I lost my faith a while back

[Quincy]

Hello, Spectrox War :wave:

I suffered from an attack of honesty and I became afflicted with a sense of humanity.

In short I re-evaluated my position because it stopped making sense.

I can't say I blame you. There are so many illogical and even theologically wrong positions people hold that make it hard to make sense of. I had never believed in God until I let myself read the bible and accept it for what it says as opposed to what doctrines people interpreted and created from it. I saw it then as muthos, spiritually inspired writing. If you consider there is a middle man with an interpretation involved with it's writing it's easier to understand it.

Maybe. But the source of Christianity is the Bible. I had to make an assessment of that.

I would say the bible is written record from the source of Christianity, spirit. It inspired people to write the books of the bible. Their interpretations and artistic parlance are mixed in with what is truth, Love. So, with what is recorded of what Jesus said, you can see he delivered the best moral code to man. There must be reason and purpose to that, which leads to what I believe Christianity is at it's core. Giving yourself to the love and the discipline of Christ.

Brought up CofE. When I became a passionate Christian I was a Baptist. Then I got into Methodism. Couldn't settle. Then I dropped all of it and felt so much better.

I would have too, to be honest. I've never belonged to any denomination and to be frank I never will :chuckle: . I was raised by an atheist and pagan and am not fond of the establishment at all. I can relate to your feelings here in the sense that I'd never want to get into the religious system either.

I honestly don't know how to answer that. Except that the scientific method (trying to find something wrong with a claim) and the Socratic method (asking pertinent questions) seem to work time and time again. Believing in something for no good reason is random and meaningless.

Well, there is no better tool to show us how things work than the SM. To an extent it can even help to show what is allegory/parable in various religious texts and what isn't. It only allows us to study processes though and the "code" that sources them, if you will, has to have a programmer. There is no shame in choosing a foundation that gives your life meaning and purpose.

:e4e:

 

[Spectrox War]

Your claim was that Christians are less rational. I merely pointed out that irrationality is a trait of humans in general, not just the faithful. (Yes, there are irrational believers.)

I think that if a Christian claims the entire Earth is less than 10,000 years old and believes in miracles which violate known laws of science then yes those Christians are highly irrational.

They are incompatible in your mind because you have a bias. You are every bit is strongly biased as Stripe and that colors your ability to reason. You are, in fact, leading your evidence down a path that you want to follow. It is just a different path than Stripes.

Depends what you mean by bias. If bias means arriving at an opinion by means of evidence and reasoned argument then yes I am biassed. If biassed means having a vested interest in believing something irrespective of evidence then I used to be like that. I had a huge vested interest in remaining within my Christian belief - I believed I was going to live forever with the creator of the universe and not be banished to a horrible place to be tortured until time itself comes to an end, which it never will.

I had to be fairly sure and in touch with what I deep down knew made sense to reject that potential prize.

I'm not leading the evidence. All the scientific evidence points to an earth that is vastly older than 10,000 years.
What are the fossils of ancient hominids such as australopithecine and homo erectus that share ape-like and human-like characteristics?
Why does the whole of life look like an ever evolving continuum without an end purpose?
Why do I share most of my genes with a chimp?
Why would any science find miracle claims to be laughably absurd?
Why would I continue believing in angels and demons when I had never seen any?

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Spectrox War]

Hello, Spectrox War :wave:



I can't say I blame you. There are so many illogical and even theologically wrong positions people hold that make it hard to make sense of. I had never believed in God until I let myself read the bible and accept it for what it says as opposed to what doctrines people interpreted and created from it. I saw it then as muthos, spiritually inspired writing. If you consider there is a middle man with an interpretation involved with it's writing it's easier to understand it.



I would say the bible is written record from the source of Christianity, spirit. It inspired people to write the books of the bible. Their interpretations and artistic parlance are mixed in with what is truth, Love. So, with what is recorded of what Jesus said, you can see he delivered the best moral code to man. There must be reason and purpose to that, which leads to what I believe Christianity is at it's core. Giving yourself to the love and the discipline of Christ.



I would have too, to be honest. I've never belonged to any denomination and to be frank I never will :chuckle: . I was raised by an atheist and pagan and am not fond of the establishment at all. I can relate to your feelings here in the sense that I'd never want to get into the religious system either.



Well, there is no better tool to show us how things work than the SM. To an extent it can even help to show what is allegory/parable in various religious texts and what isn't. It only allows us to study processes though and the "code" that sources them, if you will, has to have a programmer. There is no shame in choosing a foundation that gives your life meaning and purpose.

:e4e:

You are a most unusual and accepting Christian, sir!

I disagree with you about the need for a programmer. The earth gives the illusion of design but the detail reveals that it is haphazard and unplanned, e.g. the tortuous route taken by the laryngal nerve on a giraffe, blind cave fish that have eyes, the fact that my windpipe and foodpipe are so close together that there's a danger of me suffocating to death.

The main reason I know God didn't design me is because my recreation facility is located right next to my waste effluent outlet!

Besides, who created the creator?
Why does the creator necessarily have to be all-good and all-loving? Why can't God be an amoral superbeing like Q from Star Trek?
I don't think the God Hypothesis explains anything. It just adds confusion to an already confused and lost world.

 

[Town Heretic]

...Besides, who created the creator?

I omitted the first couple of purely contextual, subjective notions to get to this Dawkins favorite. No one. If the universe didn't create itself and we don't want to rely on chasing the answer through eternity then whatever caused creation could not be of the same stuff or you're just repackaging the argument of an infinite regress. God is the logically necessary uncaused cause.

Why does the creator necessarily have to be all-good and all-loving?

It's mostly a matter of inference from scale in the general theistic sense and revelation in the particular Christian understanding. Though in both cases we don''t encompass that whole nature, only understand it in reflection. That is, we don't look upon the face/nature of God so much as we relate to what we can comprehend within our context.

I don't think the God Hypothesis explains anything.

