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.
Karl wrote: "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.”"
Well, of course there isn't a single culture of this kind. Anywhere in history. People had to work towards a better understanding of their errors through democratic philosophical evolution. And, we haven't even gotten fully there yet. We are still in this process of realize the grave errors of our ways as a species.
"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."
Which culture, specifically, has accomplished this task based solely on the teachings of the Messiah, and did they indeed simply "stop" and "realize" their errors out of the blue? I challenge you to offer your fantasy society and explain and offer evidence.
As Erich stated, the Golden Rule and the idea of Love of Mankind and others over yourself predates Jesus. Buddha taught it. Krishna taught it. Just two examples.
Which goes back to what I said that you don't need any one specific metaphorical belief system to realize that basic truth of our existence. People have come up with it on their own, and it is the goal of many religious ideologues to "divide and conquer" and claim that specific ideal as their own, missing the point entirely.
I do not claim the words of the Golden Rule as being of Hebrew or Christian origin. Disconnected from living examples the Golden rule is simply philosophical truth. Many more people than Jesus also said you reap what you sow.
The extreme opposite of the golden rule also is a reality. Do to others before they do it to you seems much more prevalent in the history of mankind.
We are discussing the illogic of the atonement, which of course is foolishness to man's natural way of thinking.
However, Whatever you may think "democratic philosophical evolution" may be, it will not change the basic fears and misguided thinking that exist in the minds of people that fear being judged by others as they have judged others themselves.
You want examples of how an entire culture can and has been changed by a belief in the atonement of Jesus.
Lets start with this one. The Auca Indians of South America.
Cultures—civilizations—are not moral or immoral. They are amalgams. But they are also transmission lines for the cumulative messaging of individuals, who can be moral or immoral.
The danger in steering a whole civilization in one direction or another is that such things acquire terrible momentum and never quite go where any one of us may intend. Stopping this massive structure when we realize it may be going wrong is not something that can be done on a dime.
So to ask what civilization ever did this or that is to misunderstand the thing itself. Individual people possess morality, virtue, ethics. Being part of a group may amplify that individual trait. But the group only possesses members. There is no group mind that can possess virtue. This is obvious when you realize that all groups, when large enough, exercise control in ways that no individual would recognize as moral, and the greatest control exercised is over membership. Being part of the group overrides all other considerations. Once that group reaches the level of a nation, the rules guiding it at its inception had better be well understood and well made, or that single group dynamic will overwhelm all other actions. Consider every genocide you can name always is about who is in and who is out.
It doesn't. Bear with me. Cultures—and by extension civilizations, which are manifestations of cultures—are never moral or immoral. It's like asking "When did you stop beating you wife?" The question doesn't apply.
Cultures are transmission lines, and like communications networks they transmit and amplify what the users send.
Ask yourself how a culture can be both moral and immoral at the same time. It would seem a contradiction, and yet aren't they all apparently? How can liberty be embraced on the one hand and slavery be codified as law on the other?
It's complicated, but ask another question—at what point is the individual justified in turning his or her back on their culture? And when they do, what right does the culture have to try to force them back into the fold?
Morality is a property of individual conscience. A collective doesn't possess one, or we'd be bees or ants. What a culture possesses is vast momentum and individuals yield to it. It becomes a feedback loop, but not entirely homogeneous. Which is why some people can quite legitimately claim they live in and support a moral culture while others, sometimes right next door, can claim, just as legitimately, that they live in an evil culture.
We're not used to seeing it this way, but maybe we should.
Cultures are built upon the beliefs of its individuals, at some level the cultures that transmit atrocity from one generation to the next must be seen for what it is.
If only the "individuals" can be labelled as moral agents that leaves the roaming wolf pack with nothing to hold them back. This would be exactly what a deterministic evolutionary philosophy should predict to happen.
I find that a grotesque picture.
It is one in which the moral values of the individual are tossed aside inorder that the the roaming wolves are free to devour those that they choose to devour at will.
If a collective group can not be seen as moral or immoral then you might as well remove, love and justice out of the minds of the individuals as well.
I have tried to keep up with this thread and have found each entry full insight. Thanks to all who have contributed. In general, I tend to avoid debates having anything to do with God's "plan" or God's "thinking" or the meaning of certain passages from the Bible, especially when one of the debate participants is a non-Christian or a religious non-believer.
Quite frankly, it's been my experience that such debates go nowhere. Neither side is going to change the other person's way of thinking. If there is any value to these exercises, it is the participants solidifying already pre-existing beliefs.
And that's fine, as far as 99 percent of such debates go. They rarely have real world consequences. What I find disturbing, however, are the instances when people try to make their religious beliefs the basis for the passage of laws and rules that affect everyone else.
Such as when religiously motivated lawmakers pass measures that make it hard for girls and women to access birth control devices, or even information about birth control. Or when Republican members of Congress glibly dismiss the consequences of global warming and battle efforts to counter-act them on the basis of an Old Testament promise from God not to flood the earth ever again.
Discover magazine writer Phil Plait captured an important idea in a recent column about TV blowhard Bill O'Reilly's ignorance of how the moon was formed. Plait wrote:
"Look: I seriously and strongly feel that everyone has the right to believe what they want, and to find comfort in it if they need it. But you can’t let that belief narrow your view of the Universe to where it’s simply easier to avoid what you don’t understand. That’s what O’Reilly has done — or is urging his listeners to do — and he’s missing out. Nature is subtle, and amazing, and layered, and complex, and interconnected on levels we’re only just now starting to suspect. That’s where the true mystery lies."
