Reject Christ and BibleGod

[grogan2767]

From the point of view of a reasonable debate, it's easy to defeat someone who believes the Bible. Simply put, you have no proof and you acknowledge it. You further seem to tacitly acknowledge that it may be impossible to defend your faith thru reason. You claim it simply should be believed because it's true. Further, you claim that everyone else knows this. Any one hearing you who knows they are not suppressing the truth but simply and honestly don't believe the things you do, will be as unimpressed as you are with arguments for believing in Allah or Zeus.
As I was saying, you claim it simply should be believed because it's true. Further, you claim that everyone else knows this. I can assure you that I am suppressing no such knowledge. After spending close to 20 years as an evangelical bible believing Christian, walking with Jesus and trusting him for my salvation, abandoning these beliefs was not done without some careful thought. During this time I didn't experience "faith" which I was trying to surpress. I didn't experience a sense of guilt or conviction. For a period of time, I was trying to hold on to faith but I was increasingly becoming aware of the truth that Christianity is in fact, incorrect.
You see, I can say regarding anything "I believe it and it's simply true - God says so . . . " I can even get it from one of several self validating holy books (the bible is not the only one as you know). Here perhaps you may choose to demonstrate that the bible stands alone, but that's a silly argument. Christians are funny cuz they rip up other peoples' holy literature and find fault over anything and everything they can, then accept the weakest defenses in protecting their own holy book. If the defenses christians used are used with the koran, the bhagvagita and other holy texts, they'd all be considered infallible.
Anyway, the bible really is full of contradictions - and I've read books by evangelicals trying to demonstrate that it's not - and if you read some efforts written to resolve contradictions in the bible with an open mind, you will most likely find many such efforts unconvincing. I acknowledge that some efforts to find contradictions in the bible are misinformed from a poor understanding of the text but there are many scholarly examples of unresolvable contradictions in the bible - the resurrection accounts cannot be harmonized. Efforts by evangelical scholars that claim a high degree of harmonization without internal contradiction inevitably contradict the original gospel accounts - I would prefer to let you do your own homework on biblical contradictions - suffice it to say, if you want to be certain that the book is not infallible the evidence is there. It's also worth noting that a fair reading of the NT clearly implies the return of Christ within the lifetime of the d isciples.
But the morality issue is more troubling. You are willing to accept a claim that God can do anything - sanction murder, the slaughtering of babies? Is there anything so horrific that you would say God couldn't do it? He commands the slaughter of BABIES!! He will cause more suffering to more human beings (His "just" punishment of eternity in hell for the "lost") than any other evil being real or supposed in existence!! Hitler didn't even cause the kind of torment to the numbers of people God will.
It is clear that you claim a "standard of God" which allows your "imaginary friend (i.e. God)" to do any evil and be exhonorated because "his ways are not are ways" and we are evil sinners worthy of condemnation so blah blah blah - I'm sorry - this is a severe lapse in moral judgment and a critical flaw with Christian thinking.
A good being cannot be inferior morally to your average decent human. For the sake of argument, suffice it to say that we don't know for sure how it is that most humans the sense of right or wrong that we have. (Actually I believe there are scientific reasons, but rather than debate them, for the sake of argument I'm saying let's suppose we don't know). The fact remains that most of us do still have a sense of right and wrong. Most of us know it's wrong to slaughter babies, and most of us know nazi germany was wrong. We don't need to know why we know. We know!! And you can think you do know why, but you could be wrong.
It's very troubling though to say that since reason can be fallible and human morality can be imperfect, we should appeal to a suppose deity whose message to humanity is "I love you but I also feel you deserve eternity in hell. It's ok though because I slaughtered my son in your place - I'm still going to burn most of you for eternity though since many of you won't believe in me - oh, and by the way, offering your son as a sacrifice or slaughtering babies like I commanded in the Old Testament is good when I say do it. Come on man!! That book's going to be your source for absolute authority? Sure some of it's nicely written, and there are some nice moral standards, but actually there are some higher moral standards that people live with today than those found in the bible. It is, after all, 2000 year old morality. The sermon on the mount if taken literally will lead to obsessive compulsive neuroticism as you keep worrying about every sinful thought that crosses your mind.

I've known many Christians that are happy half the time but there life and emotional health is severely compromised by a concern that they might offend God - despite the fact that they profess to be completely saved and covered in the blood of Jesus. You may claim they don't understand grace. I claim that there's no such thing as God and you can tell people about grace all day long but when it's grace from a being who sent armies to slaughter babies and killed his own son to make peace with you and still monitors your everythought and wants you to continue to confess your sins, most people are going to remain a bit neurotic around that sort of imaginary friend.
I'm rambling a bit but suffice it to say that the truth is out there. If you want to be free from your dogma you can know with certainty that the bible contains errors, and certain archeological discoveries demonstrate that parts of it are false once and for all. Of course it was written in history so parts are validated by archeology. This is true of other religious texts as well. But some discoveries lead to conclusions that demonstrate certainly the once and for all false hood of the bible. For instance, we now know that at the time the red sea was supposedly crossed by the israelites, the egyptians actually occupied (military occupation) the wilderness that the israelites supposedly wondered, so they would've simply crossed into the hands of their enemies.
I would encourage you to free yourself of your imaginary friend. The real truth that's being suppressed is the realization that though you believe in him, you have not seen him, felt him, or heard from him in anyway. You simply keep telling yourself that you do. Perhaps when your mind is really most awakened to the reality that he's not there, fear of hell keeps you in line as you pray "I believe Jesus, help my unbelief". He does not hear you. He is not there. You're just being silly. But this silliness can lead to bad moral decisions and constrict you from living a truly healthy life. Abandon Christ. He is not there. He will not mind.

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

From the point of view of a reasonable debate, it's easy to defeat someone who believes the Bible. Simply put, you have no proof and you acknowledge it. You further seem to tacitly acknowledge that it may be impossible to defend your faith thru reason. You claim it simply should be believed because it's true. Further, you claim that everyone else knows this. Any one hearing you who knows they are not suppressing the truth but simply and honestly don't believe the things you do, will be as unimpressed as you are with arguments for believing in Allah or Zeus.
As I was saying, you claim it simply should be believed because it's true. Further, you claim that everyone else knows this. I can assure you that I am suppressing no such knowledge. After spending close to 20 years as an evangelical bible believing Christian, walking with Jesus and trusting him for my salvation, abandoning these beliefs was not done without some careful thought. During this time I didn't experience "faith" which I was trying to surpress. I didn't experience a sense of guilt or conviction. For a period of time, I was trying to hold on to faith but I was increasingly becoming aware of the truth that Christianity is in fact, incorrect.
You see, I can say regarding anything "I believe it and it's simply true - God says so . . . " I can even get it from one of several self validating holy books (the bible is not the only one as you know). Here perhaps you may choose to demonstrate that the bible stands alone, but that's a silly argument. Christians are funny cuz they rip up other peoples' holy literature and find fault over anything and everything they can, then accept the weakest defenses in protecting their own holy book. If the defenses christians used are used with the koran, the bhagvagita and other holy texts, they'd all be considered infallible.
Anyway, the bible really is full of contradictions - and I've read books by evangelicals trying to demonstrate that it's not - and if you read some efforts written to resolve contradictions in the bible with an open mind, you will most likely find many such efforts unconvincing. I acknowledge that some efforts to find contradictions in the bible are misinformed from a poor understanding of the text but there are many scholarly examples of unresolvable contradictions in the bible - the resurrection accounts cannot be harmonized. Efforts by evangelical scholars that claim a high degree of harmonization without internal contradiction inevitably contradict the original gospel accounts - I would prefer to let you do your own homework on biblical contradictions - suffice it to say, if you want to be certain that the book is not infallible the evidence is there. It's also worth noting that a fair reading of the NT clearly implies the return of Christ within the lifetime of the d isciples.
But the morality issue is more troubling. You are willing to accept a claim that God can do anything - sanction murder, the slaughtering of babies? Is there anything so horrific that you would say God couldn't do it? He commands the slaughter of BABIES!! He will cause more suffering to more human beings (His "just" punishment of eternity in hell for the "lost") than any other evil being real or supposed in existence!! Hitler didn't even cause the kind of torment to the numbers of people God will.
It is clear that you claim a "standard of God" which allows your "imaginary friend (i.e. God)" to do any evil and be exhonorated because "his ways are not are ways" and we are evil sinners worthy of condemnation so blah blah blah - I'm sorry - this is a severe lapse in moral judgment and a critical flaw with Christian thinking.
A good being cannot be inferior morally to your average decent human. For the sake of argument, suffice it to say that we don't know for sure how it is that most humans the sense of right or wrong that we have. (Actually I believe there are scientific reasons, but rather than debate them, for the sake of argument I'm saying let's suppose we don't know). The fact remains that most of us do still have a sense of right and wrong. Most of us know it's wrong to slaughter babies, and most of us know nazi germany was wrong. We don't need to know why we know. We know!! And you can think you do know why, but you could be wrong.
It's very troubling though to say that since reason can be fallible and human morality can be imperfect, we should appeal to a suppose deity whose message to humanity is "I love you but I also feel you deserve eternity in hell. It's ok though because I slaughtered my son in your place - I'm still going to burn most of you for eternity though since many of you won't believe in me - oh, and by the way, offering your son as a sacrifice or slaughtering babies like I commanded in the Old Testament is good when I say do it. Come on man!! That book's going to be your source for absolute authority? Sure some of it's nicely written, and there are some nice moral standards, but actually there are some higher moral standards that people live with today than those found in the bible. It is, after all, 2000 year old morality. The sermon on the mount if taken literally will lead to obsessive compulsive neuroticism as you keep worrying about every sinful thought that crosses your mind.

