I have never yet gotten into a God/notgod argument because whenever I read the posts I am reminded of several groups of rabid wolves all standing on their hind legs and banging their heads against a huge brick wall ! But, Dale The Bold, you have me intrigued.
I was surprised when you stated all these things (above) as I was under the assumption that these things were basic beliefs of Xians. I thought Xians believed the whole Garden of Eden thing where the serpent gave Eve an apple and she coerced Adam into eating it. (the first man to be nagged to ‘death/hell’ by a woman, I’ll bet )
Amongst other things, this is what I thought you guys were believing and probably a lot of the reason why I wasn’t interested in your beliefs. Yet now you tell me that only the ‘loud’ Xians believe the above statements. Where did they get these stories from ? Is it just a case of you interpreting stories differently than the loud ones? Or is the whole Garden of Eden thing and God creating the world in 6 days thing incorrect ?
I am not trying to be dumb (thought it may look it to you) or trying to make you justify yourself or your religion. I’m honestly curious since these tales* which I had always considered central to a Xians beliefs, and hence distanced myself from and disbelieved in, I am suddenly being told that they aren’t what Xians believe in.
I’m not sure how you can answer these questions without getting hijacked by every ANNOYING atheist, or LOUD Xian, but I am very interested in hearing from you.
N.B. As I still consider myself an atheist, I am only refereing to the annoying ones here, not the general, average, normal, garden-variety atheist who is still very much in control of their faculties
*I’m not sure that this is the correct terminology, but get over it !
If I may answer this question without stealing Dale’s thunder, and without preventing him answering in his own time…
I think what Dale was trying to convey is that there are many Christians who do not insist on a literal interpretation of every single passage in the Bible. Passages such as the Creation story and most of Revelations are seen as allegorical or figurative, much like Jesus’ parables - stories with a message and perhaps some literal truth, but not a scientific handbook (Genesis) nor a timetable of events (Revelation).
In order to hold this kind of belief, one needs to be prepared to study the Bible very carefully in order to know how to interpret each passage, and be able to admit that you might be wrong, when long held beliefs are challanged by a new interpretation. This kind of belief muat allow for many shades of grey between black and white, and must be prepared to deal with uncertainty and doubt as you struggle to understand. Many believers cannot live with this kind of complexity as they would like things to be cut and dried, either black or white - and many of them insist on the correctness of their interpretation very aggressively. This, I suspect is the “loud” believer that Dale refers to.
6,004, until next week. There was no year “0.” Tracer: Get out your S.J. Gould and read “A Decline in the House of Ussher” (or something quite similar). The man was not an ignorant fundamentalist boob but a natural philosopher of the old school, when the Bible was still considered to be accurate as regards history and prehistory by the leading scholars of the day, among whom he was numbered.
BARBARIAN, with all due respect, I have taken way more shit for being a Christian on this Board than I have ever encountered in real life. People feel perfectly free to tell me that I’m stupid to believe as I do; that my faith is a sop or a crutch or a delusion; that believing in God is the equivalent to believing in the Easter Bunny; and every other insulting thing you could possibly imagine. I have seen Christianity blamed for war (all war); homophobia (all of it); violence (of every conceivable stripe); and ignorance (again, all of it, whatever type you can think of).
I am not an evangelical, but I do believe that my personal concept of my duties as a Christian includes stating frankly that I am a Christian if the subject comes up, and in refusing to allow my faith to be co-opted, either by those who wish to embrace it and twist it (fundamentalists) or those who wish to reject it and twist it. I am required by my conscience to stand up and say “No. Christianity does not mean what you say it means,” when I percieve it to be attacked or mischaracterized. As a result, I spend way more time talking about my religion here than I do in real life.
I don’t know why Christianity is such a perrenial favorite around here, but I do think that it is unfair to blame that on Christians seeking to expand the ranks of the faithful. IMO, people seeking to attack Christianity are equally to blame. Add to both types the many threads that are started to respectfully flesh out Christian beliefs and doctrines, and you end up with a lot of threads.
