Why are Christians' ideas of God erroneous?

Great Debates
41

Wow – 39 responses before I ever got a chance to reply!

Lessee:

Erislover:

Well, on the theories of some, Eris has a major role in the production – under another name, of course. To quote Jean Kerr’s kids, “The snake has all the lines!” :wink:

Outstanding question, and one that can be debated at length (and probably has! :)) My take would be that there is an underlying message with themes of divine, self-sacrificial love and an expectation of ethical behavior, and one applies this as a touchstone in attempting to put together an interpretation. Certainly there are some portions that do not “fit” this theme – as there will be in any work with any theme. (I’ll lay odds that somewhere in the several hundred pages, Ayn Rand, not Atlas, shrugged, and left something that contravened her basis thesis in because it advanced the plot and wasn’t worth the trouble to change.)

Certainly Elisha and the two bears and the 42 kids is hardly appropriate – unless you’re an old man with a receding hairline and just wanna put a scare in the little bastards! :wink: And the Chronicler’s theory of successful kingship appears to support Jerry Falwell’s most recent bilge (God withdrew his protecting hand from us because a bunch of people were acting in ways Jerry considers immoral – the Chronicler seems to feel that every king of Israel and Judah should be judged – and were judged by God, in his view – not on their administrative, judicial, military, or diplomatic ability, but on how close they came to his ideal of what a good Yahwist ought to behave when on the throne.

But the “touchstone” idea above’s my POV, and I feel it backed by the words of Jesus.

While your second sentence is all too often accurate, it does not describe the coherent system of belief held by many who have indeed so inspected and compared. And a fair number have had some experience of God in their lives, and found any credence they give the Bible on that rather than the other way around.

Homebrew: Nice “take” on the subject, and I’m glad you have gotten beyond both fundamentalism and rejecting the whole system on account of its (fundamentalism’s) faults.

Cliffy: I concur that the Problem of Pain is the one of the most intractible of theological dilemmas. Nor do I have a pat answer to facilely throw at you.

Perhaps the best response I can make is that in any good novel the characters are made by the author to enter conflict, make mistakes, learn, and in so doing, grow. A novelist is not being merciful, but cruel, to either character or reader if she fails to do so. And the explicit instructions of Jesus, who is taken as Lord by Christians, are to avoid causing any more pain, and do what we can to clean up the mess already here. And, of course, in so doing, to learn and grow.

He never asked me for advice when He was putting the world together. Instead, I have my marching orders from Him. I cannot help but speculate on why He did it that way, but more important to me is more practical problem-solving.

There’s another whole thread devoted to the question of “people who never heard of Jesus” and their fate – but I reject totally the idea that God is out to damn people. (See John 3:17 for His alternate plan.) He will let someone choose to eternally turn away from Him only with sorrow and after great efforts to win their love, as a final gift of respect to their free will.

Uh, yeah. There’s a rather wise comment that “Each person creates God in the image of his father.” While a bit of facile pop psychology, there’s also a great deal to it – God is for many a person (including me) a fear image and/or a love image. I am convinced He is real, and beyond anyone’s ability to describe fully. Any “definition” simply points out that “the elephant is very like a tree,” or snake, or rope, or whatever – true in part but not able to do His totality justice.

I suppose I need not tell you that most Christians do not have a problem with Darwinian theory as biology – it is when one begins (with defective logic) proving Materialist metaphysics from it that it becomes offensive. The whole problem is with a few conservative scholars of the early 1900s and a number of people today who are so desperate to cling to the Bible as a literal account that they fail to look at any contradictory evidence.

Well, actually, I for one believe in Providence – that God expects you to do all you can, for yourself and others, and to depend on Him for the rest. But I do see your point.

I presume you’ve never made mistakes and in so doing hurt another? :rolleyes: No, I would not expect you to buy a facile “I’m sorry” – but when spoken heartfeltly and with sincere regret for injury, especially unintended injury, I think you’re being a mite paranoid not to take them at their word.

Not sure where you’re going with this – parasites are not exclusively Christian, and those who fall into need deserve our help by the Golden Rule – and the fact that the shoe may someday be on the other foot, with us needing theirs.

So do I. In spades.

Vile Orb:

Nor will you. It will either come as a realization of His immancence and love, or it won’t come at all. Attempting to “prove God” to people is a mug’s game – and not what Christians are supposed to do – which is to show God to others. All the difference in the world.

Nor are you. I suspect you can find several people who do fit that bill on other threads, which was why I started this one. And I would dearly love that dialogue.

I find it much easier to affirm what I believe about God in response to misconceptions than to attempt to spell it out in a vacuum. Perhaps others would begin to essay definitions, and we can dialogue on them.

Thank you. Very much.

42

Vile Orb, continued:

I too have a great deal of problem dealing with the “idea of the Hidden God.” With “the eyes of faith” there is nothing more obvious than His presence throughout His creation – but I’m quite clear that without such belief, there’s nothing clearer than that He is far from obvious, if existent at all. I’ve always felt that this has a great deal with the idea that He wants people to come to Him freely, in love, but I have absolutely no proof of this.

Frankhoma: Exactly. Thanks. (Spong is leading a teaching weekend at my parish in three weeks.)

