And let me formally apologize if my response sent the now locked thread down the wrong path. Once I have a few glasses of wine, I tend to not express myself in the best ways.
I didn't read anything after that, because I realize I may have set the proverbial snowball heading down the mountain.
I think there is a difference between believing in a higher power and believing in a church created by flawed humans who may not get it.
JThw8 said:Mndsm said:In reply to JThw8 :
Read stranger in a strange land by Heinlein sometime if you haven't already. That books taken a lot more of an affect on me than it probably should it's definitely got that start a religion feel to it.
You want to really get freaked out read the Empire series by Orson Scott Card. The first book was a bit too close to home, the 2nd (written in the early 2000s) starts with discussions of how to preempt a Russian invasion of the Ukrane and the start of a world wide pandemic. It was a bit too on the nose.
Exactly what science fiction should be. The closer it actually predicts the future, the better. I have read a lot of Card's stuff, including his early stories published in Analog, but I haven't read that one. He is very prolific and there are many books.
Card is a Mormon and the great, great, great grandson of Brigham Young if that matters. His movie Enders Game was also boycotted by the LGBT Community because of his beliefs.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:I think there is a difference between believing in a higher power and believing in a church created by flawed humans who may not get it.
I don't have any use for either, personally.
To your second point - there is no way to know if flawed humans are getting it or not. We can't know, because of our flaws and the whole mysterious ways thing, and we're only humans while god is God. We can't know what God thinks, we can only know what pleases or horrifies humans.
For all we actually know, God thinks Hitler was a great guy - either for getting rid of so many abominations, or for sending so many of His chosen people home to His loving arms.
There's literally no way to know what God thinks. We can only know what people tell us they think he thinks.
This will be anecdotal, but...
I think it's pretty easy for us non-believers to point to why we don't participate in the religion thing. Doing the opposite is harder. I too am curious when someone who may previously have been a doubter has become a believer. I have an internet friend who was very much an atheist. He then took a motorcycle journey in India, hung out with some monks or Hindu priests or something, and came back a pretty heavy Christian. When asked to define how his change in belief came about he really can't articulate it.
And you can argue on and on and on. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church actually supports what Putin is doing in the Ukraine and claims that because the Ukraine, and for that matter, Europe and the rest of the Western World, is corrupt because of atheists and gay people, and that it all needs to be cleansed with blood. He calls himself a Christian Nationalist. I honestly don't care who or what other people sleep with as long as he/she/whatever is consenting, is of legal age and is not one of my dogs. It's not something I worry about.
You can always bring old Uncle Adolph into any argument. He has been dead for about 75 years now and they are still making bad science fiction movies about the guy.
I know of a martial arts master I used to train with who would really get annoyed by such arguments. He thought it was a great waste of time and energy. His attitude was "if you don't like what I am teaching, go to another dojo. Go find another guru. Stop wasting my time and yours.
There is a difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic just doesn't know and that's it. He just shrugs his shoulders and walks away. He doesn't argue. He doesn't try to tell you what to believe. An atheist, on the other hand, knows for a fact that there is no higher power and he will argue with you endlessly, to the point that he actually turns his non-religion into a religion. I find that ironic.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:And you can argue on and on and on. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church actually supports what Putin is doing in the Ukraine and claims that because the Ukraine, and for that matter, Europe and the rest of the Western World, is corrupt because of atheists and gay people, and that it all needs to be cleansed with blood. He calls himself a Christian Nationalist. I honestly don't care who or what other people sleep with as long as he/she/whatever is consenting, is of legal age and is not one of my dogs. It's not something I worry about.
You can always bring old Uncle Adolph into any argument. He has been dead for about 75 years now and they are still making bad science fiction movies about the guy.
I know of a martial arts master I used to train with who would really get annoyed by such arguments. He thought it was a great waste of time and energy. His attitude was "if you don't like what I am teaching, go to another dojo. Go find another guru. Stop wasting my time and yours.
