Is Christianity seen by its followers as a license to make stuff up?
Talking to their followers, although there are some things in common e.g. people's names (Mary, Joseph, Moses, Noah, Jesus, Abraham, David, Goliath etc), it seems the details are incredibly different. Some believe in hell, some do not, some think priests can absolve us of sins, some do not. Some think Mary was free of all sin (including original sin) some do not. Some feel it is OK for people to be gay, some do not. But most claim to know god. Some know god so much that they like to tell others stories about god, what god is like, what heaven is like, who goes to heaven, who prospers in heaven etc.
Are Christians taught that Christianity means coming up with your own beliefs in god? Imagining what ever you consider to be a perfect utopia and ascribing that to your vision of god.
It doesn't seem to me that Christians are discouraging such behaviour. They aren't teaching each other the correct interpretation. Well, at least the Catholic church is. They say that they are divinely guided and that they have knowledge of many of the missing details of the bible. So with this church people are giving up their own thoughts and ideas on what god is and are trusting their church and believing that their church is infallible. In this way they are trying to know god for what the church tells them god is, warts and all, not taking the liberty to reinvent god into something more agreeable with their own personal values.
But let's face it, most Christians have a personal god, that only the individual knows and believes in. It is perfect and uncannily most agreeable to the individual.
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?
The sheer number of sects is good evidence that the Bible is easy to cherry pick whatever one feels best suits one personally.
If accurate, and I'm no expert on these things, this diagramme appears to be appropriate at this point.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2FDenomBranch.png&hash=897d4803953804bce462d914d980e53ecf64327f)
The image comes from The Facts and Stats on "33,000 Denominations" (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm)
Hi Stevil,
Doesn't the old saw "Women and Men created god in their own image" explain it all?
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Attila on October 13, 2011, 09:24:51 AM
Hi Stevil,
Doesn't the old saw "Women and Men created god in their own image" explain it all?
ciao,
Attila
We see that, but why don't they?
They seem to think that it is OK to simply describe a personal god that fits well with their own personal wishes and desires.
If god were actually perceived by theists to be real then they wouldn't cherry pick. There would be things that they would admit that they don't understand and potentially don't even agree with but they would go along with it because it is god's desire and they would fear punishment of hell.
But this isn't the case, they tend to be happy with their view of god and it exactly agrees with them because that is the way they have shaped god.
If people truly believed in god, the god of the bible, then wouldn't they be scared to do any work on the sabbath? The bible says "Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death". Now there is some debate as to whether the sabbath is Saturday or Sunday. Well if it weren't absolutely clear which day, wouldn't people who truly believed in god and believed this was one of the 10 most important things (commandments) of god. Shouldn't true believers be scared to work on either of these two days? This of course would mean no doctors, ambulance drivers, no firemen, no police officers, no nurses or care workers, no aids, no physio therapists, no professional sports, no television, etc.
But by and large people don't really believe in god, even if they say they do. They like the idea of god, and promote it furiously, but by and large personally they don't really believe in god. They just self invent an image of a loving god and use it as positive support of their own ideals. They are not worried that they will go to hell or be punished for not obeying a rule that they don't agree with. They are lead to believe that with Christianity they can simply choose what to believe and what not to believe. They can interprete and reinterprete anything in the bible to make it fit their own personal opinion on life and being a good person.
QuoteSome believe in hell, some do not, some think priests can absolve us of sins, some do not.
Here's the nub. If christianity has a single core, it is surely that JC died to redeem us all from ... well, that varies. Something nasty, anyway. :o
But how do we claim redemption? Catholics and Orthodox accept 'justification by works', i.e. doing good things. Although strictly, a Catholic believes you can only be saved via the church (
extra ecclesiam nulla salus). That was the core point of the Reformation: protestants say you don't need a church or a priest, and that works don't count, only faith. Then, how do you get faith? Some say you can achieve it by yourself, others that you can only be given it by god's grace. That last theory gets you into a mess because it looks like god himself is damning those to whom he doesn't give faith. From there you get to predestination à la Augustine and Calvin - it is laid down in advance who gets saved and who doesn't, else how is god omniscient?
The whole thing is a total mess. As I've often said to christians, if I were going to waste my life on religion, I should at least demand to know in advance the precise rules for getting to heaven. ;D
Quote from: Tank on October 13, 2011, 08:54:17 AM
The sheer number of sects is good evidence that the Bible is easy to cherry pick whatever one feels best suits one personally.
If accurate, and I'm no expert on these things, this diagramme appears to be appropriate at this point.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2FDenomBranch.png&hash=897d4803953804bce462d914d980e53ecf64327f)
The image comes from The Facts and Stats on "33,000 Denominations" (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm)
Although people belonging to these major branches have some common themes with regards to their chosen branch, within the branch, they all have a different god, a different set of morals, a different detailed description. It really does seem that they are taught some things which their church deem as important but then they are taught that they can pick and choose the other (not so important) details. Well, people being people, they extrapolate that even into the realm of the important details, they get to pick and choose, how great is that?!
Quote from: Stevil on October 13, 2011, 09:48:50 AM
But by and large people don't really believe in god, even if they say they do. They like the idea of god, and promote it furiously, but by and large personally they don't really believe in god.
I'm not going to get into most of what you wrote about Christians, suffice it to say that many of them would reply that your picture of them is inaccurate. If any of the Christian members here want to go into more detail, I'm sure they'll pipe up. The two sentences quoted above though... (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rationalskepticism.org%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Ficon_nono.gif&hash=a7c022536ba8a506bde2800c1ca943b8c4563b5c)
...Sound like the exact reverse of the ludicrous canard I've heard from overzealous Christians too many times to count: "Those atheists really do believe in God; they just want to make their own rules, so they act like He doesn't exist. But deep in their hearts they know that He does."
I find it laughable and irksome at the same time, and I imagine that a Christian reading the two quoted sentences probably would have a similar reaction.
Quote from: Recusant on October 13, 2011, 10:23:43 AM
I find it laughable and irksome at the same time, and I imagine that a Christian reading the two quoted sentences probably would have a similar reaction.
Yeah but,
How could they possibly truly believe in god if they pick and choose? If they don't look to find out about god, but instead make stuff up.
Honestly, how can you say that there is an authority that must be obeyed or else you get eternal torture, and then they go off and instead of devote their lives to being very careful and diligent in finding out exactly what the rules are that this authority demand are to be obeyed.
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 think that of the portion of Christians who really are worried that their god would send them to hell for getting some of their facts wrong probably do stress over it, but like people in general, nobody wants to turn something that is a comfort into something that is very stressful. People seek out things and interpretations that validate their idea of what their god is, and this in turn leads to a discussion on whether that sort of personal god is objectively pointless, which I think is the logical conclusion.
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.
Quote from: Stevil on October 13, 2011, 10:36:44 AMYeah but,
How could they possibly truly believe in god if they pick and choose? If they don't look to find out about god, but instead make stuff up.
I know some Christians pretty well, and many of them actually do "Bible study" and spend time to learn more about their god, and to learn more about what he supposedly said. Sure there are plenty that don't bother with that, but those are the ones who leave it to their pastor to tell them what's up. He does the heavy lifting for them, and if they have any questions, they go bother him about it. Then there are "nominal" Christians, who seem to think that as long as they pay lip service and actually do believe in their god, they'll be all right in the end. I don't deny that there is a percentage that are simply what we might call "Pascal's Wager Christians" who don't know if a god exists, but are hedging their bets. I'm not going to guess what that percentage is, but I'm pretty sure that they are a definite minority.
Quote from: Stevil on October 13, 2011, 10:36:44 AMHonestly, how can you say that there is an authority that must be obeyed or else you get eternal torture, and then they go off and instead of devote their lives to being very careful and diligent in finding out exactly what the rules are that this authority demand are to be obeyed.
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.
They're human beings. They have busy lives; like I said, many of them leave the heavy lifting to their pastor. They pay him to help make sure that they're on the right path, and since they belong to the "right" church, their god (who after all is supposedly very loving and forgiving) will see when they die that they were good people at heart, and will overlook all of their failings. Plus, that Jew died for their sins, so that they might live forever, remember?