Dinsdale:

Well spoken, as always. Hitting them in sequence:

Uh, yeah. See the “Hidden God” stuff just above.

How confident are you that your wife loves you? Can you prove it to me? Yes, you can testify to her words and deeds over the course of your courtship and marriage – but you could be lying to me.

I’m more certain of God’s love for you and me than you are of her love for you. But the proof is just as impossible, given a skeptical mindset.

True. Good thing, then, that I don’t base my faith on any certitude I have in the Bible.

My one comment is that it has been given a certain deal of “sanctity” (in the sense of respect) for most of its existence, that would tend towards a fairly accurate preservation of the text as seen at that time. If I were to use “schizophrenia” in its common lay use as “multiple personality disorder” or say something on the order of “…‘the separation of church and state’ as the First Amendment says…” you in the first case and Sua Sponte in the second would be quick to identify my solecism. There is a sense of “reverence for accuracy” – particularly with regard to the actual words of the Constitution in the second case. I feel that the various books of the Scriptures are fairly reliable on those grounds. But I don’t found my belief on them; I use them only to give me a broader picture of the God I know from other sources.

I’m skipping the “problem of evil” comment as I already dealt with that in response to another poster.

True. But that is their psychological problem, not, unless encouraged by a particular local institution, one applicable to Christianity as a whole. And it requires correction by Christianity as a whole, which does not do so (in my experience).

Point taken – if you view God as something added onto the natural world. If, however, you see Him as the ontological origin, the creator, of the natural world, the Ground of All Being – but not restricted to a mere philosophical concept but the vibrant Essence of Life and a real Person with whom you can interact, then He becomes a whole different sort of entity than the above.

There’s truth in that. I spoke to your first point in response to Vile Orb – certainly Wildest Bill and I, sharing belief in what we consider the same God, see Him in quite different lights – but I am convinced we are emphasizing different aspects of one and the same God. As for your second point, “We all talk a different language, talking in defense.” (Mike and the Mechanics) I’d like to think that I am consistent in my thinking, and that any apparent inconsistencies lie in my poorness of expression.

“God’s will” is eminently knowable as it applies to each individual – he/she is to love God with his/her total being, to love neighbor as self, to live as moral a life as he/she is capable, to refrain from judging others, to do good whenever possible, etc. It is when one of us tries to pontificate about why God caused the asteroid impact at Chicxulub or the eruption of Mount St. Helens, or failed to prevent the WTC disaster, that we start getting into hot water. And there, God’s will is not “unknowable” but not known to us – just as the Unified Field Theory is not unknowable but not yet known to any theoretical physicists.

Each has a handle on the truth – some more strongly than others. And each is in error in some way. About that assertion, I may be wrong, but I’m positive. To the extent that Zeus was “real” he was the Greeks’ means of identifying with God known as Father, All-ruler, Creator. On Joseph Smith (not John, unless you’re speaking of the guy who checks into motels – his name’s on all their registers :wink: – and leaves Gideon Bibles behind) – I have my own reasons for doubting the validity of what he had to say. But to keep this from turning into Mormon-bashing, I’d prefer to remain silent. I will, however, state that while the Bible describes events, many of them supernatural and miraculous, occurring in a time and place that has abundant historical evidence as having existed, though admittedly no proof of most of the characters and events it describes, the Book of Mormon describes events, many of them supernatural and miraculous, occurring in a time and place for which there is virtually no commonly accepted archaeological evidence.

Uh, would you want to go to the fundamentalist heaven? I would think that singing Hosannas for eternity to a god you did not believe in would be high on the list of possible punishments.

The God I believe in wants ardently to have you and everyone else turn to Him in love, freely. However, for whatever reasons He may have for doing so, He has kept Himself hidden from all but “the eyes of faith.”

He’s not about to condemn you. You may choose to condemn yourself by, having been at some future point presented with adequate evidence to convince you of His reality and love, deciding, “This is not for me.” But this will be your own judgment, not His damnation.

Oh, yes, I’ve seen this myself. The church I was raised in had the cattiest bunch of women, and people who professed to live by the Methodist Discipline and did things that would offend Esprix’s sensibilities. But there’s an old story about a pastor inviting a man to church, who responds that he won’t join because “all your members are hypocrites.” The pastor answers, “Come on in, there’s always room for one more.”

The message I get from that is not that the pastor was sniping at the man, but gently underscoring the fact that none of us live up to the ideals we set ourselves. All any of us can do is try.

As for your last sentence, those of us who agree with you – a larger proportion than you might think – are at the forefront of those arguing against any tolerance of that attitude.

Hey, do you think I ought to start up “Brother Poly’s Gospel Hour?” :eek: I’m doing what I can, as and when I can. So are many others.

43

one of my main objections is the problem you have elucidated.

Christians do not have a universal, unchanging concept. They pick and choose.

They don’t bother to read their own bible.(most don’t, that’s why it’s so easy to throw it right back at them and see them scramble to make sense of what their preacher said. I was, however, totally busted on this board by Neurotik(?), I think, when I tried some elementary tactic. What’s interesting, is I’d been using that ‘why do you eat pork’ thing for I don’t know how long and N was the first to actually call me on it. I digress.)