There is a difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic just doesn't know and that's it. He just shrugs his shoulders and walks away. He doesn't argue. He doesn't try to tell you what to believe. An atheist, on the other hand, knows for a fact that there is no higher power and he will argue with you endlessly, to the point that he actually turns his non-religion into a religion. I find that ironic.
I identify as an atheist but I will never argue that there isn't a god or god's. There may well be but I just don't see any evidence of their existence. If you were able to show me some evidence then I'd happily change my mind. Feelings, faith, old books and traditions are not evidence. I went to church as a kid and felt what I thought was the presence of a higher power during a Christmas service. I had the exact same feeling during a Rush concert as a teen. Neil Peart was a great drummer but I wouldn't elevate him to god status.
Wayslow said:Neil Peart was a great drummer but I wouldn't elevate him to god status.
Just Lemmy.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
Curtis, thank you for the kind invitation to share more. I will attempt to explain why I’ve chosen to continue to believe the basic tenants of Christianity despite years of doubt and depression. First a caveat, this is an inherently limited exercise. In my younger, more prideful years, I thought my faith was a purely logical conclusion based on air-tight evidence. I’m an engineer by training and grew up in a Christian tradition that sought to “prove” the truth of our faith through empirical lists of evidence. If we could simply share long enough lists, all would be convinced. If they weren’t, it was because they harbored sin and were rebellious to the obvious truth. I no longer believe that. Human “belief” is far more complex than that. Yes, evidence and logic play a role. But so does experience, nature, nurture, and a host of relational and emotional factors. So in truth, I don’t actually know ALL the reasons why I still believe, simply because I don’t fully know myself or my motives. I think that’s true of all of us. So, with that limitation in mind, I will attempt to share why I THINK I still believe, admitting that there are biases, presuppositions, and motives I am unaware of.
Above all else, I believe in the Christian message because I believe a man named Jesus actually rose from the dead. I cannot prove he did, just as I’d argue no one can prove he did not. It’s a question of probabilities. Based on available evidence, is it more likely this event occurred or that it did not? I am persuaded of the former based on the following evidence, from weakest to strongest. (1) There were many male, Jewish messiah claimants in 1st century Palestine. They gathered followings, then they died, and their followers immediately disbanded and they were forgotten. We are left to wonder, why did things go differently for this one messiah claimant who also died. Why did his followers not disband and instead spend their lives growing his movement? (2) Women are the first witnesses of the resurrection. In 1st century Jewish legal and cultural code, women were not regarded as reliable witnesses (obviously a horrible view, but it was the view-of-the-time). Therefore, if the writers of scripture were making all of this up, why would they exalt the place and witness of women, whom their society did not regard as legally reliable? (3) The writers of the story look like fools. If they were making it all up, why would they include such humiliating stories such as Peter’s denial of Jesus the night of his arrest, the disciples’ hard-heartedness and failure to believe the women’s claim, the disciples’ consistent failures of faith and courage (esp in book of Mark, likely narrated by Peter), etc. (4) The historical evidence that all the disciples paid dearly for their claims. All but one was martyred according to the best evidence we have. The one not martyred was exiled (John). Peter was crucified. Paul gave up a life of privilege and power for persecution and eventual beheading. Why would they all willingly submit to such suffering for a story they made up?
Does all that prove a man named Jesus rose from the dead? Of course not. But it has persuaded me to believe that it is more likely the event actually happened than that it did not. And if it did happen, then Jesus is the one-and-only person I know of to defeat death, and I therefore am ready to follow him.
