i have been talking to this chap about faith

[Castiel233]

Recently I have been having conversations with a chap about matters of faith. The areas of disagreement between us have been dealt with using good manners and good grace, one has to say.

However, when I have pointed out difficult Biblical passages, he has replied that I shouldn't take it literally, or it should be read in context. This seems to me to be somewhat of a dodge.

For example when Jesus says, what ever you ask for in His name, His Father will grant it, I take it as a literal text. Not so , says my associate. He says the remarks are being taken out of context, and Jesus is either saying He will answer spiritual gifts, or God will answers prayers requests that He wants to that reflect His glory....

This does appear to be weak reasoning. If the gifts are spiritual, then they cannot be tested or realised in reality. If they are only answered if God wills them for His own glory, then why are prayers sent that do reflect Gods glory go unanswered. 

Then I asked about Judas. Was it fair that Judas got the worse lottery ticket in the world, through no fault of his own. The gentlemen agreed it was unfair. Then I asked was it right for the Bible to call for the murder of gay people. He corrected me, the Bible only calls for the killing of gay people who engage in a gay lifestyle. So I asked, was it right that God would make gay people and then expect straight people to kill them. He seemed to indicate it was unfair.  Why create a Universe that displeases you. 

We discussed Adam and Eve. I say that God (if the Bible speaks truly) used entrapment. He counter claimed that God limits His own knowledge and therefore choose not to know how the situation with the fruit would play out, in effect making God blameless for the fall of man.  This again seems like a dodge (and is similar to the excuse WLC makes about God's "middle" knowledge).

He did accept my point that people throughout the ages have been born into non Christian cultures and were raised as non Christians through no fault of their own, making a persons religion highly dependant on parentage and geography. 

 

I welcome comments regarding the points I have raised. 

[TABA]

1 hour ago, Castiel233 said:

Recently I have been having conversations with a chap about matters of faith. The areas of disagreement between us have been dealt with using good manners and good grace, one has to say.

However, when I have pointed out difficult Biblical passages, he has replied that I shouldn't take it literally, or it should be read in context. This seems to me to be somewhat of a dodge.

For example when Jesus says, what ever you ask for in His name, His Father will grant it, I take it as a literal text. Not so , says my associate. He says the remarks are being taken out of context, and Jesus is either saying He will answer spiritual gifts, or God will answers prayers requests that He wants to that reflect His glory....

This does appear to be weak reasoning. If the gifts are spiritual, then they cannot be tested or realised in reality. If they are only answered if God wills them for His own glory, then why are prayers sent that do reflect Gods glory go unanswered. 

Then I asked about Judas. Was it fair that Judas got the worse lottery ticket in the world, through no fault of his own. The gentlemen agreed it was unfair. Then I asked was it right for the Bible to call for the murder of gay people. He corrected me, the Bible only calls for the killing of gay people who engage in a gay lifestyle. So I asked, was it right that God would make gay people and then expect straight people to kill them. He seemed to indicate it was unfair.  Why create a Universe that displeases you. 

We discussed Adam and Eve. I say that God (if the Bible speaks truly) used entrapment. He counter claimed that God limits His own knowledge and therefore choose not to know how the situation with the fruit would play out, in effect making God blameless for the fall of man.  This again seems like a dodge (and is similar to the excuse WLC makes about God's "middle" knowledge).

He did accept my point that people throughout the ages have been born into non Christian cultures and were raised as non Christians through no fault of their own, making a persons religion highly dependant on parentage and geography. 

 

I welcome comments regarding the points I have raised. 

Good for you for engaging respectfully with this believer!  All the points you raised are valid ones that, if considered honestly, can only undermine the credibility of Christianity.  If this man is heavily invested emotionally in his faith then your points may make no difference, but it's always possible that you may have sown seeds of doubt that could lead him to actually question what he believes. Once that point is reached, then deconversion becomes a possibility at least. 

Are you familiar with Street Epistemology?  It's a way of discussing faith with believers that emphasizes questioning rather than arguing, sowing those seeds of doubt and letting them work in his mind.  If you Google 'Street  Epistemology' or 'Anthony Magnabosco' you'll find resources. 