Quote from: Stevil on October 13, 2011, 10:36:44 AMHave 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 think you underestimate the inner turmoil about this very sort of thing that many Christians feel. Maybe for most of their lives, they kind of just hum along, compartmentalizing their fears, but once they get toward the end, they often are fighting damn hard to avoid death for just a few more days (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7949111.stm). I think that they're scared of what might happen when they have to finally face their god and deal with his all-seeing reckoning of their lives.
Quote from: Recusant on October 13, 2011, 11:04:13 AM
They're human beings. They have busy lives;
But life goes on for 80 years if you are lucky.
Eternity goes on for much longer than that.
If your eternity is determined by only a measly 80 years, wouldn't you devote all that time to understanding and obeying the rules of the authority?
If this is what you believed then this is what you would do. By saying, "forgive me, I am only human", this is a cop out, it is an admission that you do not take god seriously enough. When it comes down to it, and you put your money where your mouth is, it seems obvious to me that you don't really believe in god.
In some ways most of us say one thing and do another. I am certainly guilty of this. We try and convince ourselves of our convictions but it is only when we are tested that we truly find out the truth about ourselves.
For a Christian with a belief in an all knowing, all seeing god who will judge them when they enter the afterlife, this life is their test and to me they don't seem to be taking it very seriously.
Quote from: Tank on October 13, 2011, 08:54:17 AM
The sheer number of sects is good evidence that the Bible is easy to cherry pick whatever one feels best suits one personally.
If accurate, and I'm no expert on these things, this diagramme appears to be appropriate at this point.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2FDenomBranch.png&hash=897d4803953804bce462d914d980e53ecf64327f)
The image comes from The Facts and Stats on "33,000 Denominations" (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm)
I think that picture's actually rather inaccurate as it ignores early Christianity and seems to suggest that it was one homogenous religion until the fifth century. If we're talking about varied belief within Christianity, early Christianity was much more varied in belief than modern Christianity. You had people like Marcion who taught that Jesus wasn't the son of the Jewish god, but he came in direct opposition to Yahweh, you had some Gnostic Christians who believed that it wasn't Jesus who was crucified, but Simon Cyrene, you had Chrisians who didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, but just a wise philosopher or righteous rabbi. You had Ebionites, docetists, Arians etc etc. You had Christians who rejected the four gospels that came to be in the NT and held incredibly different ideas about their god and Jesus from any Christian today. Unfortunately these these other Christianities were declared 'heretical' by the Imperial Church in the 4th-5th centuries and were persecuted out of existence by what was to become the Catholic / Orthodox churches. To have them missing from this diagram is a bit like seeing a tree diagram of life on Earth that omits the dinosaurs!
As much as there is a lot variation in what Christains believe today, they can all trace their beliefs back to the religion that Constantine began to mould in the fourth century. Without Constantine there would be no Christianity as it is today. I think the fact that Christians do (and always have) believed such widly different things shows what the religion is, a man made creation based on some writings 2-3000 years old (including the OT).
If their god existed he could just come to Earth and tell them what he wants them to believe. Personally, I find it weird that someone would believe something becuse they thought it was what someone else wanted them to believe, rather than because they just believe it. Although maybe Christians do actually mainly just believe what they want to, and then try to find scripture to back it up, hence so many different opinions...
^ 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.
Quote from: Stevil on October 13, 2011, 11:19:00 AM
...If this is what you believed then this is what you would do. By saying, "forgive me, I am only human", this is a cop out, it is an admission that you do not take god seriously enough. When it comes down to it, and you put your money where your mouth is, it seems obvious to me that you don't really believe in god.
In some ways most of us say one thing and do another. I am certainly guilty of this. We try and convince ourselves of our convictions but it is only when we are tested that we truly find out the truth about ourselves.
For a Christian with a belief in an all knowing, all seeing god who will judge them when they enter the afterlife, this life is their test and to me they don't seem to be taking it very seriously.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg826.imageshack.us%2Fimg826%2F4195%2Flolbymissbangles.gif&hash=a459a670b2fef67538964246ce892a4b5f7d96e2) 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.
Quote from: Stevil on October 13, 2011, 11:00:00 AM
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...
Quote from: OldGit on October 13, 2011, 11:29:07 AM
^ 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.
:D next time the Jehovah Witnesses come knocking I'm going to ask them if they know of the early Christian sect called the Lactoportarians!
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).
Quote from: Recusant on October 13, 2011, 11:30:05 AM
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?
Quote from: Stevil on October 13, 2011, 11:51:00 AMI 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Stevil on October 13, 2011, 07:21:24 PMWould they live their lives differently if they could see god? I would think most certainly.
So would I.
Quote from: StevilI 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.
Quote from: Stevil[...]"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.
Quote
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?
Quote from: Davin on October 13, 2011, 08:33:48 PM
Quote from: Stevil on October 13, 2011, 07:21:24 PMWould 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.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 13, 2011, 09:32:07 PM
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.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 13, 2011, 09:32:07 PM
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.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 13, 2011, 09:32:07 PM
Quote
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.
QuoteWe 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.
This discussion might be best for another thread.
Quote from: Stevil on October 13, 2011, 07:25:34 AM
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?
I think most people trivialise belief in gods, theists and atheists alike. Very few are taking it serious, those that do take it seriously are often seen by mainstream as being fundamentalist wackos. But the way that I see it is that these fundamentalists are the only ones taking it seriously, they aren't cherry picking, they aren't behaving within the social norms, they are doing and thinking the way they have been taught to believe that their god demands of them. They are the result of that religion. Most religious people are moderate and can function well within society at the cost of interpreting their scripture to make it fit social norms. By my thinking these people are more afraid to be social outcasts than they are afraid of eternal torment. When their money is on the table they are betting on there being no god. Although they continue to talk as if there is a god. Talk is cheap after all.
Quote from: Stevil on October 14, 2011, 06:26:53 AM
But the way that I see it is that these fundamentalists are the only ones taking it seriously, they aren't cherry picking
I think they are, they're just cherry-picking different parts. In most cases, they emphasis the smiting and shrug off the compassion whereas moderate and liberal Xtians usually do the reverse.
QuoteWhen their money is on the table they are betting on there being no god.
I think they're betting on there being a compassionate god, and why not since there's just as much chance of that as a smiting god or no god.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 14, 2011, 06:54:09 AM
Quote from: Stevil on October 14, 2011, 06:26:53 AM
But the way that I see it is that these fundamentalists are the only ones taking it seriously, they aren't cherry picking
I think they are, they're just cherry-picking different parts. In most cases, they emphasis the smiting and shrug off the compassion whereas moderate and liberal Xtians usually do the reverse.
QuoteWhen their money is on the table they are betting on there being no god.
I think they're betting on there being a compassionate god, and why not since there's just as much chance of that as a smiting god or no god.
You might feel somewhat differently if your kids had been victimised by these "moderate xtians". You take those beliefs and you mix them with authority and then you truly know what hell is. I fully respect their right to personally believe whatever they want but imposing those beliefs on someone else... That's where I draw the line. One personal madness should be personal. If you cannot be shown to be wrong about anything that it's not really something you want to share.
ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Attila on October 14, 2011, 07:04:44 AM
I fully respect their right to personally believe whatever they want but imposing those beliefs on someone else...
We're talking about whether people actually believe what they claim to believe, not if and how they impose it on others. That's an entirely different matter.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 12:52:30 AM
QuoteWe 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.
My assumptions are simple, make logical sense and are based on reality while yours are complicated, fantastical and based on wishful thinking. You're entitled to your views and I to mine. Thing is mine are more likely to promote further investigation, discovery and knowledge, your's on the other hand prohibit investigation, stifle discovery and inhibit the creation of new knowledge. If you wish to base your world views on millennia old mythology feel free, but don't expect any respect for your world view from people who don't adhere to your particular institutionalised superstition.
You place your theology before observed reality, this being the case I can dismiss your analysis as theologically baised and thus meaningless.
The fact that everbodies god was different (talking just about the christian god here) was a big clue to me as a child that these people are making it up.
So getting back to the point,
Does Christianity promote a stance where by there are a few absolutes (e.g. Jesus, god, Mary, Moses etc. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, we are all sinners, god is perfect and all powerful, Good people go to heaven, Bad people go to hell, Through Jesus is the path to heaven) but then with regards to everything else Christians are free to interpret however they see fit? Even morals are up for grabs.
This must be a very attractive quality of Christianity for the potential theist that just can't find a belief that fits snug like a glove.