My second fundamental reason for belief is simply the kind of life Jesus led. If the biblical story is true, then it says that the most powerful being in existence, the Creator, humbled himself by becoming not just human, but a poor, disadvantaged human (Philippians 2:5-8), so that he could serve, heal, love, and die for his creatures. I see in Jesus a man who could have had all fame, wealth, and power who instead welcomes children, heals lepers, restores abused women, and walks among the poor. And above all, I see a Deity who chose to absorb the judicial penalty of human sin so that humans could go free and live in his love forever. Whenever I struggle with faith, I simply read the teachings and works of Jesus and encounter such overwhelming love and humility that it leads me back to faith.
My third reason for belief, weaker than the previous but still present, is that I think the existence of an intelligent Creator best explains the universe, the world, and the human heart as I observe them. These are the classic arguments of Theistic Apologetics - empirical evidences for the existence of God or gods. They are nowhere close to air-tight. But taken together, they provide additional evidence for theism (at least to me).
Now to the experience elements of my faith. This is much more personal, and therefore less likely to convince anyone of anything. I believe that atheists are correct in saying that Christianity (or religion in general) is a crutch. Yes it is. But I am lame. I need a crutch. I did not always believe that. But then clinical depression set in seven years ago for a variety of reasons. I went from someone who got a 4.0 in engineering to someone whose brain simply broke. Depression got bad enough that I couldn’t function. Since I took more pride in my intellect than anything else in my life, this was crushing. But it opened my eyes to a truth: humans are not nearly as strong as we think we are. While it’s taken many years, I have come to a place of greater faith in God as my loving heavenly Father who truly loves and likes me and supports me on a day-to-day, moment-to-moment basis. I don’t expect that to be persuasive to anyone else since it is so personal, but it is my reality. On my darkest days, of which there are many, I find life, hope, and strength from the belief that the Creator of the universe is with me, holding me up, and filling me with his love.
This leads to the related experience - I have seen how real, powerful, and present God is with the poor and broken whom our charity serves. Many people in middle-class, white church-world assume our charity is all about sharing the gospel with the poor when we give them a car, which assumes that the poor are far from God. BullE36 M3. While not all are Christians, most are, and some of them have a stronger, more sincere faith than I’ve ever experienced. In the midst of unimaginable abuse, hardship, and suffering, they fully believe that God loves them, is weeping with them, and is walking with them through life. They have almost nothing… but they are grateful because they believe they have everything in their heavenly Father. Their faith despite all the pain strengthens my faith.
Finally, I should mention two things often used against faith in the Christian message. First, the problem of hell. How could a loving God throw the majority of the human race into conscious, eternal torment? That question crushed me, until I discovered a strain of Christian theology that, while not the majority, is present all the way back. I am what might be called a “hopeful Christian universalist.” I believe that eternal salvation is only possible through Jesus. But I also believe that Jesus died for all humans and that God the Father wants all humans to be saved (see 1 Timothy 2:4-6). Therefore, I believe that it is likely that God will surprise all of us in the end with a great gift of grace - He will continue to save after this life such that, in the end, God gets what God wants: the salvation of the entire human race. This view doesn’t fit within evangelical orthodoxy, particularly in the US. But I’m not a pastor anymore, so that’s ok. It gives me hope that, in the end, God’s love will win over all human hearts and everyone will be healed and welcomed into perfection.
And the second: the problem of evil. This is the big one against Christianity (or theism in general). How could an all-powerful, all-good God exist given the evil in the world. Lots of ink has been spilled in the last 2000 years trying to answer that question. In my opinion, it is unanswerable for humans. We simply don’t know enough about God, causation, or the end of the story. But I take great comfort when I read about Jesus weeping with Mary and Martha at Lazarus’ death. Here is the Creator Himself, who knew He was about to raise Lazarus from the dead, tenderly weeping with these people he loved. That scene combined with many similar passages convinces me that God is not above or immune to the evil and suffering in the world. Quite the contrary, he is grieving with us. He walks with us through it so that somehow, in his wisdom and love, he can bring good out of the evil. I don’t know how he does or why he does, I just believe that he is with us in our suffering, and that makes it bearable.
