Charity

...but he loves you!

I know so little about physics but I know it explains a lot about the world we live in. When it comes to the bible though, the mental gymnastics one goes through to prove God is all good is painful to watch.

Thanks Rocky. I no longer care if Christians disapprove of my reasons for letting go of Christianity. My post was in reply to Raf's suggestion that I use caution against allowing my faith to be undermined by whatever challenges my children or grandchildren were going through and how people falsely connected his rejection of God to the personal challenges he was facing at the time. I've always wondered about this and now suggest there is a double standard applied by believers where personal reasons for accepting Christianity is lauded yet those same reasons are criticized when they play a part in letting go of it. There seems to be more though than just human nature being involved in their need to criticize anyone who does the latter. I think it’s the belief that since God can do no wrong, it is always wrong of the person if they leave the faith. I wonder though how many would keep their faith if God had never promised eternal life in the bible. Would they continue to believe and worship God if their child was killed in an earthquake knowing there was no hope of ever seeing their child again? This doctrine of being reunited with loved ones in a perfect afterlife is reason enough for justifying (whitewashing) the fact that God allowed the tragedy to happen in the first place. I've started reading "The Illusion of God's Presence" by John C. Wathey which gets into the "biological origins of spiritual longing." It's very interesting.

I still wonder about this statement when I think about why many people become Christians especially when they are going through a rough time and facing challenges. Here are a couple examples of this: They hear/read about God’s unconditional love from the bible and/or attend a worship service where the songs are almost always very emotional about God’s love and our love for him (IOW - a loving relationship) and/or they become part of a loving church community. They hear stories or testimonies from people about God healing all kinds of mental, emotional and physical ailments and/or read verses about healing in the bible. If these are acceptable reasons for becoming a Christian, why are Christians critical of those like me who let go of Christianity when facing challenges because I no longer accept/believe that God is all present, all loving and one who heals? Isn't that applying a double standard?

That's a very good reason. According to Wikipedia on the topic of eschatology, "eschatological passages occur in many places in the Bible, in both the Old and the New Testaments. In the Old Testament, apocalyptic eschatology can be found notably in Isaiah 24–27, Isaiah 56–66, Joel, Zechariah 9–14 as well as in the closing chapters of Daniel, and in Ezekiel." I understand there are quite a few reasons given for the necessity of a divine end times - one of them that sticks out to me is to keep people in obedience lest they be punished at the final judgment. This makes sense from the viewpoint of a "righteous judge" such as yahweh, but what was in it for the men who invented these passages, especially the NT ones about Jesus? Has it always been for the purpose of using fear to control the masses so the ones at the top can have all the power and the riches?

Thx for the videos - I've now listened to both of them and can see how a harmony amongst the scholars concerning the existence of Jesus is as impossible as vp's fundamentalist attempts to harmonize the gospels . (I wonder if the current twi still pushes this idea.) Unlike Wierwille, however, these men freely admit it is impossible to be sure of their viewpoints 100 percent (*except now for MacDonald as mentioned below). With Ehrman and Price, I felt Ehrman had a better argument mostly because I could understand what he was saying concerning the bible, and he spoke clearly. Price, otoh, made little sense to me because I have not read up on the mythical sources he was using - something I need to do if I want to be a better judge on such debates. The same with Carrier and MacDonald. Other than the posts on this thread, I know little about the writings of Josephus and nothing about the 'Q' document(s), both of which MacDonald heavily learned on to support his argument. I could follow Carrier at times but not near the end when he and MacDonald were going back and forth. (*This debate was in 2020 and since then, Carrier continues to think there is a 1 in 3 chance that there was a historical Jesus, but he said in 2022 that MacDonald has changed his stance that the odds of Jesus having never existed from 1 in 12 to calling mythicism “preposterous” and “not even worth” discussing. He explains the probable reason for MacDonald's new view here.) All in all, regardless of the disagreements amongst these scholars, the fact that the NT is not the inherent and accurate word of God comes through clearly, imo.

Assuming that Paul's cosmic Jesus was all made up in his head, then there must be a reason for him to truly believe in his own writings. What would be his motive then other than to start his own church most likely for political reasons? I can see the same motive possibly holding true for the writers of the gospels and their myth-filled historicities of Jesus yet according to Ehrman, their accounts of what Jesus taught about salvation differed from what Paul taught. For example. However, Paul's teaching is what Christianity was eventually built upon. OTOH, Wierwille's explanation for the differences btw the gospels and Paul's epistles was that Jesus was not God and therefore did not know about the great mystery being hid in God. He learned of it after his resurrection and/or ascension and then revealed it to Paul.

What are your thoughts about what Carrier says?

Have you heard of Dr. David Skrbina who wrote “The Jesus Hoax?” His theory is that Paul, with the help of some who ministered with him, deliberately constructed the lie that the historical Jesus was the savior of humanity. In other words, Paul knew his epistles were not true. His purpose was to go up against the Roman Empire and weaken the influence it had on the common people. I’ve watched the MythVision video where Skrbina explains all this including where the gospels fit into this “hoax.” He also deals with arguments people have against his writings and continues to invite more feedback. A lot is covered so I plan to listen to it again. At this point, I'm just wondering if you've heard of his ideas and if so, what you think of them. The Jesus Hoax (About his book and includes chapter 1) MythVision Podcast - The Jesus Hoax with Dr. David Skrbina

Good point about the resurrection of Lazarus not being significant enough to be included in the other gospels yet in the gospel of John, this account was so important that it caused many Jews to believe in Jesus and as a result, the chief priests discussed killing Lazarus as well. Concerning what happened to Lazarus in the rest of the gospel, Richard Carrier has something to say about this. At the 42:25 mark in his video Why the Gospels are Myth Carrier shows that Lazarus (not John) was the disciple whom Jesus loved and that his presence is noted at Jesus' crucifixion (19:26), the empty tomb (20:2-9) and after Jesus' resurrection (21:7). Then at the 46:00 mark, he makes an argument that the writer(s) of John turned the parabolic Lazarus into a real person in order to correct the problem they saw in Luke explaing why no one actually returns from the dead. (However, I'm not sure that is what Luke 16:26 and 31 is saying.)

Tempting, considering the author's statement, "Accordingly, the celebrity atheist scientist could certainly take a look at the abundance of Near Death Experiences, the Shroud of Turin, bloody Eucharist hosts, and the Guadalupe Tilma. All of these supernatural items have been examined by numerous scientists from around the world, who have concluded that only a miracle from God could have caused them." But, I don't have the stomach for the article and its links at the moment, so unfortunately my funny bone will remain untickled for now. It'd be interesting to see a discussion develop though.

Such a sound, rational video both verbally and visually. It has a different effect than when you hear him say the same things in a comedic way - here, they invoke contemplation, openness and hopefully a desire to discuss them logically - like this one: "I used to believe in God. The Christian one, that is (There are a few thousand to choose from. But I was born in a country where the dominant religion was Christianity so I believed in that one. Isn't it weird how that always happens?). Luckily I was also interested in science and nature. And reason and logic. And honesty and truth. And equality and fairness. By the age of eight I was an atheist." I find the criteria he mentions and his young age at the time outstanding. How many children are told these criteria can be met through believing in a narcissistic, vengeful and inventor-of-death heavenly father and soak it up like a sponge?

Thanks for bringing up Ricky Gervais. I enjoyed listening to some of his videos last night. Found this site of his quotes - it's funnier to hear him say them, but here, they're in one place. Quotes by Gervais Hearing an atheist with a sense of humor talk about atheism is like enjoying a walk in the rain without an umbrella on a warm day - refreshing and nonconforming.

Thanks for sharing such a great song Rocky. Here's a short clip about how a big part of the production came to be.

Again, I feel like I'm late to the party. I'm finding out that Hernandez's view about "good" philosophy being a necessary (or at least a helpful) tool to help Christians understand life and God better is not that uncommon among scholars and some ministries. Just goes to show that up until a couple of months ago, I was still holding onto vp's catchphrase "it's the word, the word and nothing but the word" (or something like that). I guess the bible is fair game for ministers, preachers, and believers to come to their own truth. The likelihood is zero, though, that anyone will find a "truth" that takes all the guesswork and inconsistencies out of God and his promises for our lives in the here and now (IMHO).

