Evolution_beyond Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 I feel like a challenge. I'm going to argue as if I were still a christian. Now I was a fairly liberal and moderate christian when i was a believer. Also when I ceased to be a christian but was still a theist I started to interpret most of what was in the Bible from a symbolic and metaphorical point of view. So I'm curious about how some of those viewpoints I used to have would go down with all of the most atheist and anti-christian people on here. I might get confused whether I am arguing from the point of view of the Christian I used to be or the Post-christian Pantheist I used to be. But I'm interested in seeing whether I can argue effectively from either of those points of view. So here goes: I believe that the Bible is a divine metaphor. It was inspired by God but was written by fallable human beings. So sometimes human codes and morality get in there, but you need to take it in historical context and take some of that stuff with a pinch of salt. The important stuff is true though. But truth doesn't have to be literal, it can be metaphorical. Some truths are deeper than mere facts. Because human beings have free will, they make mistakes and get things wrong. Hell is not a literal place, it symbolises the pain and misery that can result from wrong choices and the suffering we cause others and ourselves. Jesus represents the divine in human nature - and his death and resurrection is symbolic of the process we all go through because of sin. When evil is created by human actions it kills off some of God's goodness. Also we suffer because of sin. So the crucifixion of Jesus symbolises both of these 'deaths'. Resurrection however symbolises what happens when people come to God of their own free will. When people come to God and become renewed by the Holy Spirit then they are symbolically resurrected from the death of sin. Resurrection also symbolises how God can symbolically be reborn when people come back to him. In the end I believe that all people will come back to God and the Universe will be perfect again. This is symbolised by Jesus' resurrection. The Holy Spirit is how God can work through people and renew them from within. It is kind of like spiritual enlightenment. Jesus was a highly enlightened human being, a bit like the Buddha.
sheri butterfly Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 there are no absolutes, what is truth other then thoughts thunk so much they become personal truths or collective but really its just a beleif ..... each person filters through their own life experinces and understandings so how can the bible contain truths is what I'd inquire ?? there is no such thing as free will ( or the understanding of it and its implementation is barbaric to say the least) , when the choice has been predetermined....you are simply choosing from what is there to begin with .. there is no right and wrong so how can we be mistaken is what i ask, we are making this stuff up as we go...... evolution beyond I am new here came on a recommend by Mako....
Evolution_beyond Posted July 18, 2007 Author Posted July 18, 2007 Wow. The difficult questions first I'll try my best to answer them as my theist self would have done. there are no absolutes, what is truth other then thoughts thunk so much they become personal truths or collective but really its just a beleif ..... each person filters through their own life experinces and understandings so how can the bible contain truths is what I'd inquire ?? No absolutes? Really? So if someone came and decided to kill you, because in their moral system it is alright to kill - that would be alright would it? Some things just are wrong because they affect other people's experiences in a negative way. That would be an absolute moral then, wouldn't it? And truth? Some things are just true. Some things are facts about the world - and so they are true. 2+2=4 is a truth. "The earth orbits around the sun" is a truth. there is no such thing as free will ( or the understanding of it and its implementation is barbaric to say the least) , when the choice has been predetermined....you are simply choosing from what is there to begin with .. I don't believe that choices are predetermined. Pre-destination is not a christian doctrine that I agree with. It's not even biblical, in my opinion. I think there is such a thing as free will, it's what you use when you make choices. there is no right and wrong so how can we be mistaken is what i ask, we are making this stuff up as we go...... evolution beyond I am new here came on a recommend by Mako.... Some morals are relative. Some are absolute. There are some things that are absolutely right or wrong, I would argue. Mostly they are things where you make another individual suffer. Those are the things where human beings can make mistakes. But we are supposed to make mistakes in order to learn from them. That is the point of Free Will. (Footnote: Interestingly, I didn't say anything there that my current atheist self would diagree with.)
sheri butterfly Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 LOL your theist self sounds very theist, I have a few things to do but will be back in a bit to respond .... this is so fun...(((HUGS)))
sheri butterfly Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 No absolutes? Really? So if someone came and decided to kill you, because in their moral system it is alright to kill - that would be alright would it? Some things just are wrong because they affect other people's experiences in a negative way. That would be an absolute moral then, wouldn't it? And truth? Some things are just true. Some things are facts about the world - and so they are true. 2+2=4 is a truth. "The earth orbits around the sun" is a truth. the absolute is just that the absolute the all of everything, the alpha the omega with nothing in between, there is no such thing as 'degree's of absolutness.. degrees of things exist in dualism or the relative that in which we live....there are many exceptions to killing, the bible is full of examples of this .... It actaully uses killing as a means to solve conflict... 2plus 2 =4 illustrates that meaning is defined only in relative to a scheme of interpretation in other words the meaning of a piece of information depends very much on how the information is to be interpreted.. do you see why there can be no absolutes????...... Free will ....say you are being held up with a gun.... the robber gives you a choice (predetermined made already) either you give the wallet or you get shot, the choice has been defined for you because if i was in this situation and if i actaully had free will then i would not be held at gun point or even be there to begin with.......free will is an oxymoron because there is no freedom in choice by the very fact you are being given a choice....so at best you can choose form a few options but its not freely its predetermined .... .... do you see the implications of this???? again right and wrong are relative morality cannot be legislated... the trouble is someone else has set the standards that means automatically you are limited, directed, dictated too and held hostage to what another's ideas of right and wrong should be... what should bring you happiness...basically placing values on what a standard of behaving should be that varies from philosophy to philosophy.. maybe we can agree that killing isn't a good idea but in effect this is not put into practice and according to what moral dictum one is following..In some religions it is noble to kill for god its the the highest calling....
Deva Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Evolution_beyond said "I believe that the Bible is a divine metaphor. It was inspired by God but was written by fallable human beings. So sometimes human codes and morality get in there, but you need to take it in historical context and take some of that stuff with a pinch of salt." Evolution_beyond: You present the liberal Christian view very well. I enjoyed reading your views. A few questions, if you please -- Why is the Bible "divine". In what way? Please explain. Do you elevate it over all the scriptures of other religions, or are they also divine? Is the Bhagavad Gita divine? Are the Buddhist sutras? Isn't it all written by humans? Are you saying humans are divine? Isn't it difficult to "take some of that stuff with a pinch of salt" and elevate other parts to a holy or divine status? Is that dependent on what today's society would consider to be acceptable? "Jesus represents the divine in human nature - and his death and resurrection is symbolic of the process we all go through because of sin." What is sin? The notion of sin presupposes the absolute standard which you maintain is a reality. I admit that torturing and killing human beings seems to be almost universally condemned in human society, but does that presuppose a God who implanted this standard? Didn't it come from the evolution of humans where we learned to live together and protect each other or the saber toothed cats would get us? If you are using the word sin as equivelent to "missing the mark" I can accept that, but that would be relative to each person's individual standards and is not usually how this word used. Where did sin come from? If the universe was created perfect, as you seem to believe, where is the evidence outside of the Adam and Eve story? What happened to this perfect universe to make it imperfect? Wouldn't God be responsible? " Jesus was a highly enlightened human being, a bit like the Buddha." I do think that Jesus and the Buddha have some teachings in common, but others that are not. Perhaps the early Christians even encountered Buddhists and incorported some of their teachings. Who really knows what parts of the New Testament were original things Jesus said and what parts are added long after by his disciples or those who came later? How do we sort this out to see if Jesus was really enlightened? It all seems rather complex. Lastly, "free choice" is an illusion. There are thousands of antecedent causes why one would make any particular choice. One's whole background, psychology, circumstances of the moment, etc., compel and influence choice, therefore it is never free. Of course we cannot be aware of all these factors, so the illusion is convincing. The brain is only able to process so much information consciously, there is a great deal going on that we are totally unaware of in each moment. Thanks for the post, evolution.
ShackledNoMore Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Evolution, I think this kind of exercise is fascinating. And it's interesting to compare our views with those based on other assumptions (or in this case, your xian and post-xian views). So without further adieu... Pre-evolution, In a way I'm glad to see that you're not a hard core fundamentalist and bible literalist, that's where the worst in xianity seems to come out. However, I would ask you the following about your position: You consider the bible to be a metaphor inspired by god, representing the truth. Granted you concede that the humans who wrote the bible got some stuff wrong, but if the bible really was inspired by some true god, one would expect it to provide a basically solid moral code, thanks to the divine inspiration, would he not? But the OT if filled with veritable atrocities. God calls upon his chosen to make war, to kill, to stone people for things like working on the sabbath, for adultery, for homosexuality. He tells a man to kill his own son. The bible tells you that if you so much as have a sexual thought about a woman you've committed adultery (which elsewhere is reason for you to deserve death), yet he has no problem with your impregnating your daughters in a drunken stupor if you're the right chosen servant. He condones slavery. These are not isolated passages from an otherwise sound document. It's nice to think of a christianity with only a symbolic hell, but the bible is rooted in the assumption that we are all terrible sinners and totally worthless but for the grace of god. It's summed up in the verse "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of god," but the theme runs throughout the entire bible. Moreover, christian moral principals are echoed and often exceeded in the teachings of virtually all other religions, including pagan religions which predated, and based on certain similarities, influenced christianity. There is no apparent superiority of biblical teaching compared with schools of morality from diverse other sources, religious and secular. That being the case, on what basis can you defend that the bible and christianity represent THE truth of god ABOVE other belief systems? How can you even justify belief in the christian god?
Evolution_beyond Posted July 19, 2007 Author Posted July 19, 2007 there are many exceptions to killing, the bible is full of examples of this .... It actaully uses killing as a means to solve conflict... Alas, this is one of those parts of the Bible that is the product of flawed human beings. It must be, because this killing is in direct contradiction to what Jesus said when he said to turn the other cheek. I follow Jesus, not the Bible. 2plus 2 =4 illustrates that meaning is defined only in relative to a scheme of interpretation in other words the meaning of a piece of information depends very much on how the information is to be interpreted.. do you see why there can be no absolutes????...... The language and concepts we use can be very much open to interpretation. I agree with you on that. This is why those who take the Bible literally are being so foolish. Any reading of any text involves interpreting what you read. Experience is a much better teacher than words. This is why christianity is more than just the Bible, in my opinion. Free will ....say you are being held up with a gun.... the robber gives you a choice (predetermined made already) either you give the wallet or you get shot, the choice has been defined for you because if i was in this situation and if i actaully had free will then i would not be held at gun point or even be there to begin with.......free will is an oxymoron because there is no freedom in choice by the very fact you are being given a choice....so at best you can choose form a few options but its not freely its predetermined .... .... do you see the implications of this???? Present day Evolution_beyond: Have you studied philosophy? That is actually a pretty good argument in favour of determinism, rather than free will. It also reminds me of certain conclusions I reached when I was studying philosophy - that free will and determinism are both the same thing. A totally free choice would be a random choice - but that's not quite what we mean by saying we have free will. A free will choice is really a calculation made according to the available data - a decision that is already determined by our own psychology, the situation we find ourselves in and the calculation we make as to what is best. But we are not completely determined either - because we still calculate a decision based on the data rather than blindly being carried along by external forces. It's hard to answer as my ex-self because I don't think I ever thought about this one that deeply before I studied philosophy. The best I can do is: Christian ex-self: It doesn't matter whether we are truly free or not in the manner you suggest. The same thing results. Actions are performed by people that put them out of tune with God's goodness. But Jesus provides an example that man can follow. By following this example and receiving the Holy Spirit, human beings can get back in tune with God. Jesus's death and resurrection are symbolic of this. Present day me: I keep getting confused as to which ex-self is doing the talking. Some of this symbolic description of the crucifixion and resurrection, and the symbolic interpretation of hell are more from my pantheist ex-self than my christian ex-self. I think I should have been more clear about who was saying what from the outset. Oh well... again right and wrong are relative morality cannot be legislated... the trouble is someone else has set the standards that means automatically you are limited, directed, dictated too and held hostage to what another's ideas of right and wrong should be... what should bring you happiness...basically placing values on what a standard of behaving should be that varies from philosophy to philosophy.. maybe we can agree that killing isn't a good idea but in effect this is not put into practice and according to what moral dictum one is following..In some religions it is noble to kill for god its the the highest calling.... I think there is morality that is logical and that most people would agree on. That which violates another person's free will is wrong because we all agree that we would not like that. This includes killing (taking someone's life against their will), raping (sex against someone's will) and theft (removing their property against their will). It does not include merely compromising because that is a mutual agreement to end disagreement and conflict (also the use of the word 'violate' implies some kind of suffering or violence). It does however include intimidating or oppressive behaviour when this itself is unnecessary to avoid a worse violation of free will, because these are also violent offences against a person's free choice even though they may be more hidden and subtle in nature. Present day: This way of establishing morality I figured out when I was very young and definitely still a christian. It may be what alllowed me to cherry pick about biblical morality so much. I had this way of figuring out true morality, which meant i could discern for myself which parts of biblical morality were from God and which parts were from man.
Evolution_beyond Posted July 19, 2007 Author Posted July 19, 2007 Why is the Bible "divine". In what way? Please explain. Do you elevate it over all the scriptures of other religions, or are they also divine? Is the Bhagavad Gita divine? Are the Buddhist sutras? Isn't it all written by humans? Are you saying humans are divine? Isn't it difficult to "take some of that stuff with a pinch of salt" and elevate other parts to a holy or divine status? Is that dependent on what today's society would consider to be acceptable? Pantheist ex-self: I believe all religions are God-breathed but they also include the false beliefs of human beings as well. They've all been corrupted if you like. It is the task of any believer to use their reasoning to discern between what is God-breathed and what merely comes from humans. This is the task that will lead to enlightenment in the end. In a sense humans are divine. We are all divine sparks from the divine flame. Christian ex-self: I think God can speak to people through other scriptures. But I also believe that God manifested himself through Jesus in a special way. This makes the christian scriptures an even better way of reaching God. But only because of Jesus. A lot of the rest of the Bible is still written by flawed human beings, even if they were inspired by God. It is difficult to discern what is from God and what is from man, but that is why you need to read the Bible with some knowledge of the historical context and the societies in which it was written. What is sin? The notion of sin presupposes the absolute standard which you maintain is a reality. I admit that torturing and killing human beings seems to be almost universally condemned in human society, but does that presuppose a God who implanted this standard? Didn't it come from the evolution of humans where we learned to live together and protect each other or the saber toothed cats would get us? If you are using the word sin as equivelent to "missing the mark" I can accept that, but that would be relative to each person's individual standards and is not usually how this word used. Where did sin come from? If the universe was created perfect, as you seem to believe, where is the evidence outside of the Adam and Eve story? What happened to this perfect universe to make it imperfect? Wouldn't God be responsible? christian ex-self: sin is when we perform wrong actions. All human beings do this. Wrong actions are those that hurt other people or violently impose on their own free will. Nobody is perfect. We all do this at times. Adam and Eve is a metaphorical story, the Israelites attempts to understand this. The reality is simple. God gave us Free Will. This inevitably involved the possibility that we would sin. It was a price worth paying. God doesn't want robots. He wants us to come to him because we love him and see the truth for ourselves. Whether or not you agree with this price being a necessary one, i don't think anyone would really want to have their free will taken away, would they? So it was the action of a loving God. One that loves us enough to let us be free. I do think that Jesus and the Buddha have some teachings in common, but others that are not. Perhaps the early Christians even encountered Buddhists and incorported some of their teachings. Who really knows what parts of the New Testament were original things Jesus said and what parts are added long after by his disciples or those who came later? How do we sort this out to see if Jesus was really enlightened? It all seems rather complex. Pantheist ex-self: Use your reasoning. Learn about the texts and the cultural, historical contexts in which they were written. Reach out to God - feel him in the world of nature, in the love and truth in your own heart. In such ways you could achieve enlightenment yourself, hopefully. I think this is what is meant by talk of the Holy Spirit. These are the best ways for discerning what is true in the Bible and what is false. Present day self: I'm not really sure how my christian ex-self would have answered this. But maybe it's not relevant because I think this talk of Jesus being the 'Buddha of the West' is more something my pantheist ex-self would have said anyway. Lastly, "free choice" is an illusion. There are thousands of antecedent causes why one would make any particular choice. One's whole background, psychology, circumstances of the moment, etc., compel and influence choice, therefore it is never free. Of course we cannot be aware of all these factors, so the illusion is convincing. The brain is only able to process so much information consciously, there is a great deal going on that we are totally unaware of in each moment. I've answered this already in the reply to the last person.
Evolution_beyond Posted July 19, 2007 Author Posted July 19, 2007 Evolution, I think this kind of exercise is fascinating. And it's interesting to compare our views with those based on other assumptions (or in this case, your xian and post-xian views). So without further adieu... I've often thought that I could defend christianity a lot better than many of the christians that come on this forum. So I thought I'd give it a go. Pre-evolution, In a way I'm glad to see that you're not a hard core fundamentalist and bible literalist, that's where the worst in xianity seems to come out. However, I would ask you the following about your position: You consider the bible to be a metaphor inspired by god, representing the truth. Granted you concede that the humans who wrote the bible got some stuff wrong, but if the bible really was inspired by some true god, one would expect it to provide a basically solid moral code, thanks to the divine inspiration, would he not? But the OT if filled with veritable atrocities. God calls upon his chosen to make war, to kill, to stone people for things like working on the sabbath, for adultery, for homosexuality. He tells a man to kill his own son. The bible tells you that if you so much as have a sexual thought about a woman you've committed adultery (which elsewhere is reason for you to deserve death), yet he has no problem with your impregnating your daughters in a drunken stupor if you're the right chosen servant. He condones slavery. These are not isolated passages from an otherwise sound document. Christian ex-self: Alas, Moses and the other law-makers in the Old Testament were flawed human beings. They were themselves constrained by the thinking of their own society and the time in history when they lived. I do not at all agree with things like killing as a punishment for crimes, nor do i agree that homosexuality is a crime. When God's message gets filtered through human beings then it often becomes corrupted by the human minds through which it is channelled. Also, I think that the thing about having a sexual thought being the same as committing adultery was part of a teaching by Jesus that was saying that marriage is wrong. It is accompanied by other teachings that say you shouldn't swear on anything but simply let your yes be yes and your no be no. I think Jesus was being very radical and saying that a human being can never know in advance whether he would be able to keep a promise like that or not. It is wrong to make an oath when you are not God and cannot know all things. Saying that a sexual thought is the same as adultery or that divorcing and then remarrying are the same as adultery were Jesus's ways of trying to wake people up to how ridiculous it is to swear about staying the rest of your life with someone. Present day self: Seriously, I actually interpreted that passage in that way even when I was a christian teenager. I wasn't scared of being radical when I was a christian! It's nice to think of a christianity with only a symbolic hell, but the bible is rooted in the assumption that we are all terrible sinners and totally worthless but for the grace of god. It's summed up in the verse "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of god," but the theme runs throughout the entire bible. Pantheist ex-self: people are not perfect - and so they sin. It is all part of a learning process so it is meant to happen. But negative things do result for people from their mistakes and the wrong they do. Hell symbolises this. However there is no such thing as an eternal state of suffering after death. After death, we all return to the source. Christian ex-self: I do believe there can be a state after death that corresponds with the biblical notion of hell. God doesn't send us there. The sinful nature can kind of block a soul from reaching God because God is pure righteousness. The soul that is still lost in sin will dwell in a kind of nightmare of the mind's devising. This makes God unhappy, which is why he wants to win us round, so that we can be renewed by his spirit and be with him in heaven. Present self: sorry, I wasn't clear enough in my OP about which ex-self was saying what. I got all my ex-beliefs a bit confused and tangled up together. Moreover, christian moral principals are echoed and often exceeded in the teachings of virtually all other religions, including pagan religions which predated, and based on certain similarities, influenced christianity. There is no apparent superiority of biblical teaching compared with schools of morality from diverse other sources, religious and secular. That being the case, on what basis can you defend that the bible and christianity represent THE truth of god ABOVE other belief systems? How can you even justify belief in the christian god? Christian ex-self: Because of Jesus. Jesus is God as a man. He can lead us to God in a way that other religions can't. I don't think pagan religions influenced christianity at all! Where did you get that from? Present self: actually I do know about Dionysus, Mithras, Attis etc now. This could be interesting. Follow down this line and you could snap my christian ex-self out of his christianity Pantheist ex-self: I don't believe that Christianity is a special route to God anymore. I think all religions are God-breathed but all of them have been corrupted by human misunderstandings also. It is the role of someone who wishes to become enlightened to try and discern what is from God and what is from humans only.
Deva Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Evolution_beyond said " A free will choice is really a calculation made according to the available data - a decision that is already determined by our own psychology, the situation we find ourselves in and the calculation we make as to what is best. But we are not completely determined either - because we still calculate a decision based on the data rather than blindly being carried along by external forces. It's hard to answer as my ex-self because I don't think I ever thought about this one that deeply before I studied philosophy" I don't understand how a decision is already determined by our own psychology is "free". I don't think you answered my point --that there are a million antecedent causes behind every action, therefore it is not "free". You seem to have some idea that it is a mixture of sorts. I just don't see how. I was happy to see you admit that man is divine--that logically follows from your saying that the writings of man are divine. However, this divinity must not be omiscient, because of the errors you admit are also in that text. But maybe you mean that man is divine only partially. Evolution_beyond said "The reality is simple. God gave us Free Will. This inevitably involved the possibility that we would sin. It was a price worth paying. God doesn't want robots. He wants us to come to him because we love him and see the truth for ourselves. Whether or not you agree with this price being a necessary one, i don't think anyone would really want to have their free will taken away, would they? So it was the action of a loving God. One that loves us enough to let us be free." I hope you really don't still believe this last quote. As most Christians do, you elevate Free Will above God. Does this really make sense? Couldn't God have fixed this situation differently? Why not make himself/herself a bit more obvious and clear in his/her presence to us? Why, since humans are "sparks of divinity" is it so difficult for many of them to see God? I don't see why God made it so hard. Couldn't God have created a situation where there was no necessity for hell? You say there is hell, but I don't think you said (in your present self) whether or not you think it is eternal in duration.
Deva Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Evolution_Beyond as Pantheist ex-self: "Use your reasoning. Learn about the texts and the cultural, historical contexts in which they were written. Reach out to God - feel him in the world of nature, in the love and truth in your own heart. In such ways you could achieve enlightenment yourself, hopefully. I think this is what is meant by talk of the Holy Spirit. These are the best ways for discerning what is true in the Bible and what is false." Evolution_Beyond: I come from a different Christian background than you do (raised fundamentalist). I am in agreement with what you say here, especially about God and nature. I would say to use one's reasoning is always best. But the Christianity I come from does not really allow for this. Especially in Paul's letters where he says or implies (been a long time since I read it) humanity is depraved and their reasoning is corrupt, therefore it cannot be relied upon. There can be no "achieving enlightenment." That is terminology that Christians just would not accept. I assume you would reject the notion of human reason being corrupted along with the other sections of the Bible you don't like. I am just curious: What led you to accept the reality of "enlightened" human beings?
Evolution_beyond Posted July 19, 2007 Author Posted July 19, 2007 I don't understand how a decision is already determined by our own psychology is "free". I don't think you answered my point --that there are a million antecedent causes behind every action, therefore it is not "free". You seem to have some idea that it is a mixture of sorts. I just don't see how. I'm speaking as my present self for the moment. My head gets kind of confused when I start discussing Free Will v. Determinism. I never really thought about it too much until I studied philosophy a few years back. I think I just assumed free will before then. Even when I started grappling with the issue I found it a bit of a confusing mind-fuck. In some sense it is certainly true that we make choices. I think there is a difference between something that makes choices and decisions and something that doesn't and is totally driven by unconscious cause and effect. But it is also true that even a creature that makes choices is determined to a certain extent but various factors that lie behind those choices. I'm still not at all certain one way or the other on this topic. My brain hurts a little when I try to make sense of it. I was happy to see you admit that man is divine--that logically follows from your saying that the writings of man are divine. However, this divinity must not be omiscient, because of the errors you admit are also in that text. But maybe you mean that man is divine only partially. Of course a man cannot be totally divine. You can't have everyone being omnipotent for example, because their wills will clash with each other. My Pantheist ex-self (who believed this) would say that humans are not divine in terms of omnipotence or being all-knowing or any of those other 'omnis'. Humans are divine only in the sense that we all originate from the same divine source - sparks from the one flame. I hope you really don't still believe this last quote. As most Christians do, you elevate Free Will above God. Does this really make sense? Couldn't God have fixed this situation differently? Why not make himself/herself a bit more obvious and clear in his/her presence to us? Why, since humans are "sparks of divinity" is it so difficult for many of them to see God? I don't see why God made it so hard. Couldn't God have created a situation where there was no necessity for hell? You say there is hell, but I don't think you said (in your present self) whether or not you think it is eternal in duration. Well, of course I don't still believe this. It was my christian ex-self that believed it. I've not been a christian since 1993. I don't know how I would have answered this when I was a christian either. You make a good point actually. Why couldn't God have made it different. He could have created us with different urges, could have made us less flawed and imperfect, could have shifted the determining factors behind our choices - without actually removing our ability to learn and make choices. He could have made it so that the whole process of making mistakes and learning from them was less painful for us and for others - we'd still make mistakes but wouldn't be as driven towards senseless acts of destruction. I agree with you actually and I'm not sure how I would have answered that as a christian. Maybe I'd have said we can't quite comprehend the ways of God. But I hate those kind of cop-out answers now. The 'sparks of divinity' comment doesn't really fit here. It was something I believed very soon after i moved on from christianity, when I was more of a pantheist who believed all religions had some truth about them. Why is it so difficult for us to see God? I guess I would have answered that the whole purpose of life is to learn and grow - it's part of what makes life exciting. In a funny kind of way God also learns a little more about himself through our experiences. It's kind of like the Universe gets more and more complex and there's an increase in learning, knowledge and experience as a result of this. We learn and God learns because on some level we are one with God. That's how my pantheist ex-self would have seen it. As for Hell - Of course my present self doesn't believe in Hell anymore. I'm an atheist now. I didn't even believe in hell when I was a pantheist. About 1993, when I stopped being a christian, I started to believe in reincarnation so i didn't believe in hell anymore. About 1996 or 1997 I picked up the idea of hell again but I believed it was a temporary state around that time. I finally rejected the idea of hell completely around about 1999 or 2000. So I can only answer those questions about hell the way I would have answered them when I was a christian (a long time ago - when I was a teenager). I don't honestly know how I would have answered it though. The idea of hell never sat comfortably with me and I think it was probably one of the main reasons why I started moving away from the faith. I certainly believed it was eternal at the time. I don't think I had an answer to why God couldn't have set things up differently so that there was no hell. I guess I'd have said something lame about if someone chooses to reject what is good and to reject God then God's not going to take away that freedom to choose. I would have said something about it being a natural consequence of the choices you make. I would have said something about not being able to know about the ways of God. You know, all the usual apologist nonsense. I guess that's why I stopped being a christian This is a fascinating experience for me, because I'm starting to see with new clarity why I moved on from the beliefs I used to have and to feel more secure in my present reasonings as a result
Evolution_beyond Posted July 19, 2007 Author Posted July 19, 2007 I am just curious: What led you to accept the reality of "enlightened" human beings? Let me see if i can trace my way back through the different steps that led me to that view. I think it's a mixture of two influences. One was the East, the other was paganism. I was quite impressed by what little I learned of Hinduism in Religious studies during middle school (I was ten or eleven at the time). That Hindus moved on from believing in many gods to believing that the many gods were really different forms of one God, really impressed me for some reason. That gave me a respect for Indian forms of spirituality. When I started moving away from Christian beliefs, I started to read up on other religious faiths. So I started to read about Buddhism, but by then another influence had caused me to believe in spiritual enlightenment. My interest in fantasy literature during my teens, especially the Fighting Fantasy gamebooks (which have quite a pagan setting) caused me to get interested in Mythology. My Dad had a book about mythology which I used to read and read, taking special interest in the Greek and Egyptian mythologies (I also was quite taken by the Indian mythology - that Indian influence again) I started to get intrigued by the old pagan religions and wanted to learn more about them. I also had a friend at this time that seemed to lean towards pagan ideas in his beliefs. This was when I started to move away from christianity. I started to read a book called 'the Celtic Shaman' and I started to get into astrology. It was Linda Goodman's books that really introduced the idea of spiritual enlightenment. Her ideas that all religions can be true in different ways appealed to my liberal feelings towards other religions. Her idea that Jesus was an enlightened man took a while to really sink in (it's difficult to let go of the belief that Jesus is God when you believe you might go to hell for thinking that) but the idea that humans could achieve enlightenment and that this might be what all that Holy Spirit business is really about - that began to take off in my mind in a big way almost immediately. So from there I started finding out more about Buddhism. (I've since rejected a lot of the superstitious, supernatural nonsense of Linda Goodman's thought by the way - but she was partly responsible for this idea of enlightenment that had a big impact on me for a long time) I think I'm really lucky actually that I wasn't brought up fundamentalist. I feel extremely grateful that I was brought up in a way that allowed me to think and reason and explore other ways of looking at the world. My family are quite into books and learning, my Dad likes to read about science and he doesn't see any conflict between science and faith. I can't begin to articulate how grateful I feel that the christianity I was brought up in was of the liberal kind that allowed me to explore and think for myself. He may be a christian but I really do love my Dad. It's nice to know that there are more sobre, rational christians around and not just the crazy types.
Deva Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 [quote name='Evolution_beyond' post='293681' date='Jul 19 2007, 09:11 AM I think I'm really lucky actually that I wasn't brought up fundamentalist. I feel extremely grateful that I was brought up in a way that allowed me to think and reason and explore other ways of looking at the world. My family are quite into books and learning, my Dad likes to read about science and he doesn't see any conflict between science and faith. I can't begin to articulate how grateful I feel that the christianity I was brought up in was of the liberal kind that allowed me to explore and think for myself. He may be a christian but I really do love my Dad. It's nice to know that there are more sobre, rational christians around and not just the crazy types. Agreed. And you ought to be glad you weren't brought up fundamentalist. From where I was raised, your views as expressed in your initial post (with the exception of your stand on free will) would be considered heretical and not Christian. It is almost impossible for me to get my mindset back into where it was when I was 12 and baptized and believed in these things from the fundie angle, but I will say that the fundies would say this: Old Christian Fundie Self: You are not allowed to pick and choose (cherry- pick) the Bible. You are not allowed to use arguements from science, archeology or any other perspective. The Bible is the inspired Word of God and it is inerrent and infallible. God said it and that settles it, whether you happen to like it or not. God's ways are not our ways. The only approved version of the Bible is the King James Version. Hell is a real place, with literal fire. If you reject Christ, you will burn forever and be conscious. There is also no such thing as "situation ethics". It is the Ten Commandments and that is final. This is why it is impossible to argue with a fundie. Their whole security for now and eternity is based upon belief that the Bible is true and without error. And all of it is taken literally, I assure you. This is also why, when our family visited the Museum of Natural History in New York a few years ago, my mother refused to walk through the Hall of Evolution, even though it was the fastest route to go where we wanted to go. Nothing must upset this security they have in their minds that the Bible is without error. It is willful ignorance. If you have not seen this yourself, I am not sure you would believe it.
Deva Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 I am just curious: What led you to accept the reality of "enlightened" human beings? Evolution: Thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful reply. I am always interested in where people are at on their spirtual journey and how they got there.
Evolution_beyond Posted July 19, 2007 Author Posted July 19, 2007 And all of it is taken literally, I assure you. This is also why, when our family visited the Museum of Natural History in New York a few years ago, my mother refused to walk through the Hall of Evolution, even though it was the fastest route to go where we wanted to go. Nothing must upset this security they have in their minds that the Bible is without error. It is willful ignorance. If you have not seen this yourself, I am not sure you would believe it. Unfortunately I have been exposed to the fundamentalist mind-set in the past. Despite my parents' more rational approach, there was a slightly alarming trend for fundie types among the younger people in our church (I say 'church', but we were Salvation Army actually - but if I said 'corps' it'd probably confuse you ). Anyway, there was an alarming trend for fundie types of belief among the younger people around the same time that I was a teenager. I didn't like their literal interpretation of the Bible at all, or their denial of evolutionary theory. Their method of prayer gave me the willies as well (isn't repeating of phrases such 'in your power, lord, in your power' exactly the kind of magical babbling that Jesus talked about when he said not to pray like the pagans do?). It just gives me the creeps when people repeat certain phrases during prayer, like they're trying to hypnotise people or something. Also, much later I had the misfortune to be in a relationship with a fundie. She was a lapsed fundie because she didn't go to church anymore - but she still believed it all. The arguments we had about evolution! Actually, the arguments of faith v reason probably did more damage to my self-esteem. Her negative views about sexuality also did me a lot of damage. It makes me shudder still just thinking about it. I escaped from that relationship mentally and emotionally scarred. So despite my liberal christian upbringing I have my own bit of anti-fundie anger and pain. I NEVER want to go through the mental torture I experienced by being in a relationship with a fundie EVER AGAIN. She seriously damaged my psyche for a little while. So I do know from personal experience what fundies can be like.
Deva Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Evolution_Beyond: I am sorry if it came off sounding like I am unsympathetic, and as if you had no experience with fundamentalism. I had no knowledge of your background or experience with fundamentalism prior to your last post. The fundie mindset is indeed difficult to deal with in any kind of relationship. I have never encountered the type of prayer you describe. That does sound weird. Probably that sort of thing would have been condemned the same way speaking in tongues was in the church my family went to. I think the fundamentalist's biggest mistake was "creation science". I think that has probably turned more people away from Christian fundamentalism than any other factor. I know it was one of the decisive factors in my leaving for good. I am a bit older than you are and in the early 70's in the Baptist church there was no mention of creation science or trying to make a case against evolution. Fundies did not even bother with that in the church which I attended. Although evolution was always denied, they did not try to justify it with so-called psuedo- "scientific" arguments. Then when I went back to the church for a short period of time (in a weak moment after a personal crisis) in 1989-1990 I found they were making an issue of it and trying to force it on people.
ShackledNoMore Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 It's interesting to see how you're answering the questions. On one hand, it seems reasonable that you, or some other ex-c on this board (maybe even me) could defend xianity better than the xians that come by sometimes to peddle their wares. It only makes sense: on the average we have given it a lot more thought, know a lot more about the bible, and know much, much more about independent historical evidence and how xianity fits in with other religions than the average xian does. When I was questioning, deconverting, and then for a long time after I deconverted, I thought I could arrive at a stalemate every time in a conversation defending xianity. If backed far enough into a corner, all I'd have to do is invoke faith along with the standard cop-outs. But now I think if I tried to role-play a xian and defend xianity, I'd be ripped to shreds here. I think you're ex-self is already being confronted with some tough stuff, and he doesn't even have a concerted, hard-ball attack to defend. I think it's not a reflection on your debating skills or mine or someone else's (although of course an xian with strong skills could pull out a "win" against a non/ex-c/atheist/agnostic/etc. sort with poor debating skills, or if the non-xian tried to use inane arguments). But more generally, I think it has to do with the strength of the non-xian's position relative to the xian. It really helps to be able to invoke facts or at least good evidence, compared to attempting to support a position based on a document that contradicts itself and blind faith in extraordinary and unsupported claims. Also, we DID deconvert, and that infuses a weird twist--our christian ex-selves were capable of breaking out of our cults. Our xian ex-selves are probably more receptive to an argument featuring hard evidence and reason than xians who ultimately do not deconvert. We may not "win" an argument in terms of getting an xian to admit the weakness of his position, but I think we'd leave him without a reasonable defense every time. Of course I could be accused of being biased, but that's how I see it. I have to press just a little bit further with one more response to your christian ex-self. I'll even not directly pursue the line of other religions that influenced xianity: That being the case, on what basis can you defend that the bible and christianity represent THE truth of god ABOVE other belief systems? How can you even justify belief in the christian god? Christian ex-self: Because of Jesus. Jesus is God as a man. He can lead us to God in a way that other religions can't. The Muslim could say "because of Mohammad." Any religion could invoke one of their deities or prophets. The atheist could downplay "because of Jesus" by citing the weakness of corroborating evidence about the claims about jesus outside of the bible. (Aside to current day Evolution: following this line with the ensuing discussion about Josephus and early historians, the scribes that propagated their writings, and the relative lack of corroborating evidence might be an eye opener for Pre-Evolution, too.) You'll have to do better than that. You'll have to support what you say about jesus' divinity rather than just make the claim.
Recommended Posts