Christianity is perfect, god becomes extremely similar to the desires of each individual.
But then again, if you are making stuff up, are you really knowing god or are you creating a god that suits your ideals?
When was the last time you had to swallow your pride and give up one of your own values for a value of god's that you disagree with but have to accept regardless.
If you are consciously creating a god that suits you, then how can you say that you really believe in god? You are simply creating a god but having the luxury of belonging to a group all whom believe in god (under the Christian banner) with some common characters and some common events but actually quite different.
I don't understand how a person can truly believe in something and yet still feel at liberty to just make up the details. They are obviously not worried about getting it wrong and ending up in hell.
Sorry for all the rants from me on this thread, they have been long and often guilty of trying to drive the same point home but in different ways.
I have found it difficult to try and articulate in a more concise manner my point and I know some people have just simply read this and thought I was going too far and expecting too much.
In conclusion I want to say that we have been conditioned to think that it is acceptable for Christians to make up details and to differ on many aspects whilst still being Christians and being in god's grace.
I don't feel this conditioning is correct and I know that it is not just isolated to Christians. As Atheists we accept that Christians are free to interpret their scripture however they see fit, to make this more palatable, more digestible with regards to the social norms of the time and place that they live in. For those that simply brush me off here and say I am going too far or am a bit crazy, I hope you can consider what I have said and allow yourself to challenge your current ideas of what religion and Christianity is. If god were truly real, if god truly was to punish people for all eternity for not following his/her moral guide then people would be driven to know god and obey rather than simply make stuff up.
People that are being called literal extremists by some on this forum might possibly be doing what is only logical given that they truly believe god is real and that the bible is god's word. People that are mainstream and are interpreting the bible to fit social norms may not be very concerned about punishment because they may not really believe in god, even though they categorically will tell you that they do. You often only know the truth about yourself when you are put to an extreme test where you have no option but to choose one path or the other.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 14, 2011, 08:20:31 AM
Quote from: Attila on October 14, 2011, 07:04:44 AM
I fully respect their right to personally believe whatever they want but imposing those beliefs on someone else...
We're talking about whether people actually believe what they claim to believe, not if and how they impose it on others. That's an entirely different matter.
Again: I fail to see the importance of whether or not they believe it. As with anything else | could and probably am wrong about this but I would enjoy hearing an actual argument in favour of caring. My view is that people believe or don't believe all kinds of things but that has naught to do with me and unless I am a personal friend of theirs, I couldn't care less.
Ciao,
Attila
Quote from: bandit4god on October 13, 2011, 09:32:07 PM
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?
I think this comparison is rather disingenuous and inaccurate. A comparable diagram to one on abiogenesis might be one of all the cosmokrators and creation myths known from the world, of which there are far more varieties and branches than scientific models explaining the origin of life!
I think there is a big difference between scientific and Christian explanation for the origin of life. Scientists base their models on rigorously interpreting the evidence around us, Christians on a 3000 year old myth.
Quote from: Attila on October 14, 2011, 10:57:18 AM
Again: I fail to see the importance of whether or not they believe it.
That's fine, but that's not what this thread is about. The religious getting out of hand and trying to impose the practice of their beliefs on others is a valid discussion, particularly as most of us have an axe to grind about it, it's just not the discussion going on here.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 14, 2011, 01:54:15 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 14, 2011, 10:57:18 AM
Again: I fail to see the importance of whether or not they believe it.
That's fine, but that's not what this thread is about. The religious getting out of hand and trying to impose the practice of their beliefs on others is a valid discussion, particularly as most of us have an axe to grind about it, it's just not the discussion going on here.
Ok. I'll shut up.[Bows out gracefully.]
Attila
Quote from: Stevil on October 14, 2011, 10:40:56 AM
For those that simply brush me off here and say I am going too far or am a bit crazy, I hope you can consider what I have said and allow yourself to challenge your current ideas of what religion and Christianity is.
Can you challenge yours? Have you read the bible? It's so contradictory that A can believe one thing and B the complete opposite and they can
both cite biblical scripture that backs them up. Who's cherry-picking in that case? Whose religion is based on what the bible
really says?
QuoteIf god were truly real, if god truly was to punish people for all eternity for not following his/her moral guide then people would be driven to know god and obey rather than simply make stuff up.
You seem to be suggesting a form of Pascal's Wager for Xtians, which is odd to me because I've never known an atheist who treats his wager for us with anything but contempt and eyerolling.
Quote from: Attila on October 14, 2011, 02:03:51 PM
Ok. I'll shut up.[Bows out gracefully.]
Attila
Even better, you can start a thread on your topic. All I ask is that you not get on my back for not addressing something that wasn't part of the discussion. This topic's thorny enough as it is.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 14, 2011, 02:10:06 PM
Quote from: Attila on October 14, 2011, 02:03:51 PM
Ok. I'll shut up.[Bows out gracefully.]
Attila
Even better, you can start a thread on your topic. All I ask is that you not get on my back for not addressing something that wasn't part of the discussion. This topic's thorny enough as it is.
Most humble apologies. I'm sorry I gave the impression I was on your back. That was not at all my intention.
ciao,
Attila
QuoteDoes Christianity promote a stance where by there are a few absolutes (e.g. Jesus, god, Mary, Moses etc. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, we are all sinners, god is perfect and all powerful, Good people go to heaven, Bad people go to hell, Through Jesus is the path to heaven) but then with regards to everything else Christians are free to interpret however they see fit? ...I don't understand how a person can truly believe in something and yet still feel at liberty to just make up the details. They are obviously not worried about getting it wrong and ending up in hell.
Reading Stevil's postings are a breath of fresh air, so structured and well-conceived!
There is a possibility that you're not considering: that there are Absolutes that Christians agree to be orthodoxy, truths imbued with the power of redemption (if believed upon and lived out). Certainly there are other truths upon which the weight of redemption doesn't rest. Can a son "know" a father's core nature (e.g., he is generous, forgiving, slow to anger, terrifying when he is angry, etc.) and still have misconceptions about the details (e.g., what he considers a clean sock drawer)?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 03:34:24 PM
There is a possibility that you're not considering: that there are Absolutes that Christians agree to be orthodoxy, truths imbued with the power of redemption (if believed upon and lived out). Certainly there are other truths upon which the weight of redemption doesn't rest. Can a son "know" a father's core nature (e.g., he is generous, forgiving, slow to anger, terrifying when he is angry, etc.) and still have misconceptions about the details (e.g., what he considers a clean sock drawer)?
hi b4g, what are these 'Absolutes' in your opinion? i suspect we may be able to find denominations of Christians who haven't subscribed to most things in the Bible at one point or other in history. Could you have a go at listing some of those 'Absolutes' here?
When I was a Christian, I was exposed to both Catholic and Baptist teaching (My family was Catholic and I was raised Catholic, but my friends were all Baptist and I'd go to Baptist "summer camps" most years).
In both churches the emphasis was on belief - all you really had to do was believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for our sins. That was it! So, as a christian, that was really my only concern for the longest time. The impression that I was always given was that following the rest of the bible and the rest of God's commandments was "nice" and a good thing to do, if you could, but it was never described as the difference between going to heaven and hell. Actually, most of the time when I went to church the focus was entirely on Jesus and not God at all, really, which is sort of strange, if you think about it.
I think that might explain some of the discrepancies, in Christianity there aren't a lot of real "deal-breakers" when it comes to belief. You just have to believe in Jesus and nearly everything else is negotiable. At least that was my view when I was Christian.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 14, 2011, 02:06:43 PM
Quote from: Stevil on October 14, 2011, 10:40:56 AM
For those that simply brush me off here and say I am going too far or am a bit crazy, I hope you can consider what I have said and allow yourself to challenge your current ideas of what religion and Christianity is.
Can you challenge yours? Have you read the bible? It's so contradictory that A can believe one thing and B the complete opposite and they can both cite biblical scripture that backs them up. Who's cherry-picking in that case? Whose religion is based on what the bible really says?
I like to challenge my thinking, but it is a difficult thing to truly achieve.