I've known many Christians that are happy half the time but there life and emotional health is severely compromised by a concern that they might offend God - despite the fact that they profess to be completely saved and covered in the blood of Jesus. You may claim they don't understand grace. I claim that there's no such thing as God and you can tell people about grace all day long but when it's grace from a being who sent armies to slaughter babies and killed his own son to make peace with you and still monitors your everythought and wants you to continue to confess your sins, most people are going to remain a bit neurotic around that sort of imaginary friend.
I'm rambling a bit but suffice it to say that the truth is out there. If you want to be free from your dogma you can know with certainty that the bible contains errors, and certain archeological discoveries demonstrate that parts of it are false once and for all. Of course it was written in history so parts are validated by archeology. This is true of other religious texts as well. But some discoveries lead to conclusions that demonstrate certainly the once and for all false hood of the bible. For instance, we now know that at the time the red sea was supposedly crossed by the israelites, the egyptians actually occupied (military occupation) the wilderness that the israelites supposedly wondered, so they would've simply crossed into the hands of their enemies.
I would encourage you to free yourself of your imaginary friend. The real truth that's being suppressed is the realization that though you believe in him, you have not seen him, felt him, or heard from him in anyway. You simply keep telling yourself that you do. Perhaps when your mind is really most awakened to the reality that he's not there, fear of hell keeps you in line as you pray "I believe Jesus, help my unbelief". He does not hear you. He is not there. You're just being silly. But this silliness can lead to bad moral decisions and constrict you from living a truly healthy life. Abandon Christ. He is not there. He will not mind.

Will you still believe this on your death bed?

[grogan2767]

Yes. That is irrelevant as to whether or not it is true. Fear of dying does NOT make any religion true. Think about that for a while.

Will you still believe this on your death bed?

[grogan2767]

Also, being a CHristian wouldn't guarantee anything on your death bed. Muslims think Christians go to Hell, JWs think your obliterated on Armageddon day, Mormons think Christians go to Hell. All have the same amount of evidense of being true. (NONE)

Will you still believe this on your death bed?

[grogan2767]

Plus, you don't even address any of the points in my post. Do you belive in this God who would slaughter babies?

Will you still believe this on your death bed?

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

Plus, you don't even address any of the points in my post. Do you belive in this God who would slaughter babies?

You certainly have the right to whatever you believe.

[grogan2767]

Do you believe in a God who slaughters babies?

You certainly have the right to whatever you believe.

[BruschiOnTap]

From the point of view of a reasonable debate, it's easy to defeat someone who believes the Bible. Simply put, you have no proof and you acknowledge it. You further seem to tacitly acknowledge that it may be impossible to defend your faith thru reason. You claim it simply should be believed because it's true. Further, you claim that everyone else knows this. Any one hearing you who knows they are not suppressing the truth but simply and honestly don't believe the things you do, will be as unimpressed as you are with arguments for believing in Allah or Zeus.
As I was saying, you claim it simply should be believed because it's true. Further, you claim that everyone else knows this. I can assure you that I am suppressing no such knowledge. After spending close to 20 years as an evangelical bible believing Christian, walking with Jesus and trusting him for my salvation, abandoning these beliefs was not done without some careful thought. During this time I didn't experience "faith" which I was trying to surpress. I didn't experience a sense of guilt or conviction. For a period of time, I was trying to hold on to faith but I was increasingly becoming aware of the truth that Christianity is in fact, incorrect.
You see, I can say regarding anything "I believe it and it's simply true - God says so . . . " I can even get it from one of several self validating holy books (the bible is not the only one as you know). Here perhaps you may choose to demonstrate that the bible stands alone, but that's a silly argument. Christians are funny cuz they rip up other peoples' holy literature and find fault over anything and everything they can, then accept the weakest defenses in protecting their own holy book. If the defenses christians used are used with the koran, the bhagvagita and other holy texts, they'd all be considered infallible.
Anyway, the bible really is full of contradictions - and I've read books by evangelicals trying to demonstrate that it's not - and if you read some efforts written to resolve contradictions in the bible with an open mind, you will most likely find many such efforts unconvincing. I acknowledge that some efforts to find contradictions in the bible are misinformed from a poor understanding of the text but there are many scholarly examples of unresolvable contradictions in the bible - the resurrection accounts cannot be harmonized. Efforts by evangelical scholars that claim a high degree of harmonization without internal contradiction inevitably contradict the original gospel accounts - I would prefer to let you do your own homework on biblical contradictions - suffice it to say, if you want to be certain that the book is not infallible the evidence is there. It's also worth noting that a fair reading of the NT clearly implies the return of Christ within the lifetime of the d isciples.
But the morality issue is more troubling. You are willing to accept a claim that God can do anything - sanction murder, the slaughtering of babies? Is there anything so horrific that you would say God couldn't do it? He commands the slaughter of BABIES!! He will cause more suffering to more human beings (His "just" punishment of eternity in hell for the "lost") than any other evil being real or supposed in existence!! Hitler didn't even cause the kind of torment to the numbers of people God will.
It is clear that you claim a "standard of God" which allows your "imaginary friend (i.e. God)" to do any evil and be exhonorated because "his ways are not are ways" and we are evil sinners worthy of condemnation so blah blah blah - I'm sorry - this is a severe lapse in moral judgment and a critical flaw with Christian thinking.
A good being cannot be inferior morally to your average decent human. For the sake of argument, suffice it to say that we don't know for sure how it is that most humans the sense of right or wrong that we have. (Actually I believe there are scientific reasons, but rather than debate them, for the sake of argument I'm saying let's suppose we don't know). The fact remains that most of us do still have a sense of right and wrong. Most of us know it's wrong to slaughter babies, and most of us know nazi germany was wrong. We don't need to know why we know. We know!! And you can think you do know why, but you could be wrong.
It's very troubling though to say that since reason can be fallible and human morality can be imperfect, we should appeal to a suppose deity whose message to humanity is "I love you but I also feel you deserve eternity in hell. It's ok though because I slaughtered my son in your place - I'm still going to burn most of you for eternity though since many of you won't believe in me - oh, and by the way, offering your son as a sacrifice or slaughtering babies like I commanded in the Old Testament is good when I say do it. Come on man!! That book's going to be your source for absolute authority? Sure some of it's nicely written, and there are some nice moral standards, but actually there are some higher moral standards that people live with today than those found in the bible. It is, after all, 2000 year old morality. The sermon on the mount if taken literally will lead to obsessive compulsive neuroticism as you keep worrying about every sinful thought that crosses your mind.

I've known many Christians that are happy half the time but there life and emotional health is severely compromised by a concern that they might offend God - despite the fact that they profess to be completely saved and covered in the blood of Jesus. You may claim they don't understand grace. I claim that there's no such thing as God and you can tell people about grace all day long but when it's grace from a being who sent armies to slaughter babies and killed his own son to make peace with you and still monitors your everythought and wants you to continue to confess your sins, most people are going to remain a bit neurotic around that sort of imaginary friend.
I'm rambling a bit but suffice it to say that the truth is out there. If you want to be free from your dogma you can know with certainty that the bible contains errors, and certain archeological discoveries demonstrate that parts of it are false once and for all. Of course it was written in history so parts are validated by archeology. This is true of other religious texts as well. But some discoveries lead to conclusions that demonstrate certainly the once and for all false hood of the bible. For instance, we now know that at the time the red sea was supposedly crossed by the israelites, the egyptians actually occupied (military occupation) the wilderness that the israelites supposedly wondered, so they would've simply crossed into the hands of their enemies.
I would encourage you to free yourself of your imaginary friend. The real truth that's being suppressed is the realization that though you believe in him, you have not seen him, felt him, or heard from him in anyway. You simply keep telling yourself that you do. Perhaps when your mind is really most awakened to the reality that he's not there, fear of hell keeps you in line as you pray "I believe Jesus, help my unbelief". He does not hear you. He is not there. You're just being silly. But this silliness can lead to bad moral decisions and constrict you from living a truly healthy life. Abandon Christ. He is not there. He will not mind.

From a guy who spent his teen-age years trying his hardest to fool himself that he actually believed that stuff, if only to prevent social ostracization in the Bible Belt, that post was beautiful... and your last line still has me giggling at my screen!

[mcbee]

Grogan I couldn't agree with you more. I was a fundie kid and couldn't stand it after a while. It really is a form of mass delusion. It's a cult. Stray from the cult or even have "doubts" and you're being lured to destruction by Satan. It's insanity. Adam and Eve were real people! It's not an alegory (why not?)...well it's just NOT! And people lived for 1,000 years...and there were two of every animal on the ark.

I remember I once asked someone how many species of birds there are in S. America alone...that's alot of animals...their answer? "20?". No, charlie, 60,000 (forgot the exact number) point being it's a little ridiculous to think "two of every animal were on an ark"...of course if you were in the middle east back then when it was written, hell there were only a couple dozen different kinds of animals, no problemo!