Then you consider the seat of being and moral law nothing much. And that's your problem.

It just adds confusion to an already confused and lost world.

Rather the opposite for those actually possessing the thing. And your world isn't lost. It's nothing more or less than mechanism, choice and consequence. Lost only really makes sense if there's a direction and destination. And yours is arbitrary and relative.

 

[PureX]

I find the whole story perverse. Why would God need to sacrifice himself to himself in order to act as a loophole to a law he introduced in the Old Testament? It's insane!

But none of that is in the story. You are referring to the religious spin that has been applied to the story by religious 'believers'.

If he wanted to forgive us, is it not in his capacity to just forgive us and make it absolutely clear to everyone? What's wrong with telepathy? Why can't God be telepathic? We might at least find the claims plausible.

Forgiveness is something we have to do for ourselves and each other. Just as love is something that must be expressed amongst us. Love requires a 'beloved'. And as we learn to forgive others for their shortcomings, we're learning to do the same for ourselves. At least that's how it seems to work for me.

"Say not you have found the truth, but rather you have found a truth". Kahlil Gibran

I'm very glad you feel happier now and more in control of your life. Thing is there is no way of knowing whether the spirit of Jesus had anything to do with what you experienced at that time or whether it was simply the kindness and support of other people.

I agree. But story of Jesus presents me with the ideal of "Christ". That ideal is about how Jesus was Christ (God's love in human form). And the point of the story is that if I am willing to let go of my own self-centered fear, and allow myself to likewise become an 'expression of God's love in human form', I can be healed and saved by that love and can help others to be, as well. This does not require me to pretend that Jesus is my invisible friend, or that God is some big daddy in the sky. It doesn't require that I pretend that God wrote the Bible, or that I be a religious Christian of any sort. All the message conveys to me is that if I will give myself over to this ideal of expressing love and forgiveness, I will be healed and saved from the fears and resentments and the destructive nature within myself.

It does matter whether the story is historically true.

Why?

"The Little Engine That Could" is not a historically true story, but the message it conveys to us about the value of persistence is the truth. The story is just a mechanism for conveying the message. As long as the story successfully conveys the message, what difference does it make whether it's fiction or not?

I find lots of truth in episodes of Star Trek but I don't believe in the planet Vulcan and engage in the Pon Far mating ritual every 7 years.

Nor should you. But interestingly enough, you have no proof that such a planet with such rituals does NOT exist, either. The TRUTH is that we don't know. So why not just be honest and leave it at that?

I agree. There is nothing wrong with this. We all need authentic love. I just think Biblical claims are a sham. A well-meaning sham and the best that men could do 2000 years ago. But a sham none the less.

The Bible is not God. Religion is not Christ. You don't have to reject your faith in reason and your experience of reality to accept the reality of God or Christ. I don't. I realize that some religious Christians claim that you do have to reject reason and believe blindly in their dogma, but that's their path, not mine.

This is where we will have to agree to disagree. There is very little that is rational or logical in the Bible. It has a different agenda. There is nothing written in the Bible in praise of intelligence or skepticism.

The Bible is a collection of stories and poems and songs and parables and various other forms of literature. It was originally created by people who loved to argue and debate and discuss their ideas and experiences of "God" as they understood it. It's not a science book, or a history book, either. It was intended to be used to inspire the very wrangling with the idea of God that they believed made God a living force in their life. It's how they kept their "God" alive.

I appreciate it for what it is, and for the wisdom it passes down to us from those who came before. But I don't worship it as if it were "Gods words", and I don't expect it to be historically or scientifically accurate.

Christianity was developed at a time when the human race was at the level of infants. Now the human race has entered adolescence. In many ways a more dangerous time. But eventually humanity will grow up completely and hopefully put away all childish things - including religion.

There is a lot more to it than just what you are referring to, here.

 

[Spectrox War]

I omitted the first couple of purely contextual, subjective notions to get to this Dawkins favorite. No one. If the universe didn't create itself and we don't want to rely on chasing the answer through eternity then whatever caused creation could not be of the same stuff or you're just repackaging the argument of an infinite regress. God is the logically necessary uncaused cause.

I think it was probably first stated by a child who recognised the nonsense that is infinite regress. Maybe the universe has always existed (prior to the Big Bang when something exploded)? It looks like it will continue forever (The Hubble Constant is probably greater than 50).

Why don't you try to address my very reasonable points in my previous post to yourself instead of jumping to another one? I'd love to hear a double-speak explanation for the two contradictory Death of Judas stories. I could do with a laugh.

It's mostly a matter of inference from scale in the general theistic sense and revelation in the particular Christian understanding. Though in both cases we don''t encompass that whole nature, only understand it in reflection. That is, we don't look upon the face/nature of God so much as we relate to what we can comprehend within our context.

How to say nothing in about 60 words.

Then you consider the seat of being and moral law nothing much. And that's your problem.

Your problem is assuming that Christianity is the source of our morals when it's a mostly immoral philosophy.

e.g. genocides supported by God;slavery supported by God; instruction for a rape victim to marry her rapist (the worst advice ever written); stoning gay people to death; women not allowed to preach or have authority over a man; eternal Hellfire and damnation for unbelievers where there will be "wailing and gnashing of teeth." The list goes on.

Rather the opposite for those actually possessing the thing. And your world isn't lost. It's nothing more or less than mechanism, choice and consequence. Lost only really makes sense if there's a direction and destination. And yours is arbitrary and relative.

I create my own purpose and meaning. So does everyone else. I'm just a lot more honest and much less pretentious about it.

 

[Spectrox War]

But none of that is in the story. You are referring to the religious spin that has been applied to the story by religious 'believers'.

So what constitutes True Christianity? You Christians really need to get your story straight.

