I came across an interesting post written by a thoughtful Christian who has moved beyond a literalist, fundamentalist mindset regarding the Bible as the inspired, revealed word of God. Here are some highlights (although you probably should read the whole post, in order to understand the context from which these bits are excerpted – the comments are worth reading too):
The question of whether the Bible is God’s word is not a new one…. There are certainly a number of things which seem “wrong” if we are to take a literal understanding….Yes, genetics has confirmed that we are all related through mitochondrial DNA – but this does not mean one person; it means one small group of people (who were located somewhere in Africa). It also assumes that humanity is hundreds of thousands of years old, which means we need to accept, at least in part, the theory of evolution….
Suddenly, we find ourselves in the position of looking at the Bible and deciding which parts are to be taken literally, which parts are to be taken allegorically, and which parts are to be understood as no longer applying to us because they have “been fulfilled in Christ.” This is a very dangerous thing to do. Once we start doing that, what difference is there between Christianity and any other man-made religion?
…the Bible has been used to say whatever man wants it to say…and so justify anything we want it to.
His conclusion is this:
The Bible is not The Word of God; it is commentary on The Word of God. It is fallible and open to interpretation. It gives us a historical understanding of how men and women have understood God and salvation. It must continue to change and evolve. If it doesn’t, then – as all things which do not change and grow – it is dead and has no power.
I applaud this author’s honesty in recognizing that certain portions of the Bible, taken literally, do not comport with what we in the 21st century understand about the world. He is rational enough to recognize that the fundamentalist “old time religion” simply doesn’t make sense in the contemporary world. On the one hand, I applaud his recognition that the theory of evolution must be taken seriously. On the other hand, I don’t know which parts of the theory he wants to keep and which parts he wants to discard, nor do I know why he wants only bits and pieces of the theory rather than the whole. I also applaud his honesty in acknowledging that people have used the Bible to justify things that simply are not justifiable (except, it seems, under the auspices of religion).
Having said all that, I must note that his conclusion expresses – unintentionally, I’m sure – precisely what is wrong with liberal Christianity. What does it mean to say that, rather than being the direct word of God, the Bible is simply commentary on The Word of God? How can the Bible make any sense as commentary unless one has an original “word” to compare with it? Moreover, if one accepts his premise, then why is the Bible any more authoritative than anyone else’s commentary? To take another tack, if the author is obliquely referring to Jesus as the real Word of God, his sentiment is still nonsensical. The Bible is our only source for learning anything about the alleged life, acts and words of Jesus. If it is only commentary, rather than revelation, then we are no closer to getting direct communications from God, either through scripture or through Jesus. Furthermore, the Bible itself cannot “change and evolve over time.” It is a set collection of writings. It is interpretations of the text that have evolved, not the text itself. Let me amend that. Scholarship in the past couple of centuries has revealed – to the chagrin of many believers – that the biblical texts have changed over time (although they shouldn’t have), which is one of the reasons that the question of infallibility arises in the first place. Still, comparatively speaking, the biblical text has remained relatively static for two millenia, while interpretations of the text have changed substantially throughout that period.
I agree with the author that the Bible is fallible and open to interpretation. I also agree with him that the Bible simply “gives us a historical understanding of how men and women have understood God and salvation.” If one accepts those things, then how does one determine whether those understandings are right, meaningful, misguided, dangerous or evil? How can the author support claims that his interpretation of the Bible is the right one, but another interpretation, i.e., a misogynist one (which he rejects), is wrong? The reality is this: when one seeks to determine which biblical interpretations trump the others, one inevitably turns to sources other than the Bible. That being the case, why not simply dispense with the Bible completely, or at least relegate it to a much lower level of authority?
If the foundational book upon which a religion is founded is acknowledged to be nothing more than a collection of human writings, then the answer to the author’s question, “what difference is there between Christianity and any other man-made religion?” is simple: there is none. Christianity, like all other religions, is solely the product of human imagination, a completely human phenomenon. Once one dispenses with the notion that the Bible is a specially inspired, direct revelation from God – and one must, given the numerous textual and factual errors, as well as contradictions, that litter the Bible from cover to cover – then one must accept that the Bible’s teachings are no more authoritative, inspired or inspirational than the teachings that have come from the pens of many others. This author is free, of course, to continue his pursuit of god-belief and understanding of his Christian creed, but, I can’t help wondering why he bothers. Life is plenty rich and fulfilling without the clutter of religious dogma. Maybe, if he’s willing to be honest with himself, this Christian author will discover that for himself.
– the chaplain
Dwight
March 4, 2009 at 9:35 pm
As a liberal protestant myself; here’s my stab at the question.
-Presumably determining the good in life, the wise would be of a similar basis as how you would go about the same question. The difference is we’re engaging a particular story, the resources of a given tradition. What is revelatory, we couldn’t be dead certain but whatever points to life, to community, to well being, etc. in the tradition tells us something about God.
-Could other traditions do likewise? Yes. But this is our story. It doesn’t mean there aren’t other good stories. It does mean this is the one we’ve been shaped by, our imaginations caught by. And from it, we get the good the bad the ugly. If you think of it like family, we can recognize the value of other families and recognize something uniquely valuable, important to our self constitution in our family. They don’t simply get replaced even if we recognize there are other loving families.
-There is no “clutter free” zone, no place where we escape our history. It’s a question of what tradition to engage and why. No story is not uncomplicated, problematic, including that of the western enlightenment. So there isn’t an easier route. There’s much to commend western humanism but being easier is not one of them. Nor should it be. Otherwise it wouldn’t be true to life and it’s own history.
Brian
March 5, 2009 at 3:03 am
When I first started doubting my beliefs, but before I had left the church I came up with this whole idea that the bible wasn’t the “Word of God”, it was the “Word on God”. That is, the bible was merely the thoughts and writings of men who had experienced god in their lives and were recounting those experiences.
That kept me satisfied for about two weeks until I realized that if the bible was not the actual Word of God, then it had no authority and no reason to trust it any more than any other book. I started realizing that I disagreed with whole sections of the bible and that my own ideas about god were just as relevant and authoritative as those of the bible’s authors.
Lorena
March 5, 2009 at 4:06 am
I agree with you that his conclusion is non-nonsensical. At least that was my impression when I read it. A commentary on the word of God? What is that supposed to mean?
To me it means that the writer is still confused and may very well, as you point out, keep learning until he reaches the conclusion some of us have reached and that you so well summarize:
Life is plenty rich and fulfilling without the clutter of religious dogma.
I believe the Bible reflects the view of two groups of people–Hebrews and early Christians–regarding the unknown which they attributed to the workings of their invisible God.
yunshui
March 5, 2009 at 5:45 am
The problem for liberal Christians is not only that they get into difficulties as soon as they start trying to discern which bits of the Bible are “true”, which are “allegorical” and which are “of their time”, but that their acceptance of the religion, with or without Biblical support, unintentionally legitimises Biblical literalists (as well as any other religious position). The moment you state, “I believe in a god,” whether you underscore that belief with textual evidence or not, you are essentially saying, “belief is a valid path to truth.” Once that can of worms is opened, you have no recourse against others who say, “well, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster,” since you’ve already established that pure faith is your only criterion for determining reality.
In fact, I have more respect in some ways for the fundies who claim every word of the Bible is true. At least they can cite evidence for their beliefs – weak, useless, flawed, archaic, disproved evidence, yes, but at least they have something they can point to and say, “this is why I’m a Christian.” Liberal Christians don’t even have that.
(Shameless self-linkage alert – I blogged about this idea in more detail here)
Matteo
June 10, 2009 at 7:11 am
I’m confused as to why one might respect the fundamentalist Christian, who doesn’t seem interested in resolving the apparent contradictions in the Bible. Fundamentalists claims to love Jesus but rarely preach or live by what he taught. They seem more interested in focusing on Paulian Christian beliefs and the notion of the Old Testament “fire and brimstone” God. After studying the Bible myself, it seems that Jesus was truly an oasis in wasteland. The Old Testament is filled with scriptural passages that are filled with unChristian beliefs of violence, hatred, prejudice, which is heavily relied upon “loving” Christians. The books of the New Testament, following the Gospels, outlines the formation of a church, which I truly wonder if Jesus ever intended. Remember, Jesus was a rabbi, a Jew, who believed in Jewish tradition and practices. The allusions made to Peter being the founder of his church seems sketchy. And then Paul shows up and seems to contradict what Jesus taught. Here we see the beginnings of Christianity, which is a religion about Jesus, not of Jesus.
I believe the Bible to be God-inspired but flawed. If one were to not pick and choose, which everyone does, then the only true Christian would be one who slays people in a very calculated fashion, while claiming to love them and doing what’s best for them. A more fundamental view of the the Christian God would be a being who claims to love its creation, while it physically abusing them at the same time, all the while telling them that they’re beating them for their own good. Like a neglectful, abusive parent. Is that what we should respect?
I take scripture with a grain of salt, with the most explicit, fundamental Truths that Jesus outlined. While he didn’t always say anything clearly, he was challenging us to work hard to understand what he said, like any Zen master or guru would do. He’s making us earn our success at life. And he also knows that we’re trying and will probably fail. Like any good teacher, he knows the effort is what counts.
Tim
March 5, 2009 at 6:35 am
what is wrong with liberal Christianity.
Sounds to me like you have room to explore some more before calling it wrong.
What does it mean to say that, rather than being the direct word of God, the Bible is simply commentary on The Word of God?
I hesitate to claim to understand exactly what the original author meant by that phrase, but for me, it means much what it says; there is “the word of God” which is the Christ phenomenon, the ongoing creation and forming of the Universe and the processes therein; and there is commentary on it, which is people’s attempts to explain this God “thing”. See how in the early OT, God was a “superman”, an invisible friend invoked as cause or saviour? See how Greeks thought of God as a transcendent concept, unchanging, perfect, remote (cf Logos)? In John’s gospel we see claims that Jesus said God can be related to as “Father”. What this tells me is that people around CE30 were still playing with this idea of God; Christianity has picked-up the ball and run with it and made Trinitarianism out of it for the last nearly-2000 years. Therefore, the relevant passages of the NT encapsulate their respective ideas that were doing the rounds at the time; they are commentary.
Moreover, if one accepts his premise, then why is the Bible any more authoritative than anyone else’s commentary?
