Being brainwashed into a belief is not a good reason to hold said belief.

Great Debates
581

OK, Finn, you are correct in one issue: to put one’s trust in the Christian God and in Jesus Christ is most emphatically faith in the same sense as putting one’s trust in one’s wife or another human being is. It is of course a non-rational, though hardly irrational, decision to trust someone. What I was protesting, I believe with some justification, was the use of terms like “brainwashing” and “irrational” to describe religious belief.

In the simplest of statements: I do not believe the Bible to be dictated by God, in any strict sense. I do believe that the majority of it was written by people proclaiming the truth as they knew it, in a variety of genres and literary usages. You could get Diogenes, Tom~, and me riffing for hours on the nature and provenance of the Gospels – which were definitely not in two cases and likely not in the other two written by eyewitnesses, but which were prepared as polemic documents portraying Jesus in four men’s particular perspective of who He was. It’s my considered opinion, weighing the evidence, that they together paint a coherent picture, allowing for literary flourishes and individual slants on interpretation, of an individual who had a strong impact on those with whom He came in contact. With those early Christians, I feel it is an acceptable metaphor to say, “When we see Jesus, we see God.”

As to why I came to put my trust in Him, and through Him in the God of whom He is simultaneously Son and Person incorporate in (and we can do Trinitarian theology at length later if you like), it came from a number of personal experiences that I have tried to subject to skeptical analysis and find difficult to explain as self-delusion – combined with the fact that my concept derived from them accords in large part with elements of the historical testimony of people who have had similar “theophanies.” Again I can talk about this at more length, preferably in answering questions and clarifying misperceptions of what I mean.

And I have no problem doing this; I firmly believe that the bases for a belief structure must inevitably be subjective, but should be able to stand up to honest objective questioning. I do have an issue with spin-doctoring people’s statements in a belligerent, uncivil manner, as has been discussed at length in the Pit.

582

You cherry pick the scriptures to fulfill your needs with little regard for the truth as far as I can see. That’s your choice and your judgement but simply spouting scriptures isn’t enough and you know it. Jesus chastised the scribes and pharisees for knowing the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it.

In this case you know full well that Tom’s comment to you was not about you quoting scriptures or your interpretation of them. It was about your need to include snide sarcastic comments which were subtle insults aimed at those who don’t agree with you. How do you think those kind of comments fit in with you being a representative for Jesus? While deciding consider this.

“Matt 15:8 These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me.”
and “Matt 7: 21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

583

Bible man (quoting scripture): “Let no person deceive himself.”

You know, Bible man, these words and the others you posted are for you too! And for me. For all of us. I don’t think they were intended to be used by one Christian to beat up on other Christians in a judgmental way.

Do you?

584

Hrm. I would indeed in a bit be interested in your elaboration upon Trinitarian theology, as I’m 100% ignorant of it, but there is time.

The trouble I have, if you’d bear with me, with accepting personal experiences is that even if they’re not “delusions”, that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily proof, either.

For example, New Year’s Eve 2000, stone cold sober, I had an experience which I can only describe as having an intimate conversation, sans words, with a vast ‘presence’, vast as in all-encompassing. It was definitively and without a doubt feminine if not strictly ‘female’. It was, to steal a phrase “vast, cool, and unsympathetic” while, at the same time, I somehow ‘knew’ that it loved me, very much and very personally, regardless of anything I had ever or could ever do. I knew without knowing, as Dream Knowledge flows, that everything in the entirety of Universe, myself included, were integral parts of Her, no more divisable than a drop of water in the ocean.

The best descriptor for my wordless communion with this ‘being’ would be a conversation with Goddess. And while there were no actual words exchanged, and it certainly didn’t tell me to do anything, I did get the sense that it approved of my life’s path and my life’s work, and that I was doing right by it.

Now… as you can tell since I remember the date many years later, it certainly left a mark on me. And it sure as the sun blew my mind right to pieces. But, in my view, it isn’t proof that God is ‘really’ a Goddess, or that it pays personal attention to me, or even that there is a God, at all.

In my critical examination of it, it seems much more likely that the human brain includes the possibility for intensely emotional experiences which can best be described as ‘religious’. Certain conditions seem to be able to trigger these experiences, from stress to chemicals like LSD to, I’m sure, a good few triggers that might seem mundane or unexpected.

I do not believe I spoke to Goddess any more than the feeling of ‘oneness’ and unity I get when I’m deep in meditation means that I’ve ascended out of the Black Iron Prison (to steal another phrase) to apprehend my nature as part and parcel of the One Living God. Although it’s certainly a useful poetic conceit, if you will.

