Seaward wrote: The pollsters were unable to find anyone under the age of 28 who professed a belief in a deity of any sort.
Awesome. While I suspect the zero was probably due more to bad survey design than a genuine complete absence of faith among the under-28 group, that's a pretty interesting (and promising) lack of religion. Welcome to the future of the world?
East Germany was Soviet until 23 years ago, so it's not really that surprising that a population that grew up in a setting where religion was supressed would have a large number of atheists. You might be able to use the same argument of "people only believe in religion because they have been brainwashed by their parents" and apply it in reverse here.
d-usa wrote: East Germany was Soviet until 23 years ago, so it's not really that surprising that a population that grew up in a setting where religion was supressed would have a large number of atheists. You might be able to use the same argument of "people only believe in religion because they have been brainwashed by their parents" and apply it in reverse here.
That would have been my first guess to, but the article makes an interesting case that isn't true. I wasn't aware, for instance, that East Germany's very strict political controls didn't really extend to religion.
I think that still plays a much greater part than the article gives credit, but there are other factors going on. For instance, whereas elsewhere in the world declining religion among affluent population has been hidden by immigration of very religious populations (latino populations into the US, Poles into the UK), that won't be much of a factor in East Germany, which is still poorer than West Germany and unlikely to attract similar immigration numbers. That in itself isn't enough to explain the number being anywhere near 52%, so probably the decline of local Protestantism and the absence of any other religion to pick up the slack is the major factor.
Anyway, interesting article. Cheers to the OP for posting it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I remember watching a documentary about the East German version of Coca Cola. Apparently, the state gave you 10 free cans a week!
D-USA, East Germany was not Soviet. It was a peace loving democracy that stood up to the Great Satan and its Zionist lackeys!
All I know is this: I want to watch Goodbye Lenin! again now...
I wonder what the numbers are like in other post-Communist countries? I know religion's not a major factor in Bulgaria, for instance, but a lot of people choose now to have a church wedding in addition to their (only part thar matters under the law) civil ceremony. And one of my wife's uncles gave us an icon of St. Gabriel as a wedding gift, though I think that was the only religious thing in our wedding.
I wonder what the numbers are like in other post-Communist countries? I know religion's not a major factor in Bulgaria, for instance, but a lot of people choose now to have a church wedding in addition to their (only part thar matters under the law) civil ceremony. And one of my wife's uncles gave us an icon of St. Gabriel as a wedding gift, though I think that was the only religious thing in our wedding.
My thought (without any facts to back it up) is that many of the other post-Communist countries seem to be in areas where the Orthodoxy has a bigger role, and while I often see Orthodox areas be less "religious" they would not consider themselves atheists. So I would not be surprised to see a smaller number there.
I wonder what the numbers are like in other post-Communist countries? I know religion's not a major factor in Bulgaria, for instance, but a lot of people choose now to have a church wedding in addition to their (only part thar matters under the law) civil ceremony. And one of my wife's uncles gave us an icon of St. Gabriel as a wedding gift, though I think that was the only religious thing in our wedding.
I'd proffer some of the countries have seen a strong resurgance. Poland is pretty religious. Morther Russia still has a strong church. Kazakhstan, well, you'll always have zinc.
I wonder what the numbers are like in other post-Communist countries? I know religion's not a major factor in Bulgaria, for instance, but a lot of people choose now to have a church wedding in addition to their (only part thar matters under the law) civil ceremony. And one of my wife's uncles gave us an icon of St. Gabriel as a wedding gift, though I think that was the only religious thing in our wedding.
I'd proffer some of the countries have seen a strong resurgance. Poland is pretty religious. Morther Russia still has a strong church. Kazakhstan, well, you'll always have zinc.
Poland's always been religious, though, and it's always been Catholic.
Russia's...Russia. I compare Russian Orthodox religiosity to moderate Catholicism in the States; it's something you do out of habit, rather than something you talk about or even think about. Every time I've been in a Russian church - and it's more times than you'd think, now that I consider it - it's little old babushkas and not much else. I'm not sure how it's faring among the younger Russians, but I'd be surprised if it were gaining ground.
Yea Poland's has a strong history of that, which was oppressed during the godless commie pinko years, hence the resurgence.
I am not as versed on how the Russians are doing. It doesn't seem like, well anything, is thriving there besides Putin's new dictator elite. Its like the whole country needs to go on vacation to the Bahamas or something.
Seaward wrote: Russia's...Russia. I compare Russian Orthodox religiosity to moderate Catholicism in the States; it's something you do out of habit, rather than something you talk about or even think about. Every time I've been in a Russian church - and it's more times than you'd think, now that I consider it - it's little old babushkas and not much else. I'm not sure how it's faring among the younger Russians, but I'd be surprised if it were gaining ground.
That's what I was trying to go after with my "not atheist, but also not religious" thoughts in regards to some of the countries that have a strong orthodoxy or catholic background.
Athiesm is fine, but to have a strong moral compass and compassion for human beings should be what those 28 and unders should have even if there is no religion.
That's what I was trying to go after with my "not atheist, but also not religious" thoughts in regards to some of the countries that have a strong orthodoxy or catholic background.
I think that's a good way of classifying it.
Everyone thinks the Soviets tried to utterly get rid of religion within their domain, which isn't all that accurate. I'd say the most recognizable Russian landmark isn't the Kremlin - which most people wouldn't recognize - but St. Basil's Cathedral in Red Square, and that was true even during the USSR era.
Yup, religion wasn't forbidden. It just wasn't promoted either. I suppose it may be that it was frowned upon and there were cases where individual people who were particularly adamant about abstaining from various government events due to their religious beliefs experienced repression in the form of not being admitted into a particular job or education, though I lack the statistical data to make anything but an assumption, and I only know that an official rule or policy like that did not exist (so it was probably some overzealous officials, similar to the recent abortion scandal in China). Generally, the government attempted to reduce people's dependency on the church, although it never quite succeeded in the small villages where the preachers remained a vital part of the small community - my grandma who lived in a small ~50 people village remained a firm church attender until the day she died, but my parents who moved into a city didn't.
One "substitute" for a church ritual I remember well is that of baptism being replaced by "youth consecration", whose origins are actually way older than the GDR itself, but it received much more support during those years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jugendweihe
Generally, the GDR was very much about science and knowledge, and I guess the "progressive spirit" was at odds with the concept of religious superstition. At least to me it never quite occurred why exactly I should start to believe in some theoretical deity. I consider myself fortunate not to have been raised in a family which would have attempted to instill such beliefs in me, as I think that one's opinion on religion has a lot to do with one's childhood and the things we just become accustomed to.
d-usa wrote:
Palindrome wrote:Who would have thought that East Germany was so advanced?
20% poverty rate.
12.7% unemployment.
Growing racism and neo-nazi affiliation.
But at least they don't believe in God, so they must be doing well
Well, those factors are on the rise ever since the Reunification. Atheism in East Germany is the product of GDR government policies, though, and nothing that the current administration (whose leading party even has a major religion in its very name) would have had any hand in. Different causes from different governments' decisions, and, indeed, different cultural values being propagated.
Come to think of it, I wouldn't be too surprised if the number of atheists is actually dropping nowadays, but then again I guess it may be harder to get "into" it when you're not raised in a particular way. Sadly, this may not be true for racism, but from what I can see humanity as a whole has a tendency to appreciate an opportunity to point fingers and make someone else a scapegoat for their own issue. And just like during the Weimar Republic, rising unemployment and poverty are feeding this trend like wood in a fire, with arguments like "them foreigners are stealing our jobs" that US citizens living close to the Mexican border may be knowing all too well themselves. Unlike the US, however, Germany is still a good deal less multicultural, and homogeinity makes it easier to single out minorities that are perceived as "different".
I can only hope for the best. Sometimes, I'm ashamed at what has become of my home country. It's especially sad when considering that there was once this fair ideal of "global friendship" propagated under the Soviet Union. It may have been a political tool by the party, but I remember contact with other cultures being promoted and sponsored with stuff like youth group meetings and so on. As long as they weren't evil Imperialists, of course.
One interesting theory I've heard is how state churches may be responsible for declining religious belief.
In countries where there's a state church, people tend to be apathetic about it. It's always there, but it's kind of in the background. You might go to it occasionally and do the "normal" things, but there isn't much reason to feel strongly about it so you end up with the kind of Christians who go to church for Christmas and maybe pray for something occasionally. And since they don't have much of a stake in religion it's easy to go from that minimal default belief to atheism, or at least to stop caring about religion entirely.
In the US, on the other hand, we never had a state church, so churches had to compete for members and religion became a marketing exercise. If you don't have a church (or don't care much about your church) there's a huge amount of effort spent on marketing various brands of Jesus to you. Do you like old traditional stuff? Great, we've got a Jesus for you! Are you a teenager in your rebellious phase? Great, let me tell you all about how you can rebel against society by going to church every sunday. Feeling overwhelmed by bills? Great, here's my book about how buying my brand of Jesus will increase your income 20000%! And of course once you buy one of these products it's like you're following your favorite sports team, you and your fellow fans are all unified against all your rivals and you have a high emotional stake in your choice. So it's much harder to abandon religion, you care about it more, and even if you stop caring so much there's always someone ready to lure you back in.
I could imagine a similar thing happening in eastern Germany, by moving religion to the state church the government set up that same kind of apathy and people just drifted away and never came back.
Peregrine wrote:I could imagine a similar thing happening in eastern Germany, by moving religion to the state church the government set up that same kind of apathy and people just drifted away and never came back.
I believe your theory about the excessive marketing, the various brands of religion, and the competitive spirit holds some merit. But I also have to point out that there was no "state church" in Eastern Germany. In fact, the Soviet Union enforced a strict segregation between state and church.*
After some initial confrontation between party and church during the first decade, religion just wasn't a part of daily life anymore and was largely ignored by both the government as well as the populace. Perhaps part of the reason was reduced funds and presence, and the Socialist government taking over many communal activities once used by the church to connect to the people, such as caring for the sick and elderly or doing events with the youth. Church taxes were abolished and government subsidies reduced by 25%, meaning that the church had to scale back many of its operations formerly funded by passive support from the state. Additionally, many churches were put under observation by the GDR's secret service, as some in the government feared religion as a potential enemy in the battle for peoples' hearts - not to mention that most preachers remained in contact with their western brothers-in-faith. Church magazines were only allowed to work via subscription but not public sale. Lastly, religious education was perhaps not exactly banned from the state's schools, but made a lot more difficult; the church was granted the constitutional right to use the school's facilities with attendance being decided by a child's parents, but a later law enforced a 2 hour break between curricular and extracurricular activities (exempting the state-run pioneer groups).
In the end, freedom of religion was guaranteed in the constitution, but the state's withdrawal of support and obstruction of the churches' attempts to recruit new believers gradually led to religion simply falling out of fashion. The culture of the GDR was one that propagated solidarity in all things, and people generally led a good life (not as luxurious as today, but also not as fearful of losing their jobs), so perhaps the religious community just didn't have a lot to offer. I think that historically, people mostly turn towards religion in times of need and despair, with divine intervention as a resolution to one's problems being a very attractive prospect for many. And once they're in it's nothing but a habit. Just like I'm still saying "oh my god", even though I'm not religious at all. I just cannot stop using that phrase.
*: Of course it's true that there was still just "one" Christian church as organised by the Bishop etc - but this has been so for centuries and it never really bothered anyone. In fact, this is the type of organisation under which the Inquisition, the Crusades and the Witch Hunts were done, so I don't think it actually affects how zealous its believers can get. It's got to be something else. Whenever a state and a church are working together, it usually ends with the church being granted ever more power to exert its influence and/or act against "enemies of the faith", whoever that may be.
generalgrog wrote:The title of the article got it all wrong as there is no such thing as a "Godless place on earth"
GG
There are plenty of godless places. In Eastern Germany, very few people in believe in a God. In Antarctica, pretty much no one believes in any Gods. In godless public schools around the world, they force Christians to have gay marriages and then kill them in the name of the Atheist God. In China only about 1% of people believe in the Christian god you're referring to. India is only slightly higher with around 2.3% of the population being Christian.
generalgrog wrote:The title of the article got it all wrong as there is no such thing as a "Godless place on earth"
GG
There are plenty of godless places. In Eastern Germany, very few people in believe in a God. In Antarctica, pretty much no one believes in any Gods. In godless public schools around the world, they force Christians to have gay marriages and then kill them in the name of the Atheist God. In China only about 1% of people believe in the Christian god you're referring to. India is only slightly higher with around 2.3% of the population being Christian.
I think his point is that while belief in god may vary, the God is omnipresent.
Polonius wrote: I think his point is that while belief in god may vary, the God is omnipresent.
Yeah. It's pretty impressive arrogance though.
(Plus, we already have a word for a place where that genocidal tyrant is omnipresent: hell.)
First, attributing an attribute onto another being isn't arrogance. It might be flattery or exaggeration, but it's not arrogant for me to say "my friend is super smart."
Second, genocide is the destruction of a people, nation, or culture. The god of abraham did wipe out all the peoples, but that's not really genocide. More like omnicide. the killing of all.
Third, the very definition of hell is that it is removed from god. So, it's actually the one place he isn't.
generalgrog wrote:The title of the article got it all wrong as there is no such thing as a "Godless place on earth"
GG
There are plenty of godless places. In Eastern Germany, very few people in believe in a God. In Antarctica, pretty much no one believes in any Gods. In godless public schools around the world, they force Christians to have gay marriages and then kill them in the name of the Atheist God. In China only about 1% of people believe in the Christian god you're referring to. India is only slightly higher with around 2.3% of the population being Christian.
I think his point is that while belief in god may vary, the God is omnipresent.
Polonius wrote: First, attributing an attribute onto another being isn't arrogance. It might be flattery or exaggeration, but it's not arrogant for me to say "my friend is super smart."
Yeah, but saying your friend is smart (presumably with good reason) is very different from declaring, with no good reason, that your god is everywhere, even in places where your religion is a trivial minority. It's arrogant because it dismisses all other equally valid (that is, not valid at all) beliefs and assumes that yours is the universal and correct one. It's the same kind of thing as telling someone you'll pray for them when they state a belief you don't agree with.
Second, genocide is the destruction of a people, nation, or culture. The god of abraham did wipe out all the peoples, but that's not really genocide. More like omnicide. the killing of all.
True, I suppose I should give god credit for having higher ambitions than mere genocide. However, the Bible is full of incidents where god commands his chosen people to go wipe out a rival nation or culture (complete with smashing their babies against rocks), so it's safe to say that god is a fan of both omnicide and genocide.
Third, the very definition of hell is that it is removed from god. So, it's actually the one place he isn't.
Nah, that would be Hell, the place where you hope you go when you die. A place where god is omnipresent would be hell, a place of horrible suffering.
Lol? The thought of your god being omnipresent doesn't really inspire hope. More like screaming in terror?
If you dont believe, don't scream. if you believe and think you are on the wrong side of God, then go ahead. I am with GG on this, its nice to remain under the wing no matter where i go.
Polonius wrote: First, attributing an attribute onto another being isn't arrogance. It might be flattery or exaggeration, but it's not arrogant for me to say "my friend is super smart."
Yeah, but saying your friend is smart (presumably with good reason) is very different from declaring, with no good reason, that your god is everywhere, even in places where your religion is a trivial minority. It's arrogant because it dismisses all other equally valid (that is, not valid at all) beliefs and assumes that yours is the universal and correct one. It's the same kind of thing as telling someone you'll pray for them when they state a belief you don't agree with.
If you truly believe that there is no reason, than a person isn't arrogance, they are delusional. I suppose you could argue for self importance, but really, if you're trying to be insulting, be technically correct about it.
True, I suppose I should give god credit for having higher ambitions than mere genocide. However, the Bible is full of incidents where god commands his chosen people to go wipe out a rival nation or culture (complete with smashing their babies against rocks), so it's safe to say that god is a fan of both omnicide and genocide.
Fun Fact: there is almost no human act of depravity you can't justify with the Bible. Some truly awful stuff goes on in the old testament. You'd almost think that, I dunno, the way god and man related changed in the New Testament.
Nah, that would be Hell, the place where you hope you go when you die. A place where god is omnipresent would be hell, a place of horrible suffering.
Are you just quoting Marylin Manson lyrics? That should be written on tear stained notebook paper, it's so emo.
Lol? The thought of your god being omnipresent doesn't really inspire hope. More like screaming in terror?
So, the Bible states that he's omnipotent and all-knowing. He creates you knowing everything you'll ever do and who you are. God makes you with flaws, and then he sends you to Hell for them. Like "I'll make this guy a murderer, I'll judge him for it and then I'll punish him for it".
So, the Bible states that he's omnipotent and all-knowing. He creates you knowing everything you'll ever do and who you are. God makes you with flaws, and then he sends you to Hell for them. Like "I'll make this guy a murderer, I'll judge him for it and then I'll punish him for it".
the idea of divine omnipotence has more to do Aristotle than the scripture, actually. The nature of the biblical god changes throughout the book. Early church thinkers were well steeped in Greek philosophy, and imparted in the god of Abraham the omnipotent logos of the greeks.
The key for me, as a Christian, is that what you have to understand about omnipotence is that it's power beyond power. When you create the laws of logic, they do not bind you. So yes, God can create you, knowing everything, and still give you free will.
LoneLictor wrote:The concept of God is kinda scary.
So, the Bible states that he's omnipotent and all-knowing. He creates you knowing everything you'll ever do and who you are. God makes you with flaws, and then he sends you to Hell for them. Like "I'll make this guy a murderer, I'll judge him for it and then I'll punish him for it".
the idea of divine omnipotence has more to do Aristotle than the scripture, actually. The nature of the biblical god changes throughout the book. Early church thinkers were well steeped in Greek philosophy, and imparted in the god of Abraham the omnipotent logos of the greeks.
The key for me, as a Christian, is that what you have to understand about omnipotence is that it's power beyond power. When you create the laws of logic, they do not bind you. So yes, God can create you, knowing everything, and still give you free will.
I've always had a hard time getting my mind around that. If God creates a man as a murderer when he could've chosen to make the man a pacifist, I don't really think its fair to the man. He's just a puppet; he can't be blamed for his actions. It's God, the guy who controls everything there ever was and will be, that's pulling the strings and making the murderer kill people. And it's also God that killed the murderer, it's God that created hell and created Satan to rule over hell, and its God that condemned the murderer he killed to go to hell for killing, which God made him do.
LoneLictor wrote: I've always had a hard time getting my mind around that. If God creates a man as a murderer when he could've chosen to make the man a pacifist, I don't really think its fair to the man. He's just a puppet; he can't be blamed for his actions. It's God, the guy who controls everything there ever was and will be, that's pulling the strings and making the murderer kill people. And it's also God that killed the murderer, it's God that created hell and created Satan to rule over hell, and its God that condemned the murderer he killed to go to hell for killing, which God made him do.
It's because you're thinking small. God isn't a star trek villain, or a Greek god, or a really super powerful dude.
God is literally beyond existence. None of the rules we know apply to Him. So yes, if god were bound by logic, he would know everything about a person, and is predestining him to his fate. But if God were no longer bound, he could truly give free will to man. In many ways, from a philosophical standpoint, that's not only the only supernatural act he'd need to perform (as everything else could happen without him), there's no really good way to explain free will apart from god.
Seaward wrote: Poland's always been religious, though, and it's always been Catholic.
When I was in Poland my mate said he was going to count every nun he saw. He stopped at about 40... on the first morning we were there. Seriously there are just nuns everywhere. We knew it was the most Catholic country in the world, but damn that was a lot of nuns.
Seaward wrote: Poland's always been religious, though, and it's always been Catholic.
When I was in Poland my mate said he was going to count every nun he saw. He stopped at about 40... on the first morning we were there. Seriously there are just nuns everywhere. We knew it was the most Catholic country in the world, but damn that was a lot of nuns.
Technically the Vatican State is the most Catholic country in the world
I've never heard that stat about Poland though, I would have assumed one of the South American nations myself, they take their Jesus seriously down there.
Polonius wrote: First, attributing an attribute onto another being isn't arrogance. It might be flattery or exaggeration, but it's not arrogant for me to say "my friend is super smart."
Yeah, but saying your friend is smart (presumably with good reason) is very different from declaring, with no good reason, that your god is everywhere, even in places where your religion is a trivial minority. It's arrogant because it dismisses all other equally valid (that is, not valid at all) beliefs and assumes that yours is the universal and correct one.
While I disagree with Peregrine on most points, this one (apart from the parenthetical aside) resonates, for me. There are a lot of different faiths in the world, and some of them have no relation to and/or pre-date the Christian and even the Hebrew God. But the modern Christian cosmology dismisses them entirely as nonentities, or as manifestations of their evil deity, Satan. I actually prefer the god of the Hebrews, in this regard. At least the early Jews didn't deny the existence of other gods and other faiths. They just said theirs was the best, and that he said they shouldn't worship any other gods before him.
Polonius wrote: First, attributing an attribute onto another being isn't arrogance. It might be flattery or exaggeration, but it's not arrogant for me to say "my friend is super smart."
Yeah, but saying your friend is smart (presumably with good reason) is very different from declaring, with no good reason, that your god is everywhere, even in places where your religion is a trivial minority. It's arrogant because it dismisses all other equally valid (that is, not valid at all) beliefs and assumes that yours is the universal and correct one.
While I disagree with Peregrine on most points, this one (apart from the parenthetical aside) resonates, for me. There are a lot of different faiths in the world, and some of them have no relation to and/or pre-date the Christian and even the Hebrew God. But the modern Christian cosmology dismisses them entirely as nonentities, or as manifestations of their evil deity, Satan. I actually prefer the god of the Hebrews, in this regard. At least the early Jews didn't deny the existence of other gods and other faiths. They just said theirs was the best, and that he said they shouldn't worship any other gods before him.
True, although as I stated earlier, our concept of the omnipotent and omnipresent god has far more to do with Aristotle than scripture.
Frazzled wrote: Yea Poland's has a strong history of that, which was oppressed during the godless commie pinko years, hence the resurgence.
?!
In the 1950s the church was oppressed, but after that religious practice was open. From then on the friction between the state and the church was driven entirely by the church's involvement in ant-bolshevik movements like Solidarity.
I'm not in anyway justifying the repression of Poland or any other Warsaw Pact government, but after the 50s that repression was a long way from stopping someone simply following their religion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Everyone thinks the Soviets tried to utterly get rid of religion within their domain, which isn't all that accurate. I'd say the most recognizable Russian landmark isn't the Kremlin - which most people wouldn't recognize - but St. Basil's Cathedral in Red Square, and that was true even during the USSR era.
Like a lot of things, the interaction between the church and various communist governments is complex. In most cases you see an initial crackdown on the church, motivated in part by the atheist doctrines of communism, but motivated mostly by the desire to remove the power of a potentially political rival, so you get lots of land seizures and the imprisonment of some of the more prominent religious leaders. But I can't think of a case where that initial repression lasted more than about five years.
From then on you generally saw some level of reconciliation, as communist leaders saw the potential in aligning themselves with the church just like the old aristocracy had. From there, depending on the country, you either had a cozy relationship (Russia) or a troubled one (Poland), depending on how much the church was willing to buck the status quo for the sake of the welfare of the people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lynata wrote: Yup, religion wasn't forbidden. It just wasn't promoted either. I suppose it may be that it was frowned upon and there were cases where individual people who were particularly adamant about abstaining from various government events due to their religious beliefs experienced repression in the form of not being admitted into a particular job or education,
I think a lot of it is that informal approval, where nothing says you have to be atheist, but it sure makes it hard to get certain posting when you aren't.
A bit like having to love Jesus to win political office in the US. It isn't strictly needed, and there's always the odd person who bucks the odds and wins office despite not holding to the majority line, but they're very rare.
Monster Rain wrote: The modern Christian cosmology derives from the Hebrew one that you seem to be okay with, Mannahnin.
You're not reading closely, friend. Let me try to explain better.
I'm not really okay with the Hebrew cosmology. I do appreciate that the early Hebrews, at least, would not claim that my gods did not exist. There is a feeling I get from the way some Christians talk that my faith does not exist, and in some regards, that's as if I do not exist. It's related to that sense of semi-disenfrachisement I get from that political reality Sebster mentioned- that you mostly have to profess Christianity (or occasional Judaism, or rarely Islam) to be a viable political candidate here, too.
Peregrine wrote: One interesting theory I've heard is how state churches may be responsible for declining religious belief.
In countries where there's a state church, people tend to be apathetic about it. It's always there, but it's kind of in the background. You might go to it occasionally and do the "normal" things, but there isn't much reason to feel strongly about it so you end up with the kind of Christians who go to church for Christmas and maybe pray for something occasionally. And since they don't have much of a stake in religion it's easy to go from that minimal default belief to atheism, or at least to stop caring about religion entirely.
In the US, on the other hand, we never had a state church, so churches had to compete for members and religion became a marketing exercise. If you don't have a church (or don't care much about your church) there's a huge amount of effort spent on marketing various brands of Jesus to you. Do you like old traditional stuff? Great, we've got a Jesus for you! Are you a teenager in your rebellious phase? Great, let me tell you all about how you can rebel against society by going to church every sunday. Feeling overwhelmed by bills? Great, here's my book about how buying my brand of Jesus will increase your income 20000%! And of course once you buy one of these products it's like you're following your favorite sports team, you and your fellow fans are all unified against all your rivals and you have a high emotional stake in your choice. So it's much harder to abandon religion, you care about it more, and even if you stop caring so much there's always someone ready to lure you back in.
Competition in the free market adapting religion to suit the consumer and flourishing, compared to a floundering state based system? I love it!
I'm not sure it's a complete answer, as there's a few countries out there with no state religion, Australia for one, that is more on the apathetic end of the religious scale. So there's plenty of other factors as well, but as part of the answer it's a pretty good one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Technically the Vatican State is the most Catholic country in the world
I've never heard that stat about Poland though, I would have assumed one of the South American nations myself, they take their Jesus seriously down there.
You got me to question my claim, and I just looked this up. I was wrong on it being the most Catholic country, there's a bunch in South America that have it beat, and even in Europe Spain has it just pipped. What I was thinking of is that Poland has the most nuns per capita of any country.
Monster Rain wrote: The modern Christian cosmology derives from the Hebrew one that you seem to be okay with, Mannahnin.
You're not reading closely, friend. Let me try to explain better.
I'm not really okay with the Hebrew cosmology. I do appreciate that the early Hebrews, at least, would not claim that my gods did not exist. There is a feeling I get from the way some Christians talk that my faith does not exist, and in some regards, that's as if I do not exist.
While I agree that many Christians feel that way, it's more the result of sloppy thinking than anything.
Christians believe in one god. i don't believe that no other gods exist (although I'd be lying if I didn't think they were manifestations of one root divine).
Many Christians take the idea that Christ is the only path to salvation as the idea that there are no other belief structures out there. Even the catholic church recognizes the covenant between god and the Jews, for instance.
OTOH, I'm a catholic. I mentioned to my girlfriend that I'll pray to St. Francis for help finding homes for her dogs, and realized that she found that ridiculous. I believe that long dead, and often non-existent, people can help me reach god because my matter is of special interest to them.
Perhaps "okay with" might have been the wrong choice of words.
The real point, I suppose, is that given my experience as a "modern Christian" I don't quite understand where your assessment of the cosmology comes from.
LoneLictor wrote:I've always had a hard time getting my mind around that. If God creates a man as a murderer when he could've chosen to make the man a pacifist, I don't really think its fair to the man. He's just a puppet; he can't be blamed for his actions. It's God, the guy who controls everything there ever was and will be, that's pulling the strings and making the murderer kill people. And it's also God that killed the murderer, it's God that created hell and created Satan to rule over hell, and its God that condemned the murderer he killed to go to hell for killing, which God made him do.
It's because you're thinking small. God isn't a star trek villain, or a Greek god, or a really super powerful dude.
God is literally beyond existence. None of the rules we know apply to Him. So yes, if god were bound by logic, he would know everything about a person, and is predestining him to his fate. But if God were no longer bound, he could truly give free will to man. In many ways, from a philosophical standpoint, that's not only the only supernatural act he'd need to perform (as everything else could happen without him), there's no really good way to explain free will apart from god.
Alright, I get that. God doesn't follow the rules of logic, he's supernatural, so applying logic to him only results in confusion. Trying to apply natural rules to God doesn't exactly work; it's like complaining about the impossibility of an Angel dancing on the head of a pin.
Monster Rain wrote: Perhaps "okay with" might have been the wrong choice of words.
The real point, I suppose, is that given my experience as a "modern Christian" I don't quite understand where your assessment of the cosmology comes from.
Okay, sorry, if you acknowledge or allow for the existence of other gods, then you would be exceptional in my experience. Based on the studies I've made of comparative religion both in college and in my clergy training, and had reinforced by nearly all of the Christians I've spoken to or corresponded with, it is my understanding that the modern Christian cosmology does not allow for the existence of any other deities.
Huh. Considering the Bible names at least two Gods other than YHWH that I can think of off the top of my head, I'm once again saddened by the fact that people claim to live their lives based on a book that they haven't read.
God is literally beyond existence. None of the rules we know apply to Him.
Which is why it would be unfair to judge humanity by God's point of view.
there's no really good way to explain free will apart from god.
First, you're assuming that belief in free will is universal (it's not).
Second, you're jumping to conclusions. I'm sure that there's an atheist out there who can explain why the believe in free will, and that it has nothing to do with God. I personally cannot, what with not believing in free will in the first place.
God is literally beyond existence. None of the rules we know apply to Him.
Which is why it would be unfair to judge humanity by God's point of view.
there's no really good way to explain free will apart from god.
First, you're assuming that belief in free will is universal (it's not).
Second, you're jumping to conclusions. I'm sure that there's an atheist out there who can explain why the believe in free will, and that it has nothing to do with God. I personally cannot, what with not believing in free will in the first place.
I find that fascinating, so our lives are predetermined by some factor or another Fafnir?
Monster Rain wrote: Perhaps "okay with" might have been the wrong choice of words.
The real point, I suppose, is that given my experience as a "modern Christian" I don't quite understand where your assessment of the cosmology comes from.
Okay, sorry, if you acknowledge or allow for the existence of other gods, then you would be exceptional in my experience. Based on the studies I've made of comparative religion both in college and in my clergy training, and had reinforced by nearly all of the Christians I've spoken to or corresponded with, it is my understanding that the modern Christian cosmology does not allow for the existence of any other deities.
Catholic catechism teaches that there is only one true god, so it's not just your experience. Though Catholic catechism teaches a lot of stuff that I don't follow too closely.
First, you're assuming that belief in free will is universal (it's not).
Second, you're jumping to conclusions. I'm sure that there's an atheist out there who can explain why the believe in free will, and that it has nothing to do with God. I personally cannot, what with not believing in free will in the first place.
I find that fascinating, so our lives are predetermined by some factor or another Fafnir?
Given what we know about genetics, environmental factors, psychology, and simple physics, I've never heard a rationalist argument for free will that makes sense.
Though to crib from Dogma: we might not all rationally believe in free will, but we sure assume everybody has it!
I find that fascinating, so our lives are predetermined by some factor or another Fafnir?
If everything happens on the impetus of something that came before it, then ultimately, with the digestion of enough variables, it's possible to predict all the possible outcomes for any action. If such were the case, it would be impossible for free will to exist. There's no guiding force, simply what happened previously, and what happened before that, and so on.
Of course, the existence of free will is irrelevant. Whether we have it or not, we'll still continue to do what we do as we do it.
I find that fascinating, so our lives are predetermined by some factor or another Fafnir?
If everything happens on the impetus of something that came before it, then ultimately, with the digestion of enough variables, it's possible to predict all the possible outcomes for any action. If such were the case, it would be impossible for free will to exist. There's no guiding force, simply what happened previously, and what happened before that, and so on.
Even if you can predict all my potential decisions I'm still free to MAKE that choice. Or so I think any way, I admit I could be deluding myself.
While I agree that many Christians feel that way, it's more the result of sloppy thinking than anything.
Christians believe in one god. i don't believe that no other gods exist (although I'd be lying if I didn't think they were manifestations of one root divine).
Many Christians take the idea that Christ is the only path to salvation as the idea that there are no other belief structures out there. Even the catholic church recognizes the covenant between god and the Jews, for instance.
OTOH, I'm a catholic. I mentioned to my girlfriend that I'll pray to St. Francis for help finding homes for her dogs, and realized that she found that ridiculous. I believe that long dead, and often non-existent, people can help me reach god because my matter is of special interest to them.
Hey Polonius,
I ask this in all sincerity--do you mind expanding on your beliefs? Your post jumped out at me as it's unique--in so much you consider yourself a Catholic but from what I understand--you are not a monotheist? Or are you speaking metaphorically in a pantheist/Spinoza manner--"Subsets of God"? Honestly curious--no trolling
I find that fascinating, so our lives are predetermined by some factor or another Fafnir?
If everything happens on the impetus of something that came before it, then ultimately, with the digestion of enough variables, it's possible to predict all the possible outcomes for any action. If such were the case, it would be impossible for free will to exist. There's no guiding force, simply what happened previously, and what happened before that, and so on.
Even if you can predict all my potential decisions I'm still free to MAKE that choice. Or so I think any way, I admit I could be deluding myself.
The latter. If you can tell all the variables involved in any event, you will always know what pushes someone to decide in one thing or another. You don't actually make the choice, you just follow along the set path of all the events leading up to you thinking you're making the choice.
While I agree that many Christians feel that way, it's more the result of sloppy thinking than anything.
Christians believe in one god. i don't believe that no other gods exist (although I'd be lying if I didn't think they were manifestations of one root divine).
Many Christians take the idea that Christ is the only path to salvation as the idea that there are no other belief structures out there. Even the catholic church recognizes the covenant between god and the Jews, for instance.
OTOH, I'm a catholic. I mentioned to my girlfriend that I'll pray to St. Francis for help finding homes for her dogs, and realized that she found that ridiculous. I believe that long dead, and often non-existent, people can help me reach god because my matter is of special interest to them.
Hey Polonius,
I ask this in all sincerity--do you mind expanding on your beliefs? Your post jumped out at me as it's unique--in so much you consider yourself a Catholic but from what I understand--you are not a monotheist? Or are you speaking metaphorically in a pantheist/Spinoza manner--"Subsets of God"? Honestly curious--no trolling
I'm a Catholic by upbringing. I decided that I wanted to return to religion a few years back, and went with what I knew. I'm not opposed to the theology, and I like a lot of the stances on issues. I also like the idea of a more living religion that still has some gravitas. Meaning, we can change, but we're not flying by the seat of our pants.
That said, I'm a radical ecumentalist. I feel that nearly any bona fide religious or spiritual view, including atheism, is an equally good way to make sense of the world. I see the Bible, at best, as a divinely inspire work of man, that contains truths in the general but is less useful in the details and the history.
In short, the main thing I take from christianity is the idea of an all loving, all knowing god. In my view, he judges you not by his standards, because we cannot hope to live up to those, but by our own. If you think that being a good shinto is the best way to go through life, he judges you as a shinto.
At their root, all religions attempt to provide moral guidance, make sense of the universe, and provide comfort. God wants us to be moral, wise, and happy. That's the foundation, the rest is just for show.
"Radical Ecumentalist" That's a new term to me but it sounds like what I publicly profess with is Unitarian/Universalism. Same concept all paths to the divine are valid ones. All religion is in worship and glory of the same higher power.
Polonius wrote: I'm a Catholic by upbringing. I decided that I wanted to return to religion a few years back, and went with what I knew. I'm not opposed to the theology, and I like a lot of the stances on issues. I also like the idea of a more living religion that still has some gravitas. Meaning, we can change, but we're not flying by the seat of our pants.
That said, I'm a radical ecumentalist. I feel that nearly any bona fide religious or spiritual view, including atheism, is an equally good way to make sense of the world. I see the Bible, at best, as a divinely inspire work of man, that contains truths in the general but is less useful in the details and the history.
In short, the main thing I take from christianity is the idea of an all loving, all knowing god. In my view, he judges you not by his standards, because we cannot hope to live up to those, but by our own. If you think that being a good shinto is the best way to go through life, he judges you as a shinto.
At their root, all religions attempt to provide moral guidance, make sense of the universe, and provide comfort. God wants us to be moral, wise, and happy. That's the foundation, the rest is just for show.
Thanks for that, an insightful view extremely well explained.
sebster wrote:I think a lot of it is that informal approval, where nothing says you have to be atheist, but it sure makes it hard to get certain posting when you aren't.
A bit like having to love Jesus to win political office in the US. It isn't strictly needed, and there's always the odd person who bucks the odds and wins office despite not holding to the majority line, but they're very rare.
That's actually a good "mirror comparison". I suppose it was the same for religion as it was for membership in various organisations such as the Pioneers. Stuff that wasn't strictly enforced, but still seen as a matter of course, and not doing it gave you the stigma of a potential subversive who didn't care for his or her country and the common cause.
Of course it was the Cold War, and both sides kind of violated their constitutions not in wording but in spirit out of fear of "the enemy" - for example when West Germany decreed the so-called "radicals edict", which saw thousands of teachers fired from their jobs or not hired for their political views.
Monster Rain wrote:How sad for eastern Germany.
As a (former) East German, I actually consider myself very fortunate for having been able to analyse the various religions with a critical observer's eye when I got old enough, instead of just being born into it.
The Christian God would be a being that would be beyond paranoid, and would punish humanity for it's flaws, with the excuse;
"I'm better than you, so you get to die."
He'd be like Hitler, Pol Pot or Stalin, but X1000. He'd be a massive murderer, justified by the excuse 'he's beyond us', kinda like Hitler and his Aryan bull crap. Being omnipotent, he'd stare down on every single being,
Lynata wrote: Of course it was the Cold War, and both sides kind of violated their constitutions not in wording but in spirit out of fear of "the enemy" - for example when West Germany decreed the so-called "radicals edict", which saw thousands of teachers fired from their jobs or not hired for their political views.
I think dicking around with the limits on government is kind of just the way of life everywhere. People will always perceive some kind of pressing need that people will think is more important than stricly following the rules.
As a (former) East German, I actually consider myself very fortunate for having been able to analyse the various religions with a critical observer's eye when I got old enough, instead of just being born into it.
Yeah, that's tough issue, for me. I was never raised with any kind of religious upbringing, and when I went to church it was only because I'd stayed the night at a friend's house. Looking back now, I kind of like the idea of having had some ritual, and some interaction with another social group. Not that I think I ever would have ended up a believer, I might have quite enjoyed sitting through those services with my friends when I was a kid, but it was always as a tourist, looking at what other people did with their Sunday mornings.
I mean, I think ultimately every kid gets to make their own choice, and it's wrong for parents to pressure their kids into any kind of faith, but I don't think taking him to church as a kid is really brainwashing, any more than not exposing him would be.
Of course it was not withour consequneses that the communist didnt allow children of religious parents to study and took the children from parents who disagreed with the regime and gave them to ,,loyal" people.
The Christian God would be a being that would be beyond paranoid, and would punish humanity for it's flaws, with the excuse;
"I'm better than you, so you get to die."
He'd be like Hitler, Pol Pot or Stalin, but X1000. He'd be a massive murderer, justified by the excuse 'he's beyond us', kinda like Hitler and his Aryan bull crap. Being omnipotent, he'd stare down on every single being,
I think you'll find that, if one is a believer/accepts the idea/call it what you want, pretty much one of the key concepts of the Xtian god is that he isn't like this, that he/she/it/whatever is beyond, possibly incapable (.. cue rock so big argument ) even, of such petty and evil behaviour.
Now you might not think this is possible or even plausible, but surely it behoves one to at least fully understand the definition of what it is you do/don't believe in.
The first three commands of the ten commandments come out as: "I'm God, and I'm insecure."
That's a little bit like saying your boss making you come into work on time is a sign that he's insecure.
At best you can say that 1st commandment is that, "you shall have no other gods before me," but OTOH this was the guy that pulled their ass out of egypt. It's not, like, totally unreasonable that he reminds them who actually has their back.
The first three commands of the ten commandments come out as: "I'm God, and I'm insecure."
That's a little bit like saying your boss making you come into work on time is a sign that he's insecure.
At best you can say that 1st commandment is that, "you shall have no other gods before me," but OTOH this was the guy that pulled their ass out of egypt. It's not, like, totally unreasonable that he reminds them who actually has their back.
Yeah, but this time, having a god before him will lead to eternal torture, loneliness, etc. I don't think most bosses can do such a thing,and about the whole Egypt thing.....
God effectively murders hundreds of people in Egypt, instead of simply using his powers to remove the group of Jewish slaves from Egypt. Couldn't he have removed them himself, I mean, it does claim he created a planet in six days, so he probably has the power to simply remove a group of people from a country? Then, he leaves them in the Desert.
But no, starving and murdering the innocent Egyptians was a really nice thing to do.
Yeah, but this time, having a god before him will lead to eternal torture, loneliness, etc. I don't think most bosses can do such a thing,and about the whole Egypt thing.....
God effectively murders hundreds of people in Egypt, instead of simply using his powers to remove the group of Jewish slaves from Egypt. Couldn't he have removed them himself, I mean, it does claim he created a planet in six days, so he probably has the power to simply remove a group of people from a country?
But no, starving and murdering the innocent Egyptians was a really nice thing to do.
First, don't confuse the 10 commandments, which were the laws given to the Israelite in the old testament, with the idea of salvation or judgment for all people introduced by Jesus in the new testament.
As for egypt, to be fair he did ask nicely at first. Multiple times. I'm not going to debate the morality of god, especially the old testament god. At the time of exodus, he was basically the tribal god of Israel, not the all encompassing, merciful god of Christianity. Back then, people wanted a deity that could kick some ass.
People seem to think that god should be "nice." I don't know why. They also think that despite all of the biblical evidence to the contrary, god should care about our lives on earth. Back in the OT, sure, a lot of the stuff is about temporal advantage. But even that's only for his followers. By the NT, sure, he's a kind, loving, and merciful god... who is really only only interested in your soul.
You're making a pretty common logical step: the idea that by our standards of morality, god is a terrible person. Which is very defensible, except that god isn't a person.
I won't just bow down to a being for it's power, God is a mass murderer and monster, and if he did exist, I would not worship him. He'd be the greatest dictator to ever exist, demanding worship or death. Commit a crime against him, burn forever, or live in fear of him.
I won't just bow down to a being for it's power, God is a mass murderer and monster, and if he did exist, I would not worship him. He'd be the greatest dictator to ever exist, demanding worship or death. Commit a crime against him, burn forever, or live in fear of him.
Just like Hitler, Stalin, etc.
You'd have the choice to. Which is one of many, many differences between god and Hitler. God doesn't force you to do anything. The concept of hell as punishment is actually somewhat controversial in modern Christianity, with many theologians thinking that hell is simply death, or what most atheists think happen any way.
So, it's more like, "hey, I created you, I pull the strings. You can join up, and enjoy an eternal afterlife, or you can die."
I mean, sure, god could create a world where nothing bad happens and we all live forever. We would, ironically, then be true slaves.
Heaven would be no better ether, eternal worship doesn't sound like fun, it sounds like a bloated ego, while I see few differences between God and Hitler.
Also, why does God have so much right over his creation? Why exactly does he have complete control over his "children"?
Hitler controlled his people, pulled the strings, offered a happy life, or one that would end horribly.
blood reaper wrote: Heaven would be no better ether, eternal worship doesn't sound like fun, it sounds like a bloated ego, while I see few differences between God and Hitler.
I sense a great passion for nuance in you.
Also, why does God have so much right over his creation? Why exactly does he have complete control over his "children"?
Well, how much right does anybody have other something they create? It's a legitimate topic of debate. If I build a robot with consciousness, can I destroy it? I'm not sure why a divine being that created the universe wouldn't have a right to it.
Hitler controlled his people, pulled the strings, offered a happy life, or one that would end horribly.
I am going to warn you up front, that I'm not going to freak out because you keep comparing god to hitler. If your goal is to get a rise out of me, then feel free to stop. If you really can't see any moral or practical difference between the two, than you may want to consider some mental health screening.
You seem to be conflating things. God doesn't kill us. We'd die anyway, right, if there wasn't a god? He's not actively lining us up and killing us. You seem to think that the best god could do is create you and get out of your way, which is exactly what he's done. How should a god act?
blood reaper wrote: Heaven would be no better ether, eternal worship doesn't sound like fun, it sounds like a bloated ego, while I see few differences between God and Hitler.
I sense a great passion for nuance in you.
Didn't add much to the conversation.
Also, why does God have so much right over his creation? Why exactly does he have complete control over his "children"?
Well, how much right does anybody have other something they create? It's a legitimate topic of debate. If I build a robot with consciousness, can I destroy it? I'm not sure why a divine being that created the universe wouldn't have a right to it.
I never said it didn't, but to simply enforce it's will over it's creation which thinks, has a life and a goal of it's own, is wrong to me.
Hitler controlled his people, pulled the strings, offered a happy life, or one that would end horribly.
I am going to warn you up front, that I'm not going to freak out because you keep comparing god to hitler. If your goal is to get a rise out of me, then feel free to stop. If you really can't see any moral or practical difference between the two, than you may want to consider some mental health screening.
I never expected you to do so, I simply use Hitler as an example of a historical figure that I compare to the Christian or otherwise God.
You seem to be conflating things. God doesn't kill us. We'd die anyway, right, if there wasn't a god? He's not actively lining us up and killing us. You seem to think that the best god could do is create you and get out of your way, which is exactly what he's done. How should a god act?
Not at all.
No I see it as God is a egotistical being, he demands to be worshiped alone and always, or he will in the end punish you for not obeying his every single command, I see that as morally wrong and horrid. And to answer your other question, a god should never act in such a way without judgement or emotion.
Hitler being renowned for his attempts to elevate the Jewish people to their position of eminence.
Whilst God, of course, committed suicide in 1945. Because of the Russians.
.. mind you I gather the Orthodox church's hymns are pretty depressing so I guess that can't be ruled out.
I think you need to find a better analogy than Hitler here really, if only on matters of scale, the comparison doesn't really work, to say naught of the spectacular differences in general facial hair grooviness.
Heaven would be no better ether
depends upon how one breathes it in perhaps ?
By definition, surely, Heaven being a perfect paradise would be better no ?
Hitler being renowned for his attempts to elevate the Jewish people to their position of eminence.
Whilst God, of course, committed suicide in 1945. Because of the Russians.
.. mind you I gather the Orthodox church's hymns are pretty depressing so I guess that can't be ruled out.
I think you need to find a better analogy than Hitler here really, if only on matters of scale, the comparison doesn't really work, to say naught of the spectacular differences in general facial hair grooviness.
Not in such a sense. I simply used Hitlers dictator nature and the Nazi Parties supreme control over everything going on in the country at that time as an example of how the Christian god would appear to act.
Heaven would be no better ether
depends upon how one breathes it in perhaps ?
By definition, surely, Heaven being a perfect paradise would be better no ?
The idea of eternal life would not be one I would enjoy, a long one maybe, but constant paradise would become pointless to me in the end.
I simply used Hitlers dictator nature and the Nazi Parties supreme control over everything going on in the country at that time as an example of how the Christian god would appear to act.
yes, we understand that, and, again, it's a terrible analogy that doesn't work. It's like your comparing a brick to the Titanic as they both sank/would sink in the ocean.
but constant paradise would become pointless to me in the end.
No it wouldn't , by definition.
You're claiming that " the thing that can only go up" will go down. That's not the way it works.
Yes red is an unwritten rule as being a Mod color. I expect the coming of the Wargod Malfred shortly to unleash exterminatus or at least steal some socks.
d-usa wrote: Lot's of red, it's kind of a MOD color. Not a hard and fast written rule, but just something to keep in mind.
Has it ever been stated it's a mod colour? If it has I'll change it.
I don't know if it ever has. But they use it for "official posts" in a thread, so when people scroll without really reading they will stop if they see red. I have no idea if it is something official, many of us just kind of avoid red as a courtesy.
reds8n wrote: You really need to work out the quote tags *
I simply used Hitlers dictator nature and the Nazi Parties supreme control over everything going on in the country at that time as an example of how the Christian god would appear to act.
yes, we understand that, and, again, it's a terrible analogy that doesn't work. It's like your comparing a brick to the Titanic as they both sank/would sink in the ocean.
but constant paradise would become pointless to me in the end.
No it wouldn't , by definition.
You're claiming that " the thing that can only go up" will go down. That's not the way it works.
If one believes of course.
I don't think it's a terrible analogy, I think it's quite fitting, but I could simply use the word dictator, rather than one, while I do believe that constant paradise would become a boring and pointless life style to me, maybe not you.
*Yes I really, really do. Also I changed my red writing to blue.
Hmm, page 3 until Godwin showed up in a heated thread. That has to be a record. Comparing a god to a dictator is a bit of stretch. A God is a god; he is not human, and as such has a very different perception of things. It'll be like calling an ant a psycho.
Christians I've spoken to or corresponded with, it is my understanding that the modern Christian cosmology does not allow for the existence of any other deities
Generally this is true. Though I'm sure Polonius is not alone in his take on things.
As an additional question Polonius, have you studied the Bahai faith? It may be of interest to you considering your views if for nothing else than a similar religious outlook.
Monster Rain wrote:Huh. Considering the Bible names at least two Gods other than YHWH that I can think of off the top of my head, I'm once again saddened by the fact that people claim to live their lives based on a book that they haven't read.
More than two actually: Astroloth, Baal, Baal-zebul (also spelled as Belzebul), Bel, Ishtar, Marduk, Milkom, Nabu, and Tammuz are all named. Might be others. OT is loooonnng. You'll also note later Christian traditions convert some of these into demons.
There's no real blanket rule with regards to the use of colour, we tend to use coloured text as A. We digs words that contain the letter U ... and B. It help differentiate when we're posting as a normal plebeian user or in our "official" capacity as chief whip.
... is that right ? ....
Anyway.....
it also does indeed stand out more when we've made an edit or wish to draw attention to part of a post.
I guess if someone was using it as some form of device to try and pretend that they're a MOD then we'd kick them in the balls step in and calmly and coolly have a word about this.
I don't think it's a terrible analogy, I think it's quite fitting, but I could simply use the word dictator, rather than one,
There's a BIG difference between saying God is like a dictator and God is nigh on identical to Hitler.
The latter, if only on terms of scale, is ridiculous.
while I do believe that constant paradise would become a boring and pointless life style to me, maybe not you.
*Yes I really, really do. Also I changed my red writing to blue.
Then you need to rethink or redefine your terms.
What you're saying is that Perfectionis not perfect.
If you're accepting it as the former, then it cannot possibly be the latter.
If you wish to use the generally accepted understanding of the term "7" with reference to a numerical value then you cannot claim that "7" is actually "42.5 bison".
Sure, if you wish to redefine what you mean by "7" , or perhaps argue the "numbers" can represent other things.. cool.
LordofHats wrote: More than two actually: Astroloth, Baal, Baal-zebul (also spelled as Belzebul), Bel, Ishtar, Marduk, Milkom, Nabu, and Tammuz are all named.
Yeah, I googled them later on too. I was just going off of what I remembered first hand, which were Baal and Moloch.
LordofHats wrote: Might be others. OT is loooonnng. You'll also note later Christian traditions convert some of these into demons.
Sure, but I would still maintain that the fact that they are named in the Bible as gods and the whole "no other gods before me" seems to be a good argument for the existence of other deities in Christian cosmology.
LordofHats wrote: More than two actually: Astroloth, Baal, Baal-zebul (also spelled as Belzebul), Bel, Ishtar, Marduk, Milkom, Nabu, and Tammuz are all named.
Yeah, I googled them later on too. I was just going off of what I remembered first hand, which were Baal and Moloch.
LordofHats wrote: Might be others. OT is loooonnng. You'll also note later Christian traditions convert some of these into demons.
Sure, but I would still maintain that the fact that they are named in the Bible as gods and the whole "no other gods before me" seems to be a good argument for the existence of other deities in Christian cosmology.
Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't call it Cosmology, call it by its proper name: Mythology.
Also if God is the all powerful creator of everything on heaven and earth, shouldn't he have created all those other gods?! Talk about plot holes, that Byble thingy has more of them than Prometheus!
PhantomViper wrote: Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't call it Cosmology, call it by its proper name: Mythology.
Look everyone! Someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about! You'd think the fact that it was identified as "Christian Cosmology" would have been a hint.
PhantomViper wrote: Also if God is the all powerful creator of everything on heaven and earth, shouldn't he have created all those other gods?!
PhantomViper wrote: Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't call it Cosmology, call it by its proper name: Mythology.
Look everyone! Someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about! You'd think the fact that it was identified as "Christian Cosmology" would have been a hint.
It would have been a hint and it would still be wrong, the correct term is "Christian Mythology".
Cosmology is an actual academic discipline studying the origin of the Universe, Mythology is: "a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form", so it would be the correct expression in this discussion.
PhantomViper wrote: Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't call it Cosmology, call it by its proper name: Mythology.
Look everyone! Someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about! You'd think the fact that it was identified as "Christian Cosmology" would have been a hint.
It would have been a hint and it would still be wrong, the correct term is "Christian Mythology".
Cosmology is an actual academic discipline studying the origin of the Universe, Mythology is: "a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form", so it would be the correct expression in this discussion.
Cool, so we have yet another example of religion attaching itself to a recognized science in order to try and achieve a modicum of "scientific credit" to their mumbo-jumbo... Got it.
Cool, so we have yet another example of religion attaching itself to a recognized science in order to try and achieve a modicum of "scientific credit" to their mumbo-jumbo... Got it.
I'm not entirely sure if that's the case...in fact, I'm pretty sure its not.
If you're not even going to try and post in a manner that lends itself to debate then don't bother posting please.
Needlessly inflammatory rhetoric and cheap digs aren't needed here.
If you don't believe in the religion being discussed, cool... I'm sure that won't come as a surprise to those who do have a faith, most of whom I'd wager interact with people of differing beliefs day in, day out.
As ever the manner in which one comports oneself is what matters.
If you can't discuss the matter politely or rationally then don't post.
The stories told would be myths, in that they are sacred stories. The sacred stories contain within in them information that explains spiritual elements in the universe, including the nature and names of gods, which is cosmology. The study and nature of the gods using the term cosmology predates the scientific use for the term, and is the origin of the term used in science. Being scientific in nature does not suddenly mean that we abandon older uses of a word because they don't apply to science. Many words have separate meaning between different disciplines. Discreet in mathematics is different than in English, and a person would rightly be labeled silly for demanding that others can only use one meaning of the word ever.
Myths aren't limited to telling how humans came to be in their present form, they also inform about the nature of man, usually through parable, as well as setting out ideas about morals and ethics.
As an additional question Polonius, have you studied the Bahai faith? It may be of interest to you considering your views if for nothing else than a similar religious outlook.
I have a pretty superfiical awareness of it. A friend growing up was Ba'hai.
I'm pretty happy being a "cafeteria catholic." I find the ritual inherent in mass to be a pretty key factor. I enjoy a good protestent sermon, much as I'd enjoy a lecture from an expert on nearly any topic, but it's hard to shift away from a very ritualized approach to worship as an adult.
What you're saying is that Perfectionis not perfect.
If you're accepting it as the former, then it cannot possibly be the latter.
If you wish to use the generally accepted understanding of the term "7" with reference to a numerical value then you cannot claim that "7" is actually "42.5 bison".
Sure, if you wish to redefine what you mean by "7" , or perhaps argue the "numbers" can represent other things.. cool.
But that's not the crux of the issue here.
I have a weakness for armchair psychology, but at some point that level of animosity just shows a very high level of despair. I mean, if there is a god, either we have free will and bad things can happen to us, or we don't have free will. I suppose he could be arguing that god is malicious, creating a world with an illusion of free will simply to enjoy our suffering... but that involves both a belief in god, and a rejection of free will.
Polonius wrote:I have a weakness for armchair psychology, but at some point that level of animosity just shows a very high level of despair. I mean, if there is a god, either we have free will and bad things can happen to us, or we don't have free will. I suppose he could be arguing that god is malicious, creating a world with an illusion of free will simply to enjoy our suffering... but that involves both a belief in god, and a rejection of free will.
I think he meant it just as an attempt at "debunking" certain religious views, or pointing out the "plot holes" mentioned earlier.
To me as an outsider, many statements made by Christians seem incredibly contradictory, and what he mentioned about this god's supposed omnipotence and the existence of murderers and free will is one such example. Most modern day sermons present the god as a merciful being whilst still stressing the omnipotence. When someone dies a tragic death, it's brushed off with sayings like "the good Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away", and when the sad relatives ask why, they get "the ways of the Lord are unfathomable" in return. You don't need to be a believer to see that something doesn't add up here; maybe it helps to be a non-believer as faith may (or even should) override logic.
From my admittedly limited readings, I have the impression that the Christian god was painted with a much more vengeful nature in older scripture, but that this perception was gradually replaced by a more gentle appearance, perhaps to increase appeal to potential new followers. This deity's current representation doesn't really seem to hold up to what the faith promises, though - like a bad case of exaggerated expectations. With some other gods of mankind's history, their lack of action was more easily justifiable as deities such as Zeus etc had a much more "human" nature and people did not actually expect anything from them?
I just can't get "behind" the whole religious system. Though I will add that I think that it's important for a human being to believe in something, and that the communal spirit uniting followers of this belief can be an important and helpful (albeit also risky) factor in one's life ... it's just that I don't agree with this belief and this community necessarily having to be focused on some theoretical deity, and that I even think that a community with a hierarchy founded upon something supernatural is more prone to abuse by authority figures, as I'd assume people are less prone to question a god than they are to question a mere human.
To me as an outsider, many statements made by Christians seem incredibly contradictory, and what he mentioned about this god's supposed omnipotence and the existence of murderers and free will is one such example. Most modern day sermons present the god as a merciful being whilst still stressing the omnipotence. When someone dies a tragic death, it's brushed off with sayings like "the good Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away", and when the sad relatives ask why, they get "the ways of the Lord are unfathomable" in return. You don't need to be a believer to see that something doesn't add up here; maybe it helps to be a non-believer as faith may (or even should) override logic.
I'm not sure it's an official christian view, but there's little to suggest that God is in any way interested in our lives on earth. the reason should be painfully clear: what's the point of having free will, if god is saving kittens and averting disasters?
Life is a live fire exercise. You're given your life to do with as you wish. God is interested in the result, but he's not a fairy godmother. He loves every person, but really only the immaterial bits.
Polonius wrote: I'm not sure it's an official christian view
Considering the varieties of Christian belief I don't believe there is, or ever could be, such a thing as an official Christian view. There was a major study that was released years ago about religion in America, and if I could remember who did it I would link to it, but within the study there were four primary views of god by Americans.
•The Authoritative God. When conservatives Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck proclaim that America will lose God's favor unless we get right with him, they're rallying believers in what Froese and Bader call an Authoritative God, one engaged in history and meting out harsh punishment to those who do not follow him. About 28% of the nation shares this view, according to Baylor's 2008 findings.
"They divide the world by good and evil and appeal to people who are worried, concerned and scared," Froese says. "They respond to a powerful God guiding this country, and if we don't explicitly talk about (that) God, then we have the wrong God or no God at all."
•The Benevolent God. When President Obama says he is driven to live out his Christian faith in public service, or political satirist Stephen Colbert mentions God while testifying to Congress in favor of changing immigration laws, they're speaking of what the Baylor researchers call a Benevolent God. This God is engaged in our world and loves and supports us in caring for others, a vision shared by 22% of Americans, according to Baylor's findings.
"Rhetoric that talks about the righteous vs. the heathen doesn't appeal to them," Froese says. "Their God is a force for good who cares for all people, weeps at all conflicts and will comfort all."
Asked about the Baylor findings, Philip Yancey, author of What Good Is God?, says he moved from the Authoritative God of his youth — "a scowling, super-policeman in the sky, waiting to smash someone having a good time" — to a "God like a doctor who has my best interest at heart, even if sometimes I don't like his diagnosis or prescriptions."
•The Critical God. The poor, the suffering and the exploited in this world often believe in a Critical God who keeps an eye on this world but delivers justice in the next, Bader says.
Bader says this view of God — held by 21% of Americans — was reflected in a sermon at a working-class neighborhood church the researchers visited in Rifle, Colo., in 2008. Pastor Del Whittington's theme at Open Door Church was " 'Wait until heaven, and accounts will be settled.' "
Bader says Whittington described how " 'our cars that are breaking down here will be chariots in heaven. Our empty bank accounts will be storehouses with the Lord.' "
•The Distant God. Though about 5% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, Baylor found that nearly one in four (24%) see a Distant God that booted up the universe, then left humanity alone.
This doesn't mean that such people have no religion. It's the dominant view of Jews and other followers of world religions and philosophies such as Buddhism or Hinduism, the Baylor research finds.
Rabbi Jamie Korngold of Boulder, Colo., took Baylor's God quiz and clicked with the Distant God view "that gives me more personal responsibility. There's no one that can fix things if I mess them up. God's not telling me what I should do," says Korngold. Her upcoming book, God Envy: A Rabbi's Confession, is subtitled, A Book for People Who Don't Believe God Can Intervene in Their Lives and Why Judaism Is Still Important.
Others who cite a Distant God identify more with the spiritual and speak of the unknowable God behind the creation of rainbows, mountains or elegant mathematical theorems, the Baylor writers found.
This distant view is nothing new. Benjamin Franklin once wrote that he could not imagine that a "Supremely Perfect" God cares a whit for "such an inconsiderable Nothing as Man."
The Baylor researchers' four views of God reveal a richness that denominational labels often don't capture. They found that Catholics and mainline Protestants are about evenly divided among all four views, leaning slightly toward a Benevolent God. More than half of white evangelicals identify with an Authoritative God; that view is shared by more than seven in 10 black evangelicals, they said.
d-usa wrote: East Germany was Soviet until 23 years ago, so it's not really that surprising that a population that grew up in a setting where religion was supressed would have a large number of atheists. You might be able to use the same argument of "people only believe in religion because they have been brainwashed by their parents" and apply it in reverse here.
that's... kind of ignorant. Bit of a late joiner here, but, let's have a look at those lovely wonderful things that make our lives exciting: narcotics. Just because they happen to be banned and controlled substances doesn't mean that their repression removes it from the public and reduces the interest in those drugs. The criminality associated with anything dealing with narcotics makes people cautious, some will stay away from it because it's criminal, others will simply excercise caution in the manner in which they do what they do. Religion was the same thing. Back in Czechoslovakia religion was repressed quite heavily, but it really didn't stop any sort of faith based activity. I know when my mother ran into her teacher at a mass they had both happened to have attended in a different city, they both stared at eachother like a deer caught in headlights, sure, but that was simply a product of their caution, and niether knew how the other would react... incidentally they both pretended like nothing happened, and had a bizzare relationship for some time where neither tried to make the other irate.
Just because the soviet block repressed religion doesn't mean that religion got stamped out. People just found clever ways of getting around things.
Along those same lines, I think how individuals imagine God to be like says more about them than it does about God.
In the gospels, we read about Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman who came after him in the street to ask him to heal her daughter. Jesus rebuffed her, saying that the children (Israel) should be fed first and that it's bad to take food from the children and give it to the dogs (the gentiles). But the woman said to him, the dogs at least get the table scraps. Jesus told her that her daughter was healed. He said, “O woman, great is your faith!"
I was chatting with some friends about this. One person said, this shows that God demands total humility. Not until you admit to being "just a dog" will he help you out.
Following Bishop Gumbleton (an auxillary of Detroit), I think that is totally wrong. To me, this story reminds us that Jesus was truly a real person even having the prejudices (misogyny and xenophobia) of his time and place. But in this story, we find out about God and goodness. This woman, who has no right to talk to a man out in the street in that chauvinistic society, even dares to talk back to Jesus. She reminds him that she is a person, too. And Jesus acknowledges her, commending the faith of this gentile just as he commended the faith of the centurion: "I have not found such faith, no not in Israel."
So, a story that begins with Jesus stuck in a narrow worldview, in which only Israel matters, ends with him opening up to the wider world: a world of women as well as men, of people with different cultures and traditions -- a vision defined by good will instead of prejudice. And this was a lesson that even this man who is God had to learn!
It is much better, I think, to read the story this way than as Jesus demanding some kind of self-abasement from the woman.
Manchu wrote: Along those same lines, I think how individuals imagine God to be like says more about them than it does about God.
In the gospels, we read about Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman who came after him in the street to ask him to heal her daughter. Jesus rebuffed her, saying that the children (Israel) should be fed first and that it's bad to take food from the children and give it to the dogs (the gentiles). But the woman said to him, the dogs at least get the table scraps. Jesus told her that her daughter was healed. He said, “O woman, great is your faith!"
I was chatting with some friends about this. One person said, this shows that God demands total humility. Not until you admit to being "just a dog" will he help you out.
Following Bishop Gumbleton (an auxillary of Detroit), I think that is totally wrong. To me, this story reminds us that Jesus was truly a real person even having the prejudices (misogyny and xenophobia) of his time and place. But in this story, we find out about God and goodness. This woman, who has no right to talk to a man out in the street in that chauvinistic society, even dares to talk back to Jesus. She reminds him that she is a person, too. And Jesus acknowledges her, commending the faith of this gentile just as he commended the faith of the centurion: "I have not found such faith, no not in Israel."
So, a story that begins with Jesus stuck in a narrow worldview, in which only Israel matters, ends with him opening up to the wider world: a world of women as well as men, of people with different cultures and traditions -- a vision defined by good will instead of prejudice. And this was a lesson that even this man who is God had to learn!
It is much better, I think, to read the story this way than as Jesus demanding some kind of self-abasement from the woman.
Well, there's more ways to read than that, I prefer reading as "political idea steeped in code and symbol". If Yoheshua has his own personality cult, he's goign to deem members of that cult as true sons of isreal, while those who differ in views are not going to engage in a friendly discussion over coffee. If there's a personality cult, then there's also a pecking order. If anyone is accepted, then the woman's background doesn't matter, but her rank and privilege may have been the source of the issue. It may be this woman may have been trying to get her daughter inducted into the circle as well, or returning her after an expulsion or something. I think It's important to investigate the meaning of what's said as well and not take things at face value. I mean, when we say something is "sick" we typically do not happen to be discussing said item's moral objectionability or state of health. When we say something's hot or cool, it's not an indicator of temperature, but social value or attraction. Remarks about what a cat may or may not have dragged home need not necessarily pertain to a feline animal. When a business or a firm goes through a period of "restructuring", we know that they are in the process of laying as many people off as they can.
Polonius wrote:I'm not sure it's an official christian view, but there's little to suggest that God is in any way interested in our lives on earth. the reason should be painfully clear: what's the point of having free will, if god is saving kittens and averting disasters?
Exactly! Hence some posters in this thread (including me) thinking about the "plot holes". I assume that many people do not critically analyse their own perception of the faith and address the various issues individually - when it is convenient - rather than making sure that it all fits together. In other words: The "free will" debate and the inherent conflict in this likely does not even occur to a whole lot of people.
I'm almost reluctant to ask, but how do you combine these things? Why do people pray to a god who doesn't answer? Why the fascination with supposed miracles if god isn't interested in people's lives on earth? And doesn't this supposed disinterest clash with a lot of stories about divine intervention that the bible wants to tell us about?
A god who only concerns himself with the souls of the deceased once they enter his domain would actually make some sense, simply because he cannot be expected to lift a finger in the mortal world. Yet still millions of Christians pray for blessings and salvations, for liberation from their issues ranging from deathly sickness to monetary concerns. Crusades were launched because "god wills it" - which, by the way, brings me to my next question: Do people still believe that god wanted this sort of stuff? If not, why do they keep following the organisation that claimed it and continue reading and living by their books? To me as an -outsider- it all just seems like an extremely obvious lie. I actually get various Christian TV channels here thanks to Sky, and have zapped in a couple times just out of curiosity. I couldn't believe the level of indoctrination in cartoons meant for little children, or the blatant money-grab by some "televangelists" who promise god's blessing if you pay them a couple hundred bucks. Just last night I watched some Rod Parsley and a guest preacher raving on about how you can get "double portion" if you send them $200. Now, I actually expect a lot of Christians are very angry about these folks for what I think is abusing their religion, but the question still stands - why do people believe this stuff? Obviously it must be a very lucrative business, ever since the church itself was selling letters of indulgence absolving people of their sins in medieval times.
I don't really want to tread on anyone's religious feelings; some of my friends are religious (none of these is from East Germany though, to lend credence to the original topic's survey) and I usually just try to avoid the subject as it's somewhat awkward when two so very opposite worldviews clash. But I also know that some believers are rather laid-back and happy to discuss their feelings, and considering how far we got already, maybe we can exchange some more opinions in a relaxed manner. I'm kinda curious not because I am looking to get religious myself nor to make fun of those who are, but rather to better understand them.
From where I stand now, it feels as if faith is rooted in a mixture of people's fears and desires - that there has to be something greater than people, that we do not just cease to exist after we die, that all our deeds are judged justly at some point, and that there is something or someone who might help you no matter what and/or who is always with you. The saturation of these perceived needs coupled with the strong feeling of solidarity and support you get in a proper community of worshippers might make for a strong "addiction" that is even capable of overriding apparent conflicts, essentially resulting in everyone having their own personal version of their god and being convinced that everyone else is wrong, not even considering that others feel the same about oneself and that the others have just as much (or little) reason to be right.
At least those are the motifs I would suspect.
Ahtman: Thanks a lot for that list, it was an interesting read!
Manchu wrote:Along those same lines, I think how individuals imagine God to be like says more about them than it does about God.
Definitively. There seem to be many, many different interpretations and re-interpretations of the various texts, not to mention all the translations of translations... Everyone, from the ancient scribes copying and translating these texts to the modern day average worshipper, may understand them differently based on what they want to read. Maybe that's how Christianity and Islam got separated in the first place.
To me as an outsider, many statements made by Christians seem incredibly contradictory, and what he mentioned about this god's supposed omnipotence and the existence of murderers and free will is one such example. Most modern day sermons present the god as a merciful being whilst still stressing the omnipotence. When someone dies a tragic death, it's brushed off with sayings like "the good Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away", and when the sad relatives ask why, they get "the ways of the Lord are unfathomable" in return. You don't need to be a believer to see that something doesn't add up here; maybe it helps to be a non-believer as faith may (or even should) override logic.
I'm not sure it's an official christian view, but there's little to suggest that God is in any way interested in our lives on earth. the reason should be painfully clear: what's the point of having free will, if god is saving kittens and averting disasters?
Life is a live fire exercise. You're given your life to do with as you wish. God is interested in the result, but he's not a fairy godmother. He loves every person, but really only the immaterial bits.
I'm pretty sure the view of the divine being hands off is referred to as a major tenant of "deism" and you're in good company if you follow it's practices. It was a pretty serious philosophy during the Enlightenment and several of the founding fathers of the US were deists as well.
A few things....
The Biblical God shows that man can have a personal relationship with Him. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Peter, Paul to name a few all had personal relationships with God. God wasn't some divine watch maker to them. Jesus taught that God is our heavenly Father, and that when you had seen Jesus you had seen the Father. The new testament epistles are filled with language encouraging a personal relationship with Christ, who is the only way to gain access to the Father(which are in fact the same being as part of the Holy Trinity).
To the problem of Evil, I.E why does God allow bad things to happen.
1) The earth is cursed...blame Adam and Eve if ya want.
2) If God intervened in every situation then there would be no need for the expression of human goodness which comes from being free will moral agents. We would all be a bunch of robots.
3) We don't have all the answers...no matter how much we might like to think we do.
1) The earth is cursed...blame Adam and Eve if ya want.
But then there's the issue of why did YHWH let the snake into the garden? Why did he let Adam and Eve eat the apple in the first place, or make the tree so easily accessible to them? Why did he not inform them of the potential consequences? It may be fair for YHWH to require things of people, but in doing so, it's only fair if the people are properly informed.
2) If God intervened in every situation then there would be no need for the expression of human goodness which comes from being free will moral agents. We would all be a bunch of robots.
You say that like it's a bad thing. If everyone were content, perfect, and happy, there'd be no reason to worry about free will or not being a robot in the first place.
3) We don't have all the answers...no matter how much we might like to think we do.
Cop-out. We may not have the answers to every question, but we're perfectly entitled to look for them.
1) The earth is cursed...blame Adam and Eve if ya want.
But then there's the issue of why did YHWH let the snake into the garden? Why did he let Adam and Eve eat the apple in the first place, or make the tree so easily accessible to them? Why did he not inform them of the potential consequences? It may be fair for YHWH to require things of people, but in doing so, it's only fair if the people are properly informed.
He did inform them of the consequences, and he gave them a choice.
Free will is both the biggest gift and the biggest curse at the same time.
poda_t wrote: that's... kind of ignorant. Bit of a late joiner here, but, let's have a look at those lovely wonderful things that make our lives exciting: narcotics. Just because they happen to be banned and controlled substances doesn't mean that their repression removes it from the public and reduces the interest in those drugs. The criminality associated with anything dealing with narcotics makes people cautious, some will stay away from it because it's criminal, others will simply excercise caution in the manner in which they do what they do. Religion was the same thing. Back in Czechoslovakia religion was repressed quite heavily, but it really didn't stop any sort of faith based activity. I know when my mother ran into her teacher at a mass they had both happened to have attended in a different city, they both stared at eachother like a deer caught in headlights, sure, but that was simply a product of their caution, and niether knew how the other would react... incidentally they both pretended like nothing happened, and had a bizzare relationship for some time where neither tried to make the other irate.
Just because the soviet block repressed religion doesn't mean that religion got stamped out. People just found clever ways of getting around things.
Repression didn't stop religious practice, but it certainly made it harder to do. A truly devoted person would still worship in whatever way was possible, but lots of people on the outskirts of the faith would probably just drift away. Think of all those people who only attend christenings and Easter ceremonies - most likely they'll just stop attending all together.
Now, people are very adaptable, and one of the best tools we have for adaption is to believe whatever is needed to make our lives more a little easier. So it's unlikely those folk will straight up say 'I used to attend church a few times a year, but I found the threat to future promotion and possible social exclusion too great and so I whimped out'. More likely they'll stop believing altogether. Then, when they have kids, they'll make no effort to pass that old faith onto their kids.
This isn't a description of everyone, but it is part of the reason that in old Warsaw Pact countries you might see higher levels of atheism than elsewhere, and part of the reason why in countries with strong informal encouragement for religion, like in the US, you might see higher levels of belief than elsewhere.
d-usa wrote: He did inform them of the consequences, and he gave them a choice.
Free will is both the biggest gift and the biggest curse at the same time.
Except that's a terrible excuse. If a human parent left a bottle of poisonous cleaning chemicals out and their child drank it and died, we'd call them a horrible parent and say they are guilty of neglect. We would blame them even more if they used the pathetic excuse that they once told the kid not to drink it, so it's not their fault. We might even throw them in prison for it, depending on where it happened. But we certainly wouldn't say that the kid was using their free will, and we need to just accept that they made the wrong choice and the parent has no responsibility for the outcome.
And of course if the kid survived but the parent, on arriving at the hospital, beat the child to death for their stupid choice we'd call the parent a murderer and punish them harshly. Any claim that they were justified in that murder because the kid was their creation would be dismissed as the insane ranting of an inhuman monster.
So why should it be any different for god? According to the story god knew perfectly well that the apple was dangerous, but failed to take reasonable precautions to keep Adam and Eve from getting to it. And then once they did, he blamed them for it instead of taking responsibility for his failures. And, to make it worse, he punished them in the worst way imaginable: by forcing them to suffer the pain of aging and death, expelling them from paradise into a painful and horrible world, and condemning most of their descendents to eternal unimaginable torture. So, we must conclude one of three things:
1) God is a neglectful and incompetent parent, and deserves neither worship nor respect. His failure to act properly has caused suffering on an unimaginable scale, suffering that he could easily remove without any consequences (remember, god is omnipotent, so he can give you both free will and no bad things).
2) God is a sadistic tyrant who imposes arbitrary rules and then inflicts unimaginably cruel and disproportionate punishments for breaking them. Obviously this god also doesn't deserve worship or respect, but you'd better give it to him anyway or you're going to burn in hell.
3) God exists on an entirely different level from humanity, and transcends our limited knowledge of right and wrong. This is a popular justification, but it completely destroys other aspects of theology. If god exists outside of human morality, what exactly does it mean to say that god is "good"? Or that god "loves" us? If we can't say that god is "evil" for actions that are clearly evil by human standards, then saying god is "good" also ceases to have any meaning.
Unfortunately the omnicide and genocide performed by god and/or people acting under god's orders suggests that option #2 is the most likely one: god is evil, and you should obey him out of fear of hell. Any claims that god "loves" you should be taken the same way as an abusive spouse's claims to "love" their victim.
(And to preempt the inevitable argument: yes, I can talk about god as an atheist. God does not exist, but it still makes perfect sense to talk about god the mythological character, or god as he "exists" under a particular belief system that we are discussing. Obviously I don't fear god myself, but anyone who genuinely believes that he exists should.)
Monster Rain wrote: I have decided, unilaterally, that this video is topical in any thread even tangentially related to religion.
Ye Olde Man still forwards that to his clergy friends.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Any claim that they were justified in that murder because the kid was their creation would be dismissed as the insane ranting of an inhuman monster.
(And to preempt the inevitable argument: yes, I can talk about god as an atheist. God does not exist, but it still makes perfect sense to talk about god the mythological character, or god as he "exists" under a particular belief system that we are discussing. Obviously I don't fear god myself, but anyone who genuinely believes that he exists should.)
Well, your first problem is assuming that evil is a thing separate from "Things I don't like." The distinction you're making is about elevating your own judgment, nothing more.
Your second problem is that you speak of God in human terms. This is something I will approach in an unusual fashion and say that God making Man in his own image entails a relationship between Man and God that renders them comparable. If Man is vicious/violent/aggressive at times, then so must be God.
The real problem, argumentatively, comes in if we're talking about the 3O argument; which some (but not all) participants are.
Peregrine wrote: According to the story god knew perfectly well that the apple was dangerous, but failed to take reasonable precautions to keep Adam and Eve from getting to it. And then once they did, he blamed them for it instead of taking responsibility for his failures.
It's the story of Adam, whose name literally means 'man', and Eve, who God places in a garden containing the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. When they eat from the Tree of Knowledge they're punished with the need to sustain life through labour, and childbirth respectively.
Who the fething hell reads that story and thinks 'well there's a literal description of events that actually happened and something that is not a metaphor at all'?
I mean, that kind of silliness drives me batty when a religious person tries to claim the bible is a literal transcript of real events and not a heavily symbolic collection of stories from which to draw general lessons, but it's probably even more frustrating when a non-believer misses the point as well, as guys like you don't even have faith as potential cause for confusion.
Seriously, it's a symbolic story. Picking out one character, even God, and claiming his actions don't suit our morals is completely missing the point. Origin stories don't work like that.
Why? If someone punished their child by murdering it and tried to claim "I have the right to do whatever I want to it, I created it" we'd (rightfully) consider them insane and throw them in prison. However, I can't even count the number of times I've had Christians attempt to justify god's atrocities by saying "god has the right to do it to us, he created us".
Well, your first problem is assuming that evil is a thing separate from "Things I don't like." The distinction you're making is about elevating your own judgment, nothing more.
Ooh, moral relativism? How about let's put aside the question of whether there's a universal morality in some absolute sense and just leave it at "the overwhelming majority of people would say this is wrong". The actions I'm talking about are pretty universally considered evil, and any plausible theory of morality will reach the same conclusion.
Your second problem is that you speak of God in human terms. This is something I will approach in an unusual fashion and say that God making Man in his own image entails a relationship between Man and God that renders them comparable. If Man is vicious/violent/aggressive at times, then so must be God.
Sure, I'd agree with that. However, most Christians I've encountered would disagree with a claim that the god of their religion reflects the worst of human cruelty and violence.
sebster wrote: Who the fething hell reads that story and thinks 'well there's a literal description of events that actually happened and something that is not a metaphor at all'?
Lots of people, unfortunately.
And even if it's a metaphor my criticism is still valid. Whether the apple is a literal apple or a symbol of tempting things god wanted us to avoid, the principle is still the same. God created Adam and Eve with a sense of curiosity, created Satan, created knowledge and locked it away from us, and then failed to take appropriate precautions to keep us away from that knowledge. And then when Adam and Eve disobeyed god in a way that any idiot could have seen coming, god punishes them in an unimaginably cruel way rather than take responsibility for creating the entire scenario in the first place.
Seriously, it's a symbolic story. Picking out one character, even God, and claiming his actions don't suit our morals is completely missing the point. Origin stories don't work like that.
Ok, fine. It's an origin story and we shouldn't take it literally. Congratulations on destroying the entire concept of original sin, a fundamental principle of many (if not all) branches of Christian doctrine. If Eve didn't actually give in to temptation then the entire story of Jesus makes no sense. Without original sin to make us all unworthy of god and require the sacrifice of Jesus to allow us into heaven there's no need for salvation through faith, and you can be a good person and be just as worthy of heaven. Now, one can argue that the doctrine of original sin is a horrible ethical concept, but it's not exactly a trivial detail about Christianity we're talking about reversing.
On the other hand if Eve did give in to temptation, the negligent parent analogy is correct. Whatever form the actual giving in to temptation took god failed to prevent it and then blamed the victim for allowing it to happen.
And Sebster, keep in mind that this is all in response to a point concerning a literal interpretation of the story that General Gog made. The point being made about a literal interpretation of the story is only being made because that's what was presented in the first place.
That's true. And I think the answer to that is to try and explain to these people that stories don't work like that, instead of entering the same mindset as them.
And even if it's a metaphor my criticism is still valid. Whether the apple is a literal apple or a symbol of tempting things god wanted us to avoid, the principle is still the same. God created Adam and Eve with a sense of curiosity, created Satan, created knowledge and locked it away from us, and then failed to take appropriate precautions to keep us away from that knowledge. And then when Adam and Eve disobeyed god in a way that any idiot could have seen coming, god punishes them in an unimaginably cruel way rather than take responsibility for creating the entire scenario in the first place.
It isn't just the apple that's a metaphor. There wasn't actually a Tree of Knowledge, or a snake, or a guy called Adam or a lady named Eve that was made out of him.
There is knowledge, temptation, man and life. Read in this way it's a pretty amazing story. Read as something that actually happened it's complete gibberish.
Ok, fine. It's an origin story and we shouldn't take it literally. Congratulations on destroying the entire concept of original sin, a fundamental principle of many (if not all) branches of Christian doctrine.
Not taking the events of the story as actual, literal things that happened doesn't mean the message of the story isn't true. Man was tempted by knowledge, and so came to know right and wrong and distance himself from God, and so you have original sin.
Note that contrary to what you claimed, original sin makes no sense if it was actually the action of one man - why would anyone else be accountable for that? But as a symbolic story of something we all do, undertake actions that take us further from God, it nicely supports the idea of original sin.
If Eve didn't actually give in to temptation then the entire story of Jesus makes no sense.
No, because the actions of Adam and Eve are descriptors for what we do now.
Not taking the events of the story as actual, literal things that happened doesn't mean the message of the story isn't true. Man was tempted by knowledge, and so came to know right and wrong and distance himself from God, and so you have original sin.
Note that contrary to what you claimed, original sin makes no sense if it was actually the action of one man - why would anyone else be accountable for that? But as a symbolic story of something we all do, undertake actions that take us further from God, it nicely supports the idea of original sin.
And divorced from many of the concepts of the Abrahamic God, not just the literal interpretation of Genesis, it's actually quite a fantastic story. But YHWH kind of ruins this by being... YHWH. It works from a more deistic perspective, but that's about it.
poda_t wrote: [...]Remarks about what a cat may or may not have dragged home need not necessarily pertain to a feline animal. [...]
Candidly, I think neither one of us knows what you're on about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: The Biblical God shows that man can have a personal relationship with Him.
Going along with this, but to be a bit more specific, I'd say that the gospels are about basically one thing: what is God like? And it's not an open question but rather an answered one: God is close to us. I'm not saying that isn't "reading into them" but, as I already mentioned, the gospels themselves speak to a tradition. They proceed from a tradition and it's kind of dumb to presume that one can read them in a meaningful sense outside of a tradition. For Nicene Christianity, I do think that basic question and answer are the foundations. So if you read a story in the gospel and you think the question they raise is "how should I vote in the upcoming election?" or you think their answer to "what is God like?" is "a tyrannical hatemonger" then you're well beyond the pale of even the most general contours of Christianity.
sebster wrote: That's true. And I think the answer to that is to try and explain to these people that stories don't work like that, instead of entering the same mindset as them.
Except what makes your non-literal interpretation correct while theirs is wrong? I could argue just as easily that the literal interpretation is correct, and it just means that the story is an outdated myth and we should just abandon the religion entirely as factually absurd nonsense.
It isn't just the apple that's a metaphor. There wasn't actually a Tree of Knowledge, or a snake, or a guy called Adam or a lady named Eve that was made out of him.
There is knowledge, temptation, man and life. Read in this way it's a pretty amazing story. Read as something that actually happened it's complete gibberish.
It doesn't matter if it's literal or not. All that matters is the following:
1) Forbidden knowledge (or whatever the apple represents) exists, and is created by god.
2) Humans obtain the forbidden knowledge by giving in to temptation.
3) God has not taken adequate precautions against us obtaining that forbidden knowledge.
4) God punishes us for doing so.
If these are correct, the negligent parent analogy is appropriate.
If these are not correct the story, as understood by most Christians, loses its meaning entirely.
Note that contrary to what you claimed, original sin makes no sense if it was actually the action of one man - why would anyone else be accountable for that? But as a symbolic story of something we all do, undertake actions that take us further from God, it nicely supports the idea of original sin.
You're right, original sin is horrifyingly wrong under any remotely sane ethical system. The concept of punishment for the sins of the father is little more than justification for revenge provided by a primitive society far removed from modern civilization. However, it's still part of Christian doctrine.
The answer of course is to say that Christianity is immoral and leave the church, not to pretend that the doctrine means something else entirely for the sole purpose of making the religion ethically acceptable.
No, because the actions of Adam and Eve are descriptors for what we do now.
That might be your personal belief, but the belief of many (if not most) Christians is that original sin refers to a single specific event that occurred in the distant past. In fact it MUST be a single event, since that's the entire point of original sin: no matter how good you personally are, no matter how much sin you avoid in your own life or how devoutly you obey god, you have inherited original sin and require Jesus for salvation.
Manchu wrote: The story of Adam and Eve is about moral responsibility of adult humans.
That might be what it was intended to be about, but it actually tells the story of god's horrible moral failings. God's behavior in the story is far below the standards we'd accept for humans, and it makes a joke of any claim that god is "good" and perfect beyond anything humans can reach.
Also, how can Adam and Eve have moral responsibility if they're created in a state of ignorance? They're no more "adult humans" than a small child is, and their only moral "failure" is failing to obey the commands of god.
Original sin is actually about human nature rather than being held accountable for someone else's faults.
You wouldn't know this from hearing people talk about it.
And even if the intent is to make a statement about human nature it's a horrible statement. The doctrine of original sin says that no matter how hard you try, you can't be good enough to avoid hell. The kindest, most moral person deserves to be tortured for eternity, just like the most evil person. If god casts you down into hell, he is giving you exactly what you deserve, no matter what you have done in life. Unless of course you accept Jesus, in which case your human nature is magically overlooked and you escape hell.
The whole story, from beginning to end, is about holding other people accountable. Original sin starts it by holding humans accountable for our ancestors, while torturing and killing Jesus somehow magically transfers our sins onto him. It's a classic story of scapegoating, and it's sad that people hold it up as an example of the highest morality when really it shows some of the worst of human nature.
Peregrine wrote: Except what makes your non-literal interpretation correct while theirs is wrong?
Reason.
How is reason involved here? What makes "this is a symbolic story" more reasonable than "this is a literal story but it isn't true"? The only reason I can see for preferring the first option is if you're starting from the premise that you have to believe in Christianity, so anything that helps you believe it is the most reasonable interpretation.
Peregrine wrote: You wouldn't know this from hearing people talk about it.
I can pretty well address everything you've ever posted about religion on this website, at least that I've seen, by responding to this: if you want to know about something, you don't listen to idiots talk about it.
But at what point do those "idiots" become "mainstream religion"? If the majority of members of a religion believe things that make you dismiss them as idiots, shouldn't it be time to dismiss the religion as a whole?
Plus, it's not like "sophisticated theology" really does much better. Sure, it doesn't tend to do things like claim literal six-day creation or stand on street corners ranting about abortion, but its arguments really aren't any better. In my experience its believers might have good intentions, but all they really offer is a bunch of comforting excuses that aren't really good for much besides allowing decent people to ignore the worst parts of their religion. Once you look at it from outside the religion the flimsy rationalizations just fall apart and you're left with something that isn't any more plausible than the literalist claims.
Peregrine wrote: But at what point do those "idiots" become "mainstream religion"?
That's a good question with a very simple answer: never.
But that doesn't make any sense. "Mainstream" is defined by what the majority of people believe, and unfortunately the majority of people seem to share a lot more with the "idiots" (as you call them) than with you. The heavily modified theology that you're talking about seems to exist in exactly two places: a handful of people who are both progressive and love thinking about theology, and when debating atheists about the morality of religion. It does not seem to have very much in common with the everyday beliefs of the majority.
Plus, like I said, it's still wrong. It's wrong in ways that take longer to argue about, but in the end the result is the same.
Sorry, I thought by "mainstream" you meant something like "authentic." Yeah, stupidity can be mainstream. I mean, look how many books Richard Dawkins has sold on religious topics.
Plus, it's not wrong. It's not wrong in ways that take longer to argue about but in the end the result is the same.
Manchu wrote: Sorry, I thought by "mainstream" you meant something like "authentic." Yeah, stupidity can be mainstream. I mean, look how many books Richard Dawkins has sold on religious topics.
"Mainstream" by definition means "average", not "most reasonable in my opinion".
And of course my original point about mainstream beliefs was that I'm not just picking on the easy target of some 10-person ultrafundamentalist church here. My criticism applies to commonly held beliefs among mainstream Christianity. You might disagree with the majority on those subjects, but that doesn't make my criticisms of their beliefs any less appropriate.
(I'd defend Dawkins on this, but having seen his utter cluelessness about sexism recently I don't really care enough to bother.)
Plus, it's not wrong. It's not wrong in ways that take longer to argue about but in the end the result is the same.
Ok, then let's see your version of the story and why it's a) morally good, and b) factually true (or at least plausible enough for belief in its truth to be justified). I'm willing to debate non-mainstream positions as long as the people holding them make it clear what their position is.
Peregrine wrote: My criticism applies to commonly held beliefs among mainstream Christianity.
No it doesn't.
Peregrine wrote:Ok, then let's see your version of the story and why it's a) morally good, and b) factually true (or at least plausible enough for belief in its truth to be justified).
The story of Adam and Eve is not factual. It is a story. I don't know what you mean by morally good. I suppose you mean "does not encourage people to hate and oppress one another." The point of the story is that human persons bear responsibility for the moral dimension of their lives. The further point, regarding original sin, is that human nature is not complete as to its own moral perfection, which requires grace, the entirely gratuitous gift of the benign creator. I am sure that it could be twisted to bad ends, as with anything. Fortunately, we have a long and indeed ongoing tradition to turn to so that we don't, in arrogance, believe we should interpret these things ourselves according to our ignorance.
Manchu wrote: I don't know what you mean by morally good.
Since it's supposed to be a symbolic story, does it teach a good moral lesson? Do the things the story describes as "good" and worthy of approval match our understanding of what "good" is?
The point of the story is that human persons bear responsibility for the moral dimension of their lives.
Ok, that's what it claims to say. Now let's look at what actually happens:
First of all, Adam and Eve are created in a state of ignorance. That alone negates any point about moral responsibility because Adam and Eve didn't have moral responsibility when they made the central decision in the story, just like we don't hold a small child morally accountable for actions done out of ignorance. We also can't consider it a story about moral responsibility because of the influence of Satan (himself created by God) taking advantage of their ignorance to tempt them into doing the "wrong" thing (though we could argue Satan's moral responsibility if we wanted).
Then we have to look at the act in question, and we find that it really isn't a moral flaw at all. In fact, by taking the knowledge, Adam and Eve were acting against an injustice (God creating them in a state of ignorance and keeping them there), something we could easily argue is a good moral choice. The only reason it is "wrong" is because it is disobeying God, but there's pretty strong consensus that it is moral to disobey (or even fight back against) an unjust ruler.
But is God unjust? I think he pretty clearly is. Like the negligent parent he leaves a dangerous item around where his children can get to it, and then blames the child when the inevitable happens. God demonstrates a level of morality far below human standards. And, for an omnipotent being that could easily do better if it wanted to, this is a pretty huge failure. And then, consider God's punishment for this disobedience: he expels Adam and Eve from paradise into a world of suffering, dooms them to age and die, and declares that their state of sin will send countless descendents to eternal torture in hell. This is an insanely disproportionate punishment, and the only moral judgment we can apply is very simple: evil.
Finally, it's a pretty bad lesson because the resulting state of Adam and Eve is seen as a bad thing. We now have moral responsibility, but rather than this being a positive thing, that we've grown up and become adults, it's seen as a fundamental flaw in humanity that keeps us from god. Even the name says it all, the Fall, not the Awakening. If it's meant to be a statement on our moral responsibility, shouldn't it say something besides "here is why you are unworthy"?
End result: as a factual story it's complete nonsense. As a symbolic story it tells horrible moral lessons. It praises appalling behavior, and condemns good actions.
The further point, regarding original sin, is that human nature is not complete as to its own moral perfection, which requires grace, the entirely gratuitous gift of the benign creator. I am sure that it could be twisted to bad ends, as with anything. Fortunately, we have a long and indeed ongoing tradition to turn to so that we don't, in arrogance, believe we should interpret these things ourselves according to our ignorance.
It hardly requires twisting to take it to bad ends. The "gift" is the same "gift" an abusive spouse gives by deciding not to beat their victim one night. God created the entire situation in the first place, and did so deliberately*. He created us with these imperfections instead of creating us perfect and worthy. He decided to make his gift conditional on accepting an act of torture and murder, with refusal punished by eternal torture, instead of simply giving it to us and allowing everyone into heaven. These are not morally praiseworthy actions, they're the actions of a sadistic tyrant, or, at best, an amoral rules-obsessed sociopath.
As a moral lesson it's just a bad one. Why would you prefer "we are not worthy and require the grace of god" to "we stand or fall on our own merits"? If you're going to base your beliefs on a moral message atheism offers a message of hope and responsibility, that instead of trusting in god to make everything right it's our duty to make the best world we can for ourselves.
*As an omnipotent being god could have chosen from an infinite variety of potential universes to create, including ones in which humanity is perfect but still has free will. And yet he chose to create this one.
Peregrine wrote: Ok, that's what it claims to say. Now let's look at what actually happens:
By all means, go educate yourself and approach the scripture in the context of tradition. Otherwise, we're talking about "Peregrinism" and not Christianity. No offense, but I couldn't care less about Peregrinism. It seems pretty fethed up, honestly.
Manchu...just trying to understand the context of your "idiots" comment. Are you stating that any other approach outside of Roman Catholicism is idiotic? You didn't directly say that, but it seemed implied..I didn't want to take you out of context.
No. I mean that no one should listen to people preaching hatred, violence, oppression, etc, and think they're getting an authentic insight into Christianity. I don't care whether the idiot in question is a televangelist or a cardinal. And yep, there have been a fair few idiots given fancy red hats over the ages up even to this very day.
Manchu wrote: By all means, go educate yourself and approach the scripture in the context of tradition. Otherwise, we're talking about "Peregrinism" and not Christianity. No offense, but I couldn't care less about Peregrinism. It seems pretty fethed up, honestly.
So I guess what you're saying is that the Christians who I have argued about this stuff with were lying to me when they said what they believe? I'm not just making this stuff up, it's a direct consequence of the things people have told me about their beliefs. Now, I'll grant that I come to a different conclusion from the same story, but that doesn't make it a straw man. And of course you have yet to tell me how those beliefs are actually wrong. As far as I've seen your only objection to what I've said has been "this isn't exactly what I believe" without ever giving any real substance to it.
And as for "tradition", I fail to see why it has any value. If "tradition" is that we take the original text and pretend that it says something it doesn't actually say, then tradition should be ignored. In that case "tradition" is nothing more than an excuse to keep believing in something even when it violates your moral standards. At that point shouldn't you just let go of the whole thing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: No. I mean that no one should listen to people preaching hatred, violence, oppression, etc, and think they're getting an authentic insight into Christianity. I don't care whether the idiot in question is a televangelist or a cardinal. And yep, there have been a fair few idiots given fancy red hats over the ages up even to this very day.
And, again, at some point it stops being a minority of idiots and becomes "authentic Christianity". It might be hard to accept that the mainstream beliefs of your religion are horrible, but the conclusion you should draw from it is that it's time to leave the religion, not that you and a small minority of people like you have the "authentic" religion and the majority doesn't.
The "original text" is just a tradition that got written down and that particular written version was preserved/modified by the same ongoing tradition. Talking about scripture without tradition is ludicrous.
Also, I don't doubt that you have talked to Christians. But if you are accurately reporting what they told you then all I can say is that they don't understand the religion that they profess or they aren't able to articulate it very well or you don't have the capacity to understand what they are saying. I suspect it is a little of each column, given your posts here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: And, again, at some point it stops being a minority of idiots and becomes "authentic Christianity".
And again, no.
There has always been and will always be more ignorance than knowledge but that does not reduce but rather enhances the value of knowledge.
Manchu wrote: The "original text" is just a tradition that got written down and that particular written version was preserved by the same ongoing tradition. Talking about scripture without tradition is ludicrous.
Sure, you have to take into account some of the history, but consider an analogy:
Suppose there's a movie that shows a parent murdering their child for disobedience, made back in the 1950s (AKA conservative fantasy land). Suppose that the intent of the movie, and the context in which it was shown and approved of originally, was "obey your parents or else".
Now suppose over time there is a tradition built up around the movie that says "it's a story about parents trying their best to help their children". Most people leave it at that superficial level and then go back to thinking about more important things, like who is going to win this week's football game, while a few scholars come up with elaborate explanations of how it works that way.
Now, would we consider that tradition to be valid, or would we say that the people following that tradition are just lying to themselves about what the movie really says? And should we say that the tradition is correct, or should we say that people should throw that awful movie in the garbage where it belongs?
The same thing is happening with Christianity. The message of the actual text and beliefs surrounding it is ethically horrible, but people say "this is a morally good story". What they say about the beliefs is completely out of touch with the content of those beliefs, and calling it "tradition" doesn't change anything.
Also, I don't doubt that you have talked to Christians. But if you are accurately reporting what they told you then all I can say is that they don't understand the religion that they profess or they aren't able to articulate it very well or you don't have the capacity to understand what they are saying. I suspect it is a little of each column, given your posts here.
And what makes you the judge of how well they understand their own religion? As far as I've seen your only complaint here is that they don't come to the same conclusion that you do.
And, again, at some point it stops being a minority of idiots and becomes "authentic Christianity".
And again, no.
And why not? If 95% of self-identified Christians believe in ethically horrible things, then those ethically horrible things are "authentic Christianity". What I don't get is why you insist on associating yourself with that label instead of letting go of something where the mainstream majority are so terrible in your opinion.
(Not saying it's exactly 95%, that's just a hypothetical number.)
Why? If someone punished their child by murdering it and tried to claim "I have the right to do whatever I want to it, I created it" we'd (rightfully) consider them insane and throw them in prison. However, I can't even count the number of times I've had Christians attempt to justify god's atrocities by saying "god has the right to do it to us, he created us".
It is a rather interesting problem for many that oppose abortion. I imagine that you get around it by considering fetuses to not be children.
The actions I'm talking about are pretty universally considered evil, and any plausible theory of morality will reach the same conclusion.
I can come up with theories of morality that do not. It isn't hard, just assume the actions are not immoral and engineer the theory with that in mind. That's basically how all theories of morality are created.
The basic tenants of Christianity are not really in controversy. If you think that it's about some tyrant terrorizing people, that is something you've come up with. Maybe some Christians have helped you come to that conclusion but the lot of you are unfortunately in the dark. Because that's not what is actually said at mass, or by the bishops, or by the popes throughout all the ages of the church, right back to Christ himself, at least to any extent that it's actually been preserved and handed on down to the people of today. How ancient Jews got their points across is a matter of scholarly research rather than popular discussion. Anyone who thinks they can interpret the Bible just because they have it in front of them is deluded. Whether they're a Christian or an atheist makes no difference, it's the same delusion of grandeur at work. Christianity is not an opinion. It's not about me making up what I think a story in a book is about. It's an act, something I do with a community in the context of a community. My understanding of my faith and the tradition and scripture, comes from a lived experience.
What you're talking from is an apparently ill-informed opinion.
Manchu wrote: The basic tenants of Christianity are not really in controversy. If you think that it's about some tyrant terrorizing people, that is something you've come up with.
dogma wrote: It is a rather interesting problem for many that oppose abortion. I imagine that you get around it by considering fetuses to not be children.
Edit: I see what you were actually saying.
In my experience they get around it by claiming that god has special creator rights that humans don't, and the poor "unborn child" is really god's creation so we have no right to destroy it.
I can come up with theories of morality that do not. It isn't hard, just assume the actions are not immoral and engineer the theory with that in mind. That's basically how all theories of morality are created.
Ok, can we not play devil's advocate just for the sake of arguing? You know perfectly well what I meant by that statement, that every moral theory that has ever found non-trivial acceptance in any community agrees on the very simple cases. We can argue all day about various theories and the most complex moral questions, but if you poll a hundred people at random they're all going to agree that murder is wrong.
Manchu wrote: If you think that it's about some tyrant terrorizing people, that is something you've come up with.
No, it's what the Bible actually describes. The only reason we're reluctant to apply the "tyrant" label is because Christians have decided that god must be "good" regardless of what the Bible says.
Because that's not what is actually said at mass, or by the bishops, or by the popes throughout all the ages of the church, right back to Christ himself, at least to any extent that it's actually been preserved and handed on down to the people of today.
Wrong again. You might not like the consequences I draw from the beliefs I'm talking about, but I'm referring to things which are commonly held beliefs.
My understanding of my faith and the tradition and scripture, comes from a lived experience.
And your lived experience does not seem to match up with what most people say about their beliefs.
Or, I could give a different explanation: you're a fundamentally decent person, and you want to have morally good beliefs. But, unfortunately, you've decided to rationalize away the bad parts of Christianity and convince yourself that it must be "good" even when the Bible describes horrible things. You've got a huge investment in the community and it's hard to leave it all behind, so rather than just say "this is evil, I'm done with it" you come up with some comforting explanations and don't question them too seriously. End result: you accomplish your goal of keeping your faith.
And even if this doesn't describe you personally, it certainly describes what a lot of people in your religion do.
In my experience they get around it by claiming that god has special creator rights that humans don't, and the poor "unborn child" is really god's creation so we have no right to destroy it.
You got one prong, but the second prong related to your implied claims regarding death in the context of abortion; assuming you support it.
Actually, I was brought up in an areligious household. I converted to Catholicism over the course of about eight years, most of which were spent in college or grad school. Your hypothetical account of my biography is as out-of-touch as your hypothetical account of Christian beliefs.
dogma wrote: You got one prong, but the second prong related to your implied claims regarding death in the context of abortion; assuming you support it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. What exactly is the second prong and how did I get it wrong (or not)?
Actually, I was brought up in an areligious household. I converted to Catholicism over the course of about eight years, most of which were spent in college or grad school. Your hypothetical account of my biography is as out-of-touch as your hypothetical account of Christian beliefs.
I never said you were born into your religion, I said you have a significant stake in the community.
That's still reading it backwards. I didn't convert to gain baggage. I'm not sure if I ever really thought it wasn't, but now I'm sure this discussion is totally useless.
Manchu wrote: That's still reading it backwards. I didn't convert to gain baggage. I'm not sure if I ever really thought it wasn't, but now I'm sure this discussion is totally useless.
I'm not talking about having baggage in the past, I'm talking about your current state now. I'm sure you had perfectly good reasons for converting, but everything you've posted here seems exactly like the kind of person who really doesn't agree with their religion anymore but has too much of a stake in the community to let go of it.
dogma wrote: You got one prong, but the second prong related to your implied claims regarding death in the context of abortion; assuming you support it.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. What exactly is the second prong and how did I get it wrong (or not)?
I want to guess that he's taking your stance that entities don't have authority over their own creations and mesh that with a pro-choice stance. You'll notice he stated the second prong relied on you being a supporter of abortion.
Taken together with your stance that there are standards which everyone agrees upon in regards to morality that are unarguable while stating God's 'murdering' of his 'children' was one of the proofs of his 'evilness' by our standards would be somewhat ironic.
Unrelated, but it always surprised me how Nazi-ish East Germany's Uniforms were... Aside from those horrendous helmets. Naturally, they had to do whatever the Russians told them to do, but why bother keeping the distinctive Heer markings instead of a more russian sort of thing?
I wonder how they allowed that to happen? Of course, they aren't exactly nazi uniforms, but they're close enough that I think it would've been upsetting to the German people.
Peregrine wrote: Except what makes your non-literal interpretation correct while theirs is wrong? I could argue just as easily that the literal interpretation is correct, and it just means that the story is an outdated myth and we should just abandon the religion entirely as factually absurd nonsense.
The interpretation I give is one consistent with biblical scholars, and one that can grant insight into life on Earth, even for a non-religious guy like me. When it comes to matters like this that's really the only way to judge what is 'correct'.
It doesn't matter if it's literal or not.
Of course it matters. When it isn't literal then a literal interpretation, such as "God is being very mean there in his punishment" stops making sense.
If I told you "It is the nature of Life and Man to follow the temptation of knowledge and so we became distant from God and are here on this Earth" and you replied "well that's very mean of God" it would sound ridiculous.
And that's what is happening here.
The answer of course is to say that Christianity is immoral and leave the church
People aren't moral or immoral based on how some point of view on some part of their religion can be made out to be immoral. They're moral or not based on their actions in the real world.
Using it to declare an entire faith as immoral is just so far from a grounded view of the world it's just... you can't hold to the view you've given here and be a good person. I'm sorry, but it really is that simple. That kind of bigotry is just so corrosive.
NThat might be your personal belief, but the belief of many (if not most) Christians is that original sin refers to a single specific event that occurred in the distant past.
You need to meet more Christians.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: If the majority of members of a religion believe things that make you dismiss them as idiots, shouldn't it be time to dismiss the religion as a whole?
No, of course not. The only reason to dismiss something as a whole is when that thing itself is bad, not when some, or even most of its member happen to misuse it.
Right now there's a vast number of people who think calling themselves atheist makes them more rational and more scientifically literate than other people. That just makes them donkey-caves, it doesn't make atheism wrong.
The best is when american atheists (usually white teenagers) claim that Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Shintoism aren't religions, only philosophies. Yeah go ahead and discredit the beliefs of billions of people because you just want to be anti Abrahamic.
I want to guess that he's taking your stance that entities don't have authority over their own creations and mesh that with a pro-choice stance. You'll notice he stated the second prong relied on you being a supporter of abortion.
Taken together with your stance that there are standards which everyone agrees upon in regards to morality that are unarguable while stating God's 'murdering' of his 'children' was one of the proofs of his 'evilness' by our standards would be somewhat ironic.
Manchu wrote: No. I mean that no one should listen to people preaching hatred, violence, oppression, etc, and think they're getting an authentic insight into Christianity. I don't care whether the idiot in question is a televangelist or a cardinal. And yep, there have been a fair few idiots given fancy red hats over the ages up even to this very day.
OK my apologies...
I am enjoying the discussion so far.
I disagree that Adam and Eve were mere symbols or that they are myth, of course. (and so does official Roman Catholic doctrine by the way)
The question I think arises as to the literary style and how the representation of the serpent and other things, I.E were these aspects symbolic or not.
generalgrog wrote: I disagree that Adam and Eve were mere symbols or that they are myth, of course. (and so does official Roman Catholic doctrine by the way)
generalgrog wrote: I disagree that Adam and Eve were mere symbols or that they are myth, of course. (and so does official Roman Catholic doctrine by the way)
Grog, please stick to what you know.
It kind of drew a smirk from me that Grog would come in here and exemplify what Peregrine has been saying in the thread...
Manchu wrote: How did GG exemplify Peregrine's position?
By stating that he believes that the Adam and Eve story from the Bible was a literal re tale of what really happened and not a metaphor like you are advocating?
At least that is what I think he meant when he said:
I disagree that Adam and Eve were mere symbols or that they are myth, of course. (and so does official Roman Catholic doctrine by the way)
And that is what Peregrine as been stating, that most (or at least a very large percentage), of Catholics believe that the Adam and Eve episode really happened as described in the Bible...
I'm not referring to the whole "God is a evil tyrant argument", if that is what you are thinking.
Hmm, Peregrine told me that I don't really believe in my religion, which is Christianity -- and which might actually be the most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me on Dakka -- in part because I don't read the Bible like he, a non-Christian, does. So there's a strange argument. Moving on, Peregrine thinks that Christians must believe that Bible stories are literally true (which we definitely don't) and GG is one of those Christians who more or less does think those stories (or at least some of them) are literally true. Just like Peregrine, GG is talking past his capacity when he attributes things to "official Catholic doctrine." To be honest, what is and is not Catholic doctrine about weird subjects like monogenism is such a thorny issue that it's beyond my capacity, too. What every person can easily know about Christianity is that it is not about hatred and oppression. The fact that Peregrine is getting himself so frothed up about that shows, as sebster commented, that he's about as far from grounded as possible.
Manchu wrote: -- and which might actually be the most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me on Dakka --
What about the time I said your homemade chicken noodle soup was 'just shy of pedestrian, and needed more pepper'? Pretty sure i saw a tear well up that day.
If anybody is curious about what the Catholic Church thinks about something, it's not like this information is hidden. The catechism is online, with a pretty good index:
And scroll down to 102, you can find the Catholic Church's statements on how to read and interpret the scriptures.
Notably, "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."
Samus_aran115 wrote:Unrelated, but it always surprised me how Nazi-ish East Germany's Uniforms were... Aside from those horrendous helmets. Naturally, they had to do whatever the Russians told them to do, but why bother keeping the distinctive Heer markings instead of a more russian sort of thing?
Spoiler:
I wonder how they allowed that to happen? Of course, they aren't exactly nazi uniforms, but they're close enough that I think it would've been upsetting to the German people.
That's because these markings aren't of Nazi but Prussian / WW1 Reichswehr origin. Just like its West-German counterpart (which also kept the Iron Cross as its symbol), the NVA attempted to reconnect to these origins and traditions. I suppose it would have been possible to come up with something entirely new, but you have to keep in mind that back then people didn't automatically associate these uniforms, whose style had been around for quite some time, with the mere 12 years of the Third Reich. I think that's something more recent, because today people only ever hear about Nazi Germany but are relatively clueless about the decades before or after.
Spoiler:
It's a legacy that did not only exist in the West- and East German army but continues in the Post-Reunification Bundeswehr as well. My Air Force uniform even kept the aviation wings on the right breast, but of course without the WW2 swastika.
But I guess you could say that in the process of developing an army of "citizens in uniform" we have become somewhat more conscious about the issue. For example, we only break out the boots and belts for parades and honor guard stuff, otherwise just wearing the jacket and normal shoes. In the first image you can see both types of uniform next to each other. Also, the Ground Forces have deviated some more from the Prussian/Reichswehr/Wehrmacht style compared to the Air Force, by wearing berets instead of caps (in the AF this is something only done by the Object Protection regiment) and by having their pants be of a different colour (black) than their jackets (grey) - a fact often abused for friendly teasing by the other branches. "Picked the wrong pants this morning?"
generalgrog wrote: I disagree that Adam and Eve were mere symbols or that they are myth, of course. (and so does official Roman Catholic doctrine by the way)
Polonius wrote: Given what we know about genetics, all humans do share a common ancestor.
Hah, that's one big o can of worms . What do you consider the earliest 'common' ancestor? The first mammal? The first hominin? The first chimpanzee/human split?
I mean--really I say this tongue in cheek because given metaphorical analysis--Adam and Eve can mean the first eukaryotic cell division--to the first hominen--to a literal 2,000 year old creationist. *Shrug*--such beliefs are an ever expanding tautology and really not worth arguing about.
Polonius wrote: Given what we know about genetics, all humans do share a common ancestor.
Hah, that's one big o can of worms . What do you consider the earliest 'common' ancestor? The first mammal? The first hominin? The first chimpanzee/human split?
I mean--really I say this tongue in cheek because given metaphorical analysis--Adam and Eve can mean the first eukaryotic cell division--to the first hominen--to a literal 2,000 year old creationist. *Shrug*--such beliefs are an ever expanding tautology and really not worth arguing about.
No, I mean that there are two people, between 60,000 and 200,000 that are the male and female ancestors to all humans.
Peregrine wrote:Ok, fine. It's an origin story and we shouldn't take it literally. Congratulations on destroying the entire concept of original sin, a fundamental principle of many (if not all) branches of Christian doctrine. If Eve didn't actually give in to temptation then the entire story of Jesus makes no sense. Without original sin to make us all unworthy of god and require the sacrifice of Jesus to allow us into heaven there's no need for salvation through faith, and you can be a good person and be just as worthy of heaven. Now, one can argue that the doctrine of original sin is a horrible ethical concept, but it's not exactly a trivial detail about Christianity we're talking about reversing.
When I hear "original sin", what springs to mind first is that the entire concept was used to suppress women and justify mysoginy throughout the middle ages. And in many places, it keeps women out of the priesthood up to this very day.
reds8n wrote: The Pope walks into a pub and Jewish barman says " Why the wrong faith ?"
*badum-tshhh*
AgeOfEgos wrote:
Polonius wrote:Given what we know about genetics, all humans do share a common ancestor.
Hah, that's one big o can of worms . What do you consider the earliest 'common' ancestor? The first mammal? The first hominin? The first chimpanzee/human split?
I mean--really I say this tongue in cheek because given metaphorical analysis--Adam and Eve can mean the first eukaryotic cell division--to the first hominen--to a literal 2,000 year old creationist. *Shrug*--such beliefs are an ever expanding tautology and really not worth arguing about.
If we're talking "Adam and Eve", it gets even more interesting when you consider that it must've been a mighty coincidence indeed for a male and a female proto-human of an equal evolutionary status to split-off from the monkeys at the same time and at the same place (in order to mate and produce offspring), but that it happened nowhere else...
Polonius wrote: Given what we know about genetics, all humans do share a common ancestor.
I'm well aware of the term Mitochondrial Eve---that, however is my point . She is not our common ancestor--as you stated in your first post (quoted above). She's not even really a common genetic ancestor at all. Mitochrondria DNA is vastly different than nuclear DNA--in fact it isn't in nuclear DNA at all and lies outside of the nucleus (This also gives us good evidence to the bacterial/viral origin of Mitochondria). So really mitochondrial eve isn't Eve at all--she's just the first 'hominen' that our mtDNA traces to. And before her there were countless women/men that contributed to our nuclear DNA as well. This actually forbids her from being some ancestral mother---when she lived other females were carrying around variants as well. It just happens that they had too many sons and not enough daughters. *Edit--actually a quick Google turned up this excellently written essay*
Which explains why we can trace our mtDNA to one maternal line 200k+ years ago--yet trace the Y chromosome line to only 60k years ago (Your Y Chromosomal 'Adam'). Unless you want to start considering the genetic material found in mtDNA, etc, ad nauseum regression--which is my metaphor point. Once you state Adam/Eve is not a literal translation, anything goes. And does .
@Lynata
I apologize if I came across as suggesting an common early ancestor was spontaneously birthed by a monkey/ape (We didn't evolve from apes--we are an ape and chimpanzees are our cousins). Speciasation is something we define after several thousand genetic mutations differentiate one class of creature from another. This is why the notion of a "Missing Link" is absurd--every time you find another step, you exponentially increase the number of steps in between the previous two rungs. To take that even further--even after enough genetic mutations occurred after thousands of years--there is strong evidence that we interbred with earlier hominids.
As to your catastrophe link---Gould put forth the punctuated equilibrium theory vs. the accepted gradualism view of genetics. While bottlenecks certainly may lead to less genetic variants over time--I'm not sure that it really shows rapid genetic expansion. Gould was grilled pretty badly over it--but even it was found to be true, he was just stating evolution is static until great environmental pressure causes aggressive mutation.
...and now--I'm going to go play Wii with my little 7 year old ape
AgeOfEgos wrote:I apologize if I came across as suggesting an common early ancestor was spontaneously birthed by a monkey/ape
No, no, you didn't! It's more the talk about a common ancestor and the supposed existence of a unique Adam-and-Eve pairing that kind of sound as if it would suggest this. If there was an Adam and an Eve, I doubt they were on the same step in the evolutionary ladder.
As for humans still being apes ... that's something I wouldn't agree with, though I am certain my perception on this issue is more philosophical and less scientifical. Regardless of the evolutionary link, apes are animals, and humans managed to ascend many evolutionary steps ago. It's just something I link to a people's level of civilisation. Don't ask me where I would draw the line, though, because that would get real fuzzy, considering how smart some animals are.
AgeOfEgos wrote:While bottlenecks certainly may lead to less genetic variants over time--I'm not sure that it really shows rapid genetic expansion.
Well, I imagine it would depend on a lot of other factors, but if one subtype is better able to adapt to the post-event conditions than the others, or even better endure the event itself, then he gains a huge advantage against others with whom he has to contend for resources. I vaguely recall reading an article about one distant cousin of ours who was basically exterminated due to repeated clashes between "their" tribes and "ours". At the very least such a catastrophe, if it truly happened this way, would reduce the number of "relatives" and thus diversity ...
While I would disagree that humans are not apes and not credit too much civilization to our species, I can respect our disagreement and believe I understand the philosophical nuance you draw. An interesting read furthering that topic is "The Sex and Politics of Chimpanzees";
After reading that, you might catch yourself thinking "Quit acting like a damn chimp" at work .
RE: Genetic expansion------Environmental conditions certainly contribute to natural selection (that is the essence of natural selection--environmental pressures favoring genetic mutation and diversity). Gould took that a bit further stating that evolution was stagnant until environmental catastrophes caused rapid expansion (punctuated equilibrium). I don't believe that, for a variety of reasons (For example, if that were true--the ability to mutate quickly would in itself become naturally selected--which means no more periods of stagnation should follow, etc.). Who the hell am I though?
That said, I will likely not post anymore on the subject in fear of dragging this completely OT--so don't take my lack of reply as a slight, simply being polite to the OP.
Lynata wrote: When I hear "original sin", what springs to mind first is that the entire concept was used to suppress women and justify mysoginy throughout the middle ages.
We already went over interpretations and people conveniently reading into the scripture what they want - today as much as back then - so there's no need to lecture me on this not being the only view on Original Sin as I am already aware of it. I'm just pointing out historical facts, which are fairly important to understand certain issues which are still prevalent even in today's culture.
Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.
So we can add hilarious ignorance of science to the list of the church's flaws? Or would that flaw be better described as stubborn refusal to accept that "god did it" isn't a good explanation?
How about you try to communicate your views without being rude about it?
The people you're talking with have been mostly very patient and polite with you. Could you make an effort to be friendlier?
Religious people who believe in evolution and the development of species still generally believe that the gods imbued us with the higher functions and inspiration which make humanity unique among the animals on Earth.
Manchu wrote: Hmm, Peregrine told me that I don't really believe in my religion, which is Christianity -- and which might actually be the most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me on Dakka -- in part because I don't read the Bible like he, a non-Christian, does.
No, if you read at all you would see that what I actually said was "you don't read the Bible like other Christians I've encountered do". Forget Peregrinism you seem to have invented Mancuism, your own brand of "Christianity" which changes everything to make it more appealing.
What every person can easily know about Christianity is that it is not about hatred and oppression.
Let me guess, the classic "no true Christian" argument is your explanation for why we should forget about the huge number of people who feel that their Christianity IS about hatred and oppression? Or are we supposed to believe them when they hate and oppress but call it "love"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: Religious people who believe in evolution and the development of species still generally believe that the gods imbued us with the higher functions and inspiration which make humanity unique among the animals on Earth.
Read the source he cited again. It says that those things cannot be explained by purely natural events which ignores the overwhelming evidence that they were. It's no better than a theory saying that objects falling is too much for the theory of gravity to explain so we need to invoke "intelligent falling". I see absolutely no reason to approve of the church's decision to take an official position that contradicts everything we know about the subject.
And it IS a terrible explanation. There's absolutely no explanation of how "god did it", or exactly how the scientific theory is lacking, it's just an assumption that any theory the church can (officially) approve of has to include "god did it" somewhere in it. That might be fine for the average believer with little or no interest in the subject, but it's incredibly irresponsible for people in a position of authority to spread a (factually) terrible theory like that.
That original sin, a doctrine about the nature of all human people, somehow has special, mysiognistic connotations. No, what I know is that your are speaking 100% from prejudice and 0% from knowledge.
Mannahnin wrote: How about you try to communicate your views without being rude about it?
The people you're talking with have been mostly very patient and polite with you. Could you make an effort to be friendlier?
It's a lot easier to do that when the people in question don't consistently misrepresent what I actually said. I've corrected him multiple times about the fact that "my" version of theology is not my own personal "Peregrinism" developed as an ignorant outsider, it's the theology that actual self-identified Christians have explained to me. And yet over and over again it's just "my invention as an atheist".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: That original sin, a doctrine about the nature of all human people, somehow has special, mysiognistic connotations. No, what I know is that your are speaking 100% from prejudice and 0% from knowledge.
Oh yeah, it can only be based on prejudice and not knowledge. There has never been a case where people in authority have blamed women specifically for original sin. You know, since Eve was a woman and was the weak one who tempted Adam and destroyed him.
And, like it or not, the people saying that were self-identified Christians.
It's a lot easier to do that when the people in question don't consistently misrepresent what I actually said. I've corrected him multiple times about the fact that "my" version of theology is not my own personal "Peregrinism" developed as an ignorant outsider, it's the theology that actual self-identified Christians have explained to me. And yet over and over again it's just "my invention as an atheist".
Do you honestly think that makes what you say insightful? No, seriously, do you think that 1) we're going to accept everything you say as being an accurate depiction of what "actual self-identified Christians" explained to you, and 2) that those self identified christians actually knew what they were talking about?
No offense dude, but you'd be better off claiming it was your own interpretation. Saying "I got it from a guy that says he's christian" is like telling a judge "the guy on the subway said there was case law on this."
I mean, Fred Phelps is a "self identified christian," and I wouldn't rely on his interpretation of a Denny's menu.
Polonius wrote: 2) that those self identified christians actually knew what they were talking about?
Well, given that the entire "proof" of why they're wrong so far has consisted of "that's not what I believe", then no, I don't see any reason to doubt that they know about their own religion.
No offense dude, but you'd be better off claiming it was your own interpretation. Saying "I got it from a guy that says he's christian" is like telling a judge "the guy on the subway said there was case law on this."
That's a terrible analogy. The guy on the subway is claiming factual knowledge that is objectively true or not, and it's easy to prove whether or not they were correct. The self-identified Christian is simply declaring their membership in a group related to a subject where there is no factual proof* for any side and what is "correct" is determined solely by the members of that group. There is no objective outside authority to say "X is a Christian belief, Y is not" if both of the people claiming X and Y are self-identified Christians.
*Besides the whole "there is no god" thing, even believers admit it when they say how important faith is.
Polonius wrote: 2) that those self identified christians actually knew what they were talking about?
Well, given that the entire "proof" of why they're wrong so far has consisted of "that's not what I believe", then no, I don't see any reason to doubt that they know about their own religion.
Yet, oddly... you see plenty of reason to doubt that everybody in this thread knows about their religion.
No offense dude, but you'd be better off claiming it was your own interpretation. Saying "I got it from a guy that says he's christian" is like telling a judge "the guy on the subway said there was case law on this."
That's a terrible analogy. The guy on the subway is claiming factual knowledge that is objectively true or not, and it's easy to prove whether or not they were correct.
That you think the issue of if there is case law speaking on in issue is an objective fact that is easy to prove is hilarious and charming. In any interesting matter it's always a contest between interpretations.
The self-identified Christian is simply declaring their membership in a group related to a subject where there is no factual proof* for any side and what is "correct" is determined solely by the members of that group. There is no objective outside authority to say "X is a Christian belief, Y is not" if both of the people claiming X and Y are self-identified Christians.
*Besides the whole "there is no god" thing, even believers admit it when they say how important faith is.
Well, hold on there. there is no factual prove that there is a god. There is no factual proof that the Bible is the word of god.
There is plenty of factual proof about what the Bible says, what it means, and how christians interpret it, especially since nearly all agree on the same basic document. You can construct a geometric proof or anything, but there are strong reasons to accept one interpretation over another. The same way there are reasons to interpret any document.
Polonius wrote: That you think the issue of if there is case law speaking on in issue is an objective fact that is easy to prove is hilarious and charming. In any interesting matter it's always a contest between interpretations.
In this context purposes case law is objective. It's easy to independently verify the subway guy's qualifications (or lack of, more likely) by consulting the independent set of facts that everyone relevant has agreed on*. We can't do the same for the self-identified Christian because there's no independent set of facts to say that one branch of Christianity is "right" or "wrong" compared to another one. You might be able to say it in the case of the extremist "church" that consists of a crazy preacher and his immediate family, but you can't dismiss, say, biblical literalism as "wrong" as illegitimate like that since it's a much more common belief.
*Ok, yes, there is controversy in law. But I don't think the subway "lawyer" is referring to any legitimate areas of controversy.
Well, hold on there. there is no factual prove that there is a god. There is no factual proof that the Bible is the word of god.
There is no absolute proof, but only because it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything.
However, any sensible system of beliefs about the world includes some variation of "don't believe in the existence of things without good evidence" and there is absolutely no evidence for god. There isn't even a solid theoretical argument for the existence of god. It's just like the case of the celestial teapot: we can't prove that it doesn't exist, but belief in it is not rational and the incredibly small chance of being wrong doesn't stop us from saying "it doesn't exist".
There is plenty of factual proof about what the Bible says, what it means, and how christians interpret it, especially since nearly all agree on the same basic document. You can construct a geometric proof or anything, but there are strong reasons to accept one interpretation over another. The same way there are reasons to interpret any document.
Except the person in question rejected the idea of just using the words of the Bible and insisted that we have to look at the "true" meaning as established by the tradition of his personal branch of Christianity. A meaning which turns the entire story we were discussing into a symbolic one, where the symbolism is all incredibly subjective and never defined anywhere in the actual text of the Bible.
Polonius wrote: That you think the issue of if there is case law speaking on in issue is an objective fact that is easy to prove is hilarious and charming. In any interesting matter it's always a contest between interpretations.
In this context purposes case law is objective. It's easy to independently verify the subway guy's qualifications (or lack of, more likely) by consulting the independent set of facts that everyone relevant has agreed on*. We can't do the same for the self-identified Christian because there's no independent set of facts to say that one branch of Christianity is "right" or "wrong" compared to another one. You might be able to say it in the case of the extremist "church" that consists of a crazy preacher and his immediate family, but you can't dismiss, say, biblical literalism as "wrong" as illegitimate like that since it's a much more common belief.
*Ok, yes, there is controversy in law. But I don't think the subway "lawyer" is referring to any legitimate areas of controversy.
Well, no. You're saying that in this context case law is objective. I mean, it sounds like what you're saying is that because Christianity is based on a set of texts, every person is going to walk away with a different meaning. Which is unlike the law in almost no meaningful way. Oh, sure, there's somebody who picks a winner from two competing interpretations when highly specific instances arise, but if the law were nearly as objective as you think, we would have a lot more unanimous supreme court decisions.
The only real difference between scripture and jurisprudence is that judges can make final rulings.
Well, hold on there. there is no factual prove that there is a god. There is no factual proof that the Bible is the word of god.
There is no absolute proof, but only because it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything.
However, any sensible system of beliefs about the world includes some variation of "don't believe in the existence of things without good evidence" and there is absolutely no evidence for god. There isn't even a solid theoretical argument for the existence of god. It's just like the case of the celestial teapot: we can't prove that it doesn't exist, but belief in it is not rational and the incredibly small chance of being wrong doesn't stop us from saying "it doesn't exist".
I'm not sure why you're teeing off on my statement that there is factual evidence for god's existence. I'd disagree about the sensibility about believing in things that can't be proven, but that's a given between any theist and atheist.
There is plenty of factual proof about what the Bible says, what it means, and how christians interpret it, especially since nearly all agree on the same basic document. You can construct a geometric proof or anything, but there are strong reasons to accept one interpretation over another. The same way there are reasons to interpret any document.
Except the person in question rejected the idea of just using the words of the Bible and insisted that we have to look at the "true" meaning as established by the tradition of his personal branch of Christianity. A meaning which turns the entire story we were discussing into a symbolic one, where the symbolism is all incredibly subjective and never defined anywhere in the actual text of the Bible.
What you seem to struggle with is that you can believe something to be true, but not literally true.
Science first showed that the bible can't be literally true about 500 years ago. More if you want to discard all the miracles.
So, yeah, many Christians don't' believe in a literal garden of eden. No matter how you shake it, Genesis is old. It's the creation story of semi-literate goat herders. Yeah, it doesn't start off with the big bang, a billion year so evolution, and the subtle shift from intelligence to sentience.
The point of the story is that God creates man, and man will inevitably disobey god (sin). Because of this, man cannot live in paradise, but most struggle and die.
I don't see why it matters if this literally happened 6500 years ago, or is a symbolic statement of the human condition.
So we can add hilarious ignorance of science to the list of the church's flaws? Or would that flaw be better described as stubborn refusal to accept that "god did it" isn't a good explanation?
Thankfully, as the Church is not a scientific organization it really doesn't matter.
That's really one thing I always found odd about certain atheists, they seem to really enjoy attacking the relationship of a particular faith with science. In certain instances this makes sense, for example if we're talking about science education, stem cells, or any area of science where politics becomes a concern. But most of the time it simply doesn't matter because whether or not you believe in Evolution, Adam and Eve, Divine creation, or any of a host of other fairly esoteric concepts doesn't have much bearing on how you conduct your daily life.
Polonius wrote: Well, no. You're saying that in this context case law is objective. I mean, it sounds like what you're saying is that because Christianity is based on a set of texts, every person is going to walk away with a different meaning. Which is unlike the law in almost no meaningful way. Oh, sure, there's somebody who picks a winner from two competing interpretations when highly specific instances arise, but if the law were nearly as objective as you think, we would have a lot more unanimous supreme court decisions.
But, like I said, the guy on the subway is far outside that controversy and it's pretty easy to tell that his legal advice is absolute nonsense that no judge is going to consider seriously. On the other hand, when you're considering something like biblical literalism you can't say that it's objectively the wrong kind of Christianity. You can say that it isn't your Christianity, but it's absurd to say that a popular branch of the religion is not actually a part of it despite their self-identification as a part of it.
I'm not sure why you're teeing off on my statement that there is factual evidence for god's existence. I'd disagree about the sensibility about believing in things that can't be proven, but that's a given between any theist and atheist.
I'm just pointing out that "proof god doesn't exist" is a straw man of atheism. You might not have intended it that way but it's often followed by "you don't know 100% so STFU", when atheism actually claims something else. Call it a bit of preemptive defense if you want.
The point of the story is that God creates man, and man will inevitably disobey god (sin). Because of this, man cannot live in paradise, but most struggle and die.
I don't see why it matters if this literally happened 6500 years ago, or is a symbolic statement of the human condition.
Except I never argued for factual literalism about the story. What I said is that:
1) If we're going to take it as a symbolic statement about the human condition we need to consider the symbolism that is actually present in the text, not the symbolism that has been added by "tradition" independently of anything that's in the story.
and
2) The symbolic statements about the human condition are ethically horrible. If it's a symbolic lesson it's a bad one that we should strongly reject.
None of my criticism requires the Christian to believe in factual literalism, and "it's symbolic" doesn't dodge it one bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Thankfully, as the Church is not a scientific organization it really doesn't matter.
Then the church needs to stop making statements about science. The source I was quoting from (linked by a Christian) says that evolution alone isn't good enough. It's a factual claim about a scientific subject, and an incorrect one. It's entirely appropriate to criticize the church for speaking from a self-appointed position of authority on a scientific subject.
There is no absolute proof, but only because it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything.
That's actually not true, its simply very difficult to do so without narrowly defining the thing. I can quite easily prove that a given word does not exist on a given page in a given book. Proving the existence or nonexistence of God is only difficult because God is in itself difficult to define, and even more difficult to constrain spatially. Indeed, according to some interpretations of the concept God cannot be constrained spatially.
Except the person in question rejected the idea of just using the words of the Bible and insisted that we have to look at the "true" meaning as established by the tradition of his personal branch of Christianity. A meaning which turns the entire story we were discussing into a symbolic one, where the symbolism is all incredibly subjective and never defined anywhere in the actual text of the Bible.
The Bible isn't a scientific text, or a philosophical treatise. It doesn't need to explicit in the same way poetry does not need to be explicit. The type of truth people find in the Bible is, in many ways, the same sort of truth people find in something written by Maya Angelou.
dogma wrote: That's actually not true, its simply very difficult to do so without narrowly defining the thing. I can quite easily prove that a given word does not exist on a given page in a given book. Proving the existence or nonexistence of God is only difficult because God is in itself difficult to define, and even more difficult to constrain spatially. Indeed, according to some interpretations of the concept God cannot be constrained spatially.
How? You can show me the book, but I can argue that you're just blind and can't see it. And I can keep coming up with possible-but-absurd excuses until you finally give up. Now, you will certainly establish overwhelming evidence that the word doesn't exist and that's sufficient to make nonexistence of the word the only rational belief, but it's not 100%.
Anyway, the whole point was just to cut off an argument that he wasn't actually going to make, so I don't see much purpose in continuing it.
Peregrine wrote: The Bible isn't a scientific text, or a philosophical treatise. It doesn't need to explicit in the same way poetry does not need to be explicit. The type of truth people find in the Bible is, in many ways, the same sort of truth people find in something written by Maya Angelou.
Ok, fine. It's symbolic. I already said that. But if we have, say, a poem describing torture and murder we should consider symbolism like "wow, humans are really awful to each other" not "humans are always kind and peaceful". And we certainly shouldn't throw out the symbolism about people being awful just because we want the poem to be about happy things. Anyone who has studied literature can tell you this, you have to work with the actual text, and freedom to interpret symbolism is not the same thing as freedom to invent any meaning you like.
The same is true of the story of Adam and Eve. The symbolism and moral lessons of the story are horrible, and the only reason to pretend otherwise is if you start from the assumption that Christianity has to be about good and happy things.
Then the church needs to stop making statements about science. The source I was quoting from (linked by a Christian) says that evolution alone isn't good enough. It's a factual claim about a scientific subject, and an incorrect one. It's entirely appropriate to criticize the church for speaking from a self-appointed position of authority on a scientific subject.
Does anyone who actually works in a field where evolution is relevant pay any attention to what the Church says? The answer is, of course, no.
I think one problem here is that you misunderstand what is being said when the Church takes a particular position on science (at least when its acting correctly). It isn't a comment on the merit of the science itself. The Church is not claiming that evolution is a bad theory if it says it isn't enough, it is saying that it isn't enough to be spiritually satisfactory.
What I get from this is that Peregrine admits that it is poetic and symbolic, but that he also decided what it meant and that anyone that disagrees his interpretation is idiotic and he dismisses them. So, essentially, we have a zealot on our hands.
How? You can show me the book, but I can argue that you're just blind and can't see it. And I can keep coming up with possible-but-absurd excuses until you finally give up. Now, you will certainly establish overwhelming evidence that the word doesn't exist and that's sufficient to make nonexistence of the word the only rational belief, but it's not 100%.
Anyway, the whole point was just to cut off an argument that he wasn't actually going to make, so I don't see much purpose in continuing it.
As I said, it has to do with definition (and also assumptions). You can always question the merit of a definition, but according to the parameters I have established for proof I can, with 100% certainty, prove the nonexistence of something.
Ok, fine. It's symbolic. I already said that. But if we have, say, a poem describing torture and murder we should consider symbolism like "wow, humans are really awful to each other" not "humans are always kind and peaceful".
It depends on how the torture are employed in the poem. I think you're getting caught in your own hyperbole here, the Bible never indicates that people are always kind and peaceful. Quite the opposite, it describes how humans can behave in a way which is kind and peaceful while explicitly stating that their nature makes it difficult; at least as its presently arranged. After all, we've been fething around with canonization for quite some time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: What I get from this is that Peregrine admits that it is poetic and symbolic, but that he also decided what it meant and that anyone that disagrees his interpretation is idiotic and he dismisses them. So, essentially, we have a zealot on our hands.
dogma wrote: Does anyone who actually works in a field where evolution is relevant pay any attention to what the Church says? The answer is, of course, no.
Nobody who works in that field, but the church influences people who aren't biologists. We wouldn't be happy if the church taught that F = M/A instead of F = M*A and dismiss it with "oh, it's not like anyone who needs physics for their job listens", we'd be outraged about them spreading false knowledge. So why make an exception for evolution?
I think one problem here is that you misunderstand what is being said when the Church takes a particular position on science (at least when its acting correctly). It isn't a comment on the merit of the science itself. The Church is not claiming that evolution is a bad theory if it says it isn't enough, it is saying that it isn't enough to be spiritually satisfactory.
Except the quoted statement DOES make a comment on science and religious statements on evolution consistently use scientific language and an assumption that they're providing a legitimate scientific opinion not just spiritual guidance that stands entirely separate from science.
It depends on how the torture are employed in the poem. I think you're getting caught in your own hyperbole here, the Bible never indicates that people are always kind and peaceful. Quite the opposite, it describes how humans can behave in a way which is kind and peaceful while explicitly stating that their nature makes it difficult; at least as its presently arranged. After all, we've been fething around with canonization for quite some time.
Except the Bible doesn't just present flawed humanity and say "this is why we suck, we need to do better", it presents morally horrible actions with approval. Over and over again the supposedly "good" god does horrible things, or commands his followers to do horrible things. Over and over again we see horrible things presented as "virtue". And the fact that some Christians wave their hand and say "this is a story about good things" doesn't magically change it.
Ahtman wrote: What I get from this is that Peregrine admits that it is poetic and symbolic, but that he also decided what it meant and that anyone that disagrees his interpretation is idiotic and he dismisses them. So, essentially, we have a zealot on our hands.
No, I argued that if someone takes a symbolic interpretation that is completely opposed to the actual text there's a problem. We're not talking about a subtle difference in symbolic interpretation, we're talking about a dramatic change in the basic message of the story, and one that isn't supported at all by what it actually says.
Manchu wrote:That original sin, a doctrine about the nature of all human people, somehow has special, mysiognistic connotations. No, what I know is that your are speaking 100% from prejudice and 0% from knowledge.
Wow, I guess that means stuff like the Malleus Maleficarum and the suppression of women didn't really happen, and the Vatican did not just publish a memo saying female priests to be "as sinful as child abuse" in 2010. I'm relieved!
"Women must cover their heads because they are not the image of God. They must do this as a sign of their subjection to authority and because sin came into the world through them. Their heads must be covered in church in order to honor the bishop. In like manner they have no authority to speak because the bishop is the embodiment of Christ. They must thus act before the bishop as before Christ, the judge, since the bishop is the representative of the Lord. Because of original sin they must show themselves submissive." - Decretum Gratiani, Canon Law of the Catholic Church until 1918
"What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colours." - Hammer of the Witches, published by Inquisitor Heinrich Kramer after receiving, via Papal Bull, full authority to prosecute, interrogate and punish supposed sorcerers and heretics
... or maybe it's you who needs to brush up on his knowledge. Regardless of what the original author meant as he wrote it down, this is what the church made of it. Denial won't change the truth, it only makes you look less objective.
Over and over again the supposedly "good" god does horrible things, or commands his followers to do horrible things
Ancient Judaism did not follow a a good vs evil dynamic. Like other ancient religious traditions of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greater Syria, it followed a dynamic of Order vs Chaos. God under this dynamic was Order. Doing moral good wasn't necessarily his goal. This changed somewhere between the 6th and 3rd centuries BCE after Zorastrianism exerted some influence with the rise of the Persian Empire.
The problem you present is one of cultural confusion, which is pretty much bound to happen in a religion with 3000+ years of baggage.
Nobody who works in that field, but the church influences people who aren't biologists. We wouldn't be happy if the church taught that F = M/A instead of F = M*A and dismiss it with "oh, it's not like anyone who needs physics for their job listens", we'd be outraged about them spreading false knowledge. So why make an exception for evolution?
Because evolution is an esoteric concept and not a particular equation, and one which the Church does not dispute outside its merit with respect to spiritual doctrine.
And if the Church did what you describe I wouldn't care, it just means we ignore them unless they become violent or start making a significant effort to affect policy.
Except the quoted statement DOES make a comment on science and religious statements on evolution consistently use scientific language and an assumption that they're providing a legitimate scientific opinion not just spiritual guidance that stands entirely separate from science.
It does, but it isn't a comment made by the Church.
Except the Bible doesn't just present flawed humanity and say "this is why we suck, we need to do better", it presents morally horrible actions with approval. Over and over again the supposedly "good" god does horrible things, or commands his followers to do horrible things. Over and over again we see horrible things presented as "virtue". And the fact that some Christians wave their hand and say "this is a story about good things" doesn't magically change it.
The only Christians I've heard say its a story about "good things" are what my dad calls Sunday Christians. They go to Church, but don't really pay any attention to the underlying theology and have probably never read the Bible.
Over and over again the supposedly "good" god does horrible things, or commands his followers to do horrible things
Ancient Judaism did not follow a a good vs evil dynamic. Like other ancient religious traditions of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greater Syria, it followed a dynamic of Order vs Chaos. God under this dynamic was Order. Doing moral good wasn't necessarily his goal. This changed somewhere between the 6th and 3rd centuries BCE after Zorastrianism exerted some influence with the rise of the Persian Empire.
The problem you present is one of cultural confusion, which is pretty much bound to happen in a religion with 3000+ years of baggage.
Ok, sure. Call it order vs. chaos. But you can't simultaneously say that somehow in 2012 it is a story of a good god and a book of symbolic lessons on how to be a virtuous person. And that's exactly the problem: modern Christians are claiming the Bible says something that it doesn't.
dogma wrote: Because evolution is an esoteric concept and not a particular equation, and one which the Church does not dispute outside its merit with respect to spiritual doctrine.
Except the quote in question is talking about the scientific merit.
It does, but it isn't a comment made by the Church.
It's a comment contained on a Catholic website, posted with approval by a Christian. And it's entirely consistent with other statements made by Christians (including those in positions of authority to speak for their churches) commenting on a scientific issue.
The only Christians I've heard say its a story about "good things" are what my dad calls Sunday Christians. They go to Church, but don't really pay any attention to the underlying theology and have probably never read the Bible.
Have you even been paying attention to this thread? The past few pages of argument have been about someone claiming that the story is about "good things", even if he didn't use those exact words.
Polonius wrote: Third, the very definition of hell is that it is removed from god. So, it's actually the one place he isn't.
Actually if God is omnipresent he is everywhere including hell (since he made it) But the people there, who have chosen to be there, cannot experience him and thus are eternally seperated from him.
Have you even been paying attention to this thread? The past few pages of argument have been about someone claiming that the story is about "good things", even if he didn't use those exact words.
To me the past few pages read as an atheist ranting about things he doesn't understand, and I say that as an atheist.
dogma wrote: To me the past few pages read as an atheist ranting about things he doesn't understand, and I say that as an atheist.
Fine, then help me understand. Tell me exactly HOW the story of Adam and Eve gives us good moral lessons. Tell me, in detail, which moral lessons it is supposed to present, and how the events of the story communicate that message. Because all I've seen here is a bunch of excuses and handwaving, and no attempt at all to explain WHY I'm wrong.
Manchu wrote: A defunct canon and the Malleus Maleficarum. Wow, I guess you really got me there.
And don't forget the one from 2010.
Plus, it's kind of amusing that you'd dismiss the one where the representative of god on earth is speaking on matters of theology. I guess it was only good until 1918, and then god changed his mind?
dogma wrote: To me the past few pages read as an atheist ranting about things he doesn't understand, and I say that as an atheist.
Fine, then help me understand. Tell me exactly HOW the story of Adam and Eve gives us good moral lessons. Tell me, in detail, which moral lessons it is supposed to present, and how the events of the story communicate that message. Because all I've seen here is a bunch of excuses and handwaving, and no attempt at all to explain WHY I'm wrong.
Well, I'm dumb enough to take this bait.
The story illustrates that it is not God, but man, that brings evil into the world.
It also shows that man is incapable of not sinning. Even standing in Eden, with God literally telling him, personally, not to do something, man will disobey. So, work hard on resisting temptation.
For christian's it's important because the fall of man is linked to his salvation. Man rejected god at first, but god reached out again to save him.
youbedead wrote: No, it's lesson on how to be good, it itself is not a good story.
And everything it says about how to be "good" is horrible.
I think this should just stand as a testament to the paucity of your knowledge on these matters.
While I agree with dogma's point, to say that "everything" in the Bible that says how to be good is "horrible" is hyperbole at best and sheer ignorance at worst.
While I agree with dogma's point, to say that "everything" in the Bible that says how to be good is "horrible" is hyperbole at best and sheer ignorance at worst.
Except that Peregrine never actually said that. He is talking about the Adam and Eve story, not the entirety of the bible.
For what is worth I agree with Peregrine, even when viewed as a metaphor for humanity's inability to not sin, the Adam and Eve myth just portrays God as a basically evil being. God created Man and as an Omniscient being should be aware of our basic nature. He also created the tree, put the tree in reach of Adam and Eve and He even created Satan that ultimately tempted Eve into eating from the tree!
Not only that but He also allowed Satan to tempt men into disobeying Him. He then proceeded to punish mankind to the most horrible fate imaginable, by casting us out of paradise and condemning us all to eternal damnation even before we were born! All for the "crime" of having been tricked by Satan.
To top it all of, the fruit that God forbade Man from eating was the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, meaning, to me at least, that the moral of the story is that ignorance was the only thing that kept Man in Gods "good side", and that as soon as we tried to pursue knowledge, that meant we were straying from God's chosen path for us and should be punished for it...
PhantomViper wrote: God created Man and as an Omniscient being should be aware of our basic nature. He also created the tree, put the tree in reach of Adam and Eve.
I honestly think this is one of the most curious questions one can present to the Bible (for Christians, ancient Jews did not believe god omniscient). It's tough cookie. The common thought was that it was a test of loyalty, but I'm not really sure what betrayal Adam and Eve could truly present. I guess they're the wardens of the garden, and they could gak that up, but God's... God.
Interesting fun fact: Serpents and trees of something are regularly connected in numerous world religions. The more you know ;D
He even created Satan that ultimately tempted Eve into eating from the tree!
No where in the Bible is the serpent identified as Satan. That's actually from Islam (which does identify the serpent as such). Christians picked it up during the Crusades.
All for the "crime" of having been tricked by Satan.
If I trick you into murdering someone by saying their heart is made of candy (even thought your Biology teacher told you its made of guts) are you still guilty of murder? God said don't eat from the tree. It's not like the snake picked the fruit and gave it to her without her knowing where it came from.
To top it all of, the fruit that God forbade Man from eating was the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, meaning, to me at least, that the moral of the story is that ignorance was the only thing that kept Man in Gods "good side", and that as soon as we tried to pursue knowledge, that meant we were straying from God's chosen path for us and should be punished for it...
You're coming at it from the wrong direction. With 'knowledge' comes a greater understanding and thus a greater responsibility. An animal is not responsible for its actions because those actions are in its nature. Humans however make choices and in making choices take on the responsibility of having made them. By eating the fruit, humanity went from being like every other thing in creation be being something else, and we are forced to take the responsibility for that action.
There are several morals that can be read from the story of Adam and Eve; actions have consequences. Those consequences don't just effect us, but our children as well and those around us. Bad things can happen even if we don't mean them to, and others can suffer for them. God didn't kill Adam and Eve as he originally threatened. He punished them as he does anyone who disobeys his commands, but gave them another chance. He sought to guard his creations from the cruelty of knowing the world as he does. I think most parents could find a familiar feeling to this. There are also parallel's to the story of Icarus.
Anyone obsessed with the question "why did god put the tree there in the first place" isn't asking a pointless question, but I think they're being distracted from the point.
There are several morals that can be read from the story of Adam and Eve; actions have consequences. Those consequences don't just effect us, but our children as well and those around us. Bad things can happen even if we don't mean them to, and others can suffer for them. God didn't kill Adam and Eve as he originally threatened. He punished them as he does anyone who disobeys his commands, but gave them another chance. He sought to guard his creations from the cruelty of knowing the world as he does. I think most parents could find a familiar feeling to this. There are also parallel's to the story of Icarus.
Anyone obsessed with the question "why did god put the tree there in the first place" isn't asking a pointless question, but I think they're being distracted from the point.
Food for thought indeed, I hadn't actually considered it from that point of view.
I had acknowledged it as a metaphor, but I was still interpreting that metaphor too literally it seems...
There's also a very basic moral rule that seems to be missed: when somebody askes you to respect a boundary, respect it.
Particulalry when you watch a being create your wife, and the garden around you, and then he says, "hey, if you eat that, you will die." Maybe, just maybe, you should listen.
I think the first few chapters of Genesis are some of the most discussed in the entire Bible with good reason. There are a great many ways they can be interpreted (with numerous parallels to other fables and stories around the world). They may even be some of the most valuable pieces of literature in history simply for their massive comparative value.
It is the rejection of this very principal that drives a lot of the hatred in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @LordofHats: I think you have an authentic insight into the story of Adam and Eve.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote: I had acknowledged it as a metaphor, but I was still interpreting that metaphor too literally it seems...
That self-criticism is one of the most brilliant things I have read on Dakka, and I don't mean this in a back-handed way, I think you're genuinely getting to the exact problem with "popular atheism's" attitude toward mainstream Christianity. I'm very glad to have continued browsing this thread thanks to you, LoH, and Polonius.
I have a semi-literal interpretation of Genesis. I do think it is something that actually happened and that Adam and Eve were two real people, but I don't think that they were the first two people on earth. I think they were the creation of the first covenant and the first people to know God, not the first people of the world.
While I agree with dogma's point, to say that "everything" in the Bible that says how to be good is "horrible" is hyperbole at best and sheer ignorance at worst.
Except that Peregrine never actually said that. He is talking about the Adam and Eve story, not the entirety of the bible.
For what is worth I agree with Peregrine, even when viewed as a metaphor for humanity's inability to not sin, the Adam and Eve myth just portrays God as a basically evil being. God created Man and as an Omniscient being should be aware of our basic nature. He also created the tree, put the tree in reach of Adam and Eve and He even created Satan that ultimately tempted Eve into eating from the tree!
Not only that but He also allowed Satan to tempt men into disobeying Him. He then proceeded to punish mankind to the most horrible fate imaginable, by casting us out of paradise and condemning us all to eternal damnation even before we were born! All for the "crime" of having been tricked by Satan.
To top it all of, the fruit that God forbade Man from eating was the fruit of the tree of Knowledge, meaning, to me at least, that the moral of the story is that ignorance was the only thing that kept Man in Gods "good side", and that as soon as we tried to pursue knowledge, that meant we were straying from God's chosen path for us and should be punished for it...
I've been holding off on this topic until now.
A Doctor could be thought of as being "evil" when he takes a sharp metal object and fills it full of potentially dangerous chemicals and jams it into a childs arm, and injects said concoction. This of course causes a great suffering to the child and the child will probably cry out with great fury and frustration as to the utter helplessness and sheer pain of the act.
If you look at the above act out of context...you may think it an evil act. But if you look at it in context...I.E. the act of compassion by supplying much needed medication to a sick child, then it becomes clear that the act was not evil but an a act of kindness.
In much the same way it is tempting to look upon the Adam and Eve story and proclaim "what an evil God we have". But when we say that.. aren't we doing the same thing that the child in the above example is? IN other words...that was painfull Doctor..why did you do that?
No matter how much explaining the Doctor tries, the child only can think of the pain they are experiancing and not the medicine that was being offered.
So the question remains...why did God create Adam and Eve knowing full well what was going to happen?
I will proffer a possibility, God knew full well that in order for Him to have nonrobotic, free will moral agents, have a relationship with Him He foresaw what would have to happen, and knowing full well that His creation would fall... he created it anyway, and also created a way out, by foreplanning of his descension into a human body and allowing Himself to be sacrificed as a way back from the fall. In the mean time from Adam and Eve to Christ..and ultimately to modern times...the story of Adam and Eve can serve as an example of disobediance to Gods will and the consequences for that disobediance. Again it's up to the free will moral agent to accept or reject the moral or not.
So I submit the possibility that this was the way God choose to have nonrobotic, free willed, worshippers. People that would worship Him anyway despite the suffereing that we have to go through in this cursed world.
Manchu wrote:A defunct canon and the Malleus Maleficarum. Wow, I guess you really got me there.
Truth hurts? If you'd like more examples, google for them. They're not very hard to find.
As has been said over in the WW2 thread - we need to be conscious of mistakes we made in the past, else we're prone to repeat them. This goes for religious people as well. Fortunately, many Christians realise this.
And if you really believe that the entire clergy just happened to change its mind overnight in 1918, I don't know what to say.
Yes, I am certainly biased (as are you, from how it looks like), but my bias stems from looking at how the church does things, how it addresses certain issues that exist in culture or within itself, and how it tries to modernise itself in an effort not to get out of touch completely with the general populace - and then goes on claiming that "this is how it's always been". People just swallowing this and not seeing the blatant contradictions between church teachings now and then is what I can't understand. Or why they just go along with many influential religious figures obviously not living what they themselves preach.
Religion itself isn't so bad. It's organised religion with hierarchies, authority and aggressively pursued causes that I think humanity would be better off without.
Lynata wrote: entire clergy just happened to change its mind overnight in 1918
Because 1918 was yesterday? I really wish you'd realize how incredibly hateful you are being. You're making judgments about a modern day institution based on centuries-old documents. The only person who could think the Malleus Malificarum is relevant to contemporary Christianity is a bigot. Indeed, your implicit contention that the book was widely accepted throughout Christendom even in its own time reveals basic ignorance. What you have obviously done is decided that something you don't understand and don't like is bad then made a superficial survey of the internet for evidence.
If you really want to think critically about the contemporary Church's problematic views about women, why not take a look at Mulieris Dignitatem, a 1998 encyclical that embraces the so-called "New Feminism." For that matter, a look at the current plight of the women religious in the United States would also indicate a serious concern which I suspect you actually don't have. You will find that there are indeed real problems in the Church but your hateful caricatures miss the mark by a nearly incredible margin. And they also offensively portray Catholicism as some monolithic body characterized only by the worst aspects of Western history. In effect, you seem to have an image in your head of a filthy dumpster where all the ideas that no one else in the West wants get thrown to rot -- with a sign on the front that reads "Catholic Church" or "Christianity."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lynata wrote: People just swallowing this and not seeing the blatant contradictions between church teachings now and then is what I can't understand.
No one who is aware of history can seriously claim the Church has not changed. If you run into someone who makes such a claim, try to understand what they are saying in something other than a literal sense. But if you can only determine that they are speaking literally, even after you have made a good faith effort to avoid assuming they are a moron, then you may safely consider them to be talking out of their ass. I presume this is how you already view your attitude toward such statements. Strangely enough, it's also mine. And apparently we can share a reasonable approach even if we don't share faith. Amazing, eh?
(Don't worry, I'll get to the rest of the comments later, I'm just going to take the easy short one now.)
Manchu wrote: Because 1918 was yesterday? I really wish you'd realize how incredibly hateful you are being. You're making judgments about a modern day institution based on centuries-old documents.
And again you ignore the one they mentioned that was published in 2010.
Also, 1918 is hardly "centuries ago". The original document may have been written a long time ago, but it was still in effect until 1918. And it's also entirely fair to ask WHY they changed. Did the god suddenly change his mind on the subject? Or was the church, god's representative on earth, wrong about theology?
I will proffer a possibility, God knew full well that in order for Him to have nonrobotic, free will moral agents, have a relationship with Him He foresaw what would have to happen, and knowing full well that His creation would fall... he created it anyway, and also created a way out, by foreplanning of his descension into a human body and allowing Himself to be sacrificed as a way back from the fall.
That creates an omnipotence problem.
One of the biggest problems with modern Christianity is its insistence that God is a 3O God.
Manchu wrote:Because 1918 was yesterday? I really wish you'd realize how incredibly hateful you are being. You're making judgments about a modern day institution based on centuries-old documents.
No. I am making judgments about a modern day institution based on what the leaders of this institution say or fail to say today, and I see a strong connection to these centuries-old documents. This church is built upon the foundations of ritual and tradition, with teachings stretching back many hundreds of years. The church is known for its conservatism, so why should I think that they as an organisation have adopted a new mindset when it is, for example, apparently still considered to be okay to make such statements? Not to mention various other topics I cannot agree on with current doctrine as well.
A rise to power in this church necessitates the approval of higher-ups who will obviously prefer individuals with opinions mirroring their own. It's exactly like politics, and it results in the church being rather slow to adopt new ways.
And I'm sorry if I come across as "hateful" - I would describe it more as a state of agitation caused by your casual dismissal of an issue that exists to this very day, as well as your ongoing defamation in just about every reply. But let me exert a "Christian value" and turn the other cheek instead of telling you how your attitude feels to me.
Manchu wrote:Indeed, your implicit contention that the book was widely accepted throughout Christendom even in its own time reveals basic ignorance.
Right, this book was so unsuccessful that it was only published in about thirty editions throughout two centuries, and the fact that the vast majority of victims of the witch hunts were women was mere coincidence. Totally not an indication of certain trends within the congregation. Go on believing this, I'm sure you will sleep better at night.
Manchu wrote:What you have obviously done is decided that something you don't understand and don't like is bad then made a superficial survey of the internet for evidence.
It is something I have started reading about many years ago, actually (and it greatly disturbs me that I cannot locate two sources/quotes I recall from back then, but seem unable to find now).
But in the intellectual superiority you claim for yourself you simply assume these things about me. Quite telling... This is not how a good exchange of opinions can work, thus I guess it is best if we simply stop it here. I'm afraid we will never be able to see eye to eye.
Peregrine wrote:And it's also entirely fair to ask WHY they changed. Did the god suddenly change his mind on the subject? Or was the church, god's representative on earth, wrong about theology?
Indeed. The obvious conclusion - even for the church itself - should be that mortal humans are only capable to try their best interpreting their god's will, and that they can err in doing so. Yet instead of this, we get the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Of course it's much safer to portray your religious leader as being never wrong about something, as otherwise people may question his judgment. Yet this also results in a certain degree of stagnation (even if it wanted, the church cannot reform overnight lest it would lose this appearance). Me, I am just amazed at how people can be convinced that this pope is infallible, when at the same time he teaches things that conflict other popes. Plot hole? Selective perception? I guess it's true what they say - faith just cannot be explained with logic.
d-usa wrote: I have a semi-literal interpretation of Genesis. I do think it is something that actually happened and that Adam and Eve were two real people, but I don't think that they were the first two people on earth. I think they were the creation of the first covenant and the first people to know God, not the first people of the world.
I wonder if they were some sort of "control" for God's experiment in human nature.
You know, put two people in a perfect place and see if they can still manage to bungle things.
I look at Adam and Eve, and Eden itself, as metaphorical myself. The story I feel captures the essence of human existence, the source of our suffering (other people, who'd have thought?) and identifies the difference between man and the rest of creation.
I just think it's reasonable to think that maybe the events described in the Bible to led to the belief, or at least knowledge of, what we perceive as "God" was the result of a brush with some sort of higher intelligence.
I know that if I happened upon a group of shepherds 6,000 years ago with my iPad and some antibiotics I would have made a profound impression on them. Extrapolate that to something that can do anything close to what is described in the Bible as Old Testament miracles and you are looking at deity material. Now, if someone could do all of those things, and decided to relate to us some of its(His?) ideas about the universe I sure as hell am willing to give a listen.
That's just one possibility I'm open to regarding the nature of God. He could be what the Bible says he is, he could be something else entirely. I have no idea.
What I do know is that I like what Jesus had to say, and believe in the possibility of something greater than ourselves, so Christianity makes a lot of sense to me. I acknowledge that there's a lot of stuff in the Bible that can be hard to wrap your head around, but there's a great line from The Mothman Prophecies that sums it up pretty well IMHO.
"John Klein: I think we can assume that these entities are more advanced than us. Why don't they just come right out and tell us what's on their minds?
Alexander Leek: You're more advanced than a cockroach, have you ever tried explaining yourself to one of them? "
Monster Rain wrote: I just think it's reasonable to think that maybe the events described in the Bible to led to the belief, or at least knowledge of, what we perceive as "God" was the result of a brush with some sort of higher intelligence.
I really don't see why this is a more plausible explanation than "a bunch of people a few thousand years ago invented some stories and there is no god at all". Nothing in the Bible suggests that it's any different than all of the other books of mythology out there, and certainly nothing in it requires advanced aliens to explain.
I don't recall making any judgements regarding plausibility.
Peregrine wrote: Nothing in the Bible suggests that it's any different than all of the other books of mythology out there...
Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree there.
Peregrine wrote: and certainly nothing in it requires advanced aliens to explain.
Again, you seem to have a poor grasp of the subject matter.
Some things happened in the Bible that are technologically somewhat outside the norm for bronze age humans, if they weren't caused "supernaturally" (see the Arthur C. Clarke quote above.)
Also, before you say "or they didn't happen at all". We know. I'm operating with the idea that at least some of them did. Context is important, and prevents wasted time.
Polonius wrote: The story illustrates that it is not God, but man, that brings evil into the world.
Except god, being omniscient, knew exactly what was going to happen when he created evil. He could have foreseen that Adam and Eve would fall and allow evil into the world and declined to create evil, but he did it. Adam and Eve may be the mechanism, but god still takes moral responsibility for his failure to stop it.
It also shows that man is incapable of not sinning. Even standing in Eden, with God literally telling him, personally, not to do something, man will disobey. So, work hard on resisting temptation.
In other words, "god created you to be too weak to resist, but if you don't resist he's going to torture you for eternity". Even ignoring the whole torture part, how is that a good moral lesson? You should resist, but you're going to fail anyway? Wouldn't a better lesson be "try to resist, because if you try hard you can be a good person"?
Plus, it's an especially horrible moral lesson since the "temptation" was to take knowledge and become truly human. It isn't like they gave in to temptation and murdered someone or whatever, you can legitimately argue that they were entirely justified in doing what they did.
For christian's it's important because the fall of man is linked to his salvation. Man rejected god at first, but god reached out again to save him.
I don't deny that it's important, but the entire concept of salvation is morally appalling. Even if I grant you that "original sin" does not refer to a specific act of our ancestors (which is what many Christians believe it is) and therefore avoid the whole "sins of the father" problem you still have the problem of god's choice of "salvation": scapegoating through torture and murder. In what decent ethical system is human sacrifice with a threat of eternal torture preferable to simply allowing everyone into heaven unconditionally?
Polonius wrote: There's also a very basic moral rule that seems to be missed: when somebody askes you to respect a boundary, respect it.
Particulalry when you watch a being create your wife, and the garden around you, and then he says, "hey, if you eat that, you will die." Maybe, just maybe, you should listen.
So if a parent leaves a bottle of poison out and tells their kid "don't drink this" the moral lesson is "you should listen to your parents" not "wow what an awful parent"? You really aren't doing a good job of proving that this story has anything remotely approaching a good moral lesson.
=====================================
generalgrog wrote: I will proffer a possibility, God knew full well that in order for Him to have nonrobotic, free will moral agents, have a relationship with Him He foresaw what would have to happen, and knowing full well that His creation would fall... he created it anyway
Ok, so now we're forced to pick from a couple options here:
1) God is incompetent. He could have created humans with free will but without evil. However, he was unable to do it. I suppose you could always say that, but then you lose that whole "omnipotent" thing that most believers want god to have.
or
2) God is a sadistic . He knew humans would fail and many of them would be tortured for eternity, but he created us this way anyway. Not exactly the most impressive moral lesson here...
and also created a way out, by foreplanning of his descension into a human body and allowing Himself to be sacrificed as a way back from the fall.
Also, the idea that god left us a way out is just insane. WHY did god have to have himself tortured to death before he could allow us a way back? Why couldn't he just declare "you have a way back" without all of the torture? Does god just enjoy BDSM?
In the mean time from Adam and Eve to Christ..and ultimately to modern times...the story of Adam and Eve can serve as an example of disobediance to Gods will and the consequences for that disobediance.
Seriously? That's the supposed moral lesson that we're all supposed to respect and praise? "Obey the sadistic tyrant or be tortured for eternity"?
(I'm sure we'll soon have a nice statement about how you're not a "real" Christian so that doesn't count.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: Also, before you say "or they didn't happen at all". We know. I'm operating with the idea that at least some of them did. Context is important, and prevents wasted time.
But WHY are you operating with that idea?
Also, "things happen that are beyond the level of technology of the author unless it's supernatural" is hardly unique to the Bible. In fact, it's a safe bet that it's a feature of pretty much every system of mythology we've ever created.
Peregrine wrote: Also, "things happen that are beyond the level of technology of the author unless it's supernatural" is hardly unique to the Bible. In fact, it's a safe bet that it's a feature of pretty much every system of mythology we've ever created.
The point was that you apparently don't know what you're talking about. I maintain it.
generalgrog wrote: I will proffer a possibility, God knew full well that in order for Him to have nonrobotic, free will moral agents, have a relationship with Him He foresaw what would have to happen, and knowing full well that His creation would fall... he created it anyway
Ok, so now we're forced to pick from a couple options here:
1) God is incompetent. He could have created humans with free will but without evil. However, he was unable to do it. I suppose you could always say that, but then you lose that whole "omnipotent" thing that most believers want god to have.
You are not forced to do anything...I simply offered a possibility. By the way... you are offering a straw man, by assuming God was "unable to do it" The other possibility that you are ignoring is that God simply choose to do it that way.
2) God is a sadistic . He knew humans would fail and many of them would be tortured for eternity, but he created us this way anyway. Not exactly the most impressive moral lesson here...
If you glean God is sadistic from my example...you completely missed the point...If you believe that God is sadistic from my example..then Doctors are also sadistic in your world.
The rest of the stuff you wrote just seems like more "arguing for the sake of arguing".
) even, of such petty and evil behaviour.
. He knew humans would fail and many of them would be tortured for eternity, but he created us this way anyway. Not exactly the most impressive moral lesson here...