3 to be 4 is looking at it in the "Jesus is love, and Jesus cares for us, and Jesus has a PLAN for OUR LIVES!". "God is love"..."love your neighbor, isn't that beautiful?". It's kind of this mish mashy passivity that don't worry, Jesus has a beautiful plan for your life! What about the Christians that get killed by drunk drivers...what was Jesus' plan for their life? Or was that some kind of "beautiful plan" and we're just too mortal to see it? IT's just insanity thru and thru. Jesus said something like "don't worry...do the sparrows in the field worry for their next meal? Why should you worry?". Duh, what about the probably 90% of baby sparrows that end up dying, or adult sparrows that starve to death, whatever. God, if "he" exists in any form at all, surely doesn't give a rat's ass whether you live or die. How could he? There is no magic "plan", there is no one to "take care" of you when you get sick or something.

I remember I asked my relative who was visiting sick people from church in the hospital....what happens if they live? "Then it's a miracle!". How about if they die? "Then they're with Jesus!"...how about if they suffer in pain and just barely hang on "Jesus is saving them from death!"....can you see the insanity here?

It's the same **** when a tornado wipes out a town...the survivors are sure that "god saved me! Thank the lord"....uhhhh ******* what about the 100 people who died? Didn't god care for them? It's survivors' bias. The dead don't complain that god didn't care about them, and the survivors are sure that "god saved me for a reason...he loves me!". Dopes.

I could go on all day. Religion is a struggle to understand meaning and purpose of life...that I can deal with, but all the BAC stuff and fundie stuff is the biggest bunch of insanity ever. Mass delusion pure and simple.

[Fogbuster]

From the point of view of a reasonable debate, it's easy to defeat someone who believes the Bible. Simply put, you have no proof and you acknowledge it.
....
Abandon Christ. He is not there. He will not mind.


I think you have it backwards: no one has ever been able to prove that God of the Bible and Jesus the Christ should be rejected or disbelieved.

If we understood the reason for our ignorance about God, the creator of all existence and father of humankind, we would say, "Whoa!! So *that's* the problem!! No wonder it's been so hard to pick up, not only today but all throughout history."

In the very beginning there was a thing called the "Fall" of man. God made man and woman, and then told them there was one thing, and only one thing, they could not do: eat the "fruit" of the tree of good and evil. Unfortunately, by the temptation of the rebellious angel Lucifer, those first human ancestors did in fact eat the forbidden "fruit".

It was not a literal fruit off a pear, apple, or fig tree; it was a fruit far more important: it was the fruit of love, as in the sexual love that is the one and only way for humans to reproduce, multiply. If the the mold gets broken the items created by that mold will be faulty. The first humans, after being warned by God not to tamper with the mold, damaged it, instead.

So, from their teenage years, humans have always had troubles when it comes to sex. Look at the world today: utter chaos. Degradation. Love dragged into the toilet, made filthy and impure. Who wants to be born from dirty love?? Everyone hates it. But that's what happened.

Christ is the one who is NOT born from filthy love, so he is our only hope for learning how to cleanse ourselves from it. Furthermore, Jesus said at the end of his earthly life that he would, in fact, return. For what reason does he return: to finish the job of teaching us how to live with God again, and how to separate from Satan's evil.

It's possible, it can be done. I'm not saying it is easy or automatic -- far from it. It takes hard work. It takes self-denial; but if we understand that the "self" we are denying is an old, dirty, fallen unoriginal self -- then we see what we need to do, and can be motivated to do it. It's like facing a cancerous tumor: if we do not cut it out, we die; if we remove it we can live in health, as God originally intended us to live.

----

Of course, there is much more to say on this subject, but I will leave it here for now.

"Fogbuster"

[PatsFanInVa]

I think you have it backwards: no one has ever been able to prove that God of the Bible and Jesus the Christ should be rejected or disbelieved. ...

I think both positions miss the point of faith on the part of the believer. We do, in this country, recognize the believer's freedom to believe, since no religion (and no thoroughgoing atheist position) can be proven. That there are still unknowns is broadly admitted by the scientific community. Ergo, we still have a realm of the protected, yet unproveable, belief system.

As to the demand that others prove a negative, Fogbuster, the position that an opponent must prove a negative beyond the shadow of a doubt is so transparently manipulative, that it can only be properly handled via analogy: for example, you can not prove that other posters here even exist; you may be a brain in a jar imagining the bulletin board and computer. Or, one can argue that the world was created in nine days by a female deity called Bertha, who created women first, who then made men out of primordial clay... etc. This can not be proven untrue beyond a shadow of a doubt. We "know" the ages of things on earth are far older than the 6,000 years since "Bertha" created woman; but the steady rate of radioisotope decay and the speed of light may only appear to always obey the laws of physics... Proving a negative is extremely difficult.

So in scientific inquiry, we look instead for most likely, viable hypotheses. In faith, by contrast, we take a hypothesis regardless of independent merit, and attempt to fit the nature of the physical world into this hypothesis.

In the very beginning there was a thing called the "Fall" of man. ... God made man and woman, and then told them there was one thing, and only one thing, they could not do: eat the "fruit" of the tree of good and evil.

"WHY would you go in my forbidden closet of mysteries?!?!?" Come on. God may limit his own omniscience to provide for free will, but is God powerful enough to make himself a worse parent than Homer Simpson?

This story from Genesis can not explain the notion of temptation, prior to man's fall, and so you sort of need the serpent (not Lucifer, by the way,) literarily speaking. Adam/Eve do not know right from wrong, so they can not have a perverse thought on their own, and God is certainly not going to tell them... so, enter the Serpent.

Unfortunately, by the temptation of the rebellious angel Lucifer, those first human ancestors did in fact eat the forbidden "fruit". It was not a literal fruit off a pear, apple, or fig tree; it was a fruit far more important: it was the fruit of love, as in the sexual love that is the one and only way for humans to reproduce, multiply. If the the mold gets broken the items created by that mold will be faulty. The first humans, after being warned by God not to tamper with the mold, damaged it, instead.

This is a fine example of reliance on interpretation and allegory for some things, but not others. We all exhibit this, regardless of our religions.

Think about it: You say the text is not literally true. There's really not a physical fruit, despite what the bible says, and people don't actually "eat" it. You're saying we must read the story as symbolic.

Well, that's fine by me. It's the most elegant explanation of a number of aspects of the bible; but upon admission that we explain one bit of the text as symbolic or allegorical, it is hypocritical not to extend that interpretive freedom to other aspects of the text. It's especially important to remember that someone who sees the creation story itself as allegorical, for example, is just doing what you do here, in explaining the meaning of the "fruit."

So, from their teenage years, humans have always had troubles when it comes to sex. Look at the world today: utter chaos. Degradation. Love dragged into the toilet, made filthy and impure.
Who wants to be born from dirty love?? Everyone hates it. But that's what happened.

You have put a great deal of faith in the non-literal interpretation explained above, and here is where it bears (no pun intended) its bitterest fruit.

I think you are correct in reading the bible with allegory and symbolism as necessary frameworks underlying the narrative. I agree that some such mechanism is necessary to make sense of the story. This interpretation is a legitimate part of faith. But here's where we differ: I do not agree with your man-made interpretation of Genesis.

By believing in this interpretation, you begin down a road wherein all sexual love we know of is necessarily "dirty," and state that "everyone hates" being "born from dirty love."

But this is not the case. I have never consciously decried the horrific state of affairs that led to my being born of sexual reproduction (as opposed to, say, budding or cloning or mitosis.) I am not horrified at the thought that I was born from a sexual union -- but again, I do not approach Genesis from the point of view of your interpretation

...Furthermore, Jesus said at the end of his earthly life that he would, in fact, return. For what reason does he return: to finish the job of teaching us how to live with God again, and how to separate from Satan's evil.

I don't know the biblical passage in which the parousia is explained as an exercise in pedagogy ("teaching" man anything.) From what I have read of the Christian bible, the emphasis in terms of purpose is that Jesus is going to judge the just and the wicked, and establish his own rule from the "new Jerusalem," ending the reign of the bad guys.

...It's possible, it can be done. ... It takes self-denial; but if we understand that the "self" we are denying is an old, dirty, fallen unoriginal self -- then we see what we need to do, and can be motivated to do it. It's like facing a cancerous tumor: if we do not cut it out, we die; if we remove it we can live in health, as God originally intended us to live.

So, within your interpretation, you are stuck with hating and denying the "old, dirty, fallen unoriginal self". But the thing is, your self-loathing is purely the product of your interpretation. What you have outlined here dos not appear in Genesis, though it does appear in religious doctrine. You have taken "knowledge of good and evil" and turned it into "filthy love," resulting in self-loathing, and a prescription for others to similarly hate themselves....

Whatever your faith, Fog, I would urge you to read the words of this story carefully, discarding everything that might be interpretation. Ask yourself what the literal meaning of the story is, and what is left un-answerable by literal meanings (for example, they don't have "knowledge fruit" at my local Safeway.)

Realize, all believers who differ from your interpretation, can be reading the same bible, and filling in the gaps differently. Other understandings can be narrow or broad. For instance the "fruit" can be a symbol. Or, more literally, it could be a consciousness-altering substance, for all we know.

