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.
Belle: Sometimes what you perceive as "hate" may in fact just be disrepect for another ones beliefs. Also, some people may feel threatened by atheists. As a matter of my own experience, there certainly seem to be far fewer Christians concerned about atheism than the other way around. I think it is meaniful also, that the recent stripe of atheism ( not all but more than a few) seem very bent on attacking meaningful Christian values. I personally, have a difficult time hearing such talk without responding. I mean God and Jesus are not here, I think they are deserving of having there integrity defended.
You know, (as much as I disagreed with some of Jerry Fallwell's views) Jerry wasnt standing around degrading people when he was visciously attacked by Larry Flynt. (I am not saying Flynt is an atheist i dunno no) There have been some real degrading speeches that have came out of the atheist camp in recent years. Isnt it only fair to call this hate speech? I mean, to talk about wars that occurred 4,000 years ago, when not all the facts are specifically known, but not mention one thing of the recent slaughter of children in other "civilized" wars, shows the flavor to be real biased. In 1945 we firebombed countless Japanese cities in order to reduce American casualties. Apparently some cities were warned with leaflets. If you know anything about napalm firebombing, it is hellacious. The loss of life had to be staggering to say the least. Doubless there were thousands of children who were incinerated. http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/fire.html
I agree with your general tone of your comments. Back in the 70's I recall there were many doctinal disputations (between Christians) and between what mainstream considered cults that were real rhubarbs that you dont see so much today. I remember a young Penacostal women correcting me at one point and showing me from the Bible how it's not what you say that matters so much but what you are doing with it. It really changed my life what she said. Perhaps, we could all use a much needed correction in the current debate also. I think it would be well if the rhetoric was ratched down a few notches , from both sides. Still, this is a problem way different than debating Christian theology. (Christians, and even those of other faiths can find harmony in the rather obvious subset of values which we share) This stuff is an entirely different stroke. It's like when they want to blast Catholics they go find some screwball for comparison purposes. Why not talk about Mother Theresa or the 100's of Catholic missions that have fed the poor? Because it doesnt fit the dismissive axe that is why. Most Christians dont even respond to atheists. From that particular shake, this is how they try and win. Its like if they can say stuff over and over and no one says anything, in there brains it must be true. Thus, I think the civilized portion of dialogue should be fine, but only to a point. I for one aint going to stand around while people shout epithets at the Almighty all the time. For me its just to personally degrading. Neither is it even about evangelism "of them" anymore. Its like they want to obliterate Christian beliefs, which I think is a wholesale attack on Christians dignity. Its simply wrong, and it is hate.
Sky, you're correct, perhaps hate is too strong a word. The fact remains that with my personal experience there is much less "tolerance" for other beliefs in the Christian camp than there is with the other belief systems I have personal experience with. That is not to say that there aren't equally offensive non-Christians, there are, but as far as non-Christians who fit into a defined belief system, even a semi-defined one, especially in a formal gathering, there has been no "Christian bashing". Just my personal experience - that includes online message boards, books, and such.
In my opinion based on what I've observed, Christians seem to feel that it is their mission to convert everyone to their way of thinking and non-Christians seem to feel that each persons finds their own way and that it is not our place to judge anyone for what they believe.
I'm not entirely convinced that we don't all believe in the same god - we just call IT by different names (because the Christian God isn't really male, is it?).
I normally don't get involved in these kinds of discussions (online or in real life) because my beliefs are all over the place and do tend to change quite a bit. *grin* Also, I've found that, for the most part, people have made up their mind and not much is going to change so there's no point in entering into something that might be an individual just looking for a fight (regardless of which "side" they're on). I'm not out to convince, convict or convert anyone. This seemed like an honest request for opinions, experiences and viewpoints - not a debate, which is why I spoke up.
And, like you feel obligated to defend the Christian belief system, I do get upset when I see blanket and patently false information used to support a viewpoint. I'm no Bible scholar, but I do know a little. I'm no scientist, but I am an analyst in real life and I do know how easy it is to find studies and skew numbers to show what you want them to show. I do not believe that America is going to hell in a handbasket - I do not believe that atheists are patently immoral or bad because they don't have a "10 commandments" to tell them what's right and wrong and I certainly don't believe that Christians are any more moral, life-preserving and supportive of a 'butterflies and rainbows' kind of world than people who do not believe the same thing Christians do - that includes Atheists, Agnostics, Wicca, Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew and everything else.
I am not trying to be antagonistic and I apologize if it comes across that way. I will try to consider more carefully how my words may be read.
edited to add: I'm not out to convince, convict or convert anyone.
This stuff is an entirely different stroke. It's like when they want to blast Catholics they go find some screwball for comparison purposes. Why not talk about Mother Theresa or the 100's of Catholic missions that have fed the poor? Because it doesnt fit the dismissive axe that is why. ... Its simply wrong, and it is hate.
That goes both ways, Sky - just look at John's posts on this thread for proof.
I wonder how common church-attending atheists are too. I can tell you my wife and I's closest "post-twi" friends are couples with young children. In each case one person is an atheist while the other is a "mild" christian. I think there are a lot of people who don't attend church for themselves, but for their kids.
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.
It's possible to find a Christian- or a nonChristian- who does anything imaginable in this world.
But the question is-- are they acting consistent with their stated beliefs-- or different from them? Are the wars mentioned here following the example of Jesus Christ, or not?
Jesus Christ was apparently a pacifist. He explicitly taught "love your enemies" and verbally forgave people who put him on the cross. Do his teachings naturally lead to, or away from the events mentioned above? Were the people netioned above obeying or disobeying Jesus and Christian morals?
No Christian advocates following professed Christians who violate Christian teachings, just the teacvhings they are rejecting by their actions. Bad behavior is not proof that good morals are bad.
John, I agree with your last post. That brings us back to the morals of an atheist vs. the morals of a Christian. An atheist could easily have morals indistinguishable from a Christian's. From what I can see from what you've written so far, the belief that one's morals are backed up by a deity give them more weight, amke them more likely to be obeyed, yet that doesn't appear to be the case.
The fact remains that with my personal experience there is much less "tolerance" for other beliefs in the Christian camp than there is with the other belief systems I have personal experience with.
I absolutely understand. I went through a time when 4 or 5 passages of the Bible, I couldnt even read them, because of how VPW massacred them. (Thankfully it was just limited to a few passages that VPW had smashed) When I came accross them, I couldn't think rationaly about them.
In my opinion based on what I've observed, Christians seem to feel that it is their mission to convert everyone to their way of thinking and non-Christians seem to feel that each persons finds their own way and that it is not our place to judge anyone for what they believe. .
