Why don't christians know more?

[elliotfc]

I am a little surprised that Christians don't find the idea that there was an early Jewish Christian Church that was theologically different from the later Paul derived church. troubling. Of course, I don't think most Christians are aware of this possibility or the idea that their relgion was something that was created not by Jesus but by the people, mostly gentile, that came after him. Still, some Christians must be and of those that are what do they think about this?

Speaking as a Catholic, we believe in a sort of directed theological evolution so this isn't problematic. Jesus didn't write the New Testament, he didn't codify the Church, he left that up to us.

Certainly the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians approached...I guess you could say...the same stuff from different perspectives. It's sensible to appreciate that, and, it is vitally important to understand that Christ would be proclaimed as a universal savior, and not just a Jewish Messiah, a better selling point if you're to take seriously Christ's commission to spread the good news throughout the world.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The simplest thing likely is also the most powerful (omnipotent) and all-knowing (omniscient)? The notion is inherently impossible.

Simplest from particular perspectives.

If all-knowing is the starting point, and the innovation is *not* all-knowing (imperfect knowledge of the created), perhaps from God's perspective that is a created complication. Or, if God cannot do evil, but his created can, that too can be seen as a created complication.

I'm not championing the notion. I just don't think it's inherently deserving of complete dismissal.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

As there is nothing independent of that chain, however, your hypothesizing is mere pie in the sky.

As you are in no position to be certain of your dogmatic assertion, your bluster is taken as ubermenschian desperation.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

There is no watchmaker god; evolution happened without any divine intervention. Therefore your entire thought experiment falls at step 1.

Why stop there? Why don't you just say "God doesn't exist" and put all theists on your ignore list?

If you haven't noticed, some atheists/agnostics are interested in engaging theistic views. This isn't helpful, do you have to publicly scratch your compulsion?

You're in atheist. OK. I get it. You've got it all figured out. Point taken.

-Elliot

 

[Kimpatsu]

Speaking as a Catholic, we believe in a sort of directed theological evolution so this isn't problematic.

But evolution wasn't directed; the watchmaker is blind. So that argument goes out ofthe window.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Simplest from particular perspectives.

If all-knowing is the starting point, and the innovation is *not* all-knowing (imperfect knowledge of the created), perhaps from God's perspective that is a created complication. Or, if God cannot do evil, but his created can, that too can be seen as a created complication.

I'm not championing the notion. I just don't think it's inherently deserving of complete dismissal.

Why would a perfect god create imperfect beings? That's very sloppy work. If he worked for me, I'd fire his ass. Or does he not appreciate the competition?
Anyway, the problem immediately regresses to, who created god? Was that creature more or less complex than god?

 

[Kimpatsu]

As you are in no position to be certain of your dogmatic assertion, your bluster is taken as ubermenschian desperation.

-Elliot

If you can show me evidence that your original assertion was correct, please do so.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Why stop there? Why don't you just say "God doesn't exist" and put all theists on your ignore list?

If you haven't noticed, some atheists/agnostics are interested in engaging theistic views. This isn't helpful, do you have to publicly scratch your compulsion?

You're in atheist. OK. I get it. You've got it all figured out. Point taken.

-Elliot

I'm an atheist because it's the rational viewpoint to take. Why do you believe in something that doesn't exist? Any assertion without evidence is pie in the sky. To be consistent, you must also believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny. If not, why the double standard?

 

[elliotfc]

I think what you really mean to say is that "if your argument in any way suggests that the god I envision in my head does not exist--it's irrelevant."

I'm sorry you think that, I meant what I said.

Could there ever be any possible evidence that would force you to conclude that god only exists in the imaginations of humans?

Funny way to phrase it. I don't believe that there is such a thing as "evidence" that exists independent of humans. If humans did not exist, there would be no such thing as evidence. Things would be things. A constructed label...forcing me to make a conclusion? It's a fundamentally odd notion to me.

I think there could be realities that would make my threaten not only my theology, but theology in general. If abiogenesis was as accepted and appreciated as mitosis and meiosis, I think it quite likely that I would be an agnostic if not an atheist. If I wasn't a Christian, I'd probably believe in a completely amoral and apersonal god that was more like a vague force than a being.

And if you could know with absolute certainty whether god existed or not--would you want to know or prefer to believe that he (however you define him) exists?

Are you saying would I rather have a)*certain belief in God* or b)*certain factual knowlege that God exists*?

If that's what you're asking, I'd like to prefer b), yet as a Christian I'm aware that Christ tells me that I should prefer a). Meaning, I prefer a) in spite of myself.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

More than that... the decision to use December 25 has a known history: it's because early Christians were persecuted by the Roman government, and they hid their celebration by holding it during the Roman winter solstice/new year festival that was held in honour of Janus, god of transition, change... doorways... (ergo: "January").

I've heard this before...and I'm not saying you're wrong...but I've never been able to encounter this in explanations which involve specific names/dates/quotations, etc.

A couple links.
http://jesus-talk.foolmoon.com/articles/christmas.htm
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/jesus.asp

And here's something different:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.10docs/16-10pg12.html

-Elliot

 

[Kimpatsu]

Funny way to phrase it. I don't believe that there is such a thing as "evidence" that exists independent of humans. If humans did not exist, there would be no such thing as evidence.

That's not so, Elliot. The evidence for evolution would be there even if there were no humans to interpret that evidence. Evidence is the canon of fact that supports a given hypothesis, turning that hypothesis into a theory, which is in turn the strongest notion in terms of certainty. The certainty of a proposition and the evidence that supports it, however, is independent of whether there are sentient creatures--humans--about to realise the signioficance of the evidence.

 

[elliotfc]

At this point I normally interject with my favourite quote....

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”​

I don't think the person who made the quote appreciates that many theists understand that various competing defintions exist to describe the same thing. The quoter says that we dismiss all the other possible gods. I say we dismiss definitions of the same god. Rejecting the explanations, not God.

Now...perhaps he's/she's talking about rejecting polytheistic gods. That just kind of blows off the whole polytheism/monotheism concept. Or...some monotheists don't actually dismiss the other gods, but chalk them up as angels or demons, some hierarchical level under God, who were also imperfectly designed.

Rejecting something in the particular is fundamentally different from rejecting something in the general.

-Elliot

 

[blutoski]

I've heard this before...and I'm not saying you're wrong...but I've never been able to encounter this in explanations which involve specific names/dates/quotations, etc.

A couple links.
http://jesus-talk.foolmoon.com/articles/christmas.htm
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/jesus.asp

And here's something different:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.10docs/16-10pg12.html

-Elliot

Eh? Do you mean that the early Christians were hiding out? OK: that could be apocryphal. Regardless of the motive, it was synchronized with the winter solstice to coincide with pagan festivals. There's no doubt about that.

 

[elliotfc]

At his word? Which word? The Koran? The Tao ch Chung? There are so many out there.

No need for rhetorical questions? You know where she is coming from.

And besides, all religious books were written by humans trying to understand "God." So how can humans, which are "full of sin" and "not worthy of God," write a book about God without problems?

Clearly there are "problems" with the Bible, even the most hardened fundamentalist engages with those problems and writes books about those problems. It isn't that it is without problems, that's not the claim.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

But evolution wasn't directed; the watchmaker is blind. So that argument goes out ofthe window.

You sound just like a fundamentalist Christian to me.

"But there's no such thing as evolution, that argument goes out the window".

AGAIN. I GET IT. You believe differently from me. You don't have to keep repeating yourself over and over again, unless you can't help yourself.

-Elliot

 

[Kimpatsu]

I don't think the person who made the quote appreciates that many theists understand that various competing defintions exist to describe the same thing. The quoter says that we dismiss all the other possible gods. I say we dismiss definitions of the same god. Rejecting the explanations, not God.

Now...perhaps he's/she's talking about rejecting polytheistic gods. That just kind of blows off the whole polytheism/monotheism concept. Or...some monotheists don't actually dismiss the other gods, but chalk them up as angels or demons, some hierarchical level under God, who were also imperfectly designed.

Rejecting something in the particular is fundamentally different from rejecting something in the general.

-Elliot

This is typical fuzzy thinking that I also encounter from my Roman Catholic aunt; that you're all really worshipping the same god but by different names. This cannot, however, be true. If the Muslims are right, then the Xians are all worshipping the wrong god--Jesus, who was only a prophet, and not god incarnate. Ditto the Jews, etc. And what of the Hindus? Shiva is most certainly not Jesus in disguise. If Xians are right, then Hindus are all wrong, every single one of them. The fact of the matter is, all religions are mutually exclusive. Do you really believe that Ganesha, the elephant god, exists, Elliot? If so, then the Holy Ghost must be a false god, and vice versa. So pick your side, and let the bloodbath commence. But don't for a moment kid yourself that your Trinity is basically the same as the Hindu gods, or as the Islamic Allah. In fact, it's an incredibly arrogant assumption, because what you're actually saying is that Muslims really worship the same god as you, but they're all too stupid to know it. (I presume the reverse you hold not to be true, or you'd convert from RC to Islam.) And then there are the Jews, the Jains, and numberous other sects.
Also, if you're truly contending that all gods worshipped are really different facets of the same god, what is the incarnation of Mars (Roman god of war) doing as part of a supposedly peaceful omnibenevolent Xian deity? Or is god more vengeful than Xians claim? Is saying "god is love" really a PR front, whilst Xians secretly know that god is a bloodthirsty tyrant who approves of throwing disbeleivers to the lions? Which is it? And how do you square that circle?

 

[elliotfc]

Why would a perfect god create imperfect beings?

And in this post you decide to engage, as opposed to dismiss. Shrug.

That which is created is not as perfect as that which created it, that's kind of the line of thinking.

Also, depends how you mean beings. Robot-like beings, or beings with free will? We aren't just imperfect beings, but imperfect creative beings.

I don't know why God would create us, but we believe that he loves us, John 3:16 and all that.

That's very sloppy work. If he worked for me, I'd fire his ass. Or does he not appreciate the competition?

I don't know if he takes it seriously, being impotent bluster and all.

Anyway, the problem immediately regresses to, who created god? Was that creature more or less complex than god?

We say God is uncreated.

-Elliot

 

[Kimpatsu]

You sound just like a fundamentalist Christian to me.

"But there's no such thing as evolution, that argument goes out the window".

AGAIN. I GET IT. You believe differently from me. You don't have to keep repeating yourself over and over again, unless you can't help yourself.

-Elliot

The comparison is bogus, Elliot, because I only believe thinsg in proportion to the evidence. Science shows us how all living things evolved without any divine interference, so the argument of god being involved goes out of the window.
Have you actually read "The Blind Watchmaker"? Dawkins isn't making an argument in that book, he's describing unassailable facts. But then again, I don't knwo if you've even read the book.

 

[elliotfc]

If you can show me evidence that your original assertion was correct, please do so.

I qualify my theological statements, or speculations, and you don't.

-Elliot

 

[Kimpatsu]

And in this post you decide to engage, as opposed to dismiss. Shrug.

That which is created is not as perfect as that which created it, that's kind of the line of thinking.

Also, depends how you mean beings. Robot-like beings, or beings with free will? We aren't just imperfect beings, but imperfect creative beings.

I don't know why God would create us, but we believe that he loves us, John 3:16 and all that.

And what of the following:
--God admits He created evil. Isaiah 45:7 Amos 3:6

--God sends Satan to ruin Job's life. Job 2:1-7.

--God hardens Pharaoh's heart. Ex 9:12,

10:1,20,27, 11:10, 14:8.

--God commands/supports slavery.

Lev 25:44-46, Ex 21:2-8, Eph 6:5, Col 3:22.

--Anti women. 1Cor 14:34, 1Tim 2:9-14, Gen 5:16.

--rape rules: Deut 22:23-29, in city man+woman die;

in country only man dies; if woman not married

then man pays 50 shekels, and they wed.

--Anti Jew. 1Thes 2:14,15, Titus 1:10

--God favors neither good nor evil. Mat 5:45.

--God created some people predestined to go to

hell Rom 8:29-30, Jude 1:4, Mat 7:13-14.

--God admits to deceit. 1Kings 22:23. Is 6:10.

--Jesus admits to deceit (reason for parables).

2Thess 2:11-12, Mark 4:10-12, Mat 13:10-11

--God sends bears to kill children. 2Kings 2:24.

--God commands the killing of babies Num 31:17,

Deut 20:13, Psalm 137:9, Lev 26:29, Num 31:17.

--Jesus threatens to kill children for mother's

crime Rev 2:23

--God/Jesus hate. Rom 9:13, Rev 2:6, Psalm 5:5

--don't associate with people who have different

opinions. 2John 1:10-11. 2Cor 6:14-17

--Incestuous Lot revered. 2Peter 2:7

Not much love there.

I don't know if he takes it seriously, being impotent bluster and all.

Not at all. God's work is sloppy, if you believe he created biodiversity as it is. If you accept evolution, however, then you're accepting the most important point of all about evolution: that it is undirected.

We say God is uncreated.

That is an ad hoc statement. Why is god uncreated, but not the universe? Why add the unnecessary extra tier, which defies Occam's Razor?