Over the years, many well-meaning Christians have tried to convince me to give Christianity “another chance.” All such people have walked away frustrated with me. I don’t reject religious beliefs because I’m stubborn (but it probably looks like it). Rather, I reject such stories because I insist on credible evidence, especially fantastic stories about ghosts. I also insist that stories should have internal consistency. I insist on a tight underlying logic before I’m willing to believe extraordinary claims.
What is illogical about Christianity? The following story is not meant to offend, but rather to illustrate some traditional Christian beliefs in an unfamiliar way. I offer it to all of those people who have tried to convert me over the years. Imagine that you heard the following Assimulated Press story on the radio. What would you think?
Today, we are reporting on a bizarre story. Until last month, an old man had been living with his numerous children in his sprawling mansion, which included a vast garden. Last month, he kicked all of his children out of his garden. Since then he has been threatening to slowly burn some of his children in a big pit in his basement—the ones at risk are those who have misbehaved or otherwise upset him.
One week ago, this unusual man committed suicide by nailing himself to a tree on a small hill in his backyard.
Since he died, some of his friends have written a book of 66 sub-books describing the old man in megalomaniac terms. Many passages of this book are vague and self-contradictory. For instance, in these letters, he is described as having insisted that he committed suicide to “save” his children from being burned by him. Image by minutesalone at Flickr (creative commons). According to the stories, the old man was purportedly trying to save his children from himself.
Police contacted the children’s mother recently, and she claimed that the old man was the true father even though she had never actually had sex with him. Neighbors have been complaining that she often spoke of her husband as her “son.”
The most amazing thing, though, is that after this purported “sacrifice” of killing himself on the tree in the backyard, some of the 66 books indicate that his children are still at risk of being burned in the basement. Some people are questioning whether the suicide was necessary at all.
Nonetheless, the old man is currently being called a hero by many in his community for having “atoned” for the moral deficiencies of his children by committing suicide, so that he would burn fewer of them.
—
See also, the four other “Assimulated Press” stories at Dangerous Intersection. Here, here, here and here.
Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on civil rights (including First Amendment), consumer law litigation and appellate practice. At this website often writes about censorship, corporate news media corruption and cognitive science. He is also a working musician, artist and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in St. Louis, Missouri with his two daughters.
Thanks for sparring. I'll grant you that being all powerful doesn't require its exercise. At least for the morning, we see a shadow of that principle taking place with an army in Egypt. But withholding the exercise of power when the outcome is known, with a complete understanding of perfect combinations of events or nature or human interaction as well as incorporating the added benefit of being everywhere at once, seems an intellectual stretch. It's as if you've said that God has this "big bang" moment in his eternal mind, one that both creates and ends humanity in his timeless two minutes.
Are we wind-up mechanisms whose biological make-up dissuades us, except for ignorance, fear or the desire for permanency, from choosing to live later instead of now? I refuse to believe that I am living in eternity's prepatory school.
Let's suppose that your explanation of power with/without control options, IS the picture of God's power. Do you pray? That someone gets healed? That God performs a miracle? Why pray if his is a role that does not meddle, if his power is held in reserve? If God has no past, no present, no future then all things are now. I pray for me, to me, on behalf of my own psyche because God knows the results beforehand. I am merely acknowledging what God already knows. Not for his benefit, I'm sure. I know that there are a couple instances in the Bible that state that God changed his mind. Really? Can someone who knows the end result make any substantive and sincere declarations of change? Even on the surface, this seems disingenuous. Over the years, I've been accused by friends who are pastors of delving into the "unanswerables" (ruined my faith, they say) but the omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresent conundrum is a much bigger burden for those you call believers than it is for the atonement-averse.
You also ask for an example in human history of the guidance found in Luke 14 (?) (it's Luke 4:18,19 by the way). I smiled when I read your statement because I circled back to your initial comments about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as if they could only be selfishly exhibited.I have my struggles with how our republic has evolved from the Declaration of Independence's days but when I read Luke from an historical comparison perspective, I can proudly say that the United States (even with its issues) is one of several countries in the past several hundred years that has given good news to the poor, has freed many prisoners, given sight to countless, has released the oppressed.
I'm quite certain that this isn't a forum that will change (m)any minds but grappling with these concepts might change some thinking, which could lead to… who knows? I hope Someone isn't hiding the answer from me.
I have not asked for a response to my statements – only one question in specific.
Is there anyway of telling what cultures would be like if Jesus hadn't come? Kind of brings a world wide Afghanistan to mind – Not Brooklyn. You don't need to answer that one.
To repeat the question –
Can you name a place on earth where one culture of people willingly gave up vanquishing other people where the leaders of that culture didn't in one form or another believe in the atonement for sin by Jesus?
The "belief in an atonement" for sin releases both individuals and cultures from bondage to the cycles of revenge generation after generation.
If a person/culture never has full confidence of atonement for sin until they die they can easily be convinced that the manner of their death becomes part of the process of atoning for their own sin.
Christians do not believe this as the Islamic fundamentalists do. Islamic teaching is that they are never certain of an atonment and therefore many leave this world in a blaze of "glory" hoping to please Allah who they claim is calling them to holy wars that will never end until all the world is under submission to Allah.
Christians view life in a much different manner whether you belive it or not.
"But what would “God” owe us that “He” felt the need to atone?"
God owes us no more than we owe each other. A debt of love that enables hatred, injustice and hypocrisy to volitionally come to an end. The free volitional choice of God to demonstrate his willingness to die rather than force allegiance to His will is what the cross was all about.
Karl: I know that these words are soothing to you, but they make no sense to me. If my heavenly father caused me pain by kicking me out of paradise, but then decided that he wanted to forgive me, then he could (since he is omnipotent) let me (and my 7 billion friends) come on back in. Forget the intermediary of having your son get massacred. Any felt need to proceed with the bloodbath would be the result of not thinking clearly. This is not the way that admirable human beings think. I expect no less from Gods.
The Abrahamic god has some serious explaining to do. And he has some serious atoning. Deliberately setting up his favorite (only?) people for failure? Yeah, that's fatherly. Being capricious with his love? Magnanimous. Get into heaven by works or works? Accident of English those words are close, but no accident that the story lines conflict.
And what would the world without Jesus be? Perhaps the Americas would have a different name and there wouldn't have been the destruction of so many cultures through conquest or missionaries. Yes. I lump both together.
No Crusades. No Inquisitions. No Dark Ages.
Okay. Human nature being what it is, those things would still have happened, though not in the name of the Christian religion.
Christians do not believe this as the Islamic fundamentalists do.
Now, why only single out fundamentalist Islam but not use the same modifier for Christians? Islam as a whole is not like their fundies any more than Christianity as a whole is like theirs. I'll remind you that abortion clinic bombers are not Islamic. Nor peaceful in their desire to kill doctors in the name of Jesus. Those Christian do view life in a different manner.
{And I'll offer Tibet as a place where there's no vanquishing and no need for a monotheistic god evolving back into poly: three. Except for the part of Tibet which has been conscripted by those pesky missionaries bent on subverting thinking folks from their own beliefs.}
The United States was pretty much founded by leaders who sought for a place where people were allowed to chose freely what "religion" they wished to follow.
They were quite aware that they were forming a nation that even the leaders of many "Christian" churches would have once thought was not proper.
However, it was clear from the gospel message that this was the intention of passages like Luke 4:18,19.
The message of equality is clearly found in the words of both Jesus and the writings of Paul.
My point is this, The United States would not have happened happen in a land founded by an Islamic worldview, or anyother other types of "historical" worldview, religious or not.
You should well know that "religious" worldviews are always a part of the founding of a nation.
Jim,
As for Tibet. Do you mean that those pesky missionaries helped or hurt the cause of freedom and equality by their presence?
Honest Chrisitan missionaries bring the gospel to a land and do not meddle in the politics. They let that take its eventual outcome as the people come to understand the gospel and put it into practice.
Do atheists really think they have what it takes to keep Islamic fundamentalists from taking control of both the government and public discourse on religion?
You seem to think there is only one kind of fundamentalist.
Those whose anger stirs them to hatred of people and revenge against other people.
Believe it or not, the actual full message of both the Old and New Testaments combined is not one of offense against those that you disagree with.
This is not the message of the Bible or Christ but of corrupt selfish men who claim to being doing the work of God and the church. Just as corrupt Buddist's can claim to be following the will of Buddah while actually being biased as all get out.
The Bible teaches that the true nature of those that believe in God should not be one of hatred of people or of culture, but hatred of their own tendencies to do exactly what they do not want to do.
Actual fundamentalist in the teachings of Jesus do bear with one another in love, even when it makes no sense to the comman nature and emotions of people.
People only fool themselves when they try to imagine that Gods thinks and acts the way a typical human does.
Imperfection for God is not an issue, but for men and women living in an imperfect world, there exist blinders at many turns that makes them doubt if an ideal can ever exist in reality.
God is not imperfect because he didn't miraculously keep His chosen people from interaction with other fallen cultures.
The ends and means to an end are only imperfect when one imagines their could always have been a better way.
When dealing with human emotions of fear, envy, lust, hatred, revenge and racism one could always imagine a better way, but the reality is that people will be people.
While in a perfect theoretical world it would be true that God shouldn't let evil exist – in an imperfect world with freedom of choice and real people who doubt if anything has any meaning beyond themselves what chance does anyone have of proving their way is the best way?
Karl, no, I don't think there is only one kind of fundamentalist. It does appear to me that you think there is only one kind of Islamic fundamentalist, so I was just following your lead. If you allow that most fundamentalist Muslims are non-violent, I'll allow that a few fundamentalist Christians are extremists (and violent), for with respect to Islam such is the case. Perhaps orthodox is a better term? Though I guess it can't apply to fundamentalist Christians because there are too many rules in the "actual full message of the Bible" that are no longer acceptable by societal mores, much less actual law.
Honest Chrisitan missionaries bring the gospel to a land and do not meddle in the politics
I wonder why the missionaries are in Tibet anyway. Was it only the apostles that were forbidden? Could be interpreted otherwise. Something that unclear spawns apologetics to apologize for its unclarity. And who said anything about politics? I was talking about supplanting {peaceful} cultures with another. Telling stories to get people to stop believing in their own religions for a different one. Tragic arrogance. A little social unnatural selection, I suppose, so social evolution in progress.
Do atheists really think they have what it takes to keep Islamic fundamentalists from taking control of both the government and public discourse on religion?
Huh? How is that germane? You're really all over the map in these threads. Anyway, why is it okay to go in and knock off governments? Let's put the shoe on the other foot…Do, and I'll use your definition for this, Islamic fundamentalists really think they have what it takes to keep [infidels – a generic term for all non-Muslims which does include atheists, though why that's part of the discussion I don't know] from taking control of both the government and public discourse on religion…in America?
It seems to be okay to choose which regimes we want to topple (Sudan, Darfur, PKR, Saudi…sorry, not interested right now), but don't even think about toppling ours. And so many Americans wonder why we aren't received with open arms virtually anywhere in the world. And so many Americans can't grasp why Islamic nations don't trust us? Gee, let me count the ways…
This has turned into a very thought-provoking and intriguing thread in a matter of days and I am sad that I feel I have fallen behind. So many points to address.
I would like to begin with Karl. Without delving specifically into every claim and question that you raise, I would like to simply address the fact that you seemingly purposefully misrepresent the past 2000 years of history. Jesus did indeed bring peace and hope and love to generations of people with his preaching on God and His ideals, but his "followers" surely did not. As others have pointed out, the past 2000 years has been filled with "Christian" (both fundamentalist AND mainstream) terror wrought upon the unwilling members of other cultures. You cannot ignore this, as much as you may wish to explain it away. The fact remains.
Evil, selfish people will use anything and anyone, including Jesus, to persecute and control others. Period. You continue to bring up how atheists cannot possibly hope to quell Islamic fundamentalists and their increasing popularity in politics and culture. Well, the same is true for Christian fundamentalists. The two groups are synonymous in their deeds and ideals.
That being said, the message of Jesus Christ, the messiah and savior of the people of the Earth, is not the message that these people are putting forth. I offer that with complete and utter confidence. Jesus preached loss of self and love of others, love of God, who IS LOVE. It is as simple as that.
As for the supposed "problem" of atonement, the major cognitive hurdle that people have to climb is the fact that WE DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.
Humans try the best we can to make gods of ourselves. We think that, because we have a thinking, feeling, rationalizing mind, that we can therefore surmise the meaning of the universe and the purpose of life. We assume, quite incorrectly, that we can "know God," and subsequently mock whatever aspect of the divine we find "illogical." How conceited and fat-headed of us puny, comparatively young humans. Its like a 5-year old telling you something he believes is true which you "know" is not because you are older and, thus, more knowledgeable. We know VERY little, if anything at all, so I would adamantly suggest we stop forcing the unknowable, vastly immeasurable power, knowledge and being of God into our man-made cardboard boxes of thought.
That does not mean that we cannot converse upon the subject, however. As humans, we have been gifted (evolutionarily or otherwise) with the ability to think perceive and rationalize. So why not use those capabilities?
However, human minds perceive the universe only partially. All of our sense experiences are through the organ in our heads, and, quite frankly, what we perceive is NOT reality. It is only our puny, fleshy human minds PERCEPTION of reality. I offer that, because of this FACT, we do not yet understand God or the scriptures. I offer, further, that perhaps the writers of the scriptures did not fully understand what they were writing or saying, and did not understand that subsequent generations of human-oriented self-obsessed people with their own wills and intentions would subvert the Holy Books to their own ends.
I would offer, though, that God knew.
The continuing problem of "omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence" is a common theme on this website and especially in this thread. Once again I bring up the very limited scope of human understanding and cognition compared with the absolute vastness of our universe. Everyday, physicists discover new things about the universe on the cosmic and quantum scales. Brian Greene posits that there may actually be many universes existing simultaneously. What? Really?
If this is the case, then our understanding of time and space is quite clearly not possibly the most verifiable. Once again, we try to fit the immortal, INFINITE God into our mortal, FINITE understanding of this one universe in which we live. Oh, how human.
God KNOWS all. He knows every possible cause and outcome of every possible universe and every possible time in every possible place. Because he is timeless, he is space less. The infinite God exists in and out of time. He IS. It is a concept our minds cannot possibly fathom. You say: "God knows the outcome of a football game before the game begins." But I counter: "God knows every possible outcome of every possible football game before they even knew what football was. In any Universe. In any time."
This is not simple conjecturing either. You might state: "Well, ANYONE can know the possible outcomes of any games because that leaves everything to theoretical chance." But see, that's where free will comes into play. God allows us to chose OUR OWN destiny. He WANTS us to, ultimately, chose Him, but we are free not to. Though that is the wrong choice, it is still a choice.
(Now, I want to clarify. Should you not believe in the Christian, or Buddhist, or Islamic, or Jewish "god" or whatever transcendental deity this does not mean that you are banished to an eternity in Hell or whatever underworld existence. Very much like Buddhist and Hindu ideals, I believe that "Hell" is only the soul being "caught up" in the cycle of life and death in the world. Sin binds us to the flesh. But by actually trying to understand truth, and love, and life, and goodness in ourselves and mankind, we attain a better understanding of the divine and of the universe. God is merciful, indeed, though his old testament counterpart did not seem so [Jewish scholars' interpretation of what he believed was God doing an action, btw]. God knows our hearts, and our minds. If there is at least the very strong force in someone to try and surpass their evil intentions, I am sure that person can attain paradise. They do not NEED to follow specific religious ideologies. Indeed, I think every person should attempt to at least read EVERY religious book they can and try to understand the nature of the divine and reality on their own based on their readings.)
God created humans as the mirror to his own knowledge. He gave them freedom of immortal thought and action. Humans were God's counterpart, until they CHOSE to disobey him. The symbolic nature of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil represented Man's purposeful disobedience to the ONE CONDITION THAT HE GAVE THEM. Why WOULDN'T God give us that choice? You say: "Oh, well then he is just a meany because duh if you give a child candy he is going to eat it." Not if that child has at his disposal every toy and every action figure and every amusement park and every animal that he could possibly ever want to play with. Parents give children rules every day, JUST for the simple TEST to see if their children will obey them or not.
God knew that there would exist a reality where man would disobey and be subject to the evils of the flesh. He also KNOWS that there is a reality where man has not disobeyed.
Paradise.
It exists now. And it is the goal of the human spiritual mind to reacquaint ourselves with that parallel universe where our spirit exists eternally. That is the real reality. That is the reality that God wants for us, and that is the unity of the divine that so many spiritual teachers and holy books allude to.
I realize that I have been remarkably speculative (and quite long-winded), but if you have read the scriptures and if you have taken educated guesses concerning the nature of reality based on the cognitive leaps we as a species have made in the sciences and in religious thought, then that, I believe, is the logical conclusion.
Outsiders have not fought over Tibet because there is not a whole lot there besides a place to call home, and other lower class citizens who have little or no way of throwing off their oppressors.
Sounds like their leaders really give their people a choice about everything, what little choice there actually might be.
TheThinkingMan: Do you believe God has a penis? If yes, why do you believe that you believe that? If no, why do you continually refer to God as 'He' and 'Him' throughout your commentary? If you truly believe that "God is love", why are you casting out the female?
It is shameful how post-Jesus Christianity continues to marginalize and reject women and girls, who account for more than 50% of the human population. It's perplexing, especially when you consider the Hebrew letters for the fourfold name of God (YHVH) refers to Yod (Father), Heh (Mother), Vau (Son) and Heh (Daughter). I suspect the Christian patriarchy that developed around the time of the Council of Nicea had such a fear of pagan Goddess worship that they simply tossed out the female half of God's name. I think you need to get more Yin in your Yang, ThinkingMan, and allow for the divinity of the female to co-exist along with the divinity of the male. Otherwise, you risk remaining intellectually insulting in choosing to perpetuate the misogyny of the church.
For all of the good or evil intentioned actions of those who have claimed to have been "Christians" of one sort or another, my concern has not been with their most certain blunders – I would be a fool to try and ignore them. It has been with the very small fraction of the time when they did both live and teach as Jesus would have wanted them to.
I have not condoned what evil men, women and children have done in the name of God, be that Jesus, Allah or Istar.
I have stated that the only clear historical examples that I have studied where one group/class/nation of people voluntarily stopped vanquishing others has been directly related to a proper understanding and commitment to the clear teachings of Jesus.
This means that at least once in a while someone who called themself a follower of Jesus Christ got it right, despite the number of times that this very same person also didn't quite get it right.
Mike M,
God does not have physical gender as we would describe it, it is language that tends to assign most nouns a specific gender. It is also customs and culture that separate humanity into irreconcilable apposite yet opposite groupings that prevent the actual words of Jesus from being applicable to all.
In this regard, we do improperly create God (or not God) in our own image whenever we use language that limits direct access to the majestic nature of the personhood of God. This personhood is also not limited to customs and culture of the Hebrews, or anyother cultural group for that matter.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave or free, liberal or conservative, left or right, for we are all one in Christ.
"I'd like to include the atheists and agnostics, but I'm not too sure they'd be to happy about that."
The term fundamentalists that you try and describe conveniently seem to morph according to your worldview. You seem to be able to label any theist as a "fundamentalist" and give it a derogatory meaning for the sake of finding fault in their basic belief system.
What if someone were to label all atheists as fundamentalists in some way or another. Would there be any way of telling who were the real proper and good atheists from the evil dispicable ones?
Let me describe a Christian fundamentalist from my perspective. From your words I am sure it will not match yours.
This would be a person who has taken to heart, mind and action the golden rule and Luke 4:12,13.
The Lord our God is one, worship him with all your heart, mind, soul, body and strength.
Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself.
You seem to believe that the historical wrong choices of people who didn't follow the direct clear teachings of Christ are the definition of the term Christian.
I can just as easily group atheists with a bunch of evil deplorable human beings and call them atheistic fundamentalists when clearly there is much more directing their beliefs and actions than just a claimed disbelief in God.
Just an observation of mine, believing or not believing in "God" does not make a difference in how some people will use their worldview to set their own rules and agendas and make their decisions concerning wanting to serve others or to be served by others.
But along the same line believing or not believing in "Christ and the atonment for sin" does make a difference in how some people will use their worldview to set their own rules and agendas and make their decisions concerning wanting to serve others or to be served by others.
Jesus clearly came to be a servant, part of that servanthood provided a substitutionary death for the atonement of sin.
Mike, you clearly glanced only momentarily at my entire post and chose instead to focus on one, quite trivial, matter. Had you read it and understood at least the basic point of what I had been attempting to communicate, you would understand that I do not see the divine creator and sustainer of the universe as either male or female or any intermediary gender. God is outside of human physical or mental representations.
I should have made the disclaimer concerning my usage of the masculine noun in reference to "God" as simply being of historical and linguistic simplicity rather than a profession that my own belief is that God is male. I did it, once again, out of habit, and out of ease of communication. I do apologize, however, for misrepresenting my ideas and further irritating or annoying anyone who does indeed have a major grievance with this particular linguistic fallacy.
Once again I think perhaps you missed my point. I would like to apologize for my blunder. I should have expected that someone would pick apart my comment and not address my overall concerns. I had assumed (we all know what happens when you assume) that it was unnecessary to clarify here, as I doubted there would be trivial nit-pickery. In the future I will no longer use "He" to refer to God at all (As Matthew Alper and even Richard Dawkins did in their books, once again, for the sake of simplicity. As most english speaking readers are aware of this usage of the term and have very little quams with it), for you are correct in stating that it is a perpetuation of the church's bigotry, which is shameful indeed. I will, from this point forward, simply use GOD to refer to the human understanding of the unknowable divine presence that exists in this universe.
However, I would like to address that particular historical meaning. It is true that the church has been filled with bigots and sexists for generations. Originally, the conception of the separation of the male and female aspects of the divine reaches farther back to ancient scriptures concerning the Shekinah, or "dwelling" of God. The belief follows that the divine (female) presence of God resides in the temple. And the scriptures state that the dwelling place of God is in the hearts of man. Jesus talked about the marriage of God and the church, which is ultimately man's union with the divine in the "end." This is all very story-like and, regrettably, uses a great deal of human story devices such as that the Man (universal God) must come to rescue the Woman (the Shekinah or spirit of God on earth) from the clutches of Evil(satan?).
But that delves much deeper into rabbinical and Christian ideological nuances which I don't want to even bother covering here because, ultimately, it isn't the point.
I hope that I have made amends. And, as I have done that, I would vehemently request that you reread my commentary and offer your sincerest thoughts.
Thanks.
As for "yin in my yang", if only you KNEW, Mike. If you only knew.
😉
Karl wrote: "I have stated that the only clear historical examples that I have studied where one group/class/nation of people voluntarily stopped vanquishing others has been directly related to a proper understanding and commitment to the clear teachings of Jesus."
Then clearly you have not studied all of history. Refer to Hindu, Buddhist, and even Native American history (on the Native American side, for they were far more noble than the brutes that killed them off). I still believe you have missed quite a bit.
I would like to know this one specific historical example, though…
Surely, though, wherever there is a group of people that has chosen love instead of hate, that is a clear example of following Jesus' precepts. However, that group need not be followers of Jesus to understand and subsequently follow and then teach that basic human truth.
Karl, I was using your definition, which pretty much sums to "fanatic". Mine is a lot more cosmopolitan than you think, or can know, and if you think you know my viewpoint from my writing and it is as you have noted, then perhaps you've made up your mind and there's little I can do to change it. I was just using your argument to provide a little counterthought to your statements. A light-handed debating technique not dissimilar to the scattershot subject change or injection you use.
What if someone were to label all atheists as fundamentalists in some way or another. Would there be any way of telling who were the real proper and good atheists from the evil dispicable ones?
See? Where did that come from? Two unrelated points jammed together. From that statement/question one would think that you tie a definition of fundamentalist to good and evil. The only way to address that is to point out that they are two different points and in this case unrelated.
Now so you know, I actually accept nearly anyone's viewpoint without judgment because my perspective is not the only one in the world. Gasp. Just because I don't subscribe doesn't mean they are wrong. Doesn't mean I am either. It is my experience though, that Christians tend to judge and their measuring stick is rather unforgiving when applied to anyone not themselves. I was raised Catholic for the first 12 years, then mild Protestant for the next six during which time I tried to make sense that for which no sense could be made. When I concluded that none of it made sense, I resolved to not judge, for your believing hurts me not, though for some reason my not believing seems to offend. Live and let live…unless someone comes preaching and converting. Then I have to point out the problems with the the religion of the moment, if only to provoke some introspection. (I don't try to deconvert. That's an individual thing.)
You seem to believe that the historical wrong choices of people who didn’t follow the direct clear teachings of Christ are the definition of the term Christian.
How, pray (if I may use that word) tell , can you infer that from anything I've written? Non sequitur.
But along the same line believing or not believing in “Christ and the atonment for sin” does make a difference in how some people will use their worldview to set their own rules and agendas and make their decisions concerning wanting to serve others or to be served by others.
Perhaps only if one professes to the Christian religion. For the other five billion people in the world, I submit that believing or not believing in "Christ and the atonement for sin" does not make a difference.
This thread has run its course (and a few others) for me. When the verses come flying, I'm too tired to start pulling out Veda verses or Confucian analects or Buddhist proverbs to try to illustrate that a single volume of collected stories is not the only "right" world viewpoint.
Fundie: "This is the law, we have to do it this way."
Me: "Why?"
Fundie: "This holy book says so."
Me: "What if that book is neither holy nor correct?"
Fundie: "This book says anyone who makes that claim is evil and should not be listened to."
That is a fundamentalist in the way in which I use the term. When I use that expression, that's the kind of brainless mook I'm talking about.
Granted, there are many other stripes of people who are concerned with fundamentals. They are not who I mean when I use that term. Others may have different definitions, but I think we all know what sort of person we're talking about.
ThinkingMan: You write- "you clearly glanced only momentarily at my entire post and chose instead to focus on one, quite trivial, matter." Absolutely not true–a false assumption on your part. I read and re-read your post, and contemplated it deeply before responding. Also, what you call a "trivial matter" and "nit-pickery" is to me an extremely important matter, for reasons which I addressed in my previous post (I'm fairly surprised that it still seems trivial to you). It is precisely because you seem to have a great grasp on the transcendental/mystical aspect of God (not the wrathful Old Testament God) that I felt compelled to call you out on your constant use of the masculine pronoun. In light of your excellent pov and analysis, your use of He/Him seemed glaringly imprecise and linguistically sloppy.
That being said…there were many many points you made in your original post that I found to be really wise and very well thought out. Bravo especially on your comments about "human minds perceptions of reality" and how "Jesus preached loss of self and love of others, love of God, who IS LOVE", and how "We know VERY little, if anything at all..". Reading these sentences made me want to get up and cheer. Here, I thought, are some concepts I really wish more people would realize. Too many people mistake the map for the territory, or the menu for the meal.
At the risk of getting "nit-picky" again, can you please clarify what you meant by "man would…be subject to the evils of the flesh"? There is the stench of anti-human anti-sex Puritanism here. Hopefully that's not what you meant to convey??
I'll end this post with a quote I think you'll appreciate.
"Human brains are as individualized and unique as human fingerprints. We all live in different sensory universes, and nobody has a guarantee that his/her universe corresponds more exactly to the alleged "real universe" than anybody else's. But if our perceptions are somewhat uncertain, then all of our ideas, which are deductions or inferences from perception, must also remain somewhat uncertain." ~Robert Anton Wilson
Mike M: I'm ambivalent regarding the Wilson quote. Yes, the world is always messy. We can never measure out EXACTLY three centimeters, for instance. But does that really mean that we can't know some principles to be rock solid (at least when they are applied locally?) F = m x a ; or p = mv ?
On the other hand, I realize that science is a process and it is always provisional, so the quote does resonate with me.
So to Mark, "fundies" will not long discuss a matter without losing their cool or simply falling back upon the acceptance of the authoritarian instructions they have agreed are of the most importance to them.
If thats the case you had better find out what the "fundies" book really has to say before you describe a group or even a person as one.
If a persons actions do not align with the ideals in the holy writings, you have no business trying to connect the two accept by loose association.
The mentally deranged person that try to kill Gabriella Giffords is a good example. You can try and blame it on someone else's rhetoric, but that's like saying there is only one side to the matters being discussed.
If the ideals in the holy writings call for the implementation of the worst kinds of evil towards others, including deception and torture then what do you do with those who are closely associated by heritage and vocal silence because if they spoke out against the evils they would be included as enemies?
This is the plight of innumerable muslims that do not agree with the fundamental teachings of the Koran.
Karl writes:—"o to Mark, “fundies” will not long discuss a matter without losing their cool or simply falling back upon the acceptance of the authoritarian instructions they have agreed are of the most importance to them."
Actually, what I described is someone who is wedded to a tautology and probably doesn't even understand what that word means. I'm also not sure they have a "most" in their catalogue of importance because that would imply judgment of some sort.
You keep attempting to characterize anyone who uses any kind of authority as essentially no different than the boobs I'm talking about and that's simply nonsense. I—and probably a good number of folks who post here—accept authority with conditions. Always.
But here's a good one—you just attempted to suggest that the "fundamental" teachings of the Koran trap devout Muslims in a cycle similar to the hardcore christian fundies, which is a kind of backhanded insult, making the Koran, by implication, a text less amenable to interpretation than, say, the Bible. Not sure if you meant it that way, but that's how I read it.
The problem with fundies of all stripes—and this may have something to do with basic application of intelligence (or even basic intelligence) is that they reject interpretation. They glom onto a few pat phrases, raise them to the level of all-encompassing timeless law, and then refuse to think about them.
And again, I suggest we all, even you, know what kind of mind I'm talking about. And no, I don't think they reflect upon their chosen ideology, well or otherwise. The chief problem I have with all levels of believer in this instance is their reference to something which cannot be examined. If you do something according to human law, you can always question it, because humans are fallible. When you claim to be doing something according to god's edict, you end up having to destroy the source of authority before you are allowed, for that person, to question his or her actions. Tacit approval of faith-based ideology that admits no error just makes this task harder and more unpleasant than it needs to be.
—"If the ideals in the holy writings call for the implementation of the worst kinds of evil towards others, including deception and torture then what do you do with those who are closely associated by heritage and vocal silence because if they spoke out against the evils they would be included as enemies?"
Mike, thank you for your comments, and forgive my assumption and resultant unnecessary annoyance. I do apologize. I have simply gone too long with people who would chose instead to make a point of something and ignore my overall thesis. I realize that you are not one of these people.
It is absolutely true that my rhetoric made my overall post appear sloppy and disjointed, and I really do appreciate being called out on something that actually is important. I do not feel the topic in itself is trivial, for the generational misogyny and bigotry or the church is a serious matter indeed that should constantly be addressed and corrected. I merely believed that for the sake of my overall post it was not the most important matter. I should have written the disclaimer beforehand or just refrained from using the habitual masculine pronoun in place of "God." Rereading the post, though, I realize that it was a grave error on my part and did actually put me at risk for appearing insulting and unlearned. It is great to have others keep you up to standard on intellectual integrity, something for which I admire this website and its writers.
As for your comment regarding the flesh, I will be more than happy to clarify, and thank you for asking.
I did not mean it in the sexual or anti-human sense. I believe, as do others, that ultimately the "mind" or "spirit" is a metaphor for the ultimate pinnacle achievement of human endeavor. To be one with the universe, if such a concept is possible. If one chooses to read the Genesis story and, indeed, the Bible as a whole as metaphor for human existence and suffering, then I think that it can be said that Human existing in the flesh is our punishment for falling from grace. Flesh is weak, it ages, it rots, and it can be easily abused and mistreated. When speaking of those sins I don't mean sexual sins. People who are "flesh-oriented" and not "spirit-oriented" think in short-term, mortal ways that tend to cause or be a result of evil in their hearts. Love of money, love of self, gluttony, lust, etc.
Of course life is short and fleeting and it is important to live it the best that we can, but I think the metaphors allude to a better reality where Humanity doesn't worry about the trivialities of mortal existence. If there is an afterlife, that is more important, and caring for others is better. If there is no afterlife, the wisdom of these books is still true. Focusing on self and on accumulation of selfish worldly things causes strife and heartache. When humanity learns to forgo these things, they will come to them naturally, I think.
I hope I have clarified a little.
Karl wrote: "If thats the case you had better find out what the “fundies” book really has to say before you describe a group or even a person as one."
Perhaps these "fundies" should read what their OWN holy book says before they label THEMSELVES as one. It all falls back on your definition and further employment of the word and ideal of fundamentalist. People who go to church listen to what their preacher tells them, and a very many of those preachers inform them that killing in the name of God is indeed warranted and, actually, commanded by God in the Bible. These people view themselves and fundamentalist. They must adhere to the Holy word of God and do as it is commanded in the Bible. Of course they are wrong, because they have read the verses out of context and have not understood the overall WORD of GOD, however they are still fundamentalist in that they adhere strictly to these principles (however misguided they may be) and do as they are told.
I absolutely agree that the term fundamentalist should change and be subjected to people for whom it is most true: that is people who follow every tenant of every word in the Holy Book to which the subscribe. However, I challenge you to find me any person who adheres to Abrahamic Law AND New Testament principles simultaneously and on a daily basis. I believe you will be hard-pressed to find many true "fundamentalists" in that regard.
Hey Erich, I admit my current favorite world model of Total Uncertainty is fairly fringe and extreme. I take my cue from quantum physics which suggests that nothing is sure; all is in flux. There seems to be no underlying rockbed reality, but rather "reality" appears to shift in accordance with the tool (human, equipment, etc) used in making the measurement or observation. For instance, I can choose to view an electron as either a wave or a particle. I can set up a device which will show the electron to "be" a wave, and then set up a different device which will show the electron to "be" a particle. So which is it–a wave or a particle? Which is the certain reality? The answer is neither, and both.
"Then clearly you have not studied all of history. Refer to Hindu, Buddhist, and even Native American history (on the Native American side, for they were far more noble than the brutes that killed them off). I still believe you have missed quite a bit."
I have not come even close to studying all of history. I realize I'm missing more than a little bit when it comes to studying cultures and their offensive verses defensive postures.
I simply ask if there is an example of a culture that once bent of vanquishing other people stopped freely on their own because they somehow finally understood the "error of their ways."
I guess what I want to know is if there is hope for those cultures today that are so offensive in their postures towards other people to change on their own.
From what little I know of history the example and message of Jesus' atonement is the only way that both can and has accomplished this.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
Karl,
Thanks for sparring. I'll grant you that being all powerful doesn't require its exercise. At least for the morning, we see a shadow of that principle taking place with an army in Egypt. But withholding the exercise of power when the outcome is known, with a complete understanding of perfect combinations of events or nature or human interaction as well as incorporating the added benefit of being everywhere at once, seems an intellectual stretch. It's as if you've said that God has this "big bang" moment in his eternal mind, one that both creates and ends humanity in his timeless two minutes.
Are we wind-up mechanisms whose biological make-up dissuades us, except for ignorance, fear or the desire for permanency, from choosing to live later instead of now? I refuse to believe that I am living in eternity's prepatory school.
Let's suppose that your explanation of power with/without control options, IS the picture of God's power. Do you pray? That someone gets healed? That God performs a miracle? Why pray if his is a role that does not meddle, if his power is held in reserve? If God has no past, no present, no future then all things are now. I pray for me, to me, on behalf of my own psyche because God knows the results beforehand. I am merely acknowledging what God already knows. Not for his benefit, I'm sure. I know that there are a couple instances in the Bible that state that God changed his mind. Really? Can someone who knows the end result make any substantive and sincere declarations of change? Even on the surface, this seems disingenuous. Over the years, I've been accused by friends who are pastors of delving into the "unanswerables" (ruined my faith, they say) but the omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresent conundrum is a much bigger burden for those you call believers than it is for the atonement-averse.
You also ask for an example in human history of the guidance found in Luke 14 (?) (it's Luke 4:18,19 by the way). I smiled when I read your statement because I circled back to your initial comments about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as if they could only be selfishly exhibited.I have my struggles with how our republic has evolved from the Declaration of Independence's days but when I read Luke from an historical comparison perspective, I can proudly say that the United States (even with its issues) is one of several countries in the past several hundred years that has given good news to the poor, has freed many prisoners, given sight to countless, has released the oppressed.
I'm quite certain that this isn't a forum that will change (m)any minds but grappling with these concepts might change some thinking, which could lead to… who knows? I hope Someone isn't hiding the answer from me.
I have not asked for a response to my statements – only one question in specific.
Is there anyway of telling what cultures would be like if Jesus hadn't come? Kind of brings a world wide Afghanistan to mind – Not Brooklyn. You don't need to answer that one.
To repeat the question –
Can you name a place on earth where one culture of people willingly gave up vanquishing other people where the leaders of that culture didn't in one form or another believe in the atonement for sin by Jesus?
The "belief in an atonement" for sin releases both individuals and cultures from bondage to the cycles of revenge generation after generation.
If a person/culture never has full confidence of atonement for sin until they die they can easily be convinced that the manner of their death becomes part of the process of atoning for their own sin.
Christians do not believe this as the Islamic fundamentalists do. Islamic teaching is that they are never certain of an atonment and therefore many leave this world in a blaze of "glory" hoping to please Allah who they claim is calling them to holy wars that will never end until all the world is under submission to Allah.
Christians view life in a much different manner whether you belive it or not.
Erich asks:
"But what would “God” owe us that “He” felt the need to atone?"
God owes us no more than we owe each other. A debt of love that enables hatred, injustice and hypocrisy to volitionally come to an end. The free volitional choice of God to demonstrate his willingness to die rather than force allegiance to His will is what the cross was all about.
Karl: I know that these words are soothing to you, but they make no sense to me. If my heavenly father caused me pain by kicking me out of paradise, but then decided that he wanted to forgive me, then he could (since he is omnipotent) let me (and my 7 billion friends) come on back in. Forget the intermediary of having your son get massacred. Any felt need to proceed with the bloodbath would be the result of not thinking clearly. This is not the way that admirable human beings think. I expect no less from Gods.
The Abrahamic god has some serious explaining to do. And he has some serious atoning. Deliberately setting up his favorite (only?) people for failure? Yeah, that's fatherly. Being capricious with his love? Magnanimous. Get into heaven by works or works? Accident of English those words are close, but no accident that the story lines conflict.
And what would the world without Jesus be? Perhaps the Americas would have a different name and there wouldn't have been the destruction of so many cultures through conquest or missionaries. Yes. I lump both together.
No Crusades. No Inquisitions. No Dark Ages.
Okay. Human nature being what it is, those things would still have happened, though not in the name of the Christian religion.
Now, why only single out fundamentalist Islam but not use the same modifier for Christians? Islam as a whole is not like their fundies any more than Christianity as a whole is like theirs. I'll remind you that abortion clinic bombers are not Islamic. Nor peaceful in their desire to kill doctors in the name of Jesus. Those Christian do view life in a different manner.
{And I'll offer Tibet as a place where there's no vanquishing and no need for a monotheistic god evolving back into poly: three. Except for the part of Tibet which has been conscripted by those pesky missionaries bent on subverting thinking folks from their own beliefs.}
Pete,
The United States was pretty much founded by leaders who sought for a place where people were allowed to chose freely what "religion" they wished to follow.
They were quite aware that they were forming a nation that even the leaders of many "Christian" churches would have once thought was not proper.
However, it was clear from the gospel message that this was the intention of passages like Luke 4:18,19.
The message of equality is clearly found in the words of both Jesus and the writings of Paul.
My point is this, The United States would not have happened happen in a land founded by an Islamic worldview, or anyother other types of "historical" worldview, religious or not.
You should well know that "religious" worldviews are always a part of the founding of a nation.
Jim,
As for Tibet. Do you mean that those pesky missionaries helped or hurt the cause of freedom and equality by their presence?
Honest Chrisitan missionaries bring the gospel to a land and do not meddle in the politics. They let that take its eventual outcome as the people come to understand the gospel and put it into practice.
Do atheists really think they have what it takes to keep Islamic fundamentalists from taking control of both the government and public discourse on religion?
Jim,
You seem to think there is only one kind of fundamentalist.
Those whose anger stirs them to hatred of people and revenge against other people.
Believe it or not, the actual full message of both the Old and New Testaments combined is not one of offense against those that you disagree with.
This is not the message of the Bible or Christ but of corrupt selfish men who claim to being doing the work of God and the church. Just as corrupt Buddist's can claim to be following the will of Buddah while actually being biased as all get out.
The Bible teaches that the true nature of those that believe in God should not be one of hatred of people or of culture, but hatred of their own tendencies to do exactly what they do not want to do.
Actual fundamentalist in the teachings of Jesus do bear with one another in love, even when it makes no sense to the comman nature and emotions of people.
Pete.
People only fool themselves when they try to imagine that Gods thinks and acts the way a typical human does.
Imperfection for God is not an issue, but for men and women living in an imperfect world, there exist blinders at many turns that makes them doubt if an ideal can ever exist in reality.
God is not imperfect because he didn't miraculously keep His chosen people from interaction with other fallen cultures.
The ends and means to an end are only imperfect when one imagines their could always have been a better way.
When dealing with human emotions of fear, envy, lust, hatred, revenge and racism one could always imagine a better way, but the reality is that people will be people.
While in a perfect theoretical world it would be true that God shouldn't let evil exist – in an imperfect world with freedom of choice and real people who doubt if anything has any meaning beyond themselves what chance does anyone have of proving their way is the best way?
Perhaps this would make sense to the Trekkies out there.
God has chosen to not violate the prime directive to prevent anyone an unfair advantage against their neighbors.
He desires for people to decide for themselves what they believe and/or don't believe about Him.
Karl, no, I don't think there is only one kind of fundamentalist. It does appear to me that you think there is only one kind of Islamic fundamentalist, so I was just following your lead. If you allow that most fundamentalist Muslims are non-violent, I'll allow that a few fundamentalist Christians are extremists (and violent), for with respect to Islam such is the case. Perhaps orthodox is a better term? Though I guess it can't apply to fundamentalist Christians because there are too many rules in the "actual full message of the Bible" that are no longer acceptable by societal mores, much less actual law.
I wonder why the missionaries are in Tibet anyway. Was it only the apostles that were forbidden? Could be interpreted otherwise. Something that unclear spawns apologetics to apologize for its unclarity. And who said anything about politics? I was talking about supplanting {peaceful} cultures with another. Telling stories to get people to stop believing in their own religions for a different one. Tragic arrogance. A little social unnatural selection, I suppose, so social evolution in progress.
Huh? How is that germane? You're really all over the map in these threads. Anyway, why is it okay to go in and knock off governments? Let's put the shoe on the other foot…Do, and I'll use your definition for this, Islamic fundamentalists really think they have what it takes to keep [infidels – a generic term for all non-Muslims which does include atheists, though why that's part of the discussion I don't know] from taking control of both the government and public discourse on religion…in America?
It seems to be okay to choose which regimes we want to topple (Sudan, Darfur, PKR, Saudi…sorry, not interested right now), but don't even think about toppling ours. And so many Americans wonder why we aren't received with open arms virtually anywhere in the world. And so many Americans can't grasp why Islamic nations don't trust us? Gee, let me count the ways…
This has turned into a very thought-provoking and intriguing thread in a matter of days and I am sad that I feel I have fallen behind. So many points to address.
I would like to begin with Karl. Without delving specifically into every claim and question that you raise, I would like to simply address the fact that you seemingly purposefully misrepresent the past 2000 years of history. Jesus did indeed bring peace and hope and love to generations of people with his preaching on God and His ideals, but his "followers" surely did not. As others have pointed out, the past 2000 years has been filled with "Christian" (both fundamentalist AND mainstream) terror wrought upon the unwilling members of other cultures. You cannot ignore this, as much as you may wish to explain it away. The fact remains.
Evil, selfish people will use anything and anyone, including Jesus, to persecute and control others. Period. You continue to bring up how atheists cannot possibly hope to quell Islamic fundamentalists and their increasing popularity in politics and culture. Well, the same is true for Christian fundamentalists. The two groups are synonymous in their deeds and ideals.
That being said, the message of Jesus Christ, the messiah and savior of the people of the Earth, is not the message that these people are putting forth. I offer that with complete and utter confidence. Jesus preached loss of self and love of others, love of God, who IS LOVE. It is as simple as that.
As for the supposed "problem" of atonement, the major cognitive hurdle that people have to climb is the fact that WE DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.
Humans try the best we can to make gods of ourselves. We think that, because we have a thinking, feeling, rationalizing mind, that we can therefore surmise the meaning of the universe and the purpose of life. We assume, quite incorrectly, that we can "know God," and subsequently mock whatever aspect of the divine we find "illogical." How conceited and fat-headed of us puny, comparatively young humans. Its like a 5-year old telling you something he believes is true which you "know" is not because you are older and, thus, more knowledgeable. We know VERY little, if anything at all, so I would adamantly suggest we stop forcing the unknowable, vastly immeasurable power, knowledge and being of God into our man-made cardboard boxes of thought.
That does not mean that we cannot converse upon the subject, however. As humans, we have been gifted (evolutionarily or otherwise) with the ability to think perceive and rationalize. So why not use those capabilities?
However, human minds perceive the universe only partially. All of our sense experiences are through the organ in our heads, and, quite frankly, what we perceive is NOT reality. It is only our puny, fleshy human minds PERCEPTION of reality. I offer that, because of this FACT, we do not yet understand God or the scriptures. I offer, further, that perhaps the writers of the scriptures did not fully understand what they were writing or saying, and did not understand that subsequent generations of human-oriented self-obsessed people with their own wills and intentions would subvert the Holy Books to their own ends.
I would offer, though, that God knew.
The continuing problem of "omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence" is a common theme on this website and especially in this thread. Once again I bring up the very limited scope of human understanding and cognition compared with the absolute vastness of our universe. Everyday, physicists discover new things about the universe on the cosmic and quantum scales. Brian Greene posits that there may actually be many universes existing simultaneously. What? Really?
If this is the case, then our understanding of time and space is quite clearly not possibly the most verifiable. Once again, we try to fit the immortal, INFINITE God into our mortal, FINITE understanding of this one universe in which we live. Oh, how human.
God KNOWS all. He knows every possible cause and outcome of every possible universe and every possible time in every possible place. Because he is timeless, he is space less. The infinite God exists in and out of time. He IS. It is a concept our minds cannot possibly fathom. You say: "God knows the outcome of a football game before the game begins." But I counter: "God knows every possible outcome of every possible football game before they even knew what football was. In any Universe. In any time."
This is not simple conjecturing either. You might state: "Well, ANYONE can know the possible outcomes of any games because that leaves everything to theoretical chance." But see, that's where free will comes into play. God allows us to chose OUR OWN destiny. He WANTS us to, ultimately, chose Him, but we are free not to. Though that is the wrong choice, it is still a choice.
(Now, I want to clarify. Should you not believe in the Christian, or Buddhist, or Islamic, or Jewish "god" or whatever transcendental deity this does not mean that you are banished to an eternity in Hell or whatever underworld existence. Very much like Buddhist and Hindu ideals, I believe that "Hell" is only the soul being "caught up" in the cycle of life and death in the world. Sin binds us to the flesh. But by actually trying to understand truth, and love, and life, and goodness in ourselves and mankind, we attain a better understanding of the divine and of the universe. God is merciful, indeed, though his old testament counterpart did not seem so [Jewish scholars' interpretation of what he believed was God doing an action, btw]. God knows our hearts, and our minds. If there is at least the very strong force in someone to try and surpass their evil intentions, I am sure that person can attain paradise. They do not NEED to follow specific religious ideologies. Indeed, I think every person should attempt to at least read EVERY religious book they can and try to understand the nature of the divine and reality on their own based on their readings.)
God created humans as the mirror to his own knowledge. He gave them freedom of immortal thought and action. Humans were God's counterpart, until they CHOSE to disobey him. The symbolic nature of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil represented Man's purposeful disobedience to the ONE CONDITION THAT HE GAVE THEM. Why WOULDN'T God give us that choice? You say: "Oh, well then he is just a meany because duh if you give a child candy he is going to eat it." Not if that child has at his disposal every toy and every action figure and every amusement park and every animal that he could possibly ever want to play with. Parents give children rules every day, JUST for the simple TEST to see if their children will obey them or not.
God knew that there would exist a reality where man would disobey and be subject to the evils of the flesh. He also KNOWS that there is a reality where man has not disobeyed.
Paradise.
It exists now. And it is the goal of the human spiritual mind to reacquaint ourselves with that parallel universe where our spirit exists eternally. That is the real reality. That is the reality that God wants for us, and that is the unity of the divine that so many spiritual teachers and holy books allude to.
I realize that I have been remarkably speculative (and quite long-winded), but if you have read the scriptures and if you have taken educated guesses concerning the nature of reality based on the cognitive leaps we as a species have made in the sciences and in religious thought, then that, I believe, is the logical conclusion.
Thoughts?
I look forward to reading your responses. 😀
As for Tibet, here is some more info.
No need to vanquish other lands when you still oppress your own people so that the leaders have a posh life style.
This is from the viewpoint of a Tibetian College student living in America.
http://www.oppression.tk/
Outsiders have not fought over Tibet because there is not a whole lot there besides a place to call home, and other lower class citizens who have little or no way of throwing off their oppressors.
Sounds like their leaders really give their people a choice about everything, what little choice there actually might be.
TheThinkingMan: Do you believe God has a penis? If yes, why do you believe that you believe that? If no, why do you continually refer to God as 'He' and 'Him' throughout your commentary? If you truly believe that "God is love", why are you casting out the female?
It is shameful how post-Jesus Christianity continues to marginalize and reject women and girls, who account for more than 50% of the human population. It's perplexing, especially when you consider the Hebrew letters for the fourfold name of God (YHVH) refers to Yod (Father), Heh (Mother), Vau (Son) and Heh (Daughter). I suspect the Christian patriarchy that developed around the time of the Council of Nicea had such a fear of pagan Goddess worship that they simply tossed out the female half of God's name. I think you need to get more Yin in your Yang, ThinkingMan, and allow for the divinity of the female to co-exist along with the divinity of the male. Otherwise, you risk remaining intellectually insulting in choosing to perpetuate the misogyny of the church.
ThinkingMan,
I have not misrepresented 2000 years of history.
For all of the good or evil intentioned actions of those who have claimed to have been "Christians" of one sort or another, my concern has not been with their most certain blunders – I would be a fool to try and ignore them. It has been with the very small fraction of the time when they did both live and teach as Jesus would have wanted them to.
I have not condoned what evil men, women and children have done in the name of God, be that Jesus, Allah or Istar.
I have stated that the only clear historical examples that I have studied where one group/class/nation of people voluntarily stopped vanquishing others has been directly related to a proper understanding and commitment to the clear teachings of Jesus.
This means that at least once in a while someone who called themself a follower of Jesus Christ got it right, despite the number of times that this very same person also didn't quite get it right.
Mike M,
God does not have physical gender as we would describe it, it is language that tends to assign most nouns a specific gender. It is also customs and culture that separate humanity into irreconcilable apposite yet opposite groupings that prevent the actual words of Jesus from being applicable to all.
In this regard, we do improperly create God (or not God) in our own image whenever we use language that limits direct access to the majestic nature of the personhood of God. This personhood is also not limited to customs and culture of the Hebrews, or anyother cultural group for that matter.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave or free, liberal or conservative, left or right, for we are all one in Christ.
"I'd like to include the atheists and agnostics, but I'm not too sure they'd be to happy about that."
Jim,
The term fundamentalists that you try and describe conveniently seem to morph according to your worldview. You seem to be able to label any theist as a "fundamentalist" and give it a derogatory meaning for the sake of finding fault in their basic belief system.
What if someone were to label all atheists as fundamentalists in some way or another. Would there be any way of telling who were the real proper and good atheists from the evil dispicable ones?
Let me describe a Christian fundamentalist from my perspective. From your words I am sure it will not match yours.
This would be a person who has taken to heart, mind and action the golden rule and Luke 4:12,13.
The Lord our God is one, worship him with all your heart, mind, soul, body and strength.
Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself.
You seem to believe that the historical wrong choices of people who didn't follow the direct clear teachings of Christ are the definition of the term Christian.
I can just as easily group atheists with a bunch of evil deplorable human beings and call them atheistic fundamentalists when clearly there is much more directing their beliefs and actions than just a claimed disbelief in God.
Just an observation of mine, believing or not believing in "God" does not make a difference in how some people will use their worldview to set their own rules and agendas and make their decisions concerning wanting to serve others or to be served by others.
But along the same line believing or not believing in "Christ and the atonment for sin" does make a difference in how some people will use their worldview to set their own rules and agendas and make their decisions concerning wanting to serve others or to be served by others.
Jesus clearly came to be a servant, part of that servanthood provided a substitutionary death for the atonement of sin.
Mike, you clearly glanced only momentarily at my entire post and chose instead to focus on one, quite trivial, matter. Had you read it and understood at least the basic point of what I had been attempting to communicate, you would understand that I do not see the divine creator and sustainer of the universe as either male or female or any intermediary gender. God is outside of human physical or mental representations.
I should have made the disclaimer concerning my usage of the masculine noun in reference to "God" as simply being of historical and linguistic simplicity rather than a profession that my own belief is that God is male. I did it, once again, out of habit, and out of ease of communication. I do apologize, however, for misrepresenting my ideas and further irritating or annoying anyone who does indeed have a major grievance with this particular linguistic fallacy.
Once again I think perhaps you missed my point. I would like to apologize for my blunder. I should have expected that someone would pick apart my comment and not address my overall concerns. I had assumed (we all know what happens when you assume) that it was unnecessary to clarify here, as I doubted there would be trivial nit-pickery. In the future I will no longer use "He" to refer to God at all (As Matthew Alper and even Richard Dawkins did in their books, once again, for the sake of simplicity. As most english speaking readers are aware of this usage of the term and have very little quams with it), for you are correct in stating that it is a perpetuation of the church's bigotry, which is shameful indeed. I will, from this point forward, simply use GOD to refer to the human understanding of the unknowable divine presence that exists in this universe.
However, I would like to address that particular historical meaning. It is true that the church has been filled with bigots and sexists for generations. Originally, the conception of the separation of the male and female aspects of the divine reaches farther back to ancient scriptures concerning the Shekinah, or "dwelling" of God. The belief follows that the divine (female) presence of God resides in the temple. And the scriptures state that the dwelling place of God is in the hearts of man. Jesus talked about the marriage of God and the church, which is ultimately man's union with the divine in the "end." This is all very story-like and, regrettably, uses a great deal of human story devices such as that the Man (universal God) must come to rescue the Woman (the Shekinah or spirit of God on earth) from the clutches of Evil(satan?).
But that delves much deeper into rabbinical and Christian ideological nuances which I don't want to even bother covering here because, ultimately, it isn't the point.
I hope that I have made amends. And, as I have done that, I would vehemently request that you reread my commentary and offer your sincerest thoughts.
Thanks.
As for "yin in my yang", if only you KNEW, Mike. If you only knew.
😉
Karl wrote: "I have stated that the only clear historical examples that I have studied where one group/class/nation of people voluntarily stopped vanquishing others has been directly related to a proper understanding and commitment to the clear teachings of Jesus."
Then clearly you have not studied all of history. Refer to Hindu, Buddhist, and even Native American history (on the Native American side, for they were far more noble than the brutes that killed them off). I still believe you have missed quite a bit.
I would like to know this one specific historical example, though…
Surely, though, wherever there is a group of people that has chosen love instead of hate, that is a clear example of following Jesus' precepts. However, that group need not be followers of Jesus to understand and subsequently follow and then teach that basic human truth.
Woops, I caught myself. Allow me to correct:
"The dwelling place of God is in the hearts of HUMANS."
😉
Karl, I was using your definition, which pretty much sums to "fanatic". Mine is a lot more cosmopolitan than you think, or can know, and if you think you know my viewpoint from my writing and it is as you have noted, then perhaps you've made up your mind and there's little I can do to change it. I was just using your argument to provide a little counterthought to your statements. A light-handed debating technique not dissimilar to the scattershot subject change or injection you use.
See? Where did that come from? Two unrelated points jammed together. From that statement/question one would think that you tie a definition of fundamentalist to good and evil. The only way to address that is to point out that they are two different points and in this case unrelated.
Now so you know, I actually accept nearly anyone's viewpoint without judgment because my perspective is not the only one in the world. Gasp. Just because I don't subscribe doesn't mean they are wrong. Doesn't mean I am either. It is my experience though, that Christians tend to judge and their measuring stick is rather unforgiving when applied to anyone not themselves. I was raised Catholic for the first 12 years, then mild Protestant for the next six during which time I tried to make sense that for which no sense could be made. When I concluded that none of it made sense, I resolved to not judge, for your believing hurts me not, though for some reason my not believing seems to offend. Live and let live…unless someone comes preaching and converting. Then I have to point out the problems with the the religion of the moment, if only to provoke some introspection. (I don't try to deconvert. That's an individual thing.)
How, pray (if I may use that word) tell , can you infer that from anything I've written? Non sequitur.
Perhaps only if one professes to the Christian religion. For the other five billion people in the world, I submit that believing or not believing in "Christ and the atonement for sin" does not make a difference.
This thread has run its course (and a few others) for me. When the verses come flying, I'm too tired to start pulling out Veda verses or Confucian analects or Buddhist proverbs to try to illustrate that a single volume of collected stories is not the only "right" world viewpoint.
Conversation between me and a fundamentalist.
Fundie: "This is the law, we have to do it this way."
Me: "Why?"
Fundie: "This holy book says so."
Me: "What if that book is neither holy nor correct?"
Fundie: "This book says anyone who makes that claim is evil and should not be listened to."
That is a fundamentalist in the way in which I use the term. When I use that expression, that's the kind of brainless mook I'm talking about.
Granted, there are many other stripes of people who are concerned with fundamentals. They are not who I mean when I use that term. Others may have different definitions, but I think we all know what sort of person we're talking about.
ThinkingMan: You write- "you clearly glanced only momentarily at my entire post and chose instead to focus on one, quite trivial, matter." Absolutely not true–a false assumption on your part. I read and re-read your post, and contemplated it deeply before responding. Also, what you call a "trivial matter" and "nit-pickery" is to me an extremely important matter, for reasons which I addressed in my previous post (I'm fairly surprised that it still seems trivial to you). It is precisely because you seem to have a great grasp on the transcendental/mystical aspect of God (not the wrathful Old Testament God) that I felt compelled to call you out on your constant use of the masculine pronoun. In light of your excellent pov and analysis, your use of He/Him seemed glaringly imprecise and linguistically sloppy.
That being said…there were many many points you made in your original post that I found to be really wise and very well thought out. Bravo especially on your comments about "human minds perceptions of reality" and how "Jesus preached loss of self and love of others, love of God, who IS LOVE", and how "We know VERY little, if anything at all..". Reading these sentences made me want to get up and cheer. Here, I thought, are some concepts I really wish more people would realize. Too many people mistake the map for the territory, or the menu for the meal.
At the risk of getting "nit-picky" again, can you please clarify what you meant by "man would…be subject to the evils of the flesh"? There is the stench of anti-human anti-sex Puritanism here. Hopefully that's not what you meant to convey??
I'll end this post with a quote I think you'll appreciate.
"Human brains are as individualized and unique as human fingerprints. We all live in different sensory universes, and nobody has a guarantee that his/her universe corresponds more exactly to the alleged "real universe" than anybody else's. But if our perceptions are somewhat uncertain, then all of our ideas, which are deductions or inferences from perception, must also remain somewhat uncertain." ~Robert Anton Wilson
Mike M: I'm ambivalent regarding the Wilson quote. Yes, the world is always messy. We can never measure out EXACTLY three centimeters, for instance. But does that really mean that we can't know some principles to be rock solid (at least when they are applied locally?) F = m x a ; or p = mv ?
On the other hand, I realize that science is a process and it is always provisional, so the quote does resonate with me.
So to Mark, "fundies" will not long discuss a matter without losing their cool or simply falling back upon the acceptance of the authoritarian instructions they have agreed are of the most importance to them.
If thats the case you had better find out what the "fundies" book really has to say before you describe a group or even a person as one.
If a persons actions do not align with the ideals in the holy writings, you have no business trying to connect the two accept by loose association.
The mentally deranged person that try to kill Gabriella Giffords is a good example. You can try and blame it on someone else's rhetoric, but that's like saying there is only one side to the matters being discussed.
If the ideals in the holy writings call for the implementation of the worst kinds of evil towards others, including deception and torture then what do you do with those who are closely associated by heritage and vocal silence because if they spoke out against the evils they would be included as enemies?
This is the plight of innumerable muslims that do not agree with the fundamental teachings of the Koran.
Karl writes:—"o to Mark, “fundies” will not long discuss a matter without losing their cool or simply falling back upon the acceptance of the authoritarian instructions they have agreed are of the most importance to them."
Actually, what I described is someone who is wedded to a tautology and probably doesn't even understand what that word means. I'm also not sure they have a "most" in their catalogue of importance because that would imply judgment of some sort.
You keep attempting to characterize anyone who uses any kind of authority as essentially no different than the boobs I'm talking about and that's simply nonsense. I—and probably a good number of folks who post here—accept authority with conditions. Always.
But here's a good one—you just attempted to suggest that the "fundamental" teachings of the Koran trap devout Muslims in a cycle similar to the hardcore christian fundies, which is a kind of backhanded insult, making the Koran, by implication, a text less amenable to interpretation than, say, the Bible. Not sure if you meant it that way, but that's how I read it.
The problem with fundies of all stripes—and this may have something to do with basic application of intelligence (or even basic intelligence) is that they reject interpretation. They glom onto a few pat phrases, raise them to the level of all-encompassing timeless law, and then refuse to think about them.
And again, I suggest we all, even you, know what kind of mind I'm talking about. And no, I don't think they reflect upon their chosen ideology, well or otherwise. The chief problem I have with all levels of believer in this instance is their reference to something which cannot be examined. If you do something according to human law, you can always question it, because humans are fallible. When you claim to be doing something according to god's edict, you end up having to destroy the source of authority before you are allowed, for that person, to question his or her actions. Tacit approval of faith-based ideology that admits no error just makes this task harder and more unpleasant than it needs to be.
—"If the ideals in the holy writings call for the implementation of the worst kinds of evil towards others, including deception and torture then what do you do with those who are closely associated by heritage and vocal silence because if they spoke out against the evils they would be included as enemies?"
Well, Karl, you do what you can to free them.
Mike, thank you for your comments, and forgive my assumption and resultant unnecessary annoyance. I do apologize. I have simply gone too long with people who would chose instead to make a point of something and ignore my overall thesis. I realize that you are not one of these people.
It is absolutely true that my rhetoric made my overall post appear sloppy and disjointed, and I really do appreciate being called out on something that actually is important. I do not feel the topic in itself is trivial, for the generational misogyny and bigotry or the church is a serious matter indeed that should constantly be addressed and corrected. I merely believed that for the sake of my overall post it was not the most important matter. I should have written the disclaimer beforehand or just refrained from using the habitual masculine pronoun in place of "God." Rereading the post, though, I realize that it was a grave error on my part and did actually put me at risk for appearing insulting and unlearned. It is great to have others keep you up to standard on intellectual integrity, something for which I admire this website and its writers.
As for your comment regarding the flesh, I will be more than happy to clarify, and thank you for asking.
I did not mean it in the sexual or anti-human sense. I believe, as do others, that ultimately the "mind" or "spirit" is a metaphor for the ultimate pinnacle achievement of human endeavor. To be one with the universe, if such a concept is possible. If one chooses to read the Genesis story and, indeed, the Bible as a whole as metaphor for human existence and suffering, then I think that it can be said that Human existing in the flesh is our punishment for falling from grace. Flesh is weak, it ages, it rots, and it can be easily abused and mistreated. When speaking of those sins I don't mean sexual sins. People who are "flesh-oriented" and not "spirit-oriented" think in short-term, mortal ways that tend to cause or be a result of evil in their hearts. Love of money, love of self, gluttony, lust, etc.
Of course life is short and fleeting and it is important to live it the best that we can, but I think the metaphors allude to a better reality where Humanity doesn't worry about the trivialities of mortal existence. If there is an afterlife, that is more important, and caring for others is better. If there is no afterlife, the wisdom of these books is still true. Focusing on self and on accumulation of selfish worldly things causes strife and heartache. When humanity learns to forgo these things, they will come to them naturally, I think.
I hope I have clarified a little.
Karl wrote: "If thats the case you had better find out what the “fundies” book really has to say before you describe a group or even a person as one."
Perhaps these "fundies" should read what their OWN holy book says before they label THEMSELVES as one. It all falls back on your definition and further employment of the word and ideal of fundamentalist. People who go to church listen to what their preacher tells them, and a very many of those preachers inform them that killing in the name of God is indeed warranted and, actually, commanded by God in the Bible. These people view themselves and fundamentalist. They must adhere to the Holy word of God and do as it is commanded in the Bible. Of course they are wrong, because they have read the verses out of context and have not understood the overall WORD of GOD, however they are still fundamentalist in that they adhere strictly to these principles (however misguided they may be) and do as they are told.
I absolutely agree that the term fundamentalist should change and be subjected to people for whom it is most true: that is people who follow every tenant of every word in the Holy Book to which the subscribe. However, I challenge you to find me any person who adheres to Abrahamic Law AND New Testament principles simultaneously and on a daily basis. I believe you will be hard-pressed to find many true "fundamentalists" in that regard.
Hey Erich, I admit my current favorite world model of Total Uncertainty is fairly fringe and extreme. I take my cue from quantum physics which suggests that nothing is sure; all is in flux. There seems to be no underlying rockbed reality, but rather "reality" appears to shift in accordance with the tool (human, equipment, etc) used in making the measurement or observation. For instance, I can choose to view an electron as either a wave or a particle. I can set up a device which will show the electron to "be" a wave, and then set up a different device which will show the electron to "be" a particle. So which is it–a wave or a particle? Which is the certain reality? The answer is neither, and both.
TheThinkingMan states:
"Then clearly you have not studied all of history. Refer to Hindu, Buddhist, and even Native American history (on the Native American side, for they were far more noble than the brutes that killed them off). I still believe you have missed quite a bit."
I have not come even close to studying all of history. I realize I'm missing more than a little bit when it comes to studying cultures and their offensive verses defensive postures.
I simply ask if there is an example of a culture that once bent of vanquishing other people stopped freely on their own because they somehow finally understood the "error of their ways."
I guess what I want to know is if there is hope for those cultures today that are so offensive in their postures towards other people to change on their own.
From what little I know of history the example and message of Jesus' atonement is the only way that both can and has accomplished this.
Karl:
You wrote: "From what little I know of history the example and message of Jesus’ atonement is the only way that both can and has accomplished this."
Karl, please note that the Golden Rule predates Jesus by hundreds of years. http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/08/18/who-f…
Mike,
😀