And that is probably so with some. You know I have faced rejection based on some things from Christians too, but in actuality, I think it has helped me. It makes me get out and meet other people for general dialogue. If there is one thing about doctines that is not beneficial, it is that people of a certain belief tend to hang only on those who see life like them. This closes us off to other views. The sad thing is Belle,( I have always found that from most people I can learn something,) so I think if people dont get counterpoints from others, it sort of hurts their expansion of knowledge.
Also, I've found that, for the most part, people have made up their mind and not much is going to change .
I think that is so true you could cut it in stone, patent it and sell it.
I'm not out to convince, convict or convert anyone..
Neither am I. I like the rhubarb, the blend and an interest in what makes other people tick. I like people to point out the flaw in an argument, because about some stuff, I cant find one.
I'm no Bible scholar, but I do know a little. I'm no scientist, but I am an analyst in real life and I do know how easy it is to find studies and skew numbers to show what you want them to show...
I believe you do know more than a little, I believe you know a lot. Your right about studies too. The real annoying stuff is when they use big adjectives to color the argument more intellectual. But getting at that is fun stuff too!
I do not believe that America is going to hell in a handbasket ...
I hope your right, I really do. I hope we don't have to find out that we were, when its too late. I heard someone I respected very much one time who has since passed on, who wasn't a preacher or an evangelist say "If God didnt judge America he would have to apologize to Sodom and Gommorah" It has stuck with me and disturbed me. True, America doesnt tolerate rape and/or lawlessness of its citizens, perhaps she was wrong and there is hope. Still, even that premise is not altogether without merit, after I read a book about Bill Clinton.
I am not trying to be antagonistic and I apologize if it comes across that way. .
Oddly, I feel I must apologize since you apologized. No apology was necessary. You did not offend me one bit. (In fact your so nice I dont think you could) I dont know how to speak, without sounding cross sometimes. Being direct and honest, sometimes causes that, I wasn't trying to dig on you k?
I will try to consider more carefully how my words may be read. .
Please dont be careful. I wanna know exactly what your thinking. It makes for interesting convo. Otherwise Belle we just get boring all of us. Passion for something drives us to use strong words like hate, and love and discipline, without which we just become stale.
That goes both ways, Sky - just look at John's posts on this thread for proof. .
You got me there Belle and and i must plead guilty I didnt read "all" of John's posts. Being honest sometimes has its downside,,,, oooops did I say that. (but I had read Johns last two of his posts)
This is edited one hour later as i have read all of John's posts. would I say anything different? No I wouldnt have. The bridge he built with the Newsweek article is at least interesting. Note to John: you will not make any progress on that topic here without mega-research. If you did, someone would find it pretentious anyway. In addition, (as many atheists have alluded) many atheists do not say they are in soceity (because they say they would get retribution) Thus, one might not be able to conclude such a study.
anyway Belle, thank you for an engaging conversation, appreciated.
Genuine Christianity is like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
If I understand you correctly, I would agree (born-again of incorruptible seed) but that argument wouldn't change a person's mind which functions on reason and logical conclusions. Therefore, even though we might think -- once a Christian, always a Christian -- in practicality that's simply not true.
Its easy to walk away from a church, denomination, religion - look at how most of us left TWI.
There's no problem walking away from something man made - especially fundamental evangelicism.
I guess my questions here would be to Christians who became atheists:
Was it easy to walk away from Christ? I'm not talking about church here, I'm talking about your personal relationship with him. Was it easy to tell Christ to get out of your heart?
If you can so easily tell him to leave your heart, was he really ever there in the first place?
If you truly did love the Lord and had a relationship with him, how do you dismiss it so lightly?
How do you turn your back on him, and walk away so easily?
I'm not being contentious, I really want to know.
From what I know of him in my life (I speak for no one else), I can not imagine doing this. (And it has nothing to do with fear, guilt, etc. - it has to do with his love for my and mine for him). I cannot imagine walking away. How do you do it?
If it was easy for you, then have you concluded you never had a relationship with him, and why pretend anymore?
I guess my point is, many Christians want to, and have nothing to do with "religion" - you will not find us in church. Its more of a personal thing - that's what I'm trying understand - forget religion here. Personally, in your heart - how do you tell him to go? Or how do you tell him he is a fool, and was for dying for you? How do you tell him, whom you once, supposedly loved, he is a lie?
Was it easy to walk away from Christ? I'm not talking about church here, I'm talking about your personal relationship with him. Was it easy to tell Christ to get out of your heart?
If you can so easily tell him to leave your heart, was he really ever there in the first place?
If you truly did love the Lord and had a relationship with him, how do you dismiss it so lightly?
How do you turn your back on him, and walk away so easily?
Here's a possibility for you to consider:
Maybe it was a case of us believing at first (which many of us really did, believe it or not), ... then coming to the realization that 1) such belief was based on nothing but faith in what we were taught, 2) such beliefs had sizeable holes, flaws, and contradictions in its logic, 3) such beliefs were in an entity who did or endorsed behaviors that, if human beings did those behaviors, would be facing the death penalty with the ACLU there to pull the switch, or 4) any other like explanation.
But I seriously doubt that it was simply due to "Well Jesus, I'm no longer going to believe in someone that actualy still exists!" or "I'm going to be my own Perfect God from now on!" or some other conversation with someone or something that we no longer believe in.
Hey, I never said Goodbye to Santa Claus when I stopped believing in him.
After reconsidering some of this McStuff, in particular John’s comments, I’d have to say there is some merit to what people like Garth, Geo, Bramble and others are saying. I emphasize the word SOME and it is directed towards the morality issue. In fact, John its even biblical, and you partially made the argument yourself. It’s about Romans 2, which says if the “uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law shall not his uncirucmcision be accounted for circumcision?”
The problem your dealing with is ; is it possible? I don’t think the Bible would have mentioned it if it was not possible. Still, you would say, well they know the word, thus should be on this side of the fence right? Yeah, well maybe, but for one reason it is not up to you and I to judge that. That reasons name is VPW. You would probably say, John, that having the Bible and God is a better way. I agree, but it becomes a hard sell when someone like VPW has massacred the scripture. I still agree however that a prayer closet is a place for finding more answers then what ever some people have chosen. Since my involvement was not as extensive as some in TWI, its hard to be the judge even on that issue alone. The more important matter it would seem, would be to clarify moral issues. The other thing is John, when you tell someone they are immoral, essentially what you are telling them in a politically correct way is, You’re a pervert.
The other issue is and someone brought it up, this seems to bring out the worst of all the scrum. With me its more about issues of courage faith conviction, and the nature of God. Perhaps these guys wouldnt get so excited about all that, if you werent calling them immoral.
Again, if someone says they have moral values, isnt it a little simpler to presume that they do? I think so. Since they said it, certainly only the true Judge, can no all the facts, and that is not up to me and you.