I agree. But story of Jesus presents me with the ideal of "Christ". That ideal is about how Jesus was Christ (God's love in human form). And the point of the story is that if I am willing to let go of my own self-centered fear, and allow myself to likewise become an 'expression of God's love in human form', I can be healed and saved by that love and can help others to be, as well. This does not require me to pretend that Jesus is my invisible friend, or that God is some big daddy in the sky. It doesn't require that I pretend that God wrote the Bible, or that I be a religious Christian of any sort. All the message conveys to me is that if I will give myself over to this ideal of expressing love and forgiveness, I will be healed and saved from the fears and resentments and the destructive nature within myself.

I don't think Jesus as portrayed in the Bible is that great. Historically I much prefer Socrates and Buddha.

Jesus comes across as too much of a frothing-at-the-mouth" rabble rouser.

He'd have made a terrible husband and family man. Can you imagine him coming home from a hard day's preaching and saying to his wife "This is a house of desolation! The home of the lizard and the spider! I come not to bring peace, but a sword! I come to divide a mother from her daughter and a father from his son!"

Any self-respecting wife would have kicked him out of the house.

"The Little Engine That Could" is not a historically true story, but the message it conveys to us about the value of persistence is the truth. The story is just a mechanism for conveying the message. As long as the story successfully conveys the message, what difference does it make whether it's fiction or not?

A lot if you are going to devote your whole life to it and say it's the ultimate truth of the universe.

Nor should you. But interestingly enough, you have no proof that such a planet with such rituals does NOT exist, either. The TRUTH is that we don't know. So why not just be honest and leave it at that?

Are you serious? As much as I love The Trek, you're going too far. Mind you, did you know that Mr Spock had 3 ears?

A left ear, a right ear and a final front ear.

The Bible is not God. Religion is not Christ. You don't have to reject your faith in reason and your experience of reality to accept the reality of God or Christ. I don't. I realize that some religious Christians claim that you do have to reject reason and believe blindly in their dogma, but that's their path, not mine.
The Bible is a collection of stories and poems and songs and parables and various other forms of literature. It was originally created by people who loved to argue and debate and discuss their ideas and experiences of "God" as they understood it. It's not a science book, or a history book, either. It was intended to be used to inspire the very wrangling with the idea of God that they believed made God a living force in their life. It's how they kept their "God" alive.

This is a whopping contradiction. The only written source for Jesus is the Bible. How are you experiencing him in any other way besides reading the Bible? Imagination? Day dreaming? A hotline to God?

In terms of the Bible not being a science or history text, this is true, but it would have helped if it hadn't been written so narrowly. The God of the Bible seems very small and non-omnipotent.

I appreciate it for what it is, and for the wisdom it passes down to us from those who came before. But I don't worship it as if it were "Gods words", and I don't expect it to be historically or scientifically accurate.
There is a lot more to it than just what you are referring to, here.

Who wrote it then? And why should I pay any more attention to it than the works of Plato or Shakespeare?

 

[PureX]

So what constitutes True Christianity? You Christians really need to get your story straight.

Why? Everyone's life is a different story, unfolding. I see no reason we should all see things the same.

I don't think Jesus as portrayed in the Bible is that great. Historically I much prefer Socrates and Buddha.

Jesus comes across as too much of a frothing-at-the-mouth" rabble rouser.

He'd have made a terrible husband and family man. Can you imagine him coming home from a hard day's preaching and saying to his wife "This is a house of desolation! The home of the lizard and the spider! I come not to bring peace, but a sword! I come to divide a mother from her daughter and a father from his son!"

Any self-respecting wife would have kicked him out of the house.

It's just a story. It was a story people told each other until it was eventually written down. I figure it must convey something viable and important to people or it wouldn't have lasted this long.

A lot if you are going to devote your whole life to it and say it's the ultimate truth of the universe.

No one is going to devote their life to a story, or an ideal, or to anything else that doesn't help them to achieve what they want to achieve in life.

Are you serious? As much as I love The Trek, you're going too far. Mind you, did you know that Mr Spock had 3 ears?

A left ear, a right ear and a final front ear.

My point is that it's wrong to decry the blind arrogance of religious Christianity while ignoring our own. We don't actually know nearly so much as we think we know. I have met no man yet who could explain the origin, limits, function, or purpose of my life. And if he can't do that, what does he know that means anything?

This is a whopping contradiction. The only written source for Jesus is the Bible. How are you experiencing him in any other way besides reading the Bible? Imagination? Day dreaming? A hotline to God?

Who said anything about experiencing Jesus?

In terms of the Bible not being a science or history text, this is true, but it would have helped if it hadn't been written so narrowly. The God of the Bible seems very small and non-omnipotent.

The various books of the Bible were written by small, non-omnipotent men, who had only themselves through which to envision "God". So of course their image of God appears to resemble themselves. How could it be otherwise?

This doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, however. Nor does it mean that their stories aren't conveying important truths to succeeding generations.

Who wrote it then? And why should I pay any more attention to it than the works of Plato or Shakespeare?

I'm not saying you should. What I'm saying is that you've apparently been taught to conceive of the Bible inappropriately, and as a result, you've missed much of it's value. You were taught to take it as a history book, and when it clearly misrepresented known historical facts you dismissed it. But it's not a history book and the historical inaccuracies are irrelevant. You've been taught to take the book literally, rather than symbolically, and so when the text said something that you didn't agree with you dismissed it as wrong-headed. But the language is symbolic, and is not meant to tell you this and that, but instead to elicit in you an internal dialogue that the authors believed would lead you to "God".

God appears in those sacred texts to be a sort of inscrutable bully for a reason. It wasn't that the authors necessarily thought that God is a bully, it was that they experienced life as a sort of 'inscrutable bully'. These people lived in a hard world, and they didn't live in it long. But they suffered a lot while they were here. And they didn't understand why this was so. "God" was the imaginary being that represented this great mystery of life, of suffering, and of death, for them. So of course their "God" appears hard, and inexplicable, and even cruel. Their "God" was the source of all existence, and their existence was hard, inexplicable, and cruel.