Let us know how this conversation goes!  Faith is a tough wall to break through so don't be discouraged if you seem to be making no headway: seeds of doubt can take a long time to germinate!

 

 

[MOHO]

ThereAndBack,

By my assessment you are correct that losing one's religion takes time and that logic needs to gestate. This certainly was the case for this dime-store cowboy!

Mrs. MOHO is, normally, quite logical and wants the "facts only!" But, when it comes to xianity, all logic and reason evaporates in a flash and its all about emotion and how anyone who does not believe is a "liberal, dishonest, tattooed, body pierced, loathsome, satan worshiper!"

But, hey - a man can plant a seed and hope...and wait...and wait...and wait...

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi Castiel, this Christian chap is a heretic if he seriously thinks God limits His knowledge. That's not what WLC claims with the "middle knowledge" idea, which goes back to a Jesuit in the 1600s or so. The people who believe in it (and many theologians did not) still hold that God created the world by His "free knowledge," by which God knows every outcome of every event in the world that He chooses to create.

The Nicene Creed starts out, "I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty..." If God is almighty, there isn't any traction in trying to claim that God limits His own knowledge. 

[TABA]

59 minutes ago, MOHO said:

ThereAndBack,

By my assessment you are correct that losing one's religion takes time and that logic needs to gestate. This certainly was the case for this dime-store cowboy!

Mrs. MOHO is, normally, quite logical and wants the "facts only!" But, when it comes to xianity, all logic and reason evaporates in a flash and its all about emotion and how anyone who does not believe is a "liberal, dishonest, tattooed, body pierced, loathsome, satan worshiper!"

But, hey - a man can plant a seed and hope...and wait...and wait...and wait...

Hey MOHO, I don't know your wife, but the fact that she's logical in other areas of her life suggests to me that her religious beliefs may not be nearly as secure as she might like to think. If it crumbles, it could happen quickly, kind of like those totalitarian regimes that seem rock-solid but then collapse quickly.  I'm rooting for ya, brother!

 

[Castiel233]

In all honesty, this gentlemen (and given his fine intellect and manners, I say IS a gentlemen) has not specified he is a theist, let alone a Christian. However I suspect he is a Christian, given his profound knowledge of and defence of the Bible. He talks as one would expect a theist to talk and when I pressed the point as to if he had reached a firm conclusion of the existence of God, he more or less waved the question away, in a way that perhaps a polite Christian would, being more interested in not causing offence. (Not that I would have been offended).

It has been an intellectual treat to debate these  questions around with him  and refreshing to have someone as much interested in listening, as talking. 

[LogicalFallacy]

17 hours ago, Castiel233 said:

We discussed Adam and Eve. I say that God (if the Bible speaks truly) used entrapment. He counter claimed that God limits His own knowledge and therefore choose not to know how the situation with the fruit would play out, in effect making God blameless for the fall of man.  This again seems like a dodge (and is similar to the excuse WLC makes about God's "middle" knowledge).

 

Isn't this playing dice with the universe? If God limits his knowledge how does he know how things are going to pan out? If this is the case how could the whole Jesus thing be the plan of salvation? Is God winging it through the eons of time, kind of like a scientist doing an experiment? I find this argument very weak. In this instance is God all Knowing? If he is how then can he limit his knowledge? If he is not then is he God?

[Castiel233]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Isn't this playing dice with the universe? If God limits his knowledge how does he know how things are going to pan out? If this is the case how could the whole Jesus thing be the plan of salvation? Is God winging it through the eons of time, kind of like a scientist doing an experiment? I find this argument very weak. In this instance is God all Knowing? If he is how then can he limit his knowledge? If he is not then is he God?

A theistic reply is that we are merely humans and with our poverty of imagination we cannot hope to crack such a mystery.

 

However it does seems that an all knowing god who prefixes future events leaves us with no free will and renders us merely actors on the stage playing our predetermined roles, blameless for our actions as He has already selected them.