But I promise to stop talking about it just as soon as everyone else does. If I perceive my faith to be misrepresented, however, I must speak up.
Well, I’ll first have to say I’m in the minority among the Christian community. The best way I can describe it is that I think very much like an Atheist, which usually upsets other Christians. Which is that I don’t want to “will” myself to believe something, I want to have a solid reason to believe it.
The Sunday school version of Adam and Eve has them eating an apple that was given to them by a snake. Well, I grew up believing this and it reached a point where I said to myself, “Come on, now, you can’t expect me to believe the fate of mankind rested on a talking snake.” Very similar to the “there is no Santa Claus” moment. So I started to contact bible scholars and pastors. I ran into a lot of dead ends. A lot of pastors don’t really know, or they give you an answer that tries to divert you from researching that subject. I started finding things out about original translations. For example, the word “serpent” in Genesis literally mean “the devil,” and makes no indication that he was in the form of a snake or any animal. In fact, the devil is described as one of the most beautiful angels. Also the word “fruit” is also the exact same word for “sex.” The can be seen in the phrase “be fruitful and multiply.” Kind of changes things dramatically when the serpent seduced Eve with the fruit.
So how did this story change so much in translation? I think it’s the attempt to clean it up for kids. Some people think I’m pulling this out of my butt, but I’ve really done a lot of research that goes way beyond Sunday School. Someone needs to defend the apple from its bad reputation. (Even if you believed it is a literal fruit, there is no use of the word “apple.”)
Many Christians also insist that dinosaurs co-existed with humans. This is another embarrassment to the church. It ranks right up there with people who insist that Atheists build fake bones and that dinosaurs never existed. :rolleyes:
The part about the world being created in six “days” is also in Gensis. However, I have gotten into many heated arguments with Christians about how this cannot be treated as six 24 hour periods. The reason being that God created light and dark, the first day. Then came the Earth. Well, how do we measure “a day?” One revolution of the Earth. How can the first “day” be a rotation of the earth when there is no earth in existence? If the rate of rotation were ever altered, each hour would be affected as well. An “hour” is one twenty-fourth of a rotation and that is only relative to the rate of rotation not to our current mindset of how long 60 minutes last. Getting back to the point, the creation story has no reference point to how long it really took God. The bible itself says that “a day is to a thousand years as a thousand years is to a day.” To me, that means that there is no specific measure of time being stated in this particular case. That being said, other time frames such as Jesus fasting for forty days was probably literal since it makes logical sense.
I have been accused of adjusting my beliefs to accommodate science. I think that’s only true in the sense that science has proven things to us that change our beliefs. For thousands of years people thought the earth was flat, until science proved that it wasn’t. Then people adjusted their beliefs to accommodate science. Before then, it wasn’t stupid to think it was flat because that information was simply unavailable. Fast forward to today, Darwin steps in, there’s this thing called evolution that can be demonstrated before our very eyes. I’m embarrassed for the people who make the claim that evolution isn’t true. However, evolution doesn’t disprove that there is a Creator, it merely shows His method and technique. If I choose to ignore evolution or try to refute it, I’m only using my tenacity as a tool to perpetuate my own ignorance (hmm, now I’m playing the vocabulary game).
Sadly, I think a lot of Christians believe that we will see the end of the world in the next seventy years or so. This annoys me so much because we have no way of knowing how or when the world will end. Again, I think like an Atheist. Nothing will last forever, so the world will certainly end at some point, but you are a fool if you think you can guess when that time will come and actually live your life expecting that. Even Jesus said “no one knows the day or the hour,” so how can someone say it will happen within x years.
The “rapture” comes from taking scripture and twisting it. “Two men will be standing in the field, one will be taken and the other left” is what gets people all ready to disappear and get sucked up into heaven. However, the full context of this scripture follows a reference to how the wicked have been destroyed from the earth. It even goes so far as to say it will be just like in “the days of Noah.” So when you have some idiot trying to get sucked up into the sky, he is actually asking for destruction, to be “taken” just like in the flood.