Maybe it is impossible to read the bible and have a precise view, because without interpretation there is contradiction, with itself and with scientific knowledge. Certainly the calls to put people to death for doing certain things would not be socially acceptable and are contradictory to the Thou shalt not kill commandment. It just seems to me that some people's stance is too convenient. Early creationists are at least backing their belief and challenging science rather than the other way around.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 14, 2011, 02:06:43 PM
QuoteIf god were truly real, if god truly was to punish people for all eternity for not following his/her moral guide then people would be driven to know god and obey rather than simply make stuff up.
You seem to be suggesting a form of Pascal's Wager for Xtians, which is odd to me because I've never known an atheist who treats his wager for us with anything but contempt and eyerolling.
Not really Pascal's wager, I am trying to imagine a case were god were truly real and the threat of hell were real, believers already believe this right?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on October 14, 2011, 04:27:28 PM
In both churches the emphasis was on belief - all you really had to do was believe that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for our sins. That was it!
I think that might explain some of the discrepancies, in Christianity there aren't a lot of real "deal-breakers" when it comes to belief. You just have to believe in Jesus and nearly everything else is negotiable. At least that was my view when I was Christian.
But there have been different Christian views even on such a basic premise as that! There were once Christians who believed that Jesus wasn't the son of Yahweh, but of a totally different god altogether, and there were Christians who believed that Jesus wasn't Yahweh's actual son, but that the Jewish god just adopted by him for being so supergood and righteous. There have been Christians who believed that Jesus didn't ever die (because he wasn't remotely human to begin with) and Christians who believed that Jesus' death had nothing to do with our 'sins'. I'm really not sure what we can say for sure that all Christians have agreed on, I'm hoping maybe a few of the Christians on this forum can put forward a few suggestions.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 03:34:24 PM
QuoteDoes Christianity promote a stance where by there are a few absolutes (e.g. Jesus, god, Mary, Moses etc. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, we are all sinners, god is perfect and all powerful, Good people go to heaven, Bad people go to hell, Through Jesus is the path to heaven) but then with regards to everything else Christians are free to interpret however they see fit? ...I don't understand how a person can truly believe in something and yet still feel at liberty to just make up the details. They are obviously not worried about getting it wrong and ending up in hell.
Reading Stevil's postings are a breath of fresh air, so structured and well-conceived!
There is a possibility that you're not considering: that there are Absolutes that Christians agree to be orthodoxy, truths imbued with the power of redemption (if believed upon and lived out). Certainly there are other truths upon which the weight of redemption doesn't rest. Can a son "know" a father's core nature (e.g., he is generous, forgiving, slow to anger, terrifying when he is angry, etc.) and still have misconceptions about the details (e.g., what he considers a clean sock drawer)?
Thanks for participating in this thread, we do need a theist so that we can keep it real.
It would be interesting to know what the orthodoxy is. Is it so small it can fit on one page, one paragraph?
Quote from: Stevil on October 14, 2011, 06:08:54 PM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 03:34:24 PM
QuoteDoes Christianity promote a stance where by there are a few absolutes (e.g. Jesus, god, Mary, Moses etc. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, we are all sinners, god is perfect and all powerful, Good people go to heaven, Bad people go to hell, Through Jesus is the path to heaven) but then with regards to everything else Christians are free to interpret however they see fit? ...I don't understand how a person can truly believe in something and yet still feel at liberty to just make up the details. They are obviously not worried about getting it wrong and ending up in hell.
Reading Stevil's postings are a breath of fresh air, so structured and well-conceived!
There is a possibility that you're not considering: that there are Absolutes that Christians agree to be orthodoxy, truths imbued with the power of redemption (if believed upon and lived out). Certainly there are other truths upon which the weight of redemption doesn't rest. Can a son "know" a father's core nature (e.g., he is generous, forgiving, slow to anger, terrifying when he is angry, etc.) and still have misconceptions about the details (e.g., what he considers a clean sock drawer)?
Thanks for participating in this thread, we do need a theist so that we can keep it real.
It would be interesting to know what the orthodoxy is. Is it so small it can fit on one page, one paragraph?
While I agree with Stevil's sentiments the highlighted bit just blew my irony meter to smithereens :D
Quote from: Stevil on October 14, 2011, 06:08:54 PM
Thanks for participating in this thread, we do need a theist so that we can keep it real.
It would be interesting to know what the orthodoxy is. Is it so small it can fit on one page, one paragraph?
Appreciate the sentiment... this forum really has changed for the better!
Awhile back I wrote a creed that attempts to capture it, of which the below is a part. Get out the steak knives! :)
There is one and only one living and true God. He created all things. He has revealed Himself through His Creation, through history, through the written testimony of a few, and through the incarnation of Himself, Jesus Christ. Man, a free creature made in God's own image, is the pinnacle of His creation. By his free choice Man sinned against God, misaligning his nature from that of God and bringing evil into the world. Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. Those who have done so constitute The Church who will enjoy God forever in Heaven.
OK, what happened to all the poor suckers who were born and died between Adam'n'Eve and the atonement by JC? I ask that because it's a classic area for different groups making stuff up.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 07:26:48 PM
There is one and only one living and true God.
You say that as if it is fact. Please provide evidence to back up that claim. Is the true god allah?
QuoteHe created all things.
Says whom? Did he create himself too?
QuoteHe has revealed Himself through His Creation, through history, through the written testimony of a few, and through the incarnation of Himself, Jesus Christ. Man, a free creature made in God's own image, is the pinnacle of His creation.
This is all a fictional story.
QuoteBy his free choice Man sinned against God, misaligning his nature from that of God and bringing evil into the world. Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. Those who have done so constitute The Church who will enjoy God forever in Heaven.
God must have decided what sin was then created it. Why? To trap man?
Tell you what, I'll give this heaven gig a miss - an eternity worshipping and fawning to the insane god of the bible, sounds like...hell.
Quote from: Stevil on October 14, 2011, 06:08:54 PM
Thanks for participating in this thread, we do need a theist so that we can keep it real.
It would be interesting to know what the orthodoxy is. Is it so small it can fit on one page, one paragraph?
I am but a humble atheist, but to try and keep it as real as I possibly can. I can see two 'Absolutes' that I think we can safely say all Christians have believed in;
a) there is a god, although that god may not necessarily be the god of the Old Testament or have created the universe.
b) Jesus is their saviour, although Christians have differed over whether he was fully human, fully divine, or a mixture of the two. They have also differed over his relationship to their god.
There are probably other things, i just can't think of them right now. Beyond that I think we can find Christians who have believed different things on pretty much everything.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 07:26:48 PM
Awhile back I wrote a creed that attempts to capture it, of which the below is a part. Get out the steak knives! :)
I have out my best silver cutlery, salt and pepper, and teapot too (I am a chimp after all!)
QuoteThere is one and only one living and true God. He created all things. He has revealed Himself through His Creation
have you ever heard of the Gnostics? They were Christians who didn't believe that god had created the universe.
Quotethrough history, through the written testimony of a few, and through the incarnation of Himself, Jesus Christ.
Various early Christian sects, including the Gnostics, didn't believe that Jesus ever took on a fleshy incarnation, others like the Ebionites (called Adoptionists) believed that Jesus was wholly human and not even remotely divine, he was adopted by god as his son. Other Christians such as the Arians have seen Jesus and god as wholly separate entities, and not one and the same.
QuoteMan, a free creature made in God's own image, is the pinnacle of His creation.
Again, the Gnostics didn't believe that god had created man either.
QuoteBy his free choice Man sinned against God, misaligning his nature from that of God and bringing evil into the world.
again the Gnostics didn't believe that man had ever sinned
or that man brought evil into the world.
QuoteAny person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. Those who have done so constitute The Church who will enjoy God forever in Heaven.
Again not all Christians have believed that Jesus died and was resurrected.
Have you ever read any books on early Christianity b4g? It might surprise you how much variety in belief there was back in the second and third centuries. Most of the creed you ascribe to was laid down in the fourth century when Constantine decided to create an orthodox Christianity, and proscribe all the other varieties.
Whoa, gang, we've got people running through the woods with pitchforks every which way. Looking at the last few posts, I see folks with quite different purposes:
- Seeking evidence for various points in the creed
- Seeking to show discontinuity between sects of "Christianity" on the points of orthodoxy I shared
- Seeking to show discontinuity between sects of "Christianity" on topics I didn't share
Let me be clear on what I was trying to do, at Stevil's request: identify what core belief(s) orthodox Christianity has always held to have saving/redemptive qualities and, by omission, bring clarity to what belief(s) do not have those qualities. Restated, the core belief is "Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ."