Why should it be, indeed? Big hint: I see nothing wrong with swapping ideas of God with Hindus or Muslims. The bible is the book of a tradition, a tradition that starts around 1000 BCE with the emergence of a tribe from the wilderness, writing their own tribal myths, and continues through a study of God. It is one such tradition, and there are others (Jews have done their own thing, including forking a mystical Kabbalistic branch around the 12/13th centuries, for example). Where it rings true, all to the good. Where you can pull something meaningful out of it, applicable to today, even better. But you can’t claim it to be the sole source of truth in the universe.
Mike aka MonolithTMA
March 5, 2009 at 6:48 am
The writer is definitely not conservative, but he’s moderate compared to some liberal Christians. Some see the bible as one of many attempts to comprehend God, and in fact no greater than other works.
Tim
March 5, 2009 at 6:51 am
Some see the bible as one of many attempts to comprehend God, and in fact no greater than other works.
I think the question is, why should it be any better than any others? Note that “because it says so itself” is *not* an answer.
Putting it another way, when I go into a book-shop here, I see a selection of works such as Bibles in varying kinds (an important sub-point), works by the Archibishop of Canterbury, a Koran or two, maybe something about an Eastern religion such as Hinduism or Buddhism, even some studies in “atheist spirituality”. I might have £20 in my pocket; which should I buy, and why?
Mike aka MonolithTMA
March 5, 2009 at 6:56 am
Personally, I’d say read them all. I don’t think God exists, but if by some chance he does I don’t think any one source would be the ultimate source of knowledge about him/her/it. What would the liberal Christian say? Some would agree with me, some would not.
yunshui
March 5, 2009 at 7:08 am
@Tim
Sounds to me like you think religion is something you can just make up as you go along. That’s fine with me, but the problem with your Irish Stew approach to faith is that most members of the religions you cite are vehemently against the idea that anyone apart from them can possibly know the “truth” of God; so much so that many of them will happily kill each other over it. Superficially, I should have no objection to your pic’n'mix belief system – after all, it’s not like you’re banging on my door begging me to convert – but as I previously said, your faith validates the faith of Fred Phelps, Omar Abdel-Rahman and all other religious extremists.
Mike aka MonolithTMA
March 5, 2009 at 7:17 am
One of the problems with mix and match theology is authority. Ok, so you’re a theist who has chosen from this and that religion, and as yunshui points out, you now have to deal with “loving” Christians like Fred Phelps. If, as a liberal theist, you put equal weight in all writings, which one will you use to rebuke Phelps? You’re still in the “I’m doing religion/spirituality right, and you are doing it wrong boat.” One way around that would be to side with those of us who do not think morality comes from a God.
Tim
March 5, 2009 at 7:23 am
@yunshui: Well, yes and no. Rather than “pick and mix”, I would say I’m open to radical new interpretations and understandings, and while I have my own theology, I’m also a follower of one particular tradition (fortunately in a rather liberal church!), but I believe that with intellectual honesty about the nature of truth, the right reaction is humility and listening not war. It is our duty to strive for the most peaceful charitable reading of any particular scripture and respect those who live and have lived in it.
The alternative, subscribing too deeply to one particular religion, has the risk of idolatry (projecting yourself onto “God”) or hypocrisy (most religions & scriptures err on the side of peace, so why are you waving that scimitar at me?).
Mike aka MonolithTMA
March 5, 2009 at 7:25 am
BTW, my last comment was not directed at you, Tim, rather it is at the liberal theist in general.
Tim
March 5, 2009 at 7:34 am
@Mike: Actually I’m not convinced about “theist”. If that means believing there’s some kind of invisible friend / superman onto which one heaps one’s own projections as a kind of way to avoid responsibility, then no deal. On the other hand, if it’s conceptual and experiential (eg “the spirit of the universe” (and I simplify greatly there)) then that makes me a *non-theist* (but *not* an *a*theist). Of course, if I were to argue with Mr Phelps, I’d choose a scriptural source *he* values, obviously.
Yes morality can come without God. At minimum, “is this for the good of the survival of the species?” forms a very good moral determinant. I use that along with other factors; just because it’s secular doesn’t mean it’s the only viable factor, any more than something of religious origin is solely valuable.
Mike aka MonolithTMA
March 5, 2009 at 7:55 am
@Tim
“Of course, if I were to argue with Mr Phelps, I’d choose a scriptural source *he* values, obviously.”
I would do the same.
I think I understand where you are coming from. Finding an interconnectedness in all things is somewhere between theist and atheist. My cousin teaches biology and a year ago when I sent my email about my new found non-faith he told me that was about as close as he came to being a theist.
Dwight
March 5, 2009 at 8:54 am
Let me try this again:
I don’t see any link or any reason to believe that something cannot be authoritative and uniquely important, if it isn’t seen as divine, infallible.
The example I mentioned: my family. My family is unique to me, important, but pretty obviously flawed. Even when I recognize and can learn from other families, I recognize the unique importance of my family in shaping me. Now insert the word Bible here. Same thing.
Dwight
March 5, 2009 at 8:58 am
A liberal Christian has as much proof, evidence as an atheist. That is, in thinking of whatever is moral, good, life giving, worthy, it may be that the fundie can quote a text, a liberal theist and an atheist are in the same boat of seeking to engage some moral reasoning to the situation.
bitchspot
March 5, 2009 at 12:43 pm
The problem is, a liberal theist really doesn’t have any evidence, only subjective desires and a demand that such desires have validity. Atheists simply do not believe because they have not been presented with objective evidence for the factual existence of a deity.
As soon as you start looking at the Bible, or any other “holy book” for which parts you like and which parts you’ll do away with, the question has to be raised: why keep any of it? If all of it is factually questionable, why maintain a belief in any of it and how do you determine which parts are valid and which parts are not?
In the end, all you can do is discard the parts that are obviously ridiculous and keep the parts that appeal to you on an emotional level, but that’s not a good strategy for determining factual truth, only for making yourself feel better and likely continue to believe ludicrous things.
Dwight
March 5, 2009 at 12:55 pm
How does an atheist determine what is good, what is of value, what’s worthwhile? If you can answer that you’re on your way in finding how liberal Christian can do likewise.
Is there any text or tradition that doesn’t have limits? None that I’m aware of. So do we just decide to not read and engage anything in our history? Or we try to engage in what is worthwhile in that history?
Tim
March 5, 2009 at 1:05 pm
@bitchspot: That’s an assertion. There are plenty of other things one can come away with. You don’t say what kind of a belief one might have in a scripture, for example. Restricting belief to a binary congitive assent that something happened literally and historically is a recipe for disaster – one would tend to either fundamentalist or atheist polarizations, accordingly.
Humpty Dumpty is not worthless just because it never happened, when you can say it illustrates the force of gravity. (Simplistic and slightly strained analogy, I know.) Just because whales are not fish and they don’t swallow people wholesale doesn’t mean I can’t take *something* from the story of Jonah; just it’ll be a metaphorical something, is all – something on which to meditate (normally an enjoyable experience), maybe an attitude-adjustment, something of that ilk.
Actually, biblical scholars do exist, and do study – and *test* – texts in quite some detail, in such a way that understanding evolves over time[0]. For example, given there was some historical Jesus, you can produce guidelines to assign likelihoods that Jesus actually said any of the quotes attributed to him; if it’s short&pithy then it would have survived the oral era better, whereas if it’s generic (who isn’t going to say “peace, be still” mid-storm, or “up you get” to a little girl recovering from illness?) then it’s less likely to be accurate. Likewise stuff attested by more than one independent witness is more likely to go all the way back to Jesus. This is sort of historical-method stuff, that the Jesus Seminar have done at great length, assigning colours to sayings accordingly in all 4 normal gospels and that of Thomas as well. The point is, belief is not as blind a stab-in-the-dark nor an unguided pick’n'mix as you appear to portray.
[0] I hesitate to call it a “scientific” approach given the subject-matter, but it shares at least that trait in common.
Steve
March 5, 2009 at 1:58 pm
But Dwight, liberal theists AND nontheists determine what is good, what is of value and what is worthwhile the same way.
You seem to want god to be part of the equation for no other reason than because it feels good, while the atheist doesn’t need that.
atimetorend
March 5, 2009 at 3:13 pm
chaplain: Thank you for this post, very well written. You have outlined the exact reasons I have not been able to move from conservative christianity to another, more liberal or progressive form of christianity. Leaving conservative christianity made me look very closely at these issues and keep me from being satisfied elsewhere in “the faith.”
Dwight
March 5, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Steve
God is the name in the west, historically, for the ground and source of value, of the good, of the true, of the beautiful. I do think using such language *can* solicit a sense of reverence, to use an old term, of piety. Sometimes other words and terms might be employed. But I don’t think the question of God language is as much at issue as whether it’s worthwhile to engage a particular community and it’s history and tradition or not. I obviously believe it is, in this case with Christianity. Others may not. I respect that. But the idea that we could divorce ourselves from all the bad traditions, the ones that didn’t make mistakes, I don’t what that is? I’m not sure who is trying to “feel good” in this scenario?
PhillyChief
March 5, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I don’t see what the big attraction is in trying to find god in everything. To me, that dilutes the experience of the thing you’re experiencing. Why taint art, music, and general wonder with this god idea? Go read your Humpty-Dumpty stories and so forth and gleam what you want from them. If you think they help you see or know your god, knock yourself out.
As for this so-called “liberal Christianity”, I say fine. Remove literal authority from a holy book and then maybe we don’t have to hear shit anymore based on it. Oh my, no citing the Bible for denying gay’s equal rights, women their sexual and reproductive rights, and a host of other things? Whatever will they do, argue something on its own merit? When will we get liberal Islam? I’d like to hear arguments for stonings and beheadings which don’t require looking to a holy text.
They can all drink their kool-aid all they want, any way they want, as long as it doesn’t intrude on others’ lives. No more crashing through my walls. Mix your flavors. Be my guest.
bitchspot
March 5, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Dwight: The same way anyone else does. The same way a theist does, they simply take credit for it, whereas the theist blames it on a god. Where else do you think morality comes from?
