I believe in the creation of values by men. Whether these are going to be "good" or not, it remains to see in everyday life. What exactly do you mean by claiming that Bible is history? If what you mean is that the facts being told are actually "real" historical events, I' m quite unsure (the story of creation, for example, seems to be an allegory, and even the incarnation of the loard -the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth- is challenged by some researchers - not to mention his resurrection, the fundemental rock of christianity). Bible is of course situated in socio-historical context and the more fresh books of the old testament were probably written one or two centuries before christ. The gospels, on the other hand, were written from 50-70 (the first three) to 100-120 (the latter), and it is doubtfull whether the authors are those the christian tradition recognizes.
So you think there can be a standard (morality and ethics) without anyone to set the standard? How does that work with your belief in relativism (for lack of a better way to say it)? And I don't believe that God supports specific ideas on politics, social issues, cultures, and nations. As long as they don't break the laws of right and wrong, I think they're neutral. So "death of God" means "death of cultural dependence on God." No, but I read history--and I consider the Bible history. When God created man, it was perfect until man took control of his own destiny. Sounds questionable, but since the Bible has been confirmed by archaology, I believe it. Under all other rulers and governors, there was injustice (racial or not), rebellion, poverty, starvation, corruption, treachery, cruelty, intolerance, persecutions (of those of any religion, not just mine) economic failure, chaos, violent seisure of power, assasinations, collapse of existing power: even under the leaders we remember with the most respect today. I don't know which ones you are familiar with, so I won't list who I think were the best human leaders.
What I wanted to say is that the fact that god may exist doesn' t change much things (in my opinion) on morality issues. Unfortunately, mostly atheists agree with this view and "believers" are very sure that god's "essence" necessarily support a specific branch of beliefs on themes such us society, family, homosexuality, politics, different cultures and nations etc. I hope you disagree with this understanding of god, but your faith in a once and for all given code of right and wrong is usually being mentioned by conservatives. P.S. I used the phrase "death of god" with its meaning in philosophy. A respectful thinker in the second half of 19th century used it to announce that a new era whas at hand, in which mankind wouldn' t be in need of god inorder to live a meaningful life. P.S. 2 "Only under one person has life ever been perfect: God." Do you have any memories of that period?
I know about fathers and sons. I have two teenage brothers. And I have my moments, too. Narcissism seems to me to be natural. I don't think a narcissist is any worse (or better) than anyone else. Your last sentence could be taken as "I would welcome God's death because, if He exists, His essence is love and liberty," but I don't think that's what you meant.
Lady M., my "serious problem" with Father isn' t sth special, and perhaps I added some drama to give you that impression. There were of course moments when I hated him but this happens frequently to young men. Narcissism is the situation in which someone is inlove with his own self-image: egocentric personality is another way to say it (I wasn' t using the term with its meaning in psychology, where narcissism is sth like a disorder). Haven' t you ever heard of Brecht? Well, you may "google" him if you want. I hold the view that -potentially- everyone can create a healthy relationship with religion (and christianity) no matter how strong or smart or cultured he/she is. I also believe that everyone could possibly formulate a complete personality without any refference to any kind of religion. I am a christian who welcomes god's death because I deeply have the opinion that, if god truely exists, his "essence" must be love and liberty.
4. I apologize for seeming to hastily judge what you are saying. It is difficult for me to understand all the details of what you are saying when all I have is what you have written, especially since I don't know you well. I understood from your way of speaking of religion (Christianity) that it was as much good to you as nonsense is. Do you mean that you hold the view that religion may work for some people and not for others? For example, it may give me inner peace, but you find your peace in a different way? 5. When you say "religion is not for the weak, but being used by the weak," do you mean both the strong and the weak of mind and will may put their whole trust in religion? 6. What is a narcissist? 7. If someone has a stern look on his face, he is frowning, and displeased with the person he is speaking to.
1. Brecht's hero is intelligent. Who is Brecht? 2. Crimes have been committed in the name of Jesus, but not by true Christians. From what you have already said about Him, I think that you would agree that someone who really follows the teachings of a truly good person such as Jesus was (whether or not He is God) would not violate another person's life or safety in the name of those teachings. 3. I do not belive that a father-figure is necessary for one to learn to love others. I was trying to see things from your perspective. Obviously you don't mind announcing that you have a serious problem with your father (though I'm not asking for more details), and I was thinking that that probably has something to do with your opposition of the idea of a perfectly good, loving Father God.
1. I agree too, but I am not sure whether there is an efficient alternative to evolution. 2. A Brecht' s hero was once asked if god existed. He told the man who asked him to think whether the answer would change his behaviour. If not, the answer wasn' t needed. If yes then, Brecht's hero noted, the man had already decided: he was in need of a god. 3. I don' t usually reject anything, although one might say that I have considerable experience on being rejected. Crimes have taken place in the name of Jesus, and I don' t remember doing them. 4. You speak for "religious nonsense" and I think I never used these words - the fact that you believe I think like this maybe tells us more about your (black/white, right/wrong) way of thinking. I don' t believe religion is for the weak, but that it is being used by weak. Do you really believe that a father-figure is needed to learn to love yourself and others? If you do, we seriously differ at this point. Of course I am selfish, and even almost a narcissist: do you recommend I should feel guilty for that? 5. Yes! Yes! I tend to be joyful, but the inner peace comes after the realisation of difficulties life is full of - it is difficult to embrace life without seeing its ugliness - this might be the different between serious pessimism on the one hand, and optimism and "pessimism" on the other. 6. I don' t know what "stern" means, but I found the purple face to be cute.
1. I agree. The US is far from perfect. They should teach evolution in the schools, alongside whatever other theory they favor, so the students can make up their own minds. 2. If God would bend His own rules to get what He wanted, His Son's safety, then I wouldn't have much respect for Him, either. It's the fact that He followed His own laws He had set, at cost to Himself, that makes me pay attention to the rest of the story. But we differ there. 3. So was it Greek Orthodoxy you rejected? If so, my beliefs are slightly different, but enough alike for you to already be familiar with my thinking. 4. We use the word "eschatology" a lot. Yes, that is part of my thinking. We can agree to disagree, but I think the main difference comes down to this: do we disagree because you're older and wiser and have already worked through all that religious nonsense and found a better way--or because you want to "make it on your own" without a father-figure, and I don't mind admitting I don't have all the answers to life? I may be a woman (if you think religion is for the weak), but it's a question worth considering. 5. I didn't mean "happy or optimistic" when I said "joyful." I meant that assurance deep inside that everything's fine, that you don't have to make sure everything works out for you. "Peace" would be another word I could use. 6. Do smiling faces make you worried because they're happy? I'll try to use frowning faces later to let you know I don't want to sound as stern as my words make me.
1.I don' t know if god created us. Modern science has made unnecessary the use of god's concept to the explanation of how universe and life were formed and evolved. I 've heard that in some US states the theory of evolution is not allowed at schools (!) and I find theories inspired by teleology (I don' t know if the word exists in english: telos means "perpuse" and "end") to be at least suspect. 2.God created the world out of love? This is exactly the arguement against which my questions are raised. You sound like believing that god was in need of creating Man as if he was imperfect - not to mention how selfish is to create a being "to your own image that you could love"! Is it possible for god (the loving father) to create man based on his own image, just because he was too excited with his perfect full of love status that he wanted other beings to participate in it, too? I' m sorry, but it is quite more serious (even if not true) to deny god than to accept the whole story. 3. Jesus might be perfect, but father might not: if the Son was perfect, as you say, why did he die for mankind (this was my first question)? You answered by claiming that Jesus had to die in order for the men to be reconciled with the father. Atonement. But why the perfect father send his own (and only!) perfect son to death just to save us? If he was so mighty he could forgive as immediately (but of course, the churches won' t like that!) instead of condemning to death an innocent (the fact that he was going to rise from the dead afterwards doesn' t make it easier). My final point is that I was already aware of your answers - they were quite the same with the answers of greek-orthodox (and christian in general) church. However, as I' ve tried to show, these answers can' t solve all problems and new questions rise that just cannot be easily answered. I remember our conversation had to do with forms of government: if I understand well, what you support is somekind of "final solution" through a theological (?) radical trasformation of society (In greek I would say "eschatological" which refers to views focused on -or related to- the last days)? P.S. I ' d like to add that someone doesn' t have to be an atheist to be an "angry, bitter, wretched person": my experience tends to show the opposite (you see, there are more fanatic relegious than fanatic atheists). Now if joyful means happy or optimistic, I must say I am not. I am a deep pessimist and as a defence mechanism I 'm not serious at all. When I see serious faces I lough (not at them, but for them!) and when I see loughing faces I feel worried.