Well, that’s the gist of it. I’m sure there’s more, some of which I’ve forgotten, some of which I’ve never been aware of. Thanks for the invitation to share it.
Beer Baron said:Wayslow said:Neil Peart was a great drummer but I wouldn't elevate him to god status.
Just Lemmy.
Who would win in a fight, lemmy- or God?
In reply to TheRev :
Thank you for sharing. I think these conversations are enlightening and uplifting when people share and focus on what they believe and why, as opposed to trying to tell other people that they should believe (or disbelieve) the same way they do.
I find your "hopeful Christian universalist" philosophy makes more sense than what I more often see espoused. I think that fits better with what general modern Christian doctrine claims about the nature of god. I mean, I could question and debate points, but it would be purely academic.
Edit: Okay, I have a follow up question that I don't think takes this down a negative path...
Why do you not believe other religions? Why do you believe the Christian teachings about Jesus, but not the teachings of Mohammed, or Buddha, or others?
Wayslow said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:And you can argue on and on and on. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church actually supports what Putin is doing in the Ukraine and claims that because the Ukraine, and for that matter, Europe and the rest of the Western World, is corrupt because of atheists and gay people, and that it all needs to be cleansed with blood. He calls himself a Christian Nationalist. I honestly don't care who or what other people sleep with as long as he/she/whatever is consenting, is of legal age and is not one of my dogs. It's not something I worry about.
You can always bring old Uncle Adolph into any argument. He has been dead for about 75 years now and they are still making bad science fiction movies about the guy.
I know of a martial arts master I used to train with who would really get annoyed by such arguments. He thought it was a great waste of time and energy. His attitude was "if you don't like what I am teaching, go to another dojo. Go find another guru. Stop wasting my time and yours.
There is a difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic just doesn't know and that's it. He just shrugs his shoulders and walks away. He doesn't argue. He doesn't try to tell you what to believe. An atheist, on the other hand, knows for a fact that there is no higher power and he will argue with you endlessly, to the point that he actually turns his non-religion into a religion. I find that ironic.
I identify as an atheist but I will never argue that there isn't a god or god's. There may well be but I just don't see any evidence of their existence. If you were able to show me some evidence then I'd happily change my mind. Feelings, faith, old books and traditions are not evidence. I went to church as a kid and felt what I thought was the presence of a higher power during a Christmas service. I had the exact same feeling during a Rush concert as a teen. Neil Peart was a great drummer but I wouldn't elevate him to god status.
It isn't really my job to convince you or anybody else that a higher power exists. I am not an evangelist. I am not trying to save anybody's soul. I just present what I believe and you can take what makes sense to you or leave it. When Jesus himself was going from place to place with his disciples he would preach to the people in the town and if they didn't like what he had to say, he would move on to the next town. It was the people in power at the time who persecuted him.
I'm no messiah. I'm not even that good a drummer, but I can play the sax and pick on a guitar. All I present is what a fool believes. This fool.
Mndsm said:Beer Baron said:Wayslow said:Neil Peart was a great drummer but I wouldn't elevate him to god status.
Just Lemmy.
Who would win in a fight, lemmy- or God?
Trick question, Lemmy is God.
In reply to TheRev :
I find your argument beautiful, eloquent, and very well stated. Thank you. I think you and I would have lovely discussions over a meal. I copied a couple things below. Then I will describe mine briefly at the bottom.
(4) The historical evidence that all the disciples paid dearly for their claims. All but one was martyred according to the best evidence we have. The one not martyred was exiled (John). Peter was crucified. Paul gave up a life of privilege and power for persecution and eventual beheading. Why would they all willingly submit to such suffering for a story they made up?