Tim: While you’re right, Humpty Dumpty never sat on a wall, or the fox in Aesop’s fable never tried to get grapes, those are stories that were never intended to be taken as factual, they exist to teach a moral story through rather ridiculous characters. It’s certainly possible to take moral lessons from the Bible, there are some worthwhile lessons to be found there, just as there are in the Vedas, the Qu’ran, and most other books. There are also a lot of really, really bad moral lessons in the Bible, things that I find it hard to imagine anyone considering positive or good or honorable. The simple fact is, that God character of yours acts like an insufferable prick throughout most of the book. You’re certainly welcome to take the Bible as a story that teaches some decent moral lessons through ridiculous characters, I might even agree with you on that to some degree, but that doesn’t make God real, it just makes him a ridiculous character in a morality play.
Kagehi
March 5, 2009 at 11:21 pm
For example, given there was some historical Jesus, you can produce guidelines to assign likelihoods that Jesus actually said any of the quotes attributed to him;
Hmm. And this is evidenced by something other than the works of people like Josephus, which tried to play up the connection between the whole Jesus story and Titus’ campaigns, and whose only “direct” mention of him is a passage near the beginning that is strongly suspected to have been added much later, or the Bible itself, or the occasional mention of Jesus and Mary, two names that where so common in the middle east during the time period that, if it was written today, would have been named John and Jane.
The premise is not given at all, its questioned strongly, and by people ranging from non-theist scholars that say there is no “contemporary” evidence of him from his own time, to people like Joseph Atwill, who goes to far as to say that the time frame in which both the New Testament and Josephus’ work appears (and in which both where being written), as well as the direct parallels in places and events, and the specific uses of identical names, makes it likely that the “new religion” was invented as both a replacement *and* inside joke, of sorts, for the masses, who wouldn’t be aware of the events of the campaign, so would fall for things like “Making you fishers of men.”, in context of a positive thing, where the campaign version had people in the boats being netted and dragged ashore, to be slaughtered, “like fish”.
Those that start from the premise, “Given that he existed”, seem to always find ways to conclude that some stuff was actually things he said. Those not starting from that premise, but questioning the very existence of the person, find themselves neck deep in ancient politics, double dealing and possible conspiracy to replace a military messiah, which the Jewish people where seeking at the time, with a peacenik, who spent a lot of time telling people to not fight back against the Romans, and give them more or less anything they wanted.
Somehow.. I find the prospect of the two radically different conclusions being resolved by anything short of uncovering “real” documentation from the time of Christ, not stuff 50-150 years later, or clear evidence left by someone involved in the creation of the NT that it was really all glued together to make a new religion, and that no single historical figure, if any, existed at all. And short of opening some of the libraries still buried in Pompeii (which they can’t currently afford to excavate and protect), or someone finds most of the library of Alexandria intact, due to the courageous efforts of some unknown people that braved the fires of that place to protect them (which is so much less likely as to be totally ludicrous).
But, sure. If you make the first assumption, its possible to invent all sorts of reasons why this or that bit “might” be attributed to Jesus. It just… misses the key issue by a mile.
Tim
March 6, 2009 at 3:44 am
@PhillyChief:
As for this so-called “liberal Christianity”, I say fine.
Why the scare-quotes?
Remove literal authority from a holy book and then maybe we don’t have to hear shit anymore based on it. Oh my, no citing the Bible for denying gay’s equal rights, women their sexual and reproductive rights, and a host of other things? Whatever will they do, argue something on its own merit?
On the contrary: keep it and understand what you will from it, and you’ll see how it can be argued entirely in favour of gay and women’s rights, against slavery etc.
When will we get liberal Islam?
Some time around CE650-700, I think. The first couple of generations after Muhammed were quite liberal in some ways.
PhillyChief
March 6, 2009 at 8:50 am
Because the label makes even less sense than “jumbo shrimp”, “open secret” or “act naturally”.
That kind of works, but ultimately is nowhere near as effective as removing the authoritative teeth altogether. Believe me, I’ve had fun playing that game of dueling scriptures. It may accomplish convincing some that taking the damn thing literally is silly, but generally it just makes people choose one’s interpretation of authority over another’s.
And Rahmad’s reign in Cordoba was an anomaly.
PhillyChief
March 6, 2009 at 8:51 am
oops, it looks like I didn’t close some blockquotes
the chaplain
March 6, 2009 at 10:05 am
Philly – I fixed them for you.
UNRR
March 10, 2009 at 5:40 am
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 3/10/2009, at The Unreligious Right
FrodoSaves
March 10, 2009 at 8:31 am
Chappy,
Your conclusion reminds me of a statement by Ken Ham in Religulous. When asked by Bill Maher why, in the face of tomes full of contrary scientific evidence, was Answers in Genesis still prepared to depict humans walking with dinosaurs, he replied with words to the effect that “if you decide not to believe this bit over here, then what basis do you have to believe this bit over here?”
Incredibly, the analysis was right, even if the (arguably more important) conclusion was jaw-droppingly irrational.
FS
Mark
March 11, 2009 at 11:00 pm
“…the Bible has been used to say whatever man wants it to say…and so justify anything we want it to.”
I agree with that. Hitler justified his hatred of minorities believing that God was on his side.
John Evo
March 12, 2009 at 12:47 am
Tim said: On the other hand, if it’s conceptual and experiential (eg “the spirit of the universe” (and I simplify greatly there)) then that makes me a *non-theist* (but *not* an *a*theist).
actually, I think it would make you a deist – like many of the Founders of our country. And while I personally can see no call for deism, I certainly prefer it to theism and its religions.
Tim
March 12, 2009 at 4:25 pm
John Evo: it might make me many things, from deist to ancient Greek to Buddhist to Hindu and various revivals of philosophical ideas of God in the Middle Ages. I wouldn’t be the first to explore inter-faith topics, by a long shot.
You might be interested in the difference between pantheism and panentheism, while we’re enjoying tossing words around.
PhillyChief
March 12, 2009 at 5:18 pm
So panentheism would be the classification for the Jedi and Sith? Have you explored those faiths yet, or are they on your to-do list?
You might be interested in the difference between pancetta and painintheass, while we’re enjoying tossing words around.
Vitamin R
March 15, 2009 at 3:41 pm
If the foundational book upon which a religion is founded is acknowledged to be nothing more than a collection of human writings, then the answer to the author’s question, “what difference is there between Christianity and any other man-made religion?” is simple: there is none.
Perhaps if this thoughtful Christian had taken a moment to answer the semi-rhetorical question he’d posed, he’d have come up with the same answer.
I doubt it, though. Well-meaning as he seems, he’d likely scratch his head over it for awhile, then go back to believing whatever he wants.
On the upside, his post inspired your post, which was elegant and thoughtful, as always. Would you consider sending the thoughtful Christian a link to it? Or responding in the comments for his post?
Martin Cauvin
April 11, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Hi,
Hoping that it is ok for a “fundamentalist” Christian to post.
First, I appreciate your comments “chaplain”. I can actually agree with some of them
I appreciate more, however, the tone which is forthright but not mean. Thank you.
I don’t want to make this too long but I think that often the conservative Christian position is oversimplified. For example, I am a fundamentalist but this is in the 19th century notion of the term not the pejorative way it is normally used today.
Although a fundamentalist I have never thought that every word in the Bible is to be taken literalisticly (as opposed to literally). Obviously there is metaphor and other forms of language used. To read the Bible “literally” is to understand that there are different forms used.
The major difference I see between the “conservative” and the “liberal” understandings of scripture comes from whether we “stand over” or “sit under” the scriptures. Jesus (presuming for a moment that the words attributed to him are accurate – which I understand many would not agree with) called the scriptures the “Word of God” and dealt with them in that way. Since I accept Jesus as my Lord I accept his use and reasoning as well. This means I “sit under” the scriptures and they judge me rather than my worldview judging them. By the way, that is in a perfect world. I do, unfortunately, judge them way too often.
There are still many difficulties that I as a conservative struggle with and will continue to struggle with. I realize that some conservatives act as if they have all the answers. That’s too bad for not other reason then it doesn’t leave much room for open, forthright but also kind discussion.
Hope this gives you another angle at all of this.
Kagehi
April 12, 2009 at 10:00 am
Umm. Martin… Unless you have some book some place we have never seen that details, precisely, what Jesus did or didn’t agree with, never mind something significantly less vague, never mind entirely Bible based, as evidence he ever existed at all, then you still have to make wild guesses as to what Jesus thought about this or that bit of the OT, and thus whether or not “he” would see it the same way as you do. In other words, your claim that some inanimate object sits in judgement of your actions, and that the only “interpretation” you apply to it is based on someone who barely even mentions any of its contents, let alone specifies **in any way** which parts are allegorical, and which ones literal… The mind simply boggles.
The problem isn’t that conservatives think they have all the answers, its that they keep making up totally crazy justifications for claiming that they are following “strict” rules from a 2,000 old zombie, while having a) no practical way to say if their interpretation of what said zombie wanted is the same as theirs (and often the church has drastically disagreed with them for a lot of that time), and b) they find it necessary to invent convoluted gibberish, like your “over or under” stuff, as a means to baffle people who know better (or maybe just each other, since I can’t imagine many believers not having equally serious problems understanding, instead of just “accepting”, such silly non-distinctions).
servetus42
April 12, 2009 at 10:25 am
As a liberal christian, I’d be apt to use the distinction to say that I don’t see myself as over or under scripture but in conversation with it. I recognize that I bring my presuppositions, context, history to bear on these texts but I also recognize that the authors of such texts did likewise in producing them. Somehow in engaging this, we may learn something about God and the world (and of course you could insert any form of literature, philosophy, religious text for much the same purpose)
Kagehi
June 10, 2009 at 10:35 pm
But, see. The problem is, you also:
a) Assume he existed at all, for which the only evidence is either from the Bible, or from writing of people that where, or where connected to, the first official members of the new church, but not from any “secondary” sources, never mind from the same period the events took place in.
b) Take the Bible in a vacuum, attributing Jesus’ teachings “solely” to him, when in reality, much of the messages in the Bible that are positive where discussed, often, among philosophers in the Roman culture that the tale appears in, but, by tradition, almost **never** among the Jewish people he is supposed to have come from.
What we do know for certain is that “just prior” to the appearance of the oldest copies of the Bible, which also appears nearly simultaneously with the works of Josephus, and others who make the only non-Bible references to him, Rome was in a huge war with the Jewish people. Among the issues where 1) not wanting to give Rome what Rome “claimed” they owned/where owed, 2) refusal to recognize Rome’s gods, especially the various “living” ones, which had become the trend in that century among Emperors, mirroring Egyptian mythos, and 3) insisting that Rome rule the region, when the Jewish people **believed**, based on the OT, that a military messiah was going to show up, lead them to greatness, and destroy all their enemies. They lost. Having lost, this “story” shows up about a peacenick messiah, which a lot of possible allusions to events in the war that was just fought, such as making people fishers of men (as in hooking them into the faith), versus the very real events on the same shore, where people where dragged from the boats like fish in nets, and slaughtered. This new messiah doesn’t even “mention” the thousands of crazy cults, including ones running professional prostitution, human sacrifices, etc., which are going on in parts of Rome. No, his “only” issue seems to be with the Jewish religious leaders, who are getting rich lending out money at interest, then, later on, he tells his followers that if Rome owns the money, give Rome the money when they ask for it.
He is a figure apposed to the old Jewish order, sympathetic to Rome, and its leader’s, claims of owning things, unwilling to fight back against oppressors, unlike the messiah the Jews “thought” they where getting, and generally not someone that “Rome itself” would have been at all threatened by, or cared about. Roman officials are even shown to be absolutely flabbergasted that his own people want to string him up so badly, even while the official himself would just as soon move on to other matters. The only people under threat from him where those that wanted the “old ways”, which including violent opposition to Rome’s claims on Jewish lands, rulership, and wealth.
Otherwise, there is nothing he said that prior philosophers hadn’t argued, some other religions suggested, many people already tried to live by, etc. At most, the new religion allowed “one” family in Rome to “briefly” take over the state, and then run the country into the ground by systematically banning other faiths, arguing against various “corruptions” they insisted everyone else was committing, and distract the public from real problems, while paying mercenaries to cover borders they couldn’t get their own people to defend any more. After all, if you belong to the new “great” religion of peace, why do you need to sit a thousand miles away in a ditch and watch for heathens? Let the heathens guard the damn heathens, while we stay at home and fight the “real” problems, such as stopping orgies and rampant feasting. Its a whole new world, and there is no place for war in it, right?
Ironically, our modern religious nuts learned “one” thing from the fall of the empire, and the near obliteration of Christianity in the process. Instead of wanting to say home and fight against “the gay!”, they send their kids off for patriotic duty “defending” the nation, by killing a lot of people, with the precept that being a “warrior for god”, which has jack to do with anything NT, is as important as coming home and becoming a warrior against anything not Fundie, once their tour is over. If Rome’s obsessions with what was going on in everyone else’s bed chamber had included that kind of dedication to rampant paranoia too, we would probably still be speaking Latin, instead of just listening to priests mumble it in some churches. :p
James Simmons
June 23, 2009 at 6:20 am
The dynamic liberal mindset gives a fluidity to truth. As we grow and learn it recedes ever before us. We follow the impulse from God in this way. If, in this journey, when we come upon an immovable object the entire effort can be in jeopardy.
God is… Man is always in motion seeking God. So it is now, so it was in the days of the old testament. The fact of our social evolution show us by the old writings can be demonstrated in the fact that it is no longer allowable for a man to sell his daughter into slavery. We also no longer live in strict patriarchal family units. We may not have multiple wives. The emphasis of the need for us to actively seek salvation however is alive and well. This last should be evidence enough for anyone that the need for moving onward and upward is valid. It is this that is of most importance to God. To simply obey is not enough. Each of us must by a dynamic force. This has always been the way of it on Earth. Long before any religions existed, God did and His will for us all has not changed even though we have.
The Bible? Religious scholars know well enough the history of the scriptures. There was a time when the entire old testament was lost to man. Then, during a period of years, it was re-written by the leaders of the day, from memory. The new testament is regarding the life and teachings of Jesus yet we disallow most of the available apostolic testimonies favoring only four. Here we used our freedom. God did not tell anyone to forget about all those other of His followers. Later in history we edit the Bible deleting several books so that the whole would better suit the politics of the day. The excuse was that the Roman Prelates were “off the path”. Perhaps he was but was God’s word? Why then did we change it? Following that event more changes were in the offing. How many versions of the Bible are there? Why aren’t the preachings of most of the original apostles given any credence? There are many different Bibles. Even the Jehovah’s Witnesses have their own version to suit their own theology. God allows us to do this. His wisdom is greater than ours.
Who speaks for God? Who has He ordained as being qualified to make changes to His Word?
The Bible is the word of God. Who has the necessary wisdom to dare to change God’s Word for any reason much less those of transitory nature? We are admonished to accept the literal word and not to do our own editing following what seems to us to be reasonable debate yet this is exactly what has been done so many times already in history.
Christianity is a dynamic religion. It is vital and alive because of the spirit of the Father in each of us. The immediacy of access to the Father is not in any way dependent on the hand of man. Yet it is the just that which demands we subordinate ourselves to.
See folks. I am a liberal Christian. This is the way I understand the relationship between God and His creation. History tells us that the liberal of today is the conservative of tomorrow. When tomorrow arrives our faith in God will still be strong because of our God willed abilities to see beyond man-made scriptural controversies. In heaven there will be no religions nor any Bible. When we get there we will finally understand what Earthly things should have been important to us.
Those Biblical/theological arguments will last as long as people insist on clutching at the old but along the way, like leaves growing on a stem, each of us will eventually move on greater understanding of God’s plan for humanity.
For those who are happy and comfortable arguing the form of the Bible let them continue. For those who feel the desire to find God in a higher sense let them do so freely. In the end we will all arrive at our destination just the same.
JPS
Kagehi
June 23, 2009 at 4:08 pm
JPS.. You are a clueless appologist. First off, your assertion that people still look for “salvation” would be found as rather odd by the 30% of scientists that have no religion, the like 70% or more in “most” western countries that reject it, the 16% of the “current” generation of kids in the US that say, “I never went to church, or have rejected religion, which you have to be blind to now see poisons everything”, or the thousands of other non-Christians that, well.. quite simply think you are a fool for following Jesus, instead of some other “real” god.
As for the Bible.. What Biblical scholars say or think means exactly ***jack*** from the perspective of what people actually do, how they act, and how they treat the contents of the Bible. Some, like you, like to babble about it being the “word of god”, yet can’t come up with a plausible, non-absurd, way for this to be true, given the **whole thing** was written by people, and we can look at historical context as *see* clearly why both most of the stuff we reject now was “in it” in the OT, when it “was” used, and why the different parts of the NT where so useful. The “initial” parts, sans Paul’s ramblings, where introduced simultaneously (since we have “no” evidence of earlier versions of the works) to Titus announcing himself as a second coming, getting his “father” elevated to godhood, *and* one of his close relatives announcing that one of the imagined followers of Jesus handing him the church, so he could found Catholocism. It wasn’t until after both Titus “and” his father where dead that Paul’s works show up, and certain people, like Josephus, previously in the employ of Titus, scramble to add things to various documents to “legitimize” the new religion, and prove that Jesus really existed.
Now.. Why would they do that? I mean, they where only on the verge of losing “all” political power, as a new emperor took over, which wasn’t a member of their direct family. Couldn’t have been something as simple as “needing” to legitimize something they had no actual evidence for, so they could keep some part of the power they had gotten with the introduction of this new hodgepodge religion…
In any case, you can’t have it both ways and “claim” that your god somehow “directs” the wording of the Bible, without any valid evidence of this, other than claims that “people seek salvation”, while rather oddly ignoring the fact that 90% of the world isn’t looking for it in your holy book, if any of them, then insist that some people are, “getting it wrong”, by rewording it to their own purposes, or, and this is a real laugh, “getting confused about which bits they should ignore, without any sort of instruction manual, even from supposedly Jesus, who liberal Christians always ‘insist’ (or rather assert) wouldn’t agree with X, or Y, or Z in the OT, so its ‘those bits’ we should ignore.” Never mind that even liberal Christians can’t agree what all of them are, and traditionalists/fundamentalists **also** ignore parts they don’t like, just not the same ones at the liberals.
You are all revisionists, you all insist that god has “personally” told someone someplace which bits are allegory and which are not, you *all* have scholars, or those calling themselves that, who claim, they “know”, based on absolutely nothing other than their own view of the matters, which bits where changed, the original authors got wrong out of ignorance, or Jesus meant to overturn, or support. And **not one of them** has ever had some “huge” god induced revelation, which so completely contradicted the assumptions about which bits are which, as to completely shatter their world view, by proving anything they believed to start with as “wrong”. On the contrary, the only thing being a “Biblical Scholar” gets you is an excuse to prance around saying, “I study the Bible, which perfectly matches everything I previously assumed to be true, as long as you look at it the ‘right way’. So, therefor I have the right way. I have a degree in Bibli-ology damn it! So I must be right.”
Meanwhile, the rest of the world, including most of even the liberal Christians, look to these people only to support their “own” belief in all of it, while ignoring both those cases where these “scholars” find contradictions between “actual practice” of religion, and what they “think” people should be doing/believing, based on their own studies, and **both** ignore the numerous contradictions between what the scholarly work “implies” when placed against the historical context, and other religions of the time period, instead of isolating themselves “solely” to the Bible and things that lend it credence, because, well.. Some of those things have a tendency to make it look suspiciously like something invented to replace other religions, create tribal dictatorships, promote social order through fear, where knowledge was absent and/or made up to describe events the people lacked understanding of, and “none of it” can be directly attributed to a god, unless you do things “backwards”, assume god had to do it, then hunt around to things that imply your original assertion is true. A tactic that is used by everyone from the Taliban, to Intelligent Design advocates, to people selling healing crystals, and which even people like Francis Bacon and Thomas Aquinas recognized, while failing to apply the rule to much of their belief, recognized ***cannot*** produce valid evidence or conclusions.
If following any of this stuff gave “anyone” a better “understanding of gods plan for humanity”, there wouldn’t be 20,000+ branches of Christian religion, 95% of them practicing it in ways that your “Scholars” say is invalid, and all of them convinced that not only is everyone else confused, but that “they” have worked out what the true plan is. All people such as yourself do is ignore these contradictions and blindly obvious contradictions to such an assertion, in favor of a sort of wishy washy, “Well, everyone finds their own path.”, even the ones that follow other faiths, but still somehow follow the same one true god, which in and of itself, invalidates the whole concept of even “needing” the Bible, having people whose “entire career” is to have a special building, in which we go to “be told what the one true path is, in 20,000+ contradictory ways, or 44,000+, if you can’t non-Christians”.
