My bias has nothing to do with the fact that demons do not exist and you can not cast them into pigs. My animosity towards Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that dead people do not come back to life.
That stuff is impossible. Quit using my admission, I’m an honest guy, hot headed yes but honest: quit using my admission and my bad attitude as license to disregard what I have to say because I am an “Angry Atheist” and don’t know what I’m talking about.
Second
I don’t know as much about the history of the Church as some real serious Christians do, but, how much do I need to know to know that you can’t turn water into wine or feed 1000 people from 4 fish and 6 loaves of bread?
The Law. The ordinary common state law, where you live right now.
Suppose you came to an intersection, where the traffic signal was stuck on red. You can’t go. Going means going through a red light, and that’s against the law. So you have to sit there, waiting patiently, until a few days have passed and the city sends out a repair team…
No. You go through the red light. You do so carefully, but that’s what you do, because the alternative is really stupid.
Same with breaking the windows of a parked car…to rescue a dog inside that’s dying from the heat. Same with kicking in the door of a house…that’s on fire and there’s a baby trapped inside.
An absolute literal interpretation can’t cover all situations. Sometimes, you have to use your good sense. There’s even a name for this principle, and they teach it in Law School: the “Prudent Man” exception. There are times when a reasonable and prudent person will, in fact, break the law. Judges will tend to go easy on such instances. (“Judges are the interface between law and reality.”)
An excellent argument against the kind of absolute morality many of the religious believe in and which is kind of a natural result of the existence of an absolute lawgiver.
Now, I can see that a book with all cases could get kind of big, and back 2000 year ago would be impractical. But if God cares about making these rules clear, he can set up ask God terminals all over. Morals on paper is so first century.
Ah, I guess that God, being an old guy, never took to this damned newfangled computer stuff.
(BTW, in case you bring up free will, knowing what God wants is not the same as doing it. )
The Resurrection?
The Apocalypse?
Healing Lepers?
Walking on Water?
If you start applying common sense and logic… what are you left with that is a “real” miracle? Do you not see how this becomes a problem? Opinions will vary so much that you are going to have no standard, no truth, left at all.
But Catholics don’t take the Bible literally*, as well as using other sources than the Bible as the basis for their beliefs. By your definition, those who do so aren’t true Christians, right?
*Please don’t ask me about specifics – it’s been many years since I’ve been to church outside of weddings and funerals, and there are probably others who can explain better than I could. (Is Bricker around?) Suffice to say, Catholics are NOT Biblical literalists, 'kay?
Your ignorance is that you refuse to believe that one can be a Christian and yet not be a literalist, or use other sources than the Bible. One has to take into context when the Bible was written, what the intent of the authors were, who they were, etc. As most Biblical scholars do. (Good God, Sr. Frances is rolling over in her grave)
Except that is not what I think. I don’t know what separates a devout Christian from an “in name only” Christian. Too many complex factors. But at the most basic level it is self identification. And some loose allegiance, at least, to Christ.
There really is no one standard that is the same standard across all denominations. At least not that I am aware of.
"Of course folks aren’t going to like homosexuality 2000-4000 years ago. Israel and Judah, especially, who is dramatically outnumbered by its enemies on all sides and needs all the population it can get. "
Must have been a popular sport to attract a serious taboo.
EXACTLY!!! That’s what I’ve been trying to say. People have been arguing over Biblical interpretations for over three-thousand years, dude. “Is this just a metaphor, or is this literally true? What does this mean, or should we do it this way, or that way?”
Like I said, I’m not an expert. Just that as you stated previously, your main experience has been with Bible Belt fundamentalists. So you’re going to be biased by that. Other people have had different experiences, and that’s why they’re telling you, hey, that’s not necessarily so. That’s why I suggested you might want to read some books about this. If you want to attack Christianity, you should at least learn a little bit more about it.
You want concrete answers – I’m telling you how to get them. If that’s not what you want to hear, that’s not my problem.
I know Christians who willingly accept all those as metaphors, or as metaphysical conundra serving as intellectual and spiritual goads toward a closer walk with their God.
Who are you to say they are wrong? Who are you to say they are not Christian?
So what? Common sense is not objective. My common sense is not yours.
No, honestly, I don’t see how it becomes a problem. There are few standards in Christianity. Some sects do not believe in a physical Resurrection. Some don’t even believe in the divinity of the Christ. Many are prepared to accept that miracles of the burning bush or loaves and fishes sort do not occur today, but might well have in the past. Most Christians, now and throughout history, do not believe in Biblical Inerrancy.
Again, why is it important to you that people whose faith you disparage hold to your ideas of consistency.
I lived in NYC for 15 years. Liberal capital of the USA.
I’m well versed in differing denominations and world religions.
Even in the bible belt there are Episcopalians and Presbyterians.
I was a “new age agnostic” for 10 years.
I’m not as ignorant as you think I am.
But, I have no desire to read any more books on religion and/or spirituality.
False hope and empty promises.
There is no god, no new age deity come to save us from our troubles.
Are you familiar with the debate about “works” in Christianity?
Faith without works is dead…but are works required for salvation? Or is simply having faith in Christ as Saviour sufficient? There are Bible texts that can be cited for either point of view. It’s a hugely rich field for a survey of beliefs, and it runs like a sword-cut between different denominations.
Speaking of sword-cuts, “I come to bring, not peace, but a sword.” One of the most misunderstood utterances in the entire Bible. Another one you would benefit from studying in depth.
How familiar are you with the origin of Protestantism? With Luther and his theses, and Calvin’s views? This is really, seriously juicy stuff – and, while I make a pretense of knowledge here, I really don’t know jack about it.
(Can anyone recommend a solid introductory book on the early days of Protestantism?)
It doesn’t matter a damn that I don’t believe in any of it: it’s a fascinating topic of pure human interest. I sense in you some of that interest, that fascination – why else would you participate so energetically in religious threads? So…read up! I think you will not be bored.
That sounds like nothing but empty platitudes. Metaphors won’t heal your cancer. They don’t keep the wolves at bay. They don’t put food in your stomach.
What you are describing is people who are smart enough to recognize the absurdity and illogical nature of the bible/religion, yet, for some reason, still want to cling to the trappings of religion. They need to take that last, final step to non religious category. They need to quit propping up a dying institution. Legions of them are what is keeping it afloat.
Why is it so important to you to criticize me for doing so?
Yes, but how popular, really, is the book of James? Not very, according to this cite from biblegateway. The 100 most read bible passages. There is not a single selection from James on the list.
No, I do not find this fascinating. I find it sad. The book that says the most about Christians helping people is not even on the list.
Exactly so! It is not by the actions of atheists that the western democracies are safe for atheists to exist: it is by the actions of liberal Christians (and a hell of a lot of Jews, too!) People of moderate faith are the best friends that pure rationalists have ever had. They’re the thick part of the bell curve, and insulate us atheists from the theocrats over in the other fringe.
(I used to be a fire-breathing hate-filled anti-theist. I was young and stupid. I got over it…and it was conversing with moderate Christians that brought me around.)
If they’re not hurting anyone, why? If they’re simply practicing their beliefs on their own time, in peace, and not forcing them on others, what’s it to you?