Calling All Liberal Christians

[Lycorth]

But Pascal's Wager would indicate that one who bets on God and loses actually loses nothing.

 

Occam's Razor indicates that one is better off not complicating one's life with difficult absurdities like the Xian religion. One can live a happy life without it, so why futz with it to begin with?

 

Besides, Pascal's Wager plays on fear (the fear of Hell), and not on absolute evidence, so it is useless to make a decision with, anyway. The same paranoia leads to neurotic behavior in sin-fearful Xians, which in turn can help lead to OCD and other mental disorders, all for a god no one can prove.

 

And since Pascal's Wager plays on the fear of Hell, and you don't believe in Hell, why would you even cite it?

[RankStranger]

What does Pascal's wager gain you?

 

There are dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of religions threatening you with hell and/or assorted punishments. There dozens, hundreds, and thousands of versions of each of those religions, many of them threatening you with punishments and damnations if you don't believe in their exact version. When you make pascal's wager, what have you gained other than the hypothetical protection from the threats of a single version of a single god among THOUSANDS of threats? Do you really want to base your belief system on threats?

 

I don't know if you 'lose' anything tangible when you choose pascal's wager, but when you choose to believe in something that you can't see, touch, taste, smell, feel, prove, test, verify, falsify, or have any REAL knowledge of... then you've LOST a certain grip on reality.

[Dhampir]

Let me ask you a question. If Jesus came back in a blaze of glory, healed 1000 terminally ill people in his first hour here, and declared he would save 72% of the world because the other 28% openly refused to believe he was Lord, would you call him the same?

 

I think most skeptics would have second thoughts.

Let me ask you a question. If Zeus returned to mount Olympus on a thundercloud and said that henceforth all lightning was his judgement bolts, directed against evildoers in a world that had forgotten his existence, would you still cling to your belief in Jesus?

 

Hypothetical questions like that don't amount to much if the askee can't acknowledge the possibility they present.

 

This is simply a red herring. You do no negate one hypothetical by asking another, but this I can say. I wouldn't call him an asshole for not doing it on my timetable. I would have to adopt a wait and see approach to serving him simply because I have no knowledge of Zeus as I (and you) have of Jesus' rules and regulations. Of course no one is claiming Zeus will return, nor is this an exZeusfollower site because no intelligent person feels any need to refute Zeusianity.

 

Rad

I wasn't trying to negate the question with my own. I was illustrating that the hypothetical is only as good as the answer it seeks to evoke, which point your response has borne out well. Think about it: If Jesus came back in a blaze of blah blah blah, etcetera etcetera, would his healing of 1000 people mean dick in the face of the 100,000,100 or so termially ill people who cried out for his healing and recieved nothing? Why would any of the world not acknowledge his blaze of glory return and miraculous healing and so on, if the answer to question 1 is yes? And if there were people who in the face of such conclusive evidence could still reject him (where did you get that number, 28% anyway--no, don't answer that) What about the 25-6 billion or so people in history who didn't get the chance to have their doubts assuaged by such proof and therefore didn't acknowledge his lordship?

 

Would I still call him the same? I think I'd have to take a 'wait and see' stance, because my knowledge of Jesus 'rules and regulations' make me skeptical that it'd be anything I'd want to live under. Additionally, there are people who take seriously the belief in the Olympians, no one refutes it because it's now a fringe religion, a position your religion is likely to take once it's claims fail to have merit-- again.

[Ramen666]

That would not be just; that would be grotesque. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth justice would -- at the very most -- demand 70 years of punishment for 70 years of "sinning." But, as I see it, whatever separates us from God was accepted by Jesus who laid down his life for his friends. The scales of justice are balanced for all of us

 

But that is not the case though you BURN IN HELL for all E-T-E-R-N-I-T-Y why don't you get that. That is Gods rules don't you get that. The Bible's rules don't automatically change when the time changes. NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE says rules get to change. If you don't believe in God you WILL BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY. Ya it is not a fair and you said so yourself but now your trying to make light of the situation.

[currentchristian]

Occam's Razor indicates that one is better off not complicating one's life with difficult absurdities like the Xian religion. One can live a happy life without it, so why futz with it to begin with?

 

Besides, Pascal's Wager plays on fear (the fear of Hell), and not on absolute evidence, so it is useless to make a decision with, anyway. The same paranoia leads to neurotic behavior in sin-fearful Xians, which in turn can help lead to OCD and other mental disorders, all for a god no one can prove.

 

And since Pascal's Wager plays on the fear of Hell, and you don't believe in Hell, why would you even cite it?

 

A couple of thing, Varokhar. Pascal's Wager does not play on fear of hell. It plays on "losing everything." The meaning of "losing everything" is very much open for discussion. It can mean anything. When Jesus spoke of the broad way that leads to destruction that "destruction" can be variously interpreted, too. Besides, if Pascal's Wager did play on the fear of hell that would not eliminate Pascal or the wager from my sources for thought and understanding. I quote Jefferson a lot and Jefferson owned slaves. I don't personally believe in slave owning (need I even say it?), yet I can't throw all of Jefferson out the window because of his great and terrible sin of owning other human beings.

