Question for Christians - #3

[elliotfc]

Elliott,

Your experiment doesn’t prove the existence of free will, it just shows that I am capable of making decisions.

That's how I view free will! The ability of a human being to make decisions.

There are programs on my computer that are able to make decisions.

Yes, but a computer program is not a human being, so this is irrelevant to my definition.

A flipped coin does not exercise free will in determining which side to come down on.

Ditto!



I think this is a hard question for you to answer...but I have to ask it. Hard because you reject free will. Anyhow...how do you define free will (the concept you reject)?

As I am referring to the Christian God in this argument, I am using the Christian notion of evil in its general common-sense meaning.

So you accept the Christian notion of evil then? What Christian notions do you accept, and what Christian notions do you reject?

I mean, if you are going to invoke a particular notion of Christianity (evil), why do you accept that notion? Or, are you only accepting the notion theoretically?

If so, you've avoided my question. You either believe in evil, or you don't believe in evil. If you don't believe in evil, I don't care about your opinions about what is evil and what isn't evil, to be perfectly honest.

Define evil then. If you don't believe in evil, why are you using a definition of evil that you don't believe in?

If God knowingly created a universe in which evil can exist (when he had the option to create one without evil since he is omnipotent) then he is evil.

Evil *can* exist, because God created imperfect creatures. I believe that God obviously believes that it is justifiable to create imperfect creatures knowing that evil would thus be a *possibility* (you yourself used the word *can*). I say this because I exist. If I didn't exist, and if no imperfect creatures exist, then neither would your question.

Your question is contingent upon the *possibility* (remember, you used the word *can*) of evil. I do believe that you have the possibility of doing evil things. Does that make you evil then? For example, if you (are you male/female?) have a child, and the child has the capacity to perform evil, does that make you evil?

I reject your idea because when I follow it through, it would make all creators evil. It would make everybody evil. It doesn't make any sense to me. How can everything be evil?

Result: I won't use my defintion of evil - draw your own conclusion about me... [/B]

I don't know enough about you. For now I am merely curious about you.

You seem like a thinking sort of a chap/chappette. Am I right? That's about the only conclusion about you that I am comfortable making at this time.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Well Elliot I have been of late trying to determine what exactly we are to be doing and I truly believe that when we say to Christ what are you doing about this? He responds I am doing something thats why I spoke to you and laid it on your heart.

Amen Kitty! We are all member of the Body of Christ! We are commanded to be Christ to one another! When we make demands of Christ and shake our fists at Christ and ask for Christ to transfrom the world we do all of that to ourselves and to the universal Church.

Jesus does not make it easy on us. Saint Theresa of Avila identified the reason quite clearly. We are empowered, we are the foot soldiers, we are the ones who must bear the crosses of the day. It should follow that for these reasons many will reject Christ. Human history will have ended when Jesus no longer expects and challenges the persons whom he has empowered. And the same people who demand God to enter the stage, how will they behold God, how will they appear to God, at that moment? As a friend, or as an antagonist who did not answer the command to be as Christ to the stranger and to the enemy?

-Elliot

 

[Kitty Chan]

Amen Kitty! We are all member of the Body of Christ! We are commanded to be Christ to one another! When we make demands of Christ and shake our fists at Christ and ask for Christ to transfrom the world we do all of that to ourselves and to the universal Church.

Jesus does not make it easy on us. Saint Theresa of Avila identified the reason quite clearly. We are empowered, we are the foot soldiers, we are the ones who must bear the crosses of the day. It should follow that for these reasons many will reject Christ. Human history will have ended when Jesus no longer expects and challenges the persons whom he has empowered. And the same people who demand God to enter the stage, how will they behold God, how will they appear to God, at that moment? As a friend, or as an antagonist who did not answer the command to be as Christ to the stranger and to the enemy?

-Elliot

So simple, I like what she said, thanks its a blessing.

 

[kimiko]

It's just so wrong. EVERY TIME you have a catastrophe you will find people turn to religion for help. And the thing is...they GET help, whether you want to believe that or not.

They get help from other human beings.

[In fact, I propose that if religion did not, in fact, help people after catastrophes, it would be analogous to a deleterious trait!

That isn't true. A trait doesn't have to be beneficial to survive, it simply has to not interfere with procreation and survival. So just because something isn't purposeful, doesn't make it deleterious. Plus, the survival of religion isn't based on catastrophes. Catastrophes are infrequent, and as long as religion replicates itself in human behavior, it will remain.

Engaging with things that aren't true is not *necessarily* a waste of time.

Fiction in the form of books and movies and other things is recognized as fiction. You don't go to the movies and think it is real. They aren't newsreels. Religion is different because it is mistaken for something true.

Not if going to church or reading the Bible makes you a better person!

I would doubt that it does. It would be the burden of proof for the believers to prove that what they suggest actually works.

What you are doing is *proselytizing*. In your experience, going to church or reading the Bible does not make you a better person, a person better able to improve the world. Why is your anecdotal testimony proof that *all people* would be better served by not going to church or reading the Bible?

I question the assertions of the religious. This proselytizing you disdain was in direct response to your suggestion that an unbeliever make a case for you to take apart. I don't go around saying this in my daily life, and I don't hold it as some kind of standard.

By your morality. By my morality, engaging with things that are false are *not necessarily* a waste of time.

My objection to religion is not for the fiction, it is for the misrepresentation as truth.

Like in my creative writing groups.

You know it is a creative writing group and not a commandment of God.

Parasite...such a negative word. An idea being a parasite?

No, the institutions and what is done in their names, not the idea.

Ummm...well, if I take people seriously, people have in fact told me that they have negative opinions of religious people. Should I not take those people seriously?

Do you not take the religious seriously when they suggest others are under the influence of the devil or are bad people because they don't accept Christ or whatever? That goes both ways.

*EVERYTHING* would be a waste if my theology is wrong.

*I AM NOT SAYING* that if I'm wrong, I've lost everything.

If I truly believed that if I'm wrong, I've lost everything, then I would say that. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

Aren't these contradictions?

That's why I have no use for Pascal's wager. I don't believe that the people who are *wrong* (by rejecting God) will lose everything. I believe that they will have the opportunity to accept God after they die.

That's a nice idea, but does not follow the Church's teachings. Certainly, it would help do away with some of the negative consequences of Christian theology, but it isn't theologically justified. From the catechism: "1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592

The worth of my life is not for you to judge.

I'm not judging you, I was just making a case, like you asked.

I don't believe that anyone wastes their lives solely based on their worldview.

I don't believe my post assigned the waste to the worldview, but that any waste would be in the choice of behaviors, the behaviors being necessitated by the religion. I also happen to think that people who get absorbed into things that are fiction and come to literally believe them are wasting their time in doing so. Like people who think they are werewolves, or Jedi knights, or vampires. I'm don't think religion is alone in this.

More fear. Get in line, you're only about the fifitieth randiforum-skeptic to invoke the fear word. Funny, I hear nothing about fear in my church. The only people I hear talk about fear, when it comes to religion, are in this forum. Nice one. Keep talking and thinking about fear. I'm not interested, and neither are the people with whom I practice my religion.

That's interesting; maybe the people in your church don't read the Bible. Fear is mentioned specifically in the Bible and believers are cautioned to have it. Also, the very concept of Hell is supposed to be fear provoking. "Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men..." 2 Corinthians 5:11
"But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him!" (Luke 12:2-5)

Why the bad attitude about hell?

Um, is that a joke?

Fear is irrelevant. You accuse the *other* of being motivated by fear, while spinning your own sob stories about how horrible the world is and how they're about to start breaking down your doors.

I suggest you approach the Church with suggestions for editing the Bible then. And, I'd prefer you not project things on me.

What I think and the case I was trying to make at your request are not the same. I suppose it wasn't a very strong case, but I only did it for the sake of the conversation.

 

[elliotfc]

Over 30% of the charitable giving in the US goes to religious organizations, but has anyone ever looked to see how much of this actually goes to helping others and how much goes to maintain buildings, provide salaries to employees/priests/preachers and support the social activities of the groups? I can't find any stats on that. So, I don't believe Christians are ahead of the pack, and won't until there is a good study showing that.

It would be a tough study, that's for sure.

People certainly do give a lot of money to charitable organizations. Surely we can agree on that point.

I'm not sure what you mean by this "Unbelievers do have organizations (I never mentioned they didnt) But its a fact that they are not out giving christians.".

What organizations, that exist, are specifically "unbeliever" organizations? Secular organizations do not take a position on religion. Let's take one example. The American Humanists. Do they fundraise? I don't mean to single them out, and for all I know they raise millions of dollars a year to give to charitable organizations. I'm just trying to think of an organization that has a stated anti-religion agenda, or mission statement.

Or the randi forums. Are we raising money for tsunami victims? I'll kick in, if we are. I may not share the beliefs of most of you, yet I am still a part of this community, and I believe in doing good, even if I'm not in lock-step when it comes to ideas and beliefs.

Some people who don't believe in God give, and only some Christians give. Some of the meanest people I've ever known were Christians, and some of the nicest were atheists. No blanket statement can cover either group. You'll find the whole spectrum of cruelty to kindness in both groups.

Well said kimiko.

I didn't say God's way was just guilt and shame, but those emotions can be a product of the teachings of organized religions. Whatever God's way would be is not the same as the man-made religions that claim divine purpose.

I'd say *not necessarily* the same. Of course a religion is distinct from God, but that doesn't mean either a)overlap/alignment is not possible or b)failure to achieve perfect alignment means an attempt should not be made.

There are plenty of atheists who are generous and charitable and they didn't need instructions to be that way.

Ummm...maybe they did, sort of. Like maybe they were told by a parent to be charitable when they were six or something. In any case, what's so bad about instructions? We need standards for behavior, and it is a good thing to instruct others. We pass good ideas along this way. I don't claim to be above instruction in anything. I think that's dangerous. That way of thinking would make each person a center or the universe.

They also don't expect to be rewarded for their generosity in some way.

You say that like that's a good thing.

When others do something well, I am delighted to reward them in any way that I can. If the do-gooder charitably declines, a thank you is also a reward.

I guess I don't confuse the expectation with the way things ought to be. We should recognize goodness. The idea that one shouldn't expect a *reward* for doing good is nice, but that is also a very proud belief. Is the person above receiving a reward? Why is the person so concerned about how another person might respond to their good act?

It's simple. Do good. When comes your way in response will come your way. Be gracious. Don't worry about perception. Don't expect rewards either, but, if they come, don't be too proud to accept them.

For the Christian, we believe in a God who appreciates good. Our God will reward good. Is that *why* we should do good? No. But why should we be so hung up about the fact that God would reward good?

For example...and I've never really seen a response to this one (I've certainly mentioned it at least twice)....

If your employer hands you a year end bonus for doing a hell of a job at work, would you decline it?

Why exactly is the concept of *reward* so anathema, or embarrassing, when it comes to religion, while it is celebrated in so many other arenas?

I am a teacher. I *reward* my students in many different ways. Do my students expect rewards? I neither know, nor care. That is besides the point. The recognition of *good* achievement is the most natural thing in the world. Isn't it?

I'm not saying all Christians do, but some certainly volunteer and donate not out of love but for other reasons. It isn't unusual to expect atheists to donate, not out of faith, but out of simple love for other human beings, realizing they could be in the same position, or perhaps some evolutionary instinct for survival of the species.

Ok it's fine that you can wax cynical about Christians. I can wax cynical about atheists. Maybe atheists donate for *other* reasons. So what?

And where do these *idyllic* standards that you seem to possess come from? Are they subjective opinions, or are you in alignment with a particular morality which trumpets your virtues that you espouse?

Basically, people are people, no matter what faith they do or don't have. Religious people aren't better than nonbelievers, and you don't need religion to be a decent person.