To me, the symbol is exactly what is described, the knowledge of good and evil. The ability to discern. And the story is told allegorically, because that's a great mode for storytelling. It's not about "dirty love." It's about knowledge destroying any individual's childlike innocence. It explains a common feeling of innocence lost through a story of the "infancy" of man. It explains, in a nutshell, why life sucks (for example, why childbirth hurts so damn much, and why you have to go to a suck-ass boring job five days a week, or back then, six.)

What fascinates me is that some literal outlines are dead-on accurate, but we're so busy finding invented sexual metaphors, we miss them. To wit:

Scientists were ecstatic recently to find a chimp who lied to other chimps about where food is, in the use of basic "here's the food" calls.

Lying assumes a huge number of operations associated with higher intelligence: recognition of individuals, an understanding of past present and future in an internal monolog, etc.

In the Garden, when God asks Adam why he covered himself up, Adam immediately lies to him. Adam achieves self-consciousness, by eating from the fruit of knowledge. God calls him on it. Adam immediately displays exactly what he has done, because he could not lie were he not self-aware (had he not eaten the fruit).

And what is the punishment of woman, for her part in this attainment of consciousness -- necessary for lying?

She gives birth in pain. Why, in physical terms?

Because human babies have heads that are about six sizes too big, to house all that circuitry necessary for consciousness.

So you tell me: are the Eden stories about the horrors of sexual reproduction, or the link between consciousness and duplicity?

To me, Genesis says, you, mankind, are different. You can think, be conscious, exercise individual choice, and -- once you achieved consciousness -- you can do things like lie.

So, consciousness costs your innocence. That is why you can not lay under a tree like a big cat 23 hours a day. You have socially organized work. That is why you lie -- essentially, because you can. That is why human babies are hard to give birth to -- their very knowledge of good and evil set them apart, and make them painful for their mothers to bear :)

But "filthy love"? I don't see it.

PFnV

[Fogbuster]

I think both positions miss the point of faith on the part of the believer. We do, in this country, recognize the believer's freedom to believe, since no religion (and no thoroughgoing atheist position) can be proven. That there are still unknowns is broadly admitted by the scientific community. Ergo, we still have a realm of the protected, yet unproveable, belief system.

As to the demand that others prove a negative, Fogbuster, the position that an opponent must prove a negative beyond the shadow of a doubt is so transparently manipulative, that it can only be properly handled via analogy: for example, you can not prove that other posters here even exist; you may be a brain in a jar imagining the bulletin board and computer. Or, one can argue that the world was created in nine days by a female deity called Bertha, who created women first, who then made men out of primordial clay... etc. This can not be proven untrue beyond a shadow of a doubt. We "know" the ages of things on earth are far older than the 6,000 years since "Bertha" created woman; but the steady rate of radioisotope decay and the speed of light may only appear to always obey the laws of physics... Proving a negative is extremely difficult.

So in scientific inquiry, we look instead for most likely, viable hypotheses. In faith, by contrast, we take a hypothesis regardless of independent merit, and attempt to fit the nature of the physical world into this hypothesis.



"WHY would you go in my forbidden closet of mysteries?!?!?" Come on. God may limit his own omniscience to provide for free will, but is God powerful enough to make himself a worse parent than Homer Simpson?

This story from Genesis can not explain the notion of temptation, prior to man's fall, and so you sort of need the serpent (not Lucifer, by the way,) literarily speaking. Adam/Eve do not know right from wrong, so they can not have a perverse thought on their own, and God is certainly not going to tell them... so, enter the Serpent.



This is a fine example of reliance on interpretation and allegory for some things, but not others. We all exhibit this, regardless of our religions.

Think about it: You say the text is not literally true. There's really not a physical fruit, despite what the bible says, and people don't actually "eat" it. You're saying we must read the story as symbolic.

Well, that's fine by me. It's the most elegant explanation of a number of aspects of the bible; but upon admission that we explain one bit of the text as symbolic or allegorical, it is hypocritical not to extend that interpretive freedom to other aspects of the text. It's especially important to remember that someone who sees the creation story itself as allegorical, for example, is just doing what you do here, in explaining the meaning of the "fruit."



You have put a great deal of faith in the non-literal interpretation explained above, and here is where it bears (no pun intended) its bitterest fruit.

I think you are correct in reading the bible with allegory and symbolism as necessary frameworks underlying the narrative. I agree that some such mechanism is necessary to make sense of the story. This interpretation is a legitimate part of faith. But here's where we differ: I do not agree with your man-made interpretation of Genesis.

By believing in this interpretation, you begin down a road wherein all sexual love we know of is necessarily "dirty," and state that "everyone hates" being "born from dirty love."

But this is not the case. I have never consciously decried the horrific state of affairs that led to my being born of sexual reproduction (as opposed to, say, budding or cloning or mitosis.) I am not horrified at the thought that I was born from a sexual union -- but again, I do not approach Genesis from the point of view of your interpretation



I don't know the biblical passage in which the parousia is explained as an exercise in pedagogy ("teaching" man anything.) From what I have read of the Christian bible, the emphasis in terms of purpose is that Jesus is going to judge the just and the wicked, and establish his own rule from the "new Jerusalem," ending the reign of the bad guys.



So, within your interpretation, you are stuck with hating and denying the "old, dirty, fallen unoriginal self". But the thing is, your self-loathing is purely the product of your interpretation. What you have outlined here dos not appear in Genesis, though it does appear in religious doctrine. You have taken "knowledge of good and evil" and turned it into "filthy love," resulting in self-loathing, and a prescription for others to similarly hate themselves....

Whatever your faith, Fog, I would urge you to read the words of this story carefully, discarding everything that might be interpretation. Ask yourself what the literal meaning of the story is, and what is left un-answerable by literal meanings (for example, they don't have "knowledge fruit" at my local Safeway.)

Realize, all believers who differ from your interpretation, can be reading the same bible, and filling in the gaps differently. Other understandings can be narrow or broad. For instance the "fruit" can be a symbol. Or, more literally, it could be a consciousness-altering substance, for all we know.

To me, the symbol is exactly what is described, the knowledge of good and evil. The ability to discern. And the story is told allegorically, because that's a great mode for storytelling. It's not about "dirty love." It's about knowledge destroying any individual's childlike innocence. It explains a common feeling of innocence lost through a story of the "infancy" of man. It explains, in a nutshell, why life sucks (for example, why childbirth hurts so damn much, and why you have to go to a suck-ass boring job five days a week, or back then, six.)

What fascinates me is that some literal outlines are dead-on accurate, but we're so busy finding invented sexual metaphors, we miss them. To wit:

Scientists were ecstatic recently to find a chimp who lied to other chimps about where food is, in the use of basic "here's the food" calls.

Lying assumes a huge number of operations associated with higher intelligence: recognition of individuals, an understanding of past present and future in an internal monolog, etc.

In the Garden, when God asks Adam why he covered himself up, Adam immediately lies to him. Adam achieves self-consciousness, by eating from the fruit of knowledge. God calls him on it. Adam immediately displays exactly what he has done, because he could not lie were he not self-aware (had he not eaten the fruit).

And what is the punishment of woman, for her part in this attainment of consciousness -- necessary for lying?

She gives birth in pain. Why, in physical terms?

Because human babies have heads that are about six sizes too big, to house all that circuitry necessary for consciousness.

So you tell me: are the Eden stories about the horrors of sexual reproduction, or the link between consciousness and duplicity?

To me, Genesis says, you, mankind, are different. You can think, be conscious, exercise individual choice, and -- once you achieved consciousness -- you can do things like lie.

So, consciousness costs your innocence. That is why you can not lay under a tree like a big cat 23 hours a day. You have socially organized work. That is why you lie -- essentially, because you can. That is why human babies are hard to give birth to -- their very knowledge of good and evil set them apart, and make them painful for their mothers to bear :)

But "filthy love"? I don't see it.

PFnV


Many good questions that I want to answer, but am short on time right now, so let me just say that love is only "filthy" because people know in their hearts they have misused -- or even abused -- others in pursuit of purely selfish gratification. That's what is "filthy". You don't want to be abused for your most precious gift, nor does anyone else.

When we have absolutely sanctified our love in front of God and His Son and Daughter, we have pure and true love. No longer of the previous unnatural and fallen state, our love takes on its original value, which is eternal, unchanging, and absolute, too, just as God is, by the way. This is what is meant by being a "temple of God", as St. Paul spoke.

[PatsFanInVa]

Fogbuster, I have to get to work too, and wanted to note 2 things -

1) I don't know if I said it or not before, but all the questions I ask are from the outsider's point of view, vis a vis the Christian bible. I am very interested in it, mainly because it pops up so often in my world (the US is chock full of believers in it, contrary to the pronouncements of those who would have us believe in it more!)

2) I believe in questioning regarding my own faith as well, and in fact, believe that asking questions pleases God.

I just don't want you to feel I'm unfairly hiding an agenda, although for me the questioning and exploration is the fun part of spirituality, even when the questions touch on the gravest of subjects.

Ultimately, the questioning is for each to accomplish!

Enjoy,

PFnV

[Fogbuster]

Fogbuster, I have to get to work too, and wanted to note 2 things -

1) I don't know if I said it or not before, but all the questions I ask are from the outsider's point of view, vis a vis the Christian bible. I am very interested in it, mainly because it pops up so often in my world (the US is chock full of believers in it, contrary to the pronouncements of those who would have us believe in it more!)

2) I believe in questioning regarding my own faith as well, and in fact, believe that asking questions pleases God.

I just don't want you to feel I'm unfairly hiding an agenda, although for me the questioning and exploration is the fun part of spirituality, even when the questions touch on the gravest of subjects.

Ultimately, the questioning is for each to accomplish!

Enjoy,

PFnV


Dear PFnV, Thanks for your openness and statement. Lets me understand you better.

Questioning!! Where would we be without it!! The human race has progressed only *because* of sincere questions asked by our forbears (and contemporaries) from the dawn until now. Actually, what I would like more than anything else is for a wide open totally "free market of exchange" of religious views, without *ANY* threat or execution of persecution or intolerance. Lay it all out for each person to examine, contemplate, and explore in their heart of hearts. One thing I've learned is: ignorance is certainly NOT bliss! Quite the opposite. Ignorance is living by the mercy of fate alone, with NO personal input at all. Such a waste.

Meanwhile, back to right now: the Christian Bible (Old and New Testaments) form the bed-rock of Western culture, at least over the past 2000 years. Given the unquestionable success of that cultural expansion, it is most important for me to understand exactly *why* and *how* this development has occurred, especially as we are now facing a perceptible shift, with the fast-merging of East with West.

How we got here, where are going, and what I can/must do about it are all questions of supreme importance to me. I think I have some answers.

'buster


//

[PatsFanInVa]

... Meanwhile, back to right now: the Christian Bible (Old and New Testaments) form the bed-rock of Western culture, at least over the past 2000 years. Given the unquestionable success of that cultural expansion, it is most important for me to understand exactly *why* and *how* this development has occurred, especially as we are now facing a perceptible shift, with the fast-merging of East with West.

How we got here, where are going, and what I can/must do about it are all questions of supreme importance to me. I think I have some answers.

'buster
//

The success of the West's cultural expansion (and the impact of that expansion) is only unquestionable, if one has decided to measure success in a Darwinian way. Basically, Western culture has succeeded in creating Western culture. But it also has succeeded in destroying competing cultures through conquest, and "besting" other cultures, via the incentives and punishments connected with adoption of the Western lifestyle. In other words, the West has succeeded without question in expansion itself; if the measurement is something else, then the success is qualified, or may even be
judged a failure.

For example, what if our measure of success is Pacifism, or even a less extreme formulation such as "peaceful coexistence," in which the culture is measured by its aversion to warfare and wholesale slaughter? The West has not done well, especially as compared to some less technologically advanced cultures destroyed. A product and citizen of the West myself, I comfort myself that indigenous cultures, with the right technological means, would be every bit as rapacious as the West has been. I think this is true, but can not really prove it, since their cultures did not, in fact, go on to conquer much of the world. Either way, the defining characteristic of the West in this respect is military prowess, rather than cultural superiority measured in any other way. And by saying the West has succeeded, we are only lauding the success of power, something more in keeping with Machiavelli's The Prince than with the Bible, the Quran, or the Tripitika.

If our measuring stick is population control (a virtue for some in the West, and for many governments in the East,) then Europe succeeds, and the U.S. fails. If the measuring stick is fetal rights (or in some instances, infant rights,) then China fails, and the West increasingly succeeds.

"WWJD?", in other words, can not simply be answered with "Whatever the West has done," something you seem well aware of in your own posts.

But the answer to "WWJD?" may not be the answer as "How can the West win?"

These are meant to be observations, not provocations, and I hope they are taken as such. I am always careful of triumphalist analyses, because they are so suggestive of observer error (that is, how can one regard one's own culture as an unquestioned success, and not suspect that one is being culturally biased?)

In this particular case the answer is that the observer must adopt a measure of success that presupposes military and economic superiority to be the only important metrics. So the observer, coming from the West, adopts the metrics which prove the West unquestionably successful.

But the heirs of Rome have quite a distance to go to prove the claim of cultural superiority on which we have based so much bloodshed.

As to what to do about it? Eventually, if our current mode of conflict resolution holds true, we will have distributed power to those most capable of siezing it, either through technological superiority or economic superiority. A large part of me believe The Prince predicts real-world behavior of nations ("cultures") than do religious works. This being the case, religion fails as a determinent of ultimate cultural strength or weakness.

If coercion -- military or economic -- is removed, then we are closer to having the "free exchange of ideas" that you (and many others) clamor for. Until that time, however, I'm afraid for every free exchange of ideas, the West has produced a coerced popularization of a cultural trait (or just freely exchanged individuals rather than ideas, in the case of the slave trade, for example.)

Thoughts of a dry brain in a dry season,

PFnV

[Fogbuster]

The success of the West's cultural expansion (and the impact of that expansion) is only unquestionable, if one has decided to measure success in a Darwinian way. Basically, Western culture has succeeded in creating Western culture. But it also has succeeded in destroying competing cultures through conquest, and "besting" other cultures, via the incentives and punishments connected with adoption of the Western lifestyle. In other words, the West has succeeded without question in expansion itself; if the measurement is something else, then the success is qualified, or may even be judged a failure.
PFnV

No, I do not measure success in a Darwinian way, not at all. Darwin looked at life from a materialistic pov; I do not. I see life as the course of history of God making every effort to lift up human thinking and action to the fullest potential, which is the potential to love truly and eternally. Darwin did not teach about eternal life, only the here and now, this physical existence. I see another life far beyond that.

In this sense, then, I see Judaism and Christianity as ladders to give humankind the means to elevate themselves to their God-given place in the cosmos. The truly good news is that what has been commonly revealed until now has been unfinished; their is a final chapter yet to show, and to live. That is the world where the primary motive is to give God's true love and live in that realm of love all the time. That's what Christ is coming to reveal, teach, and demonstrate. If we have eyes to see and ears to hear, we can receive it.

//

[PatsFanInVa]

No, I do not measure success in a Darwinian way, not at all. Darwin looked at life from a materialistic pov; I do not. I see life as the course of history of God making every effort to lift up human thinking and action to the fullest potential, which is the potential to love truly and eternally. Darwin did not teach about eternal life, only the here and now, this physical existence. I see another life far beyond that.

In this sense, then, I see Judaism and Christianity as ladders to give humankind the means to elevate themselves to their God-given place in the cosmos. The truly good news is that what has been commonly revealed until now has been unfinished; their is a final chapter yet to show, and to live. That is the world where the primary motive is to give God's true love and live in that realm of love all the time. That's what Christ is coming to reveal, teach, and demonstrate. If we have eyes to see and ears to hear, we can receive it.

//

Fog,

Then we're pretty much in agreement, in broad outlines.

I must say, I have become pessimistic. I do believe that at some point, if we are to say that anything has happened other than the powerful winning, history must become something different; and for that to happen, human nature and consciousness must become something different.

Many Jews believe that for this to happen, the Messiah must come. Many Christians believe that for this to happen, the Messiah must re-emerge. My point of view is that it is just as legitimate to say that, once we achieve this consciousness, the Messiah may be said to have arrived.

I do not, however, believe that the object of history is elevate believers in one or another doctrine above their fellow men, but for all men to achieve the behavior, not the doctrine, that is suggested by the spirit of the texts. If the powerful behave as if they have a responsibility for the powerless, rather than power over the powerless; or better, if our common dignity is recognized as the source of our status; then indeed "the lion will lie down with the lamb."

PFnV

[Fogbuster]

Fog,

Then we're pretty much in agreement, in broad outlines.

I must say, I have become pessimistic. I do believe that at some point, if we are to say that anything has happened other than the powerful winning, history must become something different; and for that to happen, human nature and consciousness must become something different.

Many Jews believe that for this to happen, the Messiah must come. Many Christians believe that for this to happen, the Messiah must re-emerge. My point of view is that it is just as legitimate to say that, once we achieve this consciousness, the Messiah may be said to have arrived.

I do not, however, believe that the object of history is elevate believers in one or another doctrine above their fellow men, but for all men to achieve the behavior, not the doctrine, that is suggested by the spirit of the texts. If the powerful behave as if they have a responsibility for the powerless, rather than power over the powerless; or better, if our common dignity is recognized as the source of our status; then indeed "the lion will lie down with the lamb."

PFnV


Please, call me, "'buster"! It is fog that I aim to dispel! :)

About the need for a "change in human nature", I'd say this is also necessary. Hard as it may seem, it is possible to change one's proclivities toward hatred, violence, disloyalty, unfaithfulness, and the like. Such has been happening for millenia, albeit very gradually.

The *real* turning point, as I see it, is the need for a fundamental change in how we see ourselves: if we are born "of our father, the devil", then we truly need to be re-born*and* re-created as sons and daughters of God. For that we need people who can stand in the position of parents who are absolutely true to God. Jesus came to do that, I believe, but never could finish the mission; thus, he says he will "return". Actually, I believe he will return *in spirit* to commission someone on earth to fulfill this duty.

//

[PatsFanInVa]

Please, call me, "'buster"! It is fog that I aim to dispel! :)

About the need for a "change in human nature", I'd say this is also necessary. Hard as it may seem, it is possible to change one's proclivities toward hatred, violence, disloyalty, unfaithfulness, and the like. Such has been happening for millenia, albeit very gradually.