By representing God in this way, they could confront this immutable mystery that is life as a human being. The word "God" really represents a kind of omni-question, not an omni-answer, as so many religionists believe, today.

When I read the Bible stories in this light, I begin to appreciate how they were meant to be used, and grappled with, by the people who wrote them. Why they are so deliberately disconcerting. And I can begin to allow that same dialogue to happen inside my own mind and heart. And I can begin to grapple with those same questions, myself. And it is in those questions about life and death and suffering and struggle, that we will find our "God". Because "God" is a word that refers to a great mystery, not to phony religious dogmas, platitudes, and 'answers'.

 

[Jedidiah]

Dear Spectrox War,

Thanks for saying so.

The Bible isn't about "Jesus." It's about the risen Lord Jesus Christ, of Whose Body we Christians are, Who lives in and through Us, and you need to read and interpret the Bible this way, or you won't get it.

Kindest regards,
-Jed

Your comment is nonsensical and an assumption about what happened to this guy Jesus (assuming he even existed in the first place).

Dear Spectrox War,

Relax. You read a book, and then you know what the book's about, assuming you can comprehend what you read. The Bible is a book. It's about the risen Lord Jesus Christ. "Assuming he even existed" and "an assumption about what happened" to Him doesn't enter into it, He's in the book. Do you assume Frodo existed and make assumptions about happened to Frodo when you read or explain the Lord of the Rings ?

What does "live in and through us" actually mean? Can you explain it logically or is it something you just heard in church?

It's real simple. We Christians have submitted our wills to Jesus Christ by confessing with our mouths that He is Lord. We believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead. We have been crucified and, and it is now He Who lives in our bodies. Each Christian is an individual member of the Body of Christ. So the risen Lord Jesus Christ lives in each of Us individual Christians, and through Us collectively He mediates between God and mankind.

-Jed

 

[Town Heretic]

I think it was probably first stated by a child who recognised the nonsense that is infinite regress.

Until fairly recently (and still for the most part) that's been the whole answer for the atheist. Things have always been and cycled.

Maybe the universe has always existed (prior to the Big Bang when something exploded)? It looks like it will continue forever (The Hubble Constant is probably greater than 50).

That's the infinite regress with a twist, given what we know of the big bang. And what could have existed prior to that bang that accounts for an eternal (and if you're right about that constant) non cyclical event within the confines of what must have been a vast measurement of the eternal sudden and inexplicable alteration? All sorts of logic problems with your attempt there, relating to time and causality. That's escaping the regress by creating another problem you can't explain.

Why don't you try to address my very reasonable points in my previous post to yourself instead of jumping to another one?

Given your failure to substantively address my initial entry here regarding your apostasy and your subsequent run from one thing to another, that's darn near endearing.

I'd love to hear a double-speak explanation for the two contradictory Death of Judas stories.

He died.

I could do with a laugh.

Read over your narrative so far. lain:

I wrote, in response to your general "why would God be perfect" inquiry (with additions): It's mostly a matter of inference from scale in the general theistic sense (the lesser to greater infers the greatest and that from which a thing is taken is necessarily less than the source) and revelation in the particular Christian understanding (God establishes and reveals his nature to those who love Him). Though in both cases we don''t encompass that whole nature, only understand it in reflection. That is, we don't look upon the face/nature of God so much as we relate to what we can comprehend within our context (limitations of intellect and experience).

How to say nothing in about 60 words.

No, I said a great deal, agree or not. So you should find an atheist who's smarter than you are and have them explain it. I tried to help a bit with the additions.

Your problem is assuming that Christianity is the source of our morals when it's a mostly immoral philosophy.

An irrational statement on its face, given your posture. If there is no seat of absolute moral authority, if morality doesn't and cannot exist independent of us, then your pronouncement is meaningless as a judgment. And I don't assume, but understand that Christ is the source of my morality. Yours is the illusion of morality, since you don't believe it actually exists except as a reflection of your preference, however derived.

e.g. genocides supported by God;slavery supported by God; instruction for a rape victim to marry her rapist (the worst advice ever written); stoning gay people to death; women not allowed to preach or have authority over a man; eternal Hellfire and damnation for unbelievers where there will be "wailing and gnashing of teeth." The list goes on.

You should create another thread: things I hate about the Bible that I suggested an understanding of when I embraced it.

I create my own purpose and meaning.

You give yourself something to do until you die. And when you're dead it will mean nothing more or less than the death of a horsefly.

So does everyone else. I'm just a lot more honest and much less pretentious about it.

Than those who differ with you...That's really quite funny if you know the definition of the word you set that sting by. :chuckle:

 

[Spectrox War]

Why? Everyone's life is a different story, unfolding. I see no reason we should all see things the same.
It's just a story. It was a story people told each other until it was eventually written down. I figure it must convey something viable and important to people or it wouldn't have lasted this long.
No one is going to devote their life to a story, or an ideal, or to anything else that doesn't help them to achieve what they want to achieve in life.
My point is that it's wrong to decry the blind arrogance of religious Christianity while ignoring our own. We don't actually know nearly so much as we think we know. I have met no man yet who could explain the origin, limits, function, or purpose of my life. And if he can't do that, what does he know that means anything?
Who said anything about experiencing Jesus?
The various books of the Bible were written by small, non-omnipotent men, who had only themselves through which to envision "God". So of course their image of God appears to resemble themselves. How could it be otherwise?

This doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, however. Nor does it mean that their stories aren't conveying important truths to succeeding generations.
I'm not saying you should. What I'm saying is that you've apparently been taught to conceive of the Bible inappropriately, and as a result, you've missed much of it's value. You were taught to take it as a history book, and when it clearly misrepresented known historical facts you dismissed it. But it's not a history book and the historical inaccuracies are irrelevant. You've been taught to take the book literally, rather than symbolically, and so when the text said something that you didn't agree with you dismissed it as wrong-headed. But the language is symbolic, and is not meant to tell you this and that, but instead to elicit in you an internal dialogue that the authors believed would lead you to "God".