The upsetting issues to me is not this one. The fact they (atheists) implicitly say they have morality, means that they are accountable for them. The disturbing issues are the Bart Ehrman’s of the world, who seem to want to make scripture look like it was copied by dinglings, derilects and the unemployed, principally in an effort to eradicate the virtuous of the text. It is bad because it attempts to destroy the foundation of our principals. Erhman, illustrates examples of extremely bad copies of biblical manuscripts, but does not mention better copied manuscripts with less error. He’s very subtle in his methods and for this reason I think very devious. It is odd, that even in intellectual circles, one can still find the same pigeon holing going on that all of us here at GS despise. You know, like picking the poorest examples of each others side, and drawing conclusions which are not typical of the group as a whole. Erhman does this with jawdropping efficient speech. He is almost like a better version of VPW.
Lastly John, is why is it, I feel like I could sit down with Oak or Garth or Bramble and slam down a few beers and have some fun, but I would be more "guarded" around someone like you. By saying this I am making some presumptions about you, from your speech that may not be true. It's about peoples involvement and what there interest level is. Its about feeling that smoking a cigarette or having a beer or using some slang, or some other stupid thing, which are not really even Christian issues in my view. I for one, am tired of hearing some ding dong preacher talking about why its a sin to have a smoke or why he doesnt ever have a few glasses of wine. It's about being henpecked, and I dont like that about some people of faith either. Notice I used the word some.
Hey, I never said Goodbye to Santa Claus when I stopped believing in him.
Do you believe any adult, not suffering from a medically recognized mental impairment (for example Down Syndrome, Alzheimers) believes there is a Santa Claus? Using the scientific method, do you think it could be proven whether or not he exists?
Do you believe any adult, not suffering from a medically recognized mental impairment (for example Down Syndrome, Alzheimers) believes there is a Jesus Christ that they have accepted as their personal Lord and Savior? Using the scientific method, do you think it could be proven whether or not he exists?
thinking of the atheist versus christian conversations going on here and elsewhere in the world today...
i think that the "has morals" versus "does not have morals" kinds of questions are perfect examples of how utterly flattened the dialogue has become.
for which i dont blame people, per se...but the mainstream language routines and habits of the day ...and their prisons of meaning
because morality develops through multiple stages...not only in individual lives, but also in larger, slower cultural waves
the only people who dont have morals are very young children, and children and adults in various states of arrested development and psychosis
the morals/ethics/values of "christianities" and "atheisms" span the entire spectrum of development
and to try and reduce either one to some simple single moral condition is like trying to label melting objects that are moving by on a conveyer belt
what is almost always missing from the mainstream arguments of "atheism versus christianity" (and visa versa) these days,
is an acknowledgement that both "I" and "we" are moving through stages of moral development
not constantly, but more like: pause...leap....pause....leap...pause...leap
and while the majority of mainstream Christianity lives at the mythic stage these days,
(which seems natural considering that is was a mythic era in which the religion was founded on Jesus)
and the majority of Atheism lives at the rational stage,
(which seems natural considering that it was a rational era in which the "Enlightment" occured)
"Christianity" also exists at every stage of moral development
- magic...Christ is about my needs and wants
- mythic...Christ is about my family's needs and wants
- rational...Christ is about history and experts and reason
- pluralistic...Christ is about collective individual freedoms for all
- nondual and beyond...Christ is about dying, silence, stillness and experience that transcends language...saints, apostles, mother T, MLK, contemplatives, etc...
Likewise, "Atheism" also exists as every stage of moral development
- magic...Atheism is about my needs and wants
- mythic...Atheism is about my family's needs and wants
- rational...Atheism is about history and experts and reason
- pluralistic...Atheism is about collective individual freedoms for all
- nondual and beyond...Atheism is about dying, silence, stillness and experience that transcends language...Spinoza, Einstein, Arthur Young, etc...
a real zinger is how each stage of moral development, while imperfect, provides essential moral lessons that are best carried with us into latter stages
in other words...
there is a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a magic wave...we learn to value the self
and a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a mythic wave...we learn to value culture
and a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a rational wave...we learn to value truth
and a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a pluralistic wave...we learn to value truths
etc...
but its not until AFTER the pluralistic wave that we are able to value ALL previous waves like this
which allows an even greater compassion than pluralism
I can only conclude either me and mine are made a whole bunch differently than the "REAL" Christians are, OR, the "REAL Christians aren't being altogether honest with us poor heathens.
I don't even know what the supposed "fellowship" we were having with Jesus even looked like. I'd try to study the Bible every morning. Try to think biblical type thoughts all day. Try to figure out what Jesus would do in any given circumstance. Pray, speak in tongues, go to church or twig. None of it ever connected with me. There was never any two-way communication going on. It was me talking into the ether. If I'd have ever had any sort of feedback, I'd probably still call myself a Christian.
But I never did. Never. - NO, not ever.
And it makes me wonder what people are talking about when they start going on about some sort of "fellowship" with the divine.
Hey, I know lots of people pretty well. I can tell you what some of their likes and dislikes are. I know when I should and shouldn't try to contact them. Know where they might be hanging out and what they might be doing. I know what they look like, the sound of their voice, even their cadence when they're walking.
I don't know ANY of those things about Jesus. Never did, likely never will. Not even sure if there ever even WAS a man named Jesus from Nazareth.
And you know what? I don't think anybody else does either. Or else, like I've already mentioned, we live in VERY different worlds.
Personally, I think that to believe in invisible God/men REQUIRES a good bit of self-delusion. When I got to the point where I finally tired of the game, I quit believing in the unveriafiable and went on with my life as best I could.
And I've also come to the point where, when I look at the basic tenets of Christianity, I'm disgusted. The concept of human sacrifice is just so pointless, barbaric, primitive, and utterly unproductive - not to mention IMMORAL - that I find it remarkable that folks still find it so comforting. REALLY remarkable.
Whatever would a man being put to death have to do with making up for MY shortcomings? It's illogical to the point of depravity.
Look, if I punched Johnny in the nose, and then confess my sins to God, and He gets me BORN AGIN and then I'm all cleaned up from my unruly actions in the past, what the hell does Johnny get out of the deal anyway? "Sorry ya got two black eyes and a splint on yer nose, Johnny, but I'm all forgiven now!" Mighty white of the Almighty, I'd say.
And so much of the rest of Christianity is at least as equally inane. I fail to see any appeal in it whatsoever anymore...
I don't even know what the supposed "fellowship" we were having with Jesus even looked like.
<snip>
But I never did. Never. - NO, not
I understand this, George. It goes back to my first "bottom line". I think those that did/do experience a personal relationship with God and/or Jesus Christ, feel that this is "proof enough" to them that they exist, and why it would take something cataclysmic to sway their belief. For those who never experienced anything along these lines, I can see why they could easily walk away.
A previous post of mine tells one of the miracles I experienced early in my twi days. I had experienced quite a few before then, also, and still experience them today.
