Playing off of your Herod example of the deaths of 30,000 people, ...
Tell me something JohnJ, when (according to the biblical account) God told Samuel to have King Saul preemptively invade the Amalakites, (supposedly due to an attack by the Amalakites upon the Isrealites at least 300 years previously), kill all the thousands of people that he saw, including all "infants and sucklings" (think My Lai on steroids), ... what strict moral standard was that based on, hmmm?
And please don't tell me that it was because the Amalakites were planning an attack upon Isreal, as there was no notation in the scriptures indicating that; none whatsoever. Also, if you read the account earlier in the Bible, it gives the account of the Amalakites attacking the Isrealites while they were in transit to the Promised Land. What is missing in Samuel's reaccount of it, was that Isreal fought back and whupped the Amalakites big time. Ie., the price has already been paid. Retaliation already inflicted. ... So WTF was Samuel doing having Saul inflicting revenge upon a people who has already paid the price, and that around 300 years previously? It would be like the present day U.S. Army attacking descendants of an eastern seaboard tribes of Indians for a raid they committed back in 1707 upon some colonists.
So how does that biblical account of God initiating said attack upon the Amalakites jibe with your supposed 'strict sense of morals', hmmm? And that is but one of the many examples of this kind.
You know Garth, you just really error in your understanding of scriptures. I will take yet another stab at this.
Genesis 2:4 "these are the generations of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created. One of whom was drummroolll Amalek. (Notice it says not just the generations of those that are on earth only but those in the heavens also) You say so what? The angels rebeled in heaven and some of the worst sort (aka Satan's little cupcakes) were the duh duh duh duh the Amalakites. You say you dont know that for sure your guessing. Nope dont think so. Exodus 17:14 "for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven. They were barred from heaven. Where is such a place? It is called HELL. Not only that, but from generation to generation the Lord swore war against them. War against Satan's little cupcakes. These are the ones who God kicked out of heaven PERMANENTLY, get it?
You know Garth, I think your a nice guy, I really do. Your probably one of the most considerate and descent atheists I have met. But following these screwballs around is so unlike your own charachter.
Consider the following and chiefly the comments I made to Pmosh about the way "your group" attibutes things to the God of the Old Testament. It's hillarious, from the standpoint that the same standards dont apply from the cult that applied to the you know who of the old testament. Not one time in the old testament did God ever sanction a war for conquest of other peoples lands. Yet not a peep from the cult against the people of Napoleon, or the people of English Monarchists, or the people of Alexander the Great or Roman conquering plunderers. Why? Because with you guys the whole show is about disproving God's creation. There is no other motive. You would think that the most scarey frightening thing in all the world for athiests would be all there neighbors in there town, whose forfathers partook in horrible deeds if one applied the same standard of atheists uniformly.
Consider one other thing before you condescend. Is it possible that God warned some of these people to leave before they were attacked and didnt tell us about it in the Bible? "You would say, well thats unfair if he wants to explain himself." In fact they were forewarned, all of them, they heard what God had done to the Eygptians because the bible says there "sounds went through out all the earth." Not just person to person gossip in my view either, the bible says the sound of it was sent to them, they saw it coming. So dont stand around and tell me, these countries didnt want war with a strip of land 75 by 200 approximate miles. In fact they did, in fact many of them brought the war to Israel.
What is it with your peoples need to stand around and try and butcher the Almighty? He is good and righteous all the time; and calling him opposite, when you dont even understand the bible, it just isnt very bright.
I personally have no interest in following a god that calls for the death of innocent children. You can dance around it all you want, I've heard plenty of explanations, from they were possessed babies so had to die, to they weren't human babies, to well, it didn't really happen...
So people were warned and didn't move out of their homes, their farms? Thye didn't want to drag their families as refugees, poverty stricken and starving? Gosh, that certainly deserves a death sentence, don't you think? They didn't obey so the men of God had to kill them, even the small children and babies. Slaughter for God.
It is just not athiests who don't swallow that reasoning, there are Christians also. You stand ,sky4it, is not the universal Christian stand on this Bible account.
Just one of those bug a boos that bite when it has to be an inerrant Bible. Couldn't possibly be war like men making themselves look good for history--"God told us too, so it was good."
Perhaps that record is in the Bible for another reason--to show that greedy armies, drunk on power and violence, can do horrible deeds in the name of their God.
I personally have no interest in following a god that calls for the death of innocent children. You can dance around it all you want, I've heard plenty of explanations, from they were possessed babies so had to die, to they weren't human babies, to well, it didn't really happen...
So people were warned and didn't move out of their homes, their farms? Thye didn't want to drag their families as refugees, poverty stricken and starving? Gosh, that certainly deserves a death sentence, don't you think? They didn't obey so the men of God had to kill them, even the small children and babies. Slaughter for God.
It is just not athiests who don't swallow that reasoning, there are Christians also. You stand ,sky4it, is not the universal Christian stand on this Bible account.
Just one of those bug a boos that bite when it has to be an inerrant Bible. Couldn't possibly be war like men making themselves look good for history--"God told us too, so it was good."
Perhaps that record is in the Bible for another reason--to show that greedy armies, drunk on power and violence, can do horrible deeds in the name of their God.
Bramble I was tyring to respond to your comments but something went wrong with my browser, talk to you when thngs work better ...........cheers :unsure:
Bramble, for some reason my browser would not post to your comments specifically, so I laid them out without your comments, dont know why it wouldnt work, anyway to your commentary I tried the following:
I guess then Bramble that would make you an anti-abortionist. Please tell me the factory where your zest is on dragging, I would like to donate to someone with so much zeal as you. I dont like abortion either. One more thing about taking life as you mentioned. God is the only one who can take life, because he can give life back. Still, we dont see God doing it often, but if he did, be sure to form he had a list of very good reasons. From that perspective, he has a different perspective than man.
BTW< (and I think this is an important point), some of these people were sacrificing children in fire to animals and such, which means there probably was beasteality, pedophiles and such, and doubtless all manner of diseases. When you look at it in that light, it is a better picture.
Well, perhaps a simple agreement that the God who turned a river into blood might have been not a little secret, hey, lets become part of Israel, wasn't to big of a leap even for Wiccans. No? otherwise backoff off a tad, because the people of that era were well warned, in fact the bible says so.
Thank you Bramble, that’s a heck of a compliment. I always wanted to die not being a universalist. You make me love my bible more everyday.
Nope, God wouldn’t tell anyone to do something unless it was good. But just so you and I are clear Bramble, I will "turn the other cheek" according to Jesus suggestion, after that , let me tell you something, there is something that’s sexy about " an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" something that is a bullseye about that kind of talk, I think in this day and age I "wanna be a dentist and optomistrist, there is a point to these old testament sayings. The old testament and new testament meet in a place called Melonie Beatty, who coined the term co-dependent no more. They work together not apart. In fact you cant make them work (at least not real well) apart. The old testament provides God in real life action towards people. Aint that old testament great!
by the way Bramble that was the positively the cutest apology statement for God ever, thanks but a peice of junk like me wants to see the goods. Apologists are people making excuses the God that I know doesn’t need a not even one. K? I wouldn't classify myself as an "inerrant", but almost all scripture doesn't need correcting. There are some fuzzy issues on texts, which ones are better, and such, but not much that differs greatly up and down, and side to side about the bible.
I did not mean to imply that just atheists have substandard and in some (but not all) aspects immoral codes, but that this is true of all human beings. We all have a certain degree of selfishness, cruelty, anger, impatience, unkindness, lack of self control and self gratification. If you're not sure if you have any semblance of these, ask your (ex) spouse, children or parents (or be braver and ask someone who doesn't like you). All self-made moral codes will fall well below true righteousness. We all need God to correct our habit of rationalizing our own immoral behavior.
We all tend to rationalize our behavior when it injures others or when someone tries to correct us. We're pretty good at excuses for our behavior. This comes much easier to us than humily repenting. We will also often change our moral code in order to not feel guilty about our sinful behavior. This is what VPW did. He changed his moral code about adultery when he began a habit of having other women while married. He had to go against the Bible in order to do this. Atheists have no moral code to answer to, so in that sense would find it psychologically easier to change their moral code to rationalize immoral actions
We don't mind being accounmtable when we know we'll "pass," but don't want to be held accountable at least in certain areas of our thinking and lifestyle. Rationalizing and not wanting to be held accountable are significant aspects to many of the conflicts we have with other people, especially those in our own families.
The difference between serious religious (of a Judeao-Christian variety at least) people and others is that they will allow God to overrule them to correct the poor aspects of their moral code, and will recognize they are accountable to God even when they know they can otherwise "get away with" ungdly behavior. They don't do this perfectly, but this still serves as a way to reign in their (our) immoral desires, something atheists don't have.
