Balancing Skepticism and Faith

HansMustermann said:
Err, no, it says that only that many make the polar opposite interpretation.
Click to expand...

No, read the quote again, the whole sentence:

After the onset of epilepsy, 7% of the subjects became skeptics and less religious, while 29% became more religious. Only 2% reported mystic experiences.
Click to expand...

I'm epileptic, diagnosed in my mid 20's, but I'd apparently had it since childhood.

I think some of the discrepancy in reports is the ambiguity in the actual vs documented "onset of epilepsy", probably.

Before I was diagnosed, all complex partial seizures very much did seem like supernatural/mystical/paranormal/religious experiences of some sort. It seemed like the only thing they could be.

After I was diagnosed, letting go of the mystical aspects/interpretation was as psychologically devastating as learning I had a neurological disorder. I very quickly became an atheist after that. My "proof" of the spiritual realm (which included meeting God Almighty Himself!) was gone.

Ever since diagnosis, seizures haven't seemed like anything other than my brain malfunctioning, too. Which is a bummer. LOL
 
llwyd said:
I share Western christian-humanist values. They are actually pretty universal in the modern parts of the world - I would guess that by far the most members here share them too. And they absolutely don't need any imaginary supernatural being to be relevant (actually to my mind being all the more relevant without having any reward for adhering to them). Though some sort of awareness of their historical origins might not go to waste here, but anyway. What at times draws me towards Christianity is its idea of mercy, of quite cheaply gaining all-encompassing forgiveness. For without that aspect, it's actually pretty tough going keeping up with these values, ain't it not? Self-deception, self-indulgence, harshness, selfishness, coldness - all those things actually maybe not so bad without having this particular brand of ethics but not so awfully nice with having them.
Click to expand...

David Mo said:
I don't think forgiveness/mercy is a Christian value. In the gospels, hell is mentioned 72 times, those who do not share the faith in Christ are threatened with it, and it is said that many will be called and few will be chosen. I do not share these values.

On the other hand, forgiveness/mercy seems to me to be a secondary virtue of difficult universal application. I do not believe that a rape victim should be required to forgive her aggressors. It is enough for me not to ask that justice against them be rampant, but fair and measured.

I do not know if our civilisation is Christian. If it is, we should begin to correct these things.

NOTE: "Mercy" is a concept derived from the Lord and servant. I have translated it as forgiveness. It seems to me more modern. Maybe I was wrong and you wanted to say exactly "mercy".
Click to expand...


I'm with David on this one. I don't believe in this "Western christian-humanist values" tosh. I think we have evolved into a reasonably tolerant society in spite of the influence of Christianity.

The notion of forgiveness being given by a third party (God/Jesus) rankles me also. If someone does me wrong it is my right alone to offer forgiveness. I think Christians have been getting off on this one for too long. Someone does a nasty deed then hey presto gets forgiven (for the Catholic after some rosaries and hail Maries), so can go off on another spree.
 
Thor 2 said:
G'day again attempt5001.

I have a question for you that I, and I think many other atheists, struggle with. It is the question of how do theists manage a division between stuff they apply critical thinking too, and and other faith stuff, not subject to critical appraisal.

That they manage this is a given as we know the faithful can function quite well in our complex world.

As a person of faith were/are you aware of making some kind of demarkation, between that which has to withstand critical appraisal and that which does not. Is there a clear line here or are there fuzzy edges you struggle with?
Click to expand...

Hi Again Thor 2. A minute here to try to more directly answer the question you asked. Yes, for me there have always been some elements of faith that are harder to balance with critical thinking. For example, if "God's love" is evident to me because things are well for me, how do I think about God's relationship with people for whom things are not so good? Also, if God created the universe from scratch and controlled all the variables at the beginning, how could he justify condemning anyone for the way things play out? Similarly, God cannot simultaneously be "in control" and "displeased with how events unfold", so something has to give there.

As a believer, I frequently thought about these things and would eventually say "I just don't know/understand." I still think there is value in recognizing that there is plenty I do not (and cannot) understand. The realities of the universe are not subject to my comprehension. However I recognize this mentality can also be used as an excuse to cease critical thinking when it is leading somewhere uncomfortable. Another of the "balance points" I am continuing to adjust/explore. Cheers!
 
Last edited:
attempt5001 said:
Hi Again Thor 2. A minute here to try to more directly answer the question you asked. Yes, for me there have always been some elements of faith that are harder to balance with critical thinking. For example, if "God's love" is evident to me because things are well for me, how do I think about God's relationship with people for whom things are not so good? Also, if God created the universe from scratch and controlled all the variables at the beginning, how could he justify condemning anyone for the way things play out? Similarly, God cannot simultaneously be "in control" and "displeased with how events unfold", so something has to give there.