Most of the time, I feel as if I have a foot in each camp. I want to live a life of Christian faith, but I harbor serious doubts. I have great respect for science and its ability to explain the universe I live in, but it's not enough. I need more because there's still so much for me to sort out. Just what, exactly, is the point of our lives?
For me, all religious discussions, whether they involve believers or non-believers, begin and end with a sense of awe at a night sky filled with stars. I cannot look at such a sky and not think: We are all so puny, our lives so brief. Are we it, we the residents of this small planet? If not, who else is gazing at these stars?
I wonder what do our lives mean, truly mean, against the billions of years that our planet existed before we came on the scene; against the many billions more the universe existed before earth was formed. What do our lives mean, during the brief spans we are here, against the billions more years that the universe will grind on after we have left this world, after our sun burns out and our solar system goes cold and dark?
Mike: Thank you for your comment. It is truly a gift.
I would add one basic ingredient to the two ingredients you mention, "awe" and scientific inquiry, and that is "empathy." Any community guided by these three aims will be OK, it would seem. So much else is distraction.
Mark, Powerfully clear and adept dissection of the individual vs. culture, and the singularity vs. the collective feedback loop. Really excellent analysis, imo. I'm going to refer to this post often, as it has great relevence to many other threads on DI. Well done.
Empathy only works for those who truly try to put themselves in the shoes of someone else, not simply agreeing to ignore an issue.
I still haven't gotten any direct response about the post of February 2, 2011 at 8:01 pm
It would indeed be nice to not associate blame on others for our own moral failures, but it will always be easier to project blame onto others then to own up to it personally and work at changing one own behavior.
Enough people sure blame other collective groups for their woes. Projection to a collective group is even an easier way to avoid personal responsibility for one's own immoral values, beliefs and actions.
Karl: I'm not trying to be mean-spirited, but I need to shoot straight. It is a rare day when I have gotten a direct response from you. You change topics as soon as you are confronted with facts. It makes me unenthusiastic about trying to engage in a discussion with you.
So your response to an actual culture that was radically changed for the good by interaction with people who believed in the atonement of Jesus was to hold that the example was actually evidence for the illogic of the atonement.
Was it just pure happenstance that the four missionaries allowed themselves to be killed by the Auca Indians?
Do you agree that the individuals involved in the killing were changed and that this influenced their entire culture?
Or, was it just a misfortunate event in the history of evil Christian missionaries that back fired upon the Auca Indians and led their weak minds into believing a lie?
You didn't read what I wrote. People are changed. Cultures, as transmission lines, reflect that change, but at the same time reflect all other individual moral (or immoral) conscious states. A culture as a whole is not moral or immoral. Which is why a culture can accommodate both moral and immoral states simultaneously. Aggregate behavior appears to be a change state for the entire structure, but what it shows is a change state of numbers of individuals. This means it can change again depending on what individuals believe. The moral weight is still—always—on the individual. The behavioral parameters can be enforced via the group, sure, but just because someone conforms their behavior to a group dynamic doesn't mean they have internally changed. Isn't this what the whole "change of heart" idea in christianity is about?
Read what I wrote again. But, yes, it is an answer.
The illogic of atonement as described in the story posted is simply this: your sacrifice does nothing for my conscious state unless I do something with it. You can't atone for me. I alone can make the changes necessary to reflect an altered consciousness. The best you can do is serve as an example, but if the example is ignored, the act, whatever it is, makes no difference. If the purpose of your act was to somehow expiate the sins of others, then it is totally illogical because you don't have the power or authority to do that.
Have you ever read the Ursula K. Le Guin story "The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas"? If not, look it up. You should.
Mark: For me, the illogic of Atonement extends even further. How can it be said that atonement has happened (that one has been "saved" if one can STILL be sent to hell for a misstep motivated by honest open-minded inquiry?
The atonement of Jesus' death was a once for all event.
If you believe it applies to only a specific "sin" on a specific occasion for a specific person or culture group you do not grasp the significance of anything but your own individual perspective. That is your right that I will not deny nor argue with.
Christ died to save sinners (plural and collective) of whom I am cheif (individual).
You can very well go your entire life not grasping this and because of it keep asking if you have some how done something to put you out of God's favor or not. There is nothing you can do or not do that will change the efficacious of the atonement.
The choice of a person to live their life apart from belief in this atonement can be anyone's perogative.
Also, another person's current behavior, actions and state of mind can not change the nature or reality of the atonement for those that do believe in it.
Mark wrote, "The illogic of atonement as described in the story posted is simply this: your sacrifice does nothing for my conscious state unless I do something with it. You can’t atone for me. I alone can make the changes necessary to reflect an altered consciousness. The best you can do is serve as an example, but if the example is ignored, the act, whatever it is, makes no difference. If the purpose of your act was to somehow expiate the sins of others, then it is totally illogical because you don’t have the power or authority to do that."
And Erich offered: "For me, the illogic of Atonement extends even further. How can it be said that atonement has happened (that one has been “saved” if one can STILL be sent to hell for a misstep motivated by honest open-minded inquiry?)"
The power of the atonement lies in the mind of the believer, as I have mentioned before. The sacrifice of Jesus and therefore atonement for the Sin of Man was meant, primarily, to serve as a profound story on the spiritual redemption of the human mind (or soul).Those who chose not to subscribe specifically to this example are not, therefore, "doomed to Hell." According to Christian ideology, everyone will one day be saved.
Consider that, perhaps, Hell is a state of mind. It is a self-inflicted "realm," if you will, where a person's mind is subjected to suffering. Take this in whatever way that you will. If a person, therefore, reads the story of atonement and chooses to follow the METAPHORICAL principles applied therein, then their consciousness will be altered and their mind "lifted" from their self-inflicted hell.