 

Was Judas selected before his own birth to betray his master. If he was, this is to awful to contemplate. Judas was brought into the world to betray Jesus. If he had no choice in the matter, his betrayal sees him usher in Christianity and his reward....suicide followed by forever in hell. If Judas did have a choice, then phrases, "as it was foretold" are lies....either way, Christians are stuck with free will and a limited God or an all knowing God and no free will. either way its a mess. If God is not all knowing, then how can we trust Him to see and judge, justly. If He is all knowing, then we are blameless for what He has pre-chosen.

A god without fore knowledge makes a mockery of prophecy, allows us free will, yet limits His knowledge, or it is naturally limited.

Either way you wave the flag, it does appear to be some sort of issue with classic theology that believers are stuck with.  

An all knowing, all seeing , all powerful Christian God that allows a child to be born in a Muslim county, to Muslim parents and to grow up and promote Islam, and then sends that person to Christian Hell for having the wrong theology is deeply unsettling in a predetermined  universe. 

[Travi]

The whole "all knowing" part confused me as a child, because as you all pointed out - if everything is predetermined, then why bother praying for a change to a situation? (illness, death, whatever) I see it all the time: "Such and such went into the hospital, I need my prayer warriors." If it was determined before their birth that they would go into the hospital on this day, then why are you praying against the will of your god? After all, that is one of their favorite phrases when things -DON'T- go their way: "It's God will/plan."

But as it was also stated, if he isn't all knowing - then he isn't this ultra powerfully invincible being that he is made out to be. The problem of sin comes into play, as does the problem with hell. God created Satan (and all other things mind you), who of course was the instigator of Eve eating the forbidden fruit. Now, if God knew that Satan would tempt Eve before he created him, then why did he create him? If he knew that Satan would wind up causing the Garden to fall, then he already had it made up in his mind that I hated what I made, and I will eventually drown them because I said so. If he didn't know that Satan would cause the fall when he created him, then he obviously isn't as powerful as people make him out to be. Same will hell, there are two problems here: Why would a loving god, who loves us unconditionally, and etc etc. even create such a place to begin with? A place of eternal torment, just because you didn't bend the knee? Secondly, we go back to - if all things are predetermined and God knows what you'll do, then you are likely condemned to hell from day one since he knows you won't be a believer.

It's a never ending circle of diatribe. Christians want to clam God knows everything, is all powerful, can create and destroy blah blah blah - but will pray for a change to his will if it involves losing a family member or what have you. Then the problem of hell is that "God doesn't want you to go to hell though!" Then why create the god damn place?

To me, it sounds like this fellow is, like so many other Christians, finding ways to take God off the hook for everything has went wrong in the bible (if it is truth), or just in life in general - a tactic I will never understand. Wrong is wrong, even if your supposed savior did it.

[Deidre]

If someone isn't hurting anyone because of their faith views, and just feels that faith brings them joy, why try to talk them out of their faith beliefs? 

[rjn]

32 minutes ago, Deidre said:

If someone isn't hurting anyone because of their faith views, and just feels that faith brings them joy, why try to talk them out of their faith beliefs? 

Inclined to agree.

[Travi]

1 hour ago, Deidre said:

If someone isn't hurting anyone because of their faith views, and just feels that faith brings them joy, why try to talk them out of their faith beliefs? 

This. I usually take the "as long as you are happy" approach. It's when someone tries to shove it down my throat. Otherwise, believe what you want to believe.

[Lilith666]

God "limits his knowledge"? I don't recall having heard that one before.

It appears that Christians make stuff up in the middle of a debate to get around the question. Why would all-knowing god limit his knowledge, since he's aware of the massive consequences his actions might have? Why would he throw his beloved creatures under the bus just to get out of the blame in case they get themselves and all their descendants in trouble? And, if he deliberately limited his own power beforehand so that nothing would be his fault, then it's still his fault because he's omniscient and all-powerful, while humans are not. It would be like if you let someone you knew to be very shady and dangerous babysit your child, while you left the house and didn't come back for a few hours. Then when you find out your child has been molested and murdered, you say it's not your fault because you didn't know it would happen. No, you didn't have a crystal ball that told you the future, but you are still the parent and intentionally gave up responsibility for your baby.