God appears in those sacred texts to be a sort of inscrutable bully for a reason. It wasn't that the authors necessarily thought that God is a bully, it was that they experienced life as a sort of 'inscrutable bully'. These people lived in a hard world, and they didn't live in it long. But they suffered a lot while they were here. And they didn't understand why this was so. "God" was the imaginary being that represented this great mystery of life, of suffering, and of death, for them. So of course their "God" appears hard, and inexplicable, and even cruel. Their "God" was the source of all existence, and their existence was hard, inexplicable, and cruel.

By representing God in this way, they could confront this immutable mystery that is life as a human being. The word "God" really represents a kind of omni-question, not an omni-answer, as so many religionists believe, today.

When I read the Bible stories in this light, I begin to appreciate how they were meant to be used, and grappled with, by the people who wrote them. Why they are so deliberately disconcerting. And I can begin to allow that same dialogue to happen inside my own mind and heart. And I can begin to grapple with those same questions, myself. And it is in those questions about life and death and suffering and struggle, that we will find our "God". Because "God" is a word that refers to a great mystery, not to phony religious dogmas, platitudes, and 'answers'.

I agree with the broad thrust of what you're saying here. Maybe because it sounds more Zen than Christian.

 

[Spectrox War]

Dear Spectrox War,

Relax. You read a book, and then you know what the book's about, assuming you can comprehend what you read. The Bible is a book. It's about the risen Lord Jesus Christ. "Assuming he even existed" and "an assumption about what happened" to Him doesn't enter into it, He's in the book. Do you assume Frodo existed and make assumptions about happened to Frodo when you read or explain the Lord of the Rings ?
It's real simple. We Christians have submitted our wills to Jesus Christ by confessing with our mouths that He is Lord. We believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead. We have been crucified and, and it is now He Who lives in our bodies. Each Christian is an individual member of the Body of Christ. So the risen Lord Jesus Christ lives in each of Us individual Christians, and through Us collectively He mediates between God and mankind.

-Jed

It's incredible that someone can't see the colossal mammoth-sized contradiction between these 2 comments in Bold.

In the first bit you're implying Jesus didn't really exist or it's unimportant whether he did or not and in the next section you're implying that he did exist, died and was resurrected and now fills you somehow!

I'm so glad I dumped my Christian way of thinking. It was doing my nut in.

 

[Spectrox War]

That's the infinite regress with a twist, given what we know of the big bang. And what could have existed prior to that bang that accounts for an eternal (and if you're right about that constant) non cyclical event within the confines of what must have been a vast measurement of the eternal sudden and inexplicable alteration? All sorts of logic problems with your attempt there, relating to time and causality. That's escaping the regress by creating another problem you can't explain.

I agree. We haven't got a clue about any of this. Until there's demonstrable evidence about an all-loving intelligence starting the ball rolling, I am justified in my disbelief.

Given your failure to substantively address my initial entry here regarding your apostasy and your subsequent run from one thing to another, that's darn near endearing.

Like I said, you can't assume anything about the quality of my faith, only how long it lasted.

He died.

How did he die? What happened to the blood money? Who purchased the Field of Blood with the money?

Read over your narrative so far. lain:

I wrote, in response to your general "why would God be perfect" inquiry (with additions): It's mostly a matter of inference from scale in the general theistic sense (the lesser to greater infers the greatest and that from which a thing is taken is necessarily less than the source) and revelation in the particular Christian understanding (God establishes and reveals his nature to those who love Him). Though in both cases we don''t encompass that whole nature, only understand it in reflection. That is, we don't look upon the face/nature of God so much as we relate to what we can comprehend within our context (limitations of intellect and experience).

Is this a variation on the ontological argument? If so, it's just playing with words.

An irrational statement on its face, given your posture. If there is no seat of absolute moral authority, if morality doesn't and cannot exist independent of us, then your pronouncement is meaningless as a judgment. And I don't assume, but understand that Christ is the source of my morality. Yours is the illusion of morality, since you don't believe it actually exists except as a reflection of your preference, however derived.

I make a judgement about morality based on harm versus benefit to myself and others. So do most other people. There is no absolute morality in detail. We have societal laws which act as a consensus of opinion as to what is generally regarded as acceptable and decent behaviour. These change with time. I think societal rules today are better than those I read in the Bible.

The Euthyphro Dilemma makes a nonsense of absolute morality - God can make up an ad hoc morality (e.g. genocide is ok) and it's supposedly ok. OR if something is good because it happens to be good and God just agrees with it then we have a non-omnipotent middle-man God who is useless. Either way it doesn't really work.

You should create another thread: things I hate about the Bible that I suggested an understanding of when I embraced it.

Isn't this cherry-picking? In this sense, you are no different to me then.

You give yourself something to do until you die. And when you're dead it will mean nothing more or less than the death of a horsefly.

Exactly. So enjoy every moment. Treat every moment as precious. Even the gift of communication on the internet right now.

Take care.

 

[PureX]

I agree with the broad thrust of what you're saying here. Maybe because it sounds more Zen than Christian.

Yes, I am a philosophical taoist. But I find no difficulty in melding taoist philosophy with the essential Christian ideal.

 

[Town Heretic]

I agree. We haven't got a clue about any of this. Until there's demonstrable evidence about an all-loving intelligence starting the ball rolling, I am justified in my disbelief.

We actually agree on part of this...There's no objective means to settle the question. That is, I'm certain of my experience of God and its impact on my life, but I understand that is unavoidably subjective. I am equally certain that anyone desiring that relation and impact can have it, but it comes at a cost. The cost is trust. And that trust is unconditional. While I believe an objective case is easily made for religious faith over its absence, that case can only bring you to the cusp, the edge of a leap that is as unnatural to the carnal mind as the carnal mind is sorrowful to the Body. And there it stands.

Like I said, you can't assume anything about the quality of my faith, only how long it lasted.

I never did. I set out a logical impossibility and a rational, linear posit regarding what trust is and isn't and what a faith built on it can and cannot come to. You filled in your part yourself.

How did he die? What happened to the blood money? Who purchased the Field of Blood with the money?

Why is that important to you? Are you suggesting that what stands between you and faith is the answer to those questions, that were that narrative to be entirely and literally consistent to your mind you'd be of another disposition? I don't have any reason for believing that, don't suspect you'd honestly answer in the affirmative.

Is this a variation on the ontological argument? If so, it's just playing with words.

You could say that about reason itself, were you a mind to, unless reason was applied to purely mechanical examinations. But it isn't and neither is my example. Else, find and illustrate the fault.

I make a judgement about morality based on harm versus benefit to myself and others.

And you're certainly free to do that, but once you eliminate the absolute and independent it's no more or less valid than any other opinion of moral worth however derived, from the complexity of certain humanist construction to a simple coin flip.

So do most other people.

No, most people believe in God and that absolute standard, even as they differ on any number of things between them and in expression.

There is no absolute morality in detail. We have societal laws which act as a consensus of opinion as to what is generally regarded as acceptable and decent behaviour. These change with time. I think societal rules today are better than those I read in the Bible.

Certainly that's how a secular compact is expressed, though it does tend to reflect (within reasoned limitations) the fundamental beliefs of the people it represents and protects. Your opinion of the Bible is noted and consistent with your designation.

The Euthyphro Dilemma makes a nonsense of absolute morality

No, it doesn't. If you hold that God is necessarily perfect then He is necessarily bound by His own nature. He doesn't create morality. He is morality. Just as sufficient points of reference manifest space.

Isn't this cherry-picking? In this sense, you are no different to me then.

No. It's recognizing how far afield you've gone and noting that you could create any number of threads on the topic.


Re: the illusion of purpose for atheism.

Exactly. So enjoy every moment.

I do. I enjoy the now immensely. Much more than I did before relation. In part that's because of the active sharing in God and in part, I suspect, it's because I'm aware that as wonderful as this experience is, I'm not wasting it on a fruitless, insensate universe that will neither note nor mourn my passing.

Treat every moment as precious.

Couldn't agree more. I revel in the life and abundance God has given me, in the opportunity to laugh and love and grow in understanding. It's a wonderful thing, this life.

Even the gift of communication on the internet right now.

Take care.

You too. And God find and keep you one of these days. :e4e:

 

[Jedidiah]

Dear Spectrox War,

Relax. You read a book, and then you know what the book's about, assuming you can comprehend what you read. The Bible is a book. It's about the risen Lord Jesus Christ. "Assuming he even existed" and "an assumption about what happened" to Him doesn't enter into it, He's in the book. Do you assume Frodo existed and make assumptions about happened to Frodo when you read or explain the Lord of the Rings ?
It's real simple. We Christians have submitted our wills to Jesus Christ by confessing with our mouths that He is Lord. We believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead. We have been crucified and, and it is now He Who lives in our bodies. Each Christian is an individual member of the Body of Christ. So the risen Lord Jesus Christ lives in each of Us individual Christians, and through Us collectively He mediates between God and mankind.

-Jed

It's incredible that someone can't see the colossal mammoth-sized contradiction between these 2 comments in Bold.

In the first bit you're implying Jesus didn't really exist or it's unimportant whether he did or not and in the next section you're implying that he did exist, died and was resurrected and now fills you somehow!

I'm so glad I dumped my Christian way of thinking. It was doing my nut in.

Dear Spectrox War,

You are a riot ! :chuckle: You know that the first statement was about the high level interpretation of the Bible, and that the second statement was about a lower level detail. The first was for the scholastic while the second was for the practitioner. The first was for the "Martian scientist" while the second was for the child. The first was prima facie while the second is the deeper meaning.

Relax.

-Jed

 

[Quincy]

:chuckle:, Hello again.

You are a most unusual and accepting Christian, sir!

Well, I'm no fundamentalist. Just a free thinker here, more of a gnostic I suppose so don't tell the fundies if they ever get power! I think the worst thing a disciple of Christ can do is drive a schism. Jesus spent more time with sinners than he did the saved, if you think about it.

I disagree with you about the need for a programmer. The earth gives the illusion of design but the detail reveals that it is haphazard and unplanned,

It may show some nonsensical planning but there is one thing to note of God's providence. It is always ongoing and building, and even still creating. We are looking at things in a moment in time and don't have every piece of information we need to help understand how some things came to be nor do we know where they are going.

]e.g. the tortuous route taken by the laryngal nerve on a giraffe, blind cave fish that have eyes, the fact that my windpipe and foodpipe are so close together that there's a danger of me suffocating to death.

Well, I think it's possible the cave fish came into that environment from some type of flood or storm and then evolved into what we see today. As for the design of creatures, there is only so many ways something could actually function in our biosphere. Is it possible to conceive of a better design for a bipedal creature like us?

The main reason I know God didn't design me is because my recreation facility is located right next to my waste effluent outlet!

So, where else could it go that would allow the same functionality?

Besides, who created the creator?

Well, things/objects are shown in nature to require a creator. I don't believe God is a thing or object however. Seems God is an eternal mystery that sustains and sources creation, more from outside it than inside it. We can know Love's incarnation in Christ and what his plan for us is but divine reason would be beyond us.

The thing is, like any painting, machinery or an artificial intelligence we can't truly know our creator. That creator preceded it, so there is no answering that question. God is a mystery and always will be despite many people trying to create him as they see fit.

Here is a question for you. Does a possible creator to a creator matter anymore than it matters who Da Vinci's mother was? Leonardo was directly responsible for his work.

Why does the creator necessarily have to be all-good and all-loving? Why can't God be an amoral superbeing like Q from Star Trek?
I don't think the God Hypothesis explains anything. It just adds confusion to an already confused and lost world.