 

Occam's Razor, on the contrary, would recommend that the most simple explanation likely is the correct one. To me, and again I speak only for myself and don't in any way malign the views of others, the most simple explanation for all that is is that All That Is set it in motion. That's a very simple way of looking at things and I do like simplicity.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

There are dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of religions threatening you with hell and/or assorted punishments. There dozens, hundreds, and thousands of versions of each of those religions, many of them threatening you with punishments and damnations if you don't believe in their exact version. When you make pascal's wager, what have you gained other than the hypothetical protection from the threats of a single version of a single god among THOUSANDS of threats? Do you really want to base your belief system on threats?

 

I don't know if you 'lose' anything tangible when you choose pascal's wager, but when you choose to believe in something that you can't see, touch, taste, smell, feel, prove, test, verify, falsify, or have any REAL knowledge of... then you've LOST a certain grip on reality.

 

Pascal's Wager, I think, addressed itself to the existence of a "god" or "supreme being." (Maybe I'm wrong about that.) Not being a member of any religious organization (or political one, either, for that matter) I'd not suggest others join a church or some such thing. It just seems to me that claiming to know there is no God, atheism, is much less sustainable that claiming to not know either way. None of us knows, for certain, what is reality.

 

To answer your question about basing one's belief system on threats. I think that's quite unacceptable. One belief system should be based on faith, hope and love.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

Think about it: If Jesus came back in a blaze of blah blah blah, etcetera etcetera, would his healing of 1000 people mean dick in the face of the 100,000,100 or so termially ill people who cried out for his healing and recieved nothing?

 

Could it be that all who call upon the Lord for healing receive a healing, but not all receive the healing in this life? Could it be that death is the great release from the pain and suffering of this life and that what comes later, when we are set from from our meat-suit, is so wonderful, so magnificent, so glorious that whatever we have suffered in this life fades to meaningless in comparison?

 

This is not to say that we should not use any and all means to eliminate suffering and sickess and pain IN THIS LIFE, but that perhaps God answers all these pleas...somewhere down the road. I sure hope so!

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

But that is not the case though you BURN IN HELL for all E-T-E-R-N-I-T-Y why don't you get that. That is Gods rules don't you get that. The Bible's rules don't automatically change when the time changes. NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE says rules get to change. If you don't believe in God you WILL BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY. Ya it is not a fair and you said so yourself but now your trying to make light of the situation.

 

I must disagree, Ramen666. Rules change in the Bible all the time. Polygamy was allowed, then it was not. Sacrificing bulls and goats was required, then it was not. Marrying foreigners was forbidden, then it was not. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth," justice is overturned by Jesus' justice of "bless those who curse you." God is confined in a tabernacle, then a temple, then God is set free to inhabit the universe. Working on the Sabbath is strictly forbidden and Jesus even "gets in trouble" for healing on the Sabbath, so Jesus amends the constitution, so to speak, and allows good on the Sabbath. All sorts of rituals and commandments are superceded by the advent of Jesus. Rules change all the time in the Bible!

 

Regarding hell, there is no hellfire in the Old Testament and there is no version of Dante's hellfire in the New Testament. Hellfire as we have been taught does not exist in scripture. Seems to me.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Dhampir]

Could it be that all who call upon the Lord for healing receive a healing, but not all receive the healing in this life? Could it be that death is the great release from the pain and suffering of this life and that what comes later, when we are set from from our meat-suit, is so wonderful, so magnificent, so glorious that whatever we have suffered in this life fades to meaningless in comparison?

 

This is not to say that we should not use any and all means to eliminate suffering and sickess and pain IN THIS LIFE, but that perhaps God answers all these pleas...somewhere down the road. I sure hope so!

Could it be that this is a cop out? Could it be that since everyone dies, by this logic all earthly healing is worthless, and to say that we should trust god's idea of granting relief, yet also say that we should try to eliminate suffering and disease is a blatant contradiction in statements?

 

Could it be that the Riddler and the Joker have joined forces to stop the Dynamic Duo?

 

Anyway, all these could-it-be's indicate to me that you lack the certainty to more positively assert those possibilities. I've a question: When 3rd world citizens die of starvation and disease, as they invariably do, when infants are stricken with tumors the size of their own heads, or larger, when 12 year old hockey prodigies are sticken with osteosarcomas a decade before they even approach their prime, when anyone at all is afflicted by an incurable condition, for which their only hope is the random, as yet inexplicable sponteneous remission, which occurs no more frequently in believers than in non-believers, do you fall on the could-it-be scenario to explain why god is good despite it all?

[Lycorth]

Pascal's Wager does not play on fear of hell. It plays on "losing everything." The meaning of "losing everything" is very much open for discussion. It can mean anything.

 

I've never heard a Xian refer to Pascal's Wager as somehow not referring to Hell. "Losing everything" and "destruction" are always taught as meaning eternal torment, coupled with losing out on prasing the Abrahamic god for all eternity. No Xian fears lying dormant in a grave and eternal rest and/or nonexistence is hardly worse off than a life of self-denial "rewarded" with kissing your god's ass for all eternity. That's why there's Hell in the Babble - the one great motivator for the "unsaved" to believe.

 

Anton LaVey said it well when he said that the Devil is the best friend the Xians have ever had, since he has kept them in business all these years.

 

According to Wikipedia, Pascal argued that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists, because the expected value of believing that God exists is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief.

 

Occam's Razor, on the contrary, would recommend that the most simple explanation likely is the correct one. To me, and again I speak only for myself and don't in any way malign the views of others, the most simple explanation for all that is is that All That Is set it in motion. That's a very simple way of looking at things and I do like simplicity.

 

It's also simple to insist the Flying Spaghetti Monster made everything, but simplicity cannot override facts, and the facts don't stack up for the Xian god even existing. Occam's Razor is not a substitute for facing reality.

 

Regarding hell, there is no hellfire in the Old Testament and there is no version of Dante's hellfire in the New Testament. Hellfire as we have been taught does not exist in scripture. Seems to me.

 

May I remind you of the lengthy post I made in this very thread which refutes your claim? I assume you merely overlooked it, unless you did so intentionally.

 

Behold.

[rad]

I wasn't trying to negate the question with my own. I was illustrating that the hypothetical is only as good as the answer it seeks to evoke, which point your response has borne out well. Think about it: If Jesus came back in a blaze of blah blah blah, etcetera etcetera, would his healing of 1000 people mean dick in the face of the 100,000,100 or so termially ill people who cried out for his healing and recieved nothing? Why would any of the world not acknowledge his blaze of glory return and miraculous healing and so on, if the answer to question 1 is yes? And if there were people who in the face of such conclusive evidence could still reject him (where did you get that number, 28% anyway--no, don't answer that) What about the 25-6 billion or so people in history who didn't get the chance to have their doubts assuaged by such proof and therefore didn't acknowledge his lordship?

 

Would I still call him the same? I think I'd have to take a 'wait and see' stance, because my knowledge of Jesus 'rules and regulations' make me skeptical that it'd be anything I'd want to live under. Additionally, there are people who take seriously the belief in the Olympians, no one refutes it because it's now a fringe religion, a position your religion is likely to take once it's claims fail to have merit-- again.

 

You have misrepresented what I asked, but in any case at least you have changed your mind about calling him names at least. I wish some other skeptics would weigh in on the whole "proof" issue, but I suppose they see my point. Probably "proof" would make a difference to those who don't have an opinion, but I wonder how many skeptics realize how little it would change- i.e. in terms of their heart attitude towards Jesus, and their willingness to serve him.

[Dhampir]

Pascal's Wager, I think, addressed itself to the existence of a "god" or "supreme being." (Maybe I'm wrong about that.)

You are. Pascal was christian, and an apologist. That said, Pascal's Wager, whether Pascal knew it or not, has unbelievers at the safest place of all. Because to believe in god as a general concept is self defeating on a couple levels. One, different ideas of god are contradictory so a general concept is not quite compatible with the idea of reward or consequence, and two, general belief in god comes only with rewards that you can imagine, as you imagined your general god. Why are unbelievers in the safest position? Because there aren't two choices, belief or unbelief. It's more like, belief in christian god, or unbelief, or Islam, or Hinduism, or the Olympians, or the Norse pantheon, or the Egyptian pantheon, or Zoroastrianism, or Mythraism, or Shinto, or Buddhism (okay, not really Buddhism; I understand you can have another religion and be Buddhist), or the hundreds of native American human and animal deities, or the hundreds of middle eastern deities, or the hundreds of Chinese deities, and so forth.

 

If I align myself with any of them, I risk the offence or anger of any of the others who could really be right, especially those that give a crap about being slighted by worshippers of a false god. If I stay neutral, when the moment of judgement comes, I'll at least be able to say that I earnestly searched, and came up with nothing that convinced me to follow any deity, much less whoever it was that was right. Not that fear of worshipping the wrong god is at the core or any facet of my disbelief, I just don't believe.

[Lycorth]

...but I wonder how many skeptics realize how little it would change- i.e. in terms of their heart attitude towards Jesus, and their willingness to serve him.

 

What don't you understand about people not wanting to "serve" your god if

 

1. There's absolutely no proof that he ever existed or walked among humans

 

and

 

2. That just showing up would not make us automatically love him and that he'd actually have to act like the all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful god he is, because millions of Xians have prayed for things and gotten squat?

 

It's simple, really. No smoke means no fire.

 

=

[Antlerman]

The "wait and see" approach (agnosticism) you outline Rad seems like a good one to me. Making up one's mind completely and absolutely that there is no God (atheism) seems extreme.

 

Of course, one could say that making up one's mind that there is a God (theism or deism) is also extreme. But Pascal's Wager would indicate that one who bets on God and loses actually loses nothing.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

Hi CC, I'm going to correct a misconception you just stated that being an atheist means "making up one's mind completely and absolutely that there is no God". That is a tad bit of an overstatement. I am an atheist and that does not represent my thinking at all.

 

Given what I've experienced, heard, studied, evaluated, etc, I do not see that a God exists in reality outside the human experience of language and culture, but it is inaccurate to say I make my mind up absolutely about anything. That is contrary to intellectual honesty to close the door on any possibility. This is tantamount to how religious belief operates. That is not the case with me. I am open to knowledge.

 

However, it's all about a sliding scale of probabilities ranging from very probable, all the way down to highly unlikely. When something has a high probability, then I act upon that with a "greater degree of certainty". If something has a very low probability of being something valid, then it is highly unlikely that I will act on it. This defines atheism for me. There is no present evidence that makes it worth consideration to act upon. I don't believe in God.

 

I should add, I can also anticipate with high confidence, that the likelihood of any evidence being forthcoming is so low based on past attempts to offer evidence for God, that for all intents and purposes I am “provisionally decided” on a position to assume that of atheism, but at the point of compelling evidence to the contrary, something massive and contrary to everything shown to date, at that point then to deny it would be on the level of a religious denial, like those who belive in Creationism while denying the Theory of Evolution (I mention science here only as an example of how religious faith leads to emotionally driven denial).

 

So you understand however, which I suspect you do already at this point from previous posts that I don't think that religious beliefs are completely without value. I just don't accept the symbols of it as an objective reality outside the language system. However... outside language, what is reality to us? (Another conversation )

[Ramen666]

I must disagree, Ramen666. Rules change in the Bible all the time. Polygamy was allowed, then it was not. Sacrificing bulls and goats was required, then it was not. Marrying foreigners was forbidden, then it was not. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth," justice is overturned by Jesus' justice of "bless those who curse you." God is confined in a tabernacle, then a temple, then God is set free to inhabit the universe. Working on the Sabbath is strictly forbidden and Jesus even "gets in trouble" for healing on the Sabbath, so Jesus amends the constitution, so to speak, and allows good on the Sabbath. All sorts of rituals and commandments are superceded by the advent of Jesus. Rules change all the time in the Bible!

 

Regarding hell, there is no hellfire in the Old Testament and there is no version of Dante's hellfire in the New Testament. Hellfire as we have been taught does not exist in scripture. Seems to me.

 

 

See you are doing it again, now you are basically saying hell is not in the Bible? WTF and you call yourself a Christian but don't belive in hell or just don't want to accept it.

 

By the way IT IS THE BIBLE and you are denying the fiery hell because God is a lovable puppy. Here the are verses buddy:

 

Reve 19:20 (NASB) And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.

Reve 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Reve 20:14 And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

 

The "lake of fire" burns with brimstone (sulfur.) (Rev 19:20)

It is a place of torment "day and night forever"(Rev 20:10)

Going there is "the second death" (Rev 20:14)

Anyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life goes there!!!! (Rev 20:15)

Those who commit bad sins go there, but then so do the cowardly and unbelieving! (Rev 21:8)

Rev 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part [will be] in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

[Dhampir]

Occam's Razor, on the contrary, would recommend that the most simple explanation likely is the correct one. To me, and again I speak only for myself and don't in any way malign the views of others, the most simple explanation for all that is is that All That Is set it in motion. That's a very simple way of looking at things and I do like simplicity.

Believe it or not, Occam's Razor actually makes your position the less tenable one. The simplest choice is the one that not only answers the most questions, but raises the fewest. As long as science remains...well, science, any goddidit answer will always beg more questions: How did god do it? How did those mechanisms work? What aspect of his speaking was sufficient in itself to call things that didn't exist into existence? What caused god? If god of a necessity was uncaused, then how does it follow that the universe couldn't be uncaused? Why did the physical constants of the universe have to be exactly as they are for life to arise? Why couldn't god have changed those constants and still achieved favorable results? Why couldn't human life have arisen on Jupiter?

 

And a whole host of other questions that I have not the scientific education to propose.

You have misrepresented what I asked, but in any case at least you have changed your mind about calling him names at least. I wish some other skeptics would weigh in on the whole "proof" issue, but I suppose they see my point. Probably "proof" would make a difference to those who don't have an opinion, but I wonder how many skeptics realize how little it would change- i.e. in terms of their heart attitude towards Jesus, and their willingness to serve him.

I'm pretty sure I didn't misrepresent anything. You asked what would happen if Jesus came back and blah blah blah, to which I responded by saying there'd be some conditions that'd have to be satisfied before I could accept his goodness as fact.

 

At the point your hypothetical ended, for the record, the only name I would not call him would be nonexistant. Like I just said, it would take more than that to convince me he was good. Which brings me to sentence three. Remember when I asked why there'd be people who didn't believe he was all-good and whatnot if they saw these things? Belief is compulsory. Not nearly as much choice as christians tend to believe. I believe that god, as depicted in the bible, is unworthy of my service, and certainly unworthy of my love. All Jesus would need to do in your hypothetical, is show us unbelievers that the bible is not the most accurate representation of him,and that his true nature is all or most of what people generally look to as good and loving, and I guarantee 99.999% of all unbelievers would change their tunes. Of course, that would indicate that believers are the deficient ones...

[currentchristian]

Could it be that this is a cop out? Could it be that since everyone dies, by this logic all earthly healing is worthless, and to say that we should trust god's idea of granting relief, yet also say that we should try to eliminate suffering and disease is a blatant contradiction in statements?

 

Could it be that the Riddler and the Joker have joined forces to stop the Dynamic Duo?

 

Anyway, all these could-it-be's indicate to me that you lack the certainty to more positively assert those possibilities. I've a question: When 3rd world citizens die of starvation and disease, as they invariably do, when infants are stricken with tumors the size of their own heads, or larger, when 12 year old hockey prodigies are sticken with osteosarcomas a decade before they even approach their prime, when anyone at all is afflicted by an incurable condition, for which their only hope is the random, as yet inexplicable sponteneous remission, which occurs no more frequently in believers than in non-believers, do you fall on the could-it-be scenario to explain why god is good despite it all?

 

It could be (smile), Dhampir. I used "could it be" because I think it's wise to humbly assert various possible answers, solutions, views, to complex questions. Dogmatic answers -- from atheists, agnostics, or theists -- seem most unwise. Of course I lack certainty on the particulars. While I am certain my Redeemer lives (to quote poor ole Job), I am not certain -- not at all -- of all the therefore's that truth gives birth to. Anyone who thinks they have it all figured out is sorely mistaken. Seems to me.

 

When Third World children die it is because we human beings have failed. Check out most such deaths and you'll find an evil warlord or dictator (Somalia, Ethiopia and North Korea spring to mind) behind it all. Or you'll have civil war between groups based on religion or lack thereof or politics or racial/ethnic animosity. Even when the root cause is a natural disaster such as a famine, we human beings act slowly and often corrupt the process. We can put some blame on God and God can handle it, if we want, but most blame should be on us. Seems to me.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

I've never heard a Xian refer to Pascal's Wager as somehow not referring to Hell. "Losing everything" and "destruction" are always taught as meaning eternal torment, coupled with losing out on prasing the Abrahamic god for all eternity. No Xian fears lying dormant in a grave and eternal rest and/or nonexistence is hardly worse off than a life of self-denial "rewarded" with kissing your god's ass for all eternity. That's why there's Hell in the Babble - the one great motivator for the "unsaved" to believe.

 

Well, hellfire (definition=Dante's Inferno) doesn't motivate me since I don't believe it exists. It doesn't matter to me what the church of the Middle Ages taught or the chuch down the street this morning taught about hellfire. In my view, the doctrine of hellfire has done more harm than good, much more harm. I look forward to a complete abandonment of this non-scriptural teaching! Soon, I hope.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

It's also simple to insist the Flying Spaghetti Monster made everything, but simplicity cannot override facts, and the facts don't stack up for the Xian god even existing. Occam's Razor is not a substitute for facing reality.

 

May I remind you of the lengthy post I made in this very thread which refutes your claim? I assume you merely overlooked it, unless you did so intentionally.

 

Behold.

 

Thankfully, in our country, we have a right to believe in the FSM or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot or nothing or a Creator God revealed in Jesus the Christ. We have this right, and the right to evangelize our views. This website exists, thank God, because we have a right in this country to throw off a religion that did not work for us and evangelize others to do likewise or at least support them in their decision to discard that old garment that didn't fit very well.

 

Let me look at your post. Either I missed it or had no response. I'll check it out. Nothing intentional, I assure you. I can always come up with some answer!

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

One, different ideas of god are contradictory so a general concept is not quite compatible with the idea of reward or consequence, and two, general belief in god comes only with rewards that you can imagine, as you imagined your general god. Why are unbelievers in the safest position? Because there aren't two choices, belief or unbelief. It's more like, belief in christian god, or unbelief, or Islam, or Hinduism, or the Olympians, or the Norse pantheon, or the Egyptian pantheon, or Zoroastrianism, or Mythraism, or Shinto, or Buddhism (okay, not really Buddhism; I understand you can have another religion and be Buddhist), or the hundreds of native American human and animal deities, or the hundreds of middle eastern deities, or the hundreds of Chinese deities, and so forth.

 

As I wrote in a post a few days ago: Religion is like alcohol (or soda or food or a television show). Pick what seems to feed one's being, one's soul, one's psyche, and stick to it. God cannot expect that we believe in Jesus if we don't. If we don't, we don't. It's just that simple. I believe in Jesus as the Supreme Ambassador of God. I just do. It's that simple. Others believe that Buddha's Middle Way makes sense. Fine. I have a friend who "worships" Diana. Fine. No problem. But we all should respect what others have come to believe or not believe and not disparage, shame, or slander others for heartfelt hopes, desires, and attitudes we do not happen to share.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

There's absolutely no proof that he ever existed or walked among humans

 

While there is no proof outside the gospels that Jesus was from God or that he performed miracles or that he was resurrected, there is proof that he existed as a historical personage, no matter how misunderstood you believe he may have been. No reputable scholar or historian would deny the existence of a historical Jesus. Everything else about him, however, is up for debate.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

Hi CC, I'm going to correct a misconception you just stated that being an atheist means "making up one's mind completely and absolutely that there is no God". That is a tad bit of an overstatement. I am an atheist and that does not represent my thinking at all.

 

Thank you, Antlerman, for correcting my overstatement. I appreciate it. Enjoyed reading the rest of your post, too.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

See you are doing it again, now you are basically saying hell is not in the Bible? WTF and you call yourself a Christian but don't belive in hell or just don't want to accept it.

 

By the way IT IS THE BIBLE and you are denying the fiery hell because God is a lovable puppy. Here the are verses buddy:

 

Reve 19:20 (NASB) And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.

Reve 20:10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Reve 20:14 And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

 

The "lake of fire" burns with brimstone (sulfur.) (Rev 19:20)

It is a place of torment "day and night forever"(Rev 20:10)

Going there is "the second death" (Rev 20:14)

Anyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life goes there!!!! (Rev 20:15)

Those who commit bad sins go there, but then so do the cowardly and unbelieving! (Rev 21:8)

Rev 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part [will be] in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

 

There may be a literal "lake of fire," but this is not the hellfire of Dante's imagination. This would be the final repository of the beast (not a literal beast I take it, but a metaphor), the false prophet (literal?), death (how do you throw death into a lake of fire?), the grave (literal? I don't see how), and those not written in the "book of life." Is there a literal book?

 

So these scriptures are highly figurative. If there is a literal lake, and there may be, it's the final destination. These verses say nothing that resembles Dante's eternal inferno with devils and pitchforks and suffering, etc., etc., etc. That is a myth. These verses also say nothing about this being a hellfire that some go to the moment of death. (The traditional view is that at the moment of death one enters into the presence of the Lord or into the torments of hell--a view definitely NOT supported by scripture.)

 

This Revelation imagery is the wrap-up, the curtain call, and all who have not submitted to the new world after seeing it and its creator face to face in a 1000-year reign of peace will have to be destroyed. There's no way around that, and I've never said otherwise.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Dhampir]

Seems to me.

Seems to me the could-it-be is used specifially for the purpose of laying the vast bulk of the blame on us, or perhaps more accurately, not on god. This may be done unbeknownst even to yourself.

 

When Third World children die it is because we human beings have failed.

When anybody dies it's because we failed. Have you noticed that? We didn't act in time, we stopped the progress of medicine that would have invented cures for diseases that are simple now, we didn't diagnose properly. I think there's a word for that: hubris. We call on god for answers, yet it is our fault when we don't get them. Anyway, you only addressed the third-world starving children. What about the adults and the disease? What about all the other scenarios? Surely there's no *earthly* despot responsible for childhood cancers?

 

It's more than a lack of certainty, really. You're really just proposing possible answers in a world where the christian god exists, who by all appearances to us does not live up to his promises, and somehow wonder how this is insuffient for unvelievers. How could you even take a stab at these very weighty questions, when doing so only results in greater uncertainty?

[currentchristian]

It's a good thing that you, as a Xian, don't accept the teachings about Hell and choose to fluffisize them; if we must have Xians, best to not have them teaching the traditional concept of Hell.

 

That was quite a treatise. Like you, Varokhar, I am very familiar with these verses. They do not convince me to believe that the "lost" wake up after death in torment and remain in torment for 400 quadrillion years. This is not what these scriptures teach.

 

We have to remember, too, and I know you know this having been in the Christian religion for so long, that the translators of the KJV in 1611, for example, believed in a literal hellfire. It was, therefore, quite easy for them to find their belief in the manuscripts being translated. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, do not belive in a literal hellfire, and you can see that they have translated some of these texts quite differently in their New World Translation. Personally, I'd like to see a translation that removes the word "hell" altogether and uses instead the original words: Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, Tartaras, etc.

 

I don't think I'm "fluffisizing" these teachings, just seeing them differently.

 

One thing: In writing that "if we must have Xians..." it made me feel that you'd rather not have Christians around, that you'd like to do away with us. While some Christians get my goat (I could name them for days, but will suffice it to name just one: Jerry Falwell), I have no right to wish anyone away. I want to have Jews around and Muslims and Atheists and Agnostics and Christians and Gay people and Straight people and so on. Don't you?

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Dhampir]

As I wrote in a post a few days ago: Religion is like alcohol (or soda or food or a television show). Pick what seems to feed one's being, one's soul, one's psyche, and stick to it. God cannot expect that we believe in Jesus if we don't. If we don't, we don't. It's just that simple. I believe in Jesus as the Supreme Ambassador of God. I just do. It's that simple. Others believe that Buddha's Middle Way makes sense. Fine. I have a friend who "worships" Diana. Fine. No problem. But we all should respect what others have come to believe or not believe and not disparage, shame, or slander others for heartfelt hopes, desires, and attitudes we do not happen to share.

As I said, some religions are contradictory, so 'I just do' is insufficient'. I'm in no way demanding that you explain the fullness of your belief, not in the slightest, you can 'just do' all you want in a free country, just know that if you open your mouth about it, 'I just do' is insufficient. If you believe that hell is untenable coming from any just god, that's excellent, but if so, why are you partaking in these discussions?

 

And no. I don't have to respect your beliefs. Courtesy perhaps demands that I don't disparage them (as long as you don't have it coming; I hope I haven't disparaged your beliefs too greatly), but if you have the right to them, I have the right to think they're ridiculous. My respect comes from the belief itself, and how the conclusions that hold it up are arrived at, not the person holding them, or the fact that a person is holding them.

[currentchristian]

What about the adults and the disease? What about all the other scenarios? Surely there's no *earthly* despot responsible for childhood cancers?

 

Did you notice that I wrote that we can put some blame on God. I have no problem with that and I bet God doesn't, either. But first we should look in the mirror at our own neglect, our own greed, our own selfishness. Cancers are often -- but not always -- due to environmental issues created by human beings. Those causes that cannot be tied directly to human malfeasance (sp?), most of them I'd say, we can lay at God's doorstop. No problem with that and I don't think God has a problem with that, either. But we must remember that if there is a God, one day everything will be fixed. Everything. No more war. No more famine. No more cancer. No more disease. No more death. Wouldn't that be wonderful!

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Dhampir]

Cancer is inevitable. Product of cell division. Sure, current environmental factors have sped the inevitable along, but still...

 

Blame? Blame implies wrongdoing, or imperfection. Perhaps you mean responsibility. Of course, if god is perfect, or at least omnipotent, then what has to be fixed? All is as it should be, and I see no reason to expect god to fix what isn't broke. if god is omnibenevolent, then nothing should have needed to be fixed in the first place.

[currentchristian]

If you believe that hell is untenable coming from any just god, that's excellent, but if so, why are you partaking in these discussions?

 

And no. I don't have to respect your beliefs. Courtesy perhaps demands that I don't disparage them (as long as you don't have it coming; I hope I haven't disparaged your beliefs too greatly), but if you have the right to them, I have the right to think they're ridiculous. My respect comes from the belief itself, and how the conclusions that hold it up are arrived at, not the person holding them, or the fact that a person is holding them.

 

Maybe we see the word "respect" differently. For example, my nephew lives and dies to play baseball, football, basketball, to watch it on television, he sets up a shrine to the Cowboys every Sunday they play, etc., etc. For me, it's a waste of time, for the most part, but that's my nephew. That's just how he is. He believes in the Cowboys! I respect his views and hobbies and interests, and by buying sports cards on ebay with him or taking him to an occasional game I try to understand him better and share something with him. That's what I mean by respect.

 

We all can learn from each other. That's why I'm here. An agnostic friends referred me to the first question posted in the "Calling All Liberal Christians" thread and I responded to it and found this conversation fascinating. (I'm not posting anywhere but on "General Theological Issues." I've read posts elsewhere, but this is the only thread I have time for!)

 

I have learned so much already from all of you. I understand where you are coming from so much better now. Do I believe in God less for having read your words? No. But I understand better those who do not believe in a god. My hope is that maybe I can offer a few things to some of you, too, to reciprocate. I like friendly debate and vigorous discussions. That's what is on this forum...for the most part (there are some unfriendly posts ).

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

Cancer is inevitable. Product of cell division. Sure, current environmental factors have sped the inevitable along, but still...

 

Blame? Blame implies wrongdoing, or imperfection. Perhaps you mean responsibility. Of course, if god is perfect, or at least omnipotent, then what has to be fixed? All is as it should be, and I see no reason to expect god to fix what isn't broke. if god is omnibenevolent, then nothing should have needed to be fixed in the first place.

 

Yes, Dhampir, responsibility is a better word that blame. Thank you.

 

I don't think God is omnipotent, at least not now. God cannot thwart our free will. Hitlers can exist. AIDS can exist. Darfurs can exist. While God may have the potential to be omnipotent, God does not exercise this potential at this time. I look foward to the day he does -- when the lion rests with the lamb and swords are beat into plowshares.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Dhampir]

I didn't say I couldn't or didn't respect you for having these beliefs, and I didn't mean to imply that thinking a particular belief is ridiculous means that I don't respect you. If you are worthy of respect then I can respect you, just not your belief.

 

Also, not all beliefs that I disagree with garner my disrespect.

 

I don't think God is omnipotent, at least not now. God cannot thwart our free will. Hitlers can exist. AIDS can exist. Darfurs can exist. While God may have the potential to be omnipotent, God does not exercise this potential at this time. I look foward to the day he does -- when the lion rests with the lamb and swords are beat into plowshares.

I was ready to bow out, but here...If god has all the power, but willfully restricts himself, such that Darfur and Hitler are capable of such evil, then it would imply that he is also not omnibenevolent, or even very benevolent, which benevolence I think would be harder for god (read: impossible) to restrict in himself. Here it seems that god's goodness is increasingly in question to the point that it looks like he's really just a man with superpowers, who is no better than we are, perhaps not as good.

[currentchristian]

I was ready to bow out, but here...If god has all the power, but willfully restricts himself, such that Darfur and Hitler are capable of such evil, then it would imply that he is also not omnibenevolent, or even very benevolent, which benevolence I think would be harder for god (read: impossible) to restrict in himself. Here it seems that god's goodness is increasingly in question to the point that it looks like he's really just a man with superpowers, who is no better than we are, perhaps not as good.

 

But when God does act against the wicket, he is accused by many on this site of being evil. Maybe the world of Noah, full of violence as it was, needed to be destroyed. Perhaps at some future date many will have to be extinquished in the "lake of fire" or the "grave" in order to insure peace and tranquility for the majority.

 

Can we have it both ways: God is damned if he acts against the evil. God is damned if he doesn't act against the evil. Poor God. Glad he has big shoulders. (Not trying to be sarcastic or facetious, but seriously observing an inconsistency in what some on this forum want God to do: act or not act against the wicked? Which?)

 

For me, I prefer the full reign of individual freedom in this life, even the liberty to do evil, with utter submission to God mandated in, as Judaism puts it, "the world to come."

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

[Dhampir]

Yeah, those damned evil babies, with their selfishness and crying and pooping. Well the smell is evil anyway. Of course it's alright that god wiped out the evil adults and the *evil* children, because the *evil* children 'could be' better off. Not like god couldn't have spared them that knew nothing of their actions, just the horror of slowly having ones lungs filled with unbreathable water is nothing considering the splendor that doesn't await the evil parents of these *evil* children.

 

Just like human suffering is nothing to worry about because it 'could be' that everyone who gets it deserves it, and it 'could be' that everyone who doesn't deserve it should suck it up, and not even bother begging for relief that doesn't involve death, because it 'could be' that their relief comes from death.

 

Maybe if god perhaps discriminated a little more, and acted against evil instead of lowering the boom with apparent reckless abandon, we wouldn't harp on it.

[dibby]

Maybe the problem comes with labelling people either "evil" or "good" . Maybe there are no evil or good people. Just us....people.

 

From the gnostic or mystic perspective the problem is because we are asleep in ignorance to our true nature. We get lost in our concepts and judgements about people and forget the human being who is the same as we are. As soon as people have been reduced to a concept or label it is then easier to do 'bad' things to them.

 

 

For instance......we are the "freedom fighters" in Iraq fighting the "terrorists"

 

But to some people in Iraq we are the "imperialist invaders" and they are the "freedom fighters"

 

 

Same problem shows up in the Bible. We are "God's chosen people" you are the "idol worshippers" and therefore "evil" and need to be driven from "god's land" (lol even the land gets conceptualised!)

 

The god of the old testament is truly monstrous for he postivley encourages this xenophobic attitude.

[currentchristian]

Yeah, those damned evil babies, with their selfishness and crying and pooping. Well the smell is evil anyway. Of course it's alright that god wiped out the evil adults and the *evil* children, because the *evil* children 'could be' better off. Not like god couldn't have spared them that knew nothing of their actions, just the horror of slowly having ones lungs filled with unbreathable water is nothing considering the splendor that doesn't await the evil parents of these *evil* children.

 

Just like human suffering is nothing to worry about because it 'could be' that everyone who gets it deserves it, and it 'could be' that everyone who doesn't deserve it should suck it up, and not even bother begging for relief that doesn't involve death, because it 'could be' that their relief comes from death.

 

Maybe if god perhaps discriminated a little more, and acted against evil instead of lowering the boom with apparent reckless abandon, we wouldn't harp on it.

 

Let's hope and work together for a day in which no one suffers, no one is sick or in pain, and no innocent ones dies. That's the future I hope for, so I pray "thy kingdom come" and try to live in such a way as to reduce the power of evil.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts