Christianity - license to make stuff up.

[Too Few Lions]

Take a look at real world scenarios. People that live in oppressive societies, like China in the Mao era. People were truly scared to upset their ruling authority, they made sure they understood the rules, they did not doubt the consequences.

If Christians believed god was as real as Mao, how could they take such a relaxed position and simply live their lives based on what they think or feel their god want's. Certainly they should be driven to know and not simply settle for thinking or feeling.

Ecurb Noselrub on some threads here has made comments to suggest that he sometimes does not go along with the mainstream Christian stance. I think this would be and immensely scary and incredibly brave thing to do if he truly believed that god exists and is capable of judging him and sending him to hell. He of course has stated that he doesn't believe in hell. But most Christians do. God won't not send you to hell just because you choose not to believe in hell. If you believe in god then you ought to be scared out of your wits.

Yeah, I have to agree 100% with you on that Stevil. I think this whole heaven and hell idea is barbaric, and much as it's important in Christianity, it's THE cornerstone of Islamic teaching. Forget Mao or Stalin, it makes the Christian or Muslim god the worst dictator in the universe. Here we have a ruler who will torture anyone who isn't a party member or anyone who doesn't obey any of his rules for all eternity. That's worse than living in North Korea! If such a country existed in the world it would be a pariah state pubicly damned by the same politicians who go to Church every Sunday...

[Too Few Lions]

^ You left out the Lactoportarians, who believe that Mary was lying and it was really the milkman.  It's the only branch based entirely on reason.

next time the Jehovah Witnesses come knocking I'm going to ask them if they know of the early Christian sect called the Lactoportarians!

[xSilverPhinx]

For one thing I find it odd that people can base their worldviews on a book (the bible) which was written during another era, written by primitive people's with a wholly different take on things and still claim to be objectively consistent, but I'll leave that for the Christians to explain.

I'm also curious to know if they see the set of biblical rules as something as objective as Mao's is. No faith needed for that.

I think I can understand why the more independently minded theists don't adhere as much to the cultish control mechanisms that are present and documented in the bible. Heaven and hell are perfect for that. 2000 years later, Christianity would be different from what it was back then. People are less ignorant, for one. Cult control is also way less effective.

When there's no hell to counter heaven and serve as leverage, then what religion basically is is a comfort which reflects their experience (and therefore themselves). For instance, people will think that god is loving if they lead good lives, don't deal with nasty deaths or extreme suffering.  Purely subjective to people while they're alive (if there's anything to be found out after they die, they'll only know after they die).

[Stevil]

OK, apparently you have higher standards for how Christians should live their lives than most of them do for themselves. I don't see that as evidence that they actually don't believe in their god, but if you do, then go with it.

I don't think that I am articulating my point very well.

If a person kidnapped you, at gun point.
Then they told you to do something and if you didn't do it they would make you walk on broken glass or swallow broken glass, wouldn't you do exactly what they told you?
Would eternity of torment and torture be worse than that?

Why would you do anything "wrong" or trust your future in the beliefs of a particular priest if you believed it would be you that faces these consequences? Wouldn't you be driven to know what "wrong" is. Wouldn't you take personal responsibility to figure this stuff out rather than delegate?

[Recusant]

I don't think that I am articulating my point very well.

If a person kidnapped you, at gun point.
Then they told you to do something and if you didn't do it they would make you walk on broken glass or swallow broken glass, wouldn't you do exactly what they told you?
Would eternity of torment and torture be worse than that?

Why would you do anything "wrong" or trust your future in the beliefs of a particular priest if you believed it would be you that faces these consequences? Wouldn't you be driven to know what "wrong" is. Wouldn't you take personal responsibility to figure this stuff out rather than delegate?

I don't see your analogy as accurate. You're presenting a single, rather traumatic episode, and trying to apply that to how people live their lives. I wouldn't dispute that some zealots and "saints" probably look at their time on earth in a very similar way to your picture of the proper Christian response to belief. They are the particularly active (I would say slightly nutty at best) god-botherers. The rest of humanity is trying to get by from day to day, with all of the things that life entails. Belief in their god is certainly a part of their lives, but they aren't saints and zealots; they have jobs and families, pastimes and friends.

I think that the very reason that the institution of religion is so successful is that while belief in a god or gods is the norm, most people aren't as obsessed by their faith (until some traumatic event in their lives at least) as the saints and zealots are. They prefer to have the rather convenient arrangement of paying somebody to help them deal with that part of their life. The thing is, they have been told that that is what their god wants. And it's easy to believe that, since it's also a lot easier than trying to be a saint. So they believe in their god, they go to their church and pay the nice man or woman to act as their representative/advocate and to give them spiritual advice when they need it. It's practical; they cover that base and the pastor makes a living by telling them that Jesus is happy because they have been faithful members of the flock (or that Jesus would like them to pay for a new church). As I said, you seem to be trying to hold them to a higher standard than they have for themselves, and more importantly, a higher standard than they have been told that they need to reach. Just because you think they should be acting more like saints doesn't mean that they don't actually believe.

[Davin]

Stevil, were you ever a believer? I'm not asking to exclude you from your point as an ad hominem, I'm asking to gain some kind of baseline. It's difficult to explain what my thought process was when I was a believer, partly because it was so long ago and partly because since then my mind has been better focused.

I'll give it shot assuming you were never a believer or at least not as much as I had been. From before I can remember of my childhood, belief had been instilled me from statements of faith treated as statements of fact. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said in another thread that no one knows anything about god. Take both those last to sentences into account along with the amazing ability of humans to figure things out. No one has met the god and all we have are the writings of man claiming to have been inspired by god and claiming that people talked to god. It seems pretty clear from an outside perspective that one would just take those at face value and be as skeptical of it as Christians are of other religions, but the rub that kept me a theist until I was 14 was that I was raised, taught and praised for compartmentalising and figuring out ways to make these things that make no sense, to make sense. Top that off with things the books taught were evil (people eating from the tree of knowledge being punished, Thomas scolded for being a skeptic... etc.), and you have a very solid bubble for most people.

The people that were better at figuring out how to reconcile things that didn't make sense were held as authorities (William Lane Craig is one), and when one can't figure out how to make sense of things, there were always people to help out. So (in my opinion), the license to make things up comes from one of the best parts of humanity: our inginuity. The only problem I see is that the inginuity is being wasted.

This post is all scatter brained and difficult to read because I had to go back into that dusty box in my attic that I keep around for sentimental reasons.

[Stevil]

I've never been a theist.

I'm trying to understand the different between real and make believe.
I assume that a believer actually thinks that god and heaven and hell are real.

Would they live their lives differently if they could see god? I would think most certainly.

If every time they looked up, they could see god's face in the sky, with two beady little eyes focused directly on them. And then every time they did something wrong they would see god lick the end of his pencil and start jotting something down on a notepad whilst simultaneously shaking his head or making tut tut tut noises or uncontrollably muttering "you will surly burn for that".

At least in this scenario they would be getting some feedback, so they could know what god approves of and what god disapproves of.

But to me god is like the worst kind of manager. For those who live in the corporate world and go through a yearly performance review cycle, you should expect your manager to give you regular feedback during the year, so that you know where you are tracking, this gives you time to adjust so that overall you have been deemed to perform well over the year. The worst manager will say nothing all year and then on the performance review will come up with something that you never knew was a problem and use it as an excuse not to give you a salary increase. Well, god would be much worse than that. Instead of missing out on a salary increase, you go to hell for all eternity.

I understand that people should live normal lives, should have jobs, should have family and friends, should have a good time during their lives. But if for a Christian life is seen as this brief test to be judged on before one goes on to either eternal happiness in heaven or eternal torment in hell, then why do they take so many risks? Something really doesn't add up. Either when it comes down to it and they have to walk the talk it shows that they don't "really" believe in god, or there is some kind of coping mechanism in place such as compartmentalism that lets them get on with their lives is a semi "god does exist, but will send me to heaven anyway because I believe in him and I am not acting as a monster" kind of way.

[Davin]

Would they live their lives differently if they could see god? I would think most certainly.

So would I.

I understand that people should live normal lives, should have jobs, should have family and friends, should have a good time during their lives. But if for a Christian life is seen as this brief test to be judged on before one goes on to either eternal happiness in heaven or eternal torment in hell, then why do they take so many risks?

The people take the "risks" because they're human, even in spite of the belief in a god. That is actually one of hooks of religion and not a deterence to it: they try to make people feel guilty for being human, try to make them think that having human desires will lead them to eternal damnation, then they try offer the only salvation from such a doomed fate. It doesn't work on everyone obviously, but it works on a lot of people, especially if they don't know about the effect.

[...]"god does exist, but will send me to heaven anyway because I believe in him and I am not acting as a monster[.]"

This is it... somewhat. Add on top of that the forgiveness mechanism. "God knows what's in your heart, even though you did something wrong" and "It would be easier if you knew god were there, that is why he challenges us with faith instead of knowledge" are common Christian sentiments. Don't conflate belief with knowledge, even though many theists do.

[bandit4god]

They aren't taking it seriously enough. Most Christians by and large, quickly come to an understanding based on what makes them feel good. They don't seem to be driven by fear to get their facts absolutely right.

Have you seen Christians living in constant fear due to the ambiguity of the rules of what is right and wrong and knowing that eternal damnation awaits those that get it wrong. To me it certainly does not seem that people take this very seriously at all. It seem that they don't actually believe god exists, it doesn't seem that the believe they could go to hell to face eternal torture.

I couldn't agree more!

(Parenthetically, a warm hello to all my old friends--Whitney, Recusant, even ol' hackenslash if he's still around!)