It is easy for me to see why we ended up at different places. That makes me think no less (nor anymore) of you. Still value you for the person you are.
Just as the following statement I made was stated honestly:
Hey, I never said Goodbye to Santa Claus when I stopped believing in him.
With that statement, in response to Sunesis' question of how we could simply walk away from God so easily, I am simply stating that once I stopped believing in Santa Claus, I never had to 'say goodbye' as it were, because I've come to the conclusion that Santa doesn't exist.
Do you believe any adult, not suffering from a medically recognized mental impairment (for example Down Syndrome, Alzheimers) believes there is a Santa Claus? Using the scientific method, do you think it could be proven whether or not he exists?
Do you believe any adult, not suffering from a medically recognized mental impairment (for example Down Syndrome, Alzheimers) believes there is a Jesus Christ that they have accepted as their personal Lord and Savior? Using the scientific method, do you think it could be proven whether or not he exists?
Well, when you stop and realize that believing both concepts are based on faith, why would one concept naturally be more expected to be believed in than the other, other than social expectation and peer pressure to believe so? There is proof for neither Jesus Christ rising from the dead, nor the existance of Santa Claus. The only validated historical evidence for Jesus Christ is that he existed at one time; many biblical scholars concede this factual point.
(And I wonder how many Christians would agree with the validity of your comparison between Santa and Jesus, hmmm?)
Now, following that line of reasoning posed by such a comparison, why shouldn't Allah be thrown into the mix? ... Or Vishnu? ... Or Thor? ... Or the Native American spirits? ........ And with the same intensity and loyalty that is shown by people who doggedly latch on the the Christian deity.
How many Christians would readily state that there is no valid rational reason to believe in such deities? How many Christians would regard those believers as false? ... Deceived? ........ Deluded? <_<
Now, following that line of reasoning posed by such a comparison, why shouldn't Allah be thrown into the mix? ... Or Vishnu? ... Or Thor? ... Or the Native American spirits? ........ And with the same intensity and loyalty that is shown by people who doggedly latch on the the Christian deity.
I would think they should be thrown into the mix. That was what I was getting at in my first post on this thread.
For those who experienced and/or saw what they considered to be “signs, miracles, and wonders” in their lives personally and/or in the lives of others, if they attributed these things to something other than God, they may have adopted another belief system. It may be another religion or it may be atheism or agnosticism.
I can follow your logic in the following statement, and your answer seems very reasonable to me.
With that statement, in response to Sunesis' question of how we could simply walk away from God so easily, I am simply stating that once I stopped believing in Santa Claus, I never had to 'say goodbye' as it were, because I've come to the conclusion that Santa doesn't exist.
Do you believe any adult, not suffering from a medically recognized mental impairment (for example Down Syndrome, Alzheimers) believes there is a Santa Claus? Using the scientific method, do you think it could be proven whether or not he exists?
Do you believe any adult, not suffering from a medically recognized mental impairment (for example Down Syndrome, Alzheimers) believes there is a Jesus Christ that they have accepted as their personal Lord and Savior? Using the scientific method, do you think it could be proven whether or not he exists?
Well, when you stop and realize that believing both concepts are based on faith, why would one concept naturally be more expected to be believed in than the other, other than social expectation and peer pressure to believe so? There is proof for neither Jesus Christ rising from the dead, nor the existance of Santa Claus.
If a poll was taken of adults - as large a sample size as needed - from adults not suffering from a medically recognized mental impairment. and they were asked: "If you celebrate Santa Claus in your home, who is the deliverer of the gifts from Santa under the tree. (A) you or someone else you know, including a charitable organization, or (B) a man in a red suit arrives on my roof via a sleigh driven by reindeer, enters my dwelling, and leaves the presents." What % do you honestly believe would answer (B)? Of the adults you know that celebrate Santa in their homes, in discussions with them on the subject, how many have told you (A) is the case? how many say (B) is the case?
From the adults I know 100% would answer (A). I feel comfortable extrapolating that to the world at large. Given that, I think it can be verified that there is no Santa, even to Virginia (if she is still alive today).
Just as the following statement I made was stated honestly:
With that statement, in response to Sunesis' question of how we could simply walk away from God so easily, I am simply stating that once I stopped believing in Santa Claus, I never had to 'say goodbye' as it were, because I've come to the conclusion that Santa doesn't exist.
Well, when you stop and realize that believing both concepts are based on faith, why would one concept naturally be more expected to be believed in than the other, other than social expectation and peer pressure to believe so? There is proof for neither Jesus Christ rising from the dead, nor the existance of Santa Claus. The only validated historical evidence for Jesus Christ is that he existed at one time; many biblical scholars concede this factual point.
(And I wonder how many Christians would agree with the validity of your comparison between Santa and Jesus, hmmm?)
Now, following that line of reasoning posed by such a comparison, why shouldn't Allah be thrown into the mix? ... Or Vishnu? ... Or Thor? ... Or the Native American spirits? ........ And with the same intensity and loyalty that is shown by people who doggedly latch on the the Christian deity.
How many Christians would readily state that there is no valid rational reason to believe in such deities? How many Christians would regard those believers as false? ... Deceived? ........ Deluded? <_<
Modern Wiccan and pagans often do believe in the old pagan gods, Native American spirits etc, and some Christians do think it is false and deluded etc. There is a thread on this forum right now that shows that( The Wright article thread.)
And some pagans think that Santa Claus is a modern representation of Odin, the All father etc. Yule is a sacred time for them.
As far as Sunesis post-- I was in TWI for twenty years. I was never taught it was okay to 'talk to Jesus' we prayed to God in the name of Jesus Christ, the type of relationship she describes was not part of my Chrisitian experience.
There was no 'I reject you Jesus' type thought/action etc. Things evolved.
Garth, Oakspear, Bramble, thank you for your answers. I really appreciate them.
I also agree, that all people, all of humanity has morals. So I do not think you can say one person is better than the other because of "morals." But it seems, for believer and unbeliever, "morals" have become the standard of judging as to what is a good person and what is not.
My question would then be, to an atheist - is there anything that transcends morals?
I'm thinking of this in the context of, say someone is cheated. One of humanity's oldest cries, from the beginning is: That's Not Fair!
My question would be, where did this higher sense of "fairness" come from? This higher sense of justice? Is there a higher "moral imperative" as Kant would say? Is there an ultimate beyond morals, that transcends morals? And if so, what is it?
So is a person then ultimately judged by his morals and how moral he is? Is that what makes a person "good" - how moral he is?
If I cheat you, and you feel its not fair, according to my morals it is fair - I could say you just haven't evolved enough to see it my way.
Or, if the sense of fairness, that innate "rightness" that people of all cultures have, is it something that just evolved? Or is it the image of God deeply innate in all people?
