabbis and scholars would disagree with that statement. How can you be sure they are wrong?

NYCatheist, you asked

I think Jewish rabbis and scholars would disagree with that statement. How can you be sure they are wrong?

I’m not so sure that they would disagree. I said “Christ.”

Definition of Christ:

anointed, the Greek translation of the Hebrew word rendered “Messiah” (q.v.), the official title of our Lord, occurring five hundred and fourteen times in the New Testament. It denotes that he was anointed or consecrated to his great redemptive work as Prophet, Priest, and King of his people. He is thus spoken of by Isaiah (61:1), and by Daniel (9:24-26), who styles him “Messiah the Prince.”
The Messiah is the same person as “the seed of the woman” (Gen. 3:15), “the seed of Abraham” (Gen. 22:18), the “Prophet like unto Moses” (Deut. 18:15), “the priest after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4), “the rod out of the stem of Jesse” (Isa. 11:1, 10), the “Immanuel,” the virgin’s son (Isa. 7:14), “the branch of Jehovah” (Isa. 4:2), and “the messenger of the covenant” (Mal. 3:1). This is he “of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write.” The Old Testament Scripture is full of prophetic declarations regarding the Great Deliverer and the work he was to accomplish.

Christians believe that Jesus was and is Christ. The Jewish scholars would agree with the concept of the Messiah. They just don’t think it was Jesus. At least that’s how I understand it. Please correct me if I’m wrong, because I have been wrong once or twice before.

Linda said,

January 3, 2008 at 10:02 am

Mriana,

I’m wrong in saying that the concept of Christianity is based on Christ? That’s like saying the concept of Humanism is not based on Humans.

No, Humanism is based on the human, as well as science, but Christianity, more specifically, Christ, is rewritten myth. There was the Joshua cult (the name Joshua is the origin of Jesus), Mithra, Horus/Osiris, Krishna (another form of Christ, Krista, Kristos, etc), the list goes on an on. The blending and rewriting all these was an attempt to unify people into one religion (or rather mythology). The only difference is in the name and the fact it is directed to a different culture.

Regardless if you want to believe that or not, the gospels were written according to the Hebrew liturgical calendar and is a series of midrashes (specifically Moses and Elijah) from the OT. There never was a historical Jesus or IF there ever was, the man is so buried in myth that his true personhood is lost.

Humanism is not based on previous myths or any myths for that matter. It’s based on science and the human.

the central theme of the Hebrew Bible is about the relationship between the Jewish people and Yahweh. Also I don’t think the Jews conceive their messiah as being a literal son or embodiment of Yahweh.

That’s the way I understand it too. And while Moses led them out of bondage, he also led them into a new age- away from the bull (Ba’al) and into the ram (YHWH). The sacrificial Passover before they went into the wilderness was a lamb and it’s blood (as we know) was placed on the doorframe. This is what is happening in the Last Supper (it was the Passover dinner)- the disciples are symbolism for the 12 tribes and the door frames. Jesus was the sacrificial lamb, but he played a duel role in that he was also moving them from one age to another- the ram to the fish (thus the fish symbol).

The first Christians didn’t view Jesus as the literal son of God either. In fact, they did not see Jesus as a real man, but more spiritual not literal, but docetism was one of the beliefs that was eventually squished. However, Paul displays some docetism though.

Mariana said:

No, Humanism is based on the human, as well as science, but Christianity, more specifically, Christ, is rewritten myth.

I know you say that the story of Jesus is a myth. I wasn’t arguing the point of validity. I was merely saying that the belief that Christians have is based on Christ. Not right or wrong. Just that it is.

If I told you that I have a headache and you took x-rays, C-scans, and whatever other tests available to find nothing wrong; would you then say that my headache is not valid? Just because you don’t feel the same ache does not prove that I don’t have mine.

It seems somehow wrong to use a headache as an analogy for my beliefs… but oh well. :shrug:

This is straying into other Judaism that I’m not overly familiar with but I’d like to add one thing. The identity of Jesus in Islam is that of a true prophet of God, whose message has been corrupted, in Judaism he is considered a false prophet and in Christianity he is considered the Son of God, God incarnate, savior of the world, all round good egg. All three faiths being Abrahamic in origin but diverging on key points.

Christianity is based on the character of Christ as portrayed in the New Testament. The fact that the evidence for the existence of such a person is suspect never really bothered Christians so why should it bother atheists? As an atheist I view the Bible as a fiction inspired by stories of a “saviour” and embellished and edited by successive generations of men (not women though). This saviour may well have been a conglomeration of several real people, one real person or a made up fiction. A Christian may very well view it as a book based on the life of one very real person. Historical evidence does not favour any particular view to my limited knowledge. For a timeline of Christianity have a look on Religion Facts.

As an atheist does it matter if Jesus was a real person who is credited with the miracles of the New Testament? Not at all because I do not believe that the miracles actually occurred or that the texts are in any way reliable as evidence or as a moral compass.

Where the “all or nothing” does come in though is in the question of whether this book (and not another) was inspired by God.
Either it was or it wasn’t. There’s no 3rd option.
So if you take the assumption that it was, how do you determine when god meant for you to read a passage as literal and when not; when to obey a commandment and when it’s optional, etc. etc.

The same way that you would if it isn’t inspired. Divine inspiration of a text doesn’t change the rules of literary interpretation. As far as I’m concerned, God is at least as capable of writing (or inspiring) a book composed of multiple literary genres as anyone else is.

And I have a high enough view of human intelligence to think that most of the time we’re smart enough to figure out which genre is which and interpret it accordingly – if we actually bother to that is.

NYCatheist,

However, as you know, it is the nature of my personality not to believe certain ideas just because I like them.

Well, of course. I would lose all respect for people who would believe something so easily. That’s how religion started, no?

Don:

Why do I need Jesus to die for my sins when in Matt 6:14 it says that God will forgive me when I forgive other peoples sins against me?

First, I don’t think too much forgiveness is a bad thing. Second, I’m not sure that Jesus needed to die. By declaring his death to be forgiveness, he made an incredibly profound and subversive statement that what may be our greatest sin as a human race (the murder of the blameless agent of God) should be remembered as the symbol of how much we are forgiven. I’m not a person easily given to religious fervor, but it’s pretty cool to think that our forgiveness is equal to or greater than the injustice and horror of Jesus’ murder.

We are called to forgive other people in the same way that Jesus forgave us. Maybe that’s because it makes God more inclined to forgive us, or maybe it’s because a world in which people forgive one another is more loving and just than a world in which everyone is out for revenge. Maybe you could think of Jesus’/God’s forgiveness as a metaphysical concept and our forgiveness of one another as a more practical one. Both are important.

Mriana:

Our beliefs and ideas develop, change, and grow for as long as we live—as long as we continue to think for ourselves, evaluate and re-evaluate our ideas/beliefs, and come to our own conclusions.

I couldn’t agree more. Reason is not the opposite of faith by any means, and I hope that no one feels that questioning one’s own beliefs is a form of blasphemy.

Austin:

To truely understand the Bible you have to understand the context of which Jesus was speaking. Jesus says all kinds of things that, when taken out of context, sound contradictory. However, when you tie a statement to the context of a conversation you get meaning.

Well put. Historical context is every bit as important to understanding a text as literary context; too often, folks forget to examine both or either.

hoverFrog:

Given that the human race has existed for so long, what took God\Jesus so long to get round to “saving” His children?

According to Christian tradition, God has been trying to set us straight in different ways and with different levels of intensity going as far back as the beginning. I don’t take the creation story in Genesis literally, but it’s interesting to note that God initially wanted everything to be perfect and easy for humanity; humanity rejected that. God later decided to let the people have more freedom in living their lives, but gave them a code of law to follow; the people perverted it. God then regrouped and decided to show us how we ought to live by giving us an example, Jesus; we killed him. God finally showed us the extent of God’s love and forgiveness by bringing Jesus back briefly and leaving humanity a permanent “paraclete” (a consoler or advocate) in the Holy Spirit.
Why didn’t God do anything in the interim between creation and Abraham? Maybe God was still pissed at us, I don’t know. It’s an impossible question to answer. No one can know.

Linda:

In your mind, what does it exactly mean to “love” God, and what does the expression of that love look like? And how do you “learn” it?