[Lilith666]

1 hour ago, Deidre said:

If someone isn't hurting anyone because of their faith views, and just feels that faith brings them joy, why try to talk them out of their faith beliefs? 

Except Christianity actually does hurt people. Rather than believing what they want to believe on an individual level, Christians manipulate others into accepting it as well, including little kids who aren't old enough to know any better, and many of these converts (I'm including children of Christian parents) continue to believe it for decades or permanently. I don't go looking for arguments with Christians as those tend to be non-productive, but I don't think Christianity merely brings joy to its adherents. Otherwise, I would agree with your statement.

[megasamurai]

I've always been told that god sends people to hell because they want to go to hell. For some reason, Africans and Asians choose to go to hell at a much higher rate than Europeans and especially North Americans. This view seems to have a tinge of racism to it. I really doubt the "they want to go to hell" doctrine. If you asked a Hindu were he wanted to go after he died, I doubt he would say hell. I can't get how people can choose to go to hell if I've met hardly anybody with a strong drive to go to hell.

[TABA]

1 hour ago, Deidre said:

If someone isn't hurting anyone because of their faith views, and just feels that faith brings them joy, why try to talk them out of their faith beliefs? 

I'm not sure that Castiel233 was trying to talk this gentleman out of his faith.  It sounds like it was an interesting and respectful discussion that hopefully was useful to both of them.

But you do raise a valid point.  My wife is still a believer and I'm definitely not trying to talk her out of it.  Whenever she wants to talk about it, I am not overly shy about expressing why I no longer believe.  But she rarely wants to talk about it; whereas I am just fine without a god-belief, I think she would have a lot of trouble adjusting to the idea of there being no god to answer prayers or to guide her life, etc.  So I am inclined to be gentle with such people, and not only because she is my wife and would hate for her to be unhappy. 

On the other hand, I wish that somebody would have respectfully challenged my faith during my twenty-year detour into Christianity.  And I especially wish I had had access to counter-apologetics during the period before my baptism at the age of 29, a period when I could have as easily rejected Christianity as embraced it.  My wrong decision in that regard meant that what should have been my best years were instead stunted and hobbled.  Not miserable, just not how it could have been.  So if I see somebody who is only half-heartedly attached to a religion, I am inclined to gently probe to better understand their situation.  If they are strongly attached to their faith, then I'm not going to waste their time or mine.  But if they seem seriously open to reason, then I am happy to engage and encourage them to think and to question, and to assure them that for some of us at least, a godless life can indeed be a better life.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

8 hours ago, Castiel233 said:

A theistic reply is that we are merely humans and with our poverty of imagination we cannot hope to crack such a mystery.

 

However it does seems that an all knowing god who prefixes future events leaves us with no free will and renders us merely actors on the stage playing our predetermined roles, blameless for our actions as He has already selected them.

 

Was Judas selected before his own birth to betray his master. If he was, this is to awful to contemplate. Judas was brought into the world to betray Jesus. If he had no choice in the matter, his betrayal sees him usher in Christianity and his reward....suicide followed by forever in hell. If Judas did have a choice, then phrases, "as it was foretold" are lies....either way, Christians are stuck with free will and a limited God or an all knowing God and no free will. either way its a mess. If God is not all knowing, then how can we trust Him to see and judge, justly. If He is all knowing, then we are blameless for what He has pre-chosen.

A god without fore knowledge makes a mockery of prophecy, allows us free will, yet limits His knowledge, or it is naturally limited.

Either way you wave the flag, it does appear to be some sort of issue with classic theology that believers are stuck with.  

An all knowing, all seeing , all powerful Christian God that allows a child to be born in a Muslim county, to Muslim parents and to grow up and promote Islam, and then sends that person to Christian Hell for having the wrong theology is deeply unsettling in a predetermined  universe. 

The theistic reply is something I am encountering currently. God is so vast that we cannot understand blah blah. Except these people then claim to know the will and mind of God, and that he has given us his understanding through the bible and his messengers. So the theistic reply holds no water. If God is not revealing himself then no one has any right to claim anything about knowing God's will/plan/whatever. You cannot simultaneously claim that God is unknowable, and say that you must have a personal relationship/revelation with Jesus in order to be saved. It doesn't work. Either God has/is revealing himself to the world or he wants to remain hidden. Now you can have the argument that God only reveals himself to those he will, and blinds all others. And that's fine, you can have that God, but he's a morally bankrupt God for not revealing himself to everybody. He's playing choosy favourites.

 

1 hour ago, Lilith666 said:

Except Christianity actually does hurt people. Rather than believing what they want to believe on an individual level, Christians manipulate others into accepting it as well, including little kids who aren't old enough to know any better, and many of these converts (I'm including children of Christian parents) continue to believe it for decades or permanently. I don't go looking for arguments with Christians as those tend to be non-productive, but I don't think Christianity merely brings joy to its adherents. Otherwise, I would agree with your statement.

I somewhat agree with this statement, but I also somewhat disagree.

Certain 'flavours' of Christianity do more damage than others. The liberal Christianity is so watered down wish washy and all about love that it actually probably has a net benefit. Fundamental Christianity, where the earth is 6,000 years old, earth is going to hell in a hand basket, God is a God of judgement, and you better repeat or perish is much more of a problem and can be harmful. If you are the type of person that can convince yourself that you are God's favourite primate on this planet, all well and good, not much mental anguish there, and you are probably happy. If you are like me and always wondered if you are right with God, or everything you do was going to send you to hell, this is where Christianity is a real problem.

Religions do have some very good benefits, benefits that the secular world hasn't come close to matching thus far. A sense of identity, belonging and community. This is what binds religious communities together. Us free thinkers on the other hand tend to question everything and everybody so find it hard to bind together on any subject

However, in saying that, I am sure if we could all meet and live in the same city we would find a way to form a close nit community together. As it stands, Ex-C is our community at the moment.

[megasamurai]

When I was a believer, I got hell for admitting that I knew about god, but I didn't know him. I don't know how people who claim to know god can really know him. I didn't have the ability to telepathically communicate with god, while others did. 

[Deidre]

3 hours ago, Lilith666 said:

Except Christianity actually does hurt people. Rather than believing what they want to believe on an individual level, Christians manipulate others into accepting it as well, including little kids who aren't old enough to know any better, and many of these converts (I'm including children of Christian parents) continue to believe it for decades or permanently. I don't go looking for arguments with Christians as those tend to be non-productive, but I don't think Christianity merely brings joy to its adherents. Otherwise, I would agree with your statement.

I don't disagree, and when I left the faith for a time, I remember trying to talk people out of Christianity. But, coming back to it, I don't see the need to force my views on others. I mean, I share my faith, but then move on. It's probably wrong to on both sides of it, but if people are coming from a good place, I get it. Since coming back to faith, some atheists I know are very angry about my decision, while others have a live and let live mentality. I haven't changed, just my faith has changed. Faith can be a dividing thing sometimes, unfortunately. 

[Deidre]

3 hours ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

I'm not sure that Castiel233 was trying to talk this gentleman out of his faith.  It sounds like it was an interesting and respectful discussion that hopefully was useful to both of them.

But you do raise a valid point.  My wife is still a believer and I'm definitely not trying to talk her out of it.  Whenever she wants to talk about it, I am not overly shy about expressing why I no longer believe.  But she rarely wants to talk about it; whereas I am just fine without a god-belief, I think she would have a lot of trouble adjusting to the idea of there being no god to answer prayers or to guide her life, etc.  So I am inclined to be gentle with such people, and not only because she is my wife and would hate for her to be unhappy. 

On the other hand, I wish that somebody would have respectfully challenged my faith during my twenty-year detour into Christianity.  And I especially wish I had had access to counter-apologetics during the period before my baptism at the age of 29, a period when I could have as easily rejected Christianity as embraced it.  My wrong decision in that regard meant that what should have been my best years were instead stunted and hobbled.  Not miserable, just not how it could have been.  So if I see somebody who is only half-heartedly attached to a religion, I am inclined to gently probe to better understand their situation.  If they are strongly attached to their faith, then I'm not going to waste their time or mine.  But if they seem seriously open to reason, then I am happy to engage and encourage them to think and to question, and to assure them that for some of us at least, a godless life can indeed be a better life.

 

That's so awesome, how you and your wife treat your differing beliefs. It's very common for Christians to split up, when one leaves the faith...and the other remains. 

[Travi]

1 hour ago, Deidre said:

I don't disagree, and when I left the faith for a time, I remember trying to talk people out of Christianity. But, coming back to it, I don't see the need to force my views on others. I mean, I share my faith, but then move on. It's probably wrong to on both sides of it, but if people are coming from a good place, I get it. Since coming back to faith, some atheists I know are very angry about my decision, while others have a live and let live mentality. I haven't changed, just my faith has changed. Faith can be a dividing thing sometimes, unfortunately. 

I will admit that I was confused as to your decision to return, however - I respect your decision in doing so. I also agree that some aspects of it all can be damaging, but your approach are the types I can get along with rather well. Two of my best friends are devout Christians, but they never force it on me as in, when I visit - they don't force the whole issue of going to church with them, or what have you. They don't even do the whole prayer before eating thing. Most of the time, we're too busy playing Xbox, shooting zombies on Call of Duty, or rescuing princesses in Castle Crashers

Either way, as long as the person in question is happy and is willing to let sleeping dogs lay on the subject of belief vs non-belief, then I have the same willingness.

[Deidre]

3 minutes ago, Travi said:

I will admit that I was confused as to your decision to return, however - I respect your decision in doing so. I also agree that some aspects of it all can be damaging, but your approach are the types I can get along with rather well. Two of my best friends are devout Christians, but they never force it on me as in, when I visit - they don't force the whole issue of going to church with them, or what have you. They don't even do the whole prayer before eating thing. Most of the time, we're too busy playing Xbox, shooting zombies on Call of Duty, or rescuing princesses in Castle Crashers

Either way, as long as the person in question is happy and is willing to let sleeping dogs lay on the subject of belief vs non-belief, then I have the same willingness.

Always a voice of reason, you are.

[Travi]

I've always found that hardline stances on anything in general makes for a miserable existence. You do you, I do me. That's my motto in a life that seems to be getting shorter each day, lol.

[pratt]

i usually don't discuss religion with anyone, unless the other party wants to,,,,,

so if the other party is happy with their beliefs so be it and kerp it to themselves, but is they insists that i am going to hell, they better be challenged

 

 

[MOHO]

23 hours ago, Deidre said:

If someone isn't hurting anyone because of their faith views, and just feels that faith brings them joy, why try to talk them out of their faith beliefs? 

 

That would be a reasonable attitude, Deidre, if it were not for the evangelical aspect of xiantiy. You see the organized xtian religion is, at ti's core, focused on massing money and power. Hence the members must spread the belief, pay tithing, and "discourage"  any beliefs, attitudes, or conversations that would be contrary to xianities ultimate goals. You could say it is a form of fascism.

 

Now, give all of that, when a family member expresses doubt or all out disbelief, the church pulls out all of the stops to discredit the wayward sheep. Even to the point of placing the little messages here and there that unequally yoked couples usually split up. They also pressure the members to regard any free thought as evil and contrary to a productive society. The church cannot tolerate ANY dissension, or free thought for that matter, that MIGHT result in a lower senses in the pews or, more importantly, fewer bucks in the basket.

 

One more thing. You are probably of the mindset, because you seem reasonable and moderate, that xtians do not necessarily have to be evangelical at all. Well then you would not be talking about "TRUE" xianity - but some bastardized form thereof.  "Faith w/out works" and all that.