I tend to think God is above human concepts. He'd understand them because his providence would have guided us to evolve the ability to reason them, but what we call good or evil, or indifference are human concepts. They serve to teach, humble and grant us wisdom in our existence. I highly doubt the creator would think in human terms regarding his work. We call it this or that, but that's on us.


:e4e:

 

[Dr.Watson]

It's the only truth we can access. It's really the only truth we can assert in any sense. The truth that appears to us. We may be right. We may be delusional. We may not even be. But we experience and process and come to grips with what we believe as best we can.

What you've just said is very important. In it, you acknowledge that you may be wrong. This is important because it's a way of saying that you can't really know. This goes back to my accusation that you and I use different definitions for "knowledge". I use it to describe empirically knowable facts that lend themselves strongly to a belief or explanation. You have been using it to also discuss something existential that you can barely describe meaningfully (but you really really really believe) and is at best absurd to onlooking 3rd party agents.

It's a simple matter of will and exercise. Or it would be provided you (in that broader role) didn't insist on having the impossible first.

If only the world worked this way (believe first and then it will be revealed to you). This is a failed model of awareness and human progress. It's failings are readily apparent in its extremely slow progression as witnessed by a casual stroll through history books, and extreme reluctance to change.

It's true that your premise isn't. Empiricism is limited. It can measure, but it cannot value. It can describe process, but it cannot answer as to the origin of being and existence. And if you cannot say what would satisfy an inquiry I can hardly be expected to supply it...

You're not following, then. I'm not looking for a "proof". These do not even exist in the natural world. I'm looking for anything at all for which you could even begin to build a foundation. And tons of examples have been given. Heal an amputee, for instance. Stop the sun in the sky. Put 1 million dollars in my bank account. Or everyones bank account - with a note attached on the deposit slip "Best regards: Jesus". I could go on and on with examples but this would just be an exercise in silliness as you and I both agree that it will never happen. However, these would be evidences of that which you believe (none of it proof, but evidence non-the-less). You cannot deny that.

Without going into the methodology or religious particulars of any such study, neither would the dramatic success of prayer have been evidence of God. It could have as easily been considered a quantum level manipulation by some unknown means or evidence of some operation of natural law as yet undetermined. Or it could be argued that man, having understood a cause effect relation in relation to intense desire and concentration had developed an elaborate explanation for it. God needn't factor in at all.

See above.

I find the witness accounts, generationally, of altered lives and relation to be fairly persuasive evidence that the Christian myth, to steal from Tolkien and Lewis, is a true one.

Who witnessed it? None that authored your holy book. And the level of editing since it was experienced, and then finally put into writing - and then passed down through multiple translations - do you know how much might have been lost or altered? You're putting a huge amount of faith on an extremely large question mark that, even if it were shown to be accurate, is extremely sketchy in its reliability anyways.

Like asking what's not horrible about mutilation, theft and birthday parties, to note the first problem. The second is that you aren't in any position to judge any of that, only to note its effect. Or, you're in no better position and your judgment amounts to nothing more or less than a standard that itself has no authority. In other words, when an atheist attempts moral outrage he is his own problem.

Complete and utter non-sense. Have you read anything of late about evolution of morality and human ethics? Do you want me to recommend and few good books written by people who actually know something about the subject?

Christendom doesn't teach that we're living in the best or even intended place for mankind.

This is a sickening sentiment from dangerous tribal religious belief. The world isn't "perfect", but thinking that this is just some transitory stage for paradise is disastrous and depressingly unfortunate that so many share this horrendous meme - and so many are willing to act on it. When I hear it, it reminds me of the women who are congratulated by their neighbors when their sons and daughters explode themselves in a cafe, or on a train, as their martyrdom has secured a spot for them and their family in the blissful afterlife where rivers are chocolate/gold and 72 virgins await their arrivals (they actually believe this and it is no less silly than your own).

 

[Town Heretic]

What you've just said is very important. In it, you acknowledge that you may be wrong.

Rather, the selectivity of your attention is what's important in this. What I've noted is the fundamental reliance of everyone on faith.

You have been using it to also discuss something existential that you can barely describe meaningfully

I don't find that to be either objectively demonstrated or subjectively true.

(but you really really really believe) and is at best absurd to onlooking 3rd party agents.

Only those with your investment, certainly. To most of mankind throughout its history, including the lion's share of its best and brightest, you have that completely backwards.

If only the world worked this way (believe first and then it will be revealed to you).

Rather, rely and trust and your faith will be confirmed, your walk begun in earnest and your context altered and broadened. life in abundance, as it's paraphrased.

This is a failed model of awareness and human progress. It's failings are readily apparent in its extremely slow progression as witnessed by a casual stroll through history books, and extreme reluctance to change.

Matthew 7:14

You're not following, then.

One of us, to be certain.

I'm not looking for a "proof". These do not even exist in the natural world.

Sure they do. A great many assertions of objective fact can be demonstrated to be the case. You've already indicated that even love is measurable in terms of its biological component. Rather, you can't produce meaningful criteria so you try to wrap this preponderance of evidence substitute in the robes of respectability, but I've already addressed the deficiency. If no single instance can be assigned objectively to God then no collective inference is any more rationally appealing.

I'm looking for anything at all for which you could even begin to build a foundation.

No, that's not true. You're looking for a very particular thing: the miraculous. The problem with the miraculous is that it ain't necessarily so to begin with. As I said somewhere, there was a group of aborigines that were certain airplanes were magic, having eliminated every known rational objection. Or, it isn't what you don't know, but what you don't know you don't know that's the problem in part. And even when it's so it doesn't really tell you much if you're rational.

And tons of examples have been given. Heal an amputee, for instance.

It would be remarkable, to be sure. But it wouldn't tell us the first thing about either the existence of God or his nature, however willing the person taking credit for causing that healing might be to ascribe the thing.

I could go on and on with examples but this would just be an exercise in silliness as you and I both agree that it will never happen.

We'd agree it's silly. And I'd give you the same answer Christ gave his tempter or the response a certain ruler received demanding the miraculous for his purposes.

However, these would be evidences of that which you believe (none of it proof, but evidence non-the-less). You cannot deny that.

I can, do and only just did.

Who witnessed it? None that authored your holy book.

Says you in general, but don't tell Saul/Paul in the particular, who met the risen Christ and confirmed his understanding in the company of the very men who walked with Jesus in his flesh.

And the level of editing since it was experienced, and then finally put into writing - and then passed down through multiple translations - do you know how much might have been lost or altered?

If they were intended by God, yes I do and so do you. If they weren't, then no. But here's a better point to the second part, neither would you.

You're putting a huge amount of faith on an extremely large question mark that, even if it were shown to be accurate, is extremely sketchy in its reliability anyways.

I rely on God and my experience of Him, which I find confirmed in the gospels and writings of Paul. And, again, life is a leap of faith. The only real question is direction.

Complete and utter non-sense. Have you read anything of late about evolution of morality and human ethics? Do you want me to recommend and few good books written by people who actually know something about the subject?

Your ongoing condescending declarations notwithstanding and my familiarity with sociology (anthropological sociology in particular) as well, it doesn't alter my reasoning or even answer it. If there is no absolute moral authority then we are free moral agents. That means we can define its (morality's) parameters as we will. The only restraint is our own determination or the enforcement of an understanding by a substitute power with sufficient might to enforce it's singular or collective will.

I wrote: Christendom doesn't teach that we're living in the best or even intended place for mankind.

This is a sickening sentiment from dangerous tribal religious belief.

Rather, your emotions aside, it is nothing of the sort. It's a fairly accurate description of an imperfect world filled with people who delude themselves into believing in a self perfection that any serious examination of history or human nature discounts.

The world isn't "perfect", but thinking that this is just some transitory stage for paradise is disastrous and depressingly unfortunate that so many share this horrendous meme

Rather, this world is a remarkably interesting place. It simply isn't the only place.

- and so many are willing to act on it. When I hear it, it reminds me of the women who are congratulated by their neighbors when their sons and daughters explode themselves in a cafe, or on a train, as their martyrdom has secured a spot for them and their family in the blissful afterlife where rivers are chocolate/gold and 72 virgins await their arrivals (they actually believe this and it is no less silly than your own).

If anything I've said to you about my faith and/or the nature of God brings that to mind then you are so blinded by whatever need you have to villainize and dismiss Him that you aren't actually hearing me. You've become, instead, a poster child for those among the faithful who label the atheist a jealous and angry usurper driven to justify malice as something rational and superior.

Disappointing. :e4e:

 

[Spectrox War]

I never did. I set out a logical impossibility and a rational, linear posit regarding what trust is and isn't and what a faith built on it can and cannot come to. You filled in your part yourself.

Can you try one last time with this? I really don't get you at all. You said you laid out a rational linear posit - can you express what you said in the form of premises, an argument and a conclusion so that I can examine whether your logic is both valid and sound.

The whole point about my Christian experience is probably irrelevant anyway in the grand scheme of things. The Bible is so deeply flawed morally and factually that I don't think I could ever believe in it again.

Either I had a genuine Christian faith experience and am now an apostate after having rejected that faith. Or my experience was not genuine in the first place because apostacy is impossible (i.e. God doesn't give somebody a gift and then take it away). I can't think of a third option. But I don't know what you're arguing here.

Why is that important to you? Are you suggesting that what stands between you and faith is the answer to those questions, that were that narrative to be entirely and literally consistent to your mind you'd be of another disposition? I don't have any reason for believing that, don't suspect you'd honestly answer in the affirmative.

If there are contradictions in the Bible it provides good evidence to me that it was not written by an inerrant superbeing who created everything in existence. If 'he can do that, he can look after his crucial message to mankind and make sure it's correct. That's easy.

So it would really help if there were no contradictions or inconsistencies in the Bible - that would lend plausibility to its claims. It would also help if it didn't assert far-fetched stories of talking snakes, talking donkeys, gravity-defying walking on the water etc.

It would also help if the Bible didn't have some horrendous moral stories in it too such as genocide is ok, slavery is ok, stoning gays is ok, eternal torture for not believing an idea, etc.

No, most people believe in God and that absolute standard, even as they differ on any number of things between them and in expression.

All the religions can't be right. But they can all be wrong.

No, it doesn't. If you hold that God is necessarily perfect then He is necessarily bound by His own nature. He doesn't create morality. He is morality. Just as sufficient points of reference manifest space.

You can't define God into existence. It doesn't work that way. For Biblical claims to be true, the God described in there has to actually exist. The evidence for this is very poor IMO. Why does God's nature necessarily have to be as you believe it is?

No. It's recognizing how far afield you've gone and noting that you could create any number of threads on the topic.

Sorry. I misread your original point. I thought you said you hated some of the Bible but you were simply suggesting I start a new thread with that sentiment in the title.

I do. I enjoy the now immensely. Much more than I did before relation. In part that's because of the active sharing in God and in part, I suspect, it's because I'm aware that as wonderful as this experience is, I'm not wasting it on a fruitless, insensate universe that will neither note nor mourn my passing.

Maybe the fleetingness of existence is what makes it beautiful and important. Maybe life is that brief interlude between two eternal sleeps.

Couldn't agree more. I revel in the life and abundance God has given me, in the opportunity to laugh and love and grow in understanding. It's a wonderful thing, this life.

I agree.

You too. And God find and keep you one of these days. :e4e:

Thanks. I'll take that with the intention it was given. I apologise if some of my remarks have seemed harsh. I just felt genuine frustration because I thought you were being deliberately obscure by trying to blind me with gobbledegook. I just think that our thought processes and use of language operate in different ways.