Any sect that claims to be orthodox Christian and does not hold this core belief does so falsely.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 09:36:07 PM
Whoa, gang, we've got people running through the woods with pitchforks every which way. Looking at the last few posts, I see folks with quite different purposes:
- Seeking evidence for various points in the creed
- Seeking to show discontinuity between sects of "Christianity" on the points of orthodoxy I shared
- Seeking to show discontinuity between sects of "Christianity" on topics I didn't share
Let me be clear on what I was trying to do, at Stevil's request: identify what core belief(s) orthodox Christianity has always held to have saving/redemptive qualities and, by omission, bring clarity to what belief(s) do not have those qualities. Restated, the core belief is "Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ."
Any sect that claims to be orthodox Christian and does not hold this core belief does so falsely.
Hi B4G,
Thanks for that, it works for me (I mean in terms of understanding you, of course ;) ). So all this "family values" business [vomiting noises] is bogus (extraneous) in your view. The devil is in the detail (no pun intended) but how does "repentance of sin" work? Who determines what's a sin and what isn't. Being gay? Having an abortion? Eating pork? Eating prawns? Eating at all?... Who's call is this? Mine? Yours? If you don't think what you've done is a sin, you don't need to repent it, right?
Ciao,
Attila
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 09:36:07 PM
Restated, the core belief is "Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ."
Could Adolf Hitler rejoin alignment with god through repentence. Would he get a ticket through the pearly gates if he just repented?
What would happen to an atheist that rejects the idea of god and jesus, yet lives an honest and fulfilling life helping others and being an all round good guy? Would he go to hell?
Could you answer those two questions to the best of your "knowledge" and then sum up the answers and conclude what sort of being (other than being made up) god is? Thanks.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: Stevil on October 14, 2011, 06:08:54 PM
Thanks for participating in this thread, we do need a theist so that we can keep it real.
It would be interesting to know what the orthodoxy is. Is it so small it can fit on one page, one paragraph?
Appreciate the sentiment... this forum really has changed for the better!
Awhile back I wrote a creed that attempts to capture it, of which the below is a part. Get out the steak knives! :)
The only one that needs use a knife is you.
QuoteThere is one and only one living and true God.
Unsubstantiated assertion.
QuoteHe created all things.
Unsubstantiated assertion.
QuoteHe has revealed Himself through His Creation, through history, through the written testimony of a few, and through the incarnation of Himself, Jesus Christ.
Unsubstantiated assertion.
QuoteMan, a free creature made in God's own image, is the pinnacle of His creation.
'Mam' is not free and the Bible says as much. The rest is Unsubstantiated assertion.
QuoteBy his free choice Man sinned against God, misaligning his nature from that of God and bringing evil into the world.
Unsubstantiated assertions. Also, as the Bible explains, God is the author of sin and the means of having A&E sin. Frankly, God makes the disease and then comes up with the cure.
QuoteAny person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ.
Unsubstantiated assertion.
QuoteThose who have done so constitute The Church who will enjoy God forever in Heaven.
Unsubstantiated assertion.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 15, 2011, 01:30:42 PM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 09:36:07 PM
Restated, the core belief is "Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ."
Could Adolf Hitler rejoin alignment with god through repentence. Would he get a ticket through the pearly gates if he just repented?
What would happen to an atheist that rejects the idea of god and jesus, yet lives an honest and fulfilling life helping others and being an all round good guy? Would he go to hell?
Could you answer those two questions to the best of your "knowledge" and then sum up the answers and conclude what sort of being (other than being made up) god is? Thanks.
Actually he probably could have without even repenting. Consider the cases of Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet. Do you seriously think the church considered they had anything to confess? Tony Blair is a more recent example welcomed into the church with open arms. I doubt that he repented anything relating to Iraq. None of the above measured up to Hitler in numbers but their "achievements" were certainly non-trivial. The main difference between the big H and these monsters is that Hitler lost.
Is this an example of Godwin's law?
Ciao,
Attila
Quote from: Stevil on October 13, 2011, 07:25:34 AM
Is Christianity seen by its followers as a license to make stuff up?
It's not seen by Christians as such a license, but that could be the result. Especially with the Reformation's concept of the "priesthood of the believer," each person ultimately makes up their own mind about how to understand God. We are each our own little universe, so we all see things from a different perspective. That's reflected in our choice of clothes, food and religious doctrines. The only way to avoid it is with a large, powerful organization like the Roman Catholic Church that enforces "the party line," but as we have seen, even that can't last forever. Eventually, every star starts spinning off planets and you end up with each person doing what is right in his/her own eyes. Democracy and individual freedoms and free market economies enforce this trend, so pretty soon you have a multiplicity of groups. It's a mirror of society.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 09:36:07 PM
Let me be clear on what I was trying to do, at Stevil's request: identify what core belief(s) orthodox Christianity has always held to have saving/redemptive qualities and, by omission, bring clarity to what belief(s) do not have those qualities. Restated, the core belief is "Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ."
Any sect that claims to be orthodox Christian and does not hold this core belief does so falsely.
The trouble and blatant innacuracy with that statement is that 'orthodoxy' in Christianity only dates to the fourth century, before that there was no set orthodoxy, creed or even New Testament (first edition 393 CE). The creed you aspire to is based on that first formulated in the fouth century, almost 300 years after the first Christians, and may be very different to what they originally believed. The reason you believe what you believe is that the orthodoxy created by Constantine and the emperors that followed him in the fourth and fifth centuries ruthlessly persecuted anyone with an alternate view of Christianity and did their best to destroy alternative scriptures and alternative Christianities. All those other forms of Christianities believed they represented the true orthodoxy and true teachings of Jesus, every bit as much as you believe that you represent the 'true' orthodoxy.
From your statements on creed and orthodoxy, you may as well call yourself a Constantinian or a Theodosian rather than a Christian, because the creed, holy book, and orthodoxy you believe in were created by the Imperial Church in the fourth century. If Constantine had backed one of the other forms of Christianity, what you would now believe and hold as a creed and believe to be 'orthodox' would have been very different indeed. Of course if Constantine had picked a different religion other than Christianity, you wouldn't even be Christian, and you'd believe in a totally different god and saviour than you do!
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 15, 2011, 01:30:42 PM
Could Adolf Hitler rejoin alignment with god through repentence. Would he get a ticket through the pearly gates if he just repented?
Repentance means changing one's life direction/orientation as a result of contrition for his/her sins. Orthodox Christianity applies this to all humans.
Quote from: Norfolk And Chance on October 15, 2011, 01:30:42 PMWhat would happen to an atheist that rejects the idea of god and jesus, yet lives an honest and fulfilling life helping others and being an all round good guy? Would he go to hell?
Only one person who ever lived was in full alignment with God, and he isn't the fine chap you describe above. My belief (not orthodoxy) is that I should not judge others, but rather to let you all know that I love you, so I'll abstain from speculating on whether he would go to hell.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 15, 2011, 05:55:04 PM
The trouble and blatant innacuracy with that statement is that 'orthodoxy' in Christianity only dates to the fourth century, before that there was no set orthodoxy, creed or even New Testament (first edition 393 CE). The creed you aspire to is based on that first formulated in the fouth century, almost 300 years after the first Christians, and may be very different to what they originally believed. The reason you believe what you believe is that the orthodoxy created by Constantine and the emperors that followed him in the fourth and fifth centuries ruthlessly persecuted anyone with an alternate view of Christianity and did their best to destroy alternative scriptures and alternative Christianities. All those other forms of Christianities believed they represented the true orthodoxy and true teachings of Jesus, every bit as much as you believe that you represent the 'true' orthodoxy.
From your statements on creed and orthodoxy, you may as well call yourself a Constantinian or a Theodosian rather than a Christian, because the creed, holy book, and orthodoxy you believe in were created by the Imperial Church in the fourth century. If Constantine had backed one of the other forms of Christianity, what you would now believe and hold as a creed and believe to be 'orthodox' would have been very different indeed. Of course if Constantine had picked a different religion other than Christianity, you wouldn't even be Christian, and you'd believe in a totally different god and saviour than you do!