Which, in a roundabout manner, is my point. It is perfectly possible to have extra-ordinary sensory events, many of which may be highly meaningful at the time and/or in retrospect. It is even possible to analyze them, thoroughly, in accord with one’s personal aesthetic and to arrive at a conclusion based on that and one’s worldview.

But to say that they are, strictly, a rational interpretation of evidence implies that, for instance, you would come to the same conclusion if you either had the same experience, or if you were told about it and applied a consistent set of standards to it.

But in mattera of faith, this metric gets much more complicated if we are discussing, for example, romantic love. There’s no way of verifying the uniformity emotions from one person to the other, nor is there unnecessarily agreement that what one person views as love, another wouldn’t see as infatuation. In the words of a certain movie Oracle: “Nobody can tell you you’re in love, you just know it. Through and through, balls and bones.”

I still think, though, that to describe something as a rational based inquiry into objective data-points, that it needs to have more than that subjective component. And while I am personally loathe to dismiss claims of romantic love, likewise I have a very hard time accepting that there is an objective reality, besides neurochemistry, to ‘religious’ experiences. This may be a contradiction, but I’m fine with a few of those in my schema :wink:

So, in something of a summation, I would wonder if your experiences weren’t, to a degree, filtered through the lens of your personal aesthetic, your worldview, your experiences, your social milieu, etc… that others might not get totally different conclusions from either experiencing or hearing of your primary data-points. And while I wouldn’t call your experience “brainwashed”, I would, personally, have to doubt that it truly fits into the category of “applying rational metrics to objective evidence.” (if you’ll pardon a bit of tweaking of your original quote.)

Faith, IMO, occupies something of a ‘third space’… in certain situations; neither wholly rational nor wholly irrational. I do not consider the word “irrational” to be necessarily pejorative, nor necessarily an indictment of someone’s character, I believe that we all have irrational bits to ourselves, and that only computers are 100% rational. My faith in my fiancee is, certainly, irrational. And it’s an important part of my life and daily sense of well-being.

In my view, faith in a totally personal endeavour. One that neither needs nor fails without 100% objective confirmation. That is, in my mind, what makes it a leap of faith rather than a conclusion based on data.

Do you grok?

585

I sincerely appreciate your posts here. The conversations here in the last couple of weeks have been interesting. Mundane and contentious for the most part but then some gem like this will appear. I mean gem in the sense you describe here. A purely personal and subjective sense. Something that speaks to me because of where my mindset is at the moment.

In reading this thread I came upon a except from Dawkins I thought was particularly relevant.

I struggle with the word God because in my mind it represents an as yet unsolved mystery grounded in the truth about our nature. I have had no problem using it in that metaphorical sense frequently and find it convenient in discussing things with believers. Yet somewhere in my mind I have felt that I was supporting a concept of “our heavenly father” as a being out there somewhere separate from us who watches and interjects. That’s not a concept I embrace.

Then in another thread Godzillatemple posted what struck me as an insightful accurate gem

And here IMHO you have elaborated very nicely on the point GT was making as well as looking at other facets.

The spiritual journey is indeed subjective and personal. “The kingdom of Heaven is within” The more I realize the subjective nature of the journey the more I am able to let go of any requirement for objective beliefs. I appreciate you sharing your experience. You are correct, those type of experiences are completely for the individual to discern the meaning of. No other can judge. In that we need to try to honor the individual path while continuing our own.

You’ve also restated eloquently what I’ve been trying to express in several threads. We all operate on a subjective form of faith. Non believer and believer alike. In that it is an integral and essential part of our humanity it seems silly to call it irrational. Your “third realm” seems a good alternative.

Considering all this we might want to consider a shift in language. Rather than “I follow the teachings of Christ as presented in the Bible” it must be more accurate to recognize that we seek our connection within ourselves and the icon that Jesus represents and the whatever words stir us from whatever source are merely a part of that inner journey and not “proof” of Jesus Christianity or anything else in any objective sense. Then we begin to see that we need not cling to or defend any of our religious myths in any objective sense. It simply isn’t as relevent as we treat it. My finding subjective meaning in any experience isn’t dependent on whether Jesus said particular words or actually rose from the dead. In that lies the true courage of faith as described in Hebrews 11:1"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." when we act on those subjective beliefs.
I see I have rambled and gotten a little preachy as I tend to do. Still, sincere thanks for your insightful input. I found it very helpful.