Deeply impressed at the intellectual rigor you bring to your posts, Stevil, and the above is no exception.  For my part, I've read everything I could get my hands on from all sides of the debate around atheism/theism and remain a Christian.  I know exactly why and have taken great pains to make sure I can clearly articulate it to myself and others.  It is with great frustration that I consider the laziness of many, many Christians who haven't the foggiest idea what they believe or why.

But there is another side to this argument.  With one scoll through Wikipedia's page on abiogenesis, I could create a similar doctrine tree to the one you've created for Christianity.  The one on abiogenesis would actually have more branches, many more indeed!  So if abiogenesis is a legitimate wing of science, claiming that life could arise from non-life, why are most atheists so divided on how this was acheived?

[Stevil]

Would they live their lives differently if they could see god? I would think most certainly.

So would I.

But the difference between you and the Christian is that you don't believe that you are being watched and monitored, ready for judgement before entering the afterlife.
A Christian believes this is the case, whether they see god doing this or not, it ought not make much difference to them, certainly not if they truly believe with utmost conviction that this is the case. They don't need to see to believe.

[Stevil]

Deeply impressed at the intellectual rigor you bring to your posts, Stevil, and the above is no exception.

Thanks bandit4god and welcome back.
You obviously have seen some of my silly, satirical or sarcastic posts. I get that way sometimes when I don't think the other person is being serious.

But there is another side to this argument.  With one scoll through Wikipedia's page on abiogenesis, I could create a similar doctrine tree to the one you've created for Christianity.  The one on abiogenesis would actually have more branches, many more indeed!  So if abiogenesis is a legitimate wing of science, claiming that life could arise from non-life, why are most atheists so divided on how this was acheived?

Most Atheists would state that it is unknown how life arises from non life.

[Tank]

They aren't taking it seriously enough. Most Christians by and large, quickly come to an understanding based on what makes them feel good. They don't seem to be driven by fear to get their facts absolutely right.

Have you seen Christians living in constant fear due to the ambiguity of the rules of what is right and wrong and knowing that eternal damnation awaits those that get it wrong. To me it certainly does not seem that people take this very seriously at all. It seem that they don't actually believe god exists, it doesn't seem that the believe they could go to hell to face eternal torture.

I couldn't agree more!

(Parenthetically, a warm hello to all my old friends--Whitney, Recusant, even ol' hackenslash if he's still around!)

Deeply impressed at the intellectual rigor you bring to your posts, Stevil, and the above is no exception.  For my part, I've read everything I could get my hands on from all sides of the debate around atheism/theism and remain a Christian.  I know exactly why and have taken great pains to make sure I can clearly articulate it to myself and others.  It is with great frustration that I consider the laziness of many, many Christians who haven't the foggiest idea what they believe or why.

But there is another side to this argument.  With one scoll through Wikipedia's page on abiogenesis, I could create a similar doctrine tree to the one you've created for Christianity.  The one on abiogenesis would actually have more branches, many more indeed!  So if abiogenesis is a legitimate wing of science, claiming that life could arise from non-life, why are most atheists scientists so divided on how this was acheived?

Fixed it for you. Science are divided on the cause of abiogenesis it's speculative in the detail. We know it happened because the Earth was at one time a superheated ball of liquid rock and now we have life.

[bandit4god]

We know it (abiogenesis) happened because the Earth was at one time a superheated ball of liquid rock and now we have life.

Between neutrality and "knowing it happened", there is a step in there that you are skipping over.  Quite understandable because it's a philosophical step you make so fluidly by this point, you've come to accept it as a priori truth.  The step is asking and answering, "What is an acceptable type of explanation?"

Three contestants in this derby:
- Natural explanation: nature and its attendant laws caused the phenomena (like a weed growing in a garden)
- Personal explanation:  a sentient actor caused the phenomena (like coming home and finding a messy living room)
- Conceptual explanation:  a conscious mind created the phenomena (a thought to cheer for the Dallas Cowboys)

Your quote above is evidence of a naturalistic philosophy, belief in the Brute Fact that nature and its attendant laws are the cause of all things.  Don't be fooled... despite the claims of many atheists, this philosophy is extra-scientific.  Science says nothing about the types of explanation one can deem viable.  Only philosophy can do that.

The implications of this are many.  For example, if the probability of successful abiogenesis of a robust organism is 1 in 10^1000 during the 300 million year windown in which it could have occurred, those holding to a naturalistic philosophy would still buy that lottery ticket.  They have no other choice! 

In the end, it's your philosophy about which type(s) of explanation is/are in the running that holds the power over your worldview, not mere science.

[Stevil]

This discussion might be best for another thread.

[Sandra Craft]

So again, back to my original question:
Are Christians at liberty to make stuff up, to create detailed stories about their personal vision of what god is, what heaven is, what morality is?

I believe you're way over-thinking this.  Don't most religious make it up as they go and keep whatever is useful to them, which usually means what comforts them?