Reject Christ and BibleGod

[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

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 **** 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

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

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.