Footnotes:
The article on Japan I noted was printed on a local newspaper, the Press-Enterprise in Riverside CA approximately 2 weeks ago. I didn't write down the date. I can scan it for you if you wish.
No one who knows anything about first century history questions Herod's existence, general dates of life, area and time of reign and general activities. Josephus, the Jewish Historian who wrote under Roman aproval is considered by historians to be on the whole a reliable source and provides many details of Herod's life. He mentions all four of the Herods the NT does, in addition to John the baptizer and Jesus of Nazareth. He also confirms several events mentioned in the NT.
I agree that some aspects of human morality are intuitive and common to us all. Everybody has at least some concept of "do not murder" and "do not steal" (although their code may alow them to steal but condemn others who steal from them).
However, the moral code of Jesus in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) I think is far and away higher than moral codes that human beings come up with.
For example, many people have some kind of belief regarding not commiting adultery (although over half the population commits adultery anyway). Jesus says that even lusting is as sinful (a problem for at least the 100 million people in America that access porn). We all have a form of "don't murder," but he adds that most forms of anger are as sinful because if that attitude is taken to its full extent it would result in violence.
We all think we should love our neighbors. Jesus adds that we should love our enemies as well. He says if someone forces us to serve them, we should volunteer to serve longer. We have a sense that we should forgive our friends who admit their wrongs, Jesus insists that we forgive all, even our enemies. We beleive we should be generous toward people who respond to us (give & receive), Jesus tells us to be generous with those who can't pay us back (just give). We come up with a lot of reasons to divorce, most of which Jesus thinks are lousy reasons.
We have a concept of not doing to others what we don't want them to do to us. Live and let live. But a rock can do that better than we can. Jesus tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to do to others as we would have them do to us. That calls us to be outgoing with love, generosity, kindness, etc, especially with people who don't deserve it.
A lot of the New Testament code of conduct goes beyond behavior to attitude and motive and is very self-sacrificing. It goes beyond moral codes people typically make up.
I think this does two things. First, it give us a more moral code than what we'd make up, challenges us to let Jesus Christ ovverrule our defective moral codes, and replace ours with his.
Second, it tells me that Jesus' kind of holiness is impossible for me to do completely. It tells me that I need to go to God for forgiveness, for reconciliation, for redemption and re-creation. I can't handle this on my own. Fortunately, God's moral code prompts him to give me a whole lot more mercy and grace than I'm willing to give other people.
Bramble, for some reason my browser would not post to your comments specifically, so I laid them out without your comments, dont know why it wouldnt work, anyway to your commentary I tried the following:
I guess then Bramble that would make you an anti-abortionist. Please tell me the factory where your zest is on dragging, I would like to donate to someone with so much zeal as you. I dont like abortion either. One more thing about taking life as you mentioned. God is the only one who can take life, because he can give life back. Still, we dont see God doing it often, but if he did, be sure to form he had a list of very good reasons. From that perspective, he has a different perspective than man.
BTW< (and I think this is an important point), some of these people were sacrificing children in fire to animals and such, which means there probably was beasteality, pedophiles and such, and doubtless all manner of diseases. When you look at it in that light, it is a better picture.
Well, perhaps a simple agreement that the God who turned a river into blood might have been not a little secret, hey, lets become part of Israel, wasn't to big of a leap even for Wiccans. No? otherwise backoff off a tad, because the people of that era were well warned, in fact the bible says so.
Thank you Bramble, that's a heck of a compliment. I always wanted to die not being a universalist. You make me love my bible more everyday.
Nope, God wouldn't tell anyone to do something unless it was good. But just so you and I are clear Bramble, I will "turn the other cheek" according to Jesus suggestion, after that , let me tell you something, there is something that's sexy about " an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" something that is a bullseye about that kind of talk, I think in this day and age I "wanna be a dentist and optomistrist, there is a point to these old testament sayings. The old testament and new testament meet in a place called Melonie Beatty, who coined the term co-dependent no more. They work together not apart. In fact you cant make them work (at least not real well) apart. The old testament provides God in real life action towards people. Aint that old testament great!
by the way Bramble that was the positively the cutest apology statement for God ever, thanks but a peice of junk like me wants to see the goods. Apologists are people making excuses the God that I know doesn't need a not even one. K? I wouldn't classify myself as an "inerrant", but almost all scripture doesn't need correcting. There are some fuzzy issues on texts, which ones are better, and such, but not much that differs greatly up and down, and side to side about the bible.
Um okay, lots of that doesn't make sense to me, but I will clarify my stand:
Perhaps that record is in your Bible as a wisdom lesson, as in: If you as a society accept a level of violence like the slaughter of innocents in my (God's) name, then your society will know violence, division and captivity--the road to Babylon. Which pretty much sounds like the rest of the story of Israel.
Reap what you sow might be another way to say it. Live by the sword, die by the sword is yet another.
Um okay, lots of that doesn't make sense to me, but I will clarify my stand:
Perhaps that record is in your Bible as a wisdom lesson, as in: If you as a society accept a level of violence like the slaughter of innocents in my (God's) name, then your society will know violence, division and captivity--the road to Babylon. Which pretty much sounds like the rest of the story of Israel.
Reap what you sow might be another way to say it. Live by the sword, die by the sword is yet another.
Or, karma.
Not to belabor the point but;
If we hadnt done something in 1940, we would have been an extention of the Land of the Rising Sun, talking about our favorite Kaisers, and frequenting our favorite stroodle and sauer kraut restaraunts. The children of Israel would have faired a little worse I think, having to back up recipes for Chemosh and Baal, serving in an occasional sacrifical child.
Never mentioned because war is always a convient excuse for blame, is the fact that the bible had a recipe pitch for "the strangers of the land" unlike Napolean and the Ceasars of the world. What the heck, lets just throw in Bill Clinton for sexual abuse for good measure, as more of the same powerbrokers who abuse there power to govern.
While I acknowledge that there are some atheists and other non-Christians out there who get their jollies out of gratuitously bashing the bible and its God, usually Garth, P-Mosh, George and others point out apparent atrocities in the OT only as counter to a Christian's claim that the bible embodies a superior morality than one that is man-made. From what I can tell the non-Christians on this board know the bible as well as the Christians, they just come to different conclusions about it.
From a plain reading of many sections of the OT God is telling his people to slaughter, unprovoked, whole cities, whole peoples. The recurrent answer that I see is that it really wasn't immoral because God said it was okay, and since God is God then he can't do anything evil. You know that that's circular reasoning, right?
johnj, again, marvelous posts, imo. They provide further enlightment to why you consider a Christian-based morality more effective. And nowhere, do I see you bash anyone who makes a different choice.
sky4it, I have great difficulty following your posts. As I don't understand them, I can't make a meaningful response.
Bramble and Oakspear, your posts continue to educate me on your points of view. It's important to me to understand them, not so that I can debate them, but so I can see where others are coming from and why they make those choices. I like that as adults we can agree to disagree. It's even better, imo, when we can appreciate the differences and not see them as points of contention that must be argued. Usually, I find that diversity should be celebrated, not argued.
My "mission" in these discussions is to put forth the view that anyone's view on God/spirituality/the supernatural/religion is as valid anyone else's. Usually when I get into debate mode it's to counter someone who is sure that their POV is the only legitimate one.
I am a great admirer of how some people have turned their lives around with the help of Christianity, but get greatly irritated when someone suggests that my beliefs need changing when they have no evidence that my life is deficient in any way.
In my opinion, their is plenty of room for a diversity of opinions about the world and spirituality.
sky4it, I have great difficulty following your posts. As I don't understand them, I can't make a meaningful response.
Suda, In my second to last post to Bramble, for some reason my browser would not post with bramble's comments and my responses (but I posted it anyway), so it was somewhat disjointed or disconnected to the thoughts of bramble.
I hope that you did not find anyother thing difficult in my posts. Thank you for the notation.
From a plain reading of many sections of the OT God is telling his people to slaughter, unprovoked, whole cities, whole peoples. The recurrent answer that I see is that it really wasn't immoral because God said it was okay, and since God is God then he can't do anything evil. You know that that's circular reasoning, right?
About all I can say Oak, is that I never at all considered it a topic until atheists brought it up.