From one perspective I can see why that lends credibility. For me, this is just a story that relates to the historical time. We are talking about a period of history where a man could have his hands cut off for stealing bread, be jailed for life for telling a lie, and find himself missing his head for hi-fiving a woman who was menstruating - regardless of whether or not he knew she was menstruating. (and, ok, there is no evidence to suggest that people hi-fived back then). I'm quite certain that expressing revolutionary views (i.e. being a supporter of Jesus who was crucified for the same thing) was a one-way trip to death anyway. To the Jews who followed Christ, they were martyrs. To the majority of the folks at the time, they were heretics and rightly punished under law.
I'm sure they believed and it wasn't just a story to them, and given the history of Christianity they very well may have been on the "right" side, but I believe that calling them martyrs assumes that the motivation at the time was anti-Christianity and not simply execution of the law of the time. No one knew about Christianity then. It didn't exist. All they knew (from their perspective) was some whack-job claiming to be the son of God was walking around with radical ideas that challenged the status-quo. That hippie had to go. I find that ironic in today's world where a common thrust of Christianity is to maintain the status quo, and anyone who represents radicalism they say, that hippie needs to go. :)
I tend to look at Biblical texts from the perspective of the time in which they were written. The books of Genesis, 1 Kings, Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Chronicles (I forget 1 or 2), Judges, Samuel, Exodus.... dozens of examples of polygamy in the context of "yeah, he had 14 wives, it's cool." I don't take that as God saying that it's cool to have multiple wives, I take it in the context of telling a story about a commonplace scenario of the time. I think many Christians apply modern context to a 4000-year-old text and end up getting it sideways.
I believe that atheists are correct in saying that Christianity (or religion in general) is a crutch. Yes it is. But I am lame. I need a crutch. I did not always believe that. But then clinical depression set in seven years ago for a variety of reasons. I went from someone who got a 4.0 in engineering to someone whose brain simply broke. Depression got bad enough that I couldn’t function. Since I took more pride in my intellect than anything else in my life, this was crushing. But it opened my eyes to a truth: humans are not nearly as strong as we think we are. While it’s taken many years, I have come to a place of greater faith in God as my loving heavenly Father who truly loves and likes me and supports me on a day-to-day, moment-to-moment basis. I don’t expect that to be persuasive to anyone else since it is so personal, but it is my reality. On my darkest days, of which there are many, I find life, hope, and strength from the belief that the Creator of the universe is with me, holding me up, and filling me with his love.
So much truth, and I am glad you found healing. Depression is so real.
Our beliefs are not that different actually. My beliefs are that there is a creator of sorts, but not in the biblical sense, more of a philosophical sense. My belief in a larger existence (higher power, deity, god) is evident every time I put a worm on a hook to fish. The worm is not really aware that it's being put on a hook. It responds to pain by the programming in its brain to squirm. It is certainly not aware that a 225-lb sentient being has the mental capacity to know how to lure a fish to a hook. Taking that further, when the worm is in the dirt eating bacteria, flagella, and other little things, those microorganisms aren't aware of the worm. They have no concept of being eaten and digested, let alone that a thing called a worm exists. I think about how we humans are likely just another step in that hierarchy. To assume that there is no possibility for the existence of an entity more advanced/intelligent/omniscient than I am is a little exclusive. It implies that we humans are only looking "down" the ladder to what we can comprehend. I think about things like how we've discovered matter down to less than the size of an electron, and we've seen 40 billion light years into the cosmos and still didn't find the edge. A sobering thought.... if you left in a spaceship and traveled in a straight line at the speed of light for 40 billion years, you still wouldn't be at edge of the known universe. That's 10 times longer than the earth has even existed.
I just feel that the traditional God depicted in Judeo-Christian texts is anthropomorphized to the extent of giving them human qualities, which is where my entire construct of that paradigm is shattered. Either the people who recounted the story were incapable of describing God in any other way (which removes credibility IMO) or they intentionally gave God relatable qualities to make them more approachable (deceptive IMO). I'm not saying "your texts are wrong," I'm just saying that to me they maybe inadequately describing the complexity. Jewish scholars have long resolved that the Torah and Nevi'im is not necessarily actual historical record, it is more likely a collection of metaphoric parables meant to give people a blueprint into which they can extrapolate God's existence where simple words would otherwise fail. Like the first time you realized that the Fox and the sour Grapes was about denial and envy instead of a literal story about a real fox. I prefer to think of whatever greater entity there is as the sum total of everything. If you think about it, we are a sum of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and a few hundred other elements that have sentient thoughts, personalities, complex languages, and societies. That's an interesting thought to me. I see no reason why that sentience isn't separate from the concoction of carbon and hydrogen atoms in our physical bodies. I don't think that our sentience comes from chemical compounds in our bodies. (long way of saying I think we have souls independent of our bodies.) Which also leads me to my belief that this sentience, being separate from the physical body, could exist anywhere. If we (skin-bags of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen) can possess some kind of soul-energy, why can't a tree (bark-bags of carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen) or a mustard seed (hull-bags of carb.... you get the idea). I simply believe that this sum total of sentience either comes from - or creates - the greater entity that religious texts try to describe with dumbed-down written word and potentially miss the mark.
Still, I think you and I are on similar paths. You want to win the autocross with a Miata and I want to win with an MR2. We're both headed in the same direction in different vehicles. Above all, big respect, Rev. Thank you so much for sharing.
Beer Baron said:In reply to TheRev :
Thank you for sharing. I think these conversations are enlightening and uplifting when people share and focus on what they believe and why, as opposed to trying to tell other people that they should believe (or disbelieve) the same way they do.
I find your "hopeful Christian universalist" philosophy makes more sense than what I more often see espoused. I think that fits better with what general modern Christian doctrine claims about the nature of god. I mean, I could question and debate points, but it would be purely academic.
Edit: Okay, I have a follow up question that I don't think takes this down a negative path...
Why do you not believe other religions? Why do you believe the Christian teachings about Jesus, but not the teachings of Mohammed, or Buddha, or others?
I have read the Bible, the Koran, Taoist and Buddhist books and about Stoic Philosophy. Muslims actually believe in Jesus but think their guy was the real Messiah. Both the Bible and the Koran are against both usury and homosexuality, yet I know many Christians who do well in the moneylending business whose blood pressure goes through the roof when they think about men lying with other men. Most of us pick and choose what to believe and what to ignore from our various religions and philosophies. Often from convenience and from which of the rules benefit them.
I am just looking for rules on how to conduct my own life and I am looking for what works. Eastern philosophy fills in the gaps on things for me that Christianity doesn't cover. I look for what people who have good lives believe. Christianity works for many people as does Taoism.
And how do you decide what the rules are? Civilization depends on rules. Thou shall not kill? Sez who? The imaginary being YOU worship?? Ha Ha Ha Haaa! I don't believe in him. Or worse yet, my God is a different God and he told me to kill non-believers like you in order to cleanse the earth. Die, sucker! We do have law, but who decides what the law is? The law is being challenged every day. Guys like Putin make their own laws. Want to live in his world?
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
"You want to win the autocross with a Miata and I want to win with an MR2." What a great way to put it! Yes, I think there is much we have in common, and a conversation like this over a meal would indeed be very fun. Even better if combined with a day of racing.
I resonated with your original elephant/lion analogy. You are correct that many Christians have responded in exactly that way in our culture. I think the problem lies in power. Christianity accrued an unusual degree of power/influence in American society in the last couple of hundred years. Speaking as a Christian, we do better when we're powerless than powerful. When we have power, influence, and wealth we start to live exactly the opposite of the savior we claim to follow. I find it convicting that Jesus chose to identify explicitly with the poor and powerless in his earthly life. I wish more Christians would take that to heart and stop trying to circle the wagons and protect our power and influence.
