Is The Universe Finetuned For Life Or Is God Omnipotent?

[Antlerman]

By "original sin" I was referring to a proneness to wrongdoing and debt (but not guild) that we have inherited from our first human ancestor(s). This all is speculative, of course, but something like this could be true.

 

But we have a propensity to do good as well. In fact even much more so, which is why we have survived as a social species. If not, we'd all be dead by now. True?

[raoul]

 

As you already know, humanity's problem is, according to Christianity, that we have wronged God, directly and indirectly. Hence it is our responsibility to make atonement for your sins, as far as we can. (And not only individually but also collectively since we have inherited a debt of "original sin".) I think that salvation is, essentially, restored fellowship with God.

 

 

So if you believe in sin and original sin, do you believe that the bible is historically accurate (i.e. no literal Adam and Eve means no "original sin", etc.)?

 

I do not take stories about the creation and the fall literally. That is not to say, however, that they are therefore entirely fiction. They could be "mythicoliterary representation of actual events of human prehistory" (using the words of Peter van Inwagen). By "original sin" I was referring to a proneness to wrongdoing and debt (but not guild) that we have inherited from our first human ancestor(s). This all is speculative, of course, but something like this could be true.

 

I have to hand it to you Badger - you're sucking them right into your xtian apologetica vortex. It's amost as if you're following the classic script that those of us who practiced this thing did. Start out with some vague comments about some kind of vague intelligence behind the universe and gradually bring in the bible, magical baby jesus, and all of the rest of the dreary cultist mantras. I should know because this is exactly what I was taught and what I actually did when I was involved in debates with the 'sinners' years ago.

 

We inherited original sin from our ancestors? Oh, you must be Adam and Eve right? If so then you are defending actual people. Oh but you really didn't mean literal (per other comments of yours) but the lesson still is useful right? Or maybe you're referring to our actual and quite REAL ancestors - the neaderthal, or cro-magnum, or other levels of humans right? But then if that's the case and your premise is true then evolution and all of the characteristics of it including the evolving OUT of bad behavior is not applicable right?

 

I could continue ad nauseum but unlike some others here I won't waste my time. Intellectual dishonesty is the classic DNA of the xtian cultist especially of the apologist. LOL

 

One last thing though - when you refer to 'sin' you might want to explore the original language as I've tried to do in the past. The word in the ot is a far cry from that used in the nt but both are completely meaningless, incoherent, and most importantly, psychologically damaging for the NORMAL 21st century human. Keyword here - normal...

[bornagainathiest]

Technically I'm no longer contributing to this thread, but I just +1'ed Raoul's latest post because he's hit the nail on the head (re: the vortex)...! 

Please note that I got out on page 8, message # 157 and I won't be coming back until the Badger brings some hard evidence to the table.  

Hard, as in, real and concrete evidence to back up his beliefs (whatever they are). 

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

p.s.

If you're tempted to +1 this post, please don't.  Add to Raoul's post - he nailed it!

 

p.p.s

Sorry Badger!  If you comment on this post, I won't be replying - I'm out of this thread, remember?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skankboy]

And here I thought I was just trying to employ the Socratic method and get him to define his terms...

 

But that's kind of the point isn't it?  It's very easy to use the terms, "sin", "salvation", "hell" and mean a lot of different things... practically whatever you want them to mean...

[falemon]

And here I thought I was just trying to employ the Socratic method and get him to define his terms...

 

But that's kind of the point isn't it?  It's very easy to use the terms, "sin", "salvation", "hell" and mean a lot of different things... practically whatever you want them to mean...

They're like wild cards

[mymistake]

 

And here I thought I was just trying to employ the Socratic method and get him to define his terms...

 

But that's kind of the point isn't it?  It's very easy to use the terms, "sin", "salvation", "hell" and mean a lot of different things... practically whatever you want them to mean...

They're like wild cards

 

 

Pastors and priests seem to agree about what these terms mean - if you listen to sermons.  The reason to bend the meaning around is to try and force the concepts to make sense.

[Ravenstar]

Why do they disappear when you start asking the hard questions? I really DO want to understand how this stuff is supposed to work... makes it difficult.

 

And I thought trying to get info out of my teenager was hard... lol

 

 

Strangely, I can barely remember how I justified it to myself way back when... it's all foggy and vague.

[falemon]

Strangely, I can barely remember how I justified it to myself way back when... it's all foggy and vague.

This must be what it feels like when reformed murderers look back on their murky pasts

 

Sometimes I just find myself looking back at all the church related activities I had. All the tasty Caribbean meals with the delicious cakes, the ground shaking music, spending time with my favourite cousins and all the fond memories associated, only it just all looks so damn stupid to me now. It's like a large part of my memories were all a result of a terrible deception. It's horrible to think of all the memories. I just have so many memories that make me want to throw up.

 

I think of the stupid debates I had with my atheist friends. I remember them commenting on not wanting to have their words fall on death ears, and although I was always attentive to them, I still feel an idiot for being so wrong.

 

Even thinking back to the day I went on a cult workshop and was debating with them about how "My God" is not the God they're talking about. I think of the homeless woman I prayed for in Amsterdam, and how useless our prayers were in reality. I think I'm going to do some NLP over the weekend to disassociate myself

 

Worse of all, I made serious career decisions because I couldn't take the free training offered to make my career worthwhile without missing all the stupid mid week church stuff and choir practices. Damn, I missed a free intimate performance by John Legend and KanYe west for this stupid movement Need to think of happy thoughts ...

[raoul]

Why do they disappear when you start asking the hard questions? I really DO want to understand how this stuff is supposed to work... makes it difficult.

 

And I thought trying to get info out of my teenager was hard... lol

 

 

Strangely, I can barely remember how I justified it to myself way back when... it's all foggy and vague.

You ask why they flee when the going REALLY gets rough? Easy answer - cowards. I've lost count of the times I've tried to engage and continue with questions only to have the challenging things totally ignored, tapdancing begins, and then they'll pray for me. LOL

[mymistake]

You ask why they flee when the going REALLY gets rough? Easy answer - cowards. I've lost count of the times I've tried to engage and continue with questions only to have the challenging things totally ignored, tapdancing begins, and then they'll pray for me. LOL

 

In this thread the tapdancing began half way down the first page.

[Ravenstar]

^^^ damn, now I have to go back and look  ;p

 

It seems to me that it happens when the 'buzzwords' don't have the same effect on us as on their comrades. But I will have to check if this observation is correct.

[falemon]

They've been raptured  

[raoul]

^^^ damn, now I have to go back and look  ;p

 

It seems to me that it happens when the 'buzzwords' don't have the same effect on us as on their comrades. But I will have to check if this observation is correct.

I ain't doing it! After you check it out please write a brief essay on what you found. Thanks. ROFL

[Antlerman]

 

 

And here I thought I was just trying to employ the Socratic method and get him to define his terms...

 

But that's kind of the point isn't it?  It's very easy to use the terms, "sin", "salvation", "hell" and mean a lot of different things... practically whatever you want them to mean...

They're like wild cards

 

 

 

 

Pastors and priests seem to agree about what these terms mean - if you listen to sermons.  The reason to bend the meaning around is to try and force the concepts to make sense.

 

 

 

But then is that necessarily a bad thing? Maybe he is understanding them in a different light than just some strict mythological sense. I threw out there that they are, "actually a fairly primitive way of talking about the human psyche in its sense of alienation and separation from the world, from others, and consequently from themselves". (see here) It's not so much bending and forcing the concepts as it is getting at the underlying sense in which the words are being used in these contexts without getting hung up on literal, flat interpretations.

 

In other words they are metaphoric expressions. What exactly is trying to be communicated by talking about sin or about salvation? What do those express? Then as you get at those and try to talk about those existential states, you put them in a more modern way of talking about the world and they 'make sense'. So is it really forcing the meaning, or taking the underlying truth of them and translating them into a context which makes more sense, than a literal mythic reality?

 

That's what I was trying to get at in asking Badger these questions. What is he really trying to express here? He shifts around because it's not always easy to pinpoint what these words really mean. It's not necessarily someone being dishonest.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

And here I thought I was just trying to employ the Socratic method and get him to define his terms...

 

But that's kind of the point isn't it?  It's very easy to use the terms, "sin", "salvation", "hell" and mean a lot of different things... practically whatever you want them to mean...

They're like wild cards

 

 

 

 

Pastors and priests seem to agree about what these terms mean - if you listen to sermons.  The reason to bend the meaning around is to try and force the concepts to make sense.

 

 

 

But then is that necessarily a bad thing?

 

Now that I have jettisoned them and see the difference I can assure you that it's a very bad thing.  People would be better off abandoning the old and finding different concepts that better describe reality.  The listener will benefit from terms that do not have so much baggage.

 

 

Maybe he is understanding them in a different light than just some strict mythological sense. I threw out there that they are, "actually a fairly primitive way of talking about the human psyche in its sense of alienation and separation from the world, from others, and consequently from themselves". (see here) It's not so much bending and forcing the concepts as it is getting at the underlying sense in which the words are being used in these contexts without getting hung up on literal, flat interpretations.

 

The first time I read it I almost countered his response to you but I thought that would be overkill.  Your approach is certainly not oversimplified.  I'm getting the sense that you are asking me because you change the meaning of words such as "sin", "salvation" and "hell".  The apologist does so in order to hang onto Biblegod.  Clearly that is not your motive.  I've formed the opinion that you do what you do in order to grow spiritually.  I suppose we have already encountered a language break down because apologist would call haning onto Biblegod "growing spiritually".  I can't blame you for trying to fix the language.  I wish you the best of luck with that.  It's a tall order.

 

In other words they are metaphoric expressions. What exactly is trying to be communicated by talking about sin or about salvation? What do those express? Then as you get at those and try to talk about those existential states, you put them in a more modern way of talking about the world and they 'make sense'. So is it really forcing the meaning, or taking the underlying truth of them and translating them into a context which makes more sense, than a literal mythic reality?

 

That's what I was trying to get at in asking Badger these questions. What is he really trying to express here? He shifts around because it's not always easy to pinpoint what these words really mean. It's not necessarily someone being dishonest.

 

In my experience Christianity is inherently dishonest.  I know of no way to make Christianity honest because crossing that line is so close to deconverting.  Christianity makes up down and inside is out.  Christians are not trying to be dishonest.  They mean well but they have been brainwashed.  Exceptions exist.  I tried to be an exception for a while.  Maybe somewhere in the world there is an entire church of exceptions or even a denomination.  But attending a Holiness movement church while trying to be an exception felt like exile.

 

I assume that Badger tries to be honest and thinks of himself as honest.  He just clings to beliefs that throw him off.

[falemon]

That's what I was trying to get at in asking Badger these questions. What is he really trying to express here? He shifts around because it's not always easy to pinpoint what these words really mean. It's not necessarily someone being dishonest.

That's very true. I think Christianity discourages thinking about these sorts of things, so people know how to use the words but have no understanding of the actual meaning behind them in the written texts and what its meaning is in their use of communication.

 

Sin as I understand it means shortcoming, or causing offence. In Christianity the focus is very much on your offences to God, such as not worshipping him, but there is also a very practical perspective on sin when you consider it to just be an act of incompetence or offence. It was either the Greek or Hebrew meaning that had that relation (or perhaps both).

 

The Jewish concept of many things differs so much from Christianity, for example Satan is not a person but a force of opposition. The satan is personified and where a lot of the Jewish texts may have been taken allegorically, the Christian churches do not see this.

[raoul]

 

 

 

. It's not necessarily someone being dishonest.

 

No but just a bit deluded or mentally imbalanced I guess. LOL

Actually, I prefer that they are dishonest instead of what I just wrote - not as dangerous.

[falemon]

No but just a bit deluded or mentally imbalanced I guess. LOL

Actually, I prefer that they are dishonest instead of what I just wrote - not as dangerous.

Reminds me of the alpha course's case for Jesus' authenticity.

 

He said that Jesus claimed to be God, so he was either deluded, deceitful or truthful. He attempted to eliminate them based on accounts to suggest he was truthful, but since we know he was not truthful he (if he truly existed) was either deluded or deceitful.

 

His elimination of deceitful was based on the good deeds, but everyone knows a sociopath will happily do good deeds if it gets them the control they desire

[Antlerman]

 

 

 

But then is that necessarily a bad thing?

 

 

Now that I have jettisoned them and see the difference I can assure you that it's a very bad thing.  People would be better off abandoning the old and finding different concepts that better describe reality.  The listener will benefit from terms that do not have so much baggage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's a couple points in here I feel are worth addressing. I had a very similar discussion recently at a local group I attend for former fundamentalists. Many of them are moving beyond their Christian experience in embracing a non-theistic, you could call it atheist if you wish, pursuit of understanding spiritual experience in their own lives. A lot of them side with you in saying there is too much baggage in that language and prefer to find some sort of rational, or even scientific way to talk about that sort of experience of say, the ineffable.

 

Here is the point I made to them which they seem to have taken well, at least for some serious consideration. In the dialog today in our post-mythic reality, atheism is rightly a voice calling for reason against irrationality, science denial, anti-intellectualism, etc, and for an embrace of reason and rationality. This is of course all good and fine. But it largely also takes spiritual experience and lumps it right into that pile of 'mythic beliefs'.

 

So, the Christian who in fact does have these sorts of spiritual experience, which are not just some stupid warm fuzzy emotional thing, but an existential sense of their own being in the world, an inner peace and knowledge they experience as and call God; to be told in effect that that is "not reality", is in fact going to be heard by them as false. It is in fact, false. The experience is real and meaningful, regardless of what term you use, and they see it as important to have some way to talk about that, to support and pursue that within their lives because of what inner truth it brings to them.

 

So the most vocal of atheism, which tends to define the argument, essentially tells them you either jettison this 'spirituality' for reason, or sever your brain and remain a "woo". For a lot of them, they're not all that interested in replacing their spirituality with reason and rationality, and therefore are in effect being told if they want to have spirituality, they have to remain in an irrational system, complete with its mythic-literal, magical thinking. When the value of that is greater in their lives, then where do you think they will remain?

 

My argument is that by embracing spirituality post-Christianity, a spirituality that in fact does live quite comfortably with and is in fact supported by reason and rationality though not defined by it of course, to use some sort of other language than spirituality and God, to call it some sort of 'science' thing, fails to in fact really speak to it experientially. "I was so in touch with my molecules today", really fails to talk on the same level as metaphor and poetry, or symbolic words like spirit and God.

 

Moreover and more importantly, by wanting to use some other language does two things. Firstly, it fails to take their understanding of God and advance it, or evolve it to a higher, broader, deeper, and rationally compatible understanding. They will hear this as "not God", but some other type of God. In reality however, God has always evolved in human understanding and this time is no different! Secondly, following that understanding, by changing the language to something else you give the fundamentalist all the power of language in defining something that is far greater, precedes them and will survive them. The effect of this is you allow them to own God and spiritual experience. It gives them all the power, whereas in reality they are but children.

 

It is my belief that by advancing the understanding of human spirituality and by expressing it in their language, you are in effect taking what their own spiritual experience is, which is not different than anyone elses except in name only, and allow them to take their understanding of God within that experience and grow it up to allow them to join a modern world which they are already otherwise a part of. "Sin, salvation, God, spirit, soul, etc, are actually ways to talk about our human experience that transcends mere categories of science and reason, but are not at the same token mythological things in the cosmos. They are our humanity. Make sense?

 

I'm getting the sense that you are asking me because you change the meaning of words such as "sin", "salvation" and "hell". 

I'm not asking the meaning be changed, but to look at the reality of what is being expressed by their use by those who take them mythologically. What is "sin", but not attaining to what we aspire to in ourselves existentially? If you were to understand the context and content of what is being said without getting distracted by some literal child's-mind view of the world in using these terms, there is an underlying reality we all experience. "The fall" = we feel separated from the world, ourselves, and others. "Sin" = those obstacles in our lives that prevent us from realizing that sense of inner peace and onesness with ourselves and others, etc. You listen to how they use it, and isn't this what they are saying, even if they cloth it in all these mythological trappings?

The apologist does so in order to hang onto Biblegod. Clearly that is not your motive.

Perhaps that's their motive, and I don't doubt that in a lot of cases. But others might not be and themselves are trying to get to the 'reality' of what that is expressing for themselves in order to move forward beyond literalism in their own spiritual path. That's why I like to ask, to try to prod and peal back what their underlying motives are. Personally, I think Badger is much more the latter than the former, but he'll have to chime in here and express himself.

I've formed the opinion that you do what you do in order to grow spiritually.  I suppose we have already encountered a language break down because apologist would call haning onto Biblegod "growing spiritually".  I can't blame you for trying to fix the language.  I wish you the best of luck with that.  It's a tall order.

Yes it is, but change only happens by not giving them all the power of the argument or the use of language. I deny them that claim. I reject they can define God. They do not own all things spiritual, and in fact are themselves woefully behind in their inner understandings.

 

In my experience Christianity is inherently dishonest.

I would say because they have not been allowed, largely from within themselves, to advance their understanding of God into a modern world, they are plagued spiritually with cognitive dissonance. I say that is a spiritual plague because to sever your reasoning mind, to be anti-reason, or irrational, harms that inner balance which is the essence of our own spirituality. It is not something you can divorce from reason, even though it is itself non-rational. I have no dissonance in me when it comes to embracing my spiritual self, and in fact it is necessary that I am true to my mind, emotions, body, in order to fully explore that nature in myself. So what you call inherently dishonest in Christians, I would call a spiritual dis-ease; they are imbalanced and you cannot have that peace if you are at conflict with your own mind. You cannot support spirituality on intellectual dishonesty, and that is why I left Christianity.

[Antlerman]

 

That's what I was trying to get at in asking Badger these questions. What is he really trying to express here? He shifts around because it's not always easy to pinpoint what these words really mean. It's not necessarily someone being dishonest.

That's very true. I think Christianity discourages thinking about these sorts of things, so people know how to use the words but have no understanding of the actual meaning behind them in the written texts and what its meaning is in their use of communication.

 

 

 

 

And I think this is an important point. One thing I am struck by repeatedly is how there there are actually very many genuine spiritual insights within scripture (despite of course all the cultural artifacts as well), and how that the understanding of those by your average Christian can end up meaning something so not-spiritual; something so egocentric, ethnocentric, intolerant, etc. It's like this watershed point where the drop of water hits the same spot and ends up either on the left or the right side of it. They use all the right words, but the meaning is something else, often suffocating and ugly.

 

I think the value of using that language in a more enlightened way is that hopefully they might actually hear that underlying depth of the words beyond their inaccurate surface understanding of literalism. These are poetry, metaphors to get to a deeper inner truth that lays within the individual themselves, rather than some stale, static value you look to for truth in the surface meanings of the words. To use the words to speak beyond the literal and flat meaning, is to allow words to live, not be suffocated by those ignorant of them.

[mymistake]

Here is the point I made to them which they seem to have taken well, at least for some serious consideration. In the dialog today in our post-mythic reality, atheism is rightly a voice calling for reason against irrationality, science denial, anti-intellectualism, etc, and for an embrace of reason and rationality. This is of course all good and fine. But it largely also takes spiritual experience and lumps it right into that pile of 'mythic beliefs'.

 

So, the Christian who in fact does have these sorts of spiritual experience, which are not just some stupid warm fuzzy emotional thing, but an existential sense of their own being in the world, an inner peace and knowledge they experience as and call God; to be told in effect that that is "not reality", is in fact going to be heard by them as false. It is in fact, false. The experience is real and meaningful, regardless of what term you use, and they see it as important to have some way to talk about that, to support and pursue that within their lives because of what inner truth it brings to them.

 

I think I understand where you are comming from.

 

The Christian mystical experiences are real but the meaning Christians assign to it is false.  As a Christian I have participated in the relationship, the Peace That Passes All Understanding, I've prayed to find my keys and found them, used tongues and various other aspects of Christian mysticism.  They are very real experiences.  They can be personally useful.  But that doesn't mean there are real angels or that angels have a real language or that I actually spoke that angelic language.

[Antlerman]

The Christian mystical experiences are real but the meaning Christians assign to it is false.  As a Christian I have participated in the relationship, the Peace That Passes All Understanding, I've prayed to find my keys and found them, used tongues and various other aspects of Christian mysticism.  They are very real experiences.  They can be personally useful.  But that doesn't mean there are real angels or that angels have a real language or that I actually spoke that angelic language.

This is all true. So to me then, take the baby (the real spiritual experience) and discard the bathwater (literal mythic beliefs) and add some fresh water that that baby can swim within; an understanding of the structures of consciousness and the symbolic support structures for them.

 

I fault literalism in rationality almost as much as I do mythological views. To call something salvation does not make it invalid just because the Christian hangs it on a mythic believe of bloodletting to appease a deity who judges people with His book in the sky. Salvation is really no different than enlightenment, to find release into Self, or to find God within, bliss, nirvana, non-attachment, Freedom, nonduality and a list of other names its known by in human experience for those who realize it within themselves. All these exist and are the same both within and outside of Christianity.

[midniterider]

 

I do not take stories about the creation and the fall literally. That is not to say, however, that they are therefore entirely fiction. They could be "mythicoliterary representation of actual events of human prehistory" (using the words of Peter van Inwagen). By "original sin" I was referring to a proneness to wrongdoing and debt (but not guild) that we have inherited from our first human ancestor(s). This all is speculative, of course, but something like this could be true.

 

 

Mythicoliterary meaning "A fictional account that you should apply to your life and be afraid of as it if were real." Peter van Jackwagon is an idiot. I am not responsible for any wrongdoing by my ancestors, most especially fictional ancestors. That's absurd.

[raoul]

 

 

I do not take stories about the creation and the fall literally. That is not to say, however, that they are therefore entirely fiction. They could be "mythicoliterary representation of actual events of human prehistory" (using the words of Peter van Inwagen). By "original sin" I was referring to a proneness to wrongdoing and debt (but not guild) that we have inherited from our first human ancestor(s). This all is speculative, of course, but something like this could be true.

 

 

Mythicoliterary meaning "A fictional account that you should apply to your life and be afraid of as it if were real." Peter van Jackwagon is an idiot. I am not responsible for any wrongdoing by my ancestors, most especially fictional ancestors. That's absurd.

 

I loved the way he says it's all speculative but could be true. Yeah, Santa Claus is very speculative but he could still fit down my chimney so I'm gonna leave some milk and cookies just in case. Is it any wonder I have such a contempt for them? People like Lane Craig are nothing more than carnival barkers or hucksters. I'm just SSSOOO glad this country might be finally waking up with numerous stories about churches closing and thousands of people dropping out of the cult. Maybe someday we'll become as enlightened as many of the European countries. One can only hope.

[Ravenstar]

I agree with Antlerman.. and though I can be harsh with xtians I have seen the things in scripture (and other texts) that are profound and very spiritually deep...There ARE truths within (although their origin may be debated)

 

I also see the misinterpretations because of the mytho-literalism. It's sad really because if you try to share this they usually only see it as a confirmation of their misconceptions. Mysticism is difficult to convey with language in the best of circumstances.

 

Back to the buzzwords because I think it's important... these terms are emotionally and culturally heavily laden... even with dictionary definitions they fail because of the dogma surrounding them and the mythos in our culture surrounding them. Think of this, how many people can hear the word 'possession' without instantly imagining "The Exorcist" and the cultural phenomena, imagery and inference of what possession really means and all the Catholic trappings in that film, and that is deeply ingrained in our society from becoming a part of our culture and referenced over and over and built upon.

 

"Salvation" is probably the biggest buzzword used by christians - to the point where there is an immediate gut reaction to it, yet how many have you seen that have looked deeply, studied the concept itself? What does it mean to modern Jews? What did it mean to the ancient Hebrews, or the hellenized Jews? What did it mean to the Greeks? or even the ancient Canaanites or Egyptians? - this all colors how it was used... just for starters. From where I stand I personally ask, "what does it mean to an evolving species?"

 

Lastly.. I find it really sad that so many people think humans are so flawed, so horrible... especially when the evidence does not support that.. is there bad in the world? yes, is there good? Yes! How do we explain the good, as well as the evil? How does christianity explain the GOOD that is apparent in all people regardless of their religious affiliation? If we are 'born in sin' whence comes the fact that the vast majority of people are.. well.. not so bad? Even us heathen heretics