My reflection on the Old Testament, was always that it reflected well on the serious nature of God in New Testament dynamics. I also dont really understand, why there isnt a progression of thought on Jesus of the New Testament, from old Testament dynamics, which clearly was the authors intention all along.
the other issue and more lately ( and I think this is good) is that the you know who of the old testament, can never be mistaken for a girl scout, I think this is heathy, from the standpoint that some flavors of view, tend to reflect miserably on the goodness and kindness issues of the gospel. I wont reflect on your other commentary in general, because I believe I have already done this.
someone happened to use the word "karma" which made me think of the traditional Hindu view of karma and how it contrasts from Christianity.
Many westerners see karma through Christian eyes, thinking that you don't want bad karma but that good karma is good because it brings you some kind of reward. It's a variation of the Christian idea of reward and punishment.
But straight Hindu karma is to avoid Both good and bad karma. They don't want to do good, because that would require them to return in another life to be rewarded for the good done. But they don't want to come back. So their best choice is to do neither good nor bad, basically to be apathetic toward people in need.
This is one reason that higher castes traditionally do not help lower castes. When they do, they think they're hurting themselves (because they have to came back in another life to be paid back for the good they do) and they think they're hurting the lower castes, because they're thwarting the bad karma and suffering the lower castes deserve.
In contrast, Christianity emhasizes helping the needy, not being apathetic toward them because they're suffering for the sins of their previous lives. This is why Mother Thersesa is a Christian, not a Hindu, and why the Red Cross is a cross and not a Krishna.
And I think it shows how Christian morality is a kinder, gentler, more generous and gracious version than Hindu morality, and is a better morality for this reason.
And I think it shows how Christian morality is a kinder, gentler, more generous and gracious version than Hindu morality, and is a better morality for this reason.
Yeah, it sure worked swell in the crusades, the inquisitions, the 30-years war, the Crimean War, the Irish Rebellion, our own Civil War, and well, just about any war you'd care to mention.
Thanks to a lot of help from my friends, I have “come to grips” with one of my big questions concerning the journey to atheism from Christianity. Many thanks to all for your helpfulness! Part of my “research” included reading previous doctrine-related threads and reading posts by those who are atheist/agnostic/non-theists. I rediscovered some posts that had “rung my bell” previously and strike me as apparent contradictions. I welcome input. I hope that by reading “the rest of the story” my perceptions of contradictions can be proven false, also. My questions are not meant to be personal attacks, accusations, or anything of the sort. They are sincere and honest solicitations for information. I would love to be able to peacefully put these questions to rest in my mind.
From the thread “What Would Make You Believe”, with my emphasis added by a bolded lettering in a different color.
I can't say for certain that there aren't gods any more than I can say there are no Lilliputians. Both are mythical figures in my book. But my doubt that mythical creatures exist is probably equal to you guys' belief that they do exist. So what does that make me? Really.. I don't particularly care what you want to call it. As far as I'm concerned.. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in gods. Plain and simple. But since I can't say for 100% sure.. you want to call me an agnostic? Ho-kay. It's kinda' funny really.
Re:"Do you completely reject Christ as lord? It's not that difficult a question, is it?"
Don't know why this is so important to you but OK.. No.. I can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is not lord of lords and all that but I alsocan't say positively that there ain't no Tooth Fairy either.
Same atheist/agnostic different thread, “Assume for a Moment there is no God”.
I'll make this short as its not really the topic. Nearly every one of your points is identical with mine.
1) "I don't believe in any sort of deity. That doesn't reflect on my opinion of some religious organizations."
And let me add that *I*even attend church services. Heck, I still love a good gospel song.
>
We see one possible motivation stated above, the music. When I think of “church music”, two basic types come to mind. My favorite is to “good ole time” gospel music. It reminds me a lot of secular Country music. The other is the more “classical” type. Guess it’s secular counterpart would be closer to opera. My question, aren’t both these genres of music (with or without direct or indirect religious references) available for a person's listening pleasure in live concerts, on TV specials, on the music stations on cable tv, on the radio, or in CD format? If so, is it necessary to attend church to enjoy this music?
Here are my main questions: Is it common practice for an atheist to attend a church, or mosque, or temple, or any other place of worship on a routine basis? If so, what is the motivation or reasoning?
Suda (hoping for clarification from my fellow posters that are atheists as well as any that are not)
The following posts may reflect other motivations for an atheist to attend a church. The bolding is supplied by me. From the “Bowtwi Makes it Through A Church Service” thread:
Well good for you! It made me feel all warm inside reading your post. As you saw, there’s more to church than religious beliefs. In our country’s history, the churches were the center of the community as well. TWI would place folks in communities but they never were a real part of the local goings on.
Whenever did TWI encourage it’s people to get involved in local blood drives, scouting activities or community projects? Not while I was a part of it, for sure. This church you attended on the other hand was actively involved with the local fire fighting and police departments at the very least. Kudos to them. . . .
Find one that has the fellowship you enjoy the most . . . and stay involved in the community. You’ll be richly rewarded.
From “Sharon’s Stroke is God’s Wrath” in the Doctrinal Forum
These posts appear to downplay the religious reasons people attend church, and focus on the other benefits provided by a “church home”. Church is a gathering place for people in the community, and a place to enjoy their fellowship. But aren’t there other gathering places not associated with a religious organization, such as The Lion’s Club, The Jaycee’s, The Toastmaster’s, The Kiwanis Club, The Elks Lodge, to name a few, that would provide the same type of social interaction (fellowship) that can be found at church?
Many of the those organizations also focus on community service. The Lion’s Club serves the blind. Other organizations devoted to service are Special Olympics, The United Way, delivering Meals on Wheels through the food bank rather than a church. There are endless groups who need community service volunteers that do not require participation in a religious organization.
Do people attend church to perform good works? Do they come on Sunday so they can deliver Meals on Wheels? Then who delivers Monday through Saturday? I believe that the good works are a product of their religious beliefs, and their gathering at church is for worship and fellowship with those of common beliefs, NOT to perform good works, although many will do such while there by teaching Sunday School, serving communion, etc. Although it could be argued that some only attend when they are scheduled to perform a particular good work, and refrain from going at other times.
Suda (who thinks church is religious, not secular)
This quote is from the Open ForumThread “I Went to a Unitarian church this Morning” (bolding supplied by me).
Depends on what people are looking for. . . . And then you have folks like me, StayedTooLong, who think theists are like little kids who believe in Santa Claus.. only... they NEVER grow up!! The less demanding their religion, the better for the world. No infidels to kill. No lands to conquer for the True Religion.
But realizing how people LOVE to believe and get great satisfaction from invoking the gods, I try to fit in as best I can. I even teach a Sunday School class at a church where people generally don't know the difference between the Gospels and the Epistles.
It's easy to teach... and I probably sound a lot like what you're hearing from the Unitarian Universalists... that being happy and contented is paramount because quite frankly, this life is all we know for sure that we have. So.. be kind to your fellow man. Do for others as you would have them do for you.
Would seem one “requirement” of the atheist's chosen church is to have little dogma that its members must profess. I know when I was searching for a “family church home” post-twi, that was a requirement so that my conscience would be clear. I would not have to pretend to believe something I did not believe in my heart. But with changes in beliefs concerning God and those who believe in Him, does this poster now find it necessary to pretend adherence to dogma? Is that what is meant by “ I try to fit in as best I can.”? That statement might indicate a knowing that you are not a good fit, but you do your best to blend in and be accepted as “one of them”. This begs the question, at church, is there a need be a “closet” atheist? If one is confident and at ease with his/her beliefs, why would he/she feel a need to hide them rather than share them? Is “fitting in with the crowd” more important than being true to one’s self? How does being closeted bring one personal happiness and contentment?
In all the Sunday School classes I have attended in many different churches, it has been customary for the teacher of the lesson to present at least one scripture reading from the Bible as the basis for the lesson. If an atheist believes the Bible to be myths and fables, is the scripture lesson presented like one of Aesops’s Fables that is not a true story, but teaches a worthy moral lesson? Do they emphasize that personal happiness and contentment are paramount? Or do they emphasize “Be kind to your fellow man. Do for others as you would have them do for you.” Is there a relationship between how one treats others and one’s personal attainment of personal happiness and contentment? Or can you have one without the other? The former concept appears on the surface to be “self-centered” while the latter is “other-centered”, and could be contradictory, if they are not serving the same end.
To me, teaching a Sunday School class goes beyond attendance to enjoy music and the fellowship of people. Teachers accept and place themselves in a role of leadership. It seems contradictory to lead people in a direction one does not believe. In fact, it would seem that the opportunity to teach would an perfect opportunity to present them with information to help them “see the light of their ignorance”. Of course, that would likely be the end of such opportunities. To step from a role of attendee to teacher could indicate that one wishes to be seen as “one of them” and furthers that desire by donning a cloak of respectability that is inherent in leadership positions. This idea might be alluded to in the following post from the “About The Way” forum in the thread entitled “Did the Way make you hard core scripture and verse?” Again, the bolding is mine.
It looks more and more to me that people just have to have their religions to feel like they have purpose in life. Doesn't really matter if they are Muslim, Hindu or Christian. The fact that they BELIEVE (oh Gawd, how the suicide bombers believe) makes them alright.
It's atheists that get the brunt of criticism, you know. Take on faith SOMETHING for Heaven's sake!! Otherwise you'll be branded a heathen or infidel and ripe for the vat of boiling oil.
Could it be a reflection that in some communities, church is the socially accepted place to be on Sunday morning? If that is what is expected of one, it is important to been seen there in order to preserve or enhance one’s reputation in the community? Just seems to me like living a double life. A flip side of that in a religious sense would be “plural” families, those that practice polygamy. Their push to decriminalize polygamy stems from the fact that they despise having to “live a lie” but feel forced to do so in order to protect the hubands and the family welfare. I understand in the secular world the need for some to live a double life such as secret agents, spies, plainclothes police. On the whole, society accepts these as “a dirty job, but someone has to do them” in order to protect our communities and nation. But when the line is crossed to being a double-agent or a dirty cop, there is public outcry and moral outrage because the motivation has moved to self interest rather than the community good. On a federal level, I think it is considered treason and punishable by death. On a state or municipal level, the penalty is not that great, but the “dirty” person’s reputation is ruined and they are banned from wearing the badge there in the future.
And wasn’t it donning a cloak of respectability that has made vpw so despised? Wasn’t he seen as a “double agent” of sorts? Had he been open, upfront, and honest about his “underbelly” motives, he would not have been able to entrap innocent people, and decimate their lives. I fully understand that if someone is an atheist, closeted or open, it does not mean they commit atrocities against people. Some may, most would never.
And doesn’t the Universal Unitarian Church provide a place of worship for people of faith as well as non-faith? It is my understanding that their belief is there may be a God or gods. Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, etc. are all accepted. And they provide sub-groups, maybe even Sunday School formats, for these small groups to fellowship together. Would that not be a more comfortable place for an atheist to worship than a traditional church? Of course, it’s true that many traditional Christians look down upon the Unitarians, and don’t consider them to be real Christians. So fellowshipping there may not allow one to don a “cloak of respectability”.
This quote is from the Doctrinal Thread “Assume for a Moment there is no God” with the bolding supplied by me.
3) "...am currently adopting the manner and words of a devout Catholic in order to comfort my mother, who is likely not long for this world. To me, it matters not at all that I don't believe what I say. What matters is that someone who does believe is comforted and helped."
Absolutely and without a doubt XX you are doing the right thing. My parents are elderly now and they have little inkling that I feel the way I do. It would break their hearts to think that their oldest son was destined for the gates of Hell (they are Southern Baptist) and doomed for all eternity. Uh, This IS the downside of the religion. But notwithstanding.. I'm not going to hurt them for the world. I don't know why most agnostics and atheists think its so important to be so vocal and belittle those of faith. Like, THAT really helps "the cause".
This seems to say that depending upon the situation we find ourselves in, we “go along to get along”. Sometimes it’s best to “bite our tongue” to protect the feelings of others and to preserve our relationship. That I can agree with totally. But it is a stretch for me to understand why one would deliberately place themselves in a position to have to do such for the long-term by being an active member of a church. Why, if when away from the church, that persson feels free to be quite vocal in their disdain for the tenets of it’s belief as well as how foolish most of the attendees at said church are for being “duped” by said tenets?
It is comforting to know that these posters feel the need to protect their elderly and/or infirm parent’s from heartbreak. Are there additional “significant others” in their lives to whose hearts may also be broken when they are informed of the new belief system? If the face-to-face communications with them are as vocal as the written communication in the condemnation of both their religion as well as them for continuing to hold onto to their personal faiths, it might do a lot more damage than just breaking their hearts. (Such communication does not follow the advice given above, as exhibted by a number of their posts: "I don't know why most agnostics and atheists think its so important to be so vocal and belittle those of faith. Like, THAT really helps "the cause".") It could bruise them so extensively that healing will be a long and arduous path for them. And is a choice made to keep parent’s in the dark, while revealing one’s true self to the rest of the significant others? And if so, doesn’t that place an added and unwanted burden on them, to have to deal with the heartbreak in silence? But, I guess, since statistically speaking, the others (family - nuclear and/or extended-, and friends, for instance) may be expected to outlive him/her but the parent’s are not, he/she can keep a lid on his/her beliefs as long as they are alive, but can’t do so forever. It might provide some relief to an atheist to let the “cat out the bag” to some of the significant people in his/her life realizing that there’s never a good time for disappointing, shocking news.
The following posts appear to contradict one another. Both appear in the thread “What Could Make You Believe.” The different colored font is supplied by me.
There are those of us (I can speak only for myself on this thread) who see no evidence that there are any gods whatsoever and don't have a theistic view of the world. Seems to me that makes us a-theists or a-religionists, if you prefer. But we have to accept that we too could be wrong. How can we deny that Jesus is the Christ for certain? Doing so would make us have a belief system like the rest of you guys. Doesn't have anything to do with "backbone". It has to do with intellectual honesty.
You on the other hand, seem not to be able to admit that you could possibly be wrong. This in the face of admitting you are a man of faith. That is intellectual dishonesty, IMO.
Re:"Do you completely reject Christ as lord? It's not that difficult a question, is it?"
Don't know why this is so important to you but OK.. No.. I can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is not lord of lords and all that but I also can't say positively that there ain't no Tooth Fairy either.
Let’s talk honestly about the Tooth Fairy for a moment. I am certain that I replaced the teeth under my children’s pillows with a dime I took from my wallet and shined to a sheen. (Yeah, I'm a cheap tooth fairy. Reading The Berstain Bears books led my children to expect a shiny new dime, and I did not disappoint them). I know that the Tooth Fairy is just a story and have no problem extrapolating that fact to society at large. I know of no adult (who does not suffer from some sort of mental impairment) that believes there is a Tooth Fairy. I can state confidently that there is no Tooth Fairy.
Now the question of whether or not Jesus is Lord depends upon your belief. The existence of God and/or Jesus Christ cannot be proven nor dis-proven scientifically. I believe an experiment following the scientific method would prove that the Tooth Fairy does not exist, but is the child’s parent/guardian/another person. So to equate an unknown reality with a known reality, is to say the reality of Jesus as Lord = the reality of the Tooth Fairy. Thus, the atheist to infers both to be false as a “matter of fact”. In doing so, it indicates the atheist is unwilling to accept that he/she could be wrong, and thus is exhibiting, in his/her own words, intellectual dishonesty. I’m pretty sure I saw the same type “argument” presented in one of the links provided by Oakspear, and found it to be without logic there, also, because possibly untruedoes not equaluntrue.
The above exchanges might also be seen as bravado. Sometimes when people are uncertain, they mask their insecurity with bravado. Sometimes it also is used to “bully” others into silence by making oneself unapproachable on the subject. It could be that some of the posts here at GSC that come across as being mean, bitter, venomous, degrading, or belittling are actually just bravado. Soul searching can be uncomfortable and make one feel confused, uncertain, and vulnerable. Thus they would be quite defensive when pressed on the subject, and might respond emotionally versus logically. Questions could be seen as “goads” versus an honest request for information to understand the other’s point of view more fully. The following post might allude to such. From the About the Way Forum, in the thread “New Way Corps”, with bolding applied by me:
You are in a tough spot not of your making but I have some advice for you. . .
you want your kids growing up to know their grandparents. Why, even YOU want to maintain a relationship with your TWI parents, right? Then keep your mouth shut about what you know and/or suspect about TWI with them. They'll be disappointed that you aren't fellowshipping with "The Ministry" but as long as you aren't disparaging TWI, things can be cool between you all.
Remember that its NOT lying to tell only part of the truth. You can give your parents all kinds of reasons for not taking part in TWI activities that are true without telling them your biggest concerns that might drive a wedge between ya'll. . . ..
. . . do your own thing and just refuse to discuss TWI in any meaningful way with your parents no matter how hard they press you. Say you are uncomfortable discussing it (true) or that you are simply weighing your life options. You know your parents better than I.. but if you let them get you upset and mad... you'll say things that will severely impact your family. DON'T LET THEM GOAD YOU into discussing your current religious beliefs.