As a believer, I frequently thought about these things and would eventually say "I just don't know/understand." I still think there is value in recognizing that there is plenty I do not (and cannot) understand. The realities of the universe are not subject to my comprehension. However I recognize this mentality can also be used as an excuse to cease critical thinking when it is leading somewhere uncomfortable. Another of the "balance points" I am continuing to adjust/explore. Cheers!
Click to expand...


Thanks for that attempt5001. I see that your quest has lead you to be more critical of that which other believers just will not let reason examine.* The standard "We can't understand the ways of God" answer did not satisfy you it seems. This may have been your failing as a true believer.:)

There are so so many things that must be filed away in that drawer of things you do not question, if you are to remain strong in your faith, from the existence of diseases trying to kill us, to the immense scale and age of the universe.

The age of the universe is a favourite of mine to question the notion of God creating us as his special thing. When confronted with this I've heard Christians volunteer the idea, (somewhat reluctantly), that God may have created others in other parts of the cosmos, before us. I have responded, (somewhat playfully). if he did it the same way as here. I mean by this:

- First creation that went awry and were punished for it.
- Wiping out all with the flood and start again.
- Selecting one group of folk as special people.
- Scrapping this idea and sending the son down to Earth to sort things out.

I wonder if this is a standard approach used before, or maybe a refinement on what had been done elsewhere.


* Perhaps the other way around?
 
attempt5001 said:
Hi Again Thor 2. A minute here to try to more directly answer the question you asked. Yes, for me there have always been some elements of faith that are harder to balance with critical thinking. For example, if "God's love" is evident to me because things are well for me, how do I think about God's relationship with people for whom things are not so good?
Click to expand...

Well, he still plans to burn most of them for eternity. Plus there's the millions of his OT "chosen people", who are at best in the least worst hell, at least according to at least the Catholics and most evangelicals. Supportable by Paul's letters too, so it's not exactly an ass-pull. 'Cause, you know, nobody can get to heaven without Jesus, and Jesus apparently wasn't ready to go there yet. So God knows he'll fry them, even at the same time he's telling them that they're totally his BFFs.

That's some... tough love.

But if you want love, consider this. Back in ancient times, about a third of children IIRC died before the age of 3. Even in the modern world, 5.4 million children under age five died in 2017. (Source: the WHO. https://www.who.int/gho/child_health/mortality/mortality_under_five_text/en/ ) Which, believe it or not, is a sharp improvement. In 1990 one in 11 children died before reaching the age of 5.

But anyway, even in the modern day, that's about 10 dead children, below the age of 5, every frikken MINUTE. It's one child below 5 dead every 6 seconds or so. By the time you've read this paragraph alone, a couple of children will have died, frightened and in pain.

I'm not exactly sure how God's love works, because in our world, there's really nothing a kid under 5 could do that would warrant a death sentence. Much less what MILLIONS of them could do that would warrant a death sentence. Even less so when you consider that a lot of them will be just babies. And it becomes pretty incomprehensible when you hear it explained as the act of someone LOVING them to death.

Edit: and he's still not done with them, as most of them will fry for eternity according to all major doctrines.


Frankly, it seems to me hubris to basically proclaim that one is way higher in God's list of priorities than saving those babies. "Hey, look at me! I'm so frikken BFFs with God, that he finds time to fix a job interview for me, at the same time as several babies died howling in pain, of cancer! I'm obviously more important to God than those, yo!"

Frankly, much as I don't have all that much love for Catholics, I can see why they made it a heresy to proclaim that you know you have God's grace. Because it boils down to what I wrote above.
 
Last edited:
In my fuzzy memory a baptized baby goes to glory and not baptized to a vague form of purgatory. Only guilty adolescents to adults see hell.

But by saying this it opens defining heaven, hell and purgatory.

Heaven would be glory of sorts
Purgatory the eternal waiting room
Hell a place of eternal suffering

Early texts were vague like lack of suffering, he causes no suffering and you are punished.
Fill in details yourself.

After Dante's divine comedy was published all was more defined despite it being fiction and political commentary and not a religious text.
I did read it several times. You know whom he liked less by lower levels of hell.
 
8enotto said:
In my fuzzy memory a baptized baby goes to glory and not baptized to a vague form of purgatory. Only guilty adolescents to adults see hell.
Click to expand...

That's Catholics. The OP is some sort of protestant non-denominational "charismatic"-ish generic Christian, I think.

ETA:
I went through a kind of non-denominational "charismatic"-ish generic Christian phase towards the end of my journey in Christianity, and I didn't really believe in hell. I figured an all-loving wouldn't torture anybody for eternity. The Bible's kinda sketchy on the topic of hell, anyway, if one bothers to actually read it, which I did. Quite religiously. LOL
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Well, he still plans to burn most of them for eternity. Plus there's the millions of his OT "chosen people", who are at best in the least worst hell, at least according to at least the Catholics and most evangelicals. Supportable by Paul's letters too, so it's not exactly an ass-pull. 'Cause, you know, nobody can get to heaven without Jesus, and Jesus apparently wasn't ready to go there yet. So God knows he'll fry them, even at the same time he's telling them that they're totally his BFFs.