However, most New Testament scholars believe that Paul's epistles are the earliest Christian writings that we have, that the authentic ones were written in the 50's, and that the manuscripts we have now give us a pretty accurate account of what he wrote, whether the scholar believes it or not. And it is pretty clear that Paul considered the core of the Gospel to be the death and resurrection of Jesus, especially when passages like I Corinthians 15:1-12 and Romans 10:9-10 are considered.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 06:32:55 PM
However, most New Testament scholars believe that Paul's epistles are the earliest Christian writings that we have, that the authentic ones were written in the 50's, and that the manuscripts we have now give us a pretty accurate account of what he wrote, whether the scholar believes it or not. And it is pretty clear that Paul considered the core of the Gospel to be the death and resurrection of Jesus, especially when passages like I Corinthians 15:1-12 and Romans 10:9-10 are considered.
But lots of Christians who believed very different things to what b4g's creed states also held Paul in high regard and considered themselves to be following his teachings (eg Marcion). My point was that 'orthodoxy' only existed in Christianity from the fourth century, and one can't talk about 'orthodox' Christianity before that date. Plus I find it a little arrogant for an English speaking Christian in the 21st century such as b4g to be deeming which Christian beliefs are correct and which false, and claiming Christians who lived within a century or two of the creation of Christianity and spoke the same language as Paul and the earliest Christians held false views.
Personally I would question that dating of Paul's epistles, but that's just my opinion. What evidence could you provide to me to prove that date of authorship? The earliest known copies date from 175-225 CE. While I'm sure they existed before that date, I'm not convinced about 50 CE. I would question the dating of all the books of the NT given the large discrepencies between when the books were supposedly written and the oldest copies we know about (generally 2nd-3rd century).
I'm open minded on the subject though, could you provide me with the evidence as to why I should believe the epistles of Paul or the gospels were written in the first century, it's something I've wanted to find out for some time. I've struggled to find any good information on the subject on the internet.
Plus if you're taking Paul as your ultimate source of scripture, do you believe in Adam and Eve like Paul did? (eg 1 Cor 15.21-23) or in seven heavenly globes that surround an Earth at the centre of the universe? (2 Cor 12.2-4)
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 15, 2011, 09:04:33 PM
Personally I would question that dating of Paul's epistles, but that's just my opinion. What evidence could you provide to me to prove that date of authorship? The earliest known copies date from 175-225 CE. While I'm sure they existed before that date, I'm not convinced about 50 CE. I would question the dating of all the books of the NT given the large discrepencies between when the books were supposedly written and the oldest copies we know about (generally 2nd-3rd century).
I'm open minded on the subject though, could you provide me with the evidence as to why I should believe the epistles of Paul or the gospels were written in the first century, it's something I've wanted to find out for some time. I've struggled to find any good information on the subject on the internet.
Plus if you're taking Paul as your ultimate source of scripture, do you believe in Adam and Eve like Paul did? (eg 1 Cor 15.21-23) or in seven heavenly globes that surround an Earth at the centre of the universe? (2 Cor 12.2-4)
The most convincing evidence for me is the occasional, circumstantial nature of Paul's epistles. He's not writing a "once upon a time" type story, but is dealing with situations that arose in the congregations he either founded or ministered to. It's pretty clear from the things he mentions that he is talking about a time around the 50's. This is not the type of writing that people generally engage in when they are making things up, so the idea of a forgery or substantially edited works just doesn't fit. The fact that the manuscripts containing his writings were found all over the Mediterranean world is another factor - they substantially agree, which gives us a higher comfort level that we know the content of the originals.
Paul's mention of the Nabataean king Aretas (9BC to 40AD) as being the one in power when Paul escaped Damascus is helpful in dating. Then his chronology in Galatians takes us another 14-17 years down the road before he writes that book. So a date in the 50's is quite plausible. His mention of Erastus as an official of Corinth, which has been confirmed by an inscription found there, is also helpful. These are not the types of details that someone forging a document in those days would include, generally. Generally, you are left with the choice of either someone forging something in the name of Paul who did research to find out names and events of that time, or Paul just writing it himself. The simplest explanation is that it was Paul.
I suggest that you go back, read the 7 authentic epistles carefully, and take notes of mentions of events, places, people that help date the books. Then let me know the results of your research. The internal evidence of the books is the best source.
In addition, you might look for quotations of Paul in some of the early church fathers. Or read a good agnostic NT scholar such as Bart Ehrman and see what his conclusions are.
As far as Paul's beliefs about the OT, that was the only information he had about the world. That does not detract from his accounts of the history that was going on around him as he wrote. His "seventh heaven" passage was a description about a spiritual experience we have - he used common language. We still use "seventh heaven" today when describing an ecstatic experience. Besides, his cosmology doesn't detract from the fact that he experienced this transporting event.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 02:57:51 PM
Quote from: Stevil on October 13, 2011, 07:25:34 AM
Is Christianity seen by its followers as a license to make stuff up?
It's not seen by Christians as such a license, but that could be the result. Especially with the Reformation's concept of the "priesthood of the believer," each person ultimately makes up their own mind about how to understand God. We are each our own little universe, so we all see things from a different perspective. That's reflected in our choice of clothes, food and religious doctrines. The only way to avoid it is with a large, powerful organization like the Roman Catholic Church that enforces "the party line," but as we have seen, even that can't last forever. Eventually, every star starts spinning off planets and you end up with each person doing what is right in his/her own eyes. Democracy and individual freedoms and free market economies enforce this trend, so pretty soon you have a multiplicity of groups. It's a mirror of society.
I think this states the situation very well. There is so much variation in the bible, its achademic interpretations and personal interpretations that there is an astronomical number of individual views one could take, and this could appear that people are just making things up. Particularly when some equally valid views appear to be diametrically opposed.
Nice job, Ecurb, I learned some things myself!
Stevil asked for my articulation of core doctrinal beliefs and never commented--assume he probably got busy with the stuff of life, but welcome him to comment on whether this addresses the purpose of the thread by helping ascertain why so much variability in the details of Christian denominations.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 15, 2011, 11:07:30 PM
The most convincing evidence for me is the occasional, circumstantial nature of Paul's epistles. He's not writing a "once upon a time" type story, but is dealing with situations that arose in the congregations he either founded or ministered to. It's pretty clear from the things he mentions that he is talking about a time around the 50's.
Like I said, I'm open minded as to when the epistles of Paul, and the gospels, were written. But I don't feel you've actually provided me with any evidence.
QuoteThis is not the type of writing that people generally engage in when they are making things up, so the idea of a forgery or substantially edited works just doesn't fit.
Clearly that's not the case, as you yourself believe that 50% of the epistles in the NT are forgeries!
On top of that there are other faked letters of Paul that didn't make it into the NT.
QuoteThe fact that the manuscripts containing his writings were found all over the Mediterranean world is another factor - they substantially agree, which gives us a higher comfort level that we know the content of the originals.
But the earliest of those dates to 175CE, 125 years after you think they were written.
QuotePaul's mention of the Nabataean king Aretas (9BC to 40AD) as being the one in power when Paul escaped Damascus is helpful in dating. Then his chronology in Galatians takes us another 14-17 years down the road before he writes that book. So a date in the 50's is quite plausible. His mention of Erastus as an official of Corinth, which has been confirmed by an inscription found there, is also helpful. These are not the types of details that someone forging a document in those days would include, generally. Generally, you are left with the choice of either someone forging something in the name of Paul who did research to find out names and events of that time, or Paul just writing it himself. The simplest explanation is that it was Paul.
But you'd also have to admit that it wouldn't have been hard for someone living in a large city with a big library to have found out such basic facts and then inserted them into a story to try and make a writing look older and therefore appear to have more authority due to it claiming to date from a time nearer to Jesus' supposed lifetime. This was pretty standard practice with early Christian writings.
QuoteI suggest that you go back, read the 7 authentic epistles carefully, and take notes of mentions of events, places, people that help date the books. Then let me know the results of your research. The internal evidence of the books is the best source.
Good idea, I'll do just that sometime in the next few weeks
QuoteIn addition, you might look for quotations of Paul in some of the early church fathers.
Could you give me some examples to chase up?
QuoteOr read a good agnostic NT scholar such as Bart Ehrman and see what his conclusions are.
I've read several of his books and I found them neither very objective nor very critical. He may as well be a Christian towing the party line for all the assumptions he makes about Jesus and early Christianity, which he never bothers to back up with any evidence.
QuoteAs far as Paul's beliefs about the OT, that was the only information he had about the world. That does not detract from his accounts of the history that was going on around him as he wrote. His "seventh heaven" passage was a description about a spiritual experience we have - he used common language. We still use "seventh heaven" today when describing an ecstatic experience. Besides, his cosmology doesn't detract from the fact that he experienced this transporting event.
Obviously I would question how much historical fact there is in Paul's letters, particularly regarding his claims of supposed past interaction with the apostles / Jerusalem Church. My point was that clearly Paul believed in some things that you don't (Adam and Eve, seven heavenly spheres surrounding the Earth), so aren't you just cherry picking again? For Paul these were just as real as Jesus. Indeed without Adam, Paul's theology seems to fall apart a bit, as he believed that Jesus' suffering redeemed Adam's sin, and specifically links the two figures numerous times (eg 1 Cor 15.21-2, 1 Cor 15.44-9, Romans 5.18-19).
And Paul's 'third heaven' comment clearly relates to a mystical ascent through the heavens to meet Jesus or god. There are several such ascents in surviving ancient scripture from Christian, Jewish and pagan sources (eg The Apocalypse of Paul, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Mithras Liturgy). Celsus noted that Christians believed in an ascent through these spheres,
'Now the Christians pray that after their toil and strife here below they shall enter the kingdom of heaven, and they agree with the ancient systems that there are seven heavens and that the way of the soul is through the planets.'
oh, and btw what do you think of the gospels? I'm assuming as you base your own beliefs mainly on the writings of Paul and your own personal religious experiences, you're less sure about them.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on October 16, 2011, 06:55:13 PM
And Paul's 'third heaven' comment clearly relates to a mystical ascent through the heavens to meet Jesus or god. There are several such ascents in surviving ancient scripture from Christian, Jewish and pagan sources (eg The Apocalypse of Paul, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Mithras Liturgy). Celsus noted that Christians believed in an ascent through these spheres,
'Now the Christians pray that after their toil and strife here below they shall enter the kingdom of heaven, and they agree with the ancient systems that there are seven heavens and that the way of the soul is through the planets.'
oh, and btw what do you think of the gospels? I'm assuming as you base your own beliefs mainly on the writings of Paul and your own personal religious experiences, you're less sure about them.
I meant "third heaven" (you are right, that's what he said), but what I said still applies. Again, what the early Christians believed about the cosmos is of little concern to me. The main issue is the existence of Jesus and his death, burial and resurrection. For me, the preponderance of the available evidence is in favor of this.
The gospels have less historical value than the authentic letters of Paul. Of them, Mark has the most value, being the first and being written, probably, before 70. The Q passages in Luke and Matthew are likely very ancient, as well, and are probably authentic statements of Jesus, for the most part. Matthew's historical recitations can be suspect in many areas. The birth stories of Matthew and Luke are problematic, as are the genealogies. The resurrection accounts differ in the gospels, and are very difficult to reconcile. I think Paul's account in I Cor. 15 is the best source and most historically reliable.
Quote from: Tank on October 14, 2011, 06:56:54 PM
While I agree with Stevil's sentiments the highlighted bit just blew my irony meter to smithereens :D
I meant keeping it real with regards to trying to understand if Christianity is a license to make stuff up. It is not a well balanced discussion if all participants are Atheists.
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 07:26:48 PM
Appreciate the sentiment... this forum really has changed for the better!
Awhile back I wrote a creed that attempts to capture it, of which the below is a part. Get out the steak knives! :)
There is one and only one living and true God. He created all things. He has revealed Himself through His Creation, through history, through the written testimony of a few, and through the incarnation of Himself, Jesus Christ. Man, a free creature made in God's own image, is the pinnacle of His creation. By his free choice Man sinned against God, misaligning his nature from that of God and bringing evil into the world. Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. Those who have done so constitute The Church who will enjoy God forever in Heaven.
The intent of this thread is to try and understand what Christianity is with regards to the difference between real and make believe and the conviction of theists with regards to what it is that they maintain is real when push comes to shove.
So with this regards I am not going to attempt to discredit any of what you have stated as the core must believes of Christianity.
I am interested in seeing what these are though, so that I can see for myself which bits Christians are overindulging in, and so that I can better understand why they feel that they can overindulge by making stuff up.
The difficulty with what you have stated as the must believes is "He has revealed Himself through ... the written testimony of a few". This difficulty with this is that if you believe this to be true then you would also deem the written testimonies of those few to be true. So which few is that? Is this all books that made it into the Bible? And none of the books that didn't?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2011, 08:40:06 PM
I meant "third heaven" (you are right, that's what he said), but what I said still applies. Again, what the early Christians believed about the cosmos is of little concern to me. The main issue is the existence of Jesus and his death, burial and resurrection. For me, the preponderance of the available evidence is in favor of this.
personally, I think ancient Christian cosmology is immensely important. It was a central part of the religion 1900 years ago, and personally I think it's at the heart of Christian theology. As for the 'preponderance of evidence' for Jesus' death and resurrection, there is none whatsoever! All we have is Christian writings, the earliest extant copies of which date to the second century.There's no evidence of Jesus ever having lived outside of these Christian writings, that aren't eyewitness accounts and certainly aren't objective historical texts.
QuoteThe gospels have less historical value than the authentic letters of Paul. Of them, Mark has the most value, being the first and being written, probably, before 70. The Q passages in Luke and Matthew are likely very ancient, as well, and are probably authentic statements of Jesus, for the most part. Matthew's historical recitations can be suspect in many areas. The birth stories of Matthew and Luke are problematic, as are the genealogies. The resurrection accounts differ in the gospels, and are very difficult to reconcile. I think Paul's account in I Cor. 15 is the best source and most historically reliable.
Again, we'll just have to differ on the dating of these books. Until someone finds a gospel or the mention of a gospel dating to the first century, I'll remain skeptical as to when they were written. And until someone finds a first century Christian writing in Aramaic and not Greek (as they all are) I'll remain highly skeptical over the historical reality of Jesus and the twelve apostles, unless you'll accept that Jesus spoke Greek and not Aramaic!
Quote from: Ecurb NoselrubFor me, the preponderance of the available evidence is in favor of this.
QuoteThe Q passages in Luke and Matthew are likely very ancient, as well, and are probably authentic statements of Jesus, for the most part.
QuoteI think Paul's account in I Cor. 15 is the best source and most historically reliable.
This is a preponderance of available evidence??? And Paul, who never saw Jesus before he allegedly died is evidence at all?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 07:26:48 PMThere is one and only one living and true God. He created all things. He has revealed Himself through His Creation, through history, through the written testimony of a few, and through the incarnation of Himself, Jesus Christ. Man, a free creature made in God's own image, is the pinnacle of His creation. By his free choice Man sinned against God, misaligning his nature from that of God and bringing evil into the world. Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. Those who have done so constitute The Church who will enjoy God forever in Heaven.
Ok, it took me some time to read through this topic, and I think there's some good things going on here. Thank you, bandit4god, for providing us with a text to reference. I'm familiar with this line up of core beliefs, my own personal experience indicates that this set is fairly ubiquitous.
Just a clarifying point for Stevil and b4g, are we examining Christianity as a general thing, or are we using
orthodox Christianity as a starting point from which to branch out and explore the whole "Christianity as a license to make up stuff" thing? This probably seems like an obvious question, but maybe it will be productive to pin it down? I get the impression that Stevil is referring to Christianity as a general thing, and so we need to clarify Christianity's common belief's from a general standpoint, i.e. what is common core beliefs held by orthodox Christians and the generalized Christianity that includes all Christians.
If Stevil is gravitating toward general Christianity, then perhaps b4g can give a new sampling of what he feels is a set of common beliefs for all branches of Christianity? In the spirit of having a Theist as part of this questioning process, taking the "orthodox" adjective out of the equation.
From a personal point of view, though, it does seem to me that all the different branchings do indicate that human minds, applied to something open to interpretation, will come to different conclusions. Those different conclusions are coming from a human mind, yet it seems to me like it would be an easy temptation to legitimizing it by rationalizing that "Oh, that must have been God guiding me to the inspired truth" for the sake of themselves and the people who they present their idea to. Furthermore, when I was trying to hash out the inconsistencies with a Christian friend, on the premise that God is capable of everything, then logically some very important points should be clear. He speculated that different types of humans need the different flavors of Christianity, so God is providing for different needs, for the varieties of human perspective. A bit disappointing, I felt. :(
Quote from: Gawen on October 17, 2011, 12:41:04 PM
QuoteI think Paul's account in I Cor. 15 is the best source and most historically reliable.