Very important to note that the poster stated “as long as you aren't disparaging”. I find many of the former to quotes to be just that, disparaging. The advice seems to be ‘Rather than drive a wedge between you and your parents, just refuse to communicate in any meaningful way’. IMO, such a refusal invites speculation, which leaves the other person still swimming in a pool of doubt. If one will not answer questions posed by another, where does the “another” person get answers to their questions? They may ask others in the same pool in order to gain clarification. That will help tremendously, but still leaves the thoughts of the “silent party” unknown to them.
I sincerely hope that my questions here are not seen as goading, but what they are meant to be, honest questions wanting to understand to the best of my ability why an atheist would choose to be an active member of a church and, further, why would they assume a leadership role as a Sunday School teacheer. My questions and comments above reflect a myriad of perceptions, all of which may be false. I am eager to hear the “rest of story” and have my perceptions proven to be false so I can dismiss them from my thinking. I appreciate the responses from everyone. They are very beneficial to my understanding.
Suda (still endeavoring to understand the journey)
My last question regarding atheists routinely attending church is this, how widespread is this phenomena? This question arose from reading posts such as the following. In the thread “Sharon’s Stroke is God’s Wrath” in the Doctrinal Forum, I found these posts and added bold print to them.
... that must be an awful situation to be in. An agnostic (or worse) minister. I've wondered that there must be a lot of them... especially the ones who go to bona fide seminaries and learn the truth about sacred writings. Maybe they didn't see it until they were married with a family to support and are now stuck in a job where they have to act like they believe something they don't. Kinda' like Congressmen.
I’d love to know how many skeptics there really are at this church like myself but I dare not bring it up. You know how true believers are, ... there's no greater sin than not believing. So I wonder in silence.
If it is widespread, what are the motivations? I have cited above what some of them may be: a love for the music, a vehicle for community service, a place for social interaction or fellowship. But as these “needs” could be easily met outside of a religious organization, what is the motivation for satisfying them through church?
Some people may ask, ‘Suda, why are you putting so much time and effort into this? Don’t you have a life outside of GSC?’ My answer might follow this analogy of earthquakes and houses. Twi and post-twi journeys to many of us were like living through an earthquake. After the dust had settled, those houses that had not been utterly destroyed, were shaken and in disarray, but now located on an altered, yet somewhat stable, ground. Some came to the decision that salvaging their house wasn’t worth the trouble, so they packed up their families and what belongings they could salvage and found a new place to dwell. Others, like me, decided to tackle the arduous task of putting things back in order, piece by piece, as slowly as necessary, and as surely as they could. They believed it was well worth the effort to mend it and make the best of it, with hope that the house, once retrofitted, could be even better than before the earthquake. They loved their house and would do all within their power not to lose it. And as we all know, GSC is a forum which has helped most of us regain some sense of peace and stability in those areas that were shattered by the earthquake of twi and it’s influences. So sometimes posting here in a quest to find new information is a vital part of our lives outside of cyberworld.
Suda (glad the earthquake is over, and hoping the after-shocks are, too)
I sincerely hope that my questions here are not seen as goading, but what they are meant to be, honest questions wanting to understand to the best of my ability why an atheist would choose to be an active member of a church and, further, why would they assume a leadership role as a Sunday School teacheer.
Despite not naming the psoter in most cases, I recognize the atheist Sunday school teacher as Sudo. Perhaps you could ask him <_<
Oakspear, I have, but have been left swimming in a pool of confusion. My s.o.p. is to go to the source first. It that is unfruitful, I seek input elsewhere.
Suda, this thread has been an interesting read. I've enjoyed (especially) reading your responses and analysis (?) of some of the responses. I could recommend a number of sites that might enlighten you on the subject of journeying from Christianity to Atheism. The responses here have been very good and seemingly helpful to you. This site might be of help as well.
From a personal perspective -- if I had not spent a great deal of time on Atheist boards interacting with some wonderful atheists I may not have been able to handle my own son's journey from Christianity to atheism. Sometimes I wonder if God didn't lead me to those places to prepare my heart for his rejection of Christianity.
When I read the first posts I thought you had pulled up some of mine.
What I can tell you about me is that, yes, I do go to church and wicca meetings and pagan meetings and Religious Science meetings and Unitarian Universalist meetings. But not all at once.
I see validity in each set of beliefs. I see "good" in each "doctrine" and, in all but the Christian meetings, I see acceptance that others may believe differently than that particular gathering of folks. It's no wonder so many people are turned off by Christianity, even, say, those who might otherwise be interested in it, imo. There's a, for lack of a better term, hate taught in churches that I've visited that isn't seen in other groups.
I need/want to pull my thoughts together better and to have a more thorough look at what you've posted, but I think it's kinda like my desire to get married and have a family - I may not know exactly what I do want, but I'm darn sure of what I don't want.
As more and more is presented to me, I do tend to "waffle" - or at least appear to be inconsistent and, possibly insincere because I a) try to keep an open mind b) see the value in what's being presented and c) am not 100% solidly rooted to any one belief. :) Help confuse things even more?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
17
16
29
Popular Days
Oct 27
29
Oct 21
28
Oct 26
23
Oct 22
20
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 15 posts
Belle 17 posts
Oakspear 16 posts
Suda 29 posts
Popular Days
Oct 27 2007
29 posts
Oct 21 2007
28 posts
Oct 26 2007
23 posts
Oct 22 2007
20 posts
Popular Posts
George Aar
I came to Wayworld as an agnostic. I had spent some 20 years or so of my youth in either a Lutheran Church or the Methodist Reformed (now ask me if I could tell the difference) and was pretty much tir
sky4it
You know Garth, you just really error in your understanding of scriptures. I will take yet another stab at this.
Genesis 2:4 "these are the generations of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created. One of whom was drummroolll Amalek. (Notice it says not just the generations of those that are on earth only but those in the heavens also) You say so what? The angels rebeled in heaven and some of the worst sort (aka Satan's little cupcakes) were the duh duh duh duh the Amalakites. You say you dont know that for sure your guessing. Nope dont think so. Exodus 17:14 "for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven. They were barred from heaven. Where is such a place? It is called HELL. Not only that, but from generation to generation the Lord swore war against them. War against Satan's little cupcakes. These are the ones who God kicked out of heaven PERMANENTLY, get it?
You know Garth, I think your a nice guy, I really do. Your probably one of the most considerate and descent atheists I have met. But following these screwballs around is so unlike your own charachter.
Consider the following and chiefly the comments I made to Pmosh about the way "your group" attibutes things to the God of the Old Testament. It's hillarious, from the standpoint that the same standards dont apply from the cult that applied to the you know who of the old testament. Not one time in the old testament did God ever sanction a war for conquest of other peoples lands. Yet not a peep from the cult against the people of Napoleon, or the people of English Monarchists, or the people of Alexander the Great or Roman conquering plunderers. Why? Because with you guys the whole show is about disproving God's creation. There is no other motive. You would think that the most scarey frightening thing in all the world for athiests would be all there neighbors in there town, whose forfathers partook in horrible deeds if one applied the same standard of atheists uniformly.
Consider one other thing before you condescend. Is it possible that God warned some of these people to leave before they were attacked and didnt tell us about it in the Bible? "You would say, well thats unfair if he wants to explain himself." In fact they were forewarned, all of them, they heard what God had done to the Eygptians because the bible says there "sounds went through out all the earth." Not just person to person gossip in my view either, the bible says the sound of it was sent to them, they saw it coming. So dont stand around and tell me, these countries didnt want war with a strip of land 75 by 200 approximate miles. In fact they did, in fact many of them brought the war to Israel.
What is it with your peoples need to stand around and try and butcher the Almighty? He is good and righteous all the time; and calling him opposite, when you dont even understand the bible, it just isnt very bright.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I personally have no interest in following a god that calls for the death of innocent children. You can dance around it all you want, I've heard plenty of explanations, from they were possessed babies so had to die, to they weren't human babies, to well, it didn't really happen...
So people were warned and didn't move out of their homes, their farms? Thye didn't want to drag their families as refugees, poverty stricken and starving? Gosh, that certainly deserves a death sentence, don't you think? They didn't obey so the men of God had to kill them, even the small children and babies. Slaughter for God.
It is just not athiests who don't swallow that reasoning, there are Christians also. You stand ,sky4it, is not the universal Christian stand on this Bible account.
Just one of those bug a boos that bite when it has to be an inerrant Bible. Couldn't possibly be war like men making themselves look good for history--"God told us too, so it was good."
