Why are Christians' ideas of God erroneous?

Great Debates
101

Well, I love the thread.

But I would like to answer a few leftover points not dignified with a response previously. (The points and their manner of presentation certainly don’t merit response, but Christianity is not a faith of merit!)

The Lord also loves stupid Christians, with nonsensical beliefs, and illogical doctrines. Not understanding the theological implications of the Trinity, or the inherent logical contradiction of free will and omnipotence are not failures of faith. Most of the world is just not sophisticated, educated, or dedicated enough to wade through the epistemology. Bible worshipers and chanters of rote prayer for public performance are just another set of souls lost in the world, like you and I. I know a lot of people who are illiterate, and even non-verbal, but who reflect the love of the Lord in their lives in every act and deed. Knowing the words is not the answer. Living the word is.

Of course the Lord loves the atheists, too. The only thing you have to do is choose to love. That is really the most important thing (So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. I Corinthians 13:13) The most impeccable theological doctrine in history, without love, is nothing.

Jab, brother, you have nothing to fear from Jesus, simply because your logical and rational perceptions have hidden Him from you. You are able to see good, and you see evil. You might make mistakes, but you intend no harm. Even being smart is not a failure of faith. :slight_smile: Don’t let exclusivity proponents sell you a bag of ritual requirements. Jesus is not trying to get you to join a church; He is trying to lead your heart and soul into eternity. Love everyone you can. Since you don’t believe in Him, you will have to just love His children. I will have faith for you, that that will work, OK? (Matt 25:40)

Polycarp:

I stand in awe, sir, of your compassion in the face of vilification. You have served Him well, here. Bless you.

To others, who perceive that theology, scholarship, and honesty have marked Polycarp in your estimation as a person to be admired, and respected despite your own disagreement with his religious beliefs: Bravo! Don’t worry, if you don’t hold Fred and Jerry against us, we won’t hold . . . well, you get the idea. :slight_smile:

Tris

“Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.” I Corinthians 13

102

Jab,

“Wherever your treasure is, there your heart is also.” — Jesus

Tris,

Though I esteem you as so far above me that when I look at you I see only a distant star, I disagree that there is any contradiction between our free-will and God’s omnipotence/omniscience.

103

Thanks Poly for your description of how you came to your belief. It sounds very similar to my own experience except that I never had your experience of God, and so eventually went on to study philosophy and ethics instead of religion.

So, being who I am, my next question is where do you get your ethics? What do you base your ethical system on? Did you decide your ethics and afterwards read the sermon on the mount and see that it was good and maybe refined your ethics from that? Or was it the other way around? Do you consider the Bible a good source for people who are trying to formalize their own ethics? Should children be taught that they should act properly because that’s the way God wants or because it’s the right thing to do? (I know it’s kinda the same thing, but personally I would prefer that people figure out what’s right for themselves rather than follow religious writings like robots.)

Let me try to say this in a different way. I know some Christians who have never thought about ethics, they just follow the Ten Commandments and think that’s enough. I think this is a really bad thing. There are plenty of ethical issues that the Ten Commandments don’t address, but several Christians I know act consistently immorally and don’t feel one bit of remorse because their oversimplified ethical system doesn’t apply. I think that, if someone consistently goes to religious teachings to find one’s morals instead of making those decisions for themselves, that there are inevitably going to occur situations where you have no ethical rule that applies and no personal method to develop a new rule.

The biggest issue that I see Christians not prepared to deal with is environmentalism. When people need to make decisions about things like how much Coal mining do we allow to continue knowing that banning it will make energy costs temporarily skyrocket and possibly leaving many poor people without heat? This is oversimplifying the case here, but I think you can see that it’s not an easy ethical question, and one that I don’t think many Christians are properly prepared to consider.