This is a preponderance of available evidence??? And Paul, who never saw Jesus before he allegedly died is evidence at all?
Spot on Gawen. Bruce, talking of interpreting the Bible literally or allegorically, I interpret the death and resurrection of Jesus allegorically. Early Christianity was very similar to other mystery religions from the Graeco-Roman world. Initiates underwent a symbolic death and resurrection / rebirth into their new religion, which also represented the life after death they all believed they would receive as believers. Could you see how the death and resurrection story of Jesus might be allegorical for this? It seems far more plausible to me than an actual physical resurrection.The letters of Paul suggest he also saw this allegorical dimension to the story (eg Romans 6.3-9, Philippians 3.10-11)
'Do you not know that when we were baptised into union with Christ Jesus we were baptised into his death? By baptism we were buried with him, and lay dead, so that as Christ was raised from the dead in the splendour of the father, so also we may walk on a new path of life. Since we have become united with him in a death like his, we shall also be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with Christ, for the destruction of the sinful self, so that we may no longer be enslaved to sin. For when we die, we are set free of sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also come to life with him.'
Quote from: Stevil on October 17, 2011, 04:42:57 AM
The difficulty with what you have stated as the must believes is "He has revealed Himself through ... the written testimony of a few". This difficulty with this is that if you believe this to be true then you would also deem the written testimonies of those few to be true. So which few is that? Is this all books that made it into the Bible? And none of the books that didn't?
At one point you shared your perplexity around dissonance in Christendom about topics that, if wrongly believed, would consign the mistaken believer to hell. I chose my words "...the written testimony of a few..." carefully because writing something more specific (e.g., "...the written testimony of the 40 authors of the protestant Bible...") would be errantly ascribing saving/redemptive attributes to this belief.
The Catholic bible and Protestant bible differ in that the former includes additional books (the Apocrypha). Reading and believing what is in these additional books (or not doing so) do not constitute "deal breakers" because they don't contravert core beliefs.
You'd be justified in pressing me by asking, "Fine... the testimony of which minimum few?", and here I would have to say the gospel writers (e.g., Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and even others not included in the canon whose account does not contravert core beliefs).
Edited to add: It's worth noting that divergent views that, frankly, do border on orthodoxy goes to the heart of your question about the books being "true". My belief (again, not orthodoxy), is that the books are completely true on the points that relate to the core beliefs with saving/redemptive quality. On topics of historicity (e.g., those crucified to the left and right of Jesus reported in one book as hurling insults at Jesus, and in another as a split between one insulting him, one defending him), there are inconsistencies that must be acknolwedged.
Quote from: Tristan Jay on October 17, 2011, 01:17:37 PM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 14, 2011, 07:26:48 PMThere is one and only one living and true God. He created all things. He has revealed Himself through His Creation, through history, through the written testimony of a few, and through the incarnation of Himself, Jesus Christ. Man, a free creature made in God's own image, is the pinnacle of His creation. By his free choice Man sinned against God, misaligning his nature from that of God and bringing evil into the world. Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. Those who have done so constitute The Church who will enjoy God forever in Heaven.
Ok, it took me some time to read through this topic, and I think there's some good things going on here. Thank you, bandit4god, for providing us with a text to reference. I'm familiar with this line up of core beliefs, my own personal experience indicates that this set is fairly ubiquitous.
Just a clarifying point for Stevil and b4g, are we examining Christianity as a general thing, or are we using orthodox Christianity as a starting point from which to branch out and explore the whole "Christianity as a license to make up stuff" thing? This probably seems like an obvious question, but maybe it will be productive to pin it down? I get the impression that Stevil is referring to Christianity as a general thing, and so we need to clarify Christianity's common belief's from a general standpoint, i.e. what is common core beliefs held by orthodox Christians and the generalized Christianity that includes all Christians.
If Stevil is gravitating toward general Christianity, then perhaps b4g can give a new sampling of what he feels is a set of common beliefs for all branches of Christianity? In the spirit of having a Theist as part of this questioning process, taking the "orthodox" adjective out of the equation.
From a personal point of view, though, it does seem to me that all the different branchings do indicate that human minds, applied to something open to interpretation, will come to different conclusions. Those different conclusions are coming from a human mind, yet it seems to me like it would be an easy temptation to legitimizing it by rationalizing that "Oh, that must have been God guiding me to the inspired truth" for the sake of themselves and the people who they present their idea to. Furthermore, when I was trying to hash out the inconsistencies with a Christian friend, on the premise that God is capable of everything, then logically some very important points should be clear. He speculated that different types of humans need the different flavors of Christianity, so God is providing for different needs, for the varieties of human perspective. A bit disappointing, I felt. :(
Thanks for this, Tristan--your even-handed, articulate post is yet more reassurance that this forum has improved dramatically!
To your first point, I'm not exactly sure how to provide what you're describing. Stevil was justifiably asking why there was so much dissonance between believers, and lethargy about getting unified, on topics surrounding Christian doctrine. My answer was that Christians are "tethered" in a sense to a set of core, anchor beliefs that have saving/redemptive power. While tethered, their beliefs concerning non-core topics drift across any number of spectra.
To your last paragraph, this is essentially the Problem of Hiddenness. If God exists, why would He allow an epistemic grayscale that leaves some correct in their beliefs, some partially correct, and some wholly incorrect? Is this your question?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 17, 2011, 11:10:03 PM
Stevil was justifiably asking why there was so much dissonance between believers, and lethargy about getting unified, on topics surrounding Christian doctrine. My answer was that Christians are "tethered" in a sense to a set of core, anchor beliefs that have saving/redemptive power. While tethered, their beliefs concerning non-core topics drift across any number of spectra.
Yes, but one of my biggest points is with regards to why do they feel that they can make stuff up?
This lies within the non core topic domain. For that stuff, the followers seem to be able to just make stuff up based on something (what makes them feel good?)
If they are really describing something that exists, then they wouldn't have the luxury to make stuff up.
There are a lot of Christians whom don't refer to scripture or church teachings on some aspects. They simply look inside themselves, and they state their own desires as descriptions of their god.
What makes them feel that they can make stuff up?
Quote from: Stevil on October 18, 2011, 01:39:42 AM
Quote from: bandit4god on October 17, 2011, 11:10:03 PM
Stevil was justifiably asking why there was so much dissonance between believers, and lethargy about getting unified, on topics surrounding Christian doctrine. My answer was that Christians are "tethered" in a sense to a set of core, anchor beliefs that have saving/redemptive power. While tethered, their beliefs concerning non-core topics drift across any number of spectra.
Yes, but one of my biggest points is with regards to why do they feel that they can make stuff up?
This lies within the non core topic domain. For that stuff, the followers seem to be able to just make stuff up based on something (what makes them feel good?)
If they are really describing something that exists, then they wouldn't have the luxury to make stuff up.
There are a lot of Christians whom don't refer to scripture or church teachings on some aspects. They simply look inside themselves, and they state their own desires as descriptions of their god.
What makes them feel that they can make stuff up?
Earlier in this thread, you were asking because you were mystified that they were making stuff up when their eternal soul was on the line. In the above post, despite acknowledging the matters in question are non-core, you're still mystified. Doesn't it stand to reason that if the reprecussions of error are nil, non-core matters of doctrine will be all over the map?
Quote from: bandit4god on October 20, 2011, 10:27:44 PM
Earlier in this thread, you were asking because you were mystified that they were making stuff up when their eternal soul was on the line. In the above post, despite acknowledging the matters in question are non-core, you're still mystified. Doesn't it stand to reason that if the reprecussions of error are nil, non-core matters of doctrine will be all over the map?
We have a saying in NZ "Yeah, nah, yeah"
Don't ask me what it means, but it seems appropriate here.
Yes, it must be scary to make stuff up when eternity is on the line.
But I also don't understand how someone can just make up stuff about something they consider to be real.
If it is real, then describe it, with regards to what you know about it, if there are unknowns then admit you don't know, don't just make stuff up.