Regarding the article " Relationship with apologist changes heart of atheist." As some Christians have become evolutionary creationists because they can no longer deny the science of evolution, I wonder if Hernandez’s teachings on biblical philosophy is a way to get around or legitimize the growing awareness of the gospels being linked to Homer and Paul’s epistles to Plato, Socrates and Aristotle. Here are some quotes from Hernandez’s webpage “Do Christians Need Philosophy?” http://www.erichernandezministries.com/christians-need-philosophy-question-20/ The greatest commandment in scripture tells us to love God with all of our heart, strength, and mind (which literally means your intellectual capacity and faculty of understanding). The first thing to note is that we are commanded to exercise our faculty of understanding as a way of honoring God, being made in His image, as a reflection of His intellect. As a Christian, or as merely a person with a mind, we need tools to help guide our thinking. Philosophy and theology are vital tools that God has given us to exercise such guidance. And as a side note, could we not say that the Holy Spirit has guided us to engage in proper philosophy? The issue here isn’t with philosophy, per say, but in engaging in proper philosophy. We should not think of philosophy as man trying to make up stuff to sound smart. That is what Christians who have bad philosophy tend to do. Philosophy literally comes from the words “philo”, the love of, and “Sophia”, meaning wisdom. So it literally means the love of wisdom, and a quick look at the book of proverbs clearly tells us much about wisdom. Hence, if we have good philosophy, our thinking will be properly guided when we engage in virtually every other field of study. Especially and most importantly, our theology- the study of God. Colossians 2:8...The context of this verse here is Paul speaking to Christians who have had people attempting to persuade them using “hollow and deceptive” philosophy. The key in this verse is to avoid the BAD philosophy, and not simply to avoid philosophy altogether. Lastly, I’d like to address the view that some Christians take by saying, “the gospel is simple, we don’t need philosophy to understand it”. The error again is that this is not only false, but un-biblical. How can we have the audacity to assume that our own thinking is so precise and proper, that we can afford to be intellectually lazy and neglect the very tools (such as philosophy) God gave us to help understand all that He is? Are we really that prideful to admit we don’t know it all and need help? Or are we too lazy and find it easier to simply say, “the Holy Spirit will just tell me.” This is not how Christ lived his life, because he himself grew in wisdom (luke 2:52), and in claiming otherwise, we make ourselves out to be better than Jesus. Such assertions make these people hard to be taken seriously. Philosophy is a gift from God, and a gift that will enrich our lives, our minds, our worship, and our outlook on who God is. This is what it means to love God with our minds.

I wondered about this when I read the article "Relationship with apologist changes heart of atheist," so I tried to find the debate Daniel Nieto mentioned in that article. It looks like Aron Ra (atheist) and Eric Hernandez (Christian apologist) have done two debates; one on faith and one on the soul. I think it's the debate on faith that may be the one in question. It seems to be well known because there is a portion where Aron Ra is accused of "losing his mind over a simple question and yelling at Hernandez." A very popular 16-minute clip on YouTube focuses on this portion and uses gimmicks to make fun of Aron Ra. Hernandez shows it at the top of his home page for Eric Hernandez Ministries. It all just looks like a PR promotion for Hernandez. Aron Ra seems to discuss this debate in an hour-and-a-half video which I have only started to watch in order to find out what was said to be wrong about his definition of faith. I also want to see how Hernandez operates in his role as an apologist.

Being curious myself, I have googled both the term and Hernandez (who declares he is one) and could not find a definition or explanation. My conclusion is that this "title" is simply one Hernandez invented for himself and may be explained as follows. Millennials were born between 1981 and 1996. A 2019 article titled "In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace" says "Data from Pew [Research Center] between 2020 and 2021 reported that nearly half of millennials surveyed (49%) described themselves as Christians, the most of all religions, another 10% identify with non-Christian faiths and four in 10 now identify as religious 'nones.' I'm guessing that Hernandez, who is a Baptist apologist, sees himself as a specialist in targeting millennials in order to get them "saved" such as Raf's second post about the conversion of the atheist Daniel Nieto shows. Why would he want to do this? One reason might be that getting 28-43 year olds converted increases the probability that their children will be brought up in religious homes and as a result, reverse the increase of "religiously unaffiliated" which has consecutively occurred over the past 5 generations.