Agreed! Christians have said the same thing I don't kinow how many times. We Christians proclaim that every human being, regardless of faith, is a sinner. Decency is *not* the reason for the Incarnation. Christ didn't come to make the world a decent place. That is something that *WE* as human beings can do. We religious recognize the primary and exclusive benefits of our religion for those things that it proclaims that human beings can't do on their own.

This isn't to say that I would reject the notion that religion can help people become more *decent*, or, make the world a better place. In fact, I don't know how many atheists out there are better people BECAUSE of religion. They identify the hypocrisy of the religious, and it inspires them to proselytize in their own ways. In doing so they have built a standard for themselves to live out, and I have no doubt that most atheists do it quite well.

But think about it...if the non-believer can identify hypocrisy, or less than decent action in the believer, they must also recognize that the religions does in fact proclaim a standard that the believers are not living up to! Like Chesterton said, it isn't that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but, Christianity has been found difficult, and not been tried. Anyone can identify the *good* in Christianity. The skeptics seem to be more capable in this regard than the believers!

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

So you have a different kind of relationship in heaven and earth, I can follow that.

Yes...

I'm treading on uncertain ground here, because my personal beliefs on this are not developed to my satisfaction. I believe, strongly, that humans are MEANT to be human, and that God will recreate the Earth as it was supposed to be.

I don't think of heaven as a place. I think of it as a *relationship* that was meant to be. Earth, as we know it now, is that relationship corrupted. Hell would be the complete *absence* or relationship.

This is how I understand much of my theology, through the lens of relationship. That is the essential defining characteristic between heaven/earth/hell. To me at least. Kitty Chan may have different notions about all of this. I don't think that my ideas are *unChristian* in the least, but they probably don't mesh with many fundamentalist perspectives.

So an Earth that is put right (actually, the universe I guess) would be heaven to me. It's not a place that we go that we are not meant for. Again, we were created human. We were created to live on this planet. So Earth could very well be heaven, eventually. But then again, maybe not. I'm not sure.

So would the relationship in heaven be identical to the relationship in the garden? God wasn't in the presence of Adam and Eve constantly. And it isn't simply a conversation like on earth. God 'shows up' occasionally to check in. Is that the only difference?

I don't know.

Part of the beauty of Genesis, though, is how God is simply *there*. I never saw it as *shows up*. Or, it doesn't read that way to me. It's a nice story. God makes a garden for a man. He lets the man name the animals, it helps him feel like it's home, or, like it is really his place, and not God's place. So there's definitely separation there...yet God and Adam have conversations. If I read Genesis literally, I wouldn't limit Adam and God's conversations to the ones portrayed in the Bible.

But certainly it isn't *simply* a conversation, because we can not converse with God, now, like Adam did. So it is a conversation, but it's a conversation that we can not have.

The problem is that everyone still suffers and dies.

Yes! My recognition of the *primacy* of these problems is what made me reconsider Christianity years ago.

But everyone is supposed to still exist in an afterlife, just a particularly painful one for the nonbeliever.

Ummm...yeah. Maybe. I think hell will be different for each individual who rejects God. For all I know...maybe a heroin addict will reject God, and his/her hell will be an infinite supply of heroin and no fear of OD. Is that painful or pleasurable? I think that hell will be total isolation. Nobody else but you. To Sartre that would be heaven (hell is other people). I think it depends on the perspective of the person in hell.

So kimiko, from the CHRISTIAN'S perspective (the people who don't want to go to hell), it will be painful. And they will create the most painful analogies and pictures to get this point across. But I don't know how the person who is THERE will necessarily perceive hell. I'm not going to get my personal wishful thinking define their reality. I really don't know what their reality will be. Painful? Sure, probably. And maybe not. It doesn't matter to me. Hell is not for me.

So Jesus wouldn't be preserving anyone's life, only giving them admittance to a comfy place.

Depends how you define comfy. Yes, I reckon it would be comfy for the person who wants to be there.

But lets take another kind of person. A person who is confronted by God, and is outraged. God gives the explanations, and it isn't enough. Would that person want entrance to the "comfy" place where everyone agrees that God is the best thing since, well, whatever?

As a thought experiment, imagine yourself having to spend eternity with people like Kitty Chan (who's an absolute sweetheart in my book). Would that be comfy for you?

I'm trying to keep an open mind about all of this.

-Elliot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Like Chesterton said, it isn't that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but, Christianity has been found difficult, and not been tried.

-Elliot

And this is supposed to be profound; that most Christians don't behave as they should; and that this does not speak ill of Christianity?


Sounds like another way of saying :
" Christianity would not look so bad if it weren't for Christians.. "

 

[elliotfc]

As I always understood it, one had to be saved already to be absolved, except at one's first communion when it happened simultaneously.

That isn't the Catholic perspective. I don't know if other Christian denominations use the word "absolution" like Catholics do.

When you say "happened simultaneously", do you mean that salvation and absolution both happen at First Communion? No Catholic believes that, as far as I know. I've been invovled in First Communion prep in a few different churches. That's an idea I've never heard before.

Absolution is the result of the sacrament of reconciliation. It is a sign of God's grace. It is not equivalent to salvation.

I don't think a person needs absolution continually, I think it is cyclical. Absolved, sinner, absolved, sinner, etc. You wouldn't need absolution again until you had actually committed a sin.

That's a good point. I think the idea is that no Catholic will ever be absolved of *all* sin, because absolution requires recognition, appreciation, repentance, reconciliation with the harmed part, all sorts of things, and no Catholic will *ever* profess every sin that he/she has ever committed.

Yours may also be a moot point, because Catholics believe that people who die with un-absolved sins may still be saved. And like I said, that would be *everybody*.

But the idea of God's grace is most interesting. Since christianity separates faith and works ( I think I've argued here before how I would disagree) faith cannot be a deliberate act.

I disagree. I am certain that personally, I have deliberately embraced faith. I truly went from saying I can't have faith, to saying that I can have faith. If that isn't/wasn't deliberate, than nothing I have ever mentally considered/decided has ever been deliberate.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

And this is supposed to be profound; that most Christians don't behave as they should; and that this does not speak ill of Christianity?