If they are all right, they I don’t need any of them, if only one of them is right, how the frak do you tell which one is? Based on which one “you” personally find makes the most sense? Then you are contradicting yourself, because you are not even a “Biblical Scholar”. You are a nobody, and its the height of hubris to assume that you know better than the leaders of those 44,000+ religions, **which one** has the right answers, right? Maybe you should ask god, then wait for a response that doesn’t “completely” conform to your own beliefs and perceptions. Because, if the answer does, how is that any different than you simply choosing to follow the one you like the best? Go ahead. I would “love” to see someone who can honestly “claim” to have had it “revealed to them”, that religions X some place is the right one, who isn’t lying to me, or themselves, or both, because all they really did is pick a church that reflected their “own” prejudices, beliefs, and ideas closely.
Look, I am sorry got getting all ranty about this, but seriously, do all of you actually think we have “never” heard or thought about these arguments before, observed how and why people “pick” which religion/church they imagine is the “right one”, and that we have never seen any blatant contradictions between what the Scholars keep saying, and what happens “in practice”? Here is another argument in the same vein: “Atheists never argue about the deeper issues that real scholars talk about.” It provides a real good laugh, since every time I “see” an article interviewing “scholars” their “deeper issues” are *exactly the same things atheists accuse them of making blind assertions about, while never explaining or defending*. What “deeper issues”? Because, no scholar has ever come up with one that involves the existence, actions or presence of a god, which isn’t “precisely” what is argued about by those of us that “don’t understand the deeper issues”. The ones they “never” mention, and are deeper issues, like, “Is it made up BS”, they gloss over, because they have jack to prove or disprove our assertion that it is all make believe, but most of what they do have strongly “implies” is may be.
We have heard it all before. Some of us, like the owner of this site once “preached it”. You’re not impressing anyone, nor arguing anything we haven’t heard already, and from people “you” would classify as too “literalist/fundamentalist/traditionalist” to understand the **truth** of how to properly see the Bible. They don’t agree. *We* think you both need to pay better attention to the reality of the situation, and stop ignoring things that imply it is all BS.
Tim
June 23, 2009 at 4:20 pm
JPS: you may be liberal in the vague sense of allowing others to have non-traditional views, but it seems you espouse quite a lot of traditional views yourself (this “He” business, your use of the phrase “word of God”, amongst others).
Kagehi: I would advise you to look again at some of what JPS has actually said. I, for one, do not find it objectionable that “people search for salvation”, for example, because I do not have some narrow evangelical definition of the term – I include “enlightenment” or “betterment of the human condition” or quite a lot of people’s spiritual goals in the word. Similarly, I do not see a contradiction between the bible being written by people and still being the “word of God”, if by that you mean an utterance that the unfolding processes of the universe have made (here, now, on this planet). Some of us don’t do “God as superman” (or its variant “God as invisible friend”) either, which I believe is the model you attack (eg when you talk about “a god”) – congratulations! – but we do still “do God” insofar as the word is meaningful.
PhillyChief
June 23, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Wow, I couldn’t even make sense of JPS’ comment. The bible is the word of god, but ultimately it doesn’t matter, but you shouldn’t alter it, but god allows it. Huh? Oh, and I would hope pointing out that we no longer condone selling our daughters or anyone else into slavery like the bible says is a good thing, yet “Who has the necessary wisdom to dare to change God’s Word for any reason much less those of transitory nature? We are admonished to accept the literal word and not to do our own editing…” Again, huh?
I thought this was pretty sad – “In heaven there will be no religions nor any Bible. When we get there we will finally understand what Earthly things should have been important to us.” A tad late to learn. That sounds more like hell to me, going to a place to find out what you should have done with your life.
Tim
June 23, 2009 at 4:39 pm
PhillyChief: yes, those were two bits where I got a bit confused or bored or disagreed.
The idea of heaven or hell as places is one that Christianity needs to grow out of, fast. That doesn’t mean you can’t start a sentence “In heaven…”, but it has to be here-and-now, something being actively sought or worked towards, not future pie-in-sky.
Kagehi
June 23, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I quite understand the distinction Tim. I just think its absurd to claim that the Bible should be, or is, the best example of something that would “contain” such a thing, if it existed. The OT is a mess of racism, fear, hate, tribalism, male dominance and rampant self interest, with few things to redeem any of it. Those few things that are useful from it could be condense into probably a single page of general guide lines, and 90% of those you could derive from laboratory observations of primates, or even other animals, without resorting to claiming that “god” wanted people to write books about it.
The NT… Setting aside the fact that most of its adherents insist its an “original” story, when pretty much every element of its events are either mirrored by the places Titus went in his campaigns during the “War of the Jews”, as their works of the time called it, and various other religions, ranging from bits taken out of everything from Egyptian ones like Osiris, to Middle Eastern ones like Mithra/Mithras, not to mention the fact that not one bit of evidence places it “appearing” as a written work until “after” the campaign mentioned above, then what you get is a religion that replaces a military messiah with a peace maker, replaces opposition to Roman rule, with one that, “gives Caesar what he claims is his”, admonishes those that follow it to basically not defend themselves against aggressors, and whose “main” issue isn’t with Roman corruption, Roman greed, mass orgies, gluttony, (some of those are OT, but not even implied in the NT), slavery, military power among the rulers, or even the idea that their “should be” rulers that have total power. No, its main issue is that the ruler should be ordained to the post by its god, and that lending people money at interest where “major crimes”, and the **one and only religion**, out of hundred in Rome, that where doing this, who where “at fault” for it was… the Jewish ones, who Rome had just let set up their temples, after a bloody war with them.
I mean, even in context of the contemporary “issues” of the time it supposedly happened, why is semi-subservience to Rome, refusal to place oneself over “betters” (which is what being poor basically gave you) and ending **only** Jewish corruption in money lending, the “major” issues of the time, and not 50,000 other problems that where going on in and around Rome. God not care about all those things, or Jesus just completely failed to notice them? It makes no sense at all, given the way people lived, acted, and the kinds of corruption that actually happened.
And, that is without even going over the odd bits, like the whole “travel” of his mother and step father, which contradicts “both” the way Rome was known to do census, as well as “when” their own records indicate any such thing “being done”, and similar inconsistencies, which seem to have gotten tacked on to “bolster” the idea that it happened, not as actual record of real events.
None of which matters, since you still have the first issue, which is, that nothing in the NT, with respect to the ideas in it, where “unknown”, or couldn’t have been worked out “some other way”, or where “not” already worked out, thought about, argued, or implied by other religions and by philosophers, in some cases, as arguments for how to be good people, hundreds of years before it become “convenient” for certain Roman leaders to replace the militant Jewish religion, which cost them a lot of time and money, and was “still” costing them money, with one nicer to the Roman empire.
Seriously though.. Even if I was trying to attack the “God as superman” model, you seem to be quite clueless about just how many people that favor Christianity *also* favor that model, some, even while insisting they don’t. Its back to the whole, “This is what some scholars say about a highbrow version of religion, but not what believers actually do and believe.”, issue. Most people think their god is a superman, swooping in to save people (though only if he wants to), and that he will change his mind of they pray hard enough. Most of the same people will give “him” credit for any recovery, avoidance of accident, etc. that happens, even while bankrupting themselves to buy the best drivers, pilots, doctors, surgeries, or life support. If they really believed, they wouldn’t buy anything. Yet, none of it is ever credited for saving them, just god. The cognitive dissonance required to think that way… Oh, and of course, the #1 argument these people give for how I will one day “find god”, is, “Some day you will be hooked up to a lot of machines, looked over by dozens of doctors, slowly going bankrupt as they save your life, and you will ‘realize’ that god is there for you!” Uh… not unless I suffer a frakking head injury as well, sorry.
You are talking about how you “wish” god was seen, how you “wish” people acted, how you “wish” they believed, and how badly you want people, “looking for a way to make the world better”, to be looking under rocks for god, so he can quantum mechanically guide them to the right answer, or mysteriously nudge them in the right direction, or, as in one Futurama, do things in such a way that, “If you do something right, no one can ever be sure you did it at all.”, but.. I am talking about how people actually “act” when talking about, praising, praying to, worshiping, and/or, claim to credit, god for things, in a world where they never the less “insist” that they simultaneously “see god everyplace”, but he, his influence, his actions, and even “if” he was involved at all, are all 100% invisible and undetectable, and that’s the way he wants it, so he doesn’t somehow reveal himself and interfere with “free will”. Wait.. what!?! You can’t have it both ways, and even if you could, its meaningless, since your “personal” belief that you have “detected” something that’s not detectable is not valid evidence of anything other than you wishing it came from your undetectable friend. Whether it is, or isn’t, is completely irrelevant, because well.. freewill would be violated if it is, and if it isn’t, then its not god doing it. Either way, you know nothing about what he “intended” or didn’t, or even if there is something out their to “intend” things.
Sorry, but.. **WE** determine what is meaningful to us, and sometimes we assign meaning to things that have “no” meaning to anyone else, or only have meaning because a lot of other people have decided it has some. Some of those things are not even real, like holding a high value in Vulcan ideals, or “God”. We give them what ever “meaning” they have, ourselves. They have no meaning, beyond what we have given them. And, more to the point, despite your, and an endless number of other people’s assertions otherwise, refusing to believe that Thor, or even Jesus, exists, doesn’t mean all meaning of everything else vanishes, or that there “must be” some other phantom some place to replace them, or everything else becomes meaningless. That is your particular psychological hang up, not mine, or that of other non-believers. I pity you for feeling that way, when I am not just laughing at some of the more absurd people implying it.
PhillyChief
June 23, 2009 at 5:35 pm
What, and kill arguably the number one recruitment and continued obedience tool? You’d have a better chance talking Catholics out of magic crackers and silken Popes or getting Evangelicals to drop Creationism.
James Simmons
July 22, 2009 at 9:00 am
I doubt I could respond to everything that has been written but I’d like to as I have definite ideas that would be fun to convey for the purpose of discussion.
Anyone who has studied human behaviour (psychology) will know that we tend to have opinions then form up in groups behind an ideal. Almost always there are opposing groups of thought. This is typical and healthy in people. Yet, I firmly believe that there are no real contradictions in nature (here I say nature and mean the totality of God’s works). There are no contradictions in God. The ideas of the atheist and the theist meet at a certain point and even here there are no contradictions. So, to the one who says “you can’t have it both ways” I respond, there is only one way in reality and those themes which seem discordant are, in reality, not so. It is telling that we see these opposing views and takes us back to what I just got through saying about human behaviour. How does this happen? It is the personality that each of us has that is the culprit. The personality desires a familiar and comfortable place in which to feel secure. Groups of personalities form. The like minded form collectives. Religions are born.