But, as I had mentioned before, there are other ways by which members can alter their consciousness and "better" themselves. However, I will offer that Karl is right in believing that the story of Jesus is the best means by which people can reach a level of spiritual understanding.
Now, should one choose not to believe in the spiritual significance of the story, it does not diminish its power in the minds of Christians, nor does it refute the fact that, should one follow the true tenants of the teachings of Christ, the world will be better off.
Erich, where from the scriptures can it be deduced that one will be sent to Hell for inquiry and open-mindedness?
Also, where in the scriptures is it stated that someone will still be sent to Hell after they have been atoned?
TheThinkingMan: I was referring to the basic rule of many churches that you will not be saved unless you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Honest skeptical inquiry has some doubts about whether Jesus existed and many doubts about whether he did miracles and whether he was divine. I don't know the precise Bible versus that these many churches rely on for this.
In my mind, "saved" means that you won't roast in hell (or whatever hell is). Apparently, in the minds of many believers, we are "saved" because Jesus died in that we have an opportunity to not go to hell, but only if we behave and believe appropriately. It's not a guarantee. If you doubt the holy spirit or if you doubt that Jesus was your savior while you are on your deathbed, all of that "saving" and "atonement" 2000 years ago will be for naught. That's what I've repeatedly heard from believers.
Someone cannot atone for you, but Jesus the Christ is meant to serve as the symbol of the part in you that represents that altered consciousness.
Jesus served as the example, and because Billions of people all over the world subscribe to his teachings and example, then therefore this example makes quite a difference, I think.
Perhaps, in your mind, you do not believe that the Christ does not have the power to expiate your sins, but I would offer that perhaps you have not understood the metaphor at its deepest level.
Thinkingman writes:—"Consider that, perhaps, Hell is a state of mind. It is a self-inflicted “realm,” if you will, where a person’s mind is subjected to suffering. Take this in whatever way that you will. If a person, therefore, reads the story of atonement and chooses to follow the METAPHORICAL principles applied therein, then their consciousness will be altered and their mind “lifted” from their self-inflicted hell."
Dante would likely have agreed with this. All the denizens of Inferno are in a world of their own choosing.
As psychology, all this plays out nicely. A sacrifice as a trigger works for some people. But in order for it to work, people must (a) see that they have something for which atonement in necessary and (b) must be aware of the sacrifice and the specific reason for it.
In this respect, Jesus' presumed sacrifice works as metaphor, but some cranky old guy who takes it upon himself to make a sacrifice in a kind of epistemological void is little more than feeding his own delusions. Sad.
Mark wrote: "But in order for it to work, people must (a) see that they have something for which atonement in necessary and (b) must be aware of the sacrifice and the specific reason for it."
The Biblical story provides the reasoning and the background for the sacrifice and atonement. It offers specifics, and offers an example that people are meant to follow.
Mark also wrote: "In this respect, Jesus’ presumed sacrifice works as metaphor, but some cranky old guy who takes it upon himself to make a sacrifice in a kind of epistemological void is little more than feeding his own delusions. Sad."
I presume you are talking about the old man in Erich's story here. If, however, that is your view of "God," then perhaps it is misrepresented.
The fact that God would offer of His/Her own body as a sacrifice TO MAN FOR MAN is a profound metaphor on the love that this supreme deity is said to have for its creation. In the Old Testament, sacrifice is meant to serve as a symbol of reverence as well as acknowledgment that the human animal is imperfect and requires intervention from God to better itself.
The sacrifice of the Son of God, therefore, serves as the ultimate completion of that cycle of sacrifice, where God offers a sacrifice to show just how much "He/she" wishes that man choose the right path.
I think it is a beautiful metaphor and a profound message and example to those who would open up their hearts and minds to receive it rather than pick it apart and then mock it.
The Thinking Man: Based on your explanation for the power and beauty of the metaphor, I'm seeing it as an issue of expensive signaling, an issue that was thoroughly explored by Amotz Zahavi. http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/09/22/relig…
If you are omnipotent and omniscent, you could save everyone with the wave of a hand, but that is not a big deal for omnipotence. Why not do something much more dramatic to show that you really care? Why not sacrifice your son who is actually you. Hence the suicide stirred into my attempt to display the "logic of atonement" outside of its usual context. The problem for me is that this son-sacrifice (or even suicide) shouldn't be much of a big deal for omnipotence either. God can do anything easily, right?
If believers want to give up on omnipotence, then I could better understand the "logic" of atonement. But I don't know any believer in Christianity who is willing to give up on the idea that God is omnipotent.
I see what you mean, however, that people need to choose to believe in the metaphor for it to have any real power. That is absolutely true. But, simply because a group of people do not believe does not therefore make the message any less meaningful. Just because you choose not to use the Christ as depicted in the Biblical story as your own personal ethical role model does not mean that the ideal is illogical.
Perhaps it is unnecessary for you, because you do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. However, you have presumably read the text, and I wonder if, then, you would at least agree with the power of the message to create change for the better in the hearts and minds of the people who take it seriously and with good faith.
Erich: The physically demanding, logically absurd and mentally shocking elements found in religious or magical rituals have always been the key ingredient in most occult initiations. These difficult requirements are the sparks that make the rituals work and stick. They create long lasting cognitive imprints in the psyche of the followers, binding them at a very deep level to the initiating group. The greater the "shock", the stronger the loyalty. This type of initiation (or brainwashing) can be seen also in the rituals of fraternity/sorority hazing, military boot camp, Scientology and other cults, the "officially recognized" cults of monotheism, street gang initiations, etc. In the mind of the initiate–"Why am I doing these weird, painful, humiliating, expensive, frightening things?…it must really be WORTH something TRULY GREAT because…look at what I've endured!!"
