can somebody help me understand this?!

[stella]

hey all, the other day i came across this quote by Voltaire:
"If God didn't exist it would be necessary for us to invent Him"

looking at ancient civilizations such as the Greeks and the Romans and even before that , they all didn't have an idea about "God"and so they created their own...
my question is how can someone not believe in anything how can you be an atheist?
i do believe that humans have this urge to believe in something bigger than they are no matter what this thing is....

[Unbeliever]

I like the antithesis of Voltaire's dictum: "If God did exist, it would be necessary to kill it."

[Charles Darnay]

Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean not believing in ANYTHING, it means not believing in a higher power that governs it, it means believing that we control our own destiny, there is no fate, anything that happens to us, good or bad, is a result of our actions.

The Voltaire quote suggests that humans need to feel like they can justify the world somehow....whatever they don't understand they say "it's becasue of God", thus, they become the inventors of God for their own purpose.

[Pendragon]

To a certain extent, I agree with Charles. Everyone pass out, a preacher just agreed with an Atheist! But it is a fact. Just because you cannot conceive the existence of “God” doesn’t mean you do not believe that man is the highest form of life that can possibly exist. We know so very little for all of our research, and we don’t even know everything that exists right here on Earth. And we are one planet orbiting a backwater star in a big universe. What could possibly lie out there? We don’t really know.

I’m not one of these UFO kooks. When the UFO craze when on in this area, (it made National Headlines), I saw the thing myself. I knew what I was seeing: an experimental aircraft. Later, when the Stealth came out, I knew that was what I had seen. We also have refueling flights go over here, and they can be strange.

No I am just saying we know so little about this universe, that one must believe in something, and if it isn’t God, trust me, they believe in something greater than man. Maybe they don’t want to be controlled by anything, but something is out there to be discovered. Otherwise, why look?

God bless

Pen

[Charles Darnay]

To a certain extent, I agree with Charles. Everyone pass out, a preacher just agreed with an Atheist! But it is a fact. Just because you cannot conceive the existence of “God” doesn’t mean you do not believe that man is the highest form of life that can possibly exist. We know so very little for all of our research, and we don’t even know everything that exists right here on Earth. And we are one planet orbiting a backwater star in a big universe. What could possibly lie out there? We don’t really know.

I’m not one of these UFO kooks. When the UFO craze when on in this area, (it made National Headlines), I saw the thing myself. I knew what I was seeing: an experimental aircraft. Later, when the Stealth came out, I knew that was what I had seen. We also have refueling flights go over here, and they can be strange.

No I am just saying we know so little about this universe, that one must believe in something, and if it isn’t God, trust me, they believe in something greater than man. Maybe they don’t want to be controlled by anything, but something is out there to be discovered. Otherwise, why look?

God bless

Pen


You calling me an atheist? Not that I have anything against Atheism, but I'm not an atheist. I don't beleive in God in the traditional sense (one being who created the world in seven days etc), but I do believe that there is a power greater than humans.

[Redzeppelin]

I like the antithesis of Voltaire's dictum: "If God did exist, it would be necessary to kill it."

This dictum presents flawed logic: if God exists, there is no "killing" Him (by very nature of the definition of the word "God") - there is only accepting Him or rejecting Him.

[JGL57]

Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean not believing in ANYTHING, it means not believing in a higher power that governs it, it means believing that we control our own destiny, there is no fate, anything that happens to us, good or bad, is a result of our actions...

Exactly. The way Alan Watts put it, theism is believing that there is a boss of the universe (a personal god separate from the universe) and pantheism, monism, and atheism all refer to not believing in such an idea.

I see ZERO evidence of a boss, thus I fall into the pantheism/monism/atheism category.

OTOH, many theists believe they actually get messages from the boss, or believe by "faith" that others have (No further comment of that idea.) Other theists claim to just believe in the boss on "faith" because without a boss, they would fear being depressed and hopeless. (This is what Christopher Hitchens calls wish-thinking.).

[Redzeppelin]

I see ZERO evidence of a boss, thus I fall into the pantheism/monism/atheism category.

Of course; the very nature of naturalism automatically eliminates God as a possibility from the beginning, thereby negating any evidence that you might be able to consider. A shame, really.


OTOH, many theists believe they actually get messages from the boss, or believe by "faith" that others have (No further comment of that idea.) Other theists claim to just believe in the boss on "faith" because without a boss, they would fear being depressed and hopeless. (This is what Christopher Hitchens calls wish-thinking.).

I think the real "wishful thinking" in the world is the wish that we are in control of ourselves and that we only answer to ourselves. Such an idea is immensely comforting because it allows one to live a fairly irresponsible life with no worry about the ramifications of one's actions - whether good or evil.

[weepingforloman]

Exactly-- opponents of Christianity (and other faiths) often claim we are hoping to comfort ourselves with some kindly man in the sky-- nothing could be further from the truth. Even Nietzsche (a bitter, anti-God man if ever there was) admitted the inherent difficulties and hardships of Christianity (I refer you to "Also Sprach Zaruthustra," specifically the essay called "The Three Transformations of the Spirit"). Christianity is hard. It calls for denial of many desires, and for the hard way over the easy ninety-nine times out of a hundred.

[JGL57]

Exactly-- opponents of Christianity (and other faiths) often claim we are hoping to comfort ourselves with some kindly man in the sky-- nothing could be further from the truth....

Based on the evidence, I disagree.


...Christianity is hard. It calls for denial of many desires, and for the hard way over the easy ninety-nine times out of a hundred...

No different, e.g., from Buddhism - except Buddhism precepts and rules tend to make more sense to me - at least the ones for lay people (i.e., not monastics).

[Redzeppelin]

Based on the evidence, I disagree.

Counsel, are you prepared to present your evidence to the court?



No different, e.g., from Buddhism - except Buddhism precepts and rules tend to make more sense to me - at least the ones for lay people (i.e., not monastics).

Very different, because Buddhism is essentially atheistic in its thrust - so the "harder path" ultimately has nothing beneath it in terms of accountability. If one chooses to ignore the Noble Eightfold Path, so what? But if a Christian ignores what Christ has asked of us, there is an ultimate accountability. Employee performance changes when there is and is not a supervisor on duty.

[weepingforloman]

Based on the evidence, I disagree.



No different, e.g., from Buddhism - except Buddhism precepts and rules tend to make more sense to me - at least the ones for lay people (i.e., not monastics).

Most religions emphasize the exact same moral points as Christianity-- mercy, love, compassion, justice, friendship, charity.

[JGL57]

Most religions emphasize the exact same moral points as Christianity-- mercy, love, compassion, justice, friendship, charity.

Agreed. Then what need for christianity - particularly?

And BTW - I am asking only you for an answer - and NO ONE ELSE.

[stella]

Agreed. Then what need for christianity - particularly?

.

wouldn't you consider the fact that Christianity was one of the first most widely spread religions that came up with these values, and many religions were influenced by it.....

but that is not our topic. doesn't everyone have that curiosity about our existence and our mission, who created us and why, the reasonable answer in this case is the easiest one ,and that is the existence of a higher power not necessarily governing us because we have the choice of rejecting and accepting.

[bazarov]

The Voltaire quote suggests that humans need to feel like they can justify the world somehow....whatever they don't understand they say "it's becasue of God", thus, they become the inventors of God for their own purpose.

Exactly. When something is out of our reach and knowledge, we can easily say ''God wants it to be like that, there must be a reason'' and we can stop thinking about that. When something bad or unexpected happens, blame God; it will be easier to accept it.

[weepingforloman]

Agreed. Then what need for christianity - particularly?

And BTW - I am asking only you for an answer - and NO ONE ELSE.

The message of the Gospel is NOT just to be a good person-- it offers salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

Grace and Peace.

[Charles Darnay]

wouldn't you consider the fact that Christianity was one of the first most widely spread religions that came up with these values, and many religions were influenced by it.....

but that is not our topic. doesn't everyone have that curiosity about our existence and our mission, who created us and why, the reasonable answer in this case is the easiest one ,and that is the existence of a higher power not necessarily governing us because we have the choice of rejecting and accepting.


Stella, I don't believe Christianity was the first widely spread religion that came up with these values: in fact, it's one of the last....

Any, I believe that some people (a great many people) are not concerned about the "mission" as you call it, about what put us on this Earth, but rather, now that we are here what do we do? How do we make our lives better for the sake of making our lives better, not to appease some higher being. How can we help people only for the goal of helping people not some reward in the afterlife? Of course, I'm generalizing: I'm not ssaying all theists care only about pleasing God and getting into Heaven, and that all atheists are selfless people...far from it. You have jerks on both side of the fence

[Unbeliever]

Exactly. When something is out of our reach and knowledge, we can easily say ''God wants it to be like that, there must be a reason'' and we can stop thinking about that. When something bad or unexpected happens, blame God; it will be easier to accept it.

Indeed. Once he was cured of his testicular cancer, Lance Armstrong was asked if he thanked God for his cure, and he said no, because then he'd have to blame God for giving it to him in the first place.

[JGL57]

The message of the Gospel is NOT just to be a good person-- it offers salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

Grace and Peace.

All this christianity taken literally is just assumption founded on assumption. Why, particularly, must I share in your assumptions, when your assumptions don't fit the facts. There are far better assumptions available. You are unaware? I suggest you travel a bit, and read a few books - other than a KJV.

[JGL57]

wouldn't you consider the fact that Christianity was one of the first most widely spread religions that came up with these values, and many religions were influenced by it.....

but that is not our topic. doesn't everyone have that curiosity about our existence and our mission, who created us and why, the reasonable answer in this case is the easiest one ,and that is the existence of a higher power not necessarily governing us because we have the choice of rejecting and accepting.

Hinduism is 5,000 years old - christianity about two. If either influenced the other, then what are the odds the latter influenced the former the most?

The rest of the questions that so concern you - they are the creations of a monotheistic assumption. Think outside the box. Pantheism solves your alleged questions by dissolving them.

And have a nice day.

[weepingforloman]

Pantheism reduces the questions of life to naught. If all is God, all is divine, and any choice also is holy. So choose what you want, and frolick willy-nilly through the world, punching babies in the throat and stealing their lollipops.

[Charles Darnay]

Pantheism reduces the questions of life to naught. If all is God, all is divine, and any choice also is holy. So choose what you want, and frolick willy-nilly through the world, punching babies in the throat and stealing their lollipops.


Fun as that sounds (maybe not the punching part), Pantheism states that God is in everything, so yes, everything is divine, but ethical codes don't enter into it. In fact, punching babies and stealing lollipops = punching God and stealing his lollipops, and I may not believe in "God" in that sene, but if I did, I sure wouldnt want to steal his lollipop.

[JGL57]

Pantheism reduces the questions of life to naught. If all is God, all is divine, and any choice also is holy. So choose what you want, and frolick willy-nilly through the world, punching babies in the throat and stealing their lollipops.

There are several billion pantheists in the world and, as a general rule, they are better behaved than the billions of theists.

Apparently there is some problem with your logic.

[ennison]

'as a general rule,' Now that'll be a rule of your own then. Funny things these general rules. There's always lots of them. And they are always so personal.

[JGL57]

'as a general rule,' Now that'll be a rule of your own then. Funny things these general rules. There's always lots of them. And they are always so personal.


Well, then, are you saying that pantheists have murdered more people, or as many people, per capita, in the history of the world than theists?

References, please.

[ennison]

Am I? Where did I pass any comment about that. As a general rule I prefer not to make up general rules. 'As many people per capita'?? How many have I murdered and how come no one has noticed. This is a bit like saying there's a man knocked down by a car every day in Watford .... and he's getting dashed fed up of it.
Quite a lot of atheist self congratulation is based on fantasy

[JGL57]

Am I? Where did I pass any comment about that. As a general rule I prefer not to make up general rules. 'As many people per capita'?? How many have I murdered and how come no one has noticed. This is a bit like saying there's a man knocked down by a car every day in Watford .... and he's getting dashed fed up of it.
Quite a lot of atheist self congratulation is based on fantasy

That's a lot of words. What do they mean - if anything? What do they have to do with theists vs. pantheists and their relative merits?

Any student of history - world comparative history - would see that theists don't impress, in terms of morals and ethics, as compared to pantheists.

If you doubt this so much, then please tell us why. Put up or....be very, very quiet.

[Turk]

There are several billion pantheists in the world and, as a general rule, they are better behaved than the billions of theists.

And i think there's several billions people who doesn't know world population.:lol:

[weepingforloman]

All this christianity taken literally is just assumption founded on assumption. Why, particularly, must I share in your assumptions, when your assumptions don't fit the facts. There are far better assumptions available. You are unaware? I suggest you travel a bit, and read a few books - other than a KJV.

First of all, I read an NIV (joking... but I really do). Secondly, I have read more than you think-- for instance, most people would assume that a Christian would not read Nietzsche, but I have-- I did find it to be bilge, but still.


Fun as that sounds (maybe not the punching part), Pantheism states that God is in everything, so yes, everything is divine, but ethical codes don't enter into it. In fact, punching babies and stealing lollipops = punching God and stealing his lollipops, and I may not believe in "God" in that sene, but if I did, I sure wouldnt want to steal his lollipop.

I was joking about the baby-punching thing, but my point is that if God is in everything, well then, God is in war, cancer, famine, etc. And so God is not good, He is either balanced-morality or He is non-moral. And I cannot worship a God that is not good.


There are several billion pantheists in the world and, as a general rule, they are better behaved than the billions of theists.

Apparently there is some problem with your logic.

Not all who claim faith actually HAVE it. You cannot therefore prove that theists are worse behaved than pantheists.
There are not several billion pantheists, and there are not several billion theists: there are a billion plus agnostics, millions of atheists, about a billion combined believers of the three major monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Islam, Christianity), and maybe a billion followers of some sort of pantheist belief, be it the quasi-Buddhist faiths that have emerged from distortion of Siddartha Gautama's teaching or Hindus, or some of the quasi-Neo-Pagans.

[JGL57]

First of all, I read an NIV (joking... but I really do). Secondly, I have read more than you think-- for instance, most people would assume that a Christian would not read Nietzsche, but I have-- I did find it to be bilge, but still. .

There are many philosophers. Have your ever read James, Heidegger, Kant, Locke, Spinoza? How about the ancient Greeks like Lucretius? Any existentialists – Sartre, de Unamuno, Kierkegaard?

Ever read any Eastern wisdom traditional sutras – the scriptures of the Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists?

I thought not.


I was joking about the baby-punching thing, but my point is that if God is in everything, well then, God is in war, cancer, famine, etc. And so God is not good, He is either balanced-morality or He is non-moral. And I cannot worship a God that is not good. .

Why are you so hung up on “worshipping a god”? What does that get you, exactly? Maybe if you cut out all the worshipping you might actually do better.


Not all who claim faith actually HAVE it. You cannot therefore prove that theists are worse behaved than pantheists.
There are not several billion pantheists, and there are not several billion theists: there are a billion plus agnostics, millions of atheists, about a billion combined believers of the three major monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Islam, Christianity), and maybe a billion followers of some sort of pantheist belief, be it the quasi-Buddhist faiths that have emerged from distortion of Siddartha Gautama's teaching or Hindus, or some of the quasi-Neo-Pagans .

Well, if you want to wax pedantic – I classify Hindus, Buddhists, and Taoists as pantheists. Perhaps a better word for many of them would be monists, or panmonists. In any case, there a billion people there who are not monotheists.

And the last count I saw of monotheists – mainly christians and muslims – was over two billion.

As for who is sincere about being theists and who is lying – I suppose you would classify the sincere as those who do good and those who do bad things as liars. Heads god wins, tails atheism loses. Right.

[NikolaiI]

Pantheism reduces the questions of life to naught. If all is God, all is divine, and any choice also is holy. So choose what you want, and frolick willy-nilly through the world, punching babies in the throat and stealing their lollipops.

Some people say that.

I also saw people talking about "pleasing God." As I understand it, we are saved by grace, and not by our actions. We cannot 'earn' our way into heaven. I thought that was fundamental. It's sort of a contradiction - one on hand, we are supposed to do good to please God, and if we don't, on a large scale, our cities and nations will be wiped out (if all are sinful, etc.), and on the other hand, we cannot earn our way, etc.

Anyway, because any sin is forgiven if we forgive with honest hearts, or because of that doctrine, some people say that Christianity is immoral, etc, because it allows you to what you want and then be forgiven, or do whatever you want because you are saved and chosen and special.

Don't forget that some sects of Christianity believe there is a set number of people who are going to heaven, and it's already decided, and some believe that we can never know WHO is going to heaven (Puritans, I believe?) or perhaps that we'll be able to see who's chosen, going to heaven, saved, etc, by their wealth and success on Earth. Kind of an interesting view. Those people also believe that our success is based off our own efforts, etc. That gives rise to a wicked work ethic.

Anyway, if you don't want people insulting Christianity by their ignorance, as you might define it, and saying that it allows immorality, please don't do the same for other religions. One reason pantheism is an ethical religion is because correct belief in pantheism is to believe that others are the same as yourself, so when you hurt others you are hurting yourself. Or if they don't believe that others are the same as yourself (Cognizant Ontology) then they believe hurting others hurts you in a general way. Another way pantheists are ethical is by their religious scriptures (the Bhagavad-Gita), and those have strict moral disciplines (be vegetarian, meditate for an hour every day, eat in moderation). And of course, there are both psychopathic (no conscience or empathy) and kind, empathetic people in all religions. But, like J said, pantheists are well behaved. All of my masters are empathetic, good people, and I don't mind taking examples from any religion.

Oh, and to the original question I would say that labels such as atheist or deist or pantheist do not have any bearing on reality. That is my idea. The only things that matter are life, ideas, and how they apply to life. Give me literature over anything else. Give me learning.

Nietzsche is well worth reading and loving, lots of people do.


Exactly-- opponents of Christianity (and other faiths) often claim we are hoping to comfort ourselves with some kindly man in the sky-- nothing could be further from the truth. Even Nietzsche (a bitter, anti-God man if ever there was) admitted the inherent difficulties and hardships of Christianity (I refer you to "Also Sprach Zaruthustra," specifically the essay called "The Three Transformations of the Spirit"). Christianity is hard. It calls for denial of many desires, and for the hard way over the easy ninety-nine times out of a hundred.

Just because I still want to convince you that Nietzsche was a good guy, here's a warm quote by him he wrote to his friend. He was a wonderful person. Not bitter. And he had reason to be, if anyone ever did.

My dear friend, what is this our life? A boat that swims in the sea, and all one knows for certain about it is that one day it will capsize. Here we are, two good old boats that have been faithful neighbors, and above all your hand has done its best to keep me from "capsizing"! Let us then continue our voyage—each for the other's sake, for a long time yet, a long time! We should miss each other so much! Tolerably calm seas and good winds and above all sun—what I wish for myself, I wish for you, too, and am sorry that my gratitude can find expression only in such a wish and has no influence at all on wind or weather!
— Letter to Franz Overbeck: November 14, 1881.

And this, a paragraph from a biography, to show what I meant about his having cause to be bitter.

"Between 1879 and 1889, Nietzsche lived mostly in Switzerland and Italy, subsisting on a small university pension and writing furiously despite his declining health. He suffered constant migraines, insomnia, and indigestion, such that he could only read and write for a few hours each day, and his eyesight became so poor that he was partially blind. Despite these setbacks, Nietzsche wrote eleven books and thousands of pages of notebook jottings in the next ten years.

"Throughout this time, Nietzsche’s books sold very poorly, and he had only a handful of admirers.
In January 1889, Nietzsche saw a man beating his horse on the street in Turin and rushed to intervene. He collapsed in the street and never regained his sanity. He spent the last eleven years of his life as a vegetable, oblivious to his surroundings, and died in August 1900."

From http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/nietzsche/context.html

I think I read that he would write ten hours a day, or something..I don't know which is true.

[Pendragon]

You calling me an atheist? Not that I have anything against Atheism, but I'm not an atheist. I don't beleive in God in the traditional sense (one being who created the world in seven days etc), but I do believe that there is a power greater than humans. My humble apologies. I did read you right on believing there was a power greater than humans. Very sorry if I insulted you by calling you an "Atheist." Perhaps it was the way that your post was worded, but I had no right to jump to conclusions. Forgive me.

If a man cannot admit it when he has done wrong and make recompense, he gives a poor example as a Minister. Again, I am truly sorry.

God bless you richly.

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/GiveUp.gif

[weepingforloman]

Just because I still want to convince you that Nietzsche was a good guy, here's a warm quote by him he wrote to his friend. He was a wonderful person. Not bitter. And he had reason to be, if anyone ever did.

My dear friend, what is this our life? A boat that swims in the sea, and all one knows for certain about it is that one day it will capsize. Here we are, two good old boats that have been faithful neighbors, and above all your hand has done its best to keep me from "capsizing"! Let us then continue our voyage—each for the other's sake, for a long time yet, a long time! We should miss each other so much! Tolerably calm seas and good winds and above all sun—what I wish for myself, I wish for you, too, and am sorry that my gratitude can find expression only in such a wish and has no influence at all on wind or weather!
— Letter to Franz Overbeck: November 14, 1881.

And this, a paragraph from a biography, to show what I meant about his having cause to be bitter.

"Between 1879 and 1889, Nietzsche lived mostly in Switzerland and Italy, subsisting on a small university pension and writing furiously despite his declining health. He suffered constant migraines, insomnia, and indigestion, such that he could only read and write for a few hours each day, and his eyesight became so poor that he was partially blind. Despite these setbacks, Nietzsche wrote eleven books and thousands of pages of notebook jottings in the next ten years.

"Throughout this time, Nietzsche’s books sold very poorly, and he had only a handful of admirers.
In January 1889, Nietzsche saw a man beating his horse on the street in Turin and rushed to intervene. He collapsed in the street and never regained his sanity. He spent the last eleven years of his life as a vegetable, oblivious to his surroundings, and died in August 1900."

From http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/nietzsche/context.html

I think I read that he would write ten hours a day, or something..I don't know which is true.

First of all, how a man treats his friends is no indication of his moral fiber-- unless he happens to abuse/extort/insult them. The true indication of a man's heart is his treatment of his enemies. And Nietzsche HATED people like me (Christians, if you've lost count). Did you know he claimed to be the anti-Christ? Little crazy... And that was well before 1889 if I remember correctly.

[NikolaiI]

First of all, how a man treats his friends is no indication of his moral fiber-- unless he happens to abuse/extort/insult them. The true indication of a man's heart is his treatment of his enemies. And Nietzsche HATED people like me (Christians, if you've lost count). Did you know he claimed to be the anti-Christ? Little crazy... And that was well before 1889 if I remember correctly.

I think the Anti-Christ was the last book he wrote. I have it in "Basic Writings of Nietzsche" by Walter Kauffman. It has four of his books complete. I've only read the first part of it, that was one book I had in mind when I said you shouldn't read more of him, you wouldn't like it. It starts out criticizing Christianity. I believe somewhere Kauffman wrote that it might better be translated "the Anti-Christian".

I don't think Nietzsche hated anyone except anti-semites and...lol, I don't know. I haven't read it, but one chapter in Ecce Homo is titled "Why I am a Destiny". Nietzsche predicted that in future years he would be considered a saint, among other things, a title which he didn't want.

I'm not a Nietzsche expert. I'm only getting into this with you because I love him so much. I really look forward to reading him.

Oh, and if you have any further questions about Nietzsche's character, let me assure you, he was a good man. He was polite and very quiet in others' company. He was a virtuous man and polite. He was bound by his physical frailty to eat and drink very carefully. He didn't smoke or drink coffee, and certainly not alcohol. If he did drink alcohol it made him very sick.


Anyhow, those comments were mostly not my writings,- and off topic- I am interested in what you have to say to the comment I did write, the one before it about religion.

Thanks,
Nicolai

[weepingforloman]

Some people say that.

I also saw people talking about "pleasing God." As I understand it, we are saved by grace, and not by our actions. We cannot 'earn' our way into heaven. I thought that was fundamental. It's sort of a contradiction - one on hand, we are supposed to do good to please God, and if we don't, on a large scale, our cities and nations will be wiped out (if all are sinful, etc.), and on the other hand, we cannot earn our way, etc.

Anyway, because any sin is forgiven if we forgive with honest hearts, or because of that doctrine, some people say that Christianity is immoral, etc, because it allows you to what you want and then be forgiven, or do whatever you want because you are saved and chosen and special.

Don't forget that some sects of Christianity believe there is a set number of people who are going to heaven, and it's already decided, and some believe that we can never know WHO is going to heaven (Puritans, I believe?) or perhaps that we'll be able to see who's chosen, going to heaven, saved, etc, by their wealth and success on Earth. Kind of an interesting view. Those people also believe that our success is based off our own efforts, etc. That gives rise to a wicked work ethic.

Anyway, if you don't want people insulting Christianity by their ignorance, as you might define it, and saying that it allows immorality, please don't do the same for other religions. One reason pantheism is an ethical religion is because correct belief in pantheism is to believe that others are the same as yourself, so when you hurt others you are hurting yourself. Or if they don't believe that others are the same as yourself (Cognizant Ontology) then they believe hurting others hurts you in a general way. Another way pantheists are ethical is by their religious scriptures (the Bhagavad-Gita), and those have strict moral disciplines (be vegetarian, meditate for an hour every day, eat in moderation). And of course, there are both psychopathic (no conscience or empathy) and kind, empathetic people in all religions. But, like J said, pantheists are well behaved. All of my masters are empathetic, good people, and I don't mind taking examples from any religion.

Oh, and to the original question I would say that labels such as atheist or deist or pantheist do not have any bearing on reality. That is my idea. The only things that matter are life, ideas, and how they apply to life. Give me literature over anything else. Give me learning.

Nietzsche is well worth reading and loving, lots of people do.

I don't know whether vegetarianism is a moral or immoral choice in and of itself-- same thing for eating in moderation (gluttony is not good, but you can eat heartily and not be a glutton). I did not intend my little baby-punching scenario to be an ethical commentary on pantheism, but rather a theological-- if all is God, then God is not good. I'm afraid that I find myself forced to be a little more "narrow minded" in that Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me."

Well, Grace and Peace.

[NikolaiI]

I don't know whether vegetarianism is a moral or immoral choice in and of itself-- same thing for eating in moderation (gluttony is not good, but you can eat heartily and not be a glutton). I did not intend my little baby-punching scenario to be an ethical commentary on pantheism, but rather a theological-- if all is God, then God is not good. I'm afraid that I find myself forced to be a little more "narrow minded" in that Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through me."

Well, Grace and Peace.

It depends. If you are a growing child, you eat one way, and if you are an adult, it's best to eat another. Also it depends completely on the individual, and I think the same can be said for Vegetarianism. For me, it's right, but it may not be right for others.

You keep ignoring my points. God made creation and called it good. Doesn't that mean it is good?

I think your argument has flaws in it. You say if God is nature, then God is not good, because nature itself is not good or evil? But isn't your stance that creation is good - because there are good and evil?

Or is Earth completely neutral, or completely balanced, or swaying towards evil?

Please answer.

[Turk]

I think the Anti-Christ was the last book he wrote.

Yes unfortunately we are not sure whether he was slightly mad when he started writing that, or he got completely insane after writing that.:lol:

[Charles Darnay]

I was joking about the baby-punching thing, but my point is that if God is in everything, well then, God is in war, cancer, famine, etc. And so God is not good, He is either balanced-morality or He is non-moral. And I cannot worship a God that is not good.


War is war. Saying that God IS war for a pantheist is no worse than saying that God IS THE CAUSE of war for a theist. If you wantto go that route than, yes, God is not good - theist or pantheist - but it's really not that simple

[NikolaiI]

War is war. Saying that God IS war for a pantheist is no worse than saying that God IS THE CAUSE of war for a theist. If you wantto go that route than, yes, God is not good - theist or pantheist - but it's really not that simple

Right, that was my point. God made nature and called it good. Etc., etc. Either he made nature or he is equal to nature, the question of whether nature is good. But if there were no nature there would be no us, so it basically depends on whether our lives are good. And whether life is more good or more evil. I think.

[Unbeliever]

This dictum presents flawed logic: if God exists, there is no "killing" Him (by very nature of the definition of the word "God") - there is only accepting Him or rejecting Him.

That may well be the case, but if I die and find out there really is a God (like the one portrayed in the Bible), I intend to spend the rest of eternity trying to kill it. Sure, it's not likely to be easy, but at least I'll never get bored!


if all is God, then God is not good.

How can God not be all, if God is omnipresent?

[JGL57]

...How can God not be all, if God is omnipresent?

Exactly. Omnipresence = Pantheism. If god is omnipresent, monotheism is impossible.

[weepingforloman]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Omnipresence does not equal pantheism. God is eternally present, because He IS ETERNAL. HE CANNOT BE "AWAY." If you were outside of time, you'd have an infinite amount of time to look around, and to go somewhere. Same with God. He is also omnipresent because CREATION ITSELF IS SMALLER THAN GOD. Literally. Creation is something made by God, and He can touch it anywhere-- like a painting on canvas. He is as separate from creation as an artist is from clay.

[stella]

Hinduism is 5,000 years old - christianity about two. If either influenced the other, then what are the odds the latter influenced the former the most?

The rest of the questions that so concern you - they are the creations of a monotheistic assumptions . Think outside the box. Pantheism solves your alleged questions by dissolving them.

And have a nice day.

hi again. you must have misunderstood me. i wasn't talking about who came first ;for i know-& you are free to correct me - that Christianity was embraced by the Roman Empire during Constantin 's ruling ;the Roman Empire extended from east to west ....I think that would make Christianity one of the 1st widely spread religions......

you maybe right about how these questions being the creations of a monotheistic assumptions. i really thought that everyone asks these questions....

[JGL57]

...He is as separate from creation as an artist is from clay.

Then he is not, by definition, omniscient.

Cake - have it - eat it - too.

Have a nice day.


... i really thought that everyone asks these questions....

Those raised in monotheism - basically, those in the "West" - must deal with these considerations, because they were inculcated with them as children.

Most of the people in most of the "East” - not so much. They are taught a different set of assumptions. E.g., regarding philosophy in particular, there are words in Chinese (and also Sanskrit) that have no English or Romance language equivalents, and vice versa.

[Unbeliever]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Omnipresence does not equal pantheism. God is eternally present, because He IS ETERNAL. HE CANNOT BE "AWAY." If you were outside of time, you'd have an infinite amount of time to look around, and to go somewhere. Same with God. He is also omnipresent because CREATION ITSELF IS SMALLER THAN GOD. Literally. Creation is something made by God, and He can touch it anywhere-- like a painting on canvas. He is as separate from creation as an artist is from clay.

What could it possibly mean to be "outside of time"? That's a meaningless phrase. Just because English words can be strung together in an apparently grammatically correct form doesn't automatially indicate that the phrase thus formed has any meaning. If God were outside of time, he could never do anything at all, because there would have to be a "before" he did it, and an "after" he did it, which necessitates time.

[Redzeppelin]

That may well be the case, but if I die and find out there really is a God (like the one portrayed in the Bible), I intend to spend the rest of eternity trying to kill it. Sure, it's not likely to be easy, but at least I'll never get bored!

As likely as a sand-crab challenging a tsunami. There won't be time to get "bored": once God has fully been rejected and God accepts your final rejection, your existence ceases.


How can God not be all, if God is omnipresent?


Exactly. Omnipresence = Pantheism. If god is omnipresent, monotheism is impossible.


Then he is not, by definition, omniscient.

Cake - have it - eat it - too.

Have a nice day.

Oh please. Both of you really cannot believe this, can you? If I am "present" in a room, I am not the room or the furniture in the room. Come on - do you both really misunderstand this concept that badly? Omnipresence means that God - in His unconfined-by-4-dimensional existence - can be everywhere at once; to be everywhere is not to be everything.



Those raised in monotheism - basically, those in the "West" - must deal with these considerations, because they were inculcated with them as children.

A silly statement. Plenty of believers chose Christianity as adults - leaving agnostic or atheistic belief systems behind. Please don't stereotype - it weakens your credibility.


What could it possibly mean to be "outside of time"? That's a meaningless phrase. Just because English words can be strung together in an apparently grammatically correct form doesn't automatially indicate that the phrase thus formed has any meaning. If God were outside of time, he could never do anything at all, because there would have to be a "before" he did it, and an "after" he did it, which necessitates time.

You're trying to understand a transcendant being by putting Him into our 4-dimensional box. That will work as good as trying to explain to 2-dimensional people what a 3-dimensional figure is. Good luck. Time has not always existed - for the simple fact that we have a "now." An infinite number of seconds cannot have existed before the moment we known of as "now." Time has a beginning. God transcends time.

[stella]

Those raised in monotheism - basically, those in the "West" - must deal with these considerations, because they were inculcated with them as children.

Most of the people in most of the "East” - not so much. They are taught a different set of assumptions. E.g., regarding philosophy in particular, there are words in Chinese (and also Sanskrit) that have no English or Romance language equivalents, and vice versa.

i find it funny that you told me to think" out of the box" when you can't think outside of yours . that is a generalization that you can't be sure of .

[Unbeliever]

As likely as a sand-crab challenging a tsunami. There won't be time to get "bored": once God has fully been rejected and God accepts your final rejection, your existence ceases.

I fully expect oblivion after my demise, and am not the least bit afraid of it.


Oh please. Both of you really cannot believe this, can you? If I am "present" in a room, I am not the room or the furniture in the room. Come on - do you both really misunderstand this concept that badly? Omnipresence means that God - in His unconfined-by-4-dimensional existence - can be everywhere at once; to be everywhere is not to be everything.
If you're in a room, you're not God, and not omnipresent. If you were God, in a room, and omnipresent, then you'd be in every molecule of the room, not just standing in one spot. That argument says nothing at all about God.


A silly statement. Plenty of believers chose Christianity as adults - leaving agnostic or atheistic belief systems behind. Please don't stereotype - it weakens your credibility.
That may be, but the vast majority of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc., adopted the religion of their parents and community.


You're trying to understand a transcendant being by putting Him into our 4-dimensional box. That will work as good as trying to explain to 2-dimensional people what a 3-dimensional figure is. Good luck.
There are no 2-dimensional people, except in fiction. There are four dimensional people, us - 3 dimensions of space, and one of time. If God is so far beyond our understanding, how is it that you understand him so well?

Time has not always existed - for the simple fact that we have a "now." An infinite number of seconds cannot have existed before the moment we known of as "now."
Why not?

Time has a beginning. God transcends time.
How do you know?

[Amra]

If you were God, in a room, and omnipresent, then you'd be in every molecule of the room, not just standing in one spot. That argument says nothing at all about God.


There seems to be a fundamentally incorrect assertion about what omnipresence is. Namely, we believe that God is omnipresent with His absolute knowledge, not necessarily with His being. We do not know WHERE God is, and even asking such questions is blashpemy in itself because we are indirectly assigning a place to the Almighty who is not bound by space or time.

He is with you, wherever you are. Qur'an 57:4

[Laporis]

"If God didn't exist it would be necessary for us to invent Him"
my question is how can someone not believe in anything how can you be an atheist?

Very simple! When you're an atheist you believe that anything that happens has a natural explanation and if nature can't explain you can believe it's luck or fate! God is too weird and fantasy speaking to believe so it's easier to believe in something logical than in something that no one knows what is or if it exists!


i do believe that humans have this urge to believe in something bigger than they are no matter what this thing is....

It's true and I think it's proved!;) I think many atheist aren't happy becuase it misses also the glow of the believers!

[Redzeppelin]

I fully expect oblivion after my demise, and am not the least bit afraid of it.

Perhaps. Seeing God and all He had to offer you that you rejected might make oblivion not so much scary but a disappointment beyond what your soul could tolerate.


If you're in a room, you're not God, and not omnipresent. If you were God, in a room, and omnipresent, then you'd be in every molecule of the room, not just standing in one spot. That argument says nothing at all about God.

No - you're talking about pantheism - where God is everything. That does not agree with Christian theology. You're still wrong.



That may be, but the vast majority of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc., adopted the religion of their parents and community.

That doesn't invalidate religious belief. What is passed on can be true or false - it's interesting that people often assume that religious belief is only upheld because our parents passed it on to us - but there is plenty about our parents' upbringing of us that we accept, reject, alter.



There are no 2-dimensional people, except in fiction. There are four dimensional people, us - 3 dimensions of space, and one of time. If God is so far beyond our understanding, how is it that you understand him so well?

Because I read the Bible, listen to intelligent people preach about Him, and I ask Him for understanding everyday.


Why not?

Go look up "potential infinities" and "actual infinities."


How do you know?

The illogical results of actual infinities says so. (Cf. the Kalam Cosmological Argument).

[PrinceMyshkin]

I have 1) a question and 2) a proposition:

1) Isn't it odd that we're so hung up on each other, I mean the theists and the non-believers (lumping together atheists & agnostics)? We're like the Montague and the Capulets, sworn enemies and yet, somehow drawn to each other, unable to leave each other alone.

2) Whether this is a gift from God (which I personally doubt) or the most current stage of evolution, we are blessed - sometimes cursed - with consciousness and the capacity or need to wonder. I doubt that there is any preordained reason for our being here, which means that we are free to wonder, to perfect the condition of being human. That will mean being terrified at times, lost at times, and hopefully brave enough to pick ourselves up and try to do better.

Believers on the whole impress me as people who lack "negative capability, as defined by Keats: "that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason."

[Charles Darnay]

I have 1) a question and 2) a proposition:

1) Isn't it odd that we're so hung up on each other, I mean the theists and the non-believers (lumping together atheists & agnostics)? We're like the Montague and the Capulets, sworn enemies and yet, somehow drawn to each other, unable to leave each other alone.

2) Whether this is a gift from God (which I personally doubt) or the most current stage of evolution, we are blessed - sometimes cursed - with consciousness and the capacity or need to wonder. I doubt that there is any preordained reason for our being here, which means that we are free to wonder, to perfect the condition of being human. That will mean being terrified at times, lost at times, and hopefully brave enough to pick ourselves up and try to do better.

Believers on the whole impress me as people who lack "negative capability, as defined by Keats: "that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason."


I don't think it's so much a matter of being hung up on each other, nor do I think there is a Montegue/Capulet relationship here. It is a debate. Each side forces its argument against the other, until ideally (not likely) so middle ground is reached.......or at best, some understanding of each other's views:

I don't see myself brandishing an imaginary sword: "Redzeppelin, I am for you!!!!", tempting as it is....

[PrinceMyshkin]

I don't think it's so much a matter of being hung up on each other, nor do I think there is a Montegue/Capulet relationship here. It is a debate. Each side forces its argument against the other, until ideally (not likely) so middle ground is reached.......or at best, some understanding of each other's views:

I don't see myself brandishing an imaginary sword: "Redzeppelin, I am for you!!!!", tempting as it is....

Well, frankly, there is NO middle ground as far as I personally am concerned. I see belief in the unseen or in ancient texts that were written by we don't know who and then elaborated on, over and over again, interpreted and reinterpreted as it suited each particular interpreter or the corporation to which he belonged, as the fulfilment of a need. I want to talk about the psychology of belief: why some need to believe (as I see it) and I need not to believe or rather to disabuse those who do believe...

[Amra]

I want to talk about the psychology of belief: why some need to believe (as I see it) and I need not to believe or rather to disabuse those who do believe...

Why do you need to talk about the psychology of belief if you claim to NOT need to disabuse those who do believe? If you indeed do not have that need, then your presence here is quite contradictory to that.

[Redzeppelin]

I don't see myself brandishing an imaginary sword: "Redzeppelin, I am for you!!!!", tempting as it is....

Oh how fun - I love Shakespeare: "A pox on the house of Darwin!" :)

[kilted exile]

Why do you need to talk about the psychology of belief if you claim to NOT need to disabuse those who do believe? If you indeed do not have that need, then your presence here is quite contradictory to that.

Well I know for me the only thing I'm interested in is the reasons why people believe what they do. Understanding why people believe goes a long way to understanding cultures and people. This is useful for other reasons than to abuse people

[PrinceMyshkin]

Why do you need to talk about the psychology of belief if you claim to NOT need to disabuse those who do believe? If you indeed do not have that need, then your presence here is quite contradictory to that.

Apologies for not having expressed myself clearly. I meant to say that I DO have a need to disabuse those who hold what appear to me to be chimerical notions, especially when those notions are clung to fanatically and sometimes lead to war. There is a word in German, lebensluge, which means, I believe, the lie that is vital to one's life.


Perhaps. Seeing God and all He had to offer you that you rejected might make oblivion not so much scary but a disappointment beyond what your soul could tolerate.

Like Pascal, you're trying to construct a wager that you cannot possibly lose. The converse of what you propose is that after your death you will not encounter God...but neither will you be disappointed because you'll have no way of knowing you were wrong.

The true measure of your integrity as a free agent is whether you would live by the values you now hold if there were no God or indeed there were one who held contrary values?

[nomoredrama28]

jeepers you guys think way too much.

well sorry to make this off topic but bazarov, i like your signature! that poem was in dead poems society right? :D

[Unbeliever]

jeepers you guys think way too much.


Better to think too much than not enough, perhaps. ;)

[PrinceMyshkin]

Better to think too much than not enough, perhaps. ;)


There is no thinking too much, only thinking badly.

[Amra]

Apologies for not having expressed myself clearly. I meant to say that I DO have a need to disabuse those who hold what appear to me to be chimerical notions, especially when those notions are clung to fanatically and sometimes lead to war.


Thanks for clarifying this. I don't necessarily think that it is only the believers who are willing to cling to their notions "fanatically", but it is simply human nature that motivates us to defend that which we hold to be the truth; to fight for a greater cause is a concept known to humanity throughout its existence. Sometimes this urge has been self-destructive, but that goes for both the believers and the non-believers. People have been willing to die defending the Nazi Germany, the communist regimes, secularism (see Turkey's example today) and the democracy. Clinging to an ideology is not a "curse" of the believers, but a manifestation of our human nature. Just as there were people willing to die for democracy, there are people who are willing to die for what they consider to be God's law.



The true measure of your integrity as a free agent is whether you would live by the values you now hold if there were no God or indeed there were one who held contrary values?


This is not a measure of someone's integrity, but the measure of integrity of the values themselves. A value is not good or bad in itself, but the absolute criteria that it is measured by is whether it is in accordance to God's law (which makes it good) or in opposition to it (which would make it bad). This is how a believer constructs his or her value system. As an atheist, I suppose, you have a different criteria by which you measure the goodness of a value, which could be derived by the consensus of the majority of people at a certain time and place. If you believe for this to be the valid criteria, then it must be assumed that ethical values are innate and not acquired. Only then can the concensus be trusted to be good in an absolute sense, because if the values are acquired and the process of acquisition is influenced by many different, changeable variables, then the values are bound to be changeable; sometimes to the point where they would at one point be considered good and at another point utterly wrong. If you believe the values to be innate, then you have to explain how human beings arrived at a conclusion that cannibalism or gasing each other is morally good.

[PrinceMyshkin]

May I say, first, that your reply is wonderfully articulate and well-reasoned, given your premises

I don't necessarily think that it is only the believers who are willing to cling to their notions "fanatically"

Indeed, it is not, and elsewhere I have proposed that the real debate is not so much between the believers and the doubters but, rather, between the loud and the quiet in each group. I see myself, at times, as being virtually religious in my antipathy to religion.

“[I]f man is wicked enough to have invented religion for himself he is surely wicked enough to have found alternative ways of making mischief.” “Why do they hate Him?” by Anthony Gottlieb, The New Yorker, May 21, 2007


This is not a measure of someone's integrity, but the measure of integrity of the values themselves. A value is not good or bad in itself, but the absolute criteria that it is measured by is whether it is in accordance to God's law (which makes it good) or in opposition to it (which would make it bad).

What is the integrity of a value if it is ascribed to an unknowable God, of whose nature and wishes we have only the very fallible texts that were written by men and/or women living in a very different time in very different conditions, whose words have been interpreted variously at other times by other men and women having a vested interest in their interpretations?

What is the worth or value of our individual consciences if we are expected to live cookie-cutter lives according to maps that were set out a long time ago?


As an atheist, I suppose, you have a different criteria by which you measure the goodness of a value, which could be derived by the consensus of the majority of people at a certain time and place.

First, I have described myself elsewhere as a "lapsed atheist," and yes, I would prefer the consensis pf a majority of the people than that of a self-appointed corporation of priests or ministers.


If you believe for this to be the valid criteria, then it must be assumed that ethical values are innate and not acquired.

It is indeed innate in me to value life, love and freedom, and therefore to assume unless proven otherwise that the same is innate in other men and women.


If you believe the values to be innate, then you have to explain how human beings arrived at a conclusion that cannibalism or gasing each other is morally good.

Because their particular tribal gods sanctioned - and even I dare say demanded - such practices.

[Redzeppelin]

Like Pascal, you're trying to construct a wager that you cannot possibly lose. The converse of what you propose is that after your death you will not encounter God...but neither will you be disappointed because you'll have no way of knowing you were wrong.

Right - but if I'm wrong, then I've lived a moral life and benefitted those around me. If I'm right, I live eternally. If you're right - what is the benefit of that? (We already know the downside of your being wrong).


The true measure of your integrity as a free agent is whether you would live by the values you now hold if there were no God or indeed there were one who held contrary values?

You speak as if morality is a seperate entity from God; it's not. Morality is the reflection of God's character. Without God, there is no need or good reason for morality to exist; a God of contrary morality? What's that? That's a god who is not God.

[Derringer]

hey all, the other day i came across this quote by Voltaire:
"If God didn't exist it would be necessary for us to invent Him"

i do believe that humans have this urge to believe in something bigger than they are no matter what this thing is....

Prove that an individual has the urge to 'believe in something'. I don't know why so many irrelevant philosophical questions have such a large impact on people's life. Who cares what happens when you die? Religion (and most philosophy) = deus ex machina.

Don't take this wrong; trying to emulate literature, say the Bible, is fine. There's a lot of good things in the Bible. Art sees through ideology, the true curse. I'd like to be Poldy, but pretending that a single collection of art accurately sums up the entirety of life is far-fetched. To many exceptions - what about gay people? What about other religions, native americans? What about cave men and albatrosses? What about the end of A Farewell to Arms? Technology? Satan is a cop-out. Salvation is a cop-out. Both are an attempt to avoid thinking.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Right - but if I'm wrong, then I've lived a moral life and benefitted those around me. If I'm right, I live eternally. If you're right - what is the benefit of that? (We already know the downside of your being wrong).



You speak as if morality is a seperate entity from God; it's not. Morality is the reflection of God's character. Without God, there is no need or good reason for morality to exist; a God of contrary morality? What's that? That's a god who is not God.

Hedge your bets, by all means, rather than making moral choices according to the best of your character. The "moral" God of whom you speak engaged in a wager with Satan that Job's faithfulness would survive the death of his family, the loss of his wordly goods, boils, &c., and when God via the agency of Job had won that wager, Job was rewarded with a new family &c., only.... his original family had already paid the price.

You might retort that his original family were rewarded with eternal life & that Job was eventually re-united with them, but it all smacks of a crap-shoot or playground taunting.

[stella]

Prove that an individual has the urge to 'believe in something'. I don't know why so many irrelevant philosophical questions have such a large impact on people's life. Who cares what happens when you die? Religion (and most philosophy) = deus ex machina.

Don't take this wrong; trying to emulate literature, say the Bible, is fine. There's a lot of good things in the Bible. Art sees through ideology, the true curse. I'd like to be Poldy, but pretending that a single collection of art accurately sums up the entirety of life is far-fetched. To many exceptions - what about gay people? What about other religions, native americans? What about cave men and albatrosses? What about the end of A Farewell to Arms? Technology? Satan is a cop-out. Salvation is a cop-out. Both are an attempt to avoid thinking.

i don't know what are you talking about , we are discussing "believing in something " not "who is wrong or right"

[PrinceMyshkin]

i don't know what are you talking about , we are discussing "believing in something " not "who is wrong or right"

But the two are not unrelated. I would conjecture that the need to believe in something is part and parcel of our desire to firm up our identities. Once we've hit on a belief, ego has a further role to play in defending that belief (often by proving others/ beliefs to be wrong) just about as urgently as we might seek to defend our body if it was attacked.

[stella]

But the two are not unrelated. I would conjecture that the need to believe in something is part and parcel of our desire to firm up our identities. Once we've hit on a belief, ego has a further role to play in defending that belief (often by proving others/ beliefs to be wrong) just about as urgently as we might seek to defend our body if it was attacked.

maybe. but I'd rather not go through that road .

[Redzeppelin]

Hedge your bets, by all means, rather than making moral choices according to the best of your character. The "moral" God of whom you speak engaged in a wager with Satan that Job's faithfulness would survive the death of his family, the loss of his wordly goods, boils, &c., and when God via the agency of Job had won that wager, Job was rewarded with a new family &c., only.... his original family had already paid the price.

You make assumptions about my moral motivations that you ought not - you don't know me and your flippant comments are offensive. First, the "best" of anybody's character is due to the presence of God within him/her; as well, since God is the source of all that is right, moral and good, any right, moral or good choice is a reflection of the character of God and His presence in our hearts - that goes for you and me both (as well as everybody else in the world). It is only God's presence in us that allows us to even possess the desire to do good.

You can put moral in quotations about God if you wish, but if He is as the Bible describes Him, then you are completely wrong in questioning His morality in favor of flawed and ultimately self-serving human morality. As far as Job is concerned, what occurred between God and Satan was less a "wager" than a court case - a single example of what Satan has been trying to do from the beginning: claim that God is unfair. Satan's charge was that God "bought" Job's loyalty - that Job didn't love God for who He was, but for what He could give Job. God's faith in His servant prompted Him to allow Satan to test Job in order to vindicate His character. Even Job understood God's prerogative to take what He originally gave - why are you so bugged about it?

You are free to have issues with God's choices, but if He is all-knowing, and all-powerful, and good, and just, and righteous and merciful and loving as the Bible says - why would you doubt? Are you telling me you trust people more than a supreme being?


You might retort that his original family were rewarded with eternal life & that Job was eventually re-united with them, but it all smacks of a crap-shoot or playground taunting.

Perhaps; or maybe you just aren't clear on the cosmic nature of the battle between good and evil. Your finite view of God cannot help but produce this incorrect evaluation.

[PrinceMyshkin]

You make assumptions about my moral motivations that you ought not - you don't know me and your flippant comments are offensive. First, the "best" of anybody's character is due to the presence of God within him/her; as well, since God is the source of all that is right, moral and good, any right, moral or good choice is a reflection of the character of God and His presence in our hearts - that goes for you and me both (as well as everybody else in the world). It is only God's presence in us that allows us to even possess the desire to do good.

I know only what you have said about your moral choices: that they are predicated on the reality of a God as described in Scripture. That seems to me to be the product of just one choice - though I suspect it was made out of need or fear - to accept the whole of God's commandments. I submitthat to be moral is to assume that you have free will and to act in accordance with it.


You can put moral in quotations about God if you wish, but if He is as the Bible describes Him, then you are completely wrong in questioning His morality in favor of flawed and ultimately self-serving human morality. As far as Job is concerned, what occurred between God and Satan was less a "wager" than a court case - a single example of what Satan has been trying to do from the beginning: claim that God is unfair. Satan's charge was that God "bought" Job's loyalty - that Job didn't love God for who He was, but for what He could give Job. God's faith in His servant prompted Him to allow Satan to test Job in order to vindicate His character. Even Job understood God's prerogative to take what He originally gave - why are you so bugged about it?

Call it a "court case" if you will but what had Job done to deserve being put on trial? What sort of God, or father, is this who submits his children to be tested? What can God hope for from this test other than the buttressing of his own ego?


You are free to have issues with God's choices, but if He is all-knowing, and all-powerful, and good, and just, and righteous and merciful and loving as the Bible says - why would you doubt? Are you telling me you trust people more than a supreme being?

I note that you say "if.." and at the risk of being accused again of flippancy, I quote this suggestion I heard that over the door to very Church Synagogue or Mosque there ought to be a banner proclaiming: "Important information - if true."



Perhaps; or maybe you just aren't clear on the cosmic nature of the battle between good and evil. Your finite view of God cannot help but produce this incorrect evaluation.

No, indeed I am not clear about the cosmic nature of it. It seems rather to me that there are numerous tribal, national and individual battles going on, often between two sides who are equally dogmatic in their beliefs and just possibly equally wrong. The evil that I see is in anyone trying to impose their views on anyone else.

[Derringer]

i don't know what are you talking about , we are discussing "believing in something " not "who is wrong or right"

To believe in Christianity is to decide what is 'right and wrong'. It's the first commandment.

[PrinceMyshkin]

To believe in Christianity is to decide what is 'right and wrong'. It's the first commandment.

If you were raised as a Christian, no doubt, or you fell under the spell of a Christian missionary. But if you were raised a Jew, or a Muslim? Is it beyond your comprehension that their God may be as true or valid as yours?

[stella]

To believe in Christianity is to decide what is 'right and wrong'. It's the first commandment.

also to believe in christianity is to know that you are not in a place to judge other people.

[PrinceMyshkin]

also to believe in christianity is to know that you are not in a place to judge other people.

Insofar as I understand Christianity (or the spirit of transcending ego that I assume to be an ideal of all religions), your statement strikes me as a far more Christian one than those whose latent text often seems to be Die, infidel!

[Derringer]

also to believe in christianity is to know that you are not in a place to judge other people.

If this is true, then why do Christians care about things such as homosexuality, converting aboriginals, stem cell research?

[PrinceMyshkin]

If this is true, then why do Christians care about things such as homosexuality, converting aboriginals, stem cell research?


Although this was addressed to Stella and hopefully she will reply to it, I would reply because some of them interpret Scripture too narrowly, forgetting that it also advocates animal sacrifice, or they are intolerant of others' cultures and beliefs. And as for their opposition to stem cell research, is that so different from the Christian Scientists who refuse to allow their children to have blood transfusions?

[stella]

If this is true, then why do Christians care about things such as homosexuality, converting aboriginals, stem cell research?
the whole world is involved in these topics you are talking about every country , group (religious or not) & individual have their own stands on these topics ; why should we be the only ones attacked for our opinion according to your statement?

[PrinceMyshkin]

the whole world is involved in these topics you are talking about every country , group (religious or not) & individual have their own stands on these topics ; why should we be the only ones attacked for our opinion according to your statement?

The only ones being "attacked" for their opinions are those who seek to impose those opinions on others. They are being attacked for their intolerance rather than their views.

[stella]

The only ones being "attacked" for their opinions are those who seek to impose those opinions on others. They are being attacked for their intolerance rather than their views.

ok then ;how are we imposing our opinions on others?

[PrinceMyshkin]

ok then ;how are we imposing our opinions on others?

The charge of imposition ought to have been directed specifically at the religious right and their effort, e.g. to have marriage defined in the consitution. Otherwise it's not so much the effort to impose politically so much as the dogmatic assertions of what Christian and other folk "know" about God and what He expects or requires of us, the evidence for which, as they seem to see it, runs like this: It says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist.... ad infinitum.

[stella]

The charge of imposition ought to have been directed specifically at the religious right and their effort, e.g. to have marriage defined in the consitution. Otherwise it's not so much the effort to impose politically so much as the dogmatic assertions of what Christian and other folk "know" about God and what He expects or requires of us, the evidence for which, as they seem to see it, runs like this: It says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God’s word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist because it says in the Bible that God exists.... ad infinitum.

let me get this straight, are you saying that Christians should not accept the bible's judgment, because that would be really funny.....
BTW you didn't prove that we are judging people.....maybe you want to focus on that more.

[PrinceMyshkin]

let me get this straight, are you saying that Christians should not accept the bible's judgment, because that would be really funny.....
BTW you didn't prove that we are judging people.....maybe you want to focus on that more.

Well, if they DO accept it should they accept it in toto or just the parts they happen to like? Because, for instance, the Bible advocates animal sacrifice, and it authorized the Israelites to smite the original occupants of Canaan.

As to whether the Bible IS God's word, the only proof you have of that is that it says it is, and a whole lot of people after that who had a vested interest in it have said so as well, interpreting it this way and that.

But I'm done with arguing about that. You are convinced there is a God and that the Bible is His word. I'm not. Neither of us is open to having his or her mind changed.

[weepingforloman]

If this is true, then why do Christians care about things such as homosexuality, converting aboriginals, stem cell research?

There are two kinds of judgment: 1.) objectively stating that a particular sentiment/action/belief is wrong; and 2.) deciding that a person who does/believes/feels a certain thing is therefore in some way below you.

We are called to do the first (everyone does this anyway) but we are called to avoid the second (which is the natural tendency of everyone).


Well, if they DO accept it should they accept it in toto or just the parts they happen to like? Because, for instance, the Bible advocates animal sacrifice, and it authorized the Israelites to smite the original occupants of Canaan.

As to whether the Bible IS God's word, the only proof you have of that is that it says it is, and a whole lot of people after that who had a vested interest in it have said so as well, interpreting it this way and that.

But I'm done with arguing about that. You are convinced there is a God and that the Bible is His word. I'm not. Neither of us is open to having his or her mind changed.

OK, you miss the fact that there is EXTREME disconnect between the Mosaic Covenant (that which is outlined in the OT) and the New Covenant under Christ. We no longer sacrifice animals because Christ is our sacrifice-- and He is sufficient for all things, no more is needed. God commanded the Israelites to destroy Canaan because He was after something very different in the OT than in the NT: the Old Testament is God's creation of a political state that was to be His representation on earth. The New Testament is about creating a spiritual people of God, not dependent on an earthly government.

[Unbeliever]

I've heard this before, Christians will rail about how sinful homosexuality is (for example), but when it comes to other "abominations to God" they claim this complete "disconnect" between the OT, and the NT, despite what Jesus allegedly said:

Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

[Redzeppelin]

I've heard this before, Christians will rail about how sinful homosexuality is (for example), but when it comes to other "abominations to God" they claim this complete "disconnect" between the OT, and the NT, despite what Jesus allegedly said:

Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

You have conveniently used equivocation (or a lack of understanding) to make this point. The 600 odd prescriptions in the OT are not "the law" per se. Homosexuality was included under the umbrella term "sexual immorality" (as was prostitution, adultery, fornication, beastiality, incest, et al). When Jesus and Paul caution against "sexual immorality," it was understood that that term covered ALL types of sexual misbehavior.

We "rail" about sin because we know that it ultimately leads to self-destruction. Non-believers see "sin" as little more than some sort of mistake, or crime - they don't see it with the same eyes we do - namely, that it has eternal consequences. You'd not have a problem with Christians "railing" about smoking, or heroin use, or prostitution because (I assume) you'd see those as self-destructive; well, sin is WORSE. It leads (ultimately) to death. The Bible lists homosexuality as a sin - so we think its self-destructive. What we "rail" about is not that homosexuality exists but that society seems hell-bent on pushing it as a valid alternative to heterosexual behavior - that's why we're "railing" - just like you might "rail" is you saw TV shows advocating prostitution or drugs as viable alternatives to traditional jobs or medications.

[Unbeliever]

I notice that Christians don't have a problem with anyone eating shrimp, or calamari, etc., despite the fact that the Bible says it, too, is an abomination:

Lev 11:10 "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you:"

[Gorilla King]

I notice that Christians don't have a problem with anyone eating shrimp, or calamari, etc., despite the fact that the Bible says it, too, is an abomination:

Lev 11:10 "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which [is] in the waters, they [shall be] an abomination unto you:"

Leviticus is an old testament book. Hence the food laws fall under the old covenant. The new covenant under Christ essentially repealed these food restrictions as is seen in Acts 10:10:

"10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. "

It's commonly believed that the reason for such food restrictions in the old testament were not merely arbitrary things, but in fact the reason behind forbidding them was because they were likely to be diseased and the medical advancements had not yet been made at that time to deal with such issues. However, during the time of Christ with the advancements of Roman medicine, it became possible for them to be eaten safely.

[Unbeliever]

So, does the word "abomination" simply mean that something is unhealthy?

[Gorilla King]

So, does the word "abomination" simply mean that something is unhealthy?

I wouldn't presume to tell you what the English translation actually means (since it is just a translation) and I don't know Hebrew or Greek yet so I couldn't tell you my take on the original text, but I can tell you in both languages there are words that have multiple shades of meaning so to speak and this could very well be one of those instances. That's of course not to say that the God looks favorably on any of these things (within the context of the respective covenants of course), but it may very well be the case that one of these shades of meaning is unhealthy. I'm just saying that's a possibility.

[Unbeliever]

You have conveniently used equivocation (or a lack of understanding) to make this point. The 600 odd prescriptions in the OT are not "the law" per se. Homosexuality was included under the umbrella term "sexual immorality" (as was prostitution, adultery, fornication, beastiality, incest, et al). When Jesus and Paul caution against "sexual immorality," it was understood that that term covered ALL types of sexual misbehavior.

Sexual misbehavior as defined by whom, exactly? Would that include any sexual act other than sex between a married man and woman only for procreation using only the missionary position?


We "rail" about sin because we know that it ultimately leads to self-destruction. Non-believers see "sin" as little more than some sort of mistake, or crime - they don't see it with the same eyes we do - namely, that it has eternal consequences.

You're right, the only thing I, at least, consider as "sin" (though I don't call it that) is causing harm to others, and I don't see sex between consenting adults to be a harm to anyone.


You'd not have a problem with Christians "railing" about smoking, or heroin use, or prostitution because (I assume) you'd see those as self-destructive; well, sin is WORSE.

Actually, I would have a problem with that, because if those things aren't abused they don't harm anyone at all. If Christians don't like those things, they're free to not do those things, but banning them just because their particular diety is considered to not like them is merely oppression.


It leads (ultimately) to death.

Life is what leads to death; we are all under a sentence of death for the crime of having been born. Aside from that, things like driving cars or burning candles can "ultimately lead to death", would you therefore ban those things?


The Bible lists homosexuality as a sin - so we think its self-destructive. What we "rail" about is not that homosexuality exists but that society seems hell-bent on pushing it as a valid alternative to heterosexual behavior - that's why we're "railing" - just like you might "rail" is you saw TV shows advocating prostitution or drugs as viable alternatives to traditional jobs or medications.

So, if it's not a valid alternative to heterosexuality, then simply don't engage in it - but Christians are the ones pushing their "morality" on everyone else.

[Gorilla King]

Everyone pushes their morality on everyone else. At this point in society it's a moot point. Permissiveness is a push against moderation and moderation is perceived as a chain on permissiveness. The sad thing about modern society is rather than having an open exchange of ideas, we try to shut certain ideas out as if by not speaking about them we can all live in happiness. The fact is, by not speaking about them we all become MORE intolerant and unable to cope with the differences in others.

[Scheherazade]

The OP of the thread:
hey all, the other day i came across this quote by Voltaire:
"If God didn't exist it would be necessary for us to invent Him"

looking at ancient civilizations such as the Greeks and the Romans and even before that , they all didn't have an idea about "God"and so they created their own...
my question is how can someone not believe in anything how can you be an atheist?
i do believe that humans have this urge to believe in something bigger than they are no matter what this thing is....

[Redzeppelin]

I guess that's a friendly reminder to cease this digression. *sigh* - it was getting good, too. Perhaps another thread will open up on this topic because it is an important one to talk about...

[Unbeliever]

Perhaps we've strayed a bit off topic, sorry, I'll try to get back to it.


looking at ancient civilizations such as the Greeks and the Romans and even before that , they all didn't have an idea about "God"and so they created their own...

I think the ancient Jews (Canaanites) created their own God just as much as did the Greeks and Romans. I see no evidence that they didn't do so.

I don't quite understand what you mean, stella, whan you say the ancient Greeks and Romans had no idea about God. How could they create their own if they had no such idea?

[Redzeppelin]

As a Christian, I believe God is the creator of humanity; as such, it makes sense to me that creations bear the stamp of their creator; so - I believe God designed us with a "God consciousness" - an awareness that He exists, but that this consciousness will generally manifest itself in a less specific way by instilling within us some sense that there is something far more transcendant than ourselves - something greater than us that exists. It is this, I believe, that has inspired the greatest art - humans trying to "touch" or possess that transcendant "thing" that they know exists but can't quite put their finger on it. Christians know that this "thing" is our designer Himself. But, we as humans are capable of putting any number of things into that "God-shaped hole" inside our hearts: we can manufacture "gods" of our own making (pagan religions) or we can make things into gods - drugs, sex, money, fame, power - you name it.

[Gorilla King]

Perhaps we've strayed a bit off topic, sorry, I'll try to get back to it.



I think the ancient Jews (Canaanites) created their own God just as much as did the Greeks and Romans. I see no evidence that they didn't do so.

I don't quite understand what you mean, stella, whan you say the ancient Greeks and Romans had no idea about God. How could they create their own if they had no such idea?

What's your evidence for believing the Hebrews made up their own God and what then do you make of the old testament prophecies of Jesus?

[Unbeliever]

What's your evidence for believing the Hebrews made up their own God and what then do you make of the old testament prophecies of Jesus?

Well, first of all, I didn't say I have evidence that they made up their own God, I said I don't see any evidence that they didn't. But, since you ask, I'll see if I can provide some evidence.

The best evidence I can site, on short notice (I'm almost out of time for today, I'll try to satisfy your request better tomorrow), is the Bible itself. I've read it cover to cover 3 times, and studied it somewhat besides. It strikes me as having been man-made, I see no evidence in it of divine authorship.

As far as the OT prophecies concerning Jesus, I think they were not, in fact, prophecies of Jesus at all, but were instead an attempt to retrofit certain OT verses to seem like prophecies, and then were included in the Jesus story as being fulfilled by Jesus after the fact. In other words, the authors of the NT wanted to impress their readers with these claims of fulfilled prophecy, and so wrote the story so it would seem like prophecy was being fulfilled. I can go into more detail on this tomorrow if you'd like, I'm out of time now.

[Gorilla King]

Well, first of all, I didn't say I have evidence that they made up their own God, I said I don't see any evidence that they didn't. But, since you ask, I'll see if I can provide some evidence.

The best evidence I can site, on short notice (I'm almost out of time for today, I'll try to satisfy your request better tomorrow), is the Bible itself. I've read it cover to cover 3 times, and studied it somewhat besides. It strikes me as having been man-made, I see no evidence in it of divine authorship.

As far as the OT prophecies concerning Jesus, I think they were not, in fact, prophecies of Jesus at all, but were instead an attempt to retrofit certain OT verses to seem like prophecies, and then were included in the Jesus story as being fulfilled by Jesus after the fact. In other words, the authors of the NT wanted to impress their readers with these claims of fulfilled prophecy, and so wrote the story so it would seem like prophecy was being fulfilled. I can go into more detail on this tomorrow if you'd like, I'm out of time now.

Well let's start with the big one...Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

I'd be interested to hear your interpretation of that apart from Jesus. Mind you it was written about 600 years before him.

Second, while it's interesting to say that the gospel stories were retrofit to suit all of this, it just doesn't work. For one thing, the Pharisees had every reason to put down this Christian movement. Even Paul (before he became Paul) had the job of hunting down Christians and bringing them to trial for blasphemy. If they didn't crucify a man named Jesus (or Yeshua more accurately) then why didn't they simply prevent the evidence to the people and put down this little insurrection? And if Jesus didn't claim to be God and do the things the apostles reported Him to have done, then why did all of them with the exception of John who was sent into exile, allow themselves to be killed through violent methods for a lie? And if there were so many witnesses to these events, secular and otherwise, where are ANY contrary reports concerning Jesus? I don't know of a single one in existence. And how is it that they could make a claim such as the post crucification appearance of Jesus to so many when not a single person ever stepped forward and said "that didn't happen." Rather, the rapid spread of the early church seems to indicate that it did indeed happen.

And let's talk about the crucification. If the claim being made was that Jesus had resurrected and this was THE hinge point of all Christian belief (because remember that even the disciples and apostles scattered in fear when he died) then all the Pharisees had to do was present the body. Some say that the apostles stole the body. That's kind of difficult however considering that the tombs were guarded by 8 fully armed Roman guards with four in front and four in back with penalty of death on them should they fall asleep. Then there's the whole issue of moving the stone. It weighed about 2000 pounds. So that means the apostles would have to sneak past 8 Roman guards, move a 2,000 pound stone without their noticing and then steal away with the body and convince everyone else that Jesus had risen. And add on to that the fact that they were all willing to die for this thing which they knew was a lie. How do you rationalize that?

[Derringer]

It is this, I believe, that has inspired the greatest art - humans trying to "touch" or possess that transcendant "thing" that they know exists but can't quite put their finger on it.

Wow, we believe in almost the exact same thing. Except you would have to replace 'Christianity' with 'arts & literature'. Are you familiar with Ralph Waldo Emerson?

[weepingforloman]

Well, first of all, I didn't say I have evidence that they made up their own God, I said I don't see any evidence that they didn't. But, since you ask, I'll see if I can provide some evidence.

The best evidence I can site, on short notice (I'm almost out of time for today, I'll try to satisfy your request better tomorrow), is the Bible itself. I've read it cover to cover 3 times, and studied it somewhat besides. It strikes me as having been man-made, I see no evidence in it of divine authorship.

As far as the OT prophecies concerning Jesus, I think they were not, in fact, prophecies of Jesus at all, but were instead an attempt to retrofit certain OT verses to seem like prophecies, and then were included in the Jesus story as being fulfilled by Jesus after the fact. In other words, the authors of the NT wanted to impress their readers with these claims of fulfilled prophecy, and so wrote the story so it would seem like prophecy was being fulfilled. I can go into more detail on this tomorrow if you'd like, I'm out of time now.

Just as unsubstantiated as anything can be. You don't believe in Christ's divinity, therefore you find it more plausible to believe specifics were manufactured to fit the prophecies, I DO believe in Christ's divinity, and so I take them at face value. Make of that what you will.

[JGL57]

Just as unsubstantiated as anything can be. You don't believe in Christ's divinity, therefore you find it more plausible to believe specifics were manufactured to fit the prophecies, I DO believe in Christ's divinity, and so I take them at face value. Make of that what you will.

It does seem to be a matter of opinion, doesn't it? E.g., eight hundred million Muslims disagree with you on this, and I disagree with their beliefs, but the Bahais disagree with you, me and the Muslims, and then the Hindus think we are all wrong-headed, etc., etc., etc.

[Gorilla King]

It does seem to be a matter of opinion, doesn't it? E.g., eight hundred million Muslims disagree with you on this, and I disagree with their beliefs, but the Bahais disagree with you, me and the Muslims, and then the Hindus think we are all wrong-headed, etc., etc., etc.

I really don't think it is a matter of opinion per se. I think there are facts out there which people either are ignorant of or come to different conclusions about. I mean how many of those muslims or hindu's do you suppose have delved into Christian apologetics? On one hand you have Allah who is largely impersonal and with whom even Mohamed didn't know if he would go to heaven, and then with Hinduism you have 300 million gods and a caste system which is brutal towards the lower classes. Christianity is the only belief system where God IS personal and salvation isn't a matter of works, but grace. That's one of the major reasons why amidst the sea of different religions between the time of Christ and 300 AD that Christianity overthrew 800 years of pagan worship in Rome to become the dominant religion. It said that in Christ we are all brothers and sisters regardless of our Earthly social status. That was quite a revolutionary idea.

[JGL57]

Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it all - but I disagree with nearly every point you make. Mainly, I think you are being rather selective in your analysis - disregarding the bad of christianity and over-emphasizing the good, disregarding the good of non-christian philosophies and over-emphasizing the bad.

Personally, I think that a disinterested study of all the facts leads one to ecumenism, not sectarianism.

Thus, we are at eternal loggerheads.

But have a nice day.

[Gorilla King]

And what in your opinion is the bad of Christianity? I'm not talking about what people do...people are entirely fallible. I'm talking the teachings of Jesus.

[Unbeliever]

What's your evidence for believing the Hebrews made up their own God and what then do you make of the old testament prophecies of Jesus?

As to Bible prophecy, there's too much for me to type it all, so I'll have to provide some links on the subject:

PRECISELY WHAT IS A SUCCESSFULLY-FULFILLED, SUPERNATURALLY-INSPIRED PROPHECY? (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_proe.htm)

Prophecies Claimed as Fulfilled (http://home.teleport.com/~packham/bible.htm#FULPROPH)

[Derringer]

And what in your opinion is the bad of Christianity? I'm not talking about what people do...people are entirely fallible. I'm talking the teachings of Jesus.

I'm talking about 'what people do' because I do not live in some 'alternate world', or in the midst of some 'cosmological' battle between 'good' and 'evil', nor do I have any plans of being 'eternal'. Sounds too damn long anyways. I happen to live on Earth with over 6.5 billion other people. The only thing I have is personal relationships with others and the land. My life is very happy, although I wish the world was free from war, suffering disease, and discrimination. I hate war. I want to have a positive relationship with everyone I met; I want to see man's great idea's and creations and stare aimlessly at flowers. The 'bad' in Christianity is that anyone who disagrees with me is a 'sinner', must be labeled as 'wrong', and I must do everything i can to 'save their souls', so I would never bother to call myself a 'Christian'. The only heaven I belief of is on Earth.

[Gorilla King]

I'm talking about 'what people do' because I do not live in some 'alternate world', or in the midst of some 'cosmological' battle between 'good' and 'evil', nor do I have any plans of being 'eternal'. Sounds too damn long anyways. I happen to live on Earth with over 6.5 billion other people. The only thing I have is personal relationships with others and the land. My life is very happy, although I wish the world was free from war, suffering disease, and discrimination. I hate war. I want to have a positive relationship with everyone I met; I want to see man's great idea's and creations and stare aimlessly at flowers. The 'bad' in Christianity is that anyone who disagrees with me is a 'sinner', must be labeled as 'wrong', and I must do everything i can to 'save their souls', so I would never bother to call myself a 'Christian'. The only heaven I belief of is on Earth.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what sin is. Everyone is a sinner...even Christians. The wars you hate are the products of sin. I won't try to convince you of the reality of it, I'm just telling you the Christian view of it. I'd be happy to elaborate further if you're interested, bu if not then I'm just as content to leave it be.

[Gorilla King]

As to Bible prophecy, there's too much for me to type it all, so I'll have to provide some links on the subject:

PRECISELY WHAT IS A SUCCESSFULLY-FULFILLED, SUPERNATURALLY-INSPIRED PROPHECY? (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_proe.htm)

Prophecies Claimed as Fulfilled (http://home.teleport.com/~packham/bible.htm#FULPROPH)

I have no desire to write a book here in response to to this, but I could certainly point you in the direction of some that would refute everything there if you're interested. You could probably find them very reasonably priced on amazon too. Let me know.

[Tor_Hershman]

This may help

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7iQRFP_e90

[NikolaiI]

There's no such thing as Christianity.

[Gorilla King]

There's no such thing as Christianity.

There's no such thing as atheism. To claim there's no God you have to either have to possess all possible knowledge or claim to be god. Since you don't have the first and certainly aren't the latter, I find your claim lacking.

One does have to wonder though, what is it about Christianity specifically which repulses you like it does? Some would say that we resist the most what we know to be true. After all, if you hold it in such low regard, why would you waste your time with it?

[NikolaiI]

Just so you know, the quote for my signature isn't supposed to be about that statement. :D :D

Ha, no, atheism doesn't exist. Neither does America, England, or France. And I am not repulsed by any of those things.

Anyway, you missed my point, and I hope you're not too embarrased, Gorilla King. There was clearly no attack on God, or Christians in that statement. I wasn't trying to make fun.

[PrinceMyshkin]

“God is merely the answer that you get if you do not ask enough questions.” “Why do they hate Him?” by Anthony Gottlieb, The New Yorker, May 21, 2007, paraphrasing David Hume.

[Gorilla King]

“God is merely the answer that you get if you do not ask enough questions.” “Why do they hate Him?” by Anthony Gottlieb, The New Yorker, May 21, 2007, paraphrasing David Hume.

What a bunch of rubbish.

[PrinceMyshkin]

What a bunch of rubbish.


Which is what I usually get when I ask those who believe in the existence of God to provide for the basis of their beliefs.

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong... I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me." Feynman, Richard, quoted in Gleick, Genius: The life & Science of Richard Feynman, p. 438

“God is merely the answer that you get if you do not ask enough questions.”

[Gorilla King]

Which is what I usually get when I ask those who believe in the existence of God to provide for the basis of their beliefs.

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong... I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me." Feynman, Richard, quoted in Gleick, Genius: The life & Science of Richard Feynman, p. 438

“God is merely the answer that you get if you do not ask enough questions.”

Well get specific! If I ask you to teach me about biology, is it much use if I dismiss you because you can't condense thousands of pages of reading into a handful of paragraphs?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Well get specific! If I ask you to teach me about biology, is it much use if I dismiss you because you can't condense thousands of pages of reading into a handful of paragraphs?

If you were to ask me about the basis for my belief in the findings of biology I would tell you that those findings have been tested.

You get defensive when asked about the basis of your beliefs, as if 'God' were incompetent to defend himself against attack and it was up to you to do so. The existence of God is not within my competence either to affirm or disprove; it is the authority and the touchiness of those who profess to 'know' Him that I am curious about.

[NikolaiI]

It's true though, that when you're on one side you really do believe it's true. As Donnie Darko said from the movie Donnie Darko, "I want to believe I'm not alone, but I don't know. I've just never seen any proof, you know? I don't debate it anymore. I used to, but I don't anymore. You could debate it all your life and not be anywhere further. It's absurd! So I just don't debate it anymore."

I agree with Feynman. Living and not knowing, or living and being alone is nothing terrible. I don't fear death, etc., either. Some theologians think it's inherent that all people are terrified by death, etc., like Camus, and it just doesn't make sense.

And about God and not knowing, the only reason we consider it at all, and are debating it, is because of the precise way we were raised. We were raised, taught the issue, etc., talked with people about it ever since our childhood and schooldays. If, for example, you never knew anything about it, you wouldn't think anything about it. Consider a child raised in a small community, seperate from the modern world. She was taught nothing about religion or God, she just lived with nature, knew plants and animals and the seasons in all their freshness and beauty, the warmth of the sun in the summer, the grass on her bare feet and the streams, and winter in all its vigor and freshness, and lived with her family and community and people who loved her, but she never knew God - then she would think of the world as a safe place, she would be happy and think of the world as a good place, and and she wouldn't be sad because she was alone in the universe or unhappy because she didn't know...theology.

The Christian mythic narrative, as so-and-so calls it, has many adherents. Some of them were, really did fit the negative stereotype some atheists have of Christians. I mean the ones who were the opposite of what the ideal was - what Christ was - the ones you just want see- you say you follow Christ!?? The type of person Nietzsche thought a Christian was. But obviously the way it should be is a good religion, one that preaches compassion and enlightenment, etc., i.e., if one follows Jesus. I think one problem is that people take the bible too literally. It's a mythic narrative. There are lots of others. It doesn't have a monopoly on truth, rationality, logic, and everything good, goodness. It isn't the one and only truth. Going through Buddha is the same as going through Christ. Proof: the actions are the same, and the thoughts are the same.

That's my opinion. Hope that helps, stella. I find it strange when people take strange things for granted; things that are strange to me. Like, we should all be depressed, or things should be this way or that, pretty much almost anything. Like, if someone bases everything on the bible. Then you're in an argument with them, and they use a verse from the bible as evidence, or proof. It's not evidence, it's only the point you made. And you're giving me another source for it. That doesn't convince me. Or when people argue about who's right. It's very strange. I don't have anything to prove to anyone. But, I understand you when you say it's hard to grasp how someone could, not believe anything, because we all feel that way about people who believe different things.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Nikolai, what a wonderful, temperate post your last is! Thank you. I once made up this mantra for myself:

"Nothing to prove - everything to discover."

[NikolaiI]

Haha, no thank you.,that was a very pleasant surprise. I'm glad you liked it, I like your posts, too..

I actually got that from a Zen talk I heard on youtube by Bon Yeon.

[Gorilla King]

If you were to ask me about the basis for my belief in the findings of biology I would tell you that those findings have been tested.

You get defensive when asked about the basis of your beliefs, as if 'God' were incompetent to defend himself against attack and it was up to you to do so. The existence of God is not within my competence either to affirm or disprove; it is the authority and the touchiness of those who profess to 'know' Him that I am curious about.

And I tell you my beliefs have been tested far more than yours, but you find the methods of testing to be unsatisfactory and dismiss them. Do you really believe that the thousands, perhaps even millions of miracles people have experienced even in the last century can all just be dismissed? If I tell you I've seen a woman in a wheelchair who has been there since she was a teenager walk after being prayed over, how are you going to explain it? Are you going to dismiss it because you can't apply the scientific method to it? seems to me that the scientific method is a rather limiting box in terms of human experience.

[Gorilla King]

It's true though, that when you're on one side you really do believe it's true. As Donnie Darko said from the movie Donnie Darko, "I want to believe I'm not alone, but I don't know. I've just never seen any proof, you know? I don't debate it anymore. I used to, but I don't anymore. You could debate it all your life and not be anywhere further. It's absurd! So I just don't debate it anymore."

I agree with Feynman. Living and not knowing, or living and being alone is nothing terrible. I don't fear death, etc., either. Some theologians think it's inherent that all people are terrified by death, etc., like Camus, and it just doesn't make sense.

And about God and not knowing, the only reason we consider it at all, and are debating it, is because of the precise way we were raised. We were raised, taught the issue, etc., talked with people about it ever since our childhood and schooldays. If, for example, you never knew anything about it, you wouldn't think anything about it. Consider a child raised in a small community, seperate from the modern world. She was taught nothing about religion or God, she just lived with nature, knew plants and animals and the seasons in all their freshness and beauty, the warmth of the sun in the summer, the grass on her bare feet and the streams, and winter in all its vigor and freshness, and lived with her family and community and people who loved her, but she never knew God - then she would think of the world as a safe place, she would be happy and think of the world as a good place, and and she wouldn't be sad because she was alone in the universe or unhappy because she didn't know...theology.

The Christian mythic narrative, as so-and-so calls it, has many adherents. Some of them were, really did fit the negative stereotype some atheists have of Christians. I mean the ones who were the opposite of what the ideal was - what Christ was - the ones you just want see- you say you follow Christ!?? The type of person Nietzsche thought a Christian was. But obviously the way it should be is a good religion, one that preaches compassion and enlightenment, etc., i.e., if one follows Jesus. I think one problem is that people take the bible too literally. It's a mythic narrative. There are lots of others. It doesn't have a monopoly on truth, rationality, logic, and everything good, goodness. It isn't the one and only truth. Going through Buddha is the same as going through Christ. Proof: the actions are the same, and the thoughts are the same.

That's my opinion. Hope that helps, stella. I find it strange when people take strange things for granted; things that are strange to me. Like, we should all be depressed, or things should be this way or that, pretty much almost anything. Like, if someone bases everything on the bible. Then you're in an argument with them, and they use a verse from the bible as evidence, or proof. It's not evidence, it's only the point you made. And you're giving me another source for it. That doesn't convince me. Or when people argue about who's right. It's very strange. I don't have anything to prove to anyone. But, I understand you when you say it's hard to grasp how someone could, not believe anything, because we all feel that way about people who believe different things.

Ultimate truth by it's very nature has to be objective. Therefore the vast majority of what you've said is entirely without foundation. The fact that you say going through Buddha and Christ is one in the same is telling considering that Buddha's idea of salvation is ceasing to exist and Christ's is being restored to ones original design.

[PrinceMyshkin]

And I tell you my beliefs have been tested far more than yours,

You see, that is what I think it comes down to with you, some sort of personal competition (and one, I may say, that you are determined to win by any means available to you): "my beliefs have been tested far more than yours," my beliefs are truer, better, bigger, more moral &c., &c. than yours, underlying which, I'm inclined to conjecture, is the core belief: I'm better than you are.

So be it.

[NikolaiI]

Ultimate truth by it's very nature has to be objective. Therefore the vast majority of what you've said is entirely without foundation. The fact that you say going through Buddha and Christ is one in the same is telling considering that Buddha's idea of salvation is ceasing to exist and Christ's is being restored to ones original design.

No you have it opposite with Christ and Buddha. Haha, sorry, but I don't know what to say. If you had read anything the Buddha said you would not say something like that. I mean, you are basically saying the Buddha said the solution to life was suicide.

As far as subjectivity and objectivity, let me tell you, they are both good. And I don't think any of my points were any of the things you might think they were.

:)
You should read my post on page 8. :)

Peace,
Nikolai

[weepingforloman]

Nikolai, I believe GK's point is that Christianity is, by its nature, exclusive. Christ did, after all, say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Paul says "If anyone adds anything to these words [Scripture] he is a false teacher." The exclusivity is built directly into the faith. I don't know if it is logically possible to reconcile Buddhism and Christianity, unless of course you use Buddhism only as a means of meditation and contemplation of moral obligation.

[NikolaiI]

You added words, though. :D

[PrinceMyshkin]

Nikolai, I believe GK's point is that Christianity is, by its nature, exclusive. Christ did, after all, say "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Paul says "If anyone adds anything to these words [Scripture] he is a false teacher." The exclusivity is built directly into the faith. I don't know if it is logically possible to reconcile Buddhism and Christianity, unless of course you use Buddhism only as a means of meditation and contemplation of moral obligation.

In which case, Jesus the son and Paul, the creator of Christianity, were less than God the father who created us ALL in his image.

Just as Marx is reported to have said of the doctrine that was made from his writings, "Je ne suis pas Marxist," I sometimes imagine that Jesus, looking on at the hodge-podge of sects that claim his name, their dogmatism and in some cases their obscene wealth, "I am not a Christian."

[weepingforloman]

Again, and again, and again, people throw up the argument that "Christianity must be wrong, look at its members!" That is just so wrong. I wouldn't, were I trying to decide upon a belief, judge atheism wrong because the Columbine shooters killed a girl after asking her if she believed in God. Furthermore, not every person who claims to be a Christian is really one. I recommend reading the book Real Christianity, which is a modern update of William Wilberforce's A Practical View of Christianity. The discussion of what he calls "social Christians" takes up a long time. And yes, Christ would be upset with the state of the Church-- any rational person would be. I am, for one. And Christ would not call himself a Christian anymore than Allah would call himself a Muslim.

And, yes, Paul is less than God the Father. So what? He is believed by the orthodox to have been divinely inspired in the writings of his that are included in the Bible, just as all the other biblical writers are believed to have been divinely inspired. But Christ is not less than God the Father, he IS God, with the Father. The three hypostases, or persons, of the Trinity are regarded to be "equal in power and deity." They are all equally God. The difference is solely in their function. Part of the function of the Son is to provide an image of what it means to submit wholly to the will of God... Even to the point of death by torture.

Grace and Peace.

[JGL57]

Again, and again, and again, people throw up the argument that "Christianity must be wrong, look at its members!" That is just so wrong. I wouldn't, were I trying to decide upon a belief, judge atheism wrong because the Columbine shooters killed a girl after asking her if she believed in God. Furthermore, not every person who claims to be a Christian is really one. I recommend reading the book Real Christianity, which is a modern update of William Wilberforce's A Practical View of Christianity. The discussion of what he calls "social Christians" takes up a long time. And yes, Christ would be upset with the state of the Church-- any rational person would be. I am, for one. And Christ would not call himself a Christian anymore than Allah would call himself a Muslim.

And, yes, Paul is less than God the Father. So what? He is believed by the orthodox to have been divinely inspired in the writings of his that are included in the Bible, just as all the other biblical writers are believed to have been divinely inspired. But Christ is not less than God the Father, he IS God, with the Father. The three hypostases, or persons, of the Trinity are regarded to be "equal in power and deity." They are all equally God. The difference is solely in their function. Part of the function of the Son is to provide an image of what it means to submit wholly to the will of God... Even to the point of death by torture.

Grace and Peace.

All fine and dandy understood as allegory. Taken literally as fact? There's the rub.

[weepingforloman]

Say what you want, J, I'll stick to my backward, unenlightened, patriarchal, medieval, reactionary, fundamentalist, dogmatic interpretation. Carry on with your enlightened, open-minded, modern interpretation.

[Dark Star]

Am I correct in assuming that you truly believe that Jesus meant that all non-Christians go to hell, then? I agree that it's rather exclusive, by the way.

[weepingforloman]

It's not that all non-Christians go to Hell, as if Heaven is a country club or something, it's that EVERYONE is headed there without the intervention of Christ. Feel free to punch the wall if you need to.

[Dark Star]

So, how do you interpret "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." then? And...what is required for an intervention from Jesus to occur?

[weepingforloman]

As I said, without Christ all go to Hell. Hence the "I am the Way..." statement. I am Calvinist, and this is how we break down the salvation process: God chooses (elects) those whom He wants to save. God, through a specific outpouring of grace, causes the elect to have faith in Christ. Faith in Christ saves a man. Christ is God, so election is intervention by Christ. Of course, you could use the same term to refer to the Crucifixion.

[Dark Star]

Seems to me that it still equates to non-believers going to Hell; if the reason is that God hasn't chosen for them to have faith in Christ or not.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

hey all, the other day i came across this quote by Voltaire:
"If God didn't exist it would be necessary for us to invent Him"

looking at ancient civilizations such as the Greeks and the Romans and even before that , they all didn't have an idea about "God"and so they created their own...
my question is how can someone not believe in anything how can you be an atheist?
i do believe that humans have this urge to believe in something bigger than they are no matter what this thing is....

I have not read all the pages in between this and the first, but I have heard it and spent a lot of time on it.

Yes, I love this quotation. Dostoevsky wrote his "Grand Inquisitor" story with this in mind, it is very good (I won't ruin it). What Dostoevsky says is that humanity is naturally submissive and must appeal to a higher power, and he expresses this through Ivan Karamazov, a cold rationalist from the novel The Brothers Karamazov.

According to Ivan, if God does not exist, then people would have made him up. He thinks this because mammals have submitted to something they admit is greater since the dawn of time. Examples of this are monarchies, military heirarchy, even more developed species of animals are members of packs led by one. Basically, it doesn't matter whether you're a piss ant or an alpha male, life has the natural inclination to be submissive, to some degree.

Furthermore, Ivan appeals to God's apparent lack of compassion and mercy, as evidenced by "Rebellion," a chapter of TBK. During his conversation with Alyosha, his brother, Ivan tells him a story of a boy that was playing with rocks and threw one, which unfortunately lands on a dog's paw. The dog belongs to a ruthless general and he is not pleased; the general orders his men to take the boy (who is now in his mother's arms), rip all his clothes off and force the boy to run. Shortly thereafter, the boy is torn to shreds by the general's hounds while the mother watches. After finishing the story, Ivan tells Alyosha that appealing to a benevolent God is nonsense, and famously states "Everything is Permitted," and that if there happens to be a dual God, and he is somehow allowed to enter heaven, he will decline the invitation on the grounds that he cannot morally accept bliss at the expense of a child's suffering.

What he means by "everything is permitted" is that there is not a God that chooses who is slayed, which person becomes ill, and that there is no necessity for justice. He says that people need to feel as though there is a reason for such atrocities, a reason that appeals to their emotions instead of say physics or philosophy. Without a sense of justice or hope, humanity would not be able to reproduce knowing that their offspring await a lifetime of being owned by physics, chemistry and psychology. Therefore, in order for humanity to exist, they need an omnipresent, benevolent God to submit to, not only to provide a reason why nature seems to not care about human suffering, but also to justify it.

Voltaire is strikingly similar to Dostoevsky in that they are both pessimists and have utterly realized the absurdity of life.

And to answer your other question, I believe this has been said before...atheism doesn't imply a belief in nothing, but moreso a disbelief in a magic God that plans all this nonsense. The difference between a believer and an atheist is hope.

[weepingforloman]

Seems to me that it still equates to non-believers going to Hell; if the reason is that God hasn't chosen for them to have faith in Christ or not.

Yes, non-believers go to Hell, but you miss the general dynamic. It is not that I am better than anyone because I believe, it is that there is only one way to atone for the horror we have become (namely, let Christ atone for you, and then accept His atonement). Additionally, I get the impression that you think of Hell as a forcibly held prison-fortress. I advise you to read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis for a different perspective.

[weepingforloman]

I have not read all the pages in between this and the first, but I have heard it and spent a lot of time on it.

Yes, I love this quotation. Dostoevsky wrote his "Grand Inquisitor" story with this in mind, it is very good (I won't ruin it). What Dostoevsky says is that humanity is naturally submissive and must appeal to a higher power, and he expresses this through Ivan Karamazov, a cold rationalist from the novel The Brothers Karamazov.

According to Ivan, if God does not exist, then people would have made him up. He thinks this because mammals have submitted to something they admit is greater since the dawn of time. Examples of this are monarchies, military heirarchy, even more developed species of animals are members of packs led by one. Basically, it doesn't matter whether you're a piss ant or an alpha male, life has the natural inclination to be submissive, to some degree.

Furthermore, Ivan appeals to God's apparent lack of compassion and mercy, as evidenced by "Rebellion," a chapter of TBK. During his conversation with Alyosha, his brother, Ivan tells him a story of a boy that was playing with rocks and threw one, which unfortunately lands on a dog's paw. The dog belongs to a ruthless general and he is not pleased; the general orders his men to take the boy (who is now in his mother's arms), rip all his clothes off and force the boy to run. Shortly thereafter, the boy is torn to shreds by the general's hounds while the mother watches. After finishing the story, Ivan tells Alyosha that appealing to a benevolent God is nonsense, and famously states "Everything is Permitted," and that if there happens to be a dual God, and he is somehow allowed to enter heaven, he will decline the invitation on the grounds that he cannot morally accept bliss at the expense of a child's suffering.

What he means by "everything is permitted" is that there is not a God that chooses who is slayed, which person becomes ill, and that there is no necessity for justice. He says that people need to feel as though there is a reason for such atrocities, a reason that appeals to their emotions instead of say physics or philosophy. Without a sense of justice or hope, humanity would not be able to reproduce knowing that their offspring await a lifetime of being owned by physics, chemistry and psychology. Therefore, in order for humanity to exist, they need an omnipresent, benevolent God to submit to, not only to provide a reason why nature seems to not care about human suffering, but also to justify it.

Voltaire is strikingly similar to Dostoevsky in that they are both pessimists and have utterly realized the absurdity of life.

And to answer your other question, I believe this has been said before...atheism doesn't imply a belief in nothing, but moreso a disbelief in a magic God that plans all this nonsense. The difference between a believer and an atheist is hope.

No one said God is "magic." Don't invent your own terms, please.
And how could you blame God for the actions of a man like the general? That doesn't make sense. What would the world be like if everything wrong was miraculously stopped from happening by God? We would be living in the most successful autocracy in all of history.

[Unbeliever]

As I said, without Christ all go to Hell. Hence the "I am the Way..." statement. I am Calvinist, and this is how we break down the salvation process: God chooses (elects) those whom He wants to save. God, through a specific outpouring of grace, causes the elect to have faith in Christ. Faith in Christ saves a man. Christ is God, so election is intervention by Christ. Of course, you could use the same term to refer to the Crucifixion.

So, none of us has any choice in the matter of where we spend eternity? We either were or were not chosen by God/Christ to be saved, and that's that? Then why should we spend any time worrying about it? Nothing we can do will cause us to be saved if God hasn't chosen us, and even if we believe and behave as Christians we won't be saved if God hasn't chosen us.

[Dark Star]

Yes, non-believers go to Hell, but you miss the general dynamic. It is not that I am better than anyone because I believe, it is that there is only one way to atone for the horror we have become (namely, let Christ atone for you, and then accept His atonement). Additionally, I get the impression that you think of Hell as a forcibly held prison-fortress. I advise you to read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis for a different perspective.

Thanks for clarifying.

Before I go dragging out a book by him with some hard-earned money, can you give me a bit of a summary?

I can't tell whether you believe that Hell is escapable...or take the kinder view that some Christians take that Hell is simply a separation from God rather than something more like Dante's Inferno.

[weepingforloman]

First of all, separation from God is WORSE than Dante's Inferno. Secondly, I am unsure whether or not, at the creation of the "new heavens and new earth" foretold in Revelations, souls in Hell will be granted redeemed bodies. It's over my head. The summary of The Great Divorce (which is a novel, but theologically rich enough to count as a book of theology): humans are presented with the choice of staying in Heaven after death. However, most have one or more hang-ups they can't overcome, and, since these would not be allowed in Heaven, they choose to remain in Hell, cherishing whatever it is they cannot give up, until even that is a misery to them.

[Dark Star]

Thanks, I'll look into that novel.

And, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. As someone with what could be considered 'a separation from God' I'd prefer that to being tortured for eternity as my choice of hell.

[Unbeliever]

How can anyone be separated from an omnipresent God? Even the Psalmist doesn't think that's possible - even in Hell:


Psalm 139:7-8
Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

[weepingforloman]

The NIV translates that passage as "under the earth." It may be that separation from God means being separated from Him in certain modes (He can be more or less present to an individual at any given time) or perhaps even being unmade entirely (though I am skeptical of this).


Thanks, I'll look into that novel.
You might get something out of it, and it's an enjoyable read.


And, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. As someone with what could be considered 'a separation from God' I'd prefer that to being tortured for eternity as my choice of hell.
My point was that the typical picture of physical/pseudo-physical torture does not grasp the pain felt in the absence of God. Imagine all sense of goodness being removed... That is what it would be like, and more besides.

[Dark Star]

The NIV translates that passage as "under the earth." It may be that separation from God means being separated from Him in certain modes (He can be more or less present to an individual at any given time) or perhaps even being unmade entirely (though I am skeptical of this).

Good to see that you use the NIV. :D


My point was that the typical picture of physical/pseudo-physical torture does not grasp the pain felt in the absence of God. Imagine all sense of goodness being removed... That is what it would be like, and more besides.

D'OH! Of course. I get your point now. I was forgetting to look at that from the perspective of a believer in the Christian God. (Which I am going to define very loosely for the sake of this exercise, as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god.) Yes, that would be worse than the stereotypical image of Hell.

[weepingforloman]

Slipped out of the mindset, eh?

[weepingforloman]

So, none of us has any choice in the matter of where we spend eternity? We either were or were not chosen by God/Christ to be saved, and that's that? Then why should we spend any time worrying about it? Nothing we can do will cause us to be saved if God hasn't chosen us, and even if we believe and behave as Christians we won't be saved if God hasn't chosen us.

You can only believe if God elects you. The criteria for salvation is the same, it's just that the initiative lies with God. His election is reflected in temporal existence.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

No one said God is "magic." Don't invent your own terms, please.
And how could you blame God for the actions of a man like the general? That doesn't make sense. What would the world be like if everything wrong was miraculously stopped from happening by God? We would be living in the most successful autocracy in all of history.

That material is not mine, Dostoevsky wrote the book; its, uh, supposed to be pretty good...

[NikolaiI]

It is pretty good, and Ivan's argument in "The Grand Inquisitor" is pretty deep. It includes a good explanation of Christianity, one I hadn't heard before, and one I could actually accept. Christ died on the Cross for our sins, etc., instead of calling down an angelic host to save himself. Had he, then all the people watching would have bowed before him, but they would have been slaves. Etc., etc., I think he also talks about saints denying themselves earthly bread so they could enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I can't remember it well right now, but I liked that part too.


No one said God is "magic."

Are you sure? Hehe.

[weepingforloman]

That material is not mine, Dostoevsky wrote the book; its, uh, supposed to be pretty good...

It appeared to me that you agreed with "the material."

[PrinceMyshkin]

You can only believe if God elects you. The criteria for salvation is the same, it's just that the initiative lies with God. His election is reflected in temporal existence.

For heaven’s sake, put aside your voodoo dolls, your tribal Gods and shibboleths, your priestly feathers and leopard-skins, your ever more sophisticated parsing of ancient texts, and concern yourself with over-population, global warming, starvation, the unequal distribution of wealth, pandemics...

[weepingforloman]

I am, of course, concerned with these things. God is, too. He tells us to be just, well, then we must be just. He tells us to care for the poor, well, then we must care for the poor. He says a rich man cannot get into the kingdom of God anymore than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle. Well, then the rich must give away their belongings.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I am, of course, concerned with these things. God is, too. He tells us to be just, well, then we must be just. He tells us to care for the poor, well, then we must care for the poor. He says a rich man cannot get into the kingdom of God anymore than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle. Well, then the rich must give away their belongings.


Let us begin then with those churches that have extensive real estate holdings, artifacts of gold and silver, giving away their belongings. As for what God is or is not concerned with, I have yet to hear from him other than in a book which proclaims that it is the work of God but which is derived from many other sources of other 'Gods' who have passed away.

[Gorilla King]

Let us begin then with those churches that have extensive real estate holdings, artifacts of gold and silver, giving away their belongings. As for what God is or is not concerned with, I have yet to hear from him other than in a book which proclaims that it is the work of God but which is derived from many other sources of other 'Gods' who have passed away.

You've made a lot of claims, now provide evidence.

[PrinceMyshkin]

You've made a lot of claims, now provide evidence.


There is none so blind as those who will not see. Which of course you might equally retort to me if I were to ask you for evidence of the existence of your God (as distinct from that of the myriad other sects and cults).

However, some sources you might consult are:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,837684,00.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/theodore_dreiser/church_and_wealth_in_america.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n9_v34/ai_20226914

And many others you could Google

[Scheherazade]

It will be a shame if the thread gets closed simply because some are unable to refrain from making personal comments or showing disrespect towards others' beliefs.

[Gorilla King]

I don't disagree that the mega churches and such are a waste of money, but you made far more claims than that.

[weepingforloman]

Let us begin then with those churches that have extensive real estate holdings, artifacts of gold and silver, giving away their belongings. As for what God is or is not concerned with, I have yet to hear from him other than in a book which proclaims that it is the work of God but which is derived from many other sources of other 'Gods' who have passed away.

I suggest you read Mere Christianity, and pay special attention to the section in which Mr. Lewis discusses "good dreams." I believe his explanation of it appears in other of his works as well.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I suggest you read Mere Christianity, and pay special attention to the section in which Mr. Lewis discusses "good dreams." I believe his explanation of it appears in other of his works as well.

I feel that this is hopeless and I am hereby withdrawing from the discussion. The world is filled with people who hold beliefs other than mine, in some cases contradictory to mine, and yet I am content to leave them alone. I cannot adequately explain to you why it is not so for me vis a vis religious believers of every kind, but most particularly the evangelical sort. I feel - and I want to acknowledge that this is a personal feeling, one I’m not prepared to support with argument - I feel that religion is not merely wrong but that it is dangerous. Dangerous in the way that it is dangerous for any of us to live in or under mythologies.

I also feel that religious folk are among the worst for further dividing the world into Us and Them. Witness, if in no other way, the concept that only certain of us will go to Heaven. Now, I do not believe in an afterlife but I sometimes feel that this projection of my non-entrance to heaven is tantamount to wishing me in Hell - and in the present!

[weepingforloman]

I am sorry you feel that way. Understand that any shortcoming, in terms of hostility at least, of Christians is NOT the result of the beliefs, but of the person.

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Gorilla King]

And the last thing I'll say about it is if in fact the Christian concept of heaven and hell is true (which I believe it is but I know you do not) then it's not by God's will that you would go to hell, but by your own choosing. And it's not because God is a tyrant. He became a man and gave his own life so that you could go to heaven. The reason you won't is for rejecting God's payment for your sins. Though while you still live there is still hope, but the choice just as with Adam and Eve between relying on God and relying on yourself for salvation is in your hands.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

It appeared to me that you agreed with "the material."

I was answering the original post, chill bro

[weepingforloman]

(Taking liberal amounts of Ritalin)

[Logos]

hey all, the other day i came across this quote by Voltaire:

"If God didn't exist it would be necessary for us to invent Him"

....

my question is how can someone not believe in anything how can you be an atheist?

This thread is no longer addressing the OP.