In regards to the disciples dying for their claims - yes, you are correct that execution was far more common in the ancient world. Those low on the societal totem pole could be executed for simply looking the wrong way at a ruler. However, I will retort that many of these disciples were not lowest on the totem pole. Peter and John were small business owners (had a fishing enterprise in Galilee). Mathew was a tax collector (hated by the Jews but loved by the powers-that-be). Paul was an educated Roman citizen and thus had a high degree of legal protection (witness his rights as described in latter chapters of Acts). For some reason, as best we can tell, all of them chose to stick to their story to the bitter end, a story that wasn't received from someone else, but that they claim their own eyes witnessed. That certainly doesn't prove the matter. But it seems significant to me.
And for your final points, you are absolutely correct about the hubris of thinking finite beings like us could ever fully understand a creator. Yep. I believe one of the chief errors of the modern evangelical church in America is our discomfort with the concept of mystery. We want certainty. Anything that threatens certainty is to be rejected or fought (hence, the elephants attacking the lion). I think there was wisdom in the ancient Christians who followed a more mystical path to understanding God - content to live in the mystery of a faith that goes far beyond human understanding. However, all that said, I am still left with an account of a God who became human to love, serve, heal, and sacrifice himself for us. While there is great mystery regarding the HOW of the incarnation, if it really happened, then there is still a literal, historical anchor to cling to. It is actually that incredible condescension - that an infinite Deity would lower himself to become a needy infant in a dirty trough - that gives me meaning and hope in life. For if that is the heart of the Creator, then there is actually a real chance that all will be well in the end.
I think we of little faith should take back Jesus from all the rest who can't get their ideas or stories straight amongst themselves. If we (of little faith) all agree that he was a a living, breathing historical figure, who did good things, and was martyred, and leave it at that, then what we get out of it is simple, straightforward, and irrefutable: do good. He then would be added to the pantheon of other selfless martyrs who we, however imperfect, can strive to be like. WWJD? Not what, but why? Dunno, but he did, we don't need to overthink it, let's just follow that lead as best we can.
Take him back, the 'what' and 'when' of him, which require no leap of faith, and let the myriad and innumerable sects argue with themselves over what remains, the why, the how, and the rest of the unknowable things.
This will take a while, surely, but eventually we will get to work on our next pal Gautama.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Please tell me if I am understanding your position correctly...
You believe in a Higher Power (various reasons why) that many religions would characterize as 'God'.
You would broadly characterize yourself as "Christian" in that this faith most alines with your beliefs, you believe in the divinity of Jesus (?), and see him as your sort of primary faith teacher. However, you recognize value in other faiths, and see a lot of value in lifting teachings from other religions, most frequently Eastern philosophies (Taoism and Buddhism).
Is that about it? Am I characterizing your beliefs correctly? Would it be safe for me to assume that you ascribe to something sort of like that "Blind men and the elephant" parable and believe all these different religions are describing the same thing?
If that is correct, I completely understand that perspective.
I think what I find foreign and don't really understand are people who simultaneously hold deep belief in one faith, and disbelief in other faiths. Particularly people who were not raised religious, or who left religion, exposed themselves to other ideas, and then came back to a particular religion.
In reply to Beer Baron :
Great question, and one I can answer without any negativity (I hope). I have studied many other religions. Though to be fair, since I come from a Christian foundation, I can't claim perfect objectivity. We humans are all subject to biases and unquestioned, often unknown, presuppositions. So I'm sure my study of these other religions falls short of being truly open and unbiased. I am human after all.
In the end, what brings me back to Christianity is simply what I shared about the resurrection. If it happened, and I am persuaded it is probable, then not only does that argue for the existence of God, but it also argues for the particular conception of the Christian God. Or at least that's how I see it. As a mentor of mine used to say, All things are possible; not all things are probable. Based on the evidence and experiences I have, I have come to believe the Christian story is somewhat more probable. But obviously much of humanity disagrees with that assessment.
In reply to TheRev :
Interesting. Thank you for sharing that.