The article does show that atheists can change their beliefs and become a Christians just as Christians can change their beliefs and become an atheist. Quotes of Nieto from the article: “I’m really into philosophy, and when I started hearing Eric talk, he was pointing out things I’d never thought about before." “Eric was hitting me with the concepts and philosophies that Aron didn’t know about." "I’m so glad I never gave up and threw myself into the fire of philosophy to learn more.” ("Fire of philosophy" here does not come with a definition. Google offers some but who knows if they are what Nieto meant.) “I’ve come to the conclusion that Christianity is the only way I’m going to make an impact, spread the truth and try to save the world." (Common Christian talk) “I feel like I have a different mission in life, and that’s to go down that philosophical road and keep looking for God.” ~~~~~~~~~ Hernandez has done a couple of debates about the "soul" and one of the Texas Baptists' statements of belief is that they believe in "Soul competency, accountability, and responsibility." Without learning more about how Hernandez integrates philosophy into Christianity, it's impossible to know why Nieto says Hernandez answered his questions about spiritual matter and the soul that no church had ever been able to do.

Thanks Rocky. Your post falls in line with another thought I've been having - have I been too judgmental and/or opinionated with my posts. Each of our realities about God and the bible is uniquely personal although we might connect with the thoughts and feelings of others. I've reviewed what the Socratic Dialog Method is and how it's used which has been helpful. The trip I mentioned earlier will not happen for at least two more months so there's time to think on the reality of living life without relying on a non-existent god for his protection. I've ordered the two books I referred to in my previous post and am now reading the available sample of "The Illusion of God's Presence" on Amazon. The author begins by giving a few interesting anecdotes to explain where he's going with the contents of his book, and so far I find it pretty relatable. I've posted it below if you or anyone else is curious about this topic. https://www.amazon.ca/Illusion-Gods-Presence-Biological-Spiritual/dp/1633880745 https://www.amazon.ca/Illusion-Gods-Presence-Biological-Spiritual/dp/1633880745 Hopefully, one of the two above will bring up the site.

This post relates to my previous one about God's protection. I'm calling this one "easier said than done." I’ve been thinking about the next time I take the 5-hour drive to visit my son and his family, this time without the comforting thought of having God’s protection while driving on very busy highways most of the way. I’m trying to think rationally to get over the nervousness, but it continues to persist. This morning I happened to listen to the YouTube video called “Belief and the Brain: a Psychiatrist and a Neuroscientist on Evolution and Religion.” Seth Andrews had two guests on his podcast: - Dr. Andy Thomson, a psychiatrist and author of "Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith," and - Dr. John Wathey, a computational biologist, neuroscientist, and author of "The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing." They discussed, among many other things, why the concept of God being a heavenly father can become such a compelling desire and need for bible-believing people. It concerns the neural circuitry which evolved to “program the infant brain to expect the presence of a loving being who responds to the child's needs.” That innate feeling is triggered again in adulthood through religion because of the Father-son relationship that is fundamental to biblical teachings. The strength of these adult feelings is quite similar to the strength one had as an infant. IOW, there’s not just a psychological reason for a believer connecting with an all-loving and ever-present Father but a strong biological one as well. This explains why Christians are so unwilling to let go of this concept, and why it can also be difficult for one who has deconverted to let go in certain scenarios even though they know it's just wishful thinking. Replacing illogical thinking with rational thinking requires some concentrated work to be done.

Good catch! I've edited the post.

Yeah, when it comes to replacing (as opposed to improving) a belief, you are letting go of one thing in favour of a different one. Letting go is not easy until you have become convinced it's of no value anymore. Carry on developing Rocky...

No, I haven't changed my mind. My post was concerning those who take the bible as the inerrant words of God when raising their children." You bring up a point I've been thinking about recently. As a young atheist, I am learning about displaced anger. It still feels like my anger at times is towards God, and yet I believe there is no proof that God even exists. I'm finding then that my anger is really with the bible – that although I consider it as a book written by men, it proclaims to have divine truth and godly instructions for living. So, just as believers are free to speak about what's in the the bible, I think atheists are free to speak their thoughts about the bible as well. I'm not saying you are implying I'm not free to speak, but it explains where I am coming from when I do.

That's good to hear Rocky. But for those who take it as the inerrant words of God, it often results in fearful and shameful beliefs being taught to children and who then reaffirm those beliefs to themselves once they are grown.