How Religious People Think

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Here's my two cents.  I don't necessarily think that beliefs are irrational per se.  Religious beliefs can be somewhat defended by argument and a very low kind of "logic" (okay, more apologetic than logic).  To defend one's beliefs in any sincere and meaningful way requires that those beliefs be examined in some sort of rational manner.  Many rational people are also religious, and devote sincere intellect toward their beliefs.  Even non-religious people sometimes hold certain beliefs.  For example, I believe that I will still have a job to go to next week.

 

Faith, on the other hand, is by very definition, irrational.  Faith is simply accepting something as truth without a single shred of proof as to its validity.  No amount of objectivity is required or expended; the "truth" is simply accepted without examination.  Unfortunately, faith is the foundation for every other belief a religion offers.  So while any particular belief may be defended based upon this particular passage of scripture or that particular tradition, at the core of every belief is the irrational acceptance of faith.  christianity is a house of cards--each belief supports the next.  Pull the cornerstone of faith and the whole rotten structure comes tumbling down.

That describes perfectly my experience of losing my faith.  I went from Faith to Atheism in one moment, no gradual transition.  It happened so quickly I don't even remember why, how, except that it was a Saturday morning.  Strange, huh?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Here's my two cents.  I don't necessarily think that beliefs are irrational per se.  Religious beliefs can be somewhat defended by argument and a very low kind of "logic" (okay, more apologetic than logic).  To defend one's beliefs in any sincere and meaningful way requires that those beliefs be examined in some sort of rational manner.  Many rational people are also religious, and devote sincere intellect toward their beliefs.  Even non-religious people sometimes hold certain beliefs.  For example, I believe that I will still have a job to go to next week.

 

Faith, on the other hand, is by very definition, irrational.  Faith is simply accepting something as truth without a single shred of proof as to its validity.  No amount of objectivity is required or expended; the "truth" is simply accepted without examination.  Unfortunately, faith is the foundation for every other belief a religion offers.  So while any particular belief may be defended based upon this particular passage of scripture or that particular tradition, at the core of every belief is the irrational acceptance of faith.  christianity is a house of cards--each belief supports the next.  Pull the cornerstone of faith and the whole rotten structure comes tumbling down.

That describes perfectly my experience of losing my faith.  I went from Faith to Atheism in one moment, no gradual transition.  It happened so quickly I don't even remember why, how, except that it was a Saturday morning.  Strange, huh?

 

And it was precisely the opposite for me.  I stubbornly held on to my faith for two long and bloody years, even after each one of my beliefs had presented themselves as lies.  It finally took the brutality of life to wrest my faith from my hands before I was able to listen to that little voice that had been whispering, serpent-like, in the back of my mind since childhood, saying, "god does not have a plan for you, you fool; because god is not real."  It was also a Saturday, but it was night time and I was in a jail cell.  A further two years of disillusionment and confusion followed before the peace that passes all understanding fully came upon me (though I began to feel some peace within about six months).

[Wololo]

Generally when I'm studying any historical text, religious or otherwise, I use the historical-critical method. The Bible looks really silly and irrelevant in modern terms. You have to read it and think about it in its context. That means understanding the effects of language, culture, etc. Here's a small overview of how I look at the gospels. It would need to be fleshed out a lot more, but it's a general summary.

 

The gospels are the written testimonies of 4 people. They need to be considered as such. You have to get an understanding for who these people were, and what the experience was. Someone else posted a link to an article of some sort in another thread, and I felt it approached the gospels the wrong way. I don't look at them as the fulfillment of prophecy. Sure, you can look at it that way, but it does start to run into issues, because none of the writers were really focused on it (though Matthew comes the closest). It makes far more sense to view them as testimonies. They are the experiences of 4 different men. Their strength is in how well you can relate to them. They are also internally consistent (and saying that usually stirs up a hornet's nest.) To me there are very powerful and effective if approached the right way, but that's another topic for another thread.

 

I want to specifically address miracles. I don't think there's anything supernatural about them. I just think that since Jesus is God, you'd think he would have a perfect understanding of natural mechanics. His edge over us is that he can manipulate the world because he knew how it worked. Water into wine? I'm sure he had a way of manipulating its chemical structure. Knowledge is power.