If one believes there is no transcendence, but that morals developed by evolution is man then living on a horizontal plane only? I.e., looking only straight ahead, not above?
If one believes in transcendence, the vertical, above, is he limited by his "morals" in the horizontal?
I.e., if one lives only by the 5 senses and what he can see, has he no imagination? Can he not see above, beyond, and outside himself? How, if he can, and where does this gift come from, to see beyond his 5 senses - if all is only 5 senses and there is no transcendance?
These are just things I've wondered over the years and I am enjoying the give and take here.
I am interested in seeing how an atheist sees it.
George, I used to wonder too.
Bramble, you're right. We were never taught Christ in TWI.
to add to the previous add...in case anyone is paying attention...
i've been responding specifically to Suda's opening post...with gems like: "One bottom line may be our experiences and how we interpreted them."
There is an important relationship between permanent stages of development and temporary states of experience,
in how one can temporarily "peek" into much "higher" states at any stage of development,
but the values of that "peek" can only be interpreted at whatever stage one is at.
for (a very simple, loose) example...
one who is at a magic stage experiences a profound state of higher soul
they may wake up and say that Jesus himself personally visited them in a dream and granted them special powers
one who is at a mythic stage experiences a profound state of higher soul
they may wake up and say that Jesus sent a special message through them for the congregation about how special they all are
one who is at a rational stage experiences a profound state of higher soul
they may wake up and say that the brain is playing tricks on them...and it musta been something they ate
one who is at a pluralistic stage experiences a profound state of higher soul
they may wake up and say that Jesus is important to them and this was a dream with significant meaning
one who is at a nondual stage experiences a profound state of higher soul
they may wake up and say that Jesus personally visited them, and he has a special message, and they ate something strange, and Jesus means something special to them...plus
my point is that anyone can have profound experiences along the entire spectrum of consciousness
but can only interpret the values of that experience through the filter of where we "sit"
...that interpretation will also be re-interpreted as we change
i also want to add that stages of development DO NOT describe one's entire being, but describes ONE aspect out of many aspects that are all developing
so when i say that someone is "at a stage," i may be saying that one's "moral line" is at that stage, or one's "cognitive line" is at that stage, and that there are many other lines that also develop through stages
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
Suda
Thanks for the input, Belle and Bramble.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Belle: Sometimes what you perceive as "hate" may in fact just be disrepect for another ones beliefs. Also, some people may feel threatened by atheists. As a matter of my own experience, there certainly seem to be far fewer Christians concerned about atheism than the other way around. I think it is meaniful also, that the recent stripe of atheism ( not all but more than a few) seem very bent on attacking meaningful Christian values. I personally, have a difficult time hearing such talk without responding. I mean God and Jesus are not here, I think they are deserving of having there integrity defended.
You know, (as much as I disagreed with some of Jerry Fallwell's views) Jerry wasnt standing around degrading people when he was visciously attacked by Larry Flynt. (I am not saying Flynt is an atheist i dunno no) There have been some real degrading speeches that have came out of the atheist camp in recent years. Isnt it only fair to call this hate speech? I mean, to talk about wars that occurred 4,000 years ago, when not all the facts are specifically known, but not mention one thing of the recent slaughter of children in other "civilized" wars, shows the flavor to be real biased. In 1945 we firebombed countless Japanese cities in order to reduce American casualties. Apparently some cities were warned with leaflets. If you know anything about napalm firebombing, it is hellacious. The loss of life had to be staggering to say the least. Doubless there were thousands of children who were incinerated. http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/fire.html
I agree with your general tone of your comments. Back in the 70's I recall there were many doctinal disputations (between Christians) and between what mainstream considered cults that were real rhubarbs that you dont see so much today. I remember a young Penacostal women correcting me at one point and showing me from the Bible how it's not what you say that matters so much but what you are doing with it. It really changed my life what she said. Perhaps, we could all use a much needed correction in the current debate also. I think it would be well if the rhetoric was ratched down a few notches , from both sides. Still, this is a problem way different than debating Christian theology. (Christians, and even those of other faiths can find harmony in the rather obvious subset of values which we share) This stuff is an entirely different stroke. It's like when they want to blast Catholics they go find some screwball for comparison purposes. Why not talk about Mother Theresa or the 100's of Catholic missions that have fed the poor? Because it doesnt fit the dismissive axe that is why. Most Christians dont even respond to atheists. From that particular shake, this is how they try and win. Its like if they can say stuff over and over and no one says anything, in there brains it must be true. Thus, I think the civilized portion of dialogue should be fine, but only to a point. I for one aint going to stand around while people shout epithets at the Almighty all the time. For me its just to personally degrading. Neither is it even about evangelism "of them" anymore. Its like they want to obliterate Christian beliefs, which I think is a wholesale attack on Christians dignity. Its simply wrong, and it is hate.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Sky, you're correct, perhaps hate is too strong a word. The fact remains that with my personal experience there is much less "tolerance" for other beliefs in the Christian camp than there is with the other belief systems I have personal experience with. That is not to say that there aren't equally offensive non-Christians, there are, but as far as non-Christians who fit into a defined belief system, even a semi-defined one, especially in a formal gathering, there has been no "Christian bashing". Just my personal experience - that includes online message boards, books, and such.
In my opinion based on what I've observed, Christians seem to feel that it is their mission to convert everyone to their way of thinking and non-Christians seem to feel that each persons finds their own way and that it is not our place to judge anyone for what they believe.
I'm not entirely convinced that we don't all believe in the same god - we just call IT by different names (because the Christian God isn't really male, is it?).
I normally don't get involved in these kinds of discussions (online or in real life) because my beliefs are all over the place and do tend to change quite a bit. *grin* Also, I've found that, for the most part, people have made up their mind and not much is going to change so there's no point in entering into something that might be an individual just looking for a fight (regardless of which "side" they're on). I'm not out to convince, convict or convert anyone. This seemed like an honest request for opinions, experiences and viewpoints - not a debate, which is why I spoke up.
And, like you feel obligated to defend the Christian belief system, I do get upset when I see blanket and patently false information used to support a viewpoint. I'm no Bible scholar, but I do know a little. I'm no scientist, but I am an analyst in real life and I do know how easy it is to find studies and skew numbers to show what you want them to show. I do not believe that America is going to hell in a handbasket - I do not believe that atheists are patently immoral or bad because they don't have a "10 commandments" to tell them what's right and wrong and I certainly don't believe that Christians are any more moral, life-preserving and supportive of a 'butterflies and rainbows' kind of world than people who do not believe the same thing Christians do - that includes Atheists, Agnostics, Wicca, Pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew and everything else.
I am not trying to be antagonistic and I apologize if it comes across that way. I will try to consider more carefully how my words may be read.
edited to add: I'm not out to convince, convict or convert anyone.
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
That goes both ways, Sky - just look at John's posts on this thread for proof.
edited to put my comment in blue
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Suda,
I wonder how common church-attending atheists are too. I can tell you my wife and I's closest "post-twi" friends are couples with young children. In each case one person is an atheist while the other is a "mild" christian. I think there are a lot of people who don't attend church for themselves, but for their kids.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
It's possible to find a Christian- or a nonChristian- who does anything imaginable in this world.
But the question is-- are they acting consistent with their stated beliefs-- or different from them? Are the wars mentioned here following the example of Jesus Christ, or not?
Jesus Christ was apparently a pacifist. He explicitly taught "love your enemies" and verbally forgave people who put him on the cross. Do his teachings naturally lead to, or away from the events mentioned above? Were the people netioned above obeying or disobeying Jesus and Christian morals?
No Christian advocates following professed Christians who violate Christian teachings, just the teacvhings they are rejecting by their actions. Bad behavior is not proof that good morals are bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
John, I agree with your last post. That brings us back to the morals of an atheist vs. the morals of a Christian. An atheist could easily have morals indistinguishable from a Christian's. From what I can see from what you've written so far, the belief that one's morals are backed up by a deity give them more weight, amke them more likely to be obeyed, yet that doesn't appear to be the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
I absolutely understand. I went through a time when 4 or 5 passages of the Bible, I couldnt even read them, because of how VPW massacred them. (Thankfully it was just limited to a few passages that VPW had smashed) When I came accross them, I couldn't think rationaly about them.
And that is probably so with some. You know I have faced rejection based on some things from Christians too, but in actuality, I think it has helped me. It makes me get out and meet other people for general dialogue. If there is one thing about doctines that is not beneficial, it is that people of a certain belief tend to hang only on those who see life like them. This closes us off to other views. The sad thing is Belle,( I have always found that from most people I can learn something,) so I think if people dont get counterpoints from others, it sort of hurts their expansion of knowledge.
I think that is so true you could cut it in stone, patent it and sell it.
Neither am I. I like the rhubarb, the blend and an interest in what makes other people tick. I like people to point out the flaw in an argument, because about some stuff, I cant find one.
I believe you do know more than a little, I believe you know a lot. Your right about studies too. The real annoying stuff is when they use big adjectives to color the argument more intellectual. But getting at that is fun stuff too!
I hope your right, I really do. I hope we don't have to find out that we were, when its too late. I heard someone I respected very much one time who has since passed on, who wasn't a preacher or an evangelist say "If God didnt judge America he would have to apologize to Sodom and Gommorah" It has stuck with me and disturbed me. True, America doesnt tolerate rape and/or lawlessness of its citizens, perhaps she was wrong and there is hope. Still, even that premise is not altogether without merit, after I read a book about Bill Clinton.
Oddly, I feel I must apologize since you apologized. No apology was necessary. You did not offend me one bit. (In fact your so nice I dont think you could) I dont know how to speak, without sounding cross sometimes. Being direct and honest, sometimes causes that, I wasn't trying to dig on you k?
Please dont be careful. I wanna know exactly what your thinking. It makes for interesting convo. Otherwise Belle we just get boring all of us. Passion for something drives us to use strong words like hate, and love and discipline, without which we just become stale.
You got me there Belle and and i must plead guilty I didnt read "all" of John's posts. Being honest sometimes has its downside,,,, oooops did I say that.
(but I had read Johns last two of his posts)
This is edited one hour later as i have read all of John's posts. would I say anything different? No I wouldnt have. The bridge he built with the Newsweek article is at least interesting. Note to John: you will not make any progress on that topic here without mega-research. If you did, someone would find it pretentious anyway. In addition, (as many atheists have alluded) many atheists do not say they are in soceity (because they say they would get retribution) Thus, one might not be able to conclude such a study.
anyway Belle, thank you for an engaging conversation, appreciated.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Genuine Christianity is like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
If I understand you correctly, I would agree (born-again of incorruptible seed) but that argument wouldn't change a person's mind which functions on reason and logical conclusions. Therefore, even though we might think -- once a Christian, always a Christian -- in practicality that's simply not true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Its easy to walk away from a church, denomination, religion - look at how most of us left TWI.
There's no problem walking away from something man made - especially fundamental evangelicism.
I guess my questions here would be to Christians who became atheists:
Was it easy to walk away from Christ? I'm not talking about church here, I'm talking about your personal relationship with him. Was it easy to tell Christ to get out of your heart?
If you can so easily tell him to leave your heart, was he really ever there in the first place?
If you truly did love the Lord and had a relationship with him, how do you dismiss it so lightly?
How do you turn your back on him, and walk away so easily?
I'm not being contentious, I really want to know.
From what I know of him in my life (I speak for no one else), I can not imagine doing this. (And it has nothing to do with fear, guilt, etc. - it has to do with his love for my and mine for him). I cannot imagine walking away. How do you do it?
If it was easy for you, then have you concluded you never had a relationship with him, and why pretend anymore?
I guess my point is, many Christians want to, and have nothing to do with "religion" - you will not find us in church. Its more of a personal thing - that's what I'm trying understand - forget religion here. Personally, in your heart - how do you tell him to go? Or how do you tell him he is a fool, and was for dying for you? How do you tell him, whom you once, supposedly loved, he is a lie?
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sunesis,
Here's a possibility for you to consider:
Maybe it was a case of us believing at first (which many of us really did, believe it or not), ... then coming to the realization that 1) such belief was based on nothing but faith in what we were taught, 2) such beliefs had sizeable holes, flaws, and contradictions in its logic, 3) such beliefs were in an entity who did or endorsed behaviors that, if human beings did those behaviors, would be facing the death penalty with the ACLU there to pull the switch, or 4) any other like explanation.
But I seriously doubt that it was simply due to "Well Jesus, I'm no longer going to believe in someone that actualy still exists!" or "I'm going to be my own Perfect God from now on!" or some other conversation with someone or something that we no longer believe in.
Hey, I never said Goodbye to Santa Claus when I stopped believing in him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
After reconsidering some of this McStuff, in particular John’s comments, I’d have to say there is some merit to what people like Garth, Geo, Bramble and others are saying. I emphasize the word SOME and it is directed towards the morality issue. In fact, John its even biblical, and you partially made the argument yourself. It’s about Romans 2, which says if the “uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law shall not his uncirucmcision be accounted for circumcision?”
The problem your dealing with is ; is it possible? I don’t think the Bible would have mentioned it if it was not possible. Still, you would say, well they know the word, thus should be on this side of the fence right? Yeah, well maybe, but for one reason it is not up to you and I to judge that. That reasons name is VPW. You would probably say, John, that having the Bible and God is a better way. I agree, but it becomes a hard sell when someone like VPW has massacred the scripture. I still agree however that a prayer closet is a place for finding more answers then what ever some people have chosen. Since my involvement was not as extensive as some in TWI, its hard to be the judge even on that issue alone. The more important matter it would seem, would be to clarify moral issues. The other thing is John, when you tell someone they are immoral, essentially what you are telling them in a politically correct way is, You’re a pervert.
The other issue is and someone brought it up, this seems to bring out the worst of all the scrum. With me its more about issues of courage faith conviction, and the nature of God. Perhaps these guys wouldnt get so excited about all that, if you werent calling them immoral.
Again, if someone says they have moral values, isnt it a little simpler to presume that they do? I think so. Since they said it, certainly only the true Judge, can no all the facts, and that is not up to me and you.
The upsetting issues to me is not this one. The fact they (atheists) implicitly say they have morality, means that they are accountable for them. The disturbing issues are the Bart Ehrman’s of the world, who seem to want to make scripture look like it was copied by dinglings, derilects and the unemployed, principally in an effort to eradicate the virtuous of the text. It is bad because it attempts to destroy the foundation of our principals. Erhman, illustrates examples of extremely bad copies of biblical manuscripts, but does not mention better copied manuscripts with less error. He’s very subtle in his methods and for this reason I think very devious. It is odd, that even in intellectual circles, one can still find the same pigeon holing going on that all of us here at GS despise. You know, like picking the poorest examples of each others side, and drawing conclusions which are not typical of the group as a whole. Erhman does this with jawdropping efficient speech. He is almost like a better version of VPW.
Lastly John, is why is it, I feel like I could sit down with Oak or Garth or Bramble and slam down a few beers and have some fun, but I would be more "guarded" around someone like you. By saying this I am making some presumptions about you, from your speech that may not be true. It's about peoples involvement and what there interest level is. Its about feeling that smoking a cigarette or having a beer or using some slang, or some other stupid thing, which are not really even Christian issues in my view. I for one, am tired of hearing some ding dong preacher talking about why its a sin to have a smoke or why he doesnt ever have a few glasses of wine. It's about being henpecked, and I dont like that about some people of faith either. Notice I used the word some.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Garth,
This question is asked honestly.
Do you believe any adult, not suffering from a medically recognized mental impairment (for example Down Syndrome, Alzheimers) believes there is a Santa Claus? Using the scientific method, do you think it could be proven whether or not he exists?
Do you believe any adult, not suffering from a medically recognized mental impairment (for example Down Syndrome, Alzheimers) believes there is a Jesus Christ that they have accepted as their personal Lord and Savior? Using the scientific method, do you think it could be proven whether or not he exists?
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
posted this on my war of the worldviews thread, too
...
thinking of the atheist versus christian conversations going on here and elsewhere in the world today...
i think that the "has morals" versus "does not have morals" kinds of questions are perfect examples of how utterly flattened the dialogue has become.
for which i dont blame people, per se...but the mainstream language routines and habits of the day ...and their prisons of meaning
because morality develops through multiple stages...not only in individual lives, but also in larger, slower cultural waves
the only people who dont have morals are very young children, and children and adults in various states of arrested development and psychosis
the morals/ethics/values of "christianities" and "atheisms" span the entire spectrum of development
and to try and reduce either one to some simple single moral condition is like trying to label melting objects that are moving by on a conveyer belt
what is almost always missing from the mainstream arguments of "atheism versus christianity" (and visa versa) these days,
is an acknowledgement that both "I" and "we" are moving through stages of moral development
not constantly, but more like: pause...leap....pause....leap...pause...leap
and while the majority of mainstream Christianity lives at the mythic stage these days,
(which seems natural considering that is was a mythic era in which the religion was founded on Jesus)
and the majority of Atheism lives at the rational stage,
(which seems natural considering that it was a rational era in which the "Enlightment" occured)
"Christianity" also exists at every stage of moral development
- magic...Christ is about my needs and wants
- mythic...Christ is about my family's needs and wants
- rational...Christ is about history and experts and reason
- pluralistic...Christ is about collective individual freedoms for all
- nondual and beyond...Christ is about dying, silence, stillness and experience that transcends language...saints, apostles, mother T, MLK, contemplatives, etc...
Likewise, "Atheism" also exists as every stage of moral development
- magic...Atheism is about my needs and wants
- mythic...Atheism is about my family's needs and wants
- rational...Atheism is about history and experts and reason
- pluralistic...Atheism is about collective individual freedoms for all
- nondual and beyond...Atheism is about dying, silence, stillness and experience that transcends language...Spinoza, Einstein, Arthur Young, etc...
a real zinger is how each stage of moral development, while imperfect, provides essential moral lessons that are best carried with us into latter stages
in other words...
there is a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a magic wave...we learn to value the self
and a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a mythic wave...we learn to value culture
and a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a rational wave...we learn to value truth
and a good and enduring reason why children and humanity moves through a pluralistic wave...we learn to value truths
etc...
but its not until AFTER the pluralistic wave that we are able to value ALL previous waves like this
which allows an even greater compassion than pluralism
not just BIG heart
...but BIG heart + BIG mind
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I can only conclude either me and mine are made a whole bunch differently than the "REAL" Christians are, OR, the "REAL Christians aren't being altogether honest with us poor heathens.
I don't even know what the supposed "fellowship" we were having with Jesus even looked like. I'd try to study the Bible every morning. Try to think biblical type thoughts all day. Try to figure out what Jesus would do in any given circumstance. Pray, speak in tongues, go to church or twig. None of it ever connected with me. There was never any two-way communication going on. It was me talking into the ether. If I'd have ever had any sort of feedback, I'd probably still call myself a Christian.
But I never did. Never. - NO, not ever.
And it makes me wonder what people are talking about when they start going on about some sort of "fellowship" with the divine.
Hey, I know lots of people pretty well. I can tell you what some of their likes and dislikes are. I know when I should and shouldn't try to contact them. Know where they might be hanging out and what they might be doing. I know what they look like, the sound of their voice, even their cadence when they're walking.
I don't know ANY of those things about Jesus. Never did, likely never will. Not even sure if there ever even WAS a man named Jesus from Nazareth.
And you know what? I don't think anybody else does either. Or else, like I've already mentioned, we live in VERY different worlds.
Personally, I think that to believe in invisible God/men REQUIRES a good bit of self-delusion. When I got to the point where I finally tired of the game, I quit believing in the unveriafiable and went on with my life as best I could.
And I've also come to the point where, when I look at the basic tenets of Christianity, I'm disgusted. The concept of human sacrifice is just so pointless, barbaric, primitive, and utterly unproductive - not to mention IMMORAL - that I find it remarkable that folks still find it so comforting. REALLY remarkable.
Whatever would a man being put to death have to do with making up for MY shortcomings? It's illogical to the point of depravity.
Look, if I punched Johnny in the nose, and then confess my sins to God, and He gets me BORN AGIN and then I'm all cleaned up from my unruly actions in the past, what the hell does Johnny get out of the deal anyway? "Sorry ya got two black eyes and a splint on yer nose, Johnny, but I'm all forgiven now!" Mighty white of the Almighty, I'd say.
And so much of the rest of Christianity is at least as equally inane. I fail to see any appeal in it whatsoever anymore...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
I understand this, George. It goes back to my first "bottom line". I think those that did/do experience a personal relationship with God and/or Jesus Christ, feel that this is "proof enough" to them that they exist, and why it would take something cataclysmic to sway their belief. For those who never experienced anything along these lines, I can see why they could easily walk away.
A previous post of mine tells one of the miracles I experienced early in my twi days. I had experienced quite a few before then, also, and still experience them today.
It is easy for me to see why we ended up at different places. That makes me think no less (nor anymore) of you. Still value you for the person you are.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Suda,
Just as the following statement I made was stated honestly:With that statement, in response to Sunesis' question of how we could simply walk away from God so easily, I am simply stating that once I stopped believing in Santa Claus, I never had to 'say goodbye' as it were, because I've come to the conclusion that Santa doesn't exist.
Well, when you stop and realize that believing both concepts are based on faith, why would one concept naturally be more expected to be believed in than the other, other than social expectation and peer pressure to believe so? There is proof for neither Jesus Christ rising from the dead, nor the existance of Santa Claus. The only validated historical evidence for Jesus Christ is that he existed at one time; many biblical scholars concede this factual point.
(And I wonder how many Christians would agree with the validity of your comparison between Santa and Jesus, hmmm?)
Now, following that line of reasoning posed by such a comparison, why shouldn't Allah be thrown into the mix? ... Or Vishnu? ... Or Thor? ... Or the Native American spirits? ........ And with the same intensity and loyalty that is shown by people who doggedly latch on the the Christian deity.
How many Christians would readily state that there is no valid rational reason to believe in such deities? How many Christians would regard those believers as false? ... Deceived? ........ Deluded? <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Garth,
I would think they should be thrown into the mix. That was what I was getting at in my first post on this thread.I can follow your logic in the following statement, and your answer seems very reasonable to me.
If a poll was taken of adults - as large a sample size as needed - from adults not suffering from a medically recognized mental impairment. and they were asked: "If you celebrate Santa Claus in your home, who is the deliverer of the gifts from Santa under the tree. (A) you or someone else you know, including a charitable organization, or (B) a man in a red suit arrives on my roof via a sleigh driven by reindeer, enters my dwelling, and leaves the presents." What % do you honestly believe would answer (B)? Of the adults you know that celebrate Santa in their homes, in discussions with them on the subject, how many have told you (A) is the case? how many say (B) is the case?
From the adults I know 100% would answer (A). I feel comfortable extrapolating that to the world at large. Given that, I think it can be verified that there is no Santa, even to Virginia (if she is still alive today).
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Modern Wiccan and pagans often do believe in the old pagan gods, Native American spirits etc, and some Christians do think it is false and deluded etc. There is a thread on this forum right now that shows that( The Wright article thread.)
And some pagans think that Santa Claus is a modern representation of Odin, the All father etc. Yule is a sacred time for them.
As far as Sunesis post-- I was in TWI for twenty years. I was never taught it was okay to 'talk to Jesus' we prayed to God in the name of Jesus Christ, the type of relationship she describes was not part of my Chrisitian experience.
There was no 'I reject you Jesus' type thought/action etc. Things evolved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Garth, Oakspear, Bramble, thank you for your answers. I really appreciate them.
I also agree, that all people, all of humanity has morals. So I do not think you can say one person is better than the other because of "morals." But it seems, for believer and unbeliever, "morals" have become the standard of judging as to what is a good person and what is not.
My question would then be, to an atheist - is there anything that transcends morals?
I'm thinking of this in the context of, say someone is cheated. One of humanity's oldest cries, from the beginning is: That's Not Fair!
My question would be, where did this higher sense of "fairness" come from? This higher sense of justice? Is there a higher "moral imperative" as Kant would say? Is there an ultimate beyond morals, that transcends morals? And if so, what is it?
So is a person then ultimately judged by his morals and how moral he is? Is that what makes a person "good" - how moral he is?
If I cheat you, and you feel its not fair, according to my morals it is fair - I could say you just haven't evolved enough to see it my way.
Or, if the sense of fairness, that innate "rightness" that people of all cultures have, is it something that just evolved? Or is it the image of God deeply innate in all people?
If one believes there is no transcendence, but that morals developed by evolution is man then living on a horizontal plane only? I.e., looking only straight ahead, not above?
If one believes in transcendence, the vertical, above, is he limited by his "morals" in the horizontal?
I.e., if one lives only by the 5 senses and what he can see, has he no imagination? Can he not see above, beyond, and outside himself? How, if he can, and where does this gift come from, to see beyond his 5 senses - if all is only 5 senses and there is no transcendance?
These are just things I've wondered over the years and I am enjoying the give and take here.
I am interested in seeing how an atheist sees it.
George, I used to wonder too.
Bramble, you're right. We were never taught Christ in TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
to add to the previous add...in case anyone is paying attention...
i've been responding specifically to Suda's opening post...with gems like: "One bottom line may be our experiences and how we interpreted them."
There is an important relationship between permanent stages of development and temporary states of experience,
in how one can temporarily "peek" into much "higher" states at any stage of development,
but the values of that "peek" can only be interpreted at whatever stage one is at.
for (a very simple, loose) example...
one who is at a magic stage experiences a profound state of higher soul
they may wake up and say that Jesus himself personally visited them in a dream and granted them special powers
one who is at a mythic stage experiences a profound state of higher soul
they may wake up and say that Jesus sent a special message through them for the congregation about how special they all are
one who is at a rational stage experiences a profound state of higher soul
they may wake up and say that the brain is playing tricks on them...and it musta been something they ate
one who is at a pluralistic stage experiences a profound state of higher soul
they may wake up and say that Jesus is important to them and this was a dream with significant meaning
one who is at a nondual stage experiences a profound state of higher soul
they may wake up and say that Jesus personally visited them, and he has a special message, and they ate something strange, and Jesus means something special to them...plus
my point is that anyone can have profound experiences along the entire spectrum of consciousness
but can only interpret the values of that experience through the filter of where we "sit"
...that interpretation will also be re-interpreted as we change
i also want to add that stages of development DO NOT describe one's entire being, but describes ONE aspect out of many aspects that are all developing
so when i say that someone is "at a stage," i may be saying that one's "moral line" is at that stage, or one's "cognitive line" is at that stage, and that there are many other lines that also develop through stages
for what its worth...
Edited by sirguessalotLink 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.