I think the act of loving and the expression of that love are fairly inseparable. It looks like following the example of Jesus to the best of our abilities by loving, forgiving, and embracing one another on Earth and doing what we can to glorify and honor God. I think that we can learn how to do this by learning as much as we can about Jesus (so that we can more successfully emulate him) and then carefully taking stock of our own actions. If the things that we do as we attempt to follow Jesus’ example aren’t resulting in more love and more justice, we probably need to reexamine them to determine whether they are really very Christlike.

hoverFrog:

Besides which you really need to cite an actual Biblical passage or I’m forced to conclude that you have simply made it up.

That’s the exact argument that a literalist/fundamentalist would use. Most Christians lean on reason, experience, and tradition in addition to scripture. Besides, don’t you think it’s a little silly to ask a question that is impossible to answer about a being in which you don’t believe and then demand evidence that doesn’t exist from a source that you don’t trust?

All:
More later. Sorry I haven’t been around for a while. I was traveling for Christmas.

Mriana:

There is no consistency in religious beliefs in Christianity.

Are you sure that you aren’t missing the forest for the trees here? Sure there are zillions of Christian denominations; I’ll bet that you’d be hard-pressed to find two Christians who have exactly the same beliefs across the board. I’d say that, within reason, that’s a good thing. I think it keeps us all thinking about things we might otherwise never think to think about.

The cool thing about Christianity is that it wasn’t given to us with a whole lot of doctrine or laws attached. We just have this guy. A really nice guy who lived a really long time ago that we are called to emulate. Around that simple example, Christians have (had to?) build an entire religion! It’s only natural that we might squabble a bit over the parts that we really didn’t get any direction on.

monkeymind:

To me, it’s offensive for Sam Harris to say that fundamentalists “really believe” and chrisitians with more generous worldviews have “watered down” beliefs.

I agree. Just look at that “Year of Living Biblically” guy to see what fundamentalists would look like if they weren’t picking and choosing.

Vincent:

Where the “all or nothing” does come in though is in the question of whether this book (and not another) was inspired by God. Either it was or it wasn’t. There’s no 3rd option.

Was David McCullough’s biography John Adams inspired by John Adams? There’s your answer.

Linda:

The way I see it, understand it, and believe it, the Bible is not meant to be taken apart in bits and pieces.

I’m going to respectfully note my disagreement with this point. While the Bible certainly has a common subject matter, I think there is also value in seeing the pieces as independent of one another.

As Christians believe that the scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, there is only one author – written by people but authored by God.

Again, I’m going to respectfully distance myself from this stance a bit.

The whole concept of Christianity is based on Christ. The Bible, and all books therein, is about Christ.

While I’m on a roll here, I’m just going to insert that I tend to see the Bible as being more about God than about Jesus/Christ, but I’m not itching for a fight on the subject.

Yahweh remains far removed and separate from man. (A pie in the sky, if you will.) … The Christian God, the way I see it, is more like a lover.

Here I’d just like to distance myself from the idea of God as a cosmic love-pie. That’s both creepy and disgusting, and if it were true we’d all be emulating Jason Biggs instead of Jesus. Ewww.

hoverFrog:

Jesus in the bible stories always led by example. I wish that rather than evangelize and attempt to convert and save us they would be a shining example of goodness and tolerance that they claim that their messiah was.

I agree completely.

One more thing Arlen. That must have taken you ages. Well done for the dedication on catching up.

Not to be too argumentative but your hypothesis is that God probably made the universe where as atheists as a group (if such a thing could be said to exist) simply don’t have an hypothesis. Instead we say: I think you’re wrong as your hypothesis has not basis in evidence.

“Atheism” per se might not propose an alternative hypothesis, but most atheists themselves do have a hypothesis – most commonly the hypothesis of Naturalism (if there are atheists who don’t believe in God but are also not Naturalists I’ve never met any and I’m not sure what they would believe in). Naturalism is a metaphysical hypothesis about the origins and nature of this universe that is based on just as much or just as little evidence as Theism.

Mriana, I’ve not participated in this due to having no questions to ask Christians and not being one myself but naturalism is as much belief as supernaturalism, it cannot be confirmed or denied by any objective means and its assertion as knowledge is entirely dishonest. This is especially true when that knowledge is asserted by people who deny honest believers in other things the right to their belief. You know some of the folks I mean. They depend just as much on the ignorance of many people as religious fundamentalists in gaining converts. Reality is hard, orthodoxy is easy, most people go for what’s easy.

No, Mike, I wasn’t talking about the New A