Religions? Prophets? Scripture? Creation? Evolution? Sin? Salvation? Jihad? All of these are very compatible and understandable when we understand the nature of man’s mind. It is the searching that we discover the gifts that God has endowed each us with.
Thank you all for the good remarks. In all of them I see different people expressing from within their own experiences. Nothing wrong in that.
May I ask that those who of you who are so inclined post a specific question in any area of your choosing. Then my response will be more concise. One thing at a time is a good way to proceed.
JPS
PhillyChief
July 22, 2009 at 9:17 am
The existence of desire for religion, for beliefs in the supernatural and an afterlife, are not necessarily evidence that say a god exists and that it’s responsible for hardwiring people to have such desires; therefore, a discussion of what a god does or doesn’t do is silly in light of not knowing if such a thing exists or not.
Furthermore, with every god believer having a different definition for what “god” is, you’d first have to define what you mean by “god”, JPS, and then offer some reason for others to accept your claim that it exists. Until then, there’s no point in discussing anything which is dependent upon your god existing.
James Simmons
July 22, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Thanks PhillyChief,
The existence of God cannot be proven (by me anyway). Whether God exists is for each of us to consider for ourselves. One thing is certain and that is: Whatever the overall reality it seems that, at some point, it will have to make sense in order to satisfy man’s curiosity. If I speak of the nature of God you may assume that I do not pretend to exclude the beliefs of any other man/woman. My beliefs do not trump the beliefs of others. It should never be the business of any of us to jam our beliefs down the throats of others. Religion is voluntary.
There is no innate “desire for religion” in man. Man is social and forms groups, some of which are concerned with questions like what, when and why. We are inquisitive. This is where the impulse which might end up as a religion comes from.
I believe in God quite firmly. When the Christian speaks of Intelligent Design I concur with the idea because it makes sense. My beliefs are based on my perception of the world around us. I see “oneness”. Sort of like the “unified field” of Einstein who can be quoted as saying, “I want to know God’s thoughts. The rest are details……”So my belief in God is a combination of faith,knowledge and logic (my logic but perhaps not yours).
Now, as to the part about me offering reasons for others to accept (my beliefs) is concerned….. This is the point in which some religions fail. I will not offer any reasons beyond those which are personal to me why anyone else should believe in God.
Believers consider this please. Can we believe in the Great Spirit or God externally of any religious format (without religion)? We can. This is what I mean when I state that there are no religions in heaven. The business of religion is to prepare the believer for live after death. This preparation is accomplished here on Earth. In heaven religions are no longer required. Faith is then replaced by “knowing”.
I will happily read what you have to say. I will never tell you that you are wrong. I might be the one who is wrong after all. I mean, sooner or later don’t we all have to decide what to believe? The point, then, in discussion is to smooth out the social wrinkles in the world and maybe make it a nicer place to raise kids. This is only done through acceptance (some call it apologetics)
JPS
PhillyChief
July 22, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Then the rest of what you have to say doesn’t matter much.
No.
Apologetics is the exercise of rationalizing or making excuses for the aspects of a religion which are undesirable and/or contradictory to reality like pi=3, bats are birds, unruly children should be stoned to death, etc.
Acceptance of what’s repugnant, imo, doesn’t just fail to smooth out social wrinkles, but actually tears at the fabric of society. Acceptance of religion is not to be preached. Acceptance of someone’s choice to indulge is fine, provided their indulgence doesn’t impose on others (ie – drinking and driving, smoking in a crowded room, killing your child because your religious beliefs demand prayer instead of medical care, etc).
Tim
July 22, 2009 at 12:33 pm
`I mean, sooner or later don’t we all have to decide what to believe?’
`No.’
I do hope that means you advocate not telling children about either Father Christmas or Humpty Dumpty as well.
I, for one, believe in rationality starting from the current state of the world as it is (ie religious pluralism), not some idealistic utopia (either no-religion, as I expect you’d advocate, or a-specific-religion, which makes one a fundie), and the (minimally) tolerance of other humans. You could say I favour a maxim such as “believe what you will, just be internally consistent and play well with others”.
John Evo
July 22, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I believe in God quite firmly. When the Christian speaks of Intelligent
Design I concur with the idea because it makes sense. My beliefs are based on
my perception of the world around us.
It “made sense” based on “perception” to think of ourselves as being in a fixed spot in the universe (like the center of it) while the sun and moon were pushed or pulled across our skies – until we understood the solar system. If you think about it, you’d have been kind of kooky to think otherwise. Even if you had proposed a hypothesis that was something close to the facts as we know them, you would, at that time, been laughed off – and rightfully so since you would have had no evidence for your ideas and they would have run completely counter to intuitive thought.
But every time we learn a bit more, god (by the way, why “god” and not gods, or aliens for that matter?) takes a lesser and lesser role in our factual knowledge of the universe. It’s only because of this factual knowledge that people such of yourself now exist at all, to tell us that god is there but that we can’t know god. A few hundred years ago, you would have been burnt at the stake for that one!
PhillyChief
July 22, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Why should anyone care if your beliefs are internally consistent? All that matters is the last part, playing well with others.
In case you weren’t clear about my “No” answer, what I meant is we don’t HAVE to pick a belief from the available options. If none are suitable, then you don’t have to choose. For instance, not having a credible answer for how life started on Earth doesn’t mean you have to pick one of the numerous creation stories in the world to believe.
Tim
July 22, 2009 at 12:57 pm
You have to be internally consistent otherwise you can prove everything and nothing including the belief you should go around chopping the heads off all the people™, at which point you have `play well with others’ issues. The two sides, internal/external, are not separate but a flow.
PhillyChief
July 22, 2009 at 1:01 pm
You can arrive at “chopping heads off all the people” whether you’re internally consistent or not, therefore internal consistency is irrelevant and only “playing well with others” matters.
Tim
July 22, 2009 at 1:08 pm
But every time we learn a bit more, god (by the way, why “god” and not gods, or aliens for that matter?) takes a lesser and lesser role in our factual knowledge of the universe.
A good point on the singular there; you should differentiate between “God” (idea of some particular one over-arching) and “gods” (a system of many deities, maybe or maybe not under the authority of a particular one). Remember that the term “atheist” meant something totally different to Romans (“subscriber to a different system than our paganism”, and therefore early Christians were “atheists” by that token) and around the time of the Enlightenment (closer to “heretic”, so stilling allowing a belief in God, one God, maybe even claiming the same God as mainstream Christendom but with a handful of differences) and now we have “has no belief in any god or posited god” (weak) or “believes there is no God” (strong form).
One thing to ponder: humans do not only operate on fact. Facts are the basis of knowledge, and science drives knowledge, indeed to increasing areas of study. But people tend to live in a world of “why?” and metaphysics and history and identity and myth and mystery. I propose that as an alternative statement on the “religion is a basic urge”-type argument I saw a couple of posts ago too. I also think it should be explained precisely *how* that system happens before it is rejected – the job of a scientist is to examine the world around in the first instance, not prescribe how it should be.
the chaplain
July 22, 2009 at 2:30 pm
the job of a scientist is to examine the world around in the first instance, not prescribe how it should be
The “how it should be” is up to humankind to determine. Knowing as much as possible about how things work provides crucial information for figuring out how we want things to be. There aren’t any prescribed “shoulds” or “oughts” for us to find – we figure out what shoulds and oughts we want to make. That’s a lot of responsibility, which is why it’s so easy to embrace religions that prescribe those things.
James Simmons
July 22, 2009 at 2:48 pm
PhillyChief:
Acceptance of what is repugnant does not mean you must come to agree with what you consider to be repugnant. I only means you allow others to believe what they want. Beliefs are personal.
Tim:
You may as well ask, “what will the rational man do in the world?” and move from there. Raising Children is the primary task of parents who are burdened with being fair in their treatment of inquiries made by their children. Being prejudiced, biased and closed does not serve those eager minds well.
John Evo:
I have not said that “we can’t know god”. I do not know god, gods or God. I do believe however, based upon what I know of the universe, in God and the more I learn the more I am convinced that there is one. Have you not heard scientists refer to the “god particle”? They believe that it is possible to approach the very edge of the physical universe; that beyond that point is the unknowable god.
Phillychief:
We are in perfect agreement on that point. Perhaps you will notice that my beliefs are not consistant with those of the mainstream. One does not have to be looney tunes to have unique beliefs.
Tim:
The secret to consistency is in the position of he who searches. In the center of controversy is where clear vision is. This is the reason Jesus is so powerful without being “militant”. Proofs are nearly impossible. The good man does not harm others.
Phillychief:
Yeah. Internal consistency is somewhat a private thing. But since we humans are fallible a little forgiveness is appropriate at times.
Tim:
Playing well with others is a good thing. Poised this way we do not find fault with our neighbors. Instead we chill, live and let live. Can that be bad?
Tim:
How can any vision of god be lessened by learning more of His creation? Now that is my response because I believe in God. Those who do not may simply remove those references.
Atheist=A theist=not a theist=not a believer….. Right?
“Pagan” is derived from a Latin word which means “country dweller” as opposed to a “city dweller”. It was common long ago, as it is now for those far from cities to cling to the older forms. In the case of recent times the older form is fundamentalist Christianity. In the days of long ago in Rome the older form was the plurality of gods before the advent of Christianity. The liberal always becomes the conservative, in time.
We have all been conditioned through long years (I am 67) by what we have heard and seen. It is common for Christians to claim exclusive attachment to God. Some even believe that Jesus is God. The three great mainstream religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all derived of the line of Abraham and all three believe in the same God. This is true even if so many argue against it. Yes I have my reasons for saying that and will explain only upon request so as not to offend.
Enlightenment cannot touch any man who does not first quiet his emotions and cease his inward struggling and quarrelling with others. We have to learn to first put aside our natural inclination for aggressiveness before we can begin to understand. The agitated mind is of no use to anyone. If the topic of God were purely academic this would not be necessary. The Heretic of today is the enlightened person of old that we occasionally read about. Jesus was such a man who was condemned by the priesthood of the day. He told a new and higher level of truth which pushed them out of their comfort zone so they got defensive and pissed. The same happens today when reason meets fundamentalism. Don’t you all agree?