Also, so many Christians are simply unknowledgeable. They don’t know why or what they believe. They parrot whatever local, or national, evangelist they listen to, and frankly it’s annoying.

back to work… be back in a lil’ while.

44

Not that I don’t understand where you’re coming from in context, but that’s unconscionably arrogant and off-putting, IMO. I’m quite certain that my confidence in what I know is as strong as your confidence in what you know. Not that you were talking to me.

Anyhoo, the single most telling problem with the theology presented in the Bible, IMO, is that coming to know Christ supposedly creates a change in the hearts and minds of his people; and yet the FriendsofGods and Wildest Bills of the world, who claim to know and love Jesus, continue to act like cretins. This leaves a few possibilities:

  1. Jesus doesn’t exist, but the people who do begin to act differently do so not out of any supernatural impetus, but out of a sincere internalized desire to do so.

  2. The FoGs and WBs are lying when they claim to know and love Jesus.

  3. The FoGs and WBs are resisting the changes that should be making themselves manifest.

  4. Some possibility I haven’t thought of.

I know what I believe, and so, I’m sure, do you.

45

M’kay… And this is as opposed to whom?

46

Hey Poly, you da man!

In my experience, you are quite the exception as far as Christians are concerned in terms of the thoughtfulness of your beliefs, your admissions of limitations, and your attempts to remain consistent without resorting to mystic shortcuts.

What is your experience? How do you assess your fellow believers? Is it just that the really jerky Christians are so much more noticeable that they attract my attention, therby giving me a skewed impression of Christians in general?

To add a couple more factors to my top 10: I’m looking forward to your response to pepperlandgirl concerning original sin. I can imagine that all men have the capacity to sin, but for anyone to look at a baby and tell me that that child is somehow inherently flawed? Strikes me as twisted. IMO there are few things more pure and sin-free than an infant, as yet untainted by our culture, his fellows’ biases and limitations, or even significant conscious thought.

If the interpretation is that he is “sinful” because he is not aware of the glory of God, well, that gets to my next point which is, a lot of Christians seem to worship a rather vain and insecure God. I don’t realize why so many folk feel God needs to be actively worshipped in a particular place at a particular time, manner, etc. If there were a God, I believe the best way to “worship” him would be to act in a manner of which he would approve. And if you did so, I would suspect it really wouldn’t matter to him if you spent much conscious thought on his existence or nonexistence. Heck, he’s got other more important stuff do deal with.

At base, I simply have not yet seen any reason to believe in a God. Nor do I see a need for a God. The world as I perceive it makes fine sense without presupposing a divinity.

I am fully aware that, if I wished to, I could convince myself to believe in a God. Heck, at times I have myself convinced that I am handsome and my kids are intelligent! I often use the (not too pleasant) term “mindfuck.” I think people underestimate their ability to adopt various mindfucks do deal with different aspects of their existence/experiences. And my mindfuck is not the same as yours. But I don’t see any need to expend the effort to convince myself to believe in something I feel I’m doing well enough without. Course, if I wake up in hell, won’t I have egg on my face (and I detest egg!)

I’d like to say I do not have any problem with Christianns or other believers. Their beliefs should not really have any effect on our interaction. My basis for thinking them a decent person or a jerk should be based on their behavior, not which church they go to. But I would be somewhat dishonest if I said that. There is a part of me that is really baffled at why so many people believe in something that, the more I think about it, the more unnecessary and nonsensical it seems. And this is exacerbated by the fact that I so often find myself differing from so many around me in terms of politics, artistic appreciation, personal taste, etc. And, if I wished to be totally honest, I’d probably have to admit that as a defenseive mechanism, I may tend towards feelings of superiority towards those who think differently than me. It’s an easy position to strike off belief as a crutch for the weak and ignorant. Not accurate, of course.

No response needed. You’ve got plenty on your plate and I certainly don’t wish to butt in line.

Of course you had no expectation of converting me. Rest assured, it hasn’t happened yet. Just trying to let you know a little more clearly where I’m coming from. Also, it helps me to put down exactly what I do believe. Thanks.

Now, I really do have to much work to do to be hanging around here!

47

Out of order, but important to do now:

Phil and Dinsdale: Please chalk up the “I am more certain” to poorly constructed hyperbole, not arrogance on my part or any negative directed at you and yours. I trust you saw the point behind what I was trying to say, and regret it was offensively phrased. [sub](Memo to self: use litotes; nobody ever gets insulted by litotes.)[/sub]

Drastic:

If I’m reading your theism/pantheism/panentheism/dualism material correctly, you are perturbed by the world:God dichotomy of traditional theology. I agree that dualistic theology (Zoroastrianism or God vs. Satan evangelicalism) is a repellent and contrary-to-experience viewpoint. I’d note that there has been a strand of what’s called Creation Theology since Duns Scotus that rejects the world:God dichotomy, and sees Him in His works and Christ as the fulfillment rather than the corrector of Creation.

I too have a major problem with the standard doctrine of the substitutionary atonement, particularly since it makes God the Father look like a bloodthirsty, barbaric tyrant who wants somebody to suffer, and if not the sinners, His Son will do. But focusing on Jesus’s self-sacrifice without asking why it was necessary or appropriate does paint a quite different picture, especially if the idea that He too was God Incarnate is kept in mind.