There are a lot of issues where one ethical rule can conflict with another. Whenever this happens I see my Mom, and other Christians I know, running from the issue or desperately trying to make short term decisions so they can run later. I’m not accusing anyone on the boards of this, I don’t many of you well enough to make that judgement. I am just asking you what you think about teaching Children about ethics, separately from teaching them about God. When teaching about God one could say, “God wants us all to be ethical. And that’s why we learn about ethics.” Then at some point we could say, “We learned about Ethics already. Here is the Sermon on the Mount, does it match your ethics? What should we do about it if it doesn’t match?”

I hope I’ve explained myself clearly.

104

Now, this will be interesting.

105

jab:

You “desire” oblivion? (Presuming you had a valid choice?)

If so, you shall have it.

But my impression of you is that your aspiration is for the Truth. And if I am correct, then that you shall have, in full measure. And be joyous in it.

I don’t presume to judge you. But you’ve asked for our view of your destiny, so I feel that that is the honest response. I am confident that God honors the sincere quest for truth, and the rectitude that leads someone to reject a story such as King Hezekiah watching a shadow move backward.

There are valuable things to be gained from a study of Greek or Norse mythology, such as insights into subliminal cultural behavior that normally get repressed by “mature” societies (and then come out in full in mob and vengeance scenarios). But studying those myths does not therefore require one to accept that Thor drank enough of the ocean to lower the sea level by three feet, or that Zeus fathered Helen of Troy after transforming himself into a swan.

I accept the idea that there is one God who reveals Himself to mankind in a variety of ways, including mysticism and the study of nature. And a number of sacred writings, including the Bible. But I would never claim from that that the legends and other material in the Bible has any necessary historical validity. I suspect some of it does; I think you would agree that the passages dealing with the Court History of David, divorced of the writer’s annotations regarding God’s opinions about what happened, are probably as accurate as any other early history, and more so than, say, Herodotus and his tendency to mythologize at the drop of a helmet.

Which brings me to Stephanie:

Good points. I see much of Scripture as accurate non-scientific accounts. I see other parts as myth and legend – not therefore necessarily untrue, but requiring to be read with the sort of non-literal approach one must take to such material. And I’d strongly suggest a separate thread to deal with “whether the Bible is historically accurate.”

Because (1) Christians are united on the need for commitment to God as seen in Jesus, but (2) divided on the importance of Scripture and the appropriate way in which to read it.

And this thread, insofar as I’m able to pursue it, is focused on discussing ways in which (1) may be palatable to the typical reader of this board, who is emphatically not a typical conservative Christian (though a number are.) And, given that, (2) serves only to muddy the waters. Does that sound fair to you?

Triskadecamus: Thank you most kindly, sir, for those needed corrections and additions. I stand humbly at your feet, brother.

Tris and Lib.: My own position is that the juxtaposition of divine omniscience (and consequent determinism) and free will is a paradox – which both of you know is a verbal contradiction misrepresenting a non-contradictory reality. :slight_smile:

Vile ethics follows. :smiley:

106

Like most people, I originally founded my thinking on “what was right” on learned, non-conceptualized behavior. My parents were strict disciplinarians who expressed pride in me and my school performance but rarely showed affection. They were not churchgoers but encouraged me to attend with my aunt, who was a pillar of our local Methodist church (which we lived next door to). I grew into a sterile, legalistic view of God.

Then I met Him and found out He doesn’t resemble my father in the slightest.

I saw people hurting people in the name of religion, or more precisely, in the name of church politics. I and mine were to a small extent victims of this.

After my “conversion experience,” the Gospels “came alive” to me. They became meaningful. And in them I saw a picture of a Jesus who calls each of us to radical followership of Him, in love, and both commands and shows, by example, compassion towards others.

No. The Gospels, yes. But you can prove anything by quoting something from that book out of context. (As numerous threads on the Left Behind board would show you, if you have the stomach for them.)

May I start my answer with a Bible quote?

[quote]
34 When the Pharisees heard that [Jesus] had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, " "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40, NRSV)

If a child is taught to follow these rules, and to apply them in all situations, and he/she sincerely tries to do what it calls for, then he/she will both comply with God’s “Prime Directive” (see verse 40) and be a “good” person in the eyes of his/her fellow man. And yes, will end up thinking for him-/herself about what is right.

Just FTR, the Ten Commandments are part of the Law, the Torah, the thing that Paul says Christians are free from, obliged instead of following regulations to act morally in the manner Jesus demands in that quote. It will be the rarest of occasions when they stand in opposition to the above, but one can certainly interpret them into such opposition – and the proper course in such case is to not follow such an interpretation. (Jesus illustrates this with the “healing on the Sabbath” stuff.)

On the issue you raise by way of example (environmentalism vs. needs of the poor vs. “Christian” support of Big Energy), the answer the Episcopal Church teaches, to which I adhere, is that we are called to be the stewards of Creation – trustees or agents of God in its proper management, to do His will with it. That includes non-pollution and ensuring that all our fellow men have the wherewithal they need to survive.

107

I would like to join in here, VileOrb, if you don’t mind.

Ethics for me are the principles I apply in determining my responsibilities to worldly matters. I base those principles on the same underlying philosophy as my religious faith, which is love. I don’t always achieve the level of ethical behavior I would like, but I strive to be the sort of person who values the welfare of all above his own.

Jesus said (while contemplating a coin) “Give unto Caesar, what is Caesar’s.” This is a parable to me, about the responsibility that faithful Christians must have regarding worldly things. Money is of the world, and the world is Caesar’s. Money is the symbol for the power that is exchanged among the adherents of societies. In exchange for the use of that power for each citizen’s benefit, each citizen must serve Caesar, that is; he must be a law-abiding citizen, and participate in the society to which each belongs.

The world has grown more complex since the days when paying your taxes to kings and not being slaughtered by his armies was the extent of the exchange. But the principle of civilized ethics remains the same, to me. Christian faith is not a matter of worldly contest. While my society itself remains within the limits I can accept as ethical, and while I benefit from those limits, I must, in good faith, render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and participate as an ethical citizen. I must vote, I must be productive, I must promote the general welfare, and provide for the common defense, and preserve, protect, and defend its Constitution from enemies. These things are Caesar’s.

Ethics includes a duty to bear responsibility myself for the actions of my society. Not to rule Caesar, but to turn his heart to the path of love. In the complex matters of resource allocation, environment, and international relations I think it is clear that I must strive first to do no harm. Every soul on this Earth is my brother, likewise a child of God. So too are those not yet living, and if my choices make their lives poorer, I have done harm.

I arrive at positions much different from those that many say are the right stance for Christians. I cannot support laws that place the power to dictate continuing a pregnancy in the hands of authorities unwilling to assume any responsibility for that decision. I don’t support secularizing my faith, and placing its guidance and teaching in the hands of politicians. This doesn’t mean I am pro-abortion, or anti-prayer. It means that these decisions are not Caesar’s, and I will not give them to him.

In the same vein, I reject the proposition that sin and crime are equivalent. They are not. The authority over sin is God’s alone, and He has given that judgment to my Lord. Your sin is not my affair, to condemn, approve, or even speak about. Your crimes are another matter. When the criteria for criminal behavior must be proposed, I deny the authority to make that judgment on the basis of theology, or faith in God. Crime is a violation of the civil compact that is our society. While I believe that the Lord wants me to be a good citizen, I don’t think He wants me searching for sins, and trying to punish sinners in His name.

I happen to think that shopping is a sin. Fred Phelps happens to think that homosexuality is a sin. Fred should never practice homosexuality, or think homosexual thoughts. I should never shop. But if either of us attempts to make that the Law of the Land, he is committing the error of hubris. I don’t know how Fred is doing, but I admit it, I do shop sometimes. The point is that the criteria for sin are not ours to define, but the criteria of crime are. Crime is that which attacks society, and harms the general welfare. Sex, and drugs, and rock and roll are not, in my opinion, matters that should be criminal. Sinful? Ask the Lord, not me.

My ethics are not separated from my faith, but they are not identical either. If Caesar were perfect, perhaps they would be more similar. Yeah, like that could happen!

Tris

“The wicked leader is he who the people despise. The good leader is he who the people revere. The great leader is he who the people say, ‘We did it ourselves.’” ~ Lao Tzu ~

108

How does one live the word if one does not know the word?

109

Tris thanks for the contribution.

This is fine. I would be happy if all Christians at least understood that they should think about such matters. It’s just that so many Christians I have encountered in life do not, do not want to, and believe that they are justified in this by their religion. One Catholic church congregation that I know of all gather together sort of semi-spontaneously upon there being something controversial in the news. They get together at the church and the Pastor addresses them and tells them which side of the issue the church stands on and then they go home knowing that they know the RIGHT answer to the questions because a priest told them. It’s scary. A whole congregation of like 200 people all calling one another and planning the gathering, going in to Church looking grim and coming out relieved to have the burden of thinking removed from them. I lived close to the church for a long time. I inevitably met a number of the congregation members. It definitely made me sort of scared of Catholicism, but I have met more thoughtful Catholics since and am getting over my slight phobia.

I’m not sure I totally understand where you draw the line between what is Ceasar’s and what is not. If abortion laws are not Ceasar’s, then why are burglary laws Ceasar’s? Or is it that the laws that are in sync with God don’t need mention? Death penalty? hmm… Seems like you have a lot of good thoughts, but I’m having a hard time deciding whether they would hold together under testing. I’ll read you last post more closely when I have more time. Time to go home now.

110

Good. “To sleep, perchance to dream…”

If you can’t believe that all of the Bible is the absolutely true and inspired word of God, why believe any of the Bible? It sounds to me like you’re this close to realizing that the Bible was written solely by man without any help from God because there never was any God. You’re pretty much where I was a few years ago when I heard the sermon that I referred to in my first post in this thread, about murderers going to Heaven, but not their victims. Once I realized the preacher had not thought through what he said (allegedly, one of the Manson family had become “born again”), I realized that the preacher didn’t know what he was talking about. After that, nothing else he said that night had any credibility with me.

Being homeless at the time, I had to go to Christian-run shelters for food and, well, shelter, and had to listen to a lot of sermons. I finally, really listened for the first time and realized that none of them had really thought things through. Some made really goofy statements like, “No one has ever seen an electron, so how they say they exist?” The same man tried to justify Joshua’s killing all the inhabitants of all those villages, including the children, speculating that maybe God had told Joshua, “The children would have grown up to be wicked. By killing them then, He made sure they would be in Heaven instead of Hell.” Most memorable of all is the young man who said, “What some people call gravity, I call the will of God.” “The will of God can be measured?” I thought. And I bet you recall how so many people at The Pizza Parlor claimed that evidence of ANY flood is evidence for THE Flood.

I agree that it’s possible that some passages in the Bible are true, but even if they are, it doesn’t prove that God wrote them or dictated them or caused some scribe’s hand to write them down.

If some concept can be shown to be genuinely paradoxical and not merely an apparent paradox, it must be thrown out. Paradoxes do not exist in the physical world; they exist only in the abstract. A paradox shows that the person has not fully thought things through.

111

It’s a metaphor thing. Knowing the words was intended to refer to intellectual knowledge of the bible, of theology, and the contentious world of doctrine. Living the word is a metaphor for trying to be what you know love would make you. You don’t need to understand altruism to be kind, you can love without being able to describe or define it. An actual moron can be a kind and decent person, filled with joyful spirit, and generous in love. Figuring out the right answers is not the most important thing.

I remember we have reached this impasse before. Being right is just not all that big a deal, as I see it. I know you value it more highly than I do. Perhaps you will choose being right about oblivion after all. That will be a sad thing, to me.

Tris

Don’t go searching for nothing. You wouldn’t want to find it, would you?

112

I’d just like to give a hearty thank you to everyone in this thread, especially Libertarian, Triskadecamus and of course, the wonderful Polycarp, for a fascinating, inspiring and thought-provoking read.

Cheers!

Nick

113

jab:

Huh. I know and respect you. But to me this whole line of argument sounds atrociously like the Eternal Student/Lolo trainwreck in more thoughtful language.

For the Nth time, I do not “believe in” the Bible. I believe in God. Having done so, I see a fair amount of background material regarding the God in whom I believe contained in the words of the Bible, and therefore put some credence into its words.

The equivalent would be that a vintage 1940s geology text that pooh-poohs continental drift and doesn’t have a clue about plate tectonics is therefore totally without value, even when it deals with sedimentation, the effects of continental glaciation, and other such topics that have nothing to do with the areas where it is in error.

The Bible was totally written by a number of men. I feel that God had some influence in its contents – I’ve said elsewhere that I think the Holy Spirit intended that every word in it be there – but sometimes as a horrible example.

And there’s an excellent question that may deserve a thread of its own, originally asked by I think Eternal Student and implicit in your comments:

Are people like myself who hold to the historical beliefs of the Christian faith obligated to go call themselves something else because noisy hatemongers and irrationalists use the same name?*

[sub]I stand by the historical dogmas of the Church – but read in context and with the idea that pre-scientific “explanations” of events are not necessarily the accurate truth regarding those events. And I don’t believe/think/assert that the core of Christianity comprises intellectual adherence to those dogmas.[/sub]

114

The late Steve Allen once said (paraphrasing): “I believe God exists. I also believe that the Bible is very poor evidence for His existence.” (It was in the preface for his book Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, and Morality, a book he wrote wherein he dissected the Bible and described what he liked and what he didn’t. He didn’t like much of it.)

So what is it? Do you regard the Bible as a kind of a test and those who figure out what’s true in it and what isn’t get rewarded?

115

Jab,

I sometimes wonder whether you feign this hardheadedness. You’ve been told that whatever you desire you will have. There are no tests. There are no tricks. There is no one, least of all God, who will trump your moral will.

The Bible is like any other clump of atoms: it is good for anything from wiping your ass to saving your soul.

116

Is “God” a proper name or a job title? I have often thought that since the Ancient Hebrews were unable to say His name, that “God” was a job title…so, if saying, “God damn it!” is taking the Name in Vain…it must be his Name or isn’t it?

–?

117

Stupid Christians need the most attention! :wink:

Anyway, thanks to Polycarp (you rock, man!) and everyone else in this thread for a fascinating read. It’s actually quite reassuring with regards to my own faith. (I’m Catholic – practicing, but also very liberal/progressive/subversive/name your adjective – and trying to figure out what to do with my disagreements with the Church, beyond hoping for Vatican III. ;))

My take on Christianity, though – part of it, anyway – is that it isn’t God who makes it difficult, it’s people, because (in case you haven’t noticed ;)) loving all people is just really, really hard. Of course, then I wonder if feeling that way means I’m not doing things right…

118

This is a good simpsons reference! [p]
% The child protection agents arrive at the SIMPSON’S house and can’t believe the mess.
Goodman: Whoa, would you look at this place?
Agent 2: [speaking into a tape recorder] Sink full of dirty dishes,
trash not taken out, living room a mess, stacks of old
newspapers – from twenty years ago!
[Abe sleeps in front of the TV with Snowball II on top]
Announcer: Get ready, gamblers, for the world series of dog racing!
[Snowball II gets scared and runs off]
Abe: What the – [the agents snap some photos] [stammers]
Goodman: Hmm. A disheveled and malnourished man found sleeping in his
own filth, seems confused and dehydrated. Agent 2: Where’s the baby?
Abe: Well that’s her, ain’t it?
[Maggie drinks from SLH’s water bowl]
Kids love that water. Agent 2: [picks Maggie up] Oh my Lord!
[Maggie has the “I’m a stupid baby” sign on]
Goodman: **Stupid babies need the most attention.

119

Glad someone caught that – it’s one of my favorite Simpsons quotes. :smiley:

120

Hell I could cuss god out right now…would “god” be “ANGRY”…no. but a hell of alot of people would be offended.

Is it “right” to show TRUTH or “right” to show Unity. Hmmm that is a great question.