Imagine for a minute that we are all social insects. All is harmony in the hive or nest because there are no personalities. Really, that’s the reason. The reverse cannot happen. Those insects cannot imagine they are us. So, we have the ability to imagine. We are intuitive. We get ideas from who knows where. Sometimes we have feelings that turn out to be true. All this is rational if we allow that we are more than just physical beings. In fact, if we were only physical we’d be quite boring I should think. We’d never move “forward” in life. Learning would be…. Well it would be just like it was for early primitive proto humans that paved the way for us. Any problems with that?
Metaphysics exists as a word and an idea because the attributes of what it implies are so commonly known about. In itself this proves nothing about God. Some claim that belief in this is somehow anti-God and “of Satan”. This is true for the neophyte. It is also a fear reaction by those who should know better. There is no basic urge to religion but there is a basic urge towards that “something” which is known, suspected or felt” by man. Psychic experience is what is behind it all and behind of psychic experience is the very real and vital spirit world that is so often experienced in subtle way and spoken of my “primative” humans even today. We will hear that the “white man knows nothing of the power in the belly and other references”. Mostly true. The white race is mentally focussed instead. This is why our instincts for manufacturing, exploration and business are so dominant. In this setting, if we believe in God then that belief must be compatible with our very conservative natures in general. This means that, for the majority, there cannot be any “hocus-pocus” or divining or witchcraft or spirits. Here now is the basis for the so powerful defense of our dominant Christianity and it’s Bible. In this a belief that cannot be proven must be, instead, accepted on faith. This is why so much emphasis is placed on faith and not literal understanding in our religion. In our material world “faith” in God is as mystical as most want to get. Anything more is unsettling. In harmony with this is the common admonition that we not question the Bible.
There are many today who question all this. Some of those are here on this net. Good I say. It’s about time the status quo is shaken up a bit. Life would be boring without such encounters.
Thanks to you all and sorry I know I tend to be a mega mouth when I get going.
JPS
John Evo
July 22, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Here’s my version of “play nice”, or “treat others how you want to be treated” (since I’m sure the cat *thinks* he plays nicely with the mouse) – Don’t criticize others for their supernatural beliefs or non-beliefs, as long as there is no dogma attached to either. Good enough?
Tim
July 22, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Do you mean dogma in the western or eastern tradition?
Tim
July 22, 2009 at 3:18 pm
the reason Jesus is so powerful without being “militant”.
Actually Jesus was very militant. Why do you think he suggested “if someone forces you to carry a pack a mile, go 2″, if not because it was a Roman soldier demanding the Jew do the work, but would get into trouble if they were seen as forcing more than they were allowed?
Atheist=A theist=not a theist=not a believer….. Right?
Incorrect working-out. Amongst other things you might be a Deist, which involves plenty enough belief in God, but not the God of theism (specifically, deism is belief in a God deduced from the natural world rather than proclaimed through some kind of revelation such as a holy book such as the bible). An atheist who simply doesn’t believe (borderline agnostic) counts as “not a believer”. I’m not sure what one who flips that around (“believes there is no…”) would count as with your term “believer”.
John Evo
July 22, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I don’t believe there is a god, and I believe there is no god.
In the second part of the sentence I use the word “believe” exactly as I would use it when saying I don’t believe there is a Bigfoot, alien abductions or flying, fire-breathing dragons. If someone approaches me and says they *do* believe there is a god but that they really claim no knowledge about the god – that’s time to shrug and say “ok”, and not a time to argue or mock.
PhillyChief
July 22, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I think we’d be less boring if we could shoot lasers from our eyes.
James Simmons
July 22, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Play nice. Not to be confused with being apologetic but with being generous. OK with me.
I always though that dogma was at least complied by man though it might be based on strong beliefs. In a sense it’s OK when seen a a set of posits, like the ten commandments, designed to be an assistance in life. But not OK when used to beat others over the head.
There is no reason for anyone to change his/her religion and there is no reason for atheists to be dragged through the mud for their beliefs either. God does not find importance in what we believe but only in how we treat others. Dogmatists argue otherwise because they do not want to be seen as watering down their beliefs that would result in their personal loss of authority with their adherents.
Whenever i hear the word though I have the expectation that there will be criticism to come.
The only militancy I find in Jesus (His known life experiences) was in the temple when he got really mad that it was “defiled” by merchants. Some say that at that time in His life Jesus had not yet fully accepted His mission from the Father and was, therefore, less than the man that He would be later, after baptism. This supposedly explains it.
Room for learning on those diety/theist points. I am in the habit of using the term “believer” to indicate one who believes in God no matter the religion in which he/she may be a part of.
Gnosis=knowledge
Gnostic=knower
Agnostic=not a knower
I think this is correct but the term “agnostic” is commonly accepted to mean one who believes but through no particular discipline.
One of the most common problems in humanity is our failure to define starting points in cultural practice before attempts at reconciliation. So often anger and hostility follows as a result.
Through all of this I believe firmly that each man should strive for whatever enlightenment that he can achieve. We are more than ordinary animals. We should act the part at least. In the Christian way this is what salvation really is. They both lead to the same place. Attainment of our highest and best.
JPS
PhillyChief
July 22, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I think god likes shiny things, and big boobs, which is why he made them, because without them life would be boring.
James Simmons
July 22, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Life is boring only to those with empty heads.
JPS
PhillyChief
July 22, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Well thank goodness your god is beaming thoughts into your empty head then, or else you’d be really bored.
Kagehi
July 22, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Right…., so rape, murder, insanity, paranoia, love, joy, destruction, creation. All these are by the **same** definition “very compatible”, since they are “all understandable when we understand the nature of man’s mind”, right? You have managed to commit two cardinal sins for logical thinking in these posts:
1. Presuming that because some people use common images to express poorly understood things, sometimes for the **express purpose** of getting the wonder of it across to people steeped in religious imagery, or just because its so common place that they do it by accident, they ***believed in god***, and **meant** a real god when talking about things like god particles, or the universe not playing dice with itself.
2. Presuming that you can make silly arguments like above, while ignoring the larger consequences, or the fact that, just because we understand *why* the human mind invents bullshit, all such bullshit is a) valuable, b) useful to society, c) something to strive for, or d) provides *any* evidence of something other than how things go wrong if you start from bad information, then keep failing to correct the original mistake. I.e., the old computer concept of “garbage in = garbage out”, it ****amplified**** in a non-strict system, such as human minds, where fuzzy logic, loose associations, and no *precise* linear logic are in use. Game makers run into this in “simple” systems all the time. You can’t a) predict what the AI will learn, b) how or why its doing what its doing, or what possible reason it thinks its doing what its supposed to, or c) correct the behavior, once it gets beyond a certain level of complexity. Well.. The human brain grows beyond that level of complexity before your even 2. Unlike AIs, it **can** drastically self correct, if the incoming information is sufficiently disruptive to existing assumptions to render it impossible to incorporate into the existing assumptions. If its *not* drastic enough, or someone has been given a lot of convenient, even if badly thought out, and logically inconsistent, explanations, the brain does what it always does with incomplete information. It incorporates what “is” consistent with its existing assumptions, then marginalizes and ignores the stuff that isn’t, until it either finds too many inconsistencies, or finds a better model that lets the person mangle the evidence to better fit some variation of the original assumptions.
Part of learning logic is learning to *notice* when you are doing this, *never* trust that you are seeing the right thing without verification, and *always* assume that what ever you come up with may not just be wrong, but that you *have to* check and make sure. Religion, even the versions of it that “attempt” to fit creation in the same boat as evolution, genesis in the same boat as the big bang, or god in with particle physics, ***doesn’t do these things***. It does things the old way, starting with the premise, “Something is out there, and lets just call it god.”, then looking for “stories”, or, “explanations”, that let the person keep believing the “something is out there” premise, without ever reaching the conclusion that atheists, who ranging from ex-evangelical right wingers, to people that just got a lot of As in a “good” science class, instead of Cs in a badly taught one, all concluded: “This is unnecessary, doesn’t explain anything at all, doesn’t fit any known evidence *at all*, unless you keep pushing it into ever shrinking gaps, isn’t even necessary for forming social groups or morals, and its sole function seems to be to create a special sub-category of idiotic ideas, like transubstantiation, which ***nothing*** will dislodge, no matter how frakking stupid the idea is. Oh, and pretty much makes the people that hold them try to tell everyone else that they are doing everything wrong, and its the purple crystals you use to contact the great Huluapalu, because green doesn’t work and the great Nevemagmalba is a “false” god, or what ever silly BS they believe in.
But, the key issue here isn’t even if such sloppy, simplistic, nebulous and pointlessly meaningless “soft” religion would be safe. The issue is that a) once you have that form of it, some idiot has to invent the stupid, insane, dangerous, murderous, unjust, version, because the wishy-washy one doesn’t seem to be inducing their imaginary friend into rewarding them with the right sort of “miracles” (see what happened to Buddhism, which went from a near-atheistic religion to Jesus 2.0 in a tiny number of generations, and produced people willing to kill each other over it, in the process), and b) 90% of the existing forms of religion ***are*** insane, dangerous, murderous and unjust, including most of the ones derived from the fairy tale *you* choose to believe was real (and, no, there are know “known” things that Jesus did).
James Simmons
July 23, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Kagehi,
Thanks for the informative reply.
Everything in existence has a duality, a “high” and a “low”. The essence of our world is it’s polarity. Ideas in practice are included in this. This is verified by almost everyone’s belief that there is an “evil” which attempts to balance out or overcome “good”. All life is lived in a tension between one thing or another. Religions usually help us to stay “on the high side of life”.
Here are some examples:
Religion, Prophets, Scripture, Creation, Evolution, Sin, Salvation, Jihad….
Each of these can be expressed as being high and beneficial or low and harmful. In your response you cite many of the low expressions. Yes, even sin is included. My statement regarding the compatibility of each is valid. If we consider only the low and harmful interpretations of each then are they all not somewhat the same in their effects? They would all be bad yet compatible. If, however, we look at the positive, constructive and beneficial aspects of each they still are compatible but in the “high” direction.