Rjung:

Hey, every cat his own rat. Your privilege to think so, so long as you accord me the privilege to believe as I do.

I hope I’ve been outspoken enough on the idea of freedom as the key point, and my own offendedness at evangelicals trying to insinuate their doctrines into the school curricula – even if I agree with the doctrines in question.

Musicguy: Two sides to the coin – as you note. First, I believe in the need for each person to make their own decisions. Second, I believe that I am right (if I did not, I’d change my views to what I did think was right, and be doing a song and dance about the Rede, or the UU Principles, or the Holy Quran, or the virtues of enlightened atheistic thought.

I reserve the right to present my views to you in a manner that will not offend you (or at minimum is calculated to avoid giving offense) in a forum where such presentation is acceptable. (I.e., if you are going to be upset about me talking about what I believe, don’t open that thread or don’t read my post.) Given that, however, I do try my hardest to respect the dignity of each other person to whom I speak (trolling to one side, of course), and the integrity of their views.

I would disagree with you on the Afghan question – a sidelight, to be sure – because I subscribe to the Four Freedoms, and do not feel that the missionaries were immoral in what they did. (Plus, there seems to be some evidence that the Taliban was looking for ways to get rid of any Christian influence, a question I’ll reserve judgment on.)

Waverly: I’ll simply refer you to Mary Magdalene’s song in Jesus Christ Superstar: “I Don’t Know How to Love Him” :slight_smile:

Grienspace: Excellent historical perspective, and I’m grateful. The sin-and-salvation evangelical paradigm is so entrenched in American religious thought than it’s refreshing to see someone bring out the alternative.

Pepperlandgirl:

I appreciate the candor.

I suspect an Orthodox Jew would say that you are a righteous Gentile. (Yeah, I know you’re LDS… ;))

A stringent ethicist would suggest that you cannot possibly love God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength, your neighbor as yourself, and be perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect – so without knowing it you still sin. (I know I do – but that’s for you to judge of yourself for yourself.)

Myself, I find Christianity to be freedom. I am free to be me, as I was not in a world where I was answerable to social custom. But I do see exactly what you mean, especially as regards those who are confused between the ethical expectations of a righteous God and avoiding doing what will shock Grandma.

One of my favorite clergymen had a sign in his office that said “Jesus came to take away your sins – not your mind.”

Faith is not contrary to reason, it’s supplemental to it. It provides non-rational (not irrational) assurance of God’s love for you. Understanding this, His purposes for you and for the world, is where reason works with it.

I’d phrase that just a bit differently: “Freewill isn’t about knowing God, it’s about loving God.” And you don’t have to be happy with him – St. Teresa of Avila wasn’t.

Your point 5 is so on target, it’s beautiful. “Your God is too small” – it’s true for everybody.

HubZilla: First, let me note that the issue of who wrote and edited the Gospels and whether they were or drew from eyewitnesses is still hotly debated. It’s at least as annoying for some scholar to lay down as the absolute truth a negative based on inference, no matter how well founded, as it is for the semi-literate believer to say, “Well, Mark’s name’s on it; that proves it.”

I’ve been trying to resist this, but I’m gonna give in to temptation:

Naah, Yahweh invented the Jews. :stuck_out_tongue:

Seriously, I take your point regarding Jewish rejection of the Christian perspective, but there are two main points to make: (1) In the view of Christians, the Jews were the ones who misunderstood what God had in mind, and (2) The r-Jews who make these statements are the ones who did not become Christians in the First Century, or their descendents, so it is hardly surprising that they reject that interpretation. (Don’t forget that the earliest church was overwhelmingly e-Jews.)

Jab: It ain’t just right or fair. In the first place, it’s not how I see God working. In the second place, neither of us is in third grade, but you may have some evidence I don’t, so: Since when has the universe been regarded as just right or fair?

48

How can I sense God’s reality today? I certainly tried for years and years. As a teenager I believed, but mostly because my respected elders told me it was true. I prayed, I attended church, I acted according to the principals preached. But, I never felt his presence. Then some priesthood members came to my house to tell me they had been sent a message from God. Several Priesthood members had separately all had revelation that I was to be called to the priesthood. I thought about it. I prayed. I talked to various people I respect. I prayed some more. And then I realized that I had never felt God in my life and that I never would.

Since then, I’ve had a lot more time to do work for charity and such because I don’t waste it going and sitting in boring church services. I have had many many more opportunities to both observe and participate in loving acts. I don’t feel bad about my carnal cravings anymore and can, without remorse, research ahead of time about risks and costs of various pleasurable activities so that I can make more informed choices. Since becoming an atheist, my life has been fuller, more enjoyable, and my friends have actually remarked about how loving and supportive I have become.

Poly The above goes towards asking how anyone is supposed to attain “the eyes of faith,” which I think of as “the eyes of the will take any small morsel of coincidence as evidence of existence,” or perhaps “the eyes that see even child abuse as a sign of Your glory.”

Not that I’m going to put much effort into seeking God at this point. My life has improved too much since I gave up searching.