586

Nicely said. (The rest of it too.) Might I make an analogy of a car trip? Some of us let others steer - the Bible, religious leaders, whatever, since they have convinced us we are not capable of finding our own way. Others of us read maps, roadsigns, and billboards and steer our own course based on this input. We may wind up at different destinations, but we’re in control of the trip, and in some ways very much alike.

587

Bible Man…I see you as a strong believer in your own interpretation of the Bible,but I see Poly, (and some of the others) as living and believing in the Spirit of the Bible. You seem to be afraid that you may be wrong and must convince others or your faith will fade. I would not like to think it is just arrogance on your part. Although you seems to come across that way.

Monavis

588

Thanks Voyager I think that’s a good analogy. I look back at my own experience and understand how the circumstances of that first spiritual experience and the people I was around guided me into a certain church. “Its a sign” :slight_smile: Afterwards it was the emotional connection to that church and a sense of purpose that kept certain questions suppressed. I see that in some of my friends and family now. I’ve even asked them to stop asking someone else “what does this mean” and look into your own heart and mind for the answer. What seems to happen is that they fear that if they actually look at it too much and find they disagree then that might threaten the emotional relationship they have with their group. Maybe it’s also that they haven’t been able to separate the subjective nature of the journey from the objective beliefs attached to it and fear if they throw out anything they must discard it all. IMO that’s that’s Jesus was speaking of in the verses that talk about separating families and bringing the sword. We must be committed to our own inner journey. People tend to be a herd and when someone has the nads to not follow the herd and steer for themselves the herd gets annoyed.
Regardless, I like your analogy and will use it.

Dear friend. Stop letting someone else steer you spiritual car. Take the wheel yourself.

Think it’ll help?
IMO it is definitely about taking responsibility for yourself. If you think something was a sign from God and act on it don’t later blame some deity that exists in your mind for your choice. You chose…period.

If we can respect and honor the journey in each other then when a believer and an atheist go to the same soup kitchen to help feed the poor they are not separated by their belief or lack of. They are united in their belief in active compassion.
Man…that sounds good to me.

589

Well, guy, this is a mystery to me. I really can’t understand why you would not have an answer here.

You can’t provide for the people here a quotation from previously-existing scriptures that the gospel in question refers to?

Here it is:

Matthew 2:23:
“And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” (KJV)

WHICH PROPHETS? For that matter which prophet?

No excuses or personal attacks. Just please answer, as I’d really like to know which prophet or prophets spoke that prophecy.
Thank you in advance. :slight_smile:

True Blue Jack

590

For the record, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, which is so thorough that it lists even every use of “the” in Scripture (KJV, by the way) shows only one use of “Nazarene,” Matthew 2:23, the verse quoted. In the plural, Paul is referred to in his trial, in Acts 24:5, as “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” These are the only two verses in all the Bible using “Nazarene(s).”

The city of Nazareth does not appear in the Old Testament, but is mentioned four times in Matthew, five in Mark, nine in Luke, and five in John. One Matthean use, four of the Marcan uses, three Lucan, four Johannine, and all seven instances in Acts, the usage is the byname “Jesus of Nazareth.” These are the sole instances where “Nazareth” is used.

A completely distinct word, “Nazarite,” has numerous Old Testament usages, but has nothing to do with Nazareth;

The term is used six times in Numbers 6, which defines the vow, three times in the story of Samson (a Nazarite) in Judges, and once in Lamentations and twice in Amos, as poetic references. There have been those who claimed that Jesus took a Nazarite vow, but it does not fit with the figure depicted in the Gospels. It appears to be totally a sound similarity.

591

Thanks much dan. I’d like to get into the nitty gritty here, (with semantic quibbling and all :wink: ) but I’m also curious as to what poly’s views are on the above. I think I’ll wait to respond in full until I have his view as well so that I don’t have to make a series of posts and can instead sum it up in one.

592

I almost missed your post, having pretty much moved on to other boards. I once had a discussion about this prophecy with an attorney from Arizona who has read the Bible through every month since he was 9 years old, but just reading the scriptures is not enough in some cases - you have to study and also go back to the original languages. I won’t give you the answer for the same reason Christ began to speak to the Pharisees in parables, but I’ll give you a hint: it’s in Isaiah and you must go back to the Hebrew for the solution. Further, you should be less interested in prophecies about His first coming and look for those about His 2nd, their fulfillment is at the door, and it will be a day of darkness, not light (Zeph1:14-18, Jer30:7,Isa26:21,Amos5:18-20,Joel2:1-2)

593

So you are simply going to post one more insulting remark to a sincere question without actually providing any information about something that you claim someone else told you (because even you with your great Spirit-based skills could not find it), even though it is not really in the bible.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

594

I have a quick question for you tom. No disrespect intended, just curious as to what your thinking is, and figured this thread/forum is the wrong place.

595

Regardless of my personal opinions regarding the poster, as a Moderator I am not permitted to simply hand out Warnings to posters I do not like. Bible man has already been Warned for posting direct insults disguised as commentary. His most recent post, while couched in an insulting tone, was not directed at any specific poster and I do not believe that I have the authority to hand out Warnings simply based on bad “tone of voice.”

He claims to be spending his time and efforts on another board; perhaps he intends to take his anti-Christian message elsewhere without requiring staff intervention. (We can only pray it is so. :smiley: )

596

I certainly appreciate that tom. But wouldn’t the “lemmings” and “lepers” comments, made after the Warning, be insults?

Further, even if we didn’t have that Warning, is his behavior not jerkish, even without the insults?

I’m more than willing to admit that my personal view of him has been swayed by the fact that he’s a major schmuck… but, for instance, my fiancee is a mod at another very large message board, and I know that she will often refrain from coming down like a ton of bricks on certain posters who have gone after her personally; consciously or subconsciously, she often wants to be overly-fair to that poster and/or avoid apprearances of personal involvement in moderation. Respectfully, I would ask if you might not be doing something similar?

597

Further responses to this theme are in the other thread.

598

I don’t think my faith stands or falls on whether it can be subjected to objective valuation; it’s a relationship – I have come to trust Someone whom I believe to be the God of Jesus Christ. (In passing, it’s worth noting that the historic creeds of the church never say, “I believe that…” but always “I believe in God [extensive statements describing Him attached]”

Hmmm… though it really belongs in the Dawkins thread, I feel that I need to respond to your assignment of your apparent 12/31/2000 theophany to neurological chemicals and discharges. Assertions: The sex drive is something shared with animals, and is basically biological/instinctive/conditioned reflex in nature. We have the urge to not only achieve orgasm, but if possible to do so coupled with a desirable mate. Good so far? Now, romantic love exists. And it is something different than sexual desire, though intertwined with it. Essentially, the sex drive provides a biological foundation on which the edifice of romantic love is built. I hypothesize, without any way to demonstrate a proof, that the transcendent “mountaintop” experiences in which people feel themselves in communion with God/a god/ goddess/some deity are cut from the same cloth. A real experience is mediated through the neurological functions – which, allowing for evolution, may be there for that exact purpose. People who had evolved the capacity to experience their Creator’s Presence had a leg up in some way over those who had not, and it was selected for. [Needless to say, I would at this point find it hard to defend that hypothesis against a highly skeptical attack – but it does not violate Occam’s Razor, and it does fit with a Universe in which God is present, the one I believe we inhabit.]

However, my statement that claims of religious experience are of necessity subjective in nature, but should nonetheless be subject to unbiased objective analysis is one that I do stand by. We evaluate the validity of subjective experiences all the time. In recent “bird” threads in GQ, Colibri comments on himself being one of less than a dozen observers to have sighted the rare and reclusive solitary eagle. On the other hand, it would not be hard to find people who claim to have seen cryptozoological creatures, had Close Encounters of various Kinds, etc. Why is Colibri’s subjective account of his sighting so much more likely to be given credence than Joe Underbridge’s claim to have seen Bigfoot from Interstate 5? There are of course a number of elements to the answer, including reputation of observer, nature of claim, likelihood of claim being valid given other evidence, etc.

I believe that claims about God, about having experienced His Presence, etc., can and should be weighed against the historical documentation of similar such claims, the degree to what is claimed to have occurred measured against the nature of God as perceived through the consensus of those other claims, etc.

And I personally, speaking as an individual, do not reject (or automatically define as Satanic deceptions, etc.) claims such as your own to have experienced Someone you perceived as Goddess, our member Freyr’s experiences of the Christian God and the Norse deity from whom he took his username here, etc. I believe there is only one God worthy of the title. (I make no claims about the reality or unreality of anyone’s pantheons, but assert there is only One Guy in Charge.) I do not therefore delimit the ways in which He works in His universe with the human beings He is at pains to repeatedly state He loves, to some preconceived Christian only-thus limitation. Yes, Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except kata me.” (Awkward preposition to translate: through, by, with all will work to accurately render the Greek.) But it’s important to note that (1) He said this as reassurance to a disciple worried about His announced imminent departure – not, as the evangelicals would have it, as an elitist “Jesus is the Only Way” claim, and (2) He who said it was not merely a 30-year-old Palestinian rabbi about to be arrested for treason against the Roman Empire, but, according to orthodox and longstanding Christian belief, the eternal Word (=logos, active force) of God Himself – in the words from John that converted Liberal, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (remembering that “I AM” is the literal translation of YHWH God’s personal Name, and that what Jesus explicitly said, yEgo eimi, was carefully eschewed by Greek-speaking Jews for the same reason as Chaim or Zev, reading Torah aloud, would say “Adonai” when he comes to “YHWH.”)

In doing such analyses, it’s important to note that God (as historically defined) is a Person – well, three Persons in one Godhead on the Trinitarian Christian view, but the key point is He is possessed of personhood. The studies for answered prayer and such are valueless because they are working on the basis of God-as-object-of-study, as though he were a chemical that reliably undergoes specific reactions or a physical object required to follow the Laws of Motion, Momentum, Thermodynamics, etc. The more profitable model for attempting to form some objective notions about God must be taken from the social sciences, where studies of what human beings do under given phenomena take into account that individuals make choices that do not follow some unbreakable laws. I think it’s safe to say that, if there is a God and if that God answers prayer, He answers the prayers He chooses to answer in a pattern that makes sense, if at all, only to human hindsight (or rationalization, something I must not rule out).

There is, I allow, a great deal of speculation and hypothecation in what I say in this post. It contains my own thinking on the matters you asked about, Finn; that’s why I posted it. If anyone decides it deserves a scathing response because in his opinion there is no God or decides to tear it apart for whatever reason, probably Biblical in nature, I will gladly sit back and watch them do so, probably without responding. I felt a courteous question calls for a courteous answer, and so have given it. I am not out to hit Der Trihs over the head with a Bible until he decides to follow Jesus – he’s had full enough of that from people who claim to be Christians already. If I should ever convince him that there’s anything to what I believe, it will be by acting the way Jesus said to, to the best of my ability – and I admit my faults there.

599

I hate interrupt this Kum By Ya session with some buckets of cold water but here it goes.

I think you do the same Dan

Yes, but problems here are that Jesus was supposed to be incarnate with the man who wrote the law, and the law was made pretty clear at the time, with punishments of death abounding. Jesus did also endorse every jot and tittle of the law on the Sermon on the Mount. Heck, below you even cite the verse where Jesus says that those who don’t do god’s will not see the kingdom of heaven. So what is god’s will if it isn’t a collection of his laws and commandments?

And you do this too, Dan

Can you not see the irony of you posting this verse in a thread, where it is pretty clear that all the “Christians” here admonishing Bible man follow a very watered down version of scripture which does not, very much, seem to follow the will of god as written in either the OT or NT?

Does this mean you use the word only metaphorically and you don’t really believe in god, or are you a pantheist/deist rather than a theist? You do realize when you say this you are rejecting a very large portion of what Jesus taught, and while I think that is great, you seem very partial to touting Jesus as an authority figure.

What do you mean by “kingdom of heaven” and why do you think the citation of Jesus here is specifically fruitful, when it conflicts with so much other stuff that Jesus said?

I completely disagree. While faith has different definitions, most often the term “faith” that is criticized by rationalists is believing, with more or less certainty, in things for which there is no good reason to believe, and often a lot of good reason not to believe in, generally only because the believer has been told to believe them and/or because he hopes they are true. There is no reason to equate the reasons I trust my friends or significant others (based on behaviors I have observed) with the faith one has in the resurrection of Christ or any other miracles where there is insufficient reason to suggest they happened and a lot of good reasons to think they really didn’t. Equivocation of these terms only leads to confusion, or more diabolically, the ability to criticize others for holding the same types of beliefs, when in fact they don’t.

Why hold up Jesus as this icon. Why not someone else who said better things that Jesus and did not say all the stupid/hateful things that Jesus said?

But that’s a stupid quote. Why should you be sure of things you hope for? If you knew your Francis Bacon, you would know to be specifically skeptical of things you hope for. Also why be certain of things you don’t see? Don’t you think it would be a much wiser policy to be more certain of things you see and less certain of things you don’t? Certainty of things we don’t see can do terrible things, and makes up what was most probably the justification for the 9/11 terrorist mindset.

600

Do you really believe this Finn? I would venture that if your fiancée has the physical and mental qualities that attract you and at the same time she says she loves you, and genuinely seems to enjoy time with you, then you have at least modestly sufficient reason to trust/love/marry/whatever her and this is in no way based on faith (as cited by cosmosdan) and is thereby not irrational.

If however, she said she hated you, kicked you out of her apartment, was dating other men, and you personally found her loathsome, then yeah, I would say your feelings for her were irrational.