For instance. The low meaning of the term “jihad” is what we are accustomed to hearing about. It is “holy war against enemies….etc”. Kill everyone who is different in the name of god. The high meaning of the term is somewhat different. Here “jihad” refers to the personal, internal struggle of the man/woman against the “sinful” influences of the world. The goal of the low expression is world dominance. The goal of the high expression is dominance of self. The lower leads to violence and loss. The higher leads to salvation and, in this sense, is just like what the Christians advocate and for the same reason. We do not hear about the high interpretation of jihad these days because the low is at dominance. That will change.
I would ask you to look again at those in my list and imagine the highest and best that each has to offer. Yes, even sin. This was you will know what I perceived when I wrote about them. Try, please, to exclude the dark and harmful so that the lighted and beneficial side can be seen by others who read this log.
Group prayer, be it in church, mosque or out in the Wiccan natural setting can be of the high or low kind. Usually it is the high because the practitioners seek good for us all.
Brother Kagehi you have looked for “fault” in my posts and so you have found them. You cite sins where, if you were higher focussed, you would have found the opposites of those things. We are conditioned to do this. We so often react by finding fault instead of looking for good.
Try very hard to imagine the world as it would be if there were no evil. Then consider each of the words in my list. You will not, then, find discord and violence but light and understanding. Which of these two, the high or the low, should we be looking for?
Read again and look for “good” in those words and write about what you find. All I ask is that you set aside emotional distress which distorts and clouds the mind.
When we all decide that it will be so, there will be no more evil in the world.
JPS
PhillyChief
July 23, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Everyone believing something is not necessarily evidence for that something being true. Case in point – belief in a flat Earth. At one time, everyone believed the Earth was flat (psst – it’s not). So the “duality” assertion is unwarranted.
The choice to frame things, as you have, in dualistic terms is fine, but again, that’s not necessarily evidence that everything is in fact dualistic.
I think it’s both unfair and insulting to assert confirmation bias, or as you say, a clouded mind.
Kagehi
July 23, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Hmm. Yes, lets do that, shall we?
Religion: Kind of like role player. Not very useful, but some people seem to like it. Heck, since it doesn’t even make sense without evil, you what… try to imagine a fantasy world where evil does exist, then play out being a believer in the thing that promotes good?
Prophets: For what? If there is no evil, you don’t need morons wandering around making vague predictions about the future, warning you about the consequences of evil, which doesn’t exists, or telling you that, “god will be on W. Hollywood Ave. next Tuesday, if you want an autograph.” Well, OK, maybe they would still be useful for that last bit, but the rest?
Scripture: Sigh.. Would resemble a real history book, without made up facts, silly miracles, etc., since without “evil”, their would be no reason to make shit up to scare people about what “god” was going to do to them if they didn’t conform. I.e., it wouldn’t be scripture, there would be no damn point to such a thing.
Creation: Still meaningless
Evolution: Still factual, still supported by mountains of evidence, only since there would be no evil, there would be no reason for thousands of right wing idiots to deny it, lie about it, and whine about how it undermined their desperate wish that they didn’t crave bananas, like some damn ape.
Sin: Another meaningless term, with or without evil.
Salvation: From what?
Jihad: Against who or what, given that, without your so called evil, there would be no “internal” struggles, nor any reason for those internal issues to lead someone to the complete madness of killing other people?
Would you like any more help? Because, I think I am entirely missing your point about the whole silly “high and low” ends of gibberish. Its gibberish because its gibberish, not because their is this nebulous, entirely socially constructed, idea of evil and sin in the world, and I just can’t see past the 500,000,000 trees in the way, to the pearly gates you claim are hidden some place behind them (yet, look oddly, when described by more honest people, like someone painted a set of gates and the words, “They’re pearly!”, on one of the trees.
Your word list contains one thing which can be verified with fact, and a whole host of things that only make sense at all in context of believing in magic sky fairies, who are angry at semi-random sins, and make things like the human body and DNA, so that human engineers take one look at it and think, “If this was designed, they where a complete idiot!” Not having the handicap of believing that there “must” be such a designer, I am not obligated to either imagine that just because some moron came up with a word for it, the idea is useful, rational, or even real (in any sense to people that don’t subscribe to the idea itself), nor presume that your definitions of what are sin, evil, or anything else, makes a damn bit of sense, unless you have better support for it than, “I can’t personally imagine how there isn’t a Zeus, and I have this book, so you are being mean for not agreeing with me about both the ‘real’ existence of its plot characters, or the cosmic phantasm running it!”
But, seriously, its telling that, from my perspective, there is better character development, clearer rules, far more consistent ideas, and more believable characters than Jesus and the god of your Bible, in half the science fiction and fantasy novels I have read than in the Bible. Frankly, the day I read it and conclude any of its wasn’t just a, mostly, badly written mess of tribal insanity, or pure fabrications, I also expect to be hosting a real life party between the wizards Elminster, Dalimar, Harry Potter and Gandolf. That is how “plausible” I find your religion, or your attempts to explain why you imagine I am missing anything by not shutting off my brain, and accepting that it describes a real god, or, in the case of the NT, even real events.
James Simmons
July 26, 2009 at 9:57 am
I am not a proponent of any religion. My belief in God is above those man made organizations. The Bible? A very fragmented collection of stories that has been messed with far too much by man for any thinking person to think that it is acceptable without question.
Philly… Most of the people in the orient have never believed in the flat earth thing. The Hindus especially, knew better. For that matter so did the pyramid builders in Egypt and North and Central America. I include this to admonish you for using “absolutes” in debate.
OK you guys. I am not trying to convert anyone here. I don’t give a fig what any of you believe. I am not a Christian. My use of the word “evil” is a convenience. “Good, evil”. These two do no more than to set parameters for reference in debate.
If we have some money we could possibly use it to help or to hurt ourselves or someone else. Sure there are many uses in between these two but these extremes illustrate what I mean by “duality’ in life. I see no “gibberish” in this statement of mine. Do you? If so, please explain. Life is a continual stream of choices for us all. I it always an error to make assumptions about people you don’t know and have never met. Try not to do this.
The “Lord of the Rings” is a (now) classic tale of the strife between good and evil yet there are no gods in the story. There is, however, the implication of something more in the world. When Sauron is defeated where does he go? When the Ringbears and elves “go into the west” what exactly are they doing?
Harry Potter finally defeats Tom Riddle at long last in the current movie. These two characters are opposites of sorts are they not? Isn’t Harry the good guy and Riddle the bad guy?
When you host wizards at your party ask them what their purpose in lore is? Without something to guard against or to overcome they have none.
The little spirits that the world has known about are real. They exist in the lower spirit world and have legitimate reasons for being. Most of these are good little guys. Some are like little boys with computers and like to stir up the pot so to speak. If we exist without any god they can too. More about their purpose will be provided upon request.
Humans have an innate sense of good and bad. Even atheists know good from bad. Don’t try to tell me they don’t. I know better having several very intelligent atheist friends.
“Salvation” as I intend it means that time in our lives when we decide conclusively that we will never again knowingly hurt another. There need be no devils or gods for this to be. Doesn’t the rational mind support charity, kindness and respect for others? It does.
One thing that would be helpful in discussion is to argue against what I state with beliefs of your own instead of reading into my post what you think I mean or by expanding what I say to include things that I did not say. I want to know what you believe but when all you do is to try to bring me down this remains hidden. If you both do this we can all derive benefit from intelligent exchange. When mud slinging is present nothing of value can be accomplished.
Again, thanks to you both for the good (as opposed to bad) exchange.
JPS
PhillyChief
July 26, 2009 at 10:41 am
James,
You’ve done nothing but sling mud, sir. Even now you’re still doing it. Example: “Even atheists know good from bad.” Nice.
No, actually that won’t be helpful at all because it ignores the underlying problem of your comments, and that is your constant assertions that have little to no factual basis. For instance, what’s to be gained by responding to a claim that everything is dualistic with a claim that it’s not? Nothing. The more important lesson to be learned is how to responsibly form a position, and pointing out to you that you’ve no proper basis for your position is far more important.
If you want a ‘my belief vs yours’ exchange, you can look at it as tentatively held opinions based on currently available information vs what appear to be firm convictions based on intuition or faith (ie – “My belief in God”).
Oh, and your argument against flat Earth belief missed the point of my objection to your assertion that because the majority of people believe something, then it must be true. That’s just ridiculous, and a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum, aka the bandwagon fallacy.
Kagehi
July 26, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Setting aside the fact that even I, without reading the books, knew that this isn’t the last movie… This isn’t entirely accurate. Its written with the intent that Potter be the good guy, yes, but one could, just as easily, write an alternate version. Had, for example, the Nazis managed to succeed in taking over the world, then Potter and the various “half bloods” would have been shown as the dark enemy, out of destroy the true order of the universe, and Riddle as the victim of an attempt by the same to undermine and destroy the great leader of the righteous, who found a way to come back from the dead, to continue the fight. We see Harry Potter as the good guy because we value the things **he** represents, and not the ones that Tom Riddle does. If we valued instead the ideals of the Death Eaters, then Potter would be the grand enemy. There is not “clear” concept of good and evil in the world. Ironically, our definitions of what is and isn’t acceptable *is* a case of “ad populum”, in as much as we have decided, as a society, to embrace ideals that, in general, express freedom, life, opportunity, etc. 4,000 years ago, the precursors of the Big Three religions embraced – conformity, racism, mass murder, death for nearly all offenses, no matter how minor, and adherence to social rank and tradition. To them, ***our world*** would be nothing less than sin filled, ungodly, hell.
That is the problem with argumentum ad populum. It doesn’t give any sort of “valid” reason for **why** we are no longer tribal, racist, warmongering, mass murderers, it just points, says, “See, nearly everyone agrees with idea X, so idea X is right.”, without a) pointing out that, in the case of god belief, it was similarly true, among a civilization that would have felt right at home under Sauron, or b) recognizing the billion differences that exist between the modern definitions of the term god, never mind any modern definition and the sort of god people believed in 4,000+ years ago. Its not a claim of validity about the idea, its an assertion of validity, made about 10 billion **different** things, in which an attempt is being made to claim that they are all, and always have been, in contradiction to mountains of evidence, the same thing, when they are not.
Basically, your use of it isn’t even valid, because your argument amounts to, “Look, see.. everyone in the world likes vanilla ice cream, and always has”, while ignoring the people that a) hate it, b) like other flavors more, or c) the fact that no such thing existed until about the time of the Romans, and even then, it wasn’t what *we* call ice cream. Its argumentum ad populum sophismata. I.e., argument by popularity, based on a logical fallacy, or false conclusion.