Perhaps that record is in the Bible for another reason--to show that greedy armies, drunk on power and violence, can do horrible deeds in the name of their God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Bramble I was tyring to respond to your comments but something went wrong with my browser, talk to you when thngs work better ...........cheers :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Bramble, for some reason my browser would not post to your comments specifically, so I laid them out without your comments, dont know why it wouldnt work, anyway to your commentary I tried the following:
I guess then Bramble that would make you an anti-abortionist. Please tell me the factory where your zest is on dragging, I would like to donate to someone with so much zeal as you. I dont like abortion either. One more thing about taking life as you mentioned. God is the only one who can take life, because he can give life back. Still, we dont see God doing it often, but if he did, be sure to form he had a list of very good reasons. From that perspective, he has a different perspective than man.
BTW< (and I think this is an important point), some of these people were sacrificing children in fire to animals and such, which means there probably was beasteality, pedophiles and such, and doubtless all manner of diseases. When you look at it in that light, it is a better picture.
Well, perhaps a simple agreement that the God who turned a river into blood might have been not a little secret, hey, lets become part of Israel, wasn't to big of a leap even for Wiccans. No? otherwise backoff off a tad, because the people of that era were well warned, in fact the bible says so.
Thank you Bramble, that’s a heck of a compliment. I always wanted to die not being a universalist. You make me love my bible more everyday.
Nope, God wouldn’t tell anyone to do something unless it was good. But just so you and I are clear Bramble, I will "turn the other cheek" according to Jesus suggestion, after that , let me tell you something, there is something that’s sexy about " an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" something that is a bullseye about that kind of talk, I think in this day and age I "wanna be a dentist and optomistrist, there is a point to these old testament sayings. The old testament and new testament meet in a place called Melonie Beatty, who coined the term co-dependent no more. They work together not apart. In fact you cant make them work (at least not real well) apart. The old testament provides God in real life action towards people. Aint that old testament great!
by the way Bramble that was the positively the cutest apology statement for God ever, thanks but a peice of junk like me wants to see the goods. Apologists are people making excuses the God that I know doesn’t need a not even one. K? I wouldn't classify myself as an "inerrant", but almost all scripture doesn't need correcting. There are some fuzzy issues on texts, which ones are better, and such, but not much that differs greatly up and down, and side to side about the bible.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
I did not mean to imply that just atheists have substandard and in some (but not all) aspects immoral codes, but that this is true of all human beings. We all have a certain degree of selfishness, cruelty, anger, impatience, unkindness, lack of self control and self gratification. If you're not sure if you have any semblance of these, ask your (ex) spouse, children or parents (or be braver and ask someone who doesn't like you). All self-made moral codes will fall well below true righteousness. We all need God to correct our habit of rationalizing our own immoral behavior.
We all tend to rationalize our behavior when it injures others or when someone tries to correct us. We're pretty good at excuses for our behavior. This comes much easier to us than humily repenting. We will also often change our moral code in order to not feel guilty about our sinful behavior. This is what VPW did. He changed his moral code about adultery when he began a habit of having other women while married. He had to go against the Bible in order to do this. Atheists have no moral code to answer to, so in that sense would find it psychologically easier to change their moral code to rationalize immoral actions
We don't mind being accounmtable when we know we'll "pass," but don't want to be held accountable at least in certain areas of our thinking and lifestyle. Rationalizing and not wanting to be held accountable are significant aspects to many of the conflicts we have with other people, especially those in our own families.
The difference between serious religious (of a Judeao-Christian variety at least) people and others is that they will allow God to overrule them to correct the poor aspects of their moral code, and will recognize they are accountable to God even when they know they can otherwise "get away with" ungdly behavior. They don't do this perfectly, but this still serves as a way to reign in their (our) immoral desires, something atheists don't have.
Footnotes:
The article on Japan I noted was printed on a local newspaper, the Press-Enterprise in Riverside CA approximately 2 weeks ago. I didn't write down the date. I can scan it for you if you wish.
No one who knows anything about first century history questions Herod's existence, general dates of life, area and time of reign and general activities. Josephus, the Jewish Historian who wrote under Roman aproval is considered by historians to be on the whole a reliable source and provides many details of Herod's life. He mentions all four of the Herods the NT does, in addition to John the baptizer and Jesus of Nazareth. He also confirms several events mentioned in the NT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
I agree that some aspects of human morality are intuitive and common to us all. Everybody has at least some concept of "do not murder" and "do not steal" (although their code may alow them to steal but condemn others who steal from them).
However, the moral code of Jesus in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) I think is far and away higher than moral codes that human beings come up with.
For example, many people have some kind of belief regarding not commiting adultery (although over half the population commits adultery anyway). Jesus says that even lusting is as sinful (a problem for at least the 100 million people in America that access porn). We all have a form of "don't murder," but he adds that most forms of anger are as sinful because if that attitude is taken to its full extent it would result in violence.
We all think we should love our neighbors. Jesus adds that we should love our enemies as well. He says if someone forces us to serve them, we should volunteer to serve longer. We have a sense that we should forgive our friends who admit their wrongs, Jesus insists that we forgive all, even our enemies. We beleive we should be generous toward people who respond to us (give & receive), Jesus tells us to be generous with those who can't pay us back (just give). We come up with a lot of reasons to divorce, most of which Jesus thinks are lousy reasons.
We have a concept of not doing to others what we don't want them to do to us. Live and let live. But a rock can do that better than we can. Jesus tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to do to others as we would have them do to us. That calls us to be outgoing with love, generosity, kindness, etc, especially with people who don't deserve it.
A lot of the New Testament code of conduct goes beyond behavior to attitude and motive and is very self-sacrificing. It goes beyond moral codes people typically make up.
I think this does two things. First, it give us a more moral code than what we'd make up, challenges us to let Jesus Christ ovverrule our defective moral codes, and replace ours with his.
Second, it tells me that Jesus' kind of holiness is impossible for me to do completely. It tells me that I need to go to God for forgiveness, for reconciliation, for redemption and re-creation. I can't handle this on my own. Fortunately, God's moral code prompts him to give me a whole lot more mercy and grace than I'm willing to give other people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Um okay, lots of that doesn't make sense to me, but I will clarify my stand:
Perhaps that record is in your Bible as a wisdom lesson, as in: If you as a society accept a level of violence like the slaughter of innocents in my (God's) name, then your society will know violence, division and captivity--the road to Babylon. Which pretty much sounds like the rest of the story of Israel.
Reap what you sow might be another way to say it. Live by the sword, die by the sword is yet another.
Or, karma.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Not to belabor the point but;
If we hadnt done something in 1940, we would have been an extention of the Land of the Rising Sun, talking about our favorite Kaisers, and frequenting our favorite stroodle and sauer kraut restaraunts. The children of Israel would have faired a little worse I think, having to back up recipes for Chemosh and Baal, serving in an occasional sacrifical child.
Never mentioned because war is always a convient excuse for blame, is the fact that the bible had a recipe pitch for "the strangers of the land" unlike Napolean and the Ceasars of the world. What the heck, lets just throw in Bill Clinton for sexual abuse for good measure, as more of the same powerbrokers who abuse there power to govern.
Or as you might call it, a stroke of bad Karma.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
While I acknowledge that there are some atheists and other non-Christians out there who get their jollies out of gratuitously bashing the bible and its God, usually Garth, P-Mosh, George and others point out apparent atrocities in the OT only as counter to a Christian's claim that the bible embodies a superior morality than one that is man-made. From what I can tell the non-Christians on this board know the bible as well as the Christians, they just come to different conclusions about it.
From a plain reading of many sections of the OT God is telling his people to slaughter, unprovoked, whole cities, whole peoples. The recurrent answer that I see is that it really wasn't immoral because God said it was okay, and since God is God then he can't do anything evil. You know that that's circular reasoning, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
johnj, again, marvelous posts, imo. They provide further enlightment to why you consider a Christian-based morality more effective. And nowhere, do I see you bash anyone who makes a different choice.
sky4it, I have great difficulty following your posts. As I don't understand them, I can't make a meaningful response.
Bramble and Oakspear, your posts continue to educate me on your points of view. It's important to me to understand them, not so that I can debate them, but so I can see where others are coming from and why they make those choices. I like that as adults we can agree to disagree. It's even better, imo, when we can appreciate the differences and not see them as points of contention that must be argued. Usually, I find that diversity should be celebrated, not argued.
Suda
P.S. Edited to correct a typo.
Edited by SudaLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Thank you Suda
My "mission" in these discussions is to put forth the view that anyone's view on God/spirituality/the supernatural/religion is as valid anyone else's. Usually when I get into debate mode it's to counter someone who is sure that their POV is the only legitimate one.
I am a great admirer of how some people have turned their lives around with the help of Christianity, but get greatly irritated when someone suggests that my beliefs need changing when they have no evidence that my life is deficient in any way.
In my opinion, their is plenty of room for a diversity of opinions about the world and spirituality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Suda, In my second to last post to Bramble, for some reason my browser would not post with bramble's comments and my responses (but I posted it anyway), so it was somewhat disjointed or disconnected to the thoughts of bramble.
I hope that you did not find anyother thing difficult in my posts. Thank you for the notation.
Greetings and Regards
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
About all I can say Oak, is that I never at all considered it a topic until atheists brought it up.
My reflection on the Old Testament, was always that it reflected well on the serious nature of God in New Testament dynamics. I also dont really understand, why there isnt a progression of thought on Jesus of the New Testament, from old Testament dynamics, which clearly was the authors intention all along.
the other issue and more lately ( and I think this is good) is that the you know who of the old testament, can never be mistaken for a girl scout, I think this is heathy, from the standpoint that some flavors of view, tend to reflect miserably on the goodness and kindness issues of the gospel. I wont reflect on your other commentary in general, because I believe I have already done this.
Anyways greetings and regards,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
someone happened to use the word "karma" which made me think of the traditional Hindu view of karma and how it contrasts from Christianity.
Many westerners see karma through Christian eyes, thinking that you don't want bad karma but that good karma is good because it brings you some kind of reward. It's a variation of the Christian idea of reward and punishment.
But straight Hindu karma is to avoid Both good and bad karma. They don't want to do good, because that would require them to return in another life to be rewarded for the good done. But they don't want to come back. So their best choice is to do neither good nor bad, basically to be apathetic toward people in need.
This is one reason that higher castes traditionally do not help lower castes. When they do, they think they're hurting themselves (because they have to came back in another life to be paid back for the good they do) and they think they're hurting the lower castes, because they're thwarting the bad karma and suffering the lower castes deserve.
In contrast, Christianity emhasizes helping the needy, not being apathetic toward them because they're suffering for the sins of their previous lives. This is why Mother Thersesa is a Christian, not a Hindu, and why the Red Cross is a cross and not a Krishna.
And I think it shows how Christian morality is a kinder, gentler, more generous and gracious version than Hindu morality, and is a better morality for this reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Yeah, it sure worked swell in the crusades, the inquisitions, the 30-years war, the Crimean War, the Irish Rebellion, our own Civil War, and well, just about any war you'd care to mention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Thanks to a lot of help from my friends, I have “come to grips” with one of my big questions concerning the journey to atheism from Christianity. Many thanks to all for your helpfulness! Part of my “research” included reading previous doctrine-related threads and reading posts by those who are atheist/agnostic/non-theists. I rediscovered some posts that had “rung my bell” previously and strike me as apparent contradictions. I welcome input. I hope that by reading “the rest of the story” my perceptions of contradictions can be proven false, also. My questions are not meant to be personal attacks, accusations, or anything of the sort. They are sincere and honest solicitations for information. I would love to be able to peacefully put these questions to rest in my mind.
From the thread “What Would Make You Believe”, with my emphasis added by a bolded lettering in a different color.
Same atheist/agnostic different thread, “Assume for a Moment there is no God”.
>We see one possible motivation stated above, the music. When I think of “church music”, two basic types come to mind. My favorite is to “good ole time” gospel music. It reminds me a lot of secular Country music. The other is the more “classical” type. Guess it’s secular counterpart would be closer to opera. My question, aren’t both these genres of music (with or without direct or indirect religious references) available for a person's listening pleasure in live concerts, on TV specials, on the music stations on cable tv, on the radio, or in CD format? If so, is it necessary to attend church to enjoy this music?
Here are my main questions: Is it common practice for an atheist to attend a church, or mosque, or temple, or any other place of worship on a routine basis? If so, what is the motivation or reasoning?
Suda (hoping for clarification from my fellow posters that are atheists as well as any that are not)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
The following posts may reflect other motivations for an atheist to attend a church. The bolding is supplied by me. From the “Bowtwi Makes it Through A Church Service” thread:
From “Sharon’s Stroke is God’s Wrath” in the Doctrinal Forum
These posts appear to downplay the religious reasons people attend church, and focus on the other benefits provided by a “church home”. Church is a gathering place for people in the community, and a place to enjoy their fellowship. But aren’t there other gathering places not associated with a religious organization, such as The Lion’s Club, The Jaycee’s, The Toastmaster’s, The Kiwanis Club, The Elks Lodge, to name a few, that would provide the same type of social interaction (fellowship) that can be found at church?
Many of the those organizations also focus on community service. The Lion’s Club serves the blind. Other organizations devoted to service are Special Olympics, The United Way, delivering Meals on Wheels through the food bank rather than a church. There are endless groups who need community service volunteers that do not require participation in a religious organization.
Do people attend church to perform good works? Do they come on Sunday so they can deliver Meals on Wheels? Then who delivers Monday through Saturday? I believe that the good works are a product of their religious beliefs, and their gathering at church is for worship and fellowship with those of common beliefs, NOT to perform good works, although many will do such while there by teaching Sunday School, serving communion, etc. Although it could be argued that some only attend when they are scheduled to perform a particular good work, and refrain from going at other times.
Suda (who thinks church is religious, not secular)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
This quote is from the Open ForumThread “I Went to a Unitarian church this Morning” (bolding supplied by me).
Would seem one “requirement” of the atheist's chosen church is to have little dogma that its members must profess. I know when I was searching for a “family church home” post-twi, that was a requirement so that my conscience would be clear. I would not have to pretend to believe something I did not believe in my heart. But with changes in beliefs concerning God and those who believe in Him, does this poster now find it necessary to pretend adherence to dogma? Is that what is meant by “ I try to fit in as best I can.”? That statement might indicate a knowing that you are not a good fit, but you do your best to blend in and be accepted as “one of them”. This begs the question, at church, is there a need be a “closet” atheist? If one is confident and at ease with his/her beliefs, why would he/she feel a need to hide them rather than share them? Is “fitting in with the crowd” more important than being true to one’s self? How does being closeted bring one personal happiness and contentment?
In all the Sunday School classes I have attended in many different churches, it has been customary for the teacher of the lesson to present at least one scripture reading from the Bible as the basis for the lesson. If an atheist believes the Bible to be myths and fables, is the scripture lesson presented like one of Aesops’s Fables that is not a true story, but teaches a worthy moral lesson? Do they emphasize that personal happiness and contentment are paramount? Or do they emphasize “Be kind to your fellow man. Do for others as you would have them do for you.” Is there a relationship between how one treats others and one’s personal attainment of personal happiness and contentment? Or can you have one without the other? The former concept appears on the surface to be “self-centered” while the latter is “other-centered”, and could be contradictory, if they are not serving the same end.
To me, teaching a Sunday School class goes beyond attendance to enjoy music and the fellowship of people. Teachers accept and place themselves in a role of leadership. It seems contradictory to lead people in a direction one does not believe. In fact, it would seem that the opportunity to teach would an perfect opportunity to present them with information to help them “see the light of their ignorance”. Of course, that would likely be the end of such opportunities. To step from a role of attendee to teacher could indicate that one wishes to be seen as “one of them” and furthers that desire by donning a cloak of respectability that is inherent in leadership positions. This idea might be alluded to in the following post from the “About The Way” forum in the thread entitled “Did the Way make you hard core scripture and verse?” Again, the bolding is mine.
Could it be a reflection that in some communities, church is the socially accepted place to be on Sunday morning? If that is what is expected of one, it is important to been seen there in order to preserve or enhance one’s reputation in the community? Just seems to me like living a double life. A flip side of that in a religious sense would be “plural” families, those that practice polygamy. Their push to decriminalize polygamy stems from the fact that they despise having to “live a lie” but feel forced to do so in order to protect the hubands and the family welfare. I understand in the secular world the need for some to live a double life such as secret agents, spies, plainclothes police. On the whole, society accepts these as “a dirty job, but someone has to do them” in order to protect our communities and nation. But when the line is crossed to being a double-agent or a dirty cop, there is public outcry and moral outrage because the motivation has moved to self interest rather than the community good. On a federal level, I think it is considered treason and punishable by death. On a state or municipal level, the penalty is not that great, but the “dirty” person’s reputation is ruined and they are banned from wearing the badge there in the future.
And wasn’t it donning a cloak of respectability that has made vpw so despised? Wasn’t he seen as a “double agent” of sorts? Had he been open, upfront, and honest about his “underbelly” motives, he would not have been able to entrap innocent people, and decimate their lives. I fully understand that if someone is an atheist, closeted or open, it does not mean they commit atrocities against people. Some may, most would never.