So, there are a lot of reasons to be embarrassed about the title “Christian,” not because of my beliefs, but because of the bad examples put out by bible thumpers and “fundies.” I think these common beliefs stem from people’s own laziness aobut researching the facts and sometimes a sense of superiority. It feels good to imply “I’m going to heaven, so you must join and be like me.” Christians are taught that when someone asks if they are 100% sure they’ll go to heaven, they should say “yes” because that means they firmly believe. I don’t think it’s our right to make that judgment, not even on ourselves. That’s God’s job. I love the fact that Billy Graham was asked one time if he thought he was going to heaven and he answered “I hope so.” Boy that started a fire.
Only very very fundamentalist, litaralist Christians believe any of this. As a moderate American Christian, I don’t believe any of it, nor was I ever taught to reply “yes” when asked if I’ll go to Heaven – a reply that my church would probably consider curiously over-confident.
DALE, if most of the Christians you talk to say this stuff, I’d suggest you try out a more moderate strain of Christianity. Nothing in Christianity is irreconcilable with science or with both having a brain and using it.
You’re use the phrase “religious purposes” to try to expand what I was talking about. If people give because they’re motivated by a desire to please God, it is a waste because God can’t be pleased (because he doesn’t exist). I want to free you from that delusion so you can choose to give to hospitals and schools because you think they have an important mission. If that’s already the reason you give, then you don’t need my help. But maybe you still waste your Sunday mornings, or you don’t get to eat steak on Friday. And there are people, perhaps yourself not included, who give money to those that don’t need it; money that never gets to the ill or the young. That is a waste, and I’m trying to stop it.
CLIFFY, having baldly stated that God does not exist – making that your theory – I will now demand that you prove it. If you cannot – and you cannot – then kindly do not state as provable fact that which is only your unproven and unprovable opinion. And stop referring to my beliefs as “delusions” since you cannot prove that they are, and since you ought to be smart enough to realize you insult me by doing so.
The ball’s in your court. Let’s see your proof that God does not exist. I’ll wait here.
I can see now that I have an absolutely huge amount of research to do before I can ever comment on this topic.
FYI, I actually have an interest in going out, doing the research and making my own mind up about the whole hoo ha, whereas, before reading your post, I already had my mind made up without actually understanding what I was rejecting.
Thank you for opening my eyes. Maybe one day, I’ll let you know if after my research I’m a believer or not !
One of the most interesting things I’ve ever heard was in my philosophy class at Catholic University of America in DC. We were going through the first three chapters of Genesis and breaking them down as parables. But essentially, our professor pointed out that the first two chapters are two different creation stories, with different timelines. In chapter 1, God creates man along with the other land animals after he creates plants. In chapter 2, man is created before plants. Why? I’d have to bust out my notes (which I burned when I finished my philosophy requirements - pretty shortsighted I know) but it essentially had to do with man’s place in the universe and the world.
Same reason with the ordering of the things in chapter 1. Plants before the sun? The Hebrews weren’t stupid…they knew plants needed sun to grow. So why make this obvious mistake? Must be a lesson they are trying to teach. I don’t remember it right now though. Shoot.
But yeah, my point is that Bible literalists aren’t representative of Xianity as a whole…but rather the people who tend to be the loudest.
OMIGOD!!! I’m in shock. This has to be the first time I’ve heard an atheist on the board actually decide to look into the Bible some more. Not that there aren’t many intelligent atheists with worthwhile points (MEBuckner and pldennison spring immediately to mind, but they aren’t the only ones)…its just that I don’t hear to many of them say this sort of thing.
As a starting point…if you would like one…I would kindly recommend the Catholic New American Bible. I have found it to be extremely useful. It has many footnotes regarding translation and stuff, and it also prefaces the books a lot of time with the different allegorical and metaphorical points that are sometimes overlooked. I have found it to be very enlighening and answered many questions I have sometimes had over the meaning of a passage or something.