Has anyone tried looking for the IPU with “the eyes of IPUfaith”? I doubt it because how could anyone come to fully believe in the IPU. Elves and fairies and such were believed at one time to be a part of nature. Maybe not the whole of nature, but a big part of it. An integral part. Not something ‘in addition to’ but ‘a part of’. Still, we think of them as fantasy today.

What exactly is it that belief in God does for anyone?

here comes your challenge Poly

As far as your not wanting to define your God. Or being unable to. That seems to me to be admitting that you’re afraid that anything you come up with will be dismissed easily by the skeptics around here. Here I’ll try to help you with some questions off the top of my head. These are questions to try to help you come up with a a description of your God in something more than a vacuum. These are questions I tortured myself over back when I was looking hard for God. Since you have said that God is part of everything in the universe (or some such) I wil feel free to ask questions about all parts of the universe in confidence that they will inevitably be questions about God.

  • Does God go through time like we do? Or does He live at all times at once?
  • Is God omnipotent?
  • Is God omniscient?
  • Is God conscious?
  • Does God have emotions as we understand them?
  • Does God have a body?
  • What are your feelings about the Trinity?
  • If God has no body, or at least no human body, what does it mean that Jesus is the Son of God?
  • What the heck is the Holy Spirit and why does it need to be a separate entity?
  • Does God answer prayers individually?
  • What is the Bible for?
  • Do you retain memory of self in the afterlife?
  • What is worship and is it a good thing? Required thing?
  • Can a non-believer enter heaven?
  • Is there a Hell?
  • Is there original sin?
  • Could God put a stop to evil acts without affecting free will?
  • Is there free will in heaven?
  • Is there sin in heaven?
    OK, That’s enough for the moment. If you still think you’re in a vacuum, let me know and I’ll throw out some possible answers to the above questions.

My fortune today: You are comtemplative and analytical by nature. Is this valid evidence that fortune cookies are accurate?

49

Under a Christian understanding of things, you might sense God’s reality today. I stress might – and I think I did use the conditional “could” in my earlier post – because God just isn’t presented in the Bible as a transcendental trick pony.

If you were to experience God’s reality today, you would do so inwardly. In the book of Romans – for example – Paul appeals to ‘The Spirit bearing witness together with my spirit’ in defense of his own apostolic calling and as testimony to the truth of the gospel. That’s the kind of thing that most Christians will tell you about if you ask them how they KNOW that there’s a God.

Of course, you will point out that this “inward experience” might just as easily be a delusion, and I suppose you would be right. It might. But then we come back to the matter of philosophical presuppositions. If you presuppose that every human experience can and must be made sense of in purely material terms, then all that is required is for you to reason consistently from your First Things, and you will most assuredly finish where you started: With the determination that any claimed experience of God cannot possibly be anything more than a delusion. Obviously, it’s the presuppositions that are the contested ground in all of this in the first place, but there you have it. In some sense, I don’t know that there’s much more to say.

**

I don’t doubt for a single second that you have made a sincere effort in all of the respects that you talked about, and it’s commendable. It’s also commendable that you have been honest enough with yourself to admit that nothing has yet satisfied your inquiry. For my part, I wish it were not so. I’ll leave it at that, because more than that sometimes comes off as offensively condescending in discussions like this. Let it be enough to say that I’m reading you.

**

You should do what you think is best with the remainder of your physical/metaphysical whatsit. But this seems like a wrongheaded conclusion to draw. If we Christians are right about God, then God may just have you on a different timetable than the rest of us. But even if we aren’t, it still seems to me that any skeptic worth their salt ought to extend their skepticism even as far as their present conclusions about Things.

**

OK. That’s your own business. I am by no means here to bend you to my will.

Sincere best,

–B

{fixed code. --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 10-12-2001 at 03:57 PM]

50

Is the question “Can you offer proof?” a sincere question in a debate such as this? Seriously. If one begins a theological discussion with this demand, you know that it will end with a flaming. I believe that when people ask for “proof” they are either mocking a person’s faith or more likely trying someone to bite so they can throw out the same canned answers that we hear every time someone mentions a possible proof for God. So if one’s intent is to have a reasonable discussion of why an intelligent person could believe in the divine, I’ll join in the fun. If it is simply so one can make themselves feel superior by spouting off a few obscure 17th century philosophers in order to paint all Christians with one broad stroke, I’d rather return to Cafe Society and talk about Rachel and Ross’ baby.

Simply, Christianity can’t be proven. You know it. I know it. The very nature of the thing goes beyond logic. The previous sentence meaning two different things. Your comprehension of the idea will depend on where you come down on the issue.

I have been in the militant atheist camp (I accuse none of you of being a militant. The discussion here has not been TOO inflammatory.) I also grew up DEEP rural Southern Baptist. Like an earlier poster, I find Methodism very comforting. It doesn’t REQUIRE everyone to take notes on what they believe. I can get into that.

The problem I always run into is that the Jerry Falwells of the world get to define “christianity” at the expense of the silent majority. It’s like most Democrats don’t believe in a welfare state and most Republicans don’t want to eat the poor. It’s the loud mouths control the debate. The rest of us have better things to do.

I think someone who said they didn’t believe struck a fantastic point. The hypocrisy of Christianity’s practitioners. It reminds me of John Stewart’s comedy bit. He said his grandfather came to America from the old country. As soon as he got off the boat at Ellis Island and signed his papers, he turned to the guy behind him and said “Go back to your OWN country you dirty foreigner!” I think Christians are often guilty of this to a certain extent. They make a choice to accept, belong or whatever you want to call it and then suddenly, instead of feeling the humility that the faith requires, they feel vastly superior to the non-Christian. They also refuse to let other people believe they are flawed. Much like the liquor store example cited earlier.
[tangent]
What’s up with that prohibition on liquor? Water to wine man! Water to wine! Drink up, fellows![/tangent]
Where were we? Oh yes, flawed. According to the teachings of the NT, people are supposed to be aware that they are flawed (no matter what faith you subscribe to, if you look at yourself honestly you will be forced to admit that sometimes,you are just bad. Call it a sin, call it being a jerk, but you know you do things to hurt people.) But the Holier than Thou’s won’t admit it.

Another problem with having a discussion such as this is that someone always throws a small part of the Bible back at me. I would say most Christians do not believe that the text, word for word, was written by God. I certainly don’t. Look, the world is older than 5000 years. It just is. Even the Pope buys evolution. I think Fundamentalists are afraid (subconsciously) of the slippery slope. Also, I think some have been guilty of a misnomer. It isn’t A book. It is a series of books. The Council of Nicea basically acted as the editor if I remember correctly. So when we read in Timothy (I think) that all scripture is the divine word of God, are we to think that this includes the editorial thoughts of Nicea some centuries later (anyone have a year?)? Plus, as any logical debater will point out, such a claim is a self-proving statement. It would be like saying that post is brillaint because I say so in this post.

All that said, I do believe. I’ve read the Bible. I reread it daily. I have trouble with Paul. I can’t tell if he is a great man for spreading a doctrine that WHEN FOLLOWED PROPERLY can greatly aid communities and the world. Even the jaded atheist must tip a cap to those who work in the inner cities feeding the starving because of the call they feel. Even if it is delusions in that person’s mind, it helps people. Paul, though, sometimes comes across as a hijacker of the faith. There are clear instances where he contradicts things that are attributed to Jesus. (Marriage being one of them. If everyone had followed Paul’s request, the world would have ended due to depopulation.) Also, Paul never met Jesus before his crucification. He had a credibility problem even when his works were modern. Plus, most of the fundamentalist problems of the NT come from good ol’ Paul’s writings. I tend to think of Paul as somewhere between the Biblical equivalency of Judicial Review or fanfic. He sure was full of himself. Yet, every other paragraph is a wonderful suggestion on how to help people. I think faith is parsing through the minutia and finding the important stuff.

I wish I could remember the theologist’s name that said this (Jewish maybe?): I believe in a Hell, but I don’t think there is anyone in it. I hope this is true. I don’t even like the idea of Hitler in agony FOREVER. Yet some Christians laugh at the idea of disbelivers burning and agonizing for eternity. Doesn’t this clash with our supposed beliefs? Many (probably most)preachers do bear guilt for those who may (or they believe) will go to Hell. Some don’t. I was in a sermon once where the preacher said something like “They won’t be having a good time when they are burning in the lakes of fire!” And the crowd responded with an enthusiastic Amen. Yeah. That’ll win them over. Laugh at what you believe to be suffering for an eternity (that means forever…and that’s a mighty long time).

So, as I ask on every board that this topic (inevitably) comes up. Don’t paint us all in one broad stroke. The majority of us know what we’re up against. Like all moderates, we have to defend against both fronts. We also don’t like it when you call it mythology. Remember, manners are important in a civilized society.

51

I don’t know that perturbed is the proper description of it. I’ve simply had religious/mystical experiences that plain and simple do not agree with it. It was in the air, the rocks, the waves; in the ground under me, in the comfortable weight. It wasn’t something Other that was peeking through them, it was them.

That’s hardly a logical argument, and I sure don’t pretend it is. Could have just been a mild seizure in my temporal lobes or other key bits of the brain, but the qualia of it was undeniable.

But if it wasn’t something Other, the way I see it, salvation becomes something deeply problematic. If something is not separate from God, in what sense is that something brought back to God? With this particular objection, it doesn’t surprise me at all that it’s a repeatedly reinvented wheel. How does the brand(s) of Creation Theology you mentioned tackle it?

Links or other sources are fine as well; you’ve certainly juggling a lot of strands in the air right now.

You had me right along until the second sentence, which I just don’t follow. It’s a different picture, but not a particularly helpful one to my eyes.

Focusing on the self-sacrifice, without taking into account the Why of it, and what I see is a good person suffering, and then dying in agony. Absent the context of a reason for the act, sacrifice is merely destruction, self-sacrifice simply suicide. There’s a lot of that going around, and of course the Problem of Pain is right around that corner (lots of roads lead to it). What should I be seeing in the act, absent its reasons, that I am not? What do you see that I’m missing?

52

It occurs to me that the great majority of Christians that I know who act in ways that I respect, also have only a vague concept of their own belief. I was recently on vacation and several nights of staying up late with old friends resulted in some fairly heavy conversations, but my Christian friends were pretty much unanimous in saying that they they were generic Christians and tried to follow the golden rule, but hadn’t felt the need to examine their beliefs any closer than that. The one Catholic in the crowd claimed to be a “cafeteria” Catholic meaning that he followed some of the Catholic rules but not others even to the point where he didn’t plan on ever confessing his transgressions against the rules he disagreed with. He still goes to confession every week, but I think that’s mostly to appease his wife. The few Christians I know with more specific beliefs are almost all elderly (not sure what that indicates).

I didn’t mean for that to sound as if I was putting down these people who haven’t refined their beliefs. I’m saying that I respect that they make their own decisions on morality and then let that define their God rather than figure out God and let the church define their morals. I would encourage that.

53

I don’t know that perturbed is the proper description of it. I’ve simply had religious/mystical experiences that plain and simple do not agree with it. It was in the air, the rocks, the waves; in the ground under me, in the comfortable weight. It wasn’t something Other that was peeking through them, it was them.

That’s hardly a logical argument, and I sure don’t pretend it is. Could have just been a mild seizure in my temporal lobes or other key bits of the brain, but the qualia of it was undeniable.

But if it wasn’t something Other, the way I see it, salvation becomes something deeply problematic. If something is not separate from God, in what sense is that something brought back to God? With this particular objection, it doesn’t surprise me at all that it’s a repeatedly reinvented wheel. How does the brand(s) of Creation Theology you mentioned tackle it?

Links or other sources are fine as well; you’ve certainly juggling a lot of strands in the air right now.

You had me right along until the second sentence, which I just don’t follow. It’s a different picture, but not a particularly helpful one to my eyes.

Focusing on the self-sacrifice, without taking into account the Why of it, and what I see is a good person suffering, and then dying in agony. Absent the context of a reason for the act, sacrifice is merely destruction, self-sacrifice simply suicide. There’s a lot of that going around, and of course the Problem of Pain is right around that corner (lots of roads lead to it). What should I be seeing in the act, absent its reasons, that I am not? What do you see that I’m missing?

54

Just for the record, Polycarp, I wasn’t referring to you when I spoke of some Christians not showing respect to others. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear. I have never seen any evidence of you being anything but polite and respectful. You set an example that I wish others would pay more attention to and I enjoy yours posts and threads a great deal.

Let me try to explain my position better concerning the missionaries. I work in a corporate office and one of my duties is to head door-to-door salesmen off at the pass, so to speak. Now, some come in and are very polite and want to leave some literature. They tell us to call them if we are interested. I will almost always look that material over. Others come in and are arrogant and pushy and I usually politely tell them I am not interested and ask them to leave. Now, my problem with missionaries is that they seem to be more like the second example of the salesmen I mentioned, except they usually don’t take hints well and don’t leave if what they are preaching is not welcomed. If they would go to these faraway places, make a little speech about why their product is better, leave a little literature and then leave, I would consider that respectful and I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But anyone who objects seems to just make them try harder and harder. That to me is disrespectful. I’ve had christian friends do the same thing to me. I respect their beliefs, I understand that they only want the best for me, and I understand that they wouldn’t do it if they didn’t care. Fine. Some christians, yourself not included, don’t seem to take hints very well. They think that the only reason I didn’t change my beliefs is because they didn’t try hard enough. That is not the case. I would never think that I could change their beliefs so when they try to change mine, ad nauseum, it’s a bit offensive and disrespectful.

55

Just for the record, Polycarp, I wasn’t referring to you when I spoke of some Christians not showing respect to others. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear. I have never seen any evidence of you being anything but polite and respectful. You set an example that I wish others would pay more attention to and I enjoy yours posts and threads a great deal.

Let me try to explain my position better concerning the missionaries. I work in a corporate office and one of my duties is to head door-to-door salesmen off at the pass, so to speak. Now, some come in and are very polite and want to leave some literature. They tell us to call them if we are interested(Interestingly enough, I will almost always look that material over). Others come in and are arrogant and pushy and I usually politely tell them I am not interested and ask them to leave. Now, my problem with missionaries is that they seem to be more like the second example of the salesmen I mentioned, except they usually don’t take hints well and are less likely to leave if what they are preaching is not welcomed. If they would go to these faraway places, make a little speech about why their product is better, leave a little literature and then leave, I would consider that respectful and I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But anyone who objects seems to just make them try harder and harder. That to me is disrespectful. I’ve had Christian friends do the same thing to me. I respect their beliefs, I understand that they only want the best for me, and I understand that they wouldn’t do it if they didn’t care. Fine. Some Christians, yourself not included, don’t seem to take hints very well. They think that the only reason I didn’t change my beliefs is because they didn’t try hard enough. That is not the case. I would never think that I could change their beliefs so when they try to change mine, ad nauseum, it’s a bit offensive and disrespectful.

56

If God does not run the world in a just, fair and righteous manner, how can you say that He loves us all equally?

57

Hardly. Frankhoma’s point seems to be that doubting God’s existence is as foolish as doubting the existence of Paris simply because you haven’t been there.

I made no such demand. I just stated that his existence cannot be proven in human terms.

But this is not a fact but a matter of faith.
And if we believe the Bible, God has spoken directly to several individuals who survived the experience and sent angels to others to deliver a message or two. So God could make his existence known to everyone in the world if he so desired.

58

Why have you presumed that God “runs the world”?

59

That was I, and not Edlyn, who posted the above.

60

Jab:

Okay, that is not just, right, or fair. It’s also one of the main reasons I don’t accept that viewpoint. I’ve tried to give my stance regarding a loving God who doesn’t pull that kind of BS here and on other boards we both have frequented. Did you think I opened an “Ask the Fundamentalist?” thread? :slight_smile:

Mercutio:

Okay. Catholics believe that “virtuous pagans” and unbaptized infants go to Limbo, a “state of perfect natural happiness,” not Heaven (which adds the “supernatural happiness of perfectly knowing God” to the mix). Mr. Billy or Navigator can state the supposed destination of such people according to evangelical Protestantism, but my hunch is that the “original sin” business leads one to understand that nobody can be “a good person” under that take.

In my view, God, because He loves all people and desires them to freely love Him in return, keeps on trying, and will only let them opt for Hell on absolute total and continuous rejection of Him. And this would be when they, having followed their own choices to a point where they are actually incapable (having burned themselves out to the point where they no longer have the will to) of choosing Him, leaves them to be the ashes of their former selves. (Insert for the generic “sin” the use of addictive drugs to the extreme, and extrapolate the personality disintegration that results, and you have a dramatic picture of what I feel is the eventual fate of such people. For everyone else, the ability to choose remains there until, eventually, they make the free choice to turn to God – having had enough evidence of His existence, power, and love to make them satisfied of His bona fides. Because some idiot tells you that He’s “the eternal ground of all being” or “wrathful against gays, feminists, and the ACLU” or whatever other concept they may have of Him, and you find that laughable, or at the least not proven, does not constitute grounds for His stopping His love of you, and His wish that you eventually find your way into a richer and fuller life in which He is involved. (Not the one I experience, the one you will find richer and fuller.)

Nice point. That’s what I’m trying to do.

Mayor Quimby:

Uh, “nice” analogy. [Stoid voice] On the other hand, Christianity says that the orthodox Judaist view took the point of view that “this is what the Law says is supposed to happen – on our interpretation – so we won’t look at any evidence that might prove otherwise!”[/Stoid voice] :stuck_out_tongue:

Sheesh, politics and religion in the same thread. Whaddaya want to bet sex comes up next? :smiley:

I will expect you to document any “mix[ing] in [of] paganism galore.” I am quite well aware that certain religious festivals were so scheduled as to match popular pagan ones, and that the obvious parallel between Jesus’s Crucifixion and Resurrection and the corn-king myths of Asia Minor was dwelt on in making the new doctrines clear to people familiar with those traditions. And that, by an obvious coincidence, the spring Jewish festival of Passover at which these events fell corresponded with Pagan and Heathen spring festivals. But what doctrinal paganism do you see? About the only evidence I see is a vague parallel to Neoplatonism, founded on the strange ability of both Neoplatonist philosophers and Christian theologians to count to three.

No doubt. I respect Chaim’s wisdom and scholarship immensely. The question here is whether one or the other interpretation has the better handle on the Truth. And IMHO Christianity does (or else I would not be Christian).

Snermy:

Yep. Much of our cultural values derives from the best part of Christian teachings. (This accounts for the song and dance conservatives have been doing on “preserving family values” and such). And I will concur about the Golden Rule (Confucius and Hillel are two pre-Christian sources I know of). However, on the Christian perspective, does it not make sense that a God with that in mind as proper human base value would not ensure it got as widespread as possible?

Continuing on with response to the rest of your post: Yep, there are a lot of interpretations of both the Christian tradition and, outside it, how one transcends everyday life to something beyond it.

So why choose Christianity?

Because, on the view of Christians, there is a single deity who is responsible for this universe and who has an interest in humanity, and who proved this through theophanies hither and yon through history, by placing His Law on people’s hearts, and (and this is key) Who proved the works by becoming incarnate as one of us at a particular place and time, teaching us His will and wisdom, and then, being killed, proved His mastery over death and all things by rising from the dead.

What particular branch of Christianity? Well, I’m an Episcopalian, because in my opinion that combines both an allegiance to the traditional way of doing things with an intellectual integrity that faces tough questions, and an ethical commitment to the dignity of each huamn being. I’ll let members of other denominations speak for their own.

Dangerosa:

No. It doesn’t make sense. Neither does the decay of a free neutron in 1,000 seconds. But that’s the world we live in. So there’s a sensible explanation for each that we don’t have at present.

You’re in good company there: St. Paul said the same thing in one of his letters to the Corinthians. :wink:

Simple solution: Kill them. Any one of them who rises from the dead is clearly the real thing. :wink:

I do take your point, though: Megalomania is common throughout history. The guy the Synoptic Gospels describe, though, is clearly a charismatic leader with a strong streak of humility, not a megalomaniac. (John gives something of the same picture, but with some mystical material added in that does sound megalomaniac if not taken in context – you have to take into account what John tried to do in painting his picture of Jesus to get past that stuff.)

I suspect this is a case of YMMV – but the picture I get is as far from a mentally ill person as it is possible to be.

You’ve got it from me. (Assuming you – generically – don’t abuse them, of course – but that’s not a theological question but one of humaneness.)

[Edited by UncleBeer on 10-15-2001 at 06:28 PM]