And doesn’t the Universal Unitarian Church provide a place of worship for people of faith as well as non-faith? It is my understanding that their belief is there may be a God or gods. Atheists, Buddhists, Christians, etc. are all accepted. And they provide sub-groups, maybe even Sunday School formats, for these small groups to fellowship together. Would that not be a more comfortable place for an atheist to worship than a traditional church? Of course, it’s true that many traditional Christians look down upon the Unitarians, and don’t consider them to be real Christians. So fellowshipping there may not allow one to don a “cloak of respectability”.
This quote is from the Doctrinal Thread “Assume for a Moment there is no God” with the bolding supplied by me.
This seems to say that depending upon the situation we find ourselves in, we “go along to get along”. Sometimes it’s best to “bite our tongue” to protect the feelings of others and to preserve our relationship. That I can agree with totally. But it is a stretch for me to understand why one would deliberately place themselves in a position to have to do such for the long-term by being an active member of a church. Why, if when away from the church, that persson feels free to be quite vocal in their disdain for the tenets of it’s belief as well as how foolish most of the attendees at said church are for being “duped” by said tenets?
It is comforting to know that these posters feel the need to protect their elderly and/or infirm parent’s from heartbreak. Are there additional “significant others” in their lives to whose hearts may also be broken when they are informed of the new belief system? If the face-to-face communications with them are as vocal as the written communication in the condemnation of both their religion as well as them for continuing to hold onto to their personal faiths, it might do a lot more damage than just breaking their hearts. (Such communication does not follow the advice given above, as exhibted by a number of their posts: "I don't know why most agnostics and atheists think its so important to be so vocal and belittle those of faith. Like, THAT really helps "the cause".") It could bruise them so extensively that healing will be a long and arduous path for them. And is a choice made to keep parent’s in the dark, while revealing one’s true self to the rest of the significant others? And if so, doesn’t that place an added and unwanted burden on them, to have to deal with the heartbreak in silence? But, I guess, since statistically speaking, the others (family - nuclear and/or extended-, and friends, for instance) may be expected to outlive him/her but the parent’s are not, he/she can keep a lid on his/her beliefs as long as they are alive, but can’t do so forever. It might provide some relief to an atheist to let the “cat out the bag” to some of the significant people in his/her life realizing that there’s never a good time for disappointing, shocking news.
Suda (confused and hoping for enlightment)
Edited by SudaLink to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
The following posts appear to contradict one another. Both appear in the thread “What Could Make You Believe.” The different colored font is supplied by me.
Let’s talk honestly about the Tooth Fairy for a moment. I am certain that I replaced the teeth under my children’s pillows with a dime I took from my wallet and shined to a sheen. (Yeah, I'm a cheap tooth fairy. Reading The Berstain Bears books led my children to expect a shiny new dime, and I did not disappoint them). I know that the Tooth Fairy is just a story and have no problem extrapolating that fact to society at large. I know of no adult (who does not suffer from some sort of mental impairment) that believes there is a Tooth Fairy. I can state confidently that there is no Tooth Fairy.
Now the question of whether or not Jesus is Lord depends upon your belief. The existence of God and/or Jesus Christ cannot be proven nor dis-proven scientifically. I believe an experiment following the scientific method would prove that the Tooth Fairy does not exist, but is the child’s parent/guardian/another person. So to equate an unknown reality with a known reality, is to say the reality of Jesus as Lord = the reality of the Tooth Fairy. Thus, the atheist to infers both to be false as a “matter of fact”. In doing so, it indicates the atheist is unwilling to accept that he/she could be wrong, and thus is exhibiting, in his/her own words, intellectual dishonesty. I’m pretty sure I saw the same type “argument” presented in one of the links provided by Oakspear, and found it to be without logic there, also, because possibly untrue does not equal untrue.
The above exchanges might also be seen as bravado. Sometimes when people are uncertain, they mask their insecurity with bravado. Sometimes it also is used to “bully” others into silence by making oneself unapproachable on the subject. It could be that some of the posts here at GSC that come across as being mean, bitter, venomous, degrading, or belittling are actually just bravado. Soul searching can be uncomfortable and make one feel confused, uncertain, and vulnerable. Thus they would be quite defensive when pressed on the subject, and might respond emotionally versus logically. Questions could be seen as “goads” versus an honest request for information to understand the other’s point of view more fully. The following post might allude to such. From the About the Way Forum, in the thread “New Way Corps”, with bolding applied by me:
Very important to note that the poster stated “as long as you aren't disparaging”. I find many of the former to quotes to be just that, disparaging. The advice seems to be ‘Rather than drive a wedge between you and your parents, just refuse to communicate in any meaningful way’. IMO, such a refusal invites speculation, which leaves the other person still swimming in a pool of doubt. If one will not answer questions posed by another, where does the “another” person get answers to their questions? They may ask others in the same pool in order to gain clarification. That will help tremendously, but still leaves the thoughts of the “silent party” unknown to them.
I sincerely hope that my questions here are not seen as goading, but what they are meant to be, honest questions wanting to understand to the best of my ability why an atheist would choose to be an active member of a church and, further, why would they assume a leadership role as a Sunday School teacheer. My questions and comments above reflect a myriad of perceptions, all of which may be false. I am eager to hear the “rest of story” and have my perceptions proven to be false so I can dismiss them from my thinking. I appreciate the responses from everyone. They are very beneficial to my understanding.
Suda (still endeavoring to understand the journey)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
My last question regarding atheists routinely attending church is this, how widespread is this phenomena? This question arose from reading posts such as the following. In the thread “Sharon’s Stroke is God’s Wrath” in the Doctrinal Forum, I found these posts and added bold print to them.
If it is widespread, what are the motivations? I have cited above what some of them may be: a love for the music, a vehicle for community service, a place for social interaction or fellowship. But as these “needs” could be easily met outside of a religious organization, what is the motivation for satisfying them through church?
Some people may ask, ‘Suda, why are you putting so much time and effort into this? Don’t you have a life outside of GSC?’ My answer might follow this analogy of earthquakes and houses. Twi and post-twi journeys to many of us were like living through an earthquake. After the dust had settled, those houses that had not been utterly destroyed, were shaken and in disarray, but now located on an altered, yet somewhat stable, ground. Some came to the decision that salvaging their house wasn’t worth the trouble, so they packed up their families and what belongings they could salvage and found a new place to dwell. Others, like me, decided to tackle the arduous task of putting things back in order, piece by piece, as slowly as necessary, and as surely as they could. They believed it was well worth the effort to mend it and make the best of it, with hope that the house, once retrofitted, could be even better than before the earthquake. They loved their house and would do all within their power not to lose it. And as we all know, GSC is a forum which has helped most of us regain some sense of peace and stability in those areas that were shattered by the earthquake of twi and it’s influences. So sometimes posting here in a quest to find new information is a vital part of our lives outside of cyberworld.
Suda (glad the earthquake is over, and hoping the after-shocks are, too)
Edited by SudaLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Oakspear, I have, but have been left swimming in a pool of confusion. My s.o.p. is to go to the source first. It that is unfruitful, I seek input elsewhere.
Suda
P. S. Edited to correct a typo.
Edited by SudaLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Suda, this thread has been an interesting read. I've enjoyed (especially) reading your responses and analysis (?) of some of the responses. I could recommend a number of sites that might enlighten you on the subject of journeying from Christianity to Atheism. The responses here have been very good and seemingly helpful to you. This site might be of help as well.
From a personal perspective -- if I had not spent a great deal of time on Atheist boards interacting with some wonderful atheists I may not have been able to handle my own son's journey from Christianity to atheism. Sometimes I wonder if God didn't lead me to those places to prepare my heart for his rejection of Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
(((((Suda)))))
When I read the first posts I thought you had pulled up some of mine.
What I can tell you about me is that, yes, I do go to church and wicca meetings and pagan meetings and Religious Science meetings and Unitarian Universalist meetings.
But not all at once.
I see validity in each set of beliefs. I see "good" in each "doctrine" and, in all but the Christian meetings, I see acceptance that others may believe differently than that particular gathering of folks. It's no wonder so many people are turned off by Christianity, even, say, those who might otherwise be interested in it, imo. There's a, for lack of a better term, hate taught in churches that I've visited that isn't seen in other groups.
I need/want to pull my thoughts together better and to have a more thorough look at what you've posted, but I think it's kinda like my desire to get married and have a family - I may not know exactly what I do want, but I'm darn sure of what I don't want.
As more and more is presented to me, I do tend to "waffle" - or at least appear to be inconsistent and, possibly insincere because I a) try to keep an open mind b) see the value in what's being presented and c) am not 100% solidly rooted to any one belief. :) Help confuse things even more?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.