 

How do I decide what to believe is literal? I ask myself...is this conceivable? Does it make sense? Are there problems? If so, I reevaluate. God himself said he wanted to reason with us, so I ask questions, and I criticize and discuss. My beliefs need to stand up to scrutiny or I won't hold them.

[Wololo]

I also want to add as a note that there should be a difference between informed faith and blind faith. Don't believe something that has absolutely no basis (or worse, has contradictions.)

[BlindFaith]

Fundamentalists do a disservice to those of us that are more reasonable with our beliefs. There are plenty of Christians that are intelligent and careful thinkers, just as there are nonbelievers who are intelligent thinkers. What's unreasonable is to write off all religious people as being stupid. Not all of us believe that the Bible has to be taken 100% literally all the time. I have no problem with science, in fact I welcome deep study into such things.

 

I'm not afraid of my beliefs being questioned either. Go ahead, by all means. I love to discuss.

 

Side note: Authentic Christian Believer? Hahahaha. That looks so obnoxious.

 

Yes completely obnoxious. So tell me how you see 1Samuel 18:27: "David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage."  I smell a car in some shade of red coming up. 

[BlindFaith]

Generally when I'm studying any historical text, religious or otherwise, I use the historical-critical method. The Bible looks really silly and irrelevant in modern terms. You have to read it and think about it in its context. That means understanding the effects of language, culture, etc. Here's a small overview of how I look at the gospels. It would need to be fleshed out a lot more, but it's a general summary.

 

The gospels are the written testimonies of 4 people. They need to be considered as such. You have to get an understanding for who these people were, and what the experience was. Someone else posted a link to an article of some sort in another thread, and I felt it approached the gospels the wrong way. I don't look at them as the fulfillment of prophecy. Sure, you can look at it that way, but it does start to run into issues, because none of the writers were really focused on it (though Matthew comes the closest). It makes far more sense to view them as testimonies. They are the experiences of 4 different men. Their strength is in how well you can relate to them. They are also internally consistent (and saying that usually stirs up a hornet's nest.) To me there are very powerful and effective if approached the right way, but that's another topic for another thread.

 

I want to specifically address miracles. I don't think there's anything supernatural about them. I just think that since Jesus is God, you'd think he would have a perfect understanding of natural mechanics. His edge over us is that he can manipulate the world because he knew how it worked. Water into wine? I'm sure he had a way of manipulating its chemical structure. Knowledge is power.

 

How do I decide what to believe is literal? I ask myself...is this conceivable? Does it make sense? Are there problems? If so, I reevaluate. God himself said he wanted to reason with us, so I ask questions, and I criticize and discuss. My beliefs need to stand up to scrutiny or I won't hold them.

Historical Critical... you are on the slippery slope dude. And now an atheist website wanting debate? I bet in just a short time you will realize that an eternal, tomenting hell would be completely unjust (if you haven't already) and then... then... you will be sucked in to agnosticism... and then... before you know it.... you will be ONE OF US!... BAHAWAAAA!

[Guest afireinside]

Wololo, do you believe Jesus' claim that he could make rocks cry out in praise had the audience welcomed him with adoration?

 

Is that a literal claim or a metaphorical one?

 

Jesus could turn water into wine yet he couldn't turn a donkey into a decent horse befitting a man of honour.

 

Jesus rebuked Judas' comment regarding the anointing with the expensive perfume yet he never refilled the bottle to both use it on him AND sell it for charitable reasons.

 

He healed a soldiers ear but he wasn't phased that his colleague Judas would die by way of suicide, a death Jesus could have prevented.

 

A roof was destroyed in order to lower a man to be healed yet there is no record of Jesus healing the roof for the guy who let Jesus use his place for a theatre.

 

I'm being fececious here obviously but if Jesus was a magician and healer why did he limit that power and not use it consistently? It's all a bit hit and miss.

[Wololo]

<3 Here, I like Ezekiel 23:

 

"The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother. They played the whore in Egypt; they played the whore in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and their virgin bosoms handled. Oholah was the name of the elder and Oholibah the name of her sister. They became mine, and they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem. “Oholah played the whore while she was mine, and she lusted after her lovers the Assyrians, warriors clothed in purple, governors and commanders, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding on horses. She bestowed her whoring upon them, the choicest men of Assyria all of them, and she defiled herself with all the idols of everyone after whom she lusted. She did not give up her whoring that she had begun in Egypt; for in her youth men had lain with her and handled her virgin bosom and poured out their whoring lust upon her. Therefore I delivered her into the hands of her lovers, into the hands of the Assyrians, after whom she lusted. These uncovered her nakedness; they seized her sons and her daughters; and as for her, they killed her with the sword; and she became a byword among women, when judgment had been executed on her. “Her sister Oholibah saw this, and she became more corrupt than her sister in her lust and in her whoring, which was worse than that of her sister. She lusted after the Assyrians, governors and commanders, warriors clothed in full armor, horsemen riding on horses, all of them desirable young men. And I saw that she was defiled; they both took the same way. But she carried her whoring further. She saw men portrayed on the wall, the images of the Chaldeans portrayed in vermilion, wearing belts on their waists, with flowing turbans on their heads, all of them having the appearance of officers, a likeness of Babylonians whose native land was Chaldea. (Ezekiel 23:1-15 ESV)"

 

Yes, I know all about those awkward places in the Old Testament. I'm going to be straight up though. You're going to reach a point where I don't have answers for you. Sorry I don't know everything. I'll do my best though.

 

Part of the reason I have more trouble with the Old Testament is that the culture is so different. I will have to spend more time looking into that side of things.

 

You're going to love this explanation concerning 1 Samuel 18:27. This is borrowed from a book:

 

"Twice Saul offers to make David his son-in-law. This second time he seems less mindful of the promise made earlier (17:25), which he may have regarded as no longer valid, and he is more intent on David’s proving his martial skill (or dying in the attempt!). Payment of a bride price was common in the Old Testament world, as it is still in some cultures today. It was the prerogative of the bride’s father to set the price, and Saul sets it dangerously high at a hundred Philistine foreskins. Body parts (heads, hands, etc.) often served as trophies of war, and Saul’s unusual choice is designed to assure that David actually kills Philistines—other of Israel’s neighbors were likely circumcised (see comment on 14:6).

Merenptah’s Great Libyan War Inscription from Karnak repeatedly mentions that the “phalli with foreskins” were being collected from slain enemies. This shows that the request made of David is not that odd. David meets Saul’s challenge twice over, presenting two hundred foreskins (v. 27). Saul views this success as evidence that Yahweh is with David (v. 28), and his fear of him grows into full-blown enmity (v. 29).

Armies would remove body parts from the slain enemy to number the casualties. Though often heads or hands, in this relief (below) it is a pile of phalli reminiscent of David’s collection of Philistine foreskins."

[Guest afireinside]

 

 

Generally when I'm studying any historical text, religious or otherwise, I use the historical-critical method. The Bible looks really silly and irrelevant in modern terms. You have to read it and think about it in its context. That means understanding the effects of language, culture, etc. Here's a small overview of how I look at the gospels. It would need to be fleshed out a lot more, but it's a general summary.

 

The gospels are the written testimonies of 4 people. They need to be considered as such. You have to get an understanding for who these people were, and what the experience was. Someone else posted a link to an article of some sort in another thread, and I felt it approached the gospels the wrong way. I don't look at them as the fulfillment of prophecy. Sure, you can look at it that way, but it does start to run into issues, because none of the writers were really focused on it (though Matthew comes the closest). It makes far more sense to view them as testimonies. They are the experiences of 4 different men. Their strength is in how well you can relate to them. They are also internally consistent (and saying that usually stirs up a hornet's nest.) To me there are very powerful and effective if approached the right way, but that's another topic for another thread.

 

I want to specifically address miracles. I don't think there's anything supernatural about them. I just think that since Jesus is God, you'd think he would have a perfect understanding of natural mechanics. His edge over us is that he can manipulate the world because he knew how it worked. Water into wine? I'm sure he had a way of manipulating its chemical structure. Knowledge is power.

 

How do I decide what to believe is literal? I ask myself...is this conceivable? Does it make sense? Are there problems? If so, I reevaluate. God himself said he wanted to reason with us, so I ask questions, and I criticize and discuss. My beliefs need to stand up to scrutiny or I won't hold them.