The *real* turning point, as I see it, is the need for a fundamental change in how we see ourselves: if we are born "of our father, the devil", then we truly need to be re-born*and* re-created as sons and daughters of God. For that we need people who can stand in the position of parents who are absolutely true to God. Jesus came to do that, I believe, but never could finish the mission; thus, he says he will "return". Actually, I believe he will return *in spirit* to commission someone on earth to fulfill this duty.
//

Which, for all intents and purposes, can look to each Christian, Jew, or Muslim, as if his own religion's dictates have been fulfilled. But of course, with our respective spirits mended, we won't fight about it any more.

I think regardless of the theological machinery we subscribe to, we end up with the same dictates for human action; to behave as if our actions were in preparation for such a time -- and this, while being the essence of Judaism (whether or not connected with an "end of times,") is also precisely the message of Jesus (that the last day will come suddenly, and that we should exagerrate our own best tendencies in preparation.)

Maybe we are making progress as a species; I do not see it. But that is not to say that it will not begin tomorrow.

Thanks for the stimulating discussion,

PFnV

[Fogbuster]

Which, for all intents and purposes, can look to each Christian, Jew, or Muslim, as if his own religion's dictates have been fulfilled. But of course, with our respective spirits mended, we won't fight about it any more.

I think regardless of the theological machinery we subscribe to, we end up with the same dictates for human action; to behave as if our actions were in preparation for such a time -- and this, while being the essence of Judaism (whether or not connected with an "end of times,") is also precisely the message of Jesus (that the last day will come suddenly, and that we should exagerrate our own best tendencies in preparation.)

Maybe we are making progress as a species; I do not see it. But that is not to say that it will not begin tomorrow.

Thanks for the stimulating discussion,

PFnV


The one thing of it is this: there needs to be someone who can actually fulfill the role Jesus came to fulfill 2000 years ago: the role of the "Second Adam", or the "new Adam". The entire human race started off just fine, but then Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be tempted. Tempted into what, we ask, naturally? Tempted into self-centered love. If we can return to putting our love for God first, above everything else, and our love for Jesus, standing as God's only begotten son, we will be well on our way toward fulfilling our rightful place as being true sons and daughters of God, as Jesus is.

There is still a lot we can learn. Still some hills to climb. But the pathway is there, for sure.


//

[PatsFanInVa]

Buster,

Since none of us is God, to use the messianic vocabulary, we will be in an age in which the Messiah has come, when each of us takes it upon himself to behave as if we are such a figure.

This has not happened yet, but I believe it is one of the two courses humanity can take, the other course leading to extinction.

I also do not believe in the "great man" theory of history, hence my preference for a Messianic age, rather than a Messiah figure. How the hatred and egoizing will ever disappear is beyond me, not to mention beyond what we know of our parentage from the biological sciences. After all, we are all descended from the great grandaddy billy badass one-celled organism, and from that time, whoever thought more of his neighbor than himself died off. Even altruism has worked this way; You will almost certainly die for a pregnant wife, pretty certainly for a sibling, almost as certainly for a cousin, and relatively likely will lay down your life for a member of your broad kin group. But is someone does not even look like you, the urge to altruism is predicted to decline sharply.

But then we have the guy who saved the kid on the train tracks the other day. I do not know whether that guy was religious or just a good man. But somehow there is always the other reaction possible.

When that is the reaction of each of us, and when each of us defines the "other" as precious and acts on that definition consistently, what more will we want or need?

Anyway, this is not to gainsay a one-figure messianic outlook, only to offer the alternative outlook, which -- being a naturalist -- I find a tiny bit more likely. Also it's more democratic, and you know how we love democratic ideals in the west!

PFnV

[Fogbuster]

Buster,

Since none of us is God, to use the messianic vocabulary, we will be in an age in which the Messiah has come, when each of us takes it upon himself to behave as if we are such a figure.

This has not happened yet, but I believe it is one of the two courses humanity can take, the other course leading to extinction.

I also do not believe in the "great man" theory of history, hence my preference for a Messianic age, rather than a Messiah figure. How the hatred and egoizing will ever disappear is beyond me, not to mention beyond what we know of our parentage from the biological sciences. After all, we are all descended from the great grandaddy billy badass one-celled organism, and from that time, whoever thought more of his neighbor than himself died off. Even altruism has worked this way; You will almost certainly die for a pregnant wife, pretty certainly for a sibling, almost as certainly for a cousin, and relatively likely will lay down your life for a member of your broad kin group. But is someone does not even look like you, the urge to altruism is predicted to decline sharply.

But then we have the guy who saved the kid on the train tracks the other day. I do not know whether that guy was religious or just a good man. But somehow there is always the other reaction possible.

When that is the reaction of each of us, and when each of us defines the "other" as precious and acts on that definition consistently, what more will we want or need?

Anyway, this is not to gainsay a one-figure messianic outlook, only to offer the alternative outlook, which -- being a naturalist -- I find a tiny bit more likely. Also it's more democratic, and you know how we love democratic ideals in the west!

PFnV


I agree that the final change to the human condition will come down to each person opting for the original true ideal that God gives us. Yet we definitely *do* still need someone to lead the way for us. Leading the break-through from the fallen way to God's original way is clearly the absolutely *MOST* difficult course anybody could choose to go, but it is necessary and it will be done; just a matter of time. Fortunately, we have the example of Jesus, a man who consistently chose to overcome temptation and push forward -- all because of his total love of God and God's ideal.

Each one of us must choose that path, too, but we will not really believe we can do it until someone shows the way. The "return of the Christ" is that someone. The return of Christ must be another person who follows the absolute course of total self-offering for the sake of the will of God. When that person emerges it will not be easy, as this world is ruled not by God but by his nemesis. But I believe that someone will arrive and step by step others will follow his example.

No one says it will be easy -- far from it -- but the first step is to go to God with pure child-like heart, be open to the way God needs us to go, and to believe that nothing is impossible if it is the will of God. Again, Jesus serves as the model of a person who loves God even more than life itself. When we follow his example we will gain victory over evil and can teach others how to do it, too. Multiplication of goodness will replace the multiplication of evil that has occurred all throughout history, until now.

Then, the end-game is for each person to exercise his or her free will choice to go the way of the God's Will, the ultimate example of democracy in action!!




//

[PatsFanInVa]

Not to pick nits, but "ultimate democracy" only ensures that a single, subordinate good is served, i.e., that of democracy. What you describe is rather a theocracy without dissent.

The difficulty with democracy is that it assumes a subordinate good to be the highest attainable good, in recognition that the sum of our evils cancel each other out more often than the sum of the evils of a smaller group than the entirety of an electorate. Note that the introduction of a "goal" into democracy, other than the goals introduced pro tem by the people, immediately constrains the democracy.

But, that's why we have constitutions, I suppose -- to make certain that some items are beyond the reach of the temporary whim of the people.

I was using "democratic" in a broader way, as I guess you must have been.

PFnV

[Fogbuster]

Not to pick nits, but "ultimate democracy" only ensures that a single, subordinate good is served, i.e., that of democracy. What you describe is rather a theocracy without dissent.

The difficulty with democracy is that it assumes a subordinate good to be the highest attainable good, in recognition that the sum of our evils cancel each other out more often than the sum of the evils of a smaller group than the entirety of an electorate. Note that the introduction of a "goal" into democracy, other than the goals introduced pro tem by the people, immediately constrains the democracy.

But, that's why we have constitutions, I suppose -- to make certain that some items are beyond the reach of the temporary whim of the people.

I was using "democratic" in a broader way, as I guess you must have been.

PFnV


Good analysis. "Democratic" in the sense that the final call is always one of free will. Without free will there is no responsibility. Without responsibility there is no ownership. Without ownership there is no attainment of full human potential. We already own our eternal lives; no one can tamper with them except ourselves. We must actively *choose* to live one way or another; nobody can fully coerce us to live way we don't want to. On the surface, yes, but not underneath, where it counts.

Now, to have this huge number of individual "free wills" all working off the same page, yes, a constitution is necessary, in so much as it elucidates the basic ground rules and circumscribes limitations of behaviors that affect the general public.

If all this is contained within a framework based on God, then I suppose it may be termed a "theocracy", but what I have in mind is far from any theocracy ever seen or envisioned before (to my knowledge).


//

[PatsFanInVa]

Good analysis. "Democratic" in the sense that the final call is always one of free will. Without free will there is no responsibility. Without responsibility there is no ownership. Without ownership there is no attainment of full human potential. We already own our eternal lives; no one can tamper with them except ourselves. We must actively *choose* to live one way or another; nobody can fully coerce us to live way we don't want to. On the surface, yes, but not underneath, where it counts.

Now, to have this huge number of individual "free wills" all working off the same page, yes, a constitution is necessary, in so much as it elucidates the basic ground rules and circumscribes limitations of behaviors that affect the general public.

If all this is contained within a framework based on God, then I suppose it may be termed a "theocracy", but what I have in mind is far from any theocracy ever seen or envisioned before (to my knowledge).


//

Oh, I doubt it's different from any theocracy ever envisioned, although the one you envision is different from any ever seen.

PFnV

[Fogbuster]

Oh, I doubt it's different from any theocracy ever envisioned, although the one you envision is different from any ever seen.

PFnV


:D Yeah, you're probably right on that.


'buster

[Harry Boy]

Also, being a CHristian wouldn't guarantee anything on your death bed. Muslims think Christians go to Hell, JWs think your obliterated on Armageddon day, Mormons think Christians go to Hell. All have the same amount of evidense of being true. (NONE)
That is why I left organized religion long ago, I believe in God in my own way, God understands me and I don't give a Sh1t if any body else does.

[PatsFanInVa]

Hey Harry, that's the great thing about the Almighty... if anybody can understand, it's gotta be the big guy.

That's what I'm banking on, anyway.

PFnV

[PatsFanInVa]

Okay, 'buster, given our recent agreements and half agreements on this subject, I have a proposition:

Let's leave out what we won't agree on (for instance, I am not a Christian,) and determine what we think would signify a Messianic Age. I think we're at one possible impasse already, and I'd like to think through just how much of an impasse it is.

To wit, we've identified pluralism/democracy as (apparently) mooted by the Messianic Age we are talking about. That is to say, "free will" becomes a matter of everybody choosing/thinking just so, voluntarily, to align with God's preferences and/or plan.

My first question is, is this necessarily the case? My second question is, does the Messianic Age not therefore void Free Will, if the content of Messianic Age action is necessarily predictable from an omniscient point of view?

In other words: does the Messianic Age void free will? Is any significant choice not accompanied by a "better" and "less good" outcome -- or are some pure choice for the sake of choice? And if so, are these choices worth considering?

My interest is this: if I am to imagine the Messianic Age as a reality, my belief is that freedom itself is an ultimate good, though it obviously affords us access to horrendous evils. Can the Messianic Age truly be "hoped for," if freedom is its casualty?

And let's try to go past polemics... I know the easy answer, that we'll all be continually free to choose, and will all continually choose what is right. But that strikes me as wanting in freedom. Even if we avoid the gross wrongs, what would be the complexion of free thought, in a Messianic time?

It's okay. If we get too close, he'll confuse our language :D

PFnV

[Fogbuster]

Okay, 'buster, given our recent agreements and half agreements on this subject, I have a proposition:

Let's leave out what we won't agree on (for instance, I am not a Christian,) and determine what we think would signify a Messianic Age. I think we're at one possible impasse already, and I'd like to think through just how much of an impasse it is.

To wit, we've identified pluralism/democracy as (apparently) mooted by the Messianic Age we are talking about. That is to say, "free will" becomes a matter of everybody choosing/thinking just so, voluntarily, to align with God's preferences and/or plan.

My first question is, is this necessarily the case? My second question is, does the Messianic Age not therefore void Free Will, if the content of Messianic Age action is necessarily predictable from an omniscient point of view?

In other words: does the Messianic Age void free will? Is any significant choice not accompanied by a "better" and "less good" outcome -- or are some pure choice for the sake of choice? And if so, are these choices worth considering?

My interest is this: if I am to imagine the Messianic Age as a reality, my belief is that freedom itself is an ultimate good, though it obviously affords us access to horrendous evils. Can the Messianic Age truly be "hoped for," if freedom is its casualty?

And let's try to go past polemics... I know the easy answer, that we'll all be continually free to choose, and will all continually choose what is right. But that strikes me as wanting in freedom. Even if we avoid the gross wrongs, what would be the complexion of free thought, in a Messianic time?

It's okay. If we get too close, he'll confuse our language :D

PFnV


[Just back from three days out of town; no lap tops allowed.]

So, Step One: Democracy. The whole purpose of Democracy is to give as much freedom of thought and choice for people to *wisely* elect the best possible leadership without any threats of being labeled "traitors, scoundrels, brigands, rebels, riff-raff," and the like. God has to allow people to make their unfettered free will decision as to whom they will select to make their laws. Too many bad kings/emperors, etc., have made it impossible for people to have the freedom to follow their own consciences without fear of being persecuted.

Step Two: Once people have the unfettered freedom to follow their own conscience, the hard part comes because now they must attune themselves to the highest common denominator, NOT the lowest. As a people of the lineage of Adam and Even we are not so adept at doing this; somehow, evil has always maintained its grip on us, and the sad part is: we have learned to "like" it. Instead of regarding innocence and purity as the virtues that they are, virtues that ought to be safe-guarded at all costs, we have allowed them to be trampled under the dirt, generation after generation. Therefore, we need Step Three...

Which is: God will send one who is qualified to teach us the right way, someone who simultaneously shows and explains why the wrong way is wrong, and how it got started in the first place, as well as how we can go beyond that age-old misery to the place we are created to occupy. Our original home.


'buster

[patsfan13]

Do you believe in a God who slaughters babies?


Depends on your frame of reference. IF you believe in God, then you believe in the eternal life of the soul ( this applies in different manifestations across other faiths besides Christianity). From God's frame reference (and the believers) your mortal life on this earth is a spec in the context of your eternal existence( other faiths allow for multiple mortal life, but in the context of an eternal soul). The suffering we see is limited, very much so in the context of an eternal existence.

From the frame of reference of an atheist who views this mortal life the sum of one's existence, God who allows babies to be slaughtered would indeed appear to be savage.

BTW as you point out, the existence of God can't be proven, objectively, neither can it be dis proven, faith is in the consciousness of the individual. By definition (IMO) anyone's definition of God is flawed and inadequate since we are limited and by definition God in totality is beyond our understanding.

[NYCPatsFan]

In this sense, then, I see Judaism and Christianity as ladders to give humankind the means to elevate themselves to their God-given place in the cosmos.

//


I stumbled on these threads only today and find it quite fascinating. So, even though my response is quite late and there might be no follow-up, I still post my query:

Do you see Judaism and Christianity as the only two religions capable of serving as ladders?

[PatsFanInVa]

Very good question, NYC... though I for one am flattered to be "in the club" this time LOL

PFnV

[NYCPatsFan]

Very good question, NYC... though I for one am flattered to be "in the club" this time LOL

PFnV

:)

I thought of waiting for a reply before asking Fogbuster whether he/she felt that only religions offer such 'ladders' or could non-religious thinking also to offer this elevation.

[wistahpatsfan]

:)

I thought of waiting for a reply before asking Fogbuster whether he/she felt that only religions offer such 'ladders' or could non-religious thinking also to offer this elevation.
The following statements are made in a vacuum:
"Non-religious" and "thinking" is almost redundant.
Truly clear thought based on "faith" cannot occur.
Praise, worship, belief, etc. can be done withinin the framework of religious doctrine.
As a mental exercise, a discussion can be conducted about religious principles just as one can be done about the meaning of life within the "world" of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd, but only metaphorically.
....IMO.

[PF1996]

From the point of view of a reasonable debate, it's easy to defeat someone who believes the Bible. Simply put, you have no proof and you acknowledge it. You further seem to tacitly acknowledge that it may be impossible to defend your faith thru reason. You claim it simply should be believed because it's true. Further, you claim that everyone else knows this. Any one hearing you who knows they are not suppressing the truth but simply and honestly don't believe the things you do, will be as unimpressed as you are with arguments for believing in Allah or Zeus.
As I was saying, you claim it simply should be believed because it's true. Further, you claim that everyone else knows this. I can assure you that I am suppressing no such knowledge. After spending close to 20 years as an evangelical bible believing Christian, walking with Jesus and trusting him for my salvation, abandoning these beliefs was not done without some careful thought. During this time I didn't experience "faith" which I was trying to surpress. I didn't experience a sense of guilt or conviction. For a period of time, I was trying to hold on to faith but I was increasingly becoming aware of the truth that Christianity is in fact, incorrect.
You see, I can say regarding anything "I believe it and it's simply true - God says so . . . " I can even get it from one of several self validating holy books (the bible is not the only one as you know). Here perhaps you may choose to demonstrate that the bible stands alone, but that's a silly argument. Christians are funny cuz they rip up other peoples' holy literature and find fault over anything and everything they can, then accept the weakest defenses in protecting their own holy book. If the defenses christians used are used with the koran, the bhagvagita and other holy texts, they'd all be considered infallible.
Anyway, the bible really is full of contradictions - and I've read books by evangelicals trying to demonstrate that it's not - and if you read some efforts written to resolve contradictions in the bible with an open mind, you will most likely find many such efforts unconvincing. I acknowledge that some efforts to find contradictions in the bible are misinformed from a poor understanding of the text but there are many scholarly examples of unresolvable contradictions in the bible - the resurrection accounts cannot be harmonized. Efforts by evangelical scholars that claim a high degree of harmonization without internal contradiction inevitably contradict the original gospel accounts - I would prefer to let you do your own homework on biblical contradictions - suffice it to say, if you want to be certain that the book is not infallible the evidence is there. It's also worth noting that a fair reading of the NT clearly implies the return of Christ within the lifetime of the d isciples.
But the morality issue is more troubling. You are willing to accept a claim that God can do anything - sanction murder, the slaughtering of babies? Is there anything so horrific that you would say God couldn't do it? He commands the slaughter of BABIES!! He will cause more suffering to more human beings (His "just" punishment of eternity in hell for the "lost") than any other evil being real or supposed in existence!! Hitler didn't even cause the kind of torment to the numbers of people God will.
It is clear that you claim a "standard of God" which allows your "imaginary friend (i.e. God)" to do any evil and be exhonorated because "his ways are not are ways" and we are evil sinners worthy of condemnation so blah blah blah - I'm sorry - this is a severe lapse in moral judgment and a critical flaw with Christian thinking.
A good being cannot be inferior morally to your average decent human. For the sake of argument, suffice it to say that we don't know for sure how it is that most humans the sense of right or wrong that we have. (Actually I believe there are scientific reasons, but rather than debate them, for the sake of argument I'm saying let's suppose we don't know). The fact remains that most of us do still have a sense of right and wrong. Most of us know it's wrong to slaughter babies, and most of us know nazi germany was wrong. We don't need to know why we know. We know!! And you can think you do know why, but you could be wrong.
It's very troubling though to say that since reason can be fallible and human morality can be imperfect, we should appeal to a suppose deity whose message to humanity is "I love you but I also feel you deserve eternity in hell. It's ok though because I slaughtered my son in your place - I'm still going to burn most of you for eternity though since many of you won't believe in me - oh, and by the way, offering your son as a sacrifice or slaughtering babies like I commanded in the Old Testament is good when I say do it. Come on man!! That book's going to be your source for absolute authority? Sure some of it's nicely written, and there are some nice moral standards, but actually there are some higher moral standards that people live with today than those found in the bible. It is, after all, 2000 year old morality. The sermon on the mount if taken literally will lead to obsessive compulsive neuroticism as you keep worrying about every sinful thought that crosses your mind.

I've known many Christians that are happy half the time but there life and emotional health is severely compromised by a concern that they might offend God - despite the fact that they profess to be completely saved and covered in the blood of Jesus. You may claim they don't understand grace. I claim that there's no such thing as God and you can tell people about grace all day long but when it's grace from a being who sent armies to slaughter babies and killed his own son to make peace with you and still monitors your everythought and wants you to continue to confess your sins, most people are going to remain a bit neurotic around that sort of imaginary friend.
I'm rambling a bit but suffice it to say that the truth is out there. If you want to be free from your dogma you can know with certainty that the bible contains errors, and certain archeological discoveries demonstrate that parts of it are false once and for all. Of course it was written in history so parts are validated by archeology. This is true of other religious texts as well. But some discoveries lead to conclusions that demonstrate certainly the once and for all false hood of the bible. For instance, we now know that at the time the red sea was supposedly crossed by the israelites, the egyptians actually occupied (military occupation) the wilderness that the israelites supposedly wondered, so they would've simply crossed into the hands of their enemies.
I would encourage you to free yourself of your imaginary friend. The real truth that's being suppressed is the realization that though you believe in him, you have not seen him, felt him, or heard from him in anyway. You simply keep telling yourself that you do. Perhaps when your mind is really most awakened to the reality that he's not there, fear of hell keeps you in line as you pray "I believe Jesus, help my unbelief". He does not hear you. He is not there. You're just being silly. But this silliness can lead to bad moral decisions and constrict you from living a truly healthy life. Abandon Christ. He is not there. He will not mind.


Fabulous post. Terry Glenn's response demonstrates the basis for the prevelance of religion among mankind - a fear of the unknown and a desire to believe that there is an innate purpose to human life. These individuals cannot accept that humans are simply higher forms of other mamallian lifeforms. This is why there is an insistence on the existence of a "human soul" because it's a means to differentiate us from animals and thus to imply that human lives come with greater purpose than other animals. The fact is humans eat, defacate, reproduce and die, like all other species out there. Belief in a fantasy that there is a "higher power" that "created man in his image" isn't going to change that fact.

[3 to be 4]

Fabulous post. Terry Glenn's response demonstrates the basis for the prevelance of religion among mankind - a fear of the unknown and a desire to believe that there is an innate purpose to human life. These individuals cannot accept that humans are simply higher forms of other mamallian lifeforms. This is why there is an insistence on the existence of a "human soul" because it's a means to differentiate us from animals and thus to imply that human lives come with greater purpose than other animals. The fact is humans eat, defacate, reproduce and die, like all other species out there. Belief in a fantasy that there is a "higher power" that "created man in his image" isn't going to change that fact.

Very nice on Easter. Have a nice holiday.

Jesus loves you.

[JoeSixPat]

Very nice on Easter. Have a nice holiday.

Jesus loves you.


Gotta go with 3 to be 4 on this one... digging out an old thread to disprove Christianity on the biggest Christian holiday suggests there's a chip on someone's shoulder.

Of course, the fact that there's no "proof" per se to back up someone's "faith" is a given... that's why its called "faith".

But let's admit the two possibilities - there is no God - hence, no proof of God - or there is a God and He has some paternalistic reasons to withhold absolute proof of His existence.

Does that about sum it up?

Here - this might help explain things better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u8clU9QejU

[PatsFanInVa]

I have to agree too... the tactic is kinda yucky - just going after religion because it's "sweeps weeks" because there's a religious holiday.

But I do like 3's retort... I've encountered many similar circumstances where "Jesus loves you" (however it's meant,) occupies the place in conversation usually reserved for "F*** you."

Although this illustrates functional equivalence, mind you, it is entirely possible that the meanings are as vastly disparate as they appear at face value, and that the conscious choice of one or another actually signifies an actual difference in meanings.

It could be argued that the apparent difference in meaning is a superstructure built on a substrate of identical emotional content; but to argue either assumes knowledge of state of mind, which is beyond the scope of a discussion board.

PFnV

[All_Around_Brown]

Fabulous post. Terry Glenn's response demonstrates the basis for the prevelance of religion among mankind - a fear of the unknown and a desire to believe that there is an innate purpose to human life. These individuals cannot accept that humans are simply higher forms of other mamallian lifeforms. This is why there is an insistence on the existence of a "human soul" because it's a means to differentiate us from animals and thus to imply that human lives come with greater purpose than other animals. The fact is humans eat, defacate, reproduce and die, like all other species out there. Belief in a fantasy that there is a "higher power" that "created man in his image" isn't going to change that fact.

Very well written. Anthropocentricity has always been the primary basis for "faith" in such things as contrived and concoted as God, and is the main reason why believers recoil in horror at open minds such as Darwin's, who was very exact in pointing out how we are merely descendants...as opposed to ascendants. This roiled the church and broke the conceptual chain of being for good. That must be a hard pill to swallow for the religious.

God "explains" the unexplainable. Our "soul" is merely a product of our self-awareness. And belief in the afterlife?? Well that is simply absurd.

What it boils down to is this: the meaning of life. In its strictest sense, it is simply to make more life. Every organism on earth has shared this trait for billions of years. In that sense, there is your afterlife: your genetic perpetuity.

[3 to be 4]

Very well written. Anthropocentricity has always been the primary basis for "faith" in such things as contrived and concoted as God, and is the main reason why believers recoil in horror at open minds such as Darwin's, who was very exact in pointing out how we are merely descendants...as opposed to ascendants. This roiled the church and broke the conceptual chain of being for good. That must be a hard pill to swallow for the religious.

God "explains" the unexplainable. Our "soul" is merely a product of our self-awareness. And belief in the afterlife?? Well that is simply absurd.

What it boils down to is this: the meaning of life. In its strictest sense, it is simply to make more life. Every organism on earth has shared this trait for billions of years. In that sense, there is your afterlife: your genetic perpetuity.

"open minds such as Darwin". Interesting choice of words. Im not interested in getting into a debate on evolution vs creationism. But it has been the science crowd that has been more closed minded on this subject, not believers in creationism. On the school debate, it has only been asked that intelligent design be taught as an alternative, not an absolute, as in, some believe that..... The evolutionists have recoiled at such "open mindedness"

another example of liberal hypocrisy. Our way or the highway. See, for example, the issue of abortion within the Democratic Party. Liberals are great for preaching "open mindedness", unless of course you believe something different than them on a subject, and then you are branded a lunatic.

hey, as ive said many times, im no right winger. im against capital punishment, against the war in Iraq, for gun control, against the all the calls for amendments regarding marriage etc...

But that open mind comment had to be addressed.

as far as the afterlife stance, thats your right to believe what you believe. It doesnt make what someone else does absurd.

[Real World]

Do you believe in a God who slaughters babies?

Why do some hate on religion so much? Live and let live maybe? What's funny is that those who piss on people of faith, are the same individuals who simutaniously preach tolerance.

[Real World]

Well, since we're on the subject of religion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM

Talk about a set of pipes eh? Damn that girl can sing. ;)

[3 to be 4]

Well, since we're on the subject of religion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM

Talk about a set of pipes eh? Damn that girl can sing. ;)
very nice indeed!!!!

[All_Around_Brown]

"open minds such as Darwin". Interesting choice of words. Im not interested in getting into a debate on evolution vs creationism. But it has been the science crowd that has been more closed minded on this subject, not believers in creationism. On the school debate, it has only been asked that intelligent design be taught as an alternative, not an absolute, as in, some believe that..... The evolutionists have recoiled at such "open mindedness"

another example of liberal hypocrisy. Our way or the highway. See, for example, the issue of abortion within the Democratic Party. Liberals are great for preaching "open mindedness", unless of course you believe something different than them on a subject, and then you are branded a lunatic.

hey, as ive said many times, im no right winger. im against capital punishment, against the war in Iraq, for gun control, against the all the calls for amendments regarding marriage etc...

But that open mind comment had to be addressed.

as far as the afterlife stance, thats your right to believe what you believe. It doesnt make what someone else does absurd.

Well, then clearly to be open minded we have to have all competing opinions presented in science class. Is that what you are saying?

You seem to be drawing an equivalency between evolution by natural selection and intelligent design.

Darwin was open minded as he wasn't convinced that the church had all the answers. When he started formulating his conclusions, he drew them from rigorous observation of the natural world...not from some man's opinions. Thats pretty open when you think about it.