ThinkingMan: I completely get your concept of the "metaphor and the message" in the Jesus story.
I suspect the sticking point for some may be that they are approaching the subject as literal history, something to be proven or debunked, when you seem to be approaching the subject as allegory, metaphor, strange poetry or parable. You are a rarity among Christians (I'm assuming you're a Christian) in that you seem to reject dogma in favor of an open-minded, transcendental and multi-dimensional awareness. More along the lines of Eckhart and Spinoza; not falling into the fundamentalist quagmire of orthodoxy. Always very refreshing and thought provoking.
Mike, you understand me perfectly. I was raised as a Christian, however chose to find my own spiritual path in life. That is precisely the reason I read every spiritual text as an insight into the cognitive patterns of our ancestors and, through extension, us.
Erich, of course it is difficult to justify the omnipotence of God if the universe is wrought with chaos and evil. You claim that the story of atonement is illogical because, were God omnipotent, he would not need to sacrifice "his" son?
God may be omnipotent, but man is not. Man's understanding of the Universe, and of God's plan for humanity's redemption, is limited at best. It does not necessarily follow that, because God has the power to save humanity in whatever way God wishes, that the divine being will simply do it.
It is very similar to the idea that parents allow children to do for themselves what they would otherwise do for them. If you baby your child, they will learn nothing. A child must learn for itself the reason for the actions it does and the consequences that result in order to become a rational, reasoning, and moral adult.
God CAN presumably fix the universe and redeem man. So why hasn't it happened yet? Perhaps it has,in another time and universe. And perhaps the psychological power of the atonement, once accepted, helps to unlock that part in the human mind that brings about an understanding of paradise.
That is my take on it, at least. I try to approach everything with the understanding of the cognitive context which it represents. For, indeed, anything only has meaning in the mind. Perhaps the story lacks meaning in your mind, but the very fact that you argue its validity is at least a foot in the door of your psyche. You need not accept the allegory word for word, but the message remains. The example is, simply, to sacrifice yourself for others. To lose your ego for the understanding of the bigger picture.
There are many Christians who do not read the story as literal history. They believe that Jesus was a very wise man who was speaking precisely on that part of the human mind to accept the divine spark that exists within us all. Perhaps, even he, believed that God was more an inner being rather than an outer prime mover. He believed that, by showing his profound sacrifice and his faith in humanity, that others would follow his example and humanity will be saved from their own hatred and malice.
Once again, it is unnecessary to pick apart the story of the man whose goal was to just get everyone to get along.
I like a great deal of what you have written, it speaks to the elephant in the room that people from different ideologies seldom discuss. The desire for people to get along and not force other people to do things because of differing interpretative worldviews.
The only matter I find difficult to grasp is how you believe as a Christian that everyone will eventually "get saved." It is clear that this will not happen while people have the free exercise of their own will while here on Earth.
Compete salvation certainly is the will/desire of God and an Omnipotent Creator certainly could bring the resolution of all things to the place where people will all be given opportunity to understand and agree that the atonment through Jesus is what can bring people out of their self centered selfish ways, but the Bible says the end will come when people have been given the opportunity, not when they actually come to agree with it.
Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God.
The Apostle Paul needed a supernatural confrontation with Jesus before he would bend the knee. Perhaps this is what will need to happen before some who have been given the opportunity come to fully agree with God's plan of atonment as actually being the best way.
I really don't want to get into the dogmatic differences of denominational ideals, but speaking from a purely metaphorical and open-minded interpretation of the story of atonement, I can personally state that the belief is one that I hold.
The reason for it is that I believe the atonement would indeed be illogical if the body of Christ were sacrificed only for a few. The Bible specifically states that the sacrifice is for the sin of all man. Period.
Now, speaking from the point of view of an overall religious scholar and someone who wishes to see the psychological drama that is playing out in everyone's mind: since "Hell" is really just a state of mind, I believe that, eventually, people will redeem themselves of their cycle of selfishness, greed, and sin and that the atonement story is a key to how to do that. Humans have eternity to figure it all out, and I think eventually an understanding of the divine will be given to all.
When the Bible speaks about the destruction of the wicked and the establishment of God's kingdom for all eternity, I think that it does not mean it is sending specific people to hell. God destroys the wicked desires of man and the "demons" (psychological traumas that effect us) will be cast out unto the lake of fire.
Really, it is just one big story on how man will eventually overcome evil in the long run. The forces of good triumph and the Devil is defeated.
I would like to know what exactly you believe will happen to those who do not "get saved", for the very idea of "Hell" isn't one mentioned in the Bible anyway…
The Thinking Man: There are many convoluted paths of the various religions. If you stick to the scripture alone, you can have good arguments about what "hell" means, even though there doesn't seem to much (if any) mention of hell in the Old Testament.
I assume that your question about "what will happen" is not really directed to me, given that I don't believe in any sort of personal consciousness after death. Hell can definitely be in the here and now, however.
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.
Erich, thank you!
Karl wrote: "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.”"
Well, of course there isn't a single culture of this kind. Anywhere in history. People had to work towards a better understanding of their errors through democratic philosophical evolution. And, we haven't even gotten fully there yet. We are still in this process of realize the grave errors of our ways as a species.
"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."
Which culture, specifically, has accomplished this task based solely on the teachings of the Messiah, and did they indeed simply "stop" and "realize" their errors out of the blue? I challenge you to offer your fantasy society and explain and offer evidence.
As Erich stated, the Golden Rule and the idea of Love of Mankind and others over yourself predates Jesus. Buddha taught it. Krishna taught it. Just two examples.
Which goes back to what I said that you don't need any one specific metaphorical belief system to realize that basic truth of our existence. People have come up with it on their own, and it is the goal of many religious ideologues to "divide and conquer" and claim that specific ideal as their own, missing the point entirely.
I do not claim the words of the Golden Rule as being of Hebrew or Christian origin. Disconnected from living examples the Golden rule is simply philosophical truth. Many more people than Jesus also said you reap what you sow.
The extreme opposite of the golden rule also is a reality. Do to others before they do it to you seems much more prevalent in the history of mankind.
We are discussing the illogic of the atonement, which of course is foolishness to man's natural way of thinking.
However, Whatever you may think "democratic philosophical evolution" may be, it will not change the basic fears and misguided thinking that exist in the minds of people that fear being judged by others as they have judged others themselves.
You want examples of how an entire culture can and has been changed by a belief in the atonement of Jesus.
Lets start with this one. The Auca Indians of South America.
http://www.crossroad.to/Victory/stories/missionar…
Cultures—civilizations—are not moral or immoral. They are amalgams. But they are also transmission lines for the cumulative messaging of individuals, who can be moral or immoral.
The danger in steering a whole civilization in one direction or another is that such things acquire terrible momentum and never quite go where any one of us may intend. Stopping this massive structure when we realize it may be going wrong is not something that can be done on a dime.
So to ask what civilization ever did this or that is to misunderstand the thing itself. Individual people possess morality, virtue, ethics. Being part of a group may amplify that individual trait. But the group only possesses members. There is no group mind that can possess virtue. This is obvious when you realize that all groups, when large enough, exercise control in ways that no individual would recognize as moral, and the greatest control exercised is over membership. Being part of the group overrides all other considerations. Once that group reaches the level of a nation, the rules guiding it at its inception had better be well understood and well made, or that single group dynamic will overwhelm all other actions. Consider every genocide you can name always is about who is in and who is out.
Mark,
I didn't ask about a civilization, just a culture. I asked about a culture, which can be a relatively smaller group.
I find this puzzling, if you consider people to be moral or immoral at what level of does their collectiveness become not moral or immoral?
It doesn't. Bear with me. Cultures—and by extension civilizations, which are manifestations of cultures—are never moral or immoral. It's like asking "When did you stop beating you wife?" The question doesn't apply.
Cultures are transmission lines, and like communications networks they transmit and amplify what the users send.
Ask yourself how a culture can be both moral and immoral at the same time. It would seem a contradiction, and yet aren't they all apparently? How can liberty be embraced on the one hand and slavery be codified as law on the other?
It's complicated, but ask another question—at what point is the individual justified in turning his or her back on their culture? And when they do, what right does the culture have to try to force them back into the fold?
Morality is a property of individual conscience. A collective doesn't possess one, or we'd be bees or ants. What a culture possesses is vast momentum and individuals yield to it. It becomes a feedback loop, but not entirely homogeneous. Which is why some people can quite legitimately claim they live in and support a moral culture while others, sometimes right next door, can claim, just as legitimately, that they live in an evil culture.
We're not used to seeing it this way, but maybe we should.
Cultures are built upon the beliefs of its individuals, at some level the cultures that transmit atrocity from one generation to the next must be seen for what it is.
If only the "individuals" can be labelled as moral agents that leaves the roaming wolf pack with nothing to hold them back. This would be exactly what a deterministic evolutionary philosophy should predict to happen.
I find that a grotesque picture.
It is one in which the moral values of the individual are tossed aside inorder that the the roaming wolves are free to devour those that they choose to devour at will.
If a collective group can not be seen as moral or immoral then you might as well remove, love and justice out of the minds of the individuals as well.
I have tried to keep up with this thread and have found each entry full insight. Thanks to all who have contributed. In general, I tend to avoid debates having anything to do with God's "plan" or God's "thinking" or the meaning of certain passages from the Bible, especially when one of the debate participants is a non-Christian or a religious non-believer.
Quite frankly, it's been my experience that such debates go nowhere. Neither side is going to change the other person's way of thinking. If there is any value to these exercises, it is the participants solidifying already pre-existing beliefs.
And that's fine, as far as 99 percent of such debates go. They rarely have real world consequences. What I find disturbing, however, are the instances when people try to make their religious beliefs the basis for the passage of laws and rules that affect everyone else.
Such as when religiously motivated lawmakers pass measures that make it hard for girls and women to access birth control devices, or even information about birth control. Or when Republican members of Congress glibly dismiss the consequences of global warming and battle efforts to counter-act them on the basis of an Old Testament promise from God not to flood the earth ever again.
Discover magazine writer Phil Plait captured an important idea in a recent column about TV blowhard Bill O'Reilly's ignorance of how the moon was formed. Plait wrote:
"Look: I seriously and strongly feel that everyone has the right to believe what they want, and to find comfort in it if they need it. But you can’t let that belief narrow your view of the Universe to where it’s simply easier to avoid what you don’t understand. That’s what O’Reilly has done — or is urging his listeners to do — and he’s missing out. Nature is subtle, and amazing, and layered, and complex, and interconnected on levels we’re only just now starting to suspect. That’s where the true mystery lies."
Most of the time, I feel as if I have a foot in each camp. I want to live a life of Christian faith, but I harbor serious doubts. I have great respect for science and its ability to explain the universe I live in, but it's not enough. I need more because there's still so much for me to sort out. Just what, exactly, is the point of our lives?
For me, all religious discussions, whether they involve believers or non-believers, begin and end with a sense of awe at a night sky filled with stars. I cannot look at such a sky and not think: We are all so puny, our lives so brief. Are we it, we the residents of this small planet? If not, who else is gazing at these stars?
I wonder what do our lives mean, truly mean, against the billions of years that our planet existed before we came on the scene; against the many billions more the universe existed before earth was formed. What do our lives mean, during the brief spans we are here, against the billions more years that the universe will grind on after we have left this world, after our sun burns out and our solar system goes cold and dark?
In sum, where do we find true purpose?
Mike: Thank you for your comment. It is truly a gift.
I would add one basic ingredient to the two ingredients you mention, "awe" and scientific inquiry, and that is "empathy." Any community guided by these three aims will be OK, it would seem. So much else is distraction.
Mark, Powerfully clear and adept dissection of the individual vs. culture, and the singularity vs. the collective feedback loop. Really excellent analysis, imo. I'm going to refer to this post often, as it has great relevence to many other threads on DI. Well done.
Erich: Agreed, empathy is a tremendously important trait for all of us.
Empathy only works for those who truly try to put themselves in the shoes of someone else, not simply agreeing to ignore an issue.
I still haven't gotten any direct response about the post of February 2, 2011 at 8:01 pm
It would indeed be nice to not associate blame on others for our own moral failures, but it will always be easier to project blame onto others then to own up to it personally and work at changing one own behavior.
Enough people sure blame other collective groups for their woes. Projection to a collective group is even an easier way to avoid personal responsibility for one's own immoral values, beliefs and actions.
Karl: I'm not trying to be mean-spirited, but I need to shoot straight. It is a rare day when I have gotten a direct response from you. You change topics as soon as you are confronted with facts. It makes me unenthusiastic about trying to engage in a discussion with you.
Karl writes:—"I still haven’t gotten any direct response about the post of February 2, 2011 at 8:01 pm "
Well, I wrote to that on February 3, 2011 at 7:29 am
What constitutes a direct response other than a direct response?
So your response to an actual culture that was radically changed for the good by interaction with people who believed in the atonement of Jesus was to hold that the example was actually evidence for the illogic of the atonement.
Was it just pure happenstance that the four missionaries allowed themselves to be killed by the Auca Indians?
Do you agree that the individuals involved in the killing were changed and that this influenced their entire culture?
Or, was it just a misfortunate event in the history of evil Christian missionaries that back fired upon the Auca Indians and led their weak minds into believing a lie?
Karl,
You didn't read what I wrote. People are changed. Cultures, as transmission lines, reflect that change, but at the same time reflect all other individual moral (or immoral) conscious states. A culture as a whole is not moral or immoral. Which is why a culture can accommodate both moral and immoral states simultaneously. Aggregate behavior appears to be a change state for the entire structure, but what it shows is a change state of numbers of individuals. This means it can change again depending on what individuals believe. The moral weight is still—always—on the individual. The behavioral parameters can be enforced via the group, sure, but just because someone conforms their behavior to a group dynamic doesn't mean they have internally changed. Isn't this what the whole "change of heart" idea in christianity is about?
Read what I wrote again. But, yes, it is an answer.
Karl,
The illogic of atonement as described in the story posted is simply this: your sacrifice does nothing for my conscious state unless I do something with it. You can't atone for me. I alone can make the changes necessary to reflect an altered consciousness. The best you can do is serve as an example, but if the example is ignored, the act, whatever it is, makes no difference. If the purpose of your act was to somehow expiate the sins of others, then it is totally illogical because you don't have the power or authority to do that.
Have you ever read the Ursula K. Le Guin story "The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas"? If not, look it up. You should.
Mark: For me, the illogic of Atonement extends even further. How can it be said that atonement has happened (that one has been "saved" if one can STILL be sent to hell for a misstep motivated by honest open-minded inquiry?
The atonement of Jesus' death was a once for all event.
If you believe it applies to only a specific "sin" on a specific occasion for a specific person or culture group you do not grasp the significance of anything but your own individual perspective. That is your right that I will not deny nor argue with.
Christ died to save sinners (plural and collective) of whom I am cheif (individual).
You can very well go your entire life not grasping this and because of it keep asking if you have some how done something to put you out of God's favor or not. There is nothing you can do or not do that will change the efficacious of the atonement.
The choice of a person to live their life apart from belief in this atonement can be anyone's perogative.
Also, another person's current behavior, actions and state of mind can not change the nature or reality of the atonement for those that do believe in it.
Mark wrote, "The illogic of atonement as described in the story posted is simply this: your sacrifice does nothing for my conscious state unless I do something with it. You can’t atone for me. I alone can make the changes necessary to reflect an altered consciousness. The best you can do is serve as an example, but if the example is ignored, the act, whatever it is, makes no difference. If the purpose of your act was to somehow expiate the sins of others, then it is totally illogical because you don’t have the power or authority to do that."
And Erich offered: "For me, the illogic of Atonement extends even further. How can it be said that atonement has happened (that one has been “saved” if one can STILL be sent to hell for a misstep motivated by honest open-minded inquiry?)"
The power of the atonement lies in the mind of the believer, as I have mentioned before. The sacrifice of Jesus and therefore atonement for the Sin of Man was meant, primarily, to serve as a profound story on the spiritual redemption of the human mind (or soul).Those who chose not to subscribe specifically to this example are not, therefore, "doomed to Hell." According to Christian ideology, everyone will one day be saved.
Consider that, perhaps, Hell is a state of mind. It is a self-inflicted "realm," if you will, where a person's mind is subjected to suffering. Take this in whatever way that you will. If a person, therefore, reads the story of atonement and chooses to follow the METAPHORICAL principles applied therein, then their consciousness will be altered and their mind "lifted" from their self-inflicted hell.
But, as I had mentioned before, there are other ways by which members can alter their consciousness and "better" themselves. However, I will offer that Karl is right in believing that the story of Jesus is the best means by which people can reach a level of spiritual understanding.
Now, should one choose not to believe in the spiritual significance of the story, it does not diminish its power in the minds of Christians, nor does it refute the fact that, should one follow the true tenants of the teachings of Christ, the world will be better off.
Erich, where from the scriptures can it be deduced that one will be sent to Hell for inquiry and open-mindedness?
Also, where in the scriptures is it stated that someone will still be sent to Hell after they have been atoned?
TheThinkingMan: I was referring to the basic rule of many churches that you will not be saved unless you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Honest skeptical inquiry has some doubts about whether Jesus existed and many doubts about whether he did miracles and whether he was divine. I don't know the precise Bible versus that these many churches rely on for this.
In my mind, "saved" means that you won't roast in hell (or whatever hell is). Apparently, in the minds of many believers, we are "saved" because Jesus died in that we have an opportunity to not go to hell, but only if we behave and believe appropriately. It's not a guarantee. If you doubt the holy spirit or if you doubt that Jesus was your savior while you are on your deathbed, all of that "saving" and "atonement" 2000 years ago will be for naught. That's what I've repeatedly heard from believers.
Mark,
Someone cannot atone for you, but Jesus the Christ is meant to serve as the symbol of the part in you that represents that altered consciousness.
Jesus served as the example, and because Billions of people all over the world subscribe to his teachings and example, then therefore this example makes quite a difference, I think.
Perhaps, in your mind, you do not believe that the Christ does not have the power to expiate your sins, but I would offer that perhaps you have not understood the metaphor at its deepest level.
Thinkingman writes:—"Consider that, perhaps, Hell is a state of mind. It is a self-inflicted “realm,” if you will, where a person’s mind is subjected to suffering. Take this in whatever way that you will. If a person, therefore, reads the story of atonement and chooses to follow the METAPHORICAL principles applied therein, then their consciousness will be altered and their mind “lifted” from their self-inflicted hell."
Dante would likely have agreed with this. All the denizens of Inferno are in a world of their own choosing.
As psychology, all this plays out nicely. A sacrifice as a trigger works for some people. But in order for it to work, people must (a) see that they have something for which atonement in necessary and (b) must be aware of the sacrifice and the specific reason for it.
In this respect, Jesus' presumed sacrifice works as metaphor, but some cranky old guy who takes it upon himself to make a sacrifice in a kind of epistemological void is little more than feeding his own delusions. Sad.
Mark wrote: "But in order for it to work, people must (a) see that they have something for which atonement in necessary and (b) must be aware of the sacrifice and the specific reason for it."
The Biblical story provides the reasoning and the background for the sacrifice and atonement. It offers specifics, and offers an example that people are meant to follow.
Mark also wrote: "In this respect, Jesus’ presumed sacrifice works as metaphor, but some cranky old guy who takes it upon himself to make a sacrifice in a kind of epistemological void is little more than feeding his own delusions. Sad."
I presume you are talking about the old man in Erich's story here. If, however, that is your view of "God," then perhaps it is misrepresented.
The fact that God would offer of His/Her own body as a sacrifice TO MAN FOR MAN is a profound metaphor on the love that this supreme deity is said to have for its creation. In the Old Testament, sacrifice is meant to serve as a symbol of reverence as well as acknowledgment that the human animal is imperfect and requires intervention from God to better itself.
The sacrifice of the Son of God, therefore, serves as the ultimate completion of that cycle of sacrifice, where God offers a sacrifice to show just how much "He/she" wishes that man choose the right path.
I think it is a beautiful metaphor and a profound message and example to those who would open up their hearts and minds to receive it rather than pick it apart and then mock it.
The Thinking Man: Based on your explanation for the power and beauty of the metaphor, I'm seeing it as an issue of expensive signaling, an issue that was thoroughly explored by Amotz Zahavi. http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/09/22/relig…
If you are omnipotent and omniscent, you could save everyone with the wave of a hand, but that is not a big deal for omnipotence. Why not do something much more dramatic to show that you really care? Why not sacrifice your son who is actually you. Hence the suicide stirred into my attempt to display the "logic of atonement" outside of its usual context. The problem for me is that this son-sacrifice (or even suicide) shouldn't be much of a big deal for omnipotence either. God can do anything easily, right?
If believers want to give up on omnipotence, then I could better understand the "logic" of atonement. But I don't know any believer in Christianity who is willing to give up on the idea that God is omnipotent.
I see what you mean, however, that people need to choose to believe in the metaphor for it to have any real power. That is absolutely true. But, simply because a group of people do not believe does not therefore make the message any less meaningful. Just because you choose not to use the Christ as depicted in the Biblical story as your own personal ethical role model does not mean that the ideal is illogical.
Perhaps it is unnecessary for you, because you do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. However, you have presumably read the text, and I wonder if, then, you would at least agree with the power of the message to create change for the better in the hearts and minds of the people who take it seriously and with good faith.
Erich: The physically demanding, logically absurd and mentally shocking elements found in religious or magical rituals have always been the key ingredient in most occult initiations. These difficult requirements are the sparks that make the rituals work and stick. They create long lasting cognitive imprints in the psyche of the followers, binding them at a very deep level to the initiating group. The greater the "shock", the stronger the loyalty. This type of initiation (or brainwashing) can be seen also in the rituals of fraternity/sorority hazing, military boot camp, Scientology and other cults, the "officially recognized" cults of monotheism, street gang initiations, etc. In the mind of the initiate–"Why am I doing these weird, painful, humiliating, expensive, frightening things?…it must really be WORTH something TRULY GREAT because…look at what I've endured!!"
ThinkingMan: I completely get your concept of the "metaphor and the message" in the Jesus story.
I suspect the sticking point for some may be that they are approaching the subject as literal history, something to be proven or debunked, when you seem to be approaching the subject as allegory, metaphor, strange poetry or parable. You are a rarity among Christians (I'm assuming you're a Christian) in that you seem to reject dogma in favor of an open-minded, transcendental and multi-dimensional awareness. More along the lines of Eckhart and Spinoza; not falling into the fundamentalist quagmire of orthodoxy. Always very refreshing and thought provoking.
Mike, you understand me perfectly. I was raised as a Christian, however chose to find my own spiritual path in life. That is precisely the reason I read every spiritual text as an insight into the cognitive patterns of our ancestors and, through extension, us.
Erich, of course it is difficult to justify the omnipotence of God if the universe is wrought with chaos and evil. You claim that the story of atonement is illogical because, were God omnipotent, he would not need to sacrifice "his" son?
God may be omnipotent, but man is not. Man's understanding of the Universe, and of God's plan for humanity's redemption, is limited at best. It does not necessarily follow that, because God has the power to save humanity in whatever way God wishes, that the divine being will simply do it.
It is very similar to the idea that parents allow children to do for themselves what they would otherwise do for them. If you baby your child, they will learn nothing. A child must learn for itself the reason for the actions it does and the consequences that result in order to become a rational, reasoning, and moral adult.
God CAN presumably fix the universe and redeem man. So why hasn't it happened yet? Perhaps it has,in another time and universe. And perhaps the psychological power of the atonement, once accepted, helps to unlock that part in the human mind that brings about an understanding of paradise.
That is my take on it, at least. I try to approach everything with the understanding of the cognitive context which it represents. For, indeed, anything only has meaning in the mind. Perhaps the story lacks meaning in your mind, but the very fact that you argue its validity is at least a foot in the door of your psyche. You need not accept the allegory word for word, but the message remains. The example is, simply, to sacrifice yourself for others. To lose your ego for the understanding of the bigger picture.
There are many Christians who do not read the story as literal history. They believe that Jesus was a very wise man who was speaking precisely on that part of the human mind to accept the divine spark that exists within us all. Perhaps, even he, believed that God was more an inner being rather than an outer prime mover. He believed that, by showing his profound sacrifice and his faith in humanity, that others would follow his example and humanity will be saved from their own hatred and malice.
Once again, it is unnecessary to pick apart the story of the man whose goal was to just get everyone to get along.
To TheThinkingMan,
I like a great deal of what you have written, it speaks to the elephant in the room that people from different ideologies seldom discuss. The desire for people to get along and not force other people to do things because of differing interpretative worldviews.
The only matter I find difficult to grasp is how you believe as a Christian that everyone will eventually "get saved." It is clear that this will not happen while people have the free exercise of their own will while here on Earth.
Compete salvation certainly is the will/desire of God and an Omnipotent Creator certainly could bring the resolution of all things to the place where people will all be given opportunity to understand and agree that the atonment through Jesus is what can bring people out of their self centered selfish ways, but the Bible says the end will come when people have been given the opportunity, not when they actually come to agree with it.
Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God.
The Apostle Paul needed a supernatural confrontation with Jesus before he would bend the knee. Perhaps this is what will need to happen before some who have been given the opportunity come to fully agree with God's plan of atonment as actually being the best way.
I really don't want to get into the dogmatic differences of denominational ideals, but speaking from a purely metaphorical and open-minded interpretation of the story of atonement, I can personally state that the belief is one that I hold.
The reason for it is that I believe the atonement would indeed be illogical if the body of Christ were sacrificed only for a few. The Bible specifically states that the sacrifice is for the sin of all man. Period.
Now, speaking from the point of view of an overall religious scholar and someone who wishes to see the psychological drama that is playing out in everyone's mind: since "Hell" is really just a state of mind, I believe that, eventually, people will redeem themselves of their cycle of selfishness, greed, and sin and that the atonement story is a key to how to do that. Humans have eternity to figure it all out, and I think eventually an understanding of the divine will be given to all.
When the Bible speaks about the destruction of the wicked and the establishment of God's kingdom for all eternity, I think that it does not mean it is sending specific people to hell. God destroys the wicked desires of man and the "demons" (psychological traumas that effect us) will be cast out unto the lake of fire.
Really, it is just one big story on how man will eventually overcome evil in the long run. The forces of good triumph and the Devil is defeated.
I would like to know what exactly you believe will happen to those who do not "get saved", for the very idea of "Hell" isn't one mentioned in the Bible anyway…
The Thinking Man: There are many convoluted paths of the various religions. If you stick to the scripture alone, you can have good arguments about what "hell" means, even though there doesn't seem to much (if any) mention of hell in the Old Testament.
I assume that your question about "what will happen" is not really directed to me, given that I don't believe in any sort of personal consciousness after death. Hell can definitely be in the here and now, however.