From what little you have studied of other religions, what is your perception of other major religions? Buddhism and Taoism have gotten brought up in this thread as specific examples. Hinduism is also a large religion, but I admit it's one I understand too little of to form a strong opinion (other than wanting to eat delicious holiday food).
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:
An atheist, on the other hand, knows for a fact that there is no higher power and he will argue with you endlessly, to the point that he actually turns his non-religion into a religion. I find that ironic.
As a self-described atheist, I'm going to disagree with this statement. It's certainly not that simple, at the very least.
You are fairly correct about agnostics. They tend to run the gamut from "There's a higher power of some kind, but I don't know what," to "There could be a higher power of some kind, but if so, I don't know what." Fair enough - they're stipulating that they don't know or don't care.
But 99.99% of all atheists 'know for a fact' that there is no higher power in the same way we 'know for a fact' that the sun is most likely to rise at a specific time tomorrow morning or that gravity generally causes stuff to stick to the planet unless you apply enough force to counteract that. Those are based on an incredible volume of objective, empirical observation and 100.00% repeatability (so far). If lots of physical evidence starts piling up that contradicts those two 'known facts', then we will adjust our understanding based on the new evidence.
On the other hand, there is exactly zero objective, empirical (measurable) evidence that any supernatural higher power exists. Therefore we see no reason to assume one does exist. It is not impossible for a supernatural being to exist - just that in the entirety of human history, no one has been able to put physical instruments on god and say there he is. Allegedly god has revealed himself to plenty of individuals over the course of history, but all of that testimony is 100% subjective, and in the grand scheme of things, very little of it even agrees.
In the face of zero evidence in support of a higher power's existence, atheists see no more reason to believe in 'God' than we do in Cthulhu, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Great Energy Beings of Proxima Centauri. Of course it is logically impossible to prove those entities don't exist... but you literally cannot prove any given thing doesn't exist. Once you open yourself to the possibility of believing certain things without any measurable evidence at all, you have absolutely no way to set criteria to filter out things you don't think exist. If you believe God exists without any objective evidence, why don't you believe Cthulhu exists? Why don't you believe that a literally infinite number of other possible entities exist? There's no empirical evidence for them either, but there's also no way to prove they don't exist.
But the reason atheists are not a 'non-religion religion' is that we will change our understanding of the existence of God just as soon as we see any type of objective evidence showing He/She/It/They does. Assuming, of course, we still have minds left to think with.
This an atheist's 'know for a fact there is no higher power' in a nutshell:
You are not convincing me of anything, yet you are putting a lot of effort into convincing me that you are right. Why do you care what I think?
That kind of proves my point.
Let your crusade go on.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
I could describe myself as an atheist. I don't "know for a fact" that there is no higher power. I just do not have sufficient reason to believe there is.
It's passive non-belief rather than active disbelief. Very different.
What you are describing, I would term an "anti-theist".
In reply to TheRev :
I do not mean to offend you with this question, I just don't know a way to ask it without coming off like an ass. So I'll apologize in advance, but please understand I'm only asking for my own understanding.
From my readings and studying, albeit pushing 20 years ago now, the story of Jesus, from virgin birth to resurrection, has been told countless times throughout history, across many many cultures, often with little difference than a name change. Why is the Jesus story special, but the older stories and religions have been reclassified as mythology?
It's something I've never understood. It's one of my most asked questions when people try to convert me to their beliefs, or the more rare occurrence, I find someone who is able and willing to explain their beliefs without trying to convert me(this would be you, and I for one appreciate your candor and honesty with us in this thread). I've gotten lots of different answers through the years, and I find the persons character is more a judge of their answer than their actual beliefs. Maybe not beliefs, but umm denomination might be a better word, the type of Christianity they follow or consider themselves a member of.
I appreciate you sharing your story and beliefs with us, and contributing to a civil discussion about such a touchy subject.
You'll need to log in to post.