I don’t understand people who require that a religious opinion such as “God does not exist” or “God exists” must have proof. Even political beliefs, like “Capital punishment is not a deterrent” or “Tax cuts are the best way to spur the economy”, don’t seem to get that kind of vigorous demand. Demand for evidence, sure. But not undeniable proof.
If someone said “God does/does not exist, and I can’t possibly be wrong,” then maybe demanding proof would be reasonable. But why can’t someone say only the first half of that, without others assuming he/she also believes the second half?
Jodi, if someone can’t prove God does not exist, or can’t even give reasons why they believe that, does that make their belief less valid? If it’s just a gut feeling, is it less worthy than if they could trot out a 3,000-word criticism of Aquinas and Anselm?
We were having this debate in another thread, the “Can someone prove to me that God doesn’t exist”…but I’m too lazy to link it.
The problem is that Cliffy didn’t say that’s what he believes…he stated it as a fact. If a Christian comes in and states that God exists s/he is routinely asked to provide proof to back that up…regardless of whether the comment is prefaced with an “I believe that…” or not.
Not to put words in Jodi’s mouth, but I think she is stating that if Christians are constantly required to prove it, when an atheist is trying to challenge a belief by stating a “fact” that they are never called on it. Jodi is simply calling Cliffy.
I think. Again, don’t want to put words in her mouth.
I think the attitude is key. If someone says “As far as I’m concerned, God doesn’t exist”, proof is not needed. We all are entitled to disagree, and have our own personal beliefs.
But in Cliffy’s case, he baldly states that he is trying to convince other people that God doesn’t exist. So why shouldn’t he “prove” it? After all, the ball’s in his court. He says in his previous post: “I want to free you from that delusion so you can choose to give to hospitals and schools because you think they have an important mission.” His goal is to “free [us] from that delusion”. If he wants to “free” us Christians from our “delusion”, he is required to offer proof that we are suffering under a delusion.
Well, it sort of is implied that Cliffy is pretty confident of his convictions. That’s why he’s trying to persuade others to see things his way. HE thinks HE’S RIGHT. And we’re wrong. And he’s doing us the “favor” of “freeing us of our delusion”. I’d like proof that I’m deluded, thanks. I get the impression that Jodi feels the same way.
In my experience, on this board and others, it’s when a Christian is witnessing that they’re asked for proof. If a believer merely drops a reference to their beliefs in a thread not specifically about religion, I’ve rarely seen them pounced on.
Challenging a belief does not shift the burden of proof onto the challenger. If said challenger states their beliefs and it’s obvious they think those beliefs are Truth, then it’s reasonable to call them on it.
(Of course what’s obvious to me is not obvious to others. And vice versa.)
I missed his earlier post where he called himself a proselytizer and he “knows” believers are “wasting their time”. Regarding that, I agree with you. But…
I’m not so sure about this one. Why does it require proof (your emphasis)? Do you mean “proof” in the mathematical sense? Cause I do.
“Delusion” is a charged word, but what if someone said, “You’re misguided, there’s no God, you only believe that because you need a comforting explanation for bad things happening to good people.” (I’m not saying that myself.) Would you then ask for proof that you only believe for that reason? If so, what kind of proof would it take?
I refer you to the last paragraph of Doc Nickel’s first post. He said it much better than I can.
‘He (Jesus) knew, as the greatest teachers perhaps have always known, that the truths by which men live, though their substance is conveyed through outward events, must be formulated and expressed by the inward travail of men’s own minds and hearts. A merely oracular revelation cannot touch the deepest springs of man’s being’
FWIW, like Jodi, I feel compelled to respond when asked to or where a situation presents itself as appropriate for witnessing.
However, I know that whatever I say, or however I express myself to others, I will only ever be an ‘outward event’ to them.
The great changes in inner beliefs… hearts and minds… are only likely when driven from within. I have to rely on ‘other’ forces to work there… forces beyond my control.
)