Sounds like another way of saying :
" Christianity would not look so bad if it weren't for Christians.. "

Profound? I have no idea. Is it true? Or isn't it true?

That's the problem with ideals, isn't it? Especially since we rejoice and triumph in the hypocrisy of others.

Follow me here...

-Christianity is an ideal.
-Believers and non-believers alike recognize that Christianity is an ideal.
-Most Christians most of the time do not live up to the ideal.
-Non-believers RECOGNIZE this fact because they recognize the ideal of Christianity, and compare the ill behavior of the Christian to the recognized ideal.
-The ill behavior of Christians is used as ammunition by many non-believers.
-Many non-believers use the ill behavior of Christianity in an expanded form to criticize Christianity.

So there you go.

As for your final comment, if there were no Christians, Christianity would be irrelevant, wouldn't it?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

What empirical data are in that link? And my response isn't the one you expect. From the article: They have come to the house of god, they will be well looked after," he said."

And yes, they will be looked after, by people. It is the human beings who matter in humanism.

Are you saying that the houses of god are not affiliated with religion?

I mean...I guess religion isn't some *guy* who helps you. Like, if a priest gives you bus fare, you wouldn't say "Thanks Roman Catholicism!"

Ummm...I guess I don't get your point. I mean, of course an ideal doesn't *help* a person in the way that you think it does. People help people. Exactly.

So, do you define *help* as what a person does for another person? Fair enough. Then all ideals, every single one, do not help people. Right?

Right?

If not, provide an ideal that does help people (so I can shoot it down).

Kimiko I really enjoy your posts. It is a veritable certainty that I won't be checking in again until next week, so, enjoy your week.

-Elliot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Profound? I have no idea. Is it true? Or isn't it true?

That's the problem with ideals, isn't it? Especially since we rejoice and triumph in the hypocrisy of others.

There was a time when that was true for me. Now it just saddens me..

Follow me here...

-Christianity is an ideal.
-Believers and non-believers alike recognize that Christianity is an ideal.
-Most Christians most of the time do not live up to the ideal.
-Non-believers RECOGNIZE this fact because they recognize the ideal of Christianity, and compare the ill behavior of the Christian to the recognized ideal.
-The ill behavior of Christians is used as ammunition by many non-believers.
-Many non-believers use the ill behavior of Christianity in an expanded form to criticize Christianity.

So there you go.

As for your final comment, if there were no Christians, Christianity would be irrelevant, wouldn't it?

-Elliot

But if Chesterton is saying the problem is not with Christianity, but with the Christians? Doesn't that sort of make Christianity irrelevant?
If there is nothing distinguishable about a group of people who gather under a banner, of what relevance is their banner?

 

[Ossai]

Elliotfc

If I answer your question form the perspective of a Christian who does not see the essential point of Christianity in John 3:16 (I suppose there are some of them out there), I'd say that the mere existence of us and every thing is how God shows that he loves people.

That bit of torture is the only example of god’s supposed love you can find in the entire bible? Rather disappointing.

God takes a personal interest according to Christianity and you can talk and pray directly, not through intercession/rituals/whatever. Well, do you have to be reconciled with God to pray?

No, God will listen to any prayer. Heck God listens to everything I suppose. Anyone can pray.

Does not prayer alone bridge the gap?

No! Not to the Christian. If prayer alone could bridge the gap, that would make Jesus unnecessary.

Doesn’t your first answer invalidate your second answer?
People can pray and god listens.
Jesus is necessary as an intermediary between people and god.

That's why I have no use for Pascal's wager. I don't believe that the people who are *wrong* (by rejecting God) will lose everything. I believe that they will have the opportunity to accept God after they die.

Then why bother worshiping at all in this life? You’ve just given yourself a get out of hell free card.

Do an experiment. In the next month, count the number of times you use the "fear" word, or think about fear, or consider how others are motivated by fear. Talk about wastes of time...........

I noticed in your response that you only looked at one of kimiko ‘s points. What about the others?

Throwing away money and energy; wasting feelings of guilt and shame over one's inherent sinfullness and disobeyed religious directives; countless opportunities and experiencies lost through prohibition, time being occupied by religion instead;…

I'm treading on uncertain ground here, because my personal beliefs on this are not developed to my satisfaction. I believe, strongly, that humans are MEANT to be human, and that God will recreate the Earth as it was supposed to be.

God is evil. If humans can be created or recreated as perfect (ie not sinners) and the world can be created perfect (abundant food, no plagues, etc) why didn’t’ god do so in the first place?
Or to look at it another way, why create just one ‘perfect’ garden and use it for entrapment (fruit, Adam & Eve) and create the rest of the world the way it is. Doesn’t that suggest that god knew Adam & Eve would disobey and he already had the rest of the world waiting.

Ummm...yeah. Maybe. I think hell will be different for each individual who rejects God.

Nice notion, but hell is rather clearly defined in the bible, burning and eternal suffering.


Kitty Chan

Calling the bible a mishmash is your understanding. To the millions who have read it they consider it instructions. Even other religions consider it as a source. There is many who read it and understand it just fine.

But I think theres a difference between understanding and accepting. You said you have read it so I would say if you dont accept whats written thats your choice but I cannot believe you are that incapable of understanding words on a page.

You must be using your own definition of understanding and instructions.
Yes there are some basic instructions in it, for instance how to clean a house with a fungus growing in it, etc. But there are instructions that clearly contradict other parts of the bible. I’m more than capable of reading the written word and understanding what it’s conveying. However if you bother to take notes you can’t help but compare certain books and find gross disorganization.

And they missed interviewing the science station in texas where they actually point a laser at the moon and its reflected back from parts the astronauts left there. If nothing else thats the easiest answer but the skeptics wont interview him in 30 years.

Nice, but what parts of the bible can you point at and say ‘this happened’? Can you only point at the loosely historical items, city and place names, rulers, etc? Can you point out any supernatural items and say that as well? What about the parts of the bible that can be pointed to and definitely said ‘this did not happen’ i.e. Genesis, walking dead, etc?


Ossai

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

elliotfc

and

and
Damn, you’re inconsistent.
1. We are all guilty
2. We will all be judged
3. We won’t be punished, unless we want to be
4. Those being punished will be sent to hell
5. Hell isn’t punishment

I would definitely call it fractured.

But you previously stated that we aren’t punished unless we want to be so there was no need for a sacrificial plan.

No it’s not. You declare it such but have yet to back it up with anything more than ‘might makes right’.
If you’re entire value system is based on that then we should all be out trying to take advantage of those weaker than ourselves.

From your prior statements, the whole Christian angle is meaningless. All anyone has to do is wait till they are dead then decide they don’t want to be punished.

I believe Lucifuge Rofocale means that the act would nullify original sin and people wouldn’t be born guilty. That it would be possible to live a perfectly moral life. That all sin would basically be erased which would cancel the need for judgement.

Big rant and you managed to avoid the question entirely.

Let me restate it:
”Why don't you tell me whats that horrible sin jesus need to pay in the cross. To exist?”

Ossai

Those are the contradictions I wanted to be answered. Thanks Ossai for taking the time to respond to Elliot posts while I wasn't here (I had to marry those days).
Elliot would you answer Ossais's post above?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus Christ!

In sinning we display a hatred for God.

How can we hate the non-existant? and also ,any new born hates god? any 10 years old hates god? how can an atheist can hate god if he/she does not believe in it? by your theology, an atheist can't sin.......

...maybe. I don't know, but I admire your faith in that assertion. I don't know anyone who believes in invisible red dragons, so I have no idea if there is any substance behind this theoretical belief. In my opinion there is a variable amount of substance behind all belief, scientific or religious or sociological, but then again what is the objective standard of measuring substance? And what, besides faith, buffets that objective standard? Once you have faith in a particular standard is follows that you can challenge the substance of all other standards, doesn't it?

I'm still demanding objetive proof

I don't think I'm challenging your grammar...or maybe I am. You are free to rephrase what you said, but if you mean what you said, what you say is patently absurd. The reality of my belief? What do you think I'm doing here? Are you saying that my belief is not real? If so, why are you having a dialogue with me?

Rather, I think you mean that my belief is not *true*, or something like that. Regarding facts to back up whether or not my belief is true, I've already said, in this thread, that everything around me backs of the truth of my beliefs. Do they *necessarily* back the truth of my belief? Of course not. But saying there are no facts no back up my belief is ridiculous, since I do have facts that back up my belief and so do I don't know how many of billions of other people. Everybody who believes in something has at least one fact to back up that belief. The problem, of course, is that the facts can lead to a variety of beliefs. You just think that your belief is superior to mine, which is fine, but believe me, I'm quite aware of the facts that surround us.

and I keep asking for objetive proofs

If you characterize my saying that God allows tsunamis to happen
as rationalization that's fine. I can just as easily say that your inability to be with angry with god for allowing a tsunami to happen is also rationalization. What's the point exactly? We both agree that the tsunami actually happened, right? Neither of us say that the tsunami happened because God made it happen, right?

I'm not sure how can you reject your faith in an all powerfull creator of the universe and still go to church. If you say that the tsunami was not god's business, amen.

Really? OK. Desist from using Version 1 then. If you can't, then it isn't the same stuff. OK? Get back to me in a year, tell me how it goes.

And how the fact that I use version 1 or version 2 changes the fact?

This is fine, and I don't believe God will fault you for what you can't do. Just be careful, because at some point you'll have to stop saying that you can't have faith. Or, rather, you can keep saying that, and then you will never have to worry about God again, accept when you are cursing his name, if that will even be possible. I'm not sure.


-Elliot

Now I'm sure you are not sure. Well, your theology keeps amazing me a lot. I'll keep yor idea of hell not being a punishment...not even a negative. It would be rather a club where all non believers can hang aroung without god annoying us. That would be a great place to be if god exists. Thanks

 

[elliotfc]

But the idea of God's grace is most interesting. Since christianity separates faith and works ( I think I've argued here before how I would disagree) faith cannot be a deliberate act.

This would void the dogma of free will. Some Christians do not believe in free will, but I *think* that most do.

Some believe faith itself is a gift of God's grace.

Yes that's true. I also think that free will is a gift of God's grace.

In fact it would have to be unless it is admitted to be an act. The problem with it being an act of course it that it isn't different from a ritual and is something you've earned, then.

But Christians also believe that rituals are gift of God's grace. I don't really see a strict and unbridgeable dichotomy here. I do understand a difference between faith and works...I think that faith is often behind many works...and I think that works often lead to faith. They are different but connected.

I would consider a mental decision an act, so my definition of act may be wider than others.

You would simply have to perform the act, whatever mental tricks to convince yourself, and then you've earned your way into heaven.

You sure have a wonderful way of phrasing things.

What do you mean by tricks exactly? It's not a very helpful word. I can say that you use "tricks" to convince yourself anything that you believe and accept. Could you elaborate on "tricks"?

Yes, you need to have faith in order to go to heaven, but it needs to be a complete faith, a faith with your entire being, and I don't personally believe that humans are capable (with the exception of Mary) of being completely faithful to God. Faith on earth is an outstanding gift that we must continually increase; this will be more than helpful when we must face God and answer for ourselves.

Nips at Jesus' heels somewhat.

Excellent! Everything we Christians do nips at Jesus' heels! I don't think he minds this, as we are commanded to imitate him.

But if it is a gift from God, then God made people into the believers and unbelievers they are, so he couldn't exactly punish them for that.

Well, the gift can be refused (the gift of faith that is). The gift of free will can not be refused, as we were created with it. So maybe some people could rightfully say that free will is NOT a gift. I think it's a gift for attitudinal reasons. But you could also reject the concept of faith as a gift for attitudinal reasons. You could say that gift implies something *good* or *beneficial* and that faith is neither good or beneficial.

In my opinion you are fixated a bit too much on punishment. God wants to do positive things. Negative things are a consequence of personal choice. We've already gone in circles on this one Kimiko. Your cynicism will make it impossible, I think, to understand where I am coming from on this one.

And if he did, then he wouldn't be the benevolent God he is portrayed to be.

Punishment is allowing someone who wants to be permanently seperated from God to be permanently seperated from God. The *punished* could very well be the *rewarded*; it's all about how it is perceived. It's a bit funny. The skeptics are the one who bash Christians on the head for being obsessed with reward/punishment...and in this case Kimiko...you can't let it go. Or, you can't understand that reward and punishment are SUBJECTIVE words.

Let's make this really simple. Kimiko, if someone wants to be seperated from God for eternity, and God allows that, is that punishment? If someone wants to be seperated from God for eternity, but God does not allow that, is that reward?

I much prefer Shin Buddhism, and it shares quite a bit with christianity. Simply, Buddha made a promise that anyone who asked him sincerely he would help to make their way to heaven.

Sounds good to me!

That way, you only have to want to be 'saved', rather than having to believe or earn your way.

Want can't be enough, for the Christian. The Christian is called to capitulate. You can't tell God you want something, but only on your own personal terms. Or, I mean, you could, but that would be problematic. Or maybe not, depending on your perspective.

In any case, you at the very *least* have to believe in Buddha, the one who is being asked by you for help. That's certainly belief, isn't it? And as for earn, in *asking* Buddha for something, that may be the *trick* (your word) that *earns* you what you want.

In this case I think it's just like Jesus. Ask Jesus. He'll answer. Accept the answers for what they are, and not what you would wish them to be. See, if you ask, but only have certain conditions under which you would accept the answer as legit, then you're not really asking totally, but partially. This is where Jesus may diverge from the Buddha. I'll yield to what I expect is a superior understanding of Shin Buddhism that you possess. Would this in fact be a divergence?

It seems far more forgiving.

I think you're confusing forgiving and allowing. God will not allow our own personal pride to override his plan divine plan for all of us. He will forgive everything we have ever done, but he can't forgive what we won't relinquish. This is why pride is called the great sin. When a conflict arises, pride will make us believe that our way is superior to God's way. And if that belief is truly held, how can God forgive that belief? The belief is inconsistent with his divine plan, and the proud person does not believe that he/she is in the wrong. How can forgiveness happen in that situation?

And since Rennyo beleived society was so corrupt at the time, it was expected that it would be too difficult for a person to attain enlightenment themselves within their lifetime, making help necessary.

Christians have a similar understanding. That's why Jesus came at a particular point in history.

As a Christian, I also believe that we all still need help after our lifetimes. Other Christians would explain that belief in radically different ways than I would...but every Christian believes in some form of judgment. That would be the interim between death and going to heaven.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I said themselves "and each other", meaning people and people. Of course no one makes their way entirely on their own in the world, I would never argue that.

With your clarification, there is no disagreement on this point.

I think prayer doesn't work, because they aren't all answered, unless some are answered no, but then it isn't spelled out that way except that the prayee doesn't recieve what he asked for. Basically, there is no way to know if any particular prayer did anything.

Well, yeah. That's one of the primary explanations of faith actually. You have to have faith that your prayer is heard, answered, and that the prayer meant something.

It's also elementary Christian theology that prayers will not be *answered* in the way we would have them be answered. We don't have a superstitious power over God in this way, making us different from other religions which believe that if you ask god for something, the god will or will not do it in absolute terms.

If your point is that there is no way for humans to *know* anything about the efficacy of prayer, the Christian will agree. That's the whole point of faith!

I would define useful as physically effective, but certainly I can see how believers might reject that.

We just have a bigger concept of usefulness. Of course things that are physically effective are also useful.

It wasn't meant to be scientific, it is only a generalization. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, so giving directly to an organization that provides help is more direct than giving first to a church that takes a cut, then passing some of that on through charity.

Interesting way of thinking about it. Ummm....well, Catholic churches are giving tsunami aid straight to Catholic Charities. You may not believe that...you may think that the individual church *must* be skimming off that money. That would be where your cynicism kicks in (and it's clear that you have much faith in your cynicism). What you could do is inform yourself, maybe call nearby churches and ask them what the deal is. Whether or not you believe them would depend on the amount of faith you place in what they will say to you, and the amount of faith you will place in your cyncism.

Ummm...as for direct lines...I guess the most direct thing would be going there and directly helping them. There. Short of that you're giving money to people who will do something *for you* in a sense.

Look, whether you want to believe it or not, churches are raising a hell of a lot of money for tsunami aid. Could the givers give their money to a different organiztion to do just that? Sure. But that's a hypothetical. It's only hypothetically true that the same amount of money could be raised if church goers would give their money to other organizations. Would that actually happen?

You may not be in the know (I take it you don't go to church) but different sorts of pressures are applied on church goers. Peer pressure. Bible pressure. Jesus pressure. Pastor pressure. St. Luke's in Brentwood (one of my churches) is over $10,000 for the tsunami, which is twice the weekly collection. Infact Jesus in Port Jefferson (my other church) is over $15,000 for the tsunami, which is the weekly collection. And counting. There are things that went *into* collecting that money that you may not be able to recognize since you are not a church attendee. Not Abu G style torture. Just talking. No fear involved either. Proactive talking. If you can't respect what individual churches do to raise funds, that's on you. And I'm not about to have you accuse my two churches of skimming funds from the top. But if you have to do that in order to rationalize something in yourself, I don't know, if it makes the synapses work I guess you gotta believe what you gotta believe.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

You aren't seeing what I'm saying. If anyone is fed or clothed or comforted in the world, it is themselves or others doing it. God doesn't make appearances.

OK, but what if it is *religious* people doing it in the *name* of religion and for *religious* reasons? What if people go to *religious* churches to get fed and clothed? What if *religious* clerics use *religion* to get people to feed and clothe and comfort others? I think you're being a bit too simplistic.

Christians believe that we are called to be Christ to others.

And you're ignoring spiritual nourishment, but again, your idea of efficacy is physical. Even if I agree to that, there's religion all over the place whenever you have tsunami type ordeals.

Hmmm. Let me get this straight. Let's say you have a missionary helping another person there. You would not call that religion. You would say that is one person helping another person. What if religious idealism is behind the missionary? Is that in any way significant?

It doesn't matter if someone feels motivated by God, it is they who are getting up or donating or whatever.

Interesting...

So. It people's God motivations do not matter when they are helping other people. They only matter in the abstract. Is that correct? Or, they only matter if people are hurting other people. Am I on the right track?

Kimiko you have said much about religious motivations in this thread. Do you talk about them with the ADMISSION that they don't matter? Or do they only matter sometimes, when it helps your own personal arguments, and they do not matter sometimes, when it doesn't help your own personal arguments? And if they always don't matter, why are you saying so much about things that do not matter? And if they only sometimes matter, why are you being selective?

In that respect, I don't care if it is a direct religious aid organization, because it is only people doing the helping. God doesn't fill soup bowls at shelters. I don't feel any need to 'tip the cap' at religious charities, I tip my cap at the people in them.

Fair enough. But in order to remain consistent, may I recommend that you not have any outrage towards religious institutions when religious people who happen to be in those religious institutions do bad things? I mean, that would be the consistent thing to do. Right?

No they don't. There are atheists who are as comfortable in the world as christians, so whatever peace the concept of salvation gives can be found other ways.

You are confusing *can* with the realities of the world. Listen, if the *message* of atheism is helping people that's great. I'm just waiting for Atheists International to spread their message in the most poverty stricken parts of the world. How much longer should I wait? Does the Randi.org forums sponsor humanitarian missions in the world? How about the American Humanist Society? Can you place your hypothetical in the real world so I can make the comparison to organizations that are actually *physcially useful* (your phrase)?

You're right, it is subjective; I only think things are constructive if they have some basis in the real world.

Religion has no basis in the real world? Boy are you wrong! This is too absurd of a statement.....oh man, nothing else to say on this one. Wow. I guess I spend hours and hours a week inhabiting some alternate universe. Kimiko, for my own edification, can you talk about this *unreal* world that I inhabit, and then explain why you believe that I inhabit an *unreal* world for several hours a week? Wow. Wugga wugga wugga.

Religion is lovely as a subject for its mythology and psychology and cultural values, but when it is treated as true without the standards that are applied to everything else to determine accuracy, it is a waste.

Well you've offered a caveat. That's helpful and hopefully informative. You need to qualify your blanket statements, or else I'll have to prod you in that direction to do so.

You mentioned standards. Exactly. Your standards exclude religion, obviously. So it isn't useful to you. Gotcha. Other people have different standards. It is useful to them. You may or may not get that.

See, *use* is as much a subjective concept as an objective concept. But the objective concept, in my opinion, has to account for subjectivity! In other words, an objective FALSEHOOD may have subjective USE to someone else.

As for what you perceive to be a *waste*, I am bemused that you engage yourself with *waste* so thoughtfully. And you are a thougtful person. I'm glad that this *waste* has the ability to make you think. And thank you for elevating myself, who is knee-deep in *waste*, to the level of discourse. Very nice of you.

TV, Nintendo and the rest are leisure activities and recognized as such.

Ahhh! Recognition! So this isn't *objective* at all, is it? It's subjective! Recognition!

Very well! Religion is recognized as being useful!

Religion is not recognized as a social club, leisure activity, hobby, etc.

Tell that to people who participate in church socials! Or play in church sports leagues! Or who dabble in theological hobbies!

It is portrayed as something true.

Not by you!

So...you don't have a problem with untrue things as long as everybody agrees they are untrue. Do I have that right? But, you have problems with untrue things that are being protrayed as true. I can understand that.

So...why doesn't the world look to *you* to be the arbitor of what is true and what isn't true? Should the world make you in charge of what is true and what is not true?

All I have here is you telling me what is true, and what is not true. And you've already established that your standards differ from the standards of billions of other people. So you have a personal issue, which frankly I'm not very sympathetic towards. I'm sorry that you're bothered by *untrue* things being talked about like they are *true*. Wouldn't you know it, the religious people are bothered by the skeptics who say *untrue* things as if they are *true*! Well, we can commisserate together. People are people, aren't they? All depends on what standards you possess, doesn't it?

Kimiko I dabble in these forums to validate the premise that the skeptic is not very different from the believer. If I were ever to encounter skeptics who think fundamentally differently from the way that I think, I would be so disheartened that I would flee from these forums, never to return. For now, I am heartened that you have it in you to talk about *waste* with me. I am heartened that you have issues with things that you believe to be *untrue* (I've got the same issues meself!). I am heartened that you tip the cap to good people who do good things. Yes you have bad attitudes about religion, but at least that explains much about your opinions and your rationales. Frankly if you were indifferent towards my theology I would have a harder time appreciating the way that you think. I hold people to high standards. I lower those standards when appropriate. I think that it is just as charitable as holding people to high standards. You have to accept people at the levels at which they operate.

Well, once you start with that, you have to show how it is true, and religion fails because it always comes down to a leap of faith.

No, you don't *have* to do anything of the sort. You are assuming that objective reality corresponds to the human's ability to "show" something to be true. The entirety of human history shows that is absolute folly.

I am doing something constructive right here by arguing about it, because I find it interesting and is a bit of a hobby of mine.

Waste management as a hobby...I like it!

I don't care if other people are irrational, I don't want to change them, but I'll give my opinion if I feel like it and I think it's appropriate.

Here we diverge a bit. I do care about people who are irrational, and I try...well, I try to get people to think about what they think. Whether or not that results in change is not my purpose really. Just to get thinking going on is enough.

Out of curiosity Kimiko, do you find me irrational?

I find value in philosophy, logic, and rationality because they have been shown to be constructive.

Agreed, well said.

If interaction with me brings someone else to look at them again, that's great, but I'm not on a great campaign.

Even the smallest of campaigns has the potential to be great.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

What empirical data are in that link? And my response isn't the one you expect. From the article: They have come to the house of god, they will be well looked after," he said."

And yes, they will be looked after, by people. It is the human beings who matter in humanism.

You are assuming they are only receiving food/shelter in the house of God. You've already said that you only look at this from the physical standpoint, so I don't see the point in wrestling this point any further.

But it's nice to know that people head to the "house of God" to get the basics. Isn't it?

A beautiful sentiment often abused by the faithful: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."- Karl Marx

Pffffffffffffffft. And where exactly is the soul of Marxism? I've yet to see it meself.

Re: opium of the people, you can call any worldview an opiate. It doesn't mean anything. I could call your worldview an opiate. Whatever.

I am always amazed by the human mind, and what they are able to create. All the good and horror in religion is a product of people, and to them I give the credit.

Fair enough. I replace science for religion, and it makes just as much sense I guess.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

A trait doesn't have to be beneficial to survive, it simply has to not interfere with procreation and survival.

I was not talking about the mere survival of a particular trait, but the irrefutable reality of the SUCCESS of a trait in lodging itself and expressing itself the species over. You're damn right it doesn't interfere with procreation and survival btw.

Surely you'd agree that if your particular trait is more beneficial than my particular trait we'll see some results. Right? That'll play itself out in the future, near or distant. Eventually. Right? If so, you can have faith in your hypothetical while I look at the real world that you keep talking about.

So just because something isn't purposeful, doesn't make it deleterious. Plus, the survival of religion isn't based on catastrophes. Catastrophes are infrequent, and as long as religion replicates itself in human behavior, it will remain.

I guess that depends on how you define catastrophe. I think that catastrophes happen in practically everyone's life, several times over. It could be the loss of a spouse in an accidental, a broken arm, losses in the stock market, 4 consecutive Super Bowl losses, or tsunamis. And wouldn't you know it, religion has always been there to respond.

So what is the survivability of religion based on? Irrationality, that's your answer, right? Is it rational to think that irrationality is so successful a trait, Kimiko?

Fiction in the form of books and movies and other things is recognized as fiction. You don't go to the movies and think it is real. They aren't newsreels. Religion is different because it is mistaken for something true.

There you go again. Recognized as fiction? Recognized by WHO? In making this statement, you are appealing to the FACT that everybody recognizes fiction to be fiction.

Very well.

Then you apply that to religion...when the FACT is that everybody does NOT recognize religion to be fiction. You're trying to have it both ways; I recognize that, and dispose of your contention.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

It would be the burden of proof for the believers to prove that what they suggest actually works.

Prove to who? What are the standards of judgment? Of course you understand that the believers do not feel any burden of proof. We're, or at least I'm, willing to express my belief to you and other skeptics. I certainly don't expect you to collapse on the floor and shout Alleluia. I understand your constructed standards of acceptance, so it would be *irrational* for you to accept anything I say as proof, based on the standards that you believe. And I certainly do not find you irrational. Completely the opposite actually.

But I agree with you that anyone who expects you, or any other skeptic, to capitulate to Christian logic does, in fact, need to understand that they do carry a burden of proof, which would be the price of admission a skeptic would charge to open up their worldview to public alteration.

My objection to religion is not for the fiction, it is for the misrepresentation as truth.

Understood. And I understand your skepticism to be the misrepresentation of truth as well. I'm glad you've clarified this, it's the way I you your way of thinking, so we really think along the same lines here.

Do you not take the religious seriously when they suggest others are under the influence of the devil or are bad people because they don't accept Christ or whatever? That goes both ways.

I actually don't...

That's a nice idea, but does not follow the Church's teachings. Certainly, it would help do away with some of the negative consequences of Christian theology, but it isn't theologically justified. From the catechism: "1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592

Ummm...sounds good to me. Many Christians don't see it that way, but Catholics do, and I'm a Catholic.

I don't believe my post assigned the waste to the worldview, but that any waste would be in the choice of behaviors, the behaviors being necessitated by the religion.

Christian behavior is always a waste then? Or just sometimes a waste? Or is waste independent of the behavior?

For example, if the chosen behavior is to be "physically useful" to others, is that a waste? Or, is the wastefulness of the religion completely independent of physical use?

I also happen to think that people who get absorbed into things that are fiction and come to literally believe them are wasting their time in doing so.

You've definitely got a clear judgmental opinions of the religious, and frankly I guess it really doesn't matter what you think about what other people do to pass the time. Calling it a waste of time is a nice subjective outlook. If you care to convince me that it is an *objective* outlook go right ahead, if you're interested that is.

That's interesting; maybe the people in your church don't read the Bible.

They don't pick and choose...like you're about to do...

Fear is mentioned specifically in the Bible and believers are cautioned to have it. Also, the very concept of Hell is supposed to be fear provoking. "Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men..." 2 Corinthians 5:11
"But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear him!" (Luke 12:2-5)

And the Bible also says the phrase "be not afraid" dozens of times, just do a bible search at bible.com to find the passages.

My church tends to focus more on the "be not afraid" stuff than the "fear" stuff, but you can focus on whatever you want.

I suggest you approach the Church with suggestions for editing the Bible then. And, I'd prefer you not project things on me.

I have no interest in editing the Bible, as I have no desire to force the Bible to suit my personal opinions.

Regarding my projecting things on you, I can't say I respect your preference since you think that billions of people waste their time. If you stop projecting on others, I would have absolutely no reason to project anything on you.

Your negative attitudes about religion are legion, and they are the foundation of my projections on you. They are informed projections. Just as you judge people by what they say and believe, I do the same. We aren't that different, are we?

What I think and the case I was trying to make at your request are not the same. I suppose it wasn't a very strong case, but I only did it for the sake of the conversation.

Thanks for them as I enjoy our conversations. Believe me, I type all that I say with a smile, particularly when I get snippy. If I didn't respect you I most certainly would not talk to you. You're by far the most compelling skeptic I've ever encountered in these forums (no offense to Tricky, who's merely compelling in his good naturedness arf arf arf).

-Elliot