Historical Critical... you are on the slippery slope dude. And now an atheist website wanting debate? I bet in just a short time you will realize that an eternal, tomenting hell would be completely unjust (if you haven't already) and then... then... you will be sucked in to agnosticism... and then... before you know it.... you will be ONE OF US!... BAHAWAAAA!

Yep, dangerous territory if you value your eternal soul. Turn away Wololo-turn or burn as we used to say.

[Orbit]

Religious people are terrified people. That's what keeps them in line, and the source of the social pressure they use to keep everyone else in line.

[BlindFaith]

Yeah I think it was a different culture too... and unfortunately God hadn't created fried calamari yet and needed something to dip in his marinara. A 200 foreskin appetizer, if you will.

[Wololo]

 

Wololo, do you believe Jesus' claim that he could make rocks cry out in praise had the audience welcomed him with adoration?

Is that a literal claim or a metaphorical one?

Jesus could turn water into wine yet he couldn't turn a donkey into a decent horse befitting a man of honour.

Jesus rebuked Judas' comment regarding the anointing with the expensive perfume yet he never refilled the bottle to both use it on him AND sell it for charitable reasons.

He healed a soldiers ear but he wasn't phased that his colleague Judas would die by way of suicide, a death Jesus could have prevented.

A roof was destroyed in order to lower a man to be healed yet there is no record of Jesus healing the roof for the guy who let Jesus use his place for a theatre.

I'm being fececious here obviously but if Jesus was a magician and healer why did he limit that power and not use it consistently? It's all a bit hit and miss.

 

I think the best way to approach most of those questions is to understand that Jesus didn't come here to perform miracles and awe people that way. People didn't believe his divinity regardless of those signs anyway. His purpose was salvation. The narrative in the Bible reflects this, so we don't get details and answers to a lot of those questions. They weren't relevant to the writers. It's like asking if he brushed his teeth. Not really something that matters to the same extent.

 

 

 

Generally when I'm studying any historical text, religious or otherwise, I use the historical-critical method. The Bible looks really silly and irrelevant in modern terms. You have to read it and think about it in its context. That means understanding the effects of language, culture, etc. Here's a small overview of how I look at the gospels. It would need to be fleshed out a lot more, but it's a general summary.

The gospels are the written testimonies of 4 people. They need to be considered as such. You have to get an understanding for who these people were, and what the experience was. Someone else posted a link to an article of some sort in another thread, and I felt it approached the gospels the wrong way. I don't look at them as the fulfillment of prophecy. Sure, you can look at it that way, but it does start to run into issues, because none of the writers were really focused on it (though Matthew comes the closest). It makes far more sense to view them as testimonies. They are the experiences of 4 different men. Their strength is in how well you can relate to them. They are also internally consistent (and saying that usually stirs up a hornet's nest.) To me there are very powerful and effective if approached the right way, but that's another topic for another thread.

I want to specifically address miracles. I don't think there's anything supernatural about them. I just think that since Jesus is God, you'd think he would have a perfect understanding of natural mechanics. His edge over us is that he can manipulate the world because he knew how it worked. Water into wine? I'm sure he had a way of manipulating its chemical structure. Knowledge is power.

How do I decide what to believe is literal? I ask myself...is this conceivable? Does it make sense? Are there problems? If so, I reevaluate. God himself said he wanted to reason with us, so I ask questions, and I criticize and discuss. My beliefs need to stand up to scrutiny or I won't hold them.

Historical Critical... you are on the slippery slope dude. And now an atheist website wanting debate? I bet in just a short time you will realize that an eternal, tomenting hell would be completely unjust (if you haven't already) and then... then... you will be sucked in to agnosticism... and then... before you know it.... you will be ONE OF US!... BAHAWAAAA!

Yep, dangerous territory if you value your eternal soul. Turn away Wololo-turn or burn as we used to say.

 

 

Oh I'm dangerous. Gotten into hot water with the fundies and been kicked out of their online communities. Some of them were quite entertaining, if not a little disturbing. I mean putting your username as 'turnorburn'...is that really what's on your mind?

 

The doctrine of hellfire is a doctrine of demons and should be destroyed. It has no place in Christianity.

 

If God is so big and powerful and infinite and such...why is he afraid of our questions? What do we have to fear by asking those questions? I've never understood the aversion to intelligent, critical thought in religion. There are a lot of highly intelligent scholars that have fascinating discussions with people of other beliefs and I have learned much from listening and reading. If you're going to believe something, it needs to stand up to scrutiny, or it should be abandoned. Maybe I should put that in my signature.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

Wololo, do you believe Jesus' claim that he could make rocks cry out in praise had the audience welcomed him with adoration?

 

Is that a literal claim or a metaphorical one?

 

Jesus could turn water into wine yet he couldn't turn a donkey into a decent horse befitting a man of honour.

 

Jesus rebuked Judas' comment regarding the anointing with the expensive perfume yet he never refilled the bottle to both use it on him AND sell it for charitable reasons.

 

He healed a soldiers ear but he wasn't phased that his colleague Judas would die by way of suicide, a death Jesus could have prevented.

 

A roof was destroyed in order to lower a man to be healed yet there is no record of Jesus healing the roof for the guy who let Jesus use his place for a theatre.

 

I'm being fececious here obviously but if Jesus was a magician and healer why did he limit that power and not use it consistently? It's all a bit hit and miss.

 

I think the best way to approach most of those questions is to understand that Jesus didn't come here to perform miracles and awe people that way. People didn't believe his divinity regardless of those signs anyway. His purpose was salvation. The narrative in the Bible reflects this, so we don't get details and answers to a lot of those questions. They weren't relevant to the writers. It's like asking if he brushed his teeth. Not really something that matters to the same extent.

 

 

 

Generally when I'm studying any historical text, religious or otherwise, I use the historical-critical method. The Bible looks really silly and irrelevant in modern terms. You have to read it and think about it in its context. That means understanding the effects of language, culture, etc. Here's a small overview of how I look at the gospels. It would need to be fleshed out a lot more, but it's a general summary.

 

The gospels are the written testimonies of 4 people. They need to be considered as such. You have to get an understanding for who these people were, and what the experience was. Someone else posted a link to an article of some sort in another thread, and I felt it approached the gospels the wrong way. I don't look at them as the fulfillment of prophecy. Sure, you can look at it that way, but it does start to run into issues, because none of the writers were really focused on it (though Matthew comes the closest). It makes far more sense to view them as testimonies. They are the experiences of 4 different men. Their strength is in how well you can relate to them. They are also internally consistent (and saying that usually stirs up a hornet's nest.) To me there are very powerful and effective if approached the right way, but that's another topic for another thread.

 

I want to specifically address miracles. I don't think there's anything supernatural about them. I just think that since Jesus is God, you'd think he would have a perfect understanding of natural mechanics. His edge over us is that he can manipulate the world because he knew how it worked. Water into wine? I'm sure he had a way of manipulating its chemical structure. Knowledge is power.

 

How do I decide what to believe is literal? I ask myself...is this conceivable? Does it make sense? Are there problems? If so, I reevaluate. God himself said he wanted to reason with us, so I ask questions, and I criticize and discuss. My beliefs need to stand up to scrutiny or I won't hold them.

Historical Critical... you are on the slippery slope dude. And now an atheist website wanting debate? I bet in just a short time you will realize that an eternal, tomenting hell would be completely unjust (if you haven't already) and then... then... you will be sucked in to agnosticism... and then... before you know it.... you will be ONE OF US!... BAHAWAAAA!

Yep, dangerous territory if you value your eternal soul. Turn away Wololo-turn or burn as we used to say.

 

 

Oh I'm dangerous. Gotten into hot water with the fundies and been kicked out of their online communities. Some of them were quite entertaining, if not a little disturbing. I mean putting your username as 'turnorburn'...is that really what's on your mind?

 

The doctrine of hellfire is a doctrine of demons and should be destroyed. It has no place in Christianity.

 

If God is so big and powerful and infinite and such...why is he afraid of our questions? What do we have to fear by asking those questions? I've never understood the aversion to intelligent, critical thought in religion. There are a lot of highly intelligent scholars that have fascinating discussions with people of other beliefs and I have learned much from listening and reading. If you're going to believe something, it needs to stand up to scrutiny, or it should be abandoned. Maybe I should put that in my signature.

 

What a good idea.

[Guest afireinside]

Haha was there really a username "turnorburn"?

 

Yeah I get that the writers were more or less saying these things happened as an afterthought in each situation and as a reaction to the situations he came across.

 

If the doctrine of hellfire is false then what exactly did Jesus save us from? It seems as if a "sozo" life on earth is not exactly freedom from sin, disease or disaster for the Christian.

[sdelsolray]

I also want to add as a note that there should be a difference between informed faith and blind faith. Don't believe something that has absolutely no basis (or worse, has contradictions.)

I see what you attempting to distinguish, and I agree it should be done.  The word "faith" is a loaded word that has more than one definition.  Accordingly, it's use can easily cause confusion and miscommunication.  So, before adding adjectives to the word "faith", how about providing a working definition of the word "faith"?  There's the Biblical passage that is more or less a definition.  There's a few secular definitions.

[sdelsolray]

Generally when I'm studying any historical text, religious or otherwise, I use the historical-critical method. The Bible looks really silly and irrelevant in modern terms. You have to read it and think about it in its context. That means understanding the effects of language, culture, etc. Here's a small overview of how I look at the gospels. It would need to be fleshed out a lot more, but it's a general summary.

 

The gospels are the written testimonies of 4 people. They need to be considered as such. You have to get an understanding for who these people were, and what the experience was. Someone else posted a link to an article of some sort in another thread, and I felt it approached the gospels the wrong way. I don't look at them as the fulfillment of prophecy. Sure, you can look at it that way, but it does start to run into issues, because none of the writers were really focused on it (though Matthew comes the closest). It makes far more sense to view them as testimonies. They are the experiences of 4 different men. Their strength is in how well you can relate to them. They are also internally consistent (and saying that usually stirs up a hornet's nest.) To me there are very powerful and effective if approached the right way, but that's another topic for another thread.

 

I want to specifically address miracles. I don't think there's anything supernatural about them. I just think that since Jesus is God, you'd think he would have a perfect understanding of natural mechanics. His edge over us is that he can manipulate the world because he knew how it worked. Water into wine? I'm sure he had a way of manipulating its chemical structure. Knowledge is power.

 

How do I decide what to believe is literal? I ask myself...is this conceivable? Does it make sense? Are there problems? If so, I reevaluate. God himself said he wanted to reason with us, so I ask questions, and I criticize and discuss. My beliefs need to stand up to scrutiny or I won't hold them.

Yet you obviously don't hold the existence of your God to any evaluation or scrutiny, nor do you hold the claim that Jesus is God to any evaluation or scrutiny.  No doubt there are others.  To you, those are givens, axioms, assumed premises, etc.  You have, what I would call "religious faith" in those assertions.

 

Let's do a  simple experiment to test your rational thinking.  Presume, for the purposes of this short discussion that this God is purely imaginary, non-existent and emanates from ancient mythology.  Also assume this Jesus character is also an invented fiction.  Based on those presumptions, how would you evaluate, criticize and discuss the claimed miracles in the Bible?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

Here's my two cents.  I don't necessarily think that beliefs are irrational per se.  Religious beliefs can be somewhat defended by argument and a very low kind of "logic" (okay, more apologetic than logic).  To defend one's beliefs in any sincere and meaningful way requires that those beliefs be examined in some sort of rational manner.  Many rational people are also religious, and devote sincere intellect toward their beliefs.  Even non-religious people sometimes hold certain beliefs.  For example, I believe that I will still have a job to go to next week.

 

Faith, on the other hand, is by very definition, irrational.  Faith is simply accepting something as truth without a single shred of proof as to its validity.  No amount of objectivity is required or expended; the "truth" is simply accepted without examination.  Unfortunately, faith is the foundation for every other belief a religion offers.  So while any particular belief may be defended based upon this particular passage of scripture or that particular tradition, at the core of every belief is the irrational acceptance of faith.  christianity is a house of cards--each belief supports the next.  Pull the cornerstone of faith and the whole rotten structure comes tumbling down.

That describes perfectly my experience of losing my faith.  I went from Faith to Atheism in one moment, no gradual transition.  It happened so quickly I don't even remember why, how, except that it was a Saturday morning.  Strange, huh?

 

And it was precisely the opposite for me.  I stubbornly held on to my faith for two long and bloody years, even after each one of my beliefs had presented themselves as lies.  It finally took the brutality of life to wrest my faith from my hands before I was able to listen to that little voice that had been whispering, serpent-like, in the back of my mind since childhood, saying, "god does not have a plan for you, you fool; because god is not real."  It was also a Saturday, but it was night time and I was in a jail cell.  A further two years of disillusionment and confusion followed before the peace that passes all understanding fully came upon me (though I began to feel some peace within about six months).

 

Wow, that's a rough journey.  I'm sorry to hear it was so hard.  Glad you made it out.

[Wololo]

Haha was there really a username "turnorburn"?

 

Yeah I get that the writers were more or less saying these things happened as an afterthought in each situation and as a reaction to the situations he came across.

 

If the doctrine of hellfire is false then what exactly did Jesus save us from? It seems as if a "sozo" life on earth is not exactly freedom from sin, disease or disaster for the Christian.

 

I kid you not. There were a lot of people with a very bad attitude, and usernames like that just go to show... Those of us that are Christian have a hard enough time dealing with them because they're so unreasonable. Needless to say, my more moderate perspectives were immediately branded as heresy and I was cast out. I've received a better welcome from communities of nonbelievers. As a matter of fact though, there are plenty of progressive Christians out there, it's just that people seem to isolate themselves. True orthodox Christianity is very progressive.

 

Jesus saves from eternal death. The wages of sin is death...so he's saving you from death. The whole hellfire thing is just one big problem and is one reason (among many others) that people leave.

 

 

I also want to add as a note that there should be a difference between informed faith and blind faith. Don't believe something that has absolutely no basis (or worse, has contradictions.)

I see what you attempting to distinguish, and I agree it should be done.  The word "faith" is a loaded word that has more than one definition.  Accordingly, it's use can easily cause confusion and miscommunication.  So, before adding adjectives to the word "faith", how about providing a working definition of the word "faith"?  There's the Biblical passage that is more or less a definition.  There's a few secular definitions.

 

 

Faith is something that should be better discussed. I like to use adjectives because it's a concept that has evolved over time and is based on context. Faith is simply confidence in things unseen. Blind faith is confidence in things that have no basis at all. It's believing in something where you can't 'see' anything but still believe.

[Orbit]

 St Thomas Aquinas said "matters of faith are not subject to proof"--you are making the same argument and I reject it. Faith is wishful thinking, not fact, and not a basis for debate.

[Wololo]

 

Generally when I'm studying any historical text, religious or otherwise, I use the historical-critical method. The Bible looks really silly and irrelevant in modern terms. You have to read it and think about it in its context. That means understanding the effects of language, culture, etc. Here's a small overview of how I look at the gospels. It would need to be fleshed out a lot more, but it's a general summary.

 

The gospels are the written testimonies of 4 people. They need to be considered as such. You have to get an understanding for who these people were, and what the experience was. Someone else posted a link to an article of some sort in another thread, and I felt it approached the gospels the wrong way. I don't look at them as the fulfillment of prophecy. Sure, you can look at it that way, but it does start to run into issues, because none of the writers were really focused on it (though Matthew comes the closest). It makes far more sense to view them as testimonies. They are the experiences of 4 different men. Their strength is in how well you can relate to them. They are also internally consistent (and saying that usually stirs up a hornet's nest.) To me there are very powerful and effective if approached the right way, but that's another topic for another thread.

 

I want to specifically address miracles. I don't think there's anything supernatural about them. I just think that since Jesus is God, you'd think he would have a perfect understanding of natural mechanics. His edge over us is that he can manipulate the world because he knew how it worked. Water into wine? I'm sure he had a way of manipulating its chemical structure. Knowledge is power.

 

How do I decide what to believe is literal? I ask myself...is this conceivable? Does it make sense? Are there problems? If so, I reevaluate. God himself said he wanted to reason with us, so I ask questions, and I criticize and discuss. My beliefs need to stand up to scrutiny or I won't hold them.

Yet you obviously don't hold the existence of your God to any evaluation or scrutiny, nor do you hold the claim that Jesus is God to any evaluation or scrutiny.  No doubt there are others.  To you, those are givens, axioms, assumed premises, etc.  You have, what I would call "religious faith" in those assertions.

 

Let's do a  simple experiment to test your rational thinking.  Presume, for the purposes of this short discussion that this God is purely imaginary, non-existent and emanates from ancient mythology.  Also assume this Jesus character is also an invented fiction.  Based on those presumptions, how would you evaluate, criticize and discuss the claimed miracles in the Bible?

 

 

I'm not sure that's a fair criticism. My worldview probably does differ from yours, but that difference is not so much religious as it is philosophical. Most nonbelievers I have met won't even acknowledge anything but materialism. I am deeply neoplatonic, and that's where the difference lies. I believe there is more than the physical (which quite easily lends itself to the concept of God), whereas you are likely materialist, which means you only go as far as things that are physical. We're arguing on different terms, which is where the issue lies. Religion is built on philosophy, so we should trace our differences to their roots.

 

Without the divinity of Jesus or the power of God, the easiest thing to say is magic, or perhaps coincidence causes such things. That's the typical response. The difficulty is that both of those things sound absurd, whether because of statistical improbability, or because magic is silly. What you end up with are two separate conclusions. Either the people that witnessed it were deceived, or they are lying about something that did not happen. We can immediately rule out lying, because people don't go to gruesome deaths for something they know to be false. If they had fabricated it, they could have quite easily gotten away with just recanting and letting the whole thing slide. No, people went to the lions, and died horrible deaths in other places for their beliefs. Nobody that's lying does that. That would leave deception, except...where does it come from? Who's deceiving them? If we're disregarding the existence of Jesus, there is nobody to deceive them. So...unless you've got an answer for me, I'm not sure what would explain these things. I feel you won't agree with my premise about dying for things you made up, but that's how I would explain it. It doesn't work.

 

The more important matter is that we have to agree on a philosophical basis if we're going to discuss.

[Wololo]

 St Thomas Aquinas said "matters of faith are not subject to proof"--you are making the same argument and I reject it. Faith is wishful thinking, not fact, and not a basis for debate.

 

I don't agree with that. Your faith needs to rest on things that are more or less 'proven'. That's part of what faith is. I'd want to see that quote in context. Might have to check it out.

[Orbit]

You can't have a debate without your faith. That my friend is a logical reasoning problem.

[Wololo]

You can't have a debate without your faith. That my friend is a logical reasoning problem.

You have faith too. People are too busy defending to point it out. I have yet to get a satisfactory answer from someone when I start asking them about "distinctions".

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Jesus saves from eternal death. The wages of sin is death...so he's saving you from death. The whole hellfire thing is just one big problem and is one reason (among many others) that people leave.

 

Define "eternal death".

 

I am curious, if you don't believe in hell, why are you a xian?  Is it because you want to have a positive afterlife?

[Wololo]

 

Jesus saves from eternal death. The wages of sin is death...so he's saving you from death. The whole hellfire thing is just one big problem and is one reason (among many others) that people leave.

 

Define "eternal death".

 

I am curious, if you don't believe in hell, why are you a xian?  Is it because you want to have a positive afterlife?

 

 

Eternal meaning until there is nothing left in the universe. Time is only measured where there is mass.

 

Christianity isn't about fear. Seems the fundies have gotten to some of you when you're defining what it means to be a Christian. I'm a Christian because I support the ethics and morality, and recognize the places where I screw up. Jesus has meaning to me. I'm also profoundly curious, so I've explored, and while I've had to adjust my beliefs as I've grown up, God has stood up to my barrage of uncertainty. There are various reasons, but fear and guilt or a desire for a reward have nothing to do with it.

 

What are Christian ethics? If it's not loving, it's not ethical. That's it. Use love as the measuring stick. If people say being homosexual is evil, ask yourself the same question. Is it loving? It can be...just like any other relationship, therefore I will not judge people for it. Is murder evil? It is not loving, therefore it is evil.