That's some... tough love.

But if you want love, consider this. Back in ancient times, about a third of children IIRC died before the age of 3. Even in the modern world, 5.4 million children under age five died in 2017. (Source: the WHO. https://www.who.int/gho/child_health/mortality/mortality_under_five_text/en/ ) Which, believe it or not, is a sharp improvement. In 1990 one in 11 children died before reaching the age of 5.

But anyway, even in the modern day, that's about 10 dead children, below the age of 5, every frikken MINUTE. It's one child below 5 dead every 6 seconds or so. By the time you've read this paragraph alone, a couple of children will have died, frightened and in pain.

I'm not exactly sure how God's love works, because in our world, there's really nothing a kid under 5 could do that would warrant a death sentence. Much less what MILLIONS of them could do that would warrant a death sentence. Even less so when you consider that a lot of them will be just babies. And it becomes pretty incomprehensible when you hear it explained as the act of someone LOVING them to death.

Edit: and he's still not done with them, as most of them will fry for eternity according to all major doctrines.


Frankly, it seems to me hubris to basically proclaim that one is way higher in God's list of priorities than saving those babies. "Hey, look at me! I'm so frikken BFFs with God, that he finds time to fix a job interview for me, at the same time as several babies died howling in pain, of cancer! I'm obviously more important to God than those, yo!"

Frankly, much as I don't have all that much love for Catholics, I can see why they made it a heresy to proclaim that you know you have God's grace. Because it boils down to what I wrote above.
Click to expand...

Had to laugh as I read that post. Too close to the line of thinking that sent me inexorably away from the Catholic Church and in to the indifferent arms of atheism.

I used to run marathons for Leukemia Lymphoma society. One of the heroes we ran for was a 12ish year old girl, named Dezma, who was in the middle of chemo, bald and suffering, but somehow still found the strength to make the trip to San Diego to cheer us on. ******* tears, man. Anyway, I remarked to my wife, who was still marginally religious: “What kind of God lets a beautiful innocent soul like Dezma suffer so much, yet all those drug kingpins live the good life in luxury?” I converted her on the spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
8enotto said:
In my fuzzy memory a baptized baby goes to glory and not baptized to a vague form of purgatory. Only guilty adolescents to adults see hell.

But by saying this it opens defining heaven, hell and purgatory.

Heaven would be glory of sorts
Purgatory the eternal waiting room
Hell a place of eternal suffering

Early texts were vague like lack of suffering, he causes no suffering and you are punished.
Fill in details yourself.

After Dante's divine comedy was published all was more defined despite it being fiction and political commentary and not a religious text.
I did read it several times. You know whom he liked less by lower levels of hell.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Catholic Church taught that unbaptised babies went to Limbo- until 2007, when the Pope announced that Limbo didn't exist.
This sudden about-face was apparently triggered by the fact that
“People find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian,” the document said.

It said the study was made all the more pressing because “the number of nonbaptised infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent”.
Click to expand...

It obviously adds credibility to the idea of universal and eternal truth if you can just pull stuff out of your fundament when it starts to become awkwardly untenable. :rolleyes:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-limbo-after-centuries-idUSL2028721620070420
 
8enotto said:
In my fuzzy memory a baptized baby goes to glory and not baptized to a vague form of purgatory. Only guilty adolescents to adults see hell.
Click to expand...

According to mainstream catholic doctrine, purgatory is just the least bad part of Hell. Also according to IIRC at least one pope, it stands to reason that torture by fire would still be involved. (Because, I guess, you know, infinite justice is all about frying a baby who doesn't even understand what's happening to it, much less what it did wrong to deserve it.) Also at one point it was considered Pelagian heresy to think that an unbaptized baby could possibly go anywhere else than to the frying pan, so to speak, because only Jesus can save you.

By the second half of the 20'th century it just moved to:

- we hope they're saved anyway (no, really, the official wording is that we hope they don't fry; no definitive statement that they won't)

- even though to the best of my knowledge it never made an explicit case about babies, the very recent "Anonymous Christian" doctrine says, yeah, you can't go to heaven without Jesus, but Jesus does whatever he wants, man. (He's wild and unpredictable like that. He's off the reservation, man;)) He could still save you if he thinks you deserve it, even if you weren't baptized. Hell, even if you don't even believe in Jesus, or even if you actually actively deny Jesus. But he might decide to unilaterally make you a Xian, and not even tell you about it. Or not.

But seriously, Jesus could have decided to make Hitchens a saint, for all we know. Two miracles at his tomb, and it could be even official.

So it seems to me like if that's the case, logically Jesus could also save a bunch of babies if he wants to. Doesn't contradict official doctrine, at least.
 
Last edited:
The irony of this baptized/not baptized option is baptism is a way of putting the sins of the world ion a being still trying to figure a way to eat and stay warm at best. No skills beyond that.

Then pardon this soul on early death but unbaptized souls go ignored.

Unfair?
 
I'm not sure any souls go "ignored". The traditional Church view used to be that if you're not baptized, you go to hell. No being ignored there.

I mean, it's not even like the Xians way back were trying to be nice about other people who don't share their fairy tales. Not only they fantasized about those burning in hell for eternity, but apparently they thought it would bring JOY to those in heaven to sit and watch those in hell being tortured. (Also, you definitely wouldn't feel any compassion if you saw your kids burning in hell. If you're a good Xian, you'd be overjoyed to see them burn.) No, seriously, that's the kind of psycho who has a place in heaven.

It may seem like one of those evil accusations of those pesky anti-theists, but there's a mile long list of theologians and even early church fathers saying the same. Here's one from Aquinas, for example, "In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned." (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV)

But as I was saying, you can go earlier. Augustine is quite explicit that the saints will know what's happening to the "lost". (Note the use of "lost", not something that would imply some personal crime that deserves such punishment. Such as, say, "sinner.") In the chapter aptly named, "What is Meant by the Good Going Out to See the Punishment of the Wicked". So, yeah, it's like reality show for the saints.

Or take Tertullian. He practically creams his pants just thinking about how he's going to get the high and mighty burn in hell. He's practically giddy about going to that show like a little girl on the way to Disneyland.

In fact, for some it's even up there with all of heaven's delights combined. If they cancelled the show of how their kids burn in hell, it would significantly diminish the joy of being in Heaven.


Also, btw, on the topic of, basically, 'oh, they ONLY go to purgatory.' It's not a good excuse.

Aquinas to the rescue again. In question 100, you can find this puppy: "The same fire torments the damned in hell and the just in purgatory […] The least pain in purgatory exceeds the greatest in this life." So yeah, all those years of hearing that unbaptized babies ONLY go to purgatory? Yeah, THAT is what they get there.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
I'm not sure any souls go "ignored". The traditional Church view used to be that if you're not baptized, you go to hell. No being ignored there.

I mean, it's not even like the Xians way back were trying to be nice about other people who don't share their fairy tales. Not only they fantasized about those burning in hell for eternity, but apparently they thought it would bring JOY to those in heaven to sit and watch those in hell being tortured. (Also, you definitely wouldn't feel any compassion if you saw your kids burning in hell. If you're a good Xian, you'd be overjoyed to see them burn.) No, seriously, that's the kind of psycho who has a place in heaven.

It may seem like one of those evil accusations of those pesky anti-theists, but there's a mile long list of theologians and even early church fathers saying the same. Here's one from Aquinas, for example, "In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned." (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV)

But as I was saying, you can go earlier. Augustine is quite explicit that the saints will know what's happening to the "lost". (Note the use of "lost", not something that would imply some personal crime that deserves such punishment. Such as, say, "sinner.") In the chapter aptly named, "What is Meant by the Good Going Out to See the Punishment of the Wicked". So, yeah, it's like reality show for the saints.

Or take Tertullian. He practically creams his pants just thinking about how he's going to get the high and mighty burn in hell. He's practically giddy about going to that show like a little girl on the way to Disneyland.

In fact, for some it's even up there with all of heaven's delights combined. If they cancelled the show of how their kids burn in hell, it would significantly diminish the joy of being in Heaven.


Also, btw, on the topic of, basically, 'oh, they ONLY go to purgatory.' It's not a good excuse.

Aquinas to the rescue again. In question 100, you can find this puppy: "The same fire torments the damned in hell and the just in purgatory […] The least pain in purgatory exceeds the greatest in this life." So yeah, all those years of hearing that unbaptized babies ONLY go to purgatory? Yeah, THAT is what they get there.
Click to expand...

Mainstream protestants generally believe (and have always believed, AFAIK) that before some "age of accountability", everyone is default "saved". You have to be old enough to sin and know what you did was wrong for the curse of hell to apply. That age is generally assumed to be around 12 or 13, but with variation for the mentally disables, etc, who might never be capable of "sin".
 
Last edited:
I have to suspect the "sacred word of god" has many human authors over distances and time.

Each author apealling to and guiding a now dead culture that was never us today.

Rome was never quite able to keep local culture from changing official texts and policies. Much worse at shutting down splinter groups that demanded stricter rules than Rome could demand or nulling locally offensive stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom