Former Atheists

[neutrino_cannon]

Are there any former atheists here? If so, what religion/theistic philosophy do you now subscribe to? Why?

The subject intrigues me greatly.


edited for bizarre typo that caused huge confusion.

[Lord Kenneth]

Some people will always be irrational, and are easily swayed.

[Shroud of Akron]

does it count that i became agnostic? if so, than i did because i lack the faith in our ability to completely describe the universe through science. but i guess i don't count as i choose to lean toward that which has more evidence.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Are there any former atheists here? If so, what religion/theistic philosophy did you subscribe to? Why?

The subject intrigues me greatly. I am confused by your first question. Did you intend to ask “Are there any former theist here”?

Not to hijack a thread, but if you did intend the above, an equally interesting question would be “Are there any former atheist here? If so, to which religion/theistic philosophy do you now subscribe”?

edited for clarity

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Are there any former atheists here? If so, what religion/theistic philosophy did you subscribe to? Why?

The subject intrigues me greatly. Upon reviewing another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17853) I now believe that it is not the first, but the second question that requires clarification. Did you intend to ask “If so, what religion/theistic philosophy do you now subscribe to”?

[neutrino_cannon]

I intend to ask what religion/theistic philosophy they now subscribe to. The did was a typo.

[fishbob]

I will be a farmer atheist if I take up farming.

I will be a framer atheist if I become a carpenter.

I will be a former atheist when I die.

[BillyJoe]

And I bet you are a f**cking atheist every night.....or are you not that lucky?

[Clancie]

Interesting question, neutrino cannon.

There are many atheistic religions, though. I'm wondering what you would think of someone who rejected their Judeo-Christian upbringing, became an atheist, remained an atheist but also a Buddhist?

Would you still consider that person to be an atheist?

Its a hypothetical question, but if I were to say which major religion attracts me the most personally now, it would be Buddhism.

[tamiO]

Sometimes I think this forum should have a handy dandy reference guide describing the local meaning of atheist, agnostic, etc., so we can be sure we are all talking about the same thing.

I thought I was an atheist, but now I just say agnostic.. I do not believe there is a god, but i cannot prove there is no god and i am open to the idea that there may be something that people would perceive as god and that there may be more life to experience after i appear to die here.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by Shroud of Akron
does it count that i became agnostic? if so, than i did because i lack the faith in our ability to completely describe the universe through science. but i guess i don't count as i choose to lean toward that which has more evidence.

science is just a baby... we can't expect it to come anywhere close to describing the whole Universe yet. Give it some time. :D

[LCBOY]

I am a former atheist. Actually, I was probably more of an agnostic. I did not believe that God existed but I could not prove it so logically the possibly of God's existence was there. At age 30 I became a Christian. The reason was that someone had challenged me to not believe what they believe in but find out for myself and read, study, and think critically through all the arguments for and against the existence of God. It was quite a journey for me because I am a skeptic at heart. I have to think things through for a very long time to accept something. So after five months of intense studying, I came to the conclusion that God is real. There is a lot of detail to my story, but I didn't want to make this post to long.

[Clancie]

LCBOY,

I'm sure that was an interesting journey. Too bad its too detailed to describe here.

I do wonder if you could comment on one part of it, though. Believing God is real is one thing, but how did you go from that to believing in Christianity?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by LCBOY

(snip)
So after five months of intense studying, I came to the conclusion that God is real. There is a lot of detail to my story, but I didn't want to make this post to long.

I, for one, would be interested in the whole long story. I read the Bible, discussed various fine points with religious Christians, and ultimately did not become a Christian. Much like neutrino_cannon, this type of stuff fascinates me.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I am a former atheist. Actually, I was probably more of an agnostic. I did not believe that God existed but I could not prove it so logically the possibly of God's existence was there. At age 30 I became a Christian. The reason was that someone had challenged me to not believe what they believe in but find out for myself and read, study, and think critically through all the arguments for and against the existence of God. It was quite a journey for me because I am a skeptic at heart. I have to think things through for a very long time to accept something. So after five months of intense studying, I came to the conclusion that God is real. There is a lot of detail to my story, but I didn't want to make this post to long.

Well, obviously you weren't even a "very good" atheist in the first place if you felt the need to argue on why "god doesn't exist".

The possiblity of a god's existence is always there, to everyone (well not hard atheists), including soft atheists.

Not only that, but your hypocrisy is disgusting. You're an Christian hard-atheist (most likely), every god but yours doesn't exist.

And guess what! There is no more evidence for the existence of Thor than there is for Jehovah!

Care to show some?

[Fade]

Originally posted by tamiO
Sometimes I think this forum should have a handy dandy reference guide describing the local meaning of atheist, agnostic, etc., so we can be sure we are all talking about the same thing.

I thought I was an atheist, but now I just say agnostic.. I do not believe there is a god, but i cannot prove there is no god and i am open to the idea that there may be something that people would perceive as god and that there may be more life to experience after i appear to die here.

Perhaps we don't want to open up this can of worms again :)

What you just described -is- atheism.

[Denise]

I can understand the theistic point of view. I cannot understand why someone would become Christian. So I am curious as well.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I am a former atheist. Actually, I was probably more of an agnostic. I did not believe that God existed but I could not prove it so logically the possibly of God's existence was there.

With that reasoning, you must also believe in alien powered UFOs, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Eskimos.

[LCBOY]

Before I explain some of my reasons I became a Christian, maybe some of you can give me your definiton or perceptions of Christianity. Dark Cobra, I am sorry my "hypocrisy disgusts you". I never felt the need to argue with others when I was an agnostic/atheist. They always came to me. But it was NEVER my intent to "convert" them to atheism, I was just sharing my beliefs with them. Maybe debate is a better word.

[Clancie]

LCBOY,

Like you said, I'm more interested in being here to see what others think--and to test/refine my own ideas--than I am in converting someone to my way of thinking.

With that in mind, in answer to your question "What does Christianity mean to you", I realized that I wasn't a Christian when I decided all the "miracles" of the Bible didn't make any rational sense to me, starting with the Immaculate Conception and going straight on from there to the Resurrection.

I do admire the historical Jesus as a man, a philosopher, and a teacher, but I've never understood why his horrible crucifixion should inspire belief in God. In fact, I find his dying words, "Why have you forsaken me?" a stunning and depressing indictment of God--one that is sadly echoed over and over throughout history including, most notably to me, during the Holocaust.

I respect your right to believe, LCBOY, but personally, I can't understand how someone could become a Christian based on anything but pure hope and faith.

[Denise]

Most Christians I know are Christians because they were raised to be Christians. They never thought to question if the Bible was true or not. If they were raised in Iran, they would most likely be Muslims.

[gnome]

Regarding "house" definitions, it was the subject of a thread a long time ago...

What was come up with was the following:

Gnostic Theist: Someone who claims to know for certain that God exists.

Agnostic Theist: Someone who believes God to exist, but doesn't claim certainty.

Agnostic Atheist: Someone who believes God does not exist, but doesn't claim certainty.

Gnostic Atheist: Someone who claims to know for certain that God does not exist.

I suspect there is room in the very middle for people that just have no idea or opinion on what exists or doesn't when it comes to God.

Does this definition suffice to place everyone?

I put myself at Agnostic Atheist.

[LCBOY]

Clancy,

Can you share some of the philosphies and teachings of Jesus Christ that you admire? I believe Christianity is a historical and evidential faith. There IS a certain amount of faith and hope that a person MUST have to believe what the Bible says is true. I totally agree with you on this point. But there is also accurate historial accounts about Jesus Christ. I do not have a "blind" faith. Some people will never accept anything on faith and hope. They require evidence before they accept anything.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Fade


Perhaps we don't want to open up this can of worms again :)

What you just described -is- atheism.

Thanks.

/puts that can back on the shelf.

[Clancie]

LCBOY,

The problem I have with Christianity is that it isn't just a philosophy, its a theistic religion. The stumbling blocks for me aren't so much the philosophical things like the "Sermon on the Mount", as much as they are the idea you "must accept Jesus as your savior" are "saved by grace", that he literally "died for our sins", etc.

But, back to the crucifixion, since I've always wanted to ask a believer this: don't you find Jesus's dying words on the cross a depressing indictment of God rather than an inspiration?

The only "inspiration" I can see from his death is in the story about his resurrection three days later. But, testamentary visions of his followers aside, to me the resurrection has so many much more obvious non-paranormal possible explanations that I can't see basing a whole belief system on it.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Clancy,

But there is also accurate historial accounts about Jesus Christ.

I would be interested in hearing the historical accounts of Jeebus.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Clancy
LCBOY,
But, back to the crucifixion, since I've always wanted to ask a believer this: don't you find Jesus's dying words on the cross a depressing indictment of God rather than an inspiration?


Which dying words are you referring to? There are 4 gospels.

[Clancie]

originally posted by triadboy
Which dying words are you referring to? There are 4 gospels.

The ones I referred to above. (I think the exact quote is usually given more like, "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Matthew the only one of the four gospels that even quotes Jesus' dying words on the cross?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Clancy


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Matthew the only one of the four gospels that even quotes Jesus' dying words on the cross?

Luke says something like "Into thy hands I commend my spirit" John says something like "It is finished".

Isnt' it funny that these "eye witnesses" ;-D would have completely different versions?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I am a former atheist. Actually, I was probably more of an agnostic. I did not believe that God existed but I could not prove it so logically the possibly of God's existence was there. At age 30 I became a Christian. The reason was that someone had challenged me to not believe what they believe in but find out for myself and read, study, and think critically through all the arguments for and against the existence of God. It was quite a journey for me because I am a skeptic at heart. I have to think things through for a very long time to accept something. So after five months of intense studying, I came to the conclusion that God is real. There is a lot of detail to my story, but I didn't want to make this post to long.

I can relate a bit to your story. I was never quite an atheist, but was definitely an agnostic. I was also a born skeptic. It took lots of study and examining evidence of all pros and cons to become convinced there was a God. Sometimes, I find it hard to be a skeptic and a *Christian* at the same time. I question EVERTHING!!

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Ruby


I can relate a bit to your story. I was never quite an atheist, but was definitely an agnostic. I was also a born skeptic. It took lots of study and examining evidence of all pros and cons to become convinced there was a God. Sometimes, I find it hard to be a skeptic and a *Christian* at the same time. I question EVERTHING!!

It should be hard, because given the information we have, there is no rational justification for theism, much less Christianity.

I urge you to re-examine the evidence.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Before I explain some of my reasons I became a Christian, maybe some of you can give me your definiton or perceptions of Christianity. Dark Cobra, I am sorry my "hypocrisy disgusts you". I never felt the need to argue with others when I was an agnostic/atheist. They always came to me. But it was NEVER my intent to "convert" them to atheism, I was just sharing my beliefs with them. Maybe debate is a better word.

Unfortunately, you'll find some rudeness in this forum, especially on R&P, it's best to ignore it, unless you want to duke it out. :)

As for me, to me belief has two parts: a worldview and validation. The worldview is a map of theology onto the "real world". So if the theology doesn't "map" (there is something incorrect about the worldview), the belief is false. Validation is the event or events that convince a person that belief is the right one.

So, my conclusion, after living with a devout Christian through college, reading the Bible, and participating in Bible studies, was that Christianity wasn't necessarily true.

The most basic first principles of Christianity don't have too much of a problem mapping to the real world, although we could endlessly argue about some of the details, which kept me a bit skeptical.

The real kicker was the validation. It didn't come. To me, God couldn't distinguish Himself from coincidence. From what I could tell, no one else who believed could, either. It was taken on faith that chance showed God's providence. Had I been less skeptical, had I needed to believe, I could have taken a few moments from my life as validation. As I learn more and more, I think I made the right choice.

Obviously, this is one of the reasons I find this stuff interesting. I'd been through it myself.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


It should be hard, because given the information we have, there is no rational justification for theism, much less Christianity.

I urge you to re-examine the evidence.

Hi DC. That's the just the thing.....since I am a skeptic, I keep reexamining and reexamining and I come back with the same.... even stronger... belief in God.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I am a former atheist. Actually, I was probably more of an agnostic. I did not believe that God existed but I could not prove it so logically the possibly of God's existence was there. At age 30 I became a Christian. The reason was that someone had challenged me to not believe what they believe in but find out for myself and read, study, and think critically through all the arguments for and against the existence of God. It was quite a journey for me because I am a skeptic at heart. I have to think things through for a very long time to accept something. So after five months of intense studying, I came to the conclusion that God is real. There is a lot of detail to my story, but I didn't want to make this post to long.


Now I'm very interested. Is this a pascal's wager sort of deal or something else? I was prettey well convinced that skeptic type atheists never converted, but this is forcing me to reinterpret.

And what parts of the Bible do you believe are true? I believe Christianity is a historical and evidential faith. I really want to see this now.

[Clancie]

originally posted by triadboy
Isnt' it funny that these "eye witnesses" ;-D would have completely different versions?

What do you mean? The gospel were written 30+ years after Jesus' death and are based on the oral and written traditions of believers.

In any case, if you read my posts, you know that I'm not a Christian. I'm just interested why a Christian wouldn't feel the same sadness and total lack of inspiration and faith that I do from Jesus' unanswered question to God, "Why have you forsaken me?"

[Denise]

Originally posted by Ruby


Hi DC. That's the just the thing.....since I am a skeptic, I keep reexamining and reexamining and I come back with the same.... even stronger... belief in God.

What evidence did you examine to come to the belief that a Jesus Christ existed and was divine and born of a virgin?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Ruby


Hi DC. That's the just the thing.....since I am a skeptic, I keep reexamining and reexamining and I come back with the same.... even stronger... belief in God.

It's funny that whenever someone says something like that they never cite any evidence.

Also, what is funny is that you talk about constantly examining the evidence, yet you don't even know the basics of evolution (you thought scientists think men evolved from apes).

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Denise
Most Christians I know are Christians because they were raised to be Christians. They never thought to question if the Bible was true or not. If they were raised in Iran, they would most likely be Muslims.

You are probably right. A lot of Christians I know were raised into it. Most of them, at some point question aspects of it, but some don't. I was raised in an atheist/agnostic household. Anything I learned about God, the bible, Jesus etc., came from school and friends.

I was someone who had to study and look at all sorts of info to come to a conclusion that God was real and the bible legit. I continue to question things and study. I honestly struggle with many issues in Christianity.....but that probably has more to do with certain Christians themselves and not Christianity as a whole.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Ruby


You are probably right. A lot of Christians I know were raised into it. Most of them, at some point question aspects of it, but some don't. I was raised in an atheist/agnostic household. Anything I learned about God, the bible, Jesus etc., came from school and friends.

I was someone who had to study and look at all sorts of info to come to a conclusion that God was real and the bible legit. I continue to question things and study. I honestly struggle with many issues in Christianity.....but that probably has more to do with certain Christians themselves and not Christianity as a whole.



Are you a bible literalist?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Ruby


You are probably right. A lot of Christians I know were raised into it. Most of them, at some point question aspects of it, but some don't. I was raised in an atheist/agnostic household. Anything I learned about God, the bible, Jesus etc., came from school and friends.

I was someone who had to study and look at all sorts of info to come to a conclusion that God was real and the bible legit. I continue to question things and study. I honestly struggle with many issues in Christianity.....but that probably has more to do with certain Christians themselves and not Christianity as a whole.



And with that post, I think blind acceptance of facts you read in apologist books without checking the truth or what people who may disagree say is a very likely possibility.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Denise
I can understand the theistic point of view. I cannot understand why someone would become Christian. So I am curious as well.

I can very well understand how you cannot understand;)

I would never have become a Christian if it wasn't for a terrifying experience I had. I did not know where to turn.....either a mental hospital or a church. I chose a church. It worked....I was cured, freed from the terror....that's another reason I can't shake my belief in God. He did something for me...a miracle, I think.....that I don't know any other way there would have been out of it. I would like to post this story in full, but a bit afraid to do so. It's complex and strange.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Ruby


I can very well understand how you cannot understand;)

I would never have become a Christian if it wasn't for a terrifying experience I had. I did not know where to turn.....either a mental hospistal or a church. I chose and church. It worked....I was cured freed from the terror....that's another reason I can't shake my belief in God. He did something for me...a miracle, I think.....that I don't know any other way there would have been out of it. I would like to post this story in full, but a bit afraid to do so. It's complex and strange.

Kind of like.... scientology?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Ruby


I would like to post this story in full, but a bit afraid to do so. It's complex and strange.

Like the rest of the forum isn't? C'mon, feel free to spit it out.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Ruby


I can very well understand how you cannot understand;)

I would never have become a Christian if it wasn't for a terrifying experience I had. I did not know where to turn.....either a mental hospistal or a church. I chose and church. It worked....I was cured freed from the terror....that's another reason I can't shake my belief in God. He did something for me...a miracle, I think.....that I don't know any other way there would have been out of it. I would like to post this story in full, but a bit afraid to do so. It's complex and strange.

So, god made you go through a terrible time so that you would turn to him. Why didn't he just tap you on the shoulder and say "Hey, Ruby, I'm god, nice to see you."

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Denise


So, god made you go through a terrible time so that you would turn to him. Why didn't he just tap you on the shoulder and say "Hey, Ruby, I'm god, nice to see you."


That solution doesn't play with people's emotions and delusions.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


That solution doesn't play with people's emotions and delusions.

And to you Dark Cobra, I confer the title of "jaded cynic". Oh wait, quick check at banter, "jaded stalked cynic".

[Denise]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


And to you Dark Cobra, I confer the title of "jaded cynic". Oh wait, quick check at banter, "jaded stalked cynic".

Jaded Cynic, JC, Jesus Christ. Coincidence? You be the judge.:D

[Clancie]

Oh, Ruby, I think I understand. It sounds like you personally experienced something that felt like genuine divine intervention at a time in your life when you needed it most.

I think the power of personal experience cannot be argued against. It won't persuade anyone else (and shouldn't), but I can see how experiencing something amazing in your own life could totally change a person's belief system.

I can think of some experiences that would make me into a believer (I just haven't had any of them :).

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Denise


So, god made you go through a terrible time so that you would turn to him. Why didn't he just tap you on the shoulder and say "Hey, Ruby, I'm god, nice to see you."

Right.

Little boys with throw rocks at little girls to get them to notice them.

One would expect a little more sophistication for an omnipotent being.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Clancy


I can think of some experiences that would make me into a believer (I just haven't had any of them :).

Ok, this might sound sarcastic but I can't think of any other way to say it. Clancy, god does not love you because he hasn't given you a spiritual experience. Because you require evidence for your beliefs as does Ruby, he obviously loves Ruby more than you because he gave Ruby evidence and not you and now Ruby is going to heaven and you are going to hell.:D

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Denise


Ok, this might sound sarcastic but I can't think of any other way to say it. Clancy, god does not love you because he hasn't given you a spiritual experience. Because you require evidence for your beliefs as does Ruby, he obviously loves Ruby more than you because he gave Ruby evidence and not you and now Ruby is going to heaven and you are going to hell.:D

Oh sure, give away the ending.

I remember when I was young I was told that hell was where all the bad boys and girls went but all I heard was, 'bad girls?!'

[Clancie]

Clancy, god does not love you because he hasn't given you a spiritual experience. Because you require evidence for your beliefs as does Ruby, he obviously loves Ruby more than you because he gave Ruby evidence and not you and now Ruby is going to heaven and you are going to hell.

Oh. Now you tell me :)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Clancy


What do you mean? The gospel were written 30+ years after Jesus' death and are based on the oral and written traditions of believers.


I disagree. Mark is at least 70 AD. That's 40 years. John is around 100 AD (70 years). (Can you imagine (even nowdays) writing about someone who lived in the 1930s.) What other written traditions are there? Oral traditions?

Christianity is a Jewish "mystery" religion in the same vein as Osiris/Dionysus/Mithra. These were half god/half humans - who were born of virgins, put to death and were resurrected after three days. Paul (known to Gnostics as 'The Great Gnostic') attempted to incorporate the mystery religion into the Jewish tradition. (Paul was from Tarsus - a hotbed of Mithraism) However the unforseeable happened - people began believing the historicity of the myth. As Joseph Campbell said, 'religion is the misinterpretation of myth'. When you believe your myth is history - you've really screwed the pooch.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ruby


I can very well understand how you cannot understand;)

I would never have become a Christian if it wasn't for a terrifying experience I had. I did not know where to turn.....either a mental hospital or a church. I chose a church. It worked....I was cured, freed from the terror....that's another reason I can't shake my belief in God. He did something for me...a miracle, I think.....that I don't know any other way there would have been out of it. I would like to post this story in full, but a bit afraid to do so. It's complex and strange.

You know, if you had gone to the mental hospital (or at least a doctor), you probably would have been treated more effectively. But medicine is expensive, and I suppose religion seemed more palatable at the time. Why swallow bitter pills when you could be perscribed a pastry every week?

[Kilted_Canuck]

Me, I'm a Scientific Nontheist (aka Agnostic). If someone were to find absolute evidence for a god (or gods), I would take that into consideration and form an opinion.

As the bumper sticker says:

Believe those who seek the truth, Doubt those who find it.

[Clancie]

Clancy: What do you mean? The gospel were written 30+ years after Jesus' death and are based on the oral and written traditions of believers.

Triadboy: I disagree

"?" What are you disagreeing with, triadboy? I was pointing out that the gospels aren't "eyewitness accounts" themselves, since that seemed the inference from what you wrote.

Are you saying they weren't written 30+ (meaning "at least 30 years, and more in some cases") after Jesus's death?

Or are you saying they weren't based on the oral and written traditions of believers?

I don't see what the disagreement is.

And where's your phrase "Jewish mystery religion" (and the interpretation of Paul's efforts) originally from? That's an odd term to me to describe something that started as a sect of Judaism but then became something quite different.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Denise


Ok, this might sound sarcastic but I can't think of any other way to say it. Clancy, god does not love you because he hasn't given you a spiritual experience. Because you require evidence for your beliefs as does Ruby, he obviously loves Ruby more than you because he gave Ruby evidence and not you and now Ruby is going to heaven and you are going to hell.:D

Now that was good!

:D

Logic, religion, and the reality of life just don't jive.

Ruby: I have a question for you: If you believe in the Christian God, how do you explain other gods, and how other peoples, cultures too, believe in different gods? I think these disparities say something about human nature. For one example, Muslims will kill in the name of Allah. Xtians killed in the name of God for many years (now, they've come to their senses?). Doesn't this strike you as a just an aspect of being human? Beyond that, think of other cultures and their explanations for the world around them. Who is to say the true god is not a dues ex machina, or the Buddha, or what the Raelians figure? Please think about the way humans think when you consider these ideas. There are so many possibilities because we are human, the way I see it.

If you want to consider serious criticism of Christianity, I suggest you start with this site: http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html

Please check it out, or buy the book The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty (the site is author's), or consider less-complicated arguments in The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible by Ruth Hurmence Green, or at least look at the amazon.com reviews of these books.

Sincerely, I don't mean to imply you have not already read this stuff.

[I won't be able to respond for the week - I'll not have Internet access, not that my post will matter......]

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by gnome
Gnostic Theist: Someone who claims to know for certain that God exists.
Agnostic Theist: Someone who believes God to exist, but doesn't claim certainty.
Agnostic Atheist: Someone who believes God does not exist, but doesn't claim certainty.
Gnostic Atheist: Someone who claims to know for certain that God does not exist.

I put myself at Agnostic Atheist. gnome, I like the double-barrelled approach (combining (a)gnosticism and (a)theism).

I put myself at Agnostic Atheist tending towards Gnostic Atheist.
In fact I'm almost all the way there and I believe that is the only logical position. Substitute "faeries" for "God" and you will see what I mean.

regards,
BillyJoe

BTW, everyone, you are all wasting your time with Ruby. Her position is emotionally based not rationally based. She will never be convinced by logical argument. Also, aren't you sick and tired of conversion stories. They are boring. They promise much but deliver little. I just hope Ruby never comes to harm because of her religion or harms anyone else because of it

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Clancy


"?" What are you disagreeing with, triadboy? I was pointing out that the gospels aren't "eyewitness accounts" themselves, since that seemed the inference from what you wrote.

Are you saying they weren't written 30+ (meaning "at least 30 years, and more in some cases") after Jesus's death?

Or are you saying they weren't based on the oral and written traditions of believers?

I don't see what the disagreement is.

And where's your phrase "Jewish mystery religion" (and the interpretation of Paul's efforts) originally from? That's an odd term to me to describe something that started as a sect of Judaism but then became something quite different.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. However, you seem convinced that the Gospels were a direct result of oral/written traditions. I'm not convinced of this from my studies. (I used to think that though) The only written tradition I'm aware of before the Gospels is Paul's letters (50AD) and the derived "Sayings of Jesus" (Q) - which is theorized from the Synoptic Gospels.

If you study the religion of Mithra (a Mystery Religion), you will be amazed at the similarities that he and Jesus share. (The same with Dionysus, as well as many more) Mithraism was the dominant religion for hundreds of years before Jesus and a hundred or so after Jesus. Jesus' tale is a mystery religion shoved upon people who were not initiated or prepared to deal with it. Ignorant people, it turns out, are the most religious.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Denise


What evidence did you examine to come to the belief that a Jesus Christ existed and was divine and born of a virgin?

I wish I could say that I was an eye witness, but I can't.

I have read a lot of apologetics materials in the past. Recently, I have read a lot of evolutionary sites and anti-Christianity sites. It is interesting to read the opposition to the things I learned through Christian apologetics.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


It's funny that whenever someone says something like that they never cite any evidence.

Also, what is funny is that you talk about constantly examining the evidence, yet you don't even know the basics of evolution (you thought scientists think men evolved from apes).

That was how evolution was taught to me in school.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Denise


Are you a bible literalist?

I believe that the bible in the original Hebrew and Greek was without fault. I think that with all the recopying and translations there are some mistakes. To me, the bible is a a historical guide. Some of it I take literally, but some I see as symbolic or just for the culture of the time it was written. Depends!

[Denise]

Originally posted by Ruby


I wish I could say that I was an eye witness, but I can't.

I have read a lot of apologetics materials in the past. Recently, I have read a lot of evolutionary sites and anti-Christianity sites. It is interesting to read the opposition to the things I learned through Christian apologetics.

I guess I'm not being direct enough. What arguments did you specifically feel tipped the scales so to speak on the question of the divinity of Jesus etc. To let you know where I am coming from, I don't think I've seen enough evidence that Jesus actually existed, much less that he is divine.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ruby


That was how evolution was taught to me in school.

Well, school probably just taught you what their version of evolution was, whichever version they felt appropriate for you. It's not the best place to develop critical thinking anyway.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Ruby


I believe that the bible in the original Hebrew and Greek was without fault. I think that with all the recopying and translations there are some mistakes. To me, the bible is a a historical guide. Some of it I take literally, but some I see as symbolic or just for the culture of the time it was written. Depends!

How do you decide what to take literally? For instance, obviously (to me) Genesis cannot be taken literally as in the Earth being created in six days.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra


And with that post, I think blind acceptance of facts you read in apologist books without checking the truth or what people who may disagree say is a very likely possibility.

Actually, I have been checking out the following sites recently.

http://www.sniggle.net/godhoax.php
http://www.southerncrossreview.org/24/shapero.htm
http://www.slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=104349
http://skepdic.com/creation.html

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Denise


So, god made you go through a terrible time so that you would turn to him. Why didn't he just tap you on the shoulder and say "Hey, Ruby, I'm god, nice to see you."

I'm sorry if I did not make things clear, but it was not God who put me through a terrible time. I was fully responsible...for the most part.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


Like the rest of the forum isn't? C'mon, feel free to spit it out.

I think I will wait til tomorrow to spit it out!:D I am very sleepy for now...it would come out as dribble. I will probably start a new thread in order to post my tale.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Clancy
Oh, Ruby, I think I understand. It sounds like you personally experienced something that felt like genuine divine intervention at a time in your life when you needed it most.

It was more like deliverance.

I think the power of personal experience cannot be argued against. It won't persuade anyone else (and shouldn't), but I can see how experiencing something amazing in your own life could totally change a person's belief system.

But people will and do argue against personal experience. I know my story will be put through the shredder by some. :(

[Denise]

Originally posted by Ruby


I'm sorry if I did not make things clear, but it was not God who put me through a terrible time. I was fully responsible...for the most part.

I understand. But understand that believing in an omnipotent being meant that he allowed it to happen, thus he was responsible for not stopping it.

Example. You see a person going into the water when you spotted a shark 5 minutes before. Do you...

A. Alert them about the shark
or...
B. Do nothing and save them when they cry out for help so they can know that you are their savior.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Ruby


It was more like deliverance.



But people will and do argue against personal experience. I know my story will be put through the shredder by some. :(

Actually, you are probably correct. My advice is to stick to the topics such as the evidences for your beliefs without your personal incident if possible.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by c4ts


You know, if you had gone to the mental hospital (or at least a doctor), you probably would have been treated more effectively. But medicine is expensive, and I suppose religion seemed more palatable at the time. Why swallow bitter pills when you could be perscribed a pastry every week?

At the time, I knew that to seek Psychiatric help would mean revealing to my dad.....who I was living with.....what was going on, and I could NOT do that.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by SFB


Now that was good!

:D

Logic, religion, and the reality of life just don't jive.

Ruby: I have a question for you: If you believe in the Christian God, how do you explain other gods, and how other peoples, cultures too, believe in different gods? I think these disparities say something about human nature. For one example, Muslims will kill in the name of Allah. Xtians killed in the name of God for many years (now, they've come to their senses?). Doesn't this strike you as a just an aspect of being human? Beyond that, think of other cultures and their explanations for the world around them. Who is to say the true god is not a dues ex machina, or the Buddha, or what the Raelians figure? Please think about the way humans think when you consider these ideas. There are so many possibilities because we are human, the way I see it.

If you want to consider serious criticism of Christianity, I suggest you start with this site: http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html

Please check it out, or buy the book The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty (the site is author's), or consider less-complicated arguments in The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible by Ruth Hurmence Green, or at least look at the amazon.com reviews of these books.

Sincerely, I don't mean to imply you have not already read this stuff.

[I won't be able to respond for the week - I'll not have Internet access, not that my post will matter......]

I checked out the link. I will delve into it more when I am not so sleepy. There have been other gods around for eons. I don't know the history on all of them, but certainly don't deny any of the stories and beliefs in them held by many.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ruby


At the time, I knew that to seek Psychiatric help would mean revealing to my dad.....who I was living with.....what was going on, and I could NOT do that.

So you're saying cowardice led you to religion? :confused:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by c4ts


So you're saying cowardice led you to religion? :confused:

It was fear and desperation that led.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ruby


It was fear and desperation that led.

If you say so. It was your decision, after all, and I am not going to bother you for details because it's none of my business. But I am curious, did you eventually solve the problem?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
gnome, I like the double-barrelled approach (combining (a)gnosticism and (a)theism).

I put myself at Agnostic Atheist tending towards Gnostic Atheist.
In fact I'm almost all the way there and I believe that is the only logical position. Substitute "faeries" for "God" and you will see what I mean.

regards,
BillyJoe

BTW, everyone, you are all wasting your time with Ruby. Her position is emotionally based not rationally based. She will never be convinced by logical argument. Also, aren't you sick and tired of conversion stories. They are boring. They promise much but deliver little. I just hope Ruby never comes to harm because of her religion or harms anyone else because of it

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I would no longer be a Christian if it was based on emotion. I've been through enough to feel sick of the emotional aspect of Christianity. Yes, I do have hope and faith in small measure that I cling to, but my belief has been forged through logic and rational thinking. I find it very hard to be convinced of an atheistic view point as it does not make sense to me. It seems to require a level of faith that I don't have at all.......but I am still examining the evidence for the belief, and gaining more insight. My conversion story is not run of the mill. There are actually many questions I have concerning what happened that might only get naswered here...and that's another reason I might post my story.

Why would I come to harm for my beliefs? Why would I harm anyone else? Those are odd statements for you to make.:confused:

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ruby




Why would I come to harm for my beliefs? Why would I harm anyone else? Those are odd statements for you to make.:confused:

Well, if you agree that God is the highest of all powers, and if you agree that anything that could be called God would have to be moral (the idea is that without God, there could be no morality), then you must agree that God could make the things that are moral immoral, and the things that are immoral, moral, and that means someone can justify harm to others in the name of the Lord. Otherwise, you would have to acknowledge a power higher than God, because then morality would be some kind of universal laws that even God cannot change.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Are there any former atheists here? If so, what religion/theistic philosophy do you now subscribe to? Why?

The subject intrigues me greatly.



I currently consider myself a "skeptical fideist", almost entirely because of Martin Gardner's absolutely excellent book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener". He devotes an entire chapter to why he is not an atheist and is widely considered a model skeptic.

A few very successful people I've admired considered God a central part of their life, which also helped.

The biggest "why" is nothing more than that believing just "feels" more right to me than not believing.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Ruby
I find it very hard to be convinced of an atheistic view point as it does not make sense to me. It seems to require a level of faith that I don't have at all.......but I am still examining the evidence for the belief, and gaining more insight. Agnostic athesim does not involve faith or belief but the application of logic and reason.
Gnostic Atheism in its absolute form may be a belief not based on logic and reason but you won't find many adherents.

Originally posted by Ruby
My conversion story is not run of the mill. There are actually many questions I have concerning what happened that might only get naswered here...and that's another reason I might post my story.Okay, I am sorry, if you choose to tell you story, I will try to listen and understand your situation.

Originally posted by Ruby
Why would I come to harm for my beliefs? Why would I harm anyone else? Those are odd statements for you to make. Unfortunately, Ruby, it is not exactly unknown for someone to come to harm because of their religion. Neither is it unknown for someone to do harm because of their religion. I hope you don't ever find yourself in either of these situations.

[gnome]

Originally posted by c4ts
Well, if you agree that God is the highest of all powers, and if you agree that anything that could be called God would have to be moral (the idea is that without God, there could be no morality), then you must agree that God could make the things that are moral immoral, and the things that are immoral, moral, and that means someone can justify harm to others in the name of the Lord. Otherwise, you would have to acknowledge a power higher than God, because then morality would be some kind of universal laws that even God cannot change.

Wow. This is the most concise explanation of the problem I have ever heard.

Well said.

[LCBOY]

Can you define morality?

[Yahzi]

LCBOY
There IS a certain amount of faith and hope that a person MUST have to believe what the Bible says is true. I totally agree with you on this point. But there is also accurate historial accounts about Jesus Christ. I do not have a "blind" faith.
So... if we show you that those historical accounts are in fact fakes made up after the fact, will you stop believing in God?

Just for the sake of argument, pretend for a minute that I have invincible proof that the Bible is historically inaccurate in virtually every way, that it is a just a book made up by some dissident Jews around 100 AD. Imagine that I have this proof. Now: does your faith change at all?

If the answer is yes, then we can talk about historical evidence. If the answer is no, then you do indeed have a blind faith, and no discussion of evidence is needed, since you don't actually care about the evidence.

Is there anything I can say that will change your mind? If not, then there really isn't much point in talking, is there?

Can you define morality?
The Golden Rule.

Think about it: is any other moral rule necessary?


Ruby
People don't believe in religion because of what they think; they believe in it because of what they feel. Obviously religion made you feel better. That is a good thing, and nobody wants to take it away from you. On the other hand, surely you understand that just because believing something is true makes you feel good doesn't mean it is true.

If I told you that you had just won the lottery, you'd feel pretty happy, right up until you went to cash in your ticket and found out I was lying.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by c4ts


Well, if you agree that God is the highest of all powers, and if you agree that anything that could be called God would have to be moral (the idea is that without God, there could be no morality), then you must agree that God could make the things that are moral immoral, and the things that are immoral, moral, and that means someone can justify harm to others in the name of the Lord. Otherwise, you would have to acknowledge a power higher than God, because then morality would be some kind of universal laws that even God cannot change.

Your logic does not flow. Even if one accepts that God could make immoral things suddenly moral (and vice versa) this does not mean that anyone can justify harm to others in the name of the Lord.

Undoubtedly, many through history have attempted to do just that. But if someone says, for example, that killing an abortion doctor is justified in the name of the lord that does not make it so. If God wanted to make killing abortion doctors morally justified, he could do so, AND NO ONE WOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

In essence, you are saying this: you must agree that the government could make the things that are legal illegal, and the things that are illegal, legal, and that means someone can justify harm to others in the name of the Government.

See how this makes no sense? Your premise does not lead to your conclusion.

[LCBOY]

So... if we show you that those historical accounts are in fact fakes made up after the fact, will you stop believing in God?
Just for the sake of argument, pretend for a minute that I have invincible proof that the Bible is historically inaccurate in virtually every way, that it is a just a book made up by some dissident Jews around 100 AD. Imagine that I have this proof. Now: does your faith change at all?

quick answer, YES

[LCBOY]

What is the Golden Rule?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Denise


I guess I'm not being direct enough. What arguments did you specifically feel tipped the scales so to speak on the question of the divinity of Jesus etc. To let you know where I am coming from, I don't think I've seen enough evidence that Jesus actually existed, much less that he is divine.

Extra-biblical accounts. I also believed the biblical account itself on the divinity of Jesus. I have not ever met with Jesus in the flesh...so can't use that one....and if I did, I'd sound a bit off my head! :D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Denise


How do you decide what to take literally? For instance, obviously (to me) Genesis cannot be taken literally as in the Earth being created in six days.

Well, for instance, the book of Revelation is obviously symbolic. There are some passages in the epistles that are references to the culture of the time and not intended to be taken literally for now....such as, women not cutting their hair....and it being a shame for a woman hair to be shorn. There are a lot of laws and ordnances in the OT that no longer have to be followed too.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Denise


I understand. But understand that believing in an omnipotent being meant that he allowed it to happen, thus he was responsible for not stopping it.

He gave us free will to make choices in this life. As awful as it was to go through what I did, I would not have ended up a true believer any other way. In the end, He did stop the torment I was under.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by c4ts


Well, if you agree that God is the highest of all powers, and if you agree that anything that could be called God would have to be moral (the idea is that without God, there could be no morality), then you must agree that God could make the things that are moral immoral, and the things that are immoral, moral, and that means someone can justify harm to others in the name of the Lord. Otherwise, you would have to acknowledge a power higher than God, because then morality would be some kind of universal laws that even God cannot change.

Yes, God could make the things that are immoral moral, but He does not, and would not do that. He does not violate His own character and laws. He operates in perfection. It is humans who do terrible things in the name of God trying to turn the immoral into moral.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Yahzi
LCBOY

So... if we show you that those historical accounts are in fact fakes made up after the fact, will you stop believing in God?

Just for the sake of argument, pretend for a minute that I have invincible proof that the Bible is historically inaccurate in virtually every way, that it is a just a book made up by some dissident Jews around 100 AD. Imagine that I have this proof. Now: does your faith change at all?

For my part, that would be a definite yes.


Ruby
People don't believe in religion because of what they think; they believe in it because of what they feel. Obviously religion made you feel better. That is a good thing, and nobody wants to take it away from you. On the other hand, surely you understand that just because believing something is true makes you feel good doesn't mean it is true.

If I told you that you had just won the lottery, you'd feel pretty happy, right up until you went to cash in your ticket and found out I was lying.

As I said before, I think, if I based my stance on being Christian on how I feel, I'd probably not be a Christian right now. However, my feelings certainly play into it. Being a skeptic makes me shy away from a lot of feelings and emotion associated with Christianity. Any religion or belief system can make a person feel good. Christianity has not topped the charts as far as making people the most joyful...although some Christians might argue that.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Thanz


Your logic does not flow. Even if one accepts that God could make immoral things suddenly moral (and vice versa) this does not mean that anyone can justify harm to others in the name of the Lord.
Yet you do not argue that such a thing is impossible, since there are numerous historical examples where it does, and you admit to them. You say they are attempts, but if you concede that they failed to be justified, you will have to dismiss them as lies.

Undoubtedly, many through history have attempted to do just that. But if someone says, for example, that killing an abortion doctor is justified in the name of the lord that does not make it so. If God wanted to make killing abortion doctors morally justified, he could do so, AND NO ONE WOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
You must either concede that because nobody can tell the difference, it means that God is truly powerless to reverse morality, or you must examine your point that those who justify killing in the name of the Lord do not succeed in their justification. If we have no way of knowing when the rules change, then we can't tell if they already have. Thus, you are in no position to say those who killed for the glory of God did not successfully justify their actions, so it follows that you can't call them lies.

In essence, you are saying this: you must agree that the government could make the things that are legal illegal, and the things that are illegal, legal, and that means someone can justify harm to others in the name of the Government.

See how this makes no sense?
No.

Your premise does not lead to your conclusion.
I fail to see how it does not, and I do not think you have illustrated your final point well enough to prove it to me. Your example ignored some important premises as well.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by c4ts

Yet you do not argue that such a thing is impossible, since there are numerous historical examples where it does, and you admit to them. You say they are attempts, but if you concede that they failed to be justified, you will have to dismiss them as lies.

Uh, so what? I'd agree that people have done terrible things, supposedly in the name of the Lord. For example, the Spanish Inquisition (did you expect that? ;) ) But that does not mean that they were justified by the Lord.


You must either concede that because nobody can tell the difference, it means that God is truly powerless to reverse morality, or you must examine your point that those who justify killing in the name of the Lord do not succeed in their justification. If we have no way of knowing when the rules change, then we can't tell if they already have. Thus, you are in no position to say those who killed for the glory of God did not successfully justify their actions, so it follows that you can't call them lies.

If the rules have changed, then we would all be viewing the world through the new rules. How does this allow someone to justify harm in the name of the Lord? At best, you could argue that an action that was justified is not now justified. But that doesn't help you with any current actions.


I fail to see how it does not, and I do not think you have illustrated your final point well enough to prove it to me. Your example ignored some important premises as well.

What important premises have I ignored? The Government is the source of laws. Without the government, there would be no laws. It is a direct parallel.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ruby


Yes, God could make the things that are immoral moral, but He does not, and would not do that. He does not violate His own character and laws. He operates in perfection. It is humans who do terrible things in the name of God trying to turn the immoral into moral.

So does that mean you agree that morality is higher than God? Your answer seems to go both ways.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Thanz


Uh, so what? I'd agree that people have done terrible things, supposedly in the name of the Lord. For example, the Spanish Inquisition (did you expect that? ;) ) But that does not mean that they were justified by the Lord.



You said they were not justified. Please explain.

If the rules have changed, then we would all be viewing the world through the new rules. How does this allow someone to justify harm in the name of the Lord? At best, you could argue that an action that was justified is not now justified. But that doesn't help you with any current actions.

What is preventing God from punishing virtue and rewarding sin? My point is that if God is omnipotent, nothing is preventing Him from doing so. But, this means you must have agreed to an earlier point, that without God, you cannot have morality. If morality is higher than God, then not only is God's power limited to being moral, but you will not need Him to be moral.



What important premises have I ignored? The Government is the source of laws. Without the government, there would be no laws. It is a direct parallel.

The two most important premises are that morality is what an omnipotent God dictates, and that without God, you cannot have morality. You have not paralleled either with government. All laws are not necessarily moral in the first place, as morality is already assumed to be higher than the government. Morality should be possible regardless of law. If you would like to argue otherwise, please do so.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Are there any former atheists here? If so, what religion/theistic philosophy do you now subscribe to? Why?

The subject intrigues me greatly.


edited for bizarre typo that caused huge confusion.

Yea, I was a former atheist, when I was about 15. On the other hand my 15 year self's idea of god approximated to a very large extent to the idea of God that atheists in this forum hold.

[Kashyapa]

To answer the original question: I regard myself to be an agnostic atheist, meaning that I have no absolute proof that there is no god, but the evidence seems to indicate a universe that operates entirely according to natural laws (mechanistically). My personal philisophy, a combination of Zen and Taoism, supports and structures my agnostic/athiest stance; my practice of those philosophies absolutely emphasizes empiricism and objectivity. I picked them up when I was around 20 or so.

[Loki]

EvilYeti,

'The biggest "why" is nothing more than that believing just "feels" more right to me than not believing.
A quarter of a century ago (!!!) I was an enthusiatic reader of Erik Von Daniken. His theories just "felt right". In one simple stroke, he solved a myriad of mysteries. Unfortunately, a little more research and reading revealed that there was virtually no "proof" behind any of his claims - and eventually it became obvious that he wasn't above outright fraud (read "Gold of the Gods" for damning evidence!).

It "felt right", but it was completely false.

[Finella]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clancy
LCBOY,

The problem I have with Christianity is that it isn't just a philosophy, its a theistic religion. The stumbling blocks for me aren't so much the philosophical things like the "Sermon on the Mount", as much as they are the idea you "must accept Jesus as your savior" are "saved by grace", that he literally "died for our sins", etc.

Not all Christians hold these to be hard and fast tenets of their faith. They find them a way to understand and become closer to God, but not necessarily the way.

But, back to the crucifixion, since I've always wanted to ask a believer this: don't you find Jesus's dying words on the cross a depressing indictment of God rather than an inspiration?

It's inspiring because it is heartbreaking: Jesus himself felt as if God had left him. Just like all of us do at terrible times in our lives. Therefore Jesus knows the existential heartache of being a human --> God knows the existential heartache of being a human. And yet, although he could have zapped himself off the cross, he didn't. He stayed, he stuck to the Plan, and suffered. He had to have some faith in God because part of him was human, even though part of him was God. (Actually, I think the early church argued a great deal over this -- he's all human AND all God, but that's another debate :) ).

I'll go back to lurking... this is quite a good thread.

---,---'--{@

[LCBOY]

Not all Christians hold these to be hard and fast tenets of their faith. They find them a way to understand and become closer to God, but not necessarily the way.

Finella,

You post is interesting because it leads back to what it means to be a Christian. If one does not hold to the basic tenets of Christianity then can one call oneself a Christian? I believe Jesus said, "I am THE WAY, the truth and the light.". He didn't say "a way". If one chooses not to believe that this statement by Jesus is true, that is ok, but then I don't see how they can claim to be a Christian...

[Finella]

You post is interesting because it leads back to what it means to be a Christian. If one does not hold to the basic tenets of Christianity then can one call oneself a Christian? I believe Jesus said, "I am THE WAY, the truth and the light.". He didn't say "a way". If one chooses not to believe that this statement by Jesus is true, that is ok, but then I don't see how they can claim to be a Christian...

I do struggle with that statement of Jesus', but since I ultimately believe that non-Christians can still be a part of whatever the afterlife is, I believe that there's either something else to that statement, or it is an inaccurate quote of Jesus'.

One can still be a Christian and not insist it is the only way to God. I worship Christ, I believe he is the son of God, and I believe he is part of the whole God (the Trinity) who loves and cares for God's creation. My baptismal covenant did not require me to state that Jesus was THE way to salvation.

There are many Christian denominations that would say otherwise, however, I share this only to broaden the idea of 'normal' Christian belief.

---,---'--{@

[Loki]

finella,

Jesus himself felt as if God had left him. Just like all of us do at terrible times in our lives.
God can't leave you if he was never there.

Therefore Jesus knows the existential heartache of being a human --> God knows the existential heartache of being a human.
If it'a given that god designed the universe, and the nature of human souls, surely he already knew the existential heartache of being human? Or does god learn from watching us?

And yet, although he could have zapped himself off the cross, he didn't. He stayed, he stuck to the Plan, and suffered.
Well, either the god-part of Jesus was talking to the human-part, or it wasn't (I've never been quite clear on just how come Jesus can be god, yet not know what god knows? After all, he's not a god, he's the one and only god. Aparently god can give part of himself amnesia?). If it was, then it's not much of a sacrifice, since he knew he was getting resurrected in a few days. If there was no communication between the divine and the human, then surely these last words reflect what many humans have found thorgh history - that even in your hour of greatest need, god refuses to intervene. The subsequent resurrection does little to change this - you can just as easily interpret this as god saying "oops...didn't mean for him/me to actually die - I'd better resurrect myself before I create an enormous paradox!"

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Finella


I do struggle with that statement of Jesus', but since I ultimately believe that non-Christians can still be a part of whatever the afterlife is, I believe that there's either something else to that statement, or it is an inaccurate quote of Jesus'.

One can still be a Christian and not insist it is the only way to God. I worship Christ, I believe he is the son of God, and I believe he is part of the whole God (the Trinity) who loves and cares for God's creation. My baptismal covenant did not require me to state that Jesus was THE way to salvation.
---,---'--{@

However Yeshua didn't state it first: a couple of THOUSAND years before "Jesus" - Horus said "I am the way, the truth and the light". He was also a god-man who was killed. weird huh?

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Finella


I do struggle with that statement of Jesus', but since I ultimately believe that non-Christians can still be a part of whatever the afterlife is, I believe that there's either something else to that statement, or it is an inaccurate quote of Jesus'.

One can still be a Christian and not insist it is the only way to God. I worship Christ, I believe he is the son of God, and I believe he is part of the whole God (the Trinity) who loves and cares for God's creation. My baptismal covenant did not require me to state that Jesus was THE way to salvation.

There are many Christian denominations that would say otherwise, however, I share this only to broaden the idea of 'normal' Christian belief.

---,---'--{@


Finella,

Can you define what a Christian is to you? I am very interested...

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Finella
I believe he is the son of God, and I believe he is part of the whole God (the Trinity) who loves and cares for God's creation. My baptismal covenant did not require me to state that Jesus was THE way to salvation. [/B]

Evidence, please.

[darling]

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Evidence, please. You want a scan of her baptismal covenant??!!??

[Thanz]

Originally posted by c4ts

You said they were not justified. Please explain.

Do I really have to explain that torturing people until they "admit" to trumped up charges of being a "heretic" is not justified?

What is preventing God from punishing virtue and rewarding sin? My point is that if God is omnipotent, nothing is preventing Him from doing so. But, this means you must have agreed to an earlier point, that without God, you cannot have morality. If morality is higher than God, then not only is God's power limited to being moral, but you will not need Him to be moral.

I do not agree that without God you cannot have morality. There are many moral theories that do not rely on the existence of God.

The two most important premises are that morality is what an omnipotent God dictates, and that without God, you cannot have morality. You have not paralleled either with government. All laws are not necessarily moral in the first place, as morality is already assumed to be higher than the government. Morality should be possible regardless of law. If you would like to argue otherwise, please do so.

But I have paralleled them in the legal sphere. I am not relying on the government for morals, I am relying on them for laws. And Laws are what a government dictates, and without the Government, there would be no laws. Does this mean that anyone can justify harm (legally justify) in the name of the Government? I say no.

[BillyJoe]

Ruby, are we going to hear your little story?

.....because I'm pretty tired of readin' all that sh(insert i here)t above.
Instead, I'll sing to my guitar until you are ready to share with us.....


Hello Ruby in the dust
Has your band begun to rust
After all the sin we've had
I was hopin' that we turn back
Old enough now to change your name
When so many love you is it the same
It's the woman in you that makes you want to play this game.

[Neil Young: "Cowgirl in the Sand]

regards,
BillyJoe

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


On the other hand my 15 year self's idea of god approximated to a very large extent to the idea of God that atheists in this forum hold.

And what idea is that?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Ruby, are we going to hear your little story?

.....because I'm pretty tired of readin' all that sh(insert i here)t above.
Instead, I'll sing to my guitar until you are ready to share with us.....


Hello Ruby in the dust
Has your band begun to rust
After all the sin we've had
I was hopin' that we turn back
Old enough now to change your name
When so many love you is it the same
It's the woman in you that makes you want to play this game.

[Neil Young: "Cowgirl in the Sand]

regards,
BillyJoe

I posted it here-----> http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17946&perpage=10&pagenumber=1

[Ruby]

Originally posted by c4ts


So does that mean you agree that morality is higher than God? Your answer seems to go both ways.

I don't believe morality is higher than God. God's level of morality is perfect.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Finella,

You post is interesting because it leads back to what it means to be a Christian. If one does not hold to the basic tenets of Christianity then can one call oneself a Christian? I believe Jesus said, "I am THE WAY, the truth and the light.". He didn't say "a way". If one chooses not to believe that this statement by Jesus is true, that is ok, but then I don't see how they can claim to be a Christian...

I think that is where all of Christianity hinges..on Jesus claim to be "The way" and that no one could come to the Father "except through ME".

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ruby


I think that is where all of Christianity hinges..on Jesus claim to be "The way" and that no one could come to the Father "except through ME".

No, that is just one quote out of the ENTIRE New Testament, and I disagree if one quote is to be chosen to represent the whole of the religion. If Christianity can be said to hinge upon a particular interpretation of a single quote, then it's "do unto others as they would do unto you." It's good on its own, but after some interpretation, "do unto others" means "convert" and "as they would do unto you" means "everybody else."

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Clancy


I'm just interested why a Christian wouldn't feel the same sadness and total lack of inspiration and faith that I do from Jesus' unanswered question to God, "Why have you forsaken me?"

I'm joining the thread late, so I'm not sure if this has been addressed.

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools for eight years. Although it was never explicitly taught, the general idea here is that God sometimes seems to forsake us, but it always works out in the end. The reason that Christianity is so comforting to so many people is that the existence of evil and suffering does not need to be explained -- Christians do not expect to be rewarded in this life, but the next. It's like choking down a big steaming pile of okra because you know you'll get dessert afterwards.

Personally, I find it more helpful to think of evil and suffering as challenges to be overcome, rather than an intrinsic part of "paying your dues" on the way to heaven.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by c4ts


No, that is just one quote out of the ENTIRE New Testament, and I disagree if one quote is to be chosen to represent the whole of the religion. If Christianity can be said to hinge upon a particular interpretation of a single quote, then it's "do unto others as they would do unto you." It's good on its own, but after some interpretation, "do unto others" means "convert" and "as they would do unto you" means "everybody else."



But in summation, to be a Christian means to believe in Jesus Christ and who He said He was.

"do unto others" means "convert'? I'm sorry, but you won't find the word "convert" in the Greek translation.

Matthew 7:12 says "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets."(NASB) "do unto others"/"treat people the same way....", is a summary for the second commandement...that is, to love your neighbor as you love yourself. It has nothing to do with conversion. It has all to do with the behavior and character of a Christian.

You can do all the good works....loving others...etc...all you want but if you don't believe in Jesus, you can't be called a Christian. Jesus is the foundation......Himself.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


I'm joining the thread late, so I'm not sure if this has been addressed.

I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools for eight years. Although it was never explicitly taught, the general idea here is that God sometimes seems to forsake us, but it always works out in the end. The reason that Christianity is so comforting to so many people is that the existence of evil and suffering does not need to be explained -- Christians do not expect to be rewarded in this life, but the next. It's like choking down a big steaming pile of okra because you know you'll get dessert afterwards.

Personally, I find it more helpful to think of evil and suffering as challenges to be overcome, rather than an intrinsic part of "paying your dues" on the way to heaven.

That's the way I see it too. :D

[Denise]

Originally posted by Ruby


That's the way I see it too. :D

And that's why Christianity can be used to control people. Back when kings were thought to be chosen by god (render unto Caesar what is Caesars) people didn't generally rebel until society became a little bit more secular. People were willing to put up with all kinds of suffering because they would get their reward in heaven instead of doing something about the hardship they experienced in life.

To me, Islam looks a lot like Christianity did before the Reformation.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Ruby


I think that is where all of Christianity hinges..on Jesus claim to be "The way" and that no one could come to the Father "except through ME".

So you believe Christianity is the only way to aquire spiritual salvation?

What happens( has happened) to everyone else?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ruby


But in summation, to be a Christian means to believe in Jesus Christ and who He said He was.

"do unto others" means "convert'? I'm sorry, but you won't find the word "convert" in the Greek transaltion.

Matthew 7:12 says "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets."(NASB) "do unto others"/"treat people the same way....", is a summary for the second commandement...that is, to love your neighbor as you love yourself. It has nothing to do with conversion. It has all to do with the behavior and character of a Christian.

You can do all the good works....loving others...etc...all you want but if you don't believe in Jesus, you can't be called a Christian. Jesus is the foundation......Himself.


Interpretation and translation are two different things (albeit my example was more of a summary), although you must interpret if you are to translate Greek. But, your interpretation does amount to the conversion of others.

What Christianity does is interpret more than translate, and an interpretation of that quote is what you have provided when you said it was a summary of the second commandment. My interpretation is that the golden rule is more of a summary of Aristotle's description of justice in Nichomachean Ethics, in which case it applies to the behavior of all people, Christian or otherwise. Your interpretation, however, is that the golden rule, being just, pertains only to Christian behavior. And if you say that only Christians can be just, then it has everything to do with conversion. All it takes is another quote that encourages a the prevention of injustice in others, and that's where the second commandment comes in. To love your self means to be just, for injustice is self-destructive. To love your neighbors as you love yourself, then, means you will encourage them to be just and discourage them to be unjust, as you would do with yourself. And since you can use justice and Christianity interchangeably now (as the summary of the second commandment only pertains to Christian behavior), the second commandment means converting others to Christianity. So, if the golden rule is to be the summary of the second commandment, then it can also mean you must convert your fellow heathens.

As for the quote you mentioned as the basis of Christianity, here's the context of it:


13:31 When Judas had gone out, Jesus said, "Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him right away. Children, I am still with you for a little while. You will look for me, and just as I said to the Jewish authorities, 'Where I am going you cannot come,' now I tell you the same. I give you a new commandment-to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples- if you have love for one another."

Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?"

Jesus replied, "Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later." Peter said to him, "Lord, why can't I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you!"

Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? I tell you the solemn truth, the rooster will not crow until you have denied me three times!"

"Do not let your hearts be distressed. You believe in God; believe also in me. There are many dwelling places in my Father's house. Otherwise, I would have told you. I am going away to make ready a place for you. And if I go and make ready a place for you, I will come again and take you to be with me, so that where I am you may be too. And you know the way where I am going."

Thomas said, "Lord, we don't know where you are going. How can we know the way?"

Jesus replied, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him."

Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be content."

Jesus replied, "Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me, but if you do not believe me, believe because of the miraculous deeds themselves. I tell you the solemn truth, the person who believes in me will perform the miraculous deeds that I am doing, and will perform greater deeds than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it."

So that quote you mentioned is Jesus telling Thomas basically "I'll wait up for you when it's your turn to die, so at least we won't be seperated if we get lost." Thomas doesn't actually get told how to do anything or what to do when it's his turn to die (Jesus didn't answer his question directly, and may not really know the answer either). Notice how Thomas seems to expect some kind of guide to the afterlife from a man who hasn't been there yet, which indicates he doesn't think Jesus will know what will happen to him when he dies because he's never been dead before. I think it's kind of funny how Phillip catches on and immediatlely asks Jesus to prove it. But that's my interpretation of it.

Now, does it look like Jesus is meaning the same thing as he does when Jack Chick quotes him at the end of Big Daddy (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)?

[Loki]

Ruby,

(Wandering off track...)
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him."
Playing the interpretation game, it seems entirely plausible that Jesus is referring to a "one-time event" here. Perhaps he meant that no one comes to the Father before he does, and now that he is about to do so, the way is open. It is certainly true that christian theology teaches that the "salvation comes from belief in Jesus" interpretation is correct - but the raw words alone don't seem terribly conclusive.

Have you considered the Islamic take on this verse?

From here : (http://www.ais.org/~maftab/akbar)
The above explicit statement confirms that Jesus was going to prepare "a" mansion and not "all" the mansions in "my Father's house". Obviously, the prophets that came before him and the one to come after, were to prepare the other mansions for their respective followers.
The prophet that came after Jesus had evidently shown the current "way" to a modern mansion in the kingdom of heaven.

Besides; the verse clearly states; Jesus was the "WAY" to a mansion. It is a folly to believe that Jesus (or any prophet) was the "DESTINATION".
Doesn't this interpretation clearly offer the possibility that Jesus was "the way" at the time that he spoke, but that doesn't mean that no other "way" would be possible in the future? The Islamic belief is that god did indeed send another prophet after Jesus, offering another "way" - Mohammed. Why would you reject this?

And if we're taking this particular conversation as being quite literal, then what precisely does the next paragraph mean?...
"Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me, but if you do not believe me, believe because of the miraculous deeds themselves. I tell you the solemn truth, the person who believes in me will perform the miraculous deeds that I am doing, and will perform greater deeds than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it."
Jesus will do *anything* I ask if it's in his name? If I believe I'll be able to do miraculous deeds? The first part in bold seems to clearly offer at least two alternative roads to a state of "belief" - belief in Jesus, or belief in "miraculous deeds"?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Loki

Jesus will do *anything* I ask if it's in his name?

Then why didn't he show God to Phillip when he asked Jesus to do it in his name??

[Finella]

Originally posted by LCBOY

Finella,
Can you define what a Christian is to you? I am very interested...

I pretty much said it before. To me, a Christian believes that Jesus is the son of God. That Jesus came to the world to demonstrate God's love for us. That his life was an example to us of how to live life in connection with God. That, through Jesus' life and death, we saw that nothing can separate us from the love of God. That, ultimately, we will all understand the love God has for us after this physical life ends.

As an Episcopalian, I have a fairly broad definition. This definition leaves room for others to be "saved". An example of this is related to the gospel passage in question: "I am the way, the truth and the life..."

In C.S. Lewis' final volume of the Chronicles of Narnia, The Last Battle, one of the final scenes involves all of the children who had ever been in Narnia entering the Real Narnia, with Aslan urging them to go "higher up" and leave behind the physical, mortal Narnia which had just disintigrated. The children come across a Calormen soldier who was sitting in a contemplative pose. now, Calormens were enemies of the Narnians, since they were a violent nation who worshipped the god Tash, and not Aslan. The children asked the soldier why he was there, and he told a lengthy and embellished story about how he was suprised to see himself in Aslan's country as well; when Aslan came across him, he expected to be eaten on the spot. But (in a nutshell), Aslan reassured him by saying he knew that the soldier had been a kindhearted man, and although he thought he was worshipping Tash, his actions and his heart were actually more in line with Aslan's truth. Therefore, all the time this soldier thought he was worshipping Tash, his actions and his search for goodness and truth actually led him to Aslan, though he did not know it. Thus the soldier could enter the Real Narnia.

This statement of Jesus is kinda in the same vein: "No one comes to the father except through me." He did not say, "unless you believe in me you cannot come to the father," he said one had to go through him.

I may be worshipping the wrong diety, and I'm willing to say that's a possibility. But if my actions and my heart are loving and true to some kind of universal ultimate good, than I believe the real diety, whoever or whatever it is, will see that and welcome me. But, based on my experiences (and these are not just limited to feelings and logic) I believe Jesus is a part of the Real God.

Hope this makes sense...

---,---'--{@

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Diogenes


So you believe Christianity is the only way to aquire spiritual salvation?

What happens( has happened) to everyone else?

I am not sure how I feel on this issue. I find it hard to believe that only those who profess Jesus are saved. I am just trying to point out what I think the scriptures are saying constitutes a Christian.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Denise


And that's why Christianity can be used to control people. Back when kings were thought to be chosen by god (render unto Caesar what is Caesars) people didn't generally rebel until society became a little bit more secular. People were willing to put up with all kinds of suffering because they would get their reward in heaven instead of doing something about the hardship they experienced in life.

To me, Islam looks a lot like Christianity did before the Reformation.

Well, I never said anything about not overcoming any hardship or problem you face in life. I think it's foolish to let adversity and strife be burdens that you can change.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by c4ts
[B]

Interpretation and translation are two different things (albeit my example was more of a summary), although you must interpret if you are to translate Greek. But, your interpretation does amount to the conversion of others.

What Christianity does is interpret more than translate, and an interpretation of that quote is what you have provided when you said it was a summary of the second commandment. My interpretation is that the golden rule is more of a summary of Aristotle's description of justice in Nichomachean Ethics, in which case it applies to the behavior of all people, Christian or otherwise. Your interpretation, however, is that the golden rule, being just, pertains only to Christian behavior. And if you say that only Christians can be just, then it has everything to do with conversion.

I do not believe for one moment that only Christians can be just. Anyone can be loving, fair, compassionate, and honest. That is why I cannot see that scripture as pertaining to salvation in any way.

I don't care for Jack Chick tracts! :rolleyes:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by c4ts


Then why didn't he show God to Phillip when he asked Jesus to do it in his name??

John 14:8-9 " Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? "

Jesus was showing God to Phillip. Jesus was God in flesh. That is why He says "He who has seen me has seen the Father". Am I walking into a trap with this one? It's too easy.
:eek:

[Ruby]

You've given me some food for thought. Get back to you on it!

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Finella


I pretty much said it before. To me, a Christian believes that Jesus is the son of God. That Jesus came to the world to demonstrate God's love for us. That his life was an example to us of how to live life in connection with God. That, through Jesus' life and death, we saw that nothing can separate us from the love of God. That, ultimately, we will all understand the love God has for us after this physical life ends.

As an Episcopalian, I have a fairly broad definition. This definition leaves room for others to be "saved". An example of this is related to the gospel passage in question: "I am the way, the truth and the life..."

In C.S. Lewis' final volume of the Chronicles of Narnia, The Last Battle, one of the final scenes involves all of the children who had ever been in Narnia entering the Real Narnia, with Aslan urging them to go "higher up" and leave behind the physical, mortal Narnia which had just disintigrated. The children come across a Calormen soldier who was sitting in a contemplative pose. now, Calormens were enemies of the Narnians, since they were a violent nation who worshipped the god Tash, and not Aslan. The children asked the soldier why he was there, and he told a lengthy and embellished story about how he was suprised to see himself in Aslan's country as well; when Aslan came across him, he expected to be eaten on the spot. But (in a nutshell), Aslan reassured him by saying he knew that the soldier had been a kindhearted man, and although he thought he was worshipping Tash, his actions and his heart were actually more in line with Aslan's truth. Therefore, all the time this soldier thought he was worshipping Tash, his actions and his search for goodness and truth actually led him to Aslan, though he did not know it. Thus the soldier could enter the Real Narnia.

This statement of Jesus is kinda in the same vein: "No one comes to the father except through me." He did not say, "unless you believe in me you cannot come to the father," he said one had to go through him.

I may be worshipping the wrong diety, and I'm willing to say that's a possibility. But if my actions and my heart are loving and true to some kind of universal ultimate good, than I believe the real diety, whoever or whatever it is, will see that and welcome me. But, based on my experiences (and these are not just limited to feelings and logic) I believe Jesus is a part of the Real God.

Hope this makes sense...

---,---'--{@

I love the Chronicles of Narnia. What you say makes perfect sense.

[Loki]

Ruby/Finella,

(finella wrote) : But if my actions and my heart are loving and true to some kind of universal ultimate good, than I believe the real diety, whoever or whatever it is, will see that and welcome me.

(Ruby wrote) : What you say makes perfect sense.
Makes sense to me too! If such a god exists, I would expect such a concept to hold true. And there are several statements that flow from this ....

First, this clearly show the difference between "the goal" (a welcome after death), and "the process" (a loving and true heart).

Second, the "process" is not exclusive to any religion - and not even requiring a religion.

Third, that "the goal" is undetectable and unmeasurable in this life.

This all seems to point to the need to focus - in this life - on "the process", since it is both attainable and measurable here and now. And "the process" doesn't need Jesus...so why add him?

[Finella]

I agree, it's all process. This is why I'm not obsessed with my afterlife, I have enough to learn and gain here first!

But add Jesus because at least you have some guidance in the process.

And this is from my morning meditation -- I think someone asked about this problem of how God could possibly be loving with Jesus dying on the cross. It's brief and simple, but I think it could be helpful: http://forwardmovement.org/todaysreading.cfm

If you read this after today (the 23rd) you'll need to look in the site for the reading for the 23rd -- this link takes you to the day's reading.

---,---'--{@

[ntech]

And how exactly does one get dumber?

[Darat]

Originally posted by ntech
And how exactly does one get dumber?

Well as (to paraphrase an old quote) I am always amazed when I look back on my life how I seem to KNOW much less then I used to! ;)

[ntech]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darat


Well as (to paraphrase an old quote) I am always amazed when I look back on my life how I seem to KNOW much less then I used to! ;) [/QUOTE

Good quote Darat however when we are young we think we know everything. That is why it seems that way.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Finella
I agree, it's all process. This is why I'm not obsessed with my afterlife, I have enough to learn and gain here first!

But add Jesus because at least you have some guidance in the process.

And this is from my morning meditation -- I think someone asked about this problem of how God could possibly be loving with Jesus dying on the cross. It's brief and simple, but I think it could be helpful: http://forwardmovement.org/todaysreading.cfm

If you read this after today (the 23rd) you'll need to look in the site for the reading for the 23rd -- this link takes you to the day's reading.

---,---'--{@ But one night the guard drew the sign of the cross on the dirt floor, so McCain knew his guard was a Christian believer. Wow, knowing ones prison guards are Christians, makes that experience so much more enjoyable..:rolleyes: I think the Father didn’t make You die on a cross, or order You to die that way. I think he permitted You to show your love for us by your willingly enduring the worst we could do to You and incredibly continuing to love us. If only my father had loved me so much..

If only, all little suffering children around the world, could understand that their pain and suffering, is their heavenly father, showing them how much he loves them. Perhaps, if they are fortunanate enough, they will live long enough to learn this.

[Ossai]

Finella
I pretty much said it before. To me, a Christian believes that Jesus is the son of God. That Jesus came to the world to demonstrate God's love for us. That his life was an example to us of how to live life in connection with God. That, through Jesus' life and death, we saw that nothing can separate us from the love of God. That, ultimately, we will all understand the love God has for us after this physical life ends.

As an Episcopalian, I have a fairly broad definition. This definition leaves room for others to be "saved". An example of this is related to the gospel passage in question: "I am the way, the truth and the life..." So you basically believe in the keyma (sp?) and are firmly a member of Paul's Hellenistic Christ cult.

Ossai

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Finella
That Jesus came to the world to demonstrate God's love for us.
Hope this makes sense...


It doesn't..

Why can't God just demonstrate his love for us?

[Finella]

Originally posted by Ossai
Finella
So you basically believe in the keyma (sp?) and are firmly a member of Paul's Hellenistic Christ cult.

Ossai

Keyma? You'll have to explain that a bit, I admit I'm not familiar with this.

I also admit that my definition is a personal one, and one which is derived from my upbringing as an Episcopalian. Therefore, it's not representative of the Episcopal denomination as a whole, and neither do I claim to have THE definition of a Christian. [/disclaimer]

---,---'--{@

[Finella]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Wow, knowing ones prison guards are Christians, makes that experience so much more enjoyable..:rolleyes: If only my father had loved me so much..

If only, all little suffering children around the world, could understand that their pain and suffering, is their heavenly father, showing them how much he loves them. Perhaps, if they are fortunanate enough, they will live long enough to learn this.

There are two different Sufferings happening here which you are not distinguishing. My post dealt with Jesus' suffering. As the meditation states, this suffering demonstrated God's love for us because we hurled all kinds of cruelty, torture, and hatred at God's son, and yet God still loves us and will ultimately welcome us after this life ends.

The purpose of human suffering is quite different, and far too large to convey in this post. Perhaps it could be a new thread (and I would be happy to discuss it there, I am honestly not trying to dodge your question!). Besides, since I never have been an athiest, I am not really one who should be posting in this thread... perhaps one who was an athiest could offer his/her views on this subject, since I, too, would find it interesting how an athiest-turned Christian would explain these points.

---,---'--{@

[Loki]

Finella,

As the meditation states, this suffering demonstrated God's love for us because we hurled all kinds of cruelty, torture, and hatred at God's son, and yet God still loves us and will ultimately welcome us after this life ends.
But it tells us nothing of the kind! At most, it tells us that god does not punish (or reward) us in this life.

Those that hurled the cruelty, torture and hatred were not struck dead on the spot - "see, that prove's god's love"! No, at best it demonstrates that judgement comes later. If anything, it demonstrates god's patience, and that he'd got over the vindictive streak that affected him during the whole Eqyptian Crisis.

[Finella]

Originally posted by Loki
Finella,


But it tells us nothing of the kind! At most, it tells us that god does not punish (or reward) us in this life.

Those that hurled the cruelty, torture and hatred were not struck dead on the spot - "see, that prove's god's love"! No, at best it demonstrates that judgement comes later. If anything, it demonstrates god's patience, and that he'd got over the vindictive streak that affected him during the whole Eqyptian Crisis.

That, too. :D But that's part of the "purpose of suffering" question....

---,---'-{@

[BillyJoe]

I must be crazy. I stopped going to church decades ago and here I am reading thid thread :(

[gnome]

I think it's because for once a thread like this is not devolving into nonsense arguing in circles.

[Ossai]

Finella
Kerygma

For I handed on to you as of first importance that which I in turn had received:

That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
And that he was buried,
And that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
And that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

— 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 NRSV

Basically, Paul usurped the Jesus movement. He buttressed his Hellenistic Christ cult (concerned with salvation) with the Old Testament and opened it to all. Burton L. Mack and Karen Armstrong have both written some excellent books that look at the creation of the Bible. Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces also throws some illumination on the process as well.

If you look at what Jesus was preaching vs. what Paul was pushing you will notice a large difference as well as the differences that arose between the two branches of the developing religion. Look at the letters exchanged (the Pauline letters and the {Matthew ?} letters) each condemning the other camp for various reasons.

The Jesus Movement believed that Jesus was just a man, admittedly a very wise man but hardly divine.

Paul's group, the Hellenistic Christ cult, basically fit the story of Jesus onto a Hellenistic framework. You can look at other religions [cults] of the time and see the same framework.
This frame is from memory and is therefore incomplete.
Divine (magical) birth
something in childhood???
obstacle
temptation
resist temptation and overcome obstacle
enlightenment

Ossai

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LCBOY
The reason was that someone had challenged me to not believe what they believe in but find out for myself and read, study, and think critically through all the arguments for and against the existence of God. It was quite a journey for me because I am a skeptic at heart. I have to think things through for a very long time to accept something. So after five months of intense studying, I came to the conclusion that God is real.

LCBOY,

As others have pointed out, your arrival at your conclusion that the Christian God is real is highly suspect. Your logic is flawed, ie; an argument against the existence of God is an attempt to prove a negative. Also, actual unflawed critical thinking is not how one arrives at religious faith. Totally uncritical "belief" is the only way to come to faith in God. Remember...the key word is faith. Critical thinking is not faith.

Reexamine your journey, and keep going LCBOY. Your conclusion is hopelessly flawed. You either believe in your God, or you don't. There is no other way, since there is no proof. (If you do have proof of God's existence, then I think you'd better e-mail Mr. Randi as he has a very large sum of your money in his possession! :D )

As for your journey,...keep going. Study philosophy, marvel in the miracle of each unfolding day. Sooner or later you will find that you need no 2,000 year old miracle working messiahs, when everyday existence is finally recognized as the real miracle...one that you get to be at the heart of right now. ;)

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Finella


I pretty much said it before. To me, a Christian believes that Jesus is the son of God. That Jesus came to the world to demonstrate God's love for us. That his life was an example to us of how to live life in connection with God. That, through Jesus' life and death, we saw that nothing can separate us from the love of God. That, ultimately, we will all understand the love God has for us after this physical life ends.

As an Episcopalian, I have a fairly broad definition. This definition leaves room for others to be "saved". An example of this is related to the gospel passage in question: "I am the way, the truth and the life..."

In C.S. Lewis' final volume of the Chronicles of Narnia, The Last Battle, one of the final scenes involves all of the children who had ever been in Narnia entering the Real Narnia, with Aslan urging them to go "higher up" and leave behind the physical, mortal Narnia which had just disintigrated. The children come across a Calormen soldier who was sitting in a contemplative pose. now, Calormens were enemies of the Narnians, since they were a violent nation who worshipped the god Tash, and not Aslan. The children asked the soldier why he was there, and he told a lengthy and embellished story about how he was suprised to see himself in Aslan's country as well; when Aslan came across him, he expected to be eaten on the spot. But (in a nutshell), Aslan reassured him by saying he knew that the soldier had been a kindhearted man, and although he thought he was worshipping Tash, his actions and his heart were actually more in line with Aslan's truth. Therefore, all the time this soldier thought he was worshipping Tash, his actions and his search for goodness and truth actually led him to Aslan, though he did not know it. Thus the soldier could enter the Real Narnia.

This statement of Jesus is kinda in the same vein: "No one comes to the father except through me." He did not say, "unless you believe in me you cannot come to the father," he said one had to go through him.

I may be worshipping the wrong diety, and I'm willing to say that's a possibility. But if my actions and my heart are loving and true to some kind of universal ultimate good, than I believe the real diety, whoever or whatever it is, will see that and welcome me. But, based on my experiences (and these are not just limited to feelings and logic) I believe Jesus is a part of the Real God.

Hope this makes sense...

---,---'--{@

Ahhh...now I remember why I like Episcopalians so much! :)

That's lovely Finella. CS Lewis was a fine man, and a decent writer. However, this sentiment does not jibe with "high church" Christian dogma does it? In the end it's "believe, be baptized, or perish"......as a Christian you cannot divorce yourself from the legalistic aspect of Christian dogma.

Your sentimental, "do right, have a clean heart, and be rewarded" , idea is wonderful...and I must say I agree totally with it. But the great difference between you and I is that I know that this view places me outside Christianity. I am an agnostic, yet believe there may well be a God. There is certainly no form of proof other than the implication of our own existence. For me though, that might be enough. I think it's a lot more far fetched that this God has been "defined' by any religion. If God exists, it exists as an "eternal first cause"....infinite in scope. How could we, as finite, mortal beings ever apprehend the infinite? Religion is nothing less than humanity attempting this impossible task.

The Christ cult has throughout its history used the threat of eternal damnation to swell its ranks. This is just one reason I'm not a Christian. I was once an Episcopal like you, but I heard one too many "Jesus is the only way to salvation" sermons.

-zilla

[Ossai]

rikzilla
The Christ cult has throughout its history used the threat of eternal damnation to swell its ranks. You've mentioned the stick, now don't forget the carrot, salvation, or for those more concerned with material matters the exclusivity that comes with being part of a select group (the saved/true christians/etc).

[Acrimonious]

This is ironic. I was just having a discussion along the same lines with a co-worker.

I asked her to show me any piece of contemporary evidence for a Historic Jesus.

Not fables, passed down for decades via oral tradition (before being written down) like elementary-school games of Telephone, or like an angler's Big Fish Story.

Not stories written by "eye witnesses" 50 years after the fact, in a time when the average human lifespan was 39.

Actual, honest, physical reference to a Jesus of Nazareth during 0 - 32 AD.


She did a lot of google searches. She came up with the same thing every other Christian has: nothing. Jesus Christ of Nazareth does not exist in any form until about 70AD.

How could such an important man, with such an important message, who worked countless miracles, and pissed off the Roman Empire real good, have zero trace of existence during the time period he supposedly worked all his mojo?

Her answer?

"God must have destroyed the evidence to test the faith of non-believers like you."


Well, lady, Occham's ghost is chatting with me. He's telling me the evidence never existed. Is a G word significant to you? Because he's telling me to acknowledge a word that starts in G...

Anyway, he's telling me few guys needed a figurehead for their watered down version of Judaism. Come on, it was 70AD, there were no written records, there was no archaeology. Superstition ran rampant. There had been no Rennaissance. It was typical, backward, woo-woo thought, still prevalent today. "Nobody can prove it didn't happen, so they'll believe it did."

Oh, Occham's spirit just gave me the rest of that G word, but I couldn't quite make it out. It sounded like it ended in "ullible." Does this have any significance to you?


Also:

Ruby, a while back, said:
I believe that the bible in the original Hebrew and Greek was without fault

Do you realize that these "original languages" the Bible was printed in contain no spaces when written down? The letters are also all capitalized, so you have no idea where 1 word ends and where another begins. It was up to the translator to put spaces in where he thought they would go.

A great example of the kind of easy mangling that can be done in translating the Bible like this is found in a great book by Phillip K. Dick, title Valis. I'm going to re-use it here.

GODISNOWHERE

can be translated to both:

God is now here.

and

God is nowhere.


Which is right? I have no clue. I doubt King James had any idea, either.

[BobM]

The noise has probably taken over, but in response to the original question posed by this thread:

I am.

[BobM]

GODISNOWHERE
Actually, it's worse that that. The original hebrew didn't write consonants. So what you'd have would be more like "GDSNWHR."

[whitefork]

BobM: Bless you.

I used to be an atheist until I realised that I don't have any concept of the entity that I said I didn't believe in. Then some kind person here said "noncognitivist" and I find that quite satisfactory.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Ruby in response to me:
There have been other gods around for eons. I don't know the history on all of them, but certainly don't deny any of the stories and beliefs in them held by many.

Ruby:

But how can they all be true?? Of course they cannot all be true, and thus religion is merely an aspect of human nature; a weak (esp. in this day and age) attempt to explain nature. Humans yearn for explanation, they find it, and solace, in religion. There are so many arguments against it I am surprised any serious reader here, one who considers all that is said about religion, still clings to it as a valid explanation.

And is your "held by many" above an appeal to popularity? That won't go very far around here. Yes, millions and millions of Christians can be wrong; Muslims, Jews, and Raelians too.

You really should read the second book I recommended in my other post on this thread: The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible by Ruth Hurmence Green, instead of CS Lewis. It is an easy-to-read, common-sense approach to Christianity.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Acrimonious

I doubt King James had any idea, either. ]

Just a reminder - The KJ version was "translated" to conform to the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible, Wycliffs Bible, etc, etc. The KJ wasn't even accepted as a very good translation for years. It eventually endured and became the Fundie favorite of today...even though it is ripe with errors.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by BobM

Actually, it's worse that that. The original hebrew didn't write consonants. So what you'd have would be more like "GDSNWHR."

Which could mean "God is no whore" depending how you place your vowels.

[Finella]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Ahhh...now I remember why I like Episcopalians so much! :)


Aw, that's nice. :)

That's lovely Finella. CS Lewis was a fine man, and a decent writer. However, this sentiment does not jibe with "high church" Christian dogma does it?

Indeed, C.S. Lewis is not representative of all Christianity, he was a universalist in the regard that he believed those in other religions could be 'saved'.

In the end it's "believe, be baptized, or perish"......as a Christian you cannot divorce yourself from the legalistic aspect of Christian dogma.

Yes. Yes, I can. Because it's my faith and I say so. :p Seriously, though, I'm trying to make the point that there are Christians -- and quite prominent ones, at that -- who have this belief in regard to those of other faiths. I'm not making this up as I go along here.

::snip::
If God exists, it exists as an "eternal first cause"....infinite in scope. How could we, as finite, mortal beings ever apprehend the infinite? Religion is nothing less than humanity attempting this impossible task.

Exactly. So why are you bothering to accuse me of not being a "true" Christian, if in the end it's all speculation? I totally agree that it's impossible to really, Really know what God's about. We have some hints, we have some clues. I'm taking what clues I can find and going with it. And so far, it's been working, and has worked for millions of people.

The Christ cult has throughout its history used the threat of eternal damnation to swell its ranks. This is just one reason I'm not a Christian. I was once an Episcopal [sic] like you, but I heard one too many "Jesus is the only way to salvation" sermons.

Golly, you must've gone to a conservative Episcopal church. I was just talking with my mom about this yesterday, and I was saying how, as a cradle Episcopalian, I couldn't recall hearing a single utterance -- not a breath, not a whisper! -- that as Christians we had exclusive rights to salvation and everyone else was doomed to damnation. I could've screened it out, I might not have been listening very well, I don't know. But I can honestly tell you that a good portion, if not a majority, of the Episcopalian membership has a similar belief to mine in reagrd to this particular point.

---,--'--{@

[Yahzi]

Ruby
As awful as it was to go through what I did, I would not have ended up a true believer any other way. In the end, He did stop the torment I was under.
Ever heard the phrase, "the ends do not justify the means?"

Apparently that doesn't apply to God.

So if I kidnap you, and torture you for 20 years, you'll decide I'm good and moral and worthy of worship once I stop? Practically speaking, yes, this is how people behave. Morally, it would be unacceptable.

I love how God is morality, but none of the rules of morality apply to him, and we humans aren't allowed to follow his examples.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by SFB


Ruby:

But how can they all be true?? Of course they cannot all be true, and thus religion is merely an aspect of human nature; a weak (esp. in this day and age) attempt to explain nature. Humans yearn for explanation, they find it, and solace, in religion. There are so many arguments against it I am surprised any serious reader here, one who considers all that is said about religion, still clings to it as a valid explanation.

And is your "held by many" above an appeal to popularity? That won't go very far around here. Yes, millions and millions of Christians can be wrong; Muslims, Jews, and Raelians too.

You really should read the second book I recommended in my other post on this thread: The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible by Ruth Hurmence Green, instead of CS Lewis. It is an easy-to-read, common-sense approach to Christianity.

Thanks for the suggestion of the book. I would very much like to read it. I plan to go look for it at the book store this next week.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Ruby"As awful as it was to go through what I did, I would not have ended up a true believer any other way. In the end, He did stop the torment I was under."

Ever heard the phrase, "the ends do not justify the means?"

Apparently that doesn't apply to God.

So if I kidnap you, and torture you for 20 years, you'll decide I'm good and moral and worthy of worship once I stop? Practically speaking, yes, this is how people behave. Morally, it would be unacceptable.

I love how God is morality, but none of the rules of morality apply to him, and we humans aren't allowed to follow his examples.

The torment that I went through was not caused by God. He kept me sane. He freed me from it.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Ruby


The torment that I went through was not caused by God. He kept me sane. He freed me from it.

Before the Babylonian captivity, - God caused all good and evil. Thus in some of the older scripture, "an evil spirit came over the Lord". But after the captivity (after the influence of the religions of Babylon and Zoroastrianism) there appears an evil god separate from the good god. This solved an ancient problem - how could a good god cause evil?

I believe good and evil spring from humans. Any torment or freedom you experienced occurred through human intervention.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by triadboy


Before the Babylonian captivity, - God caused all good and evil. Thus in some of the older scripture, "an evil spirit came over the Lord". But after the captivity (after the influence of the religions of Babylon and Zoroastrianism) there appears an evil god separate from the good god. This solved an ancient problem - how could a good god cause evil?

I believe good and evil spring from humans. Any torment or freedom you experienced occurred through human intervention.

I pretty much agree...but think God has a big hand in it! :D

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by rikzilla


LCBOY,

As others have pointed out, your arrival at your conclusion that the Christian God is real is highly suspect. Your logic is flawed, ie; an argument against the existence of God is an attempt to prove a negative. Also, actual unflawed critical thinking is not how one arrives at religious faith. Totally uncritical "belief" is the only way to come to faith in God. Remember...the key word is faith. Critical thinking is not faith.

Reexamine your journey, and keep going LCBOY. Your conclusion is hopelessly flawed. You either believe in your God, or you don't. There is no other way, since there is no proof. (If you do have proof of God's existence, then I think you'd better e-mail Mr. Randi as he has a very large sum of your money in his possession! :D )



As for your journey,...keep going. Study philosophy, marvel in the miracle of each unfolding day. Sooner or later you will find that you need no 2,000 year old miracle working messiahs, when everyday existence is finally recognized as the real miracle...one that you get to be at the heart of right now. ;)

-zilla

As others have pointed out, your arrival at your conclusion that the Christian God is real is highly suspect.
Not so. Most people pointed out their opinions.
Your logic is flawed, ie; an argument against the existence of God is an attempt to prove a negative.
I did not make this argument. I said I read other people's agruements that God doesn't exist. I agree their logic is flawed.

Also, actual unflawed critical thinking is not how one arrives at religious faith. Totally uncritical "belief" is the only way to come to faith in God.
I agree partially. Critical thinking is only part of the process that led me to Christ. One cannot come to Christ only by intellect. Their is faith involved. The question that I asked myself is this leap of faith reasonable? It is true that I cannot deductively conclude that God exists but I realized through my study that I can inductively make a compelling arguement. Many of life's important decisions are based on inductive reasoning. What school to attend, who to marry, what job to take, etc. These decisions are not based on deductive reasons.

Reexamine your journey, and keep going LCBOY. Your conclusion is hopelessly flawed. You either believe in your God, or you don't.
I reexamine my life constantly. Has my life changed dramatically since I came to Christ? Absolutely. As strange as this may seem, I think more clearly now. My life in Christ gives me clarity of thought and peace of mind I didn't have before.
Sooner or later you will find that you need no 2,000 year old miracle working messiahs, when everyday existence is finally recognized as the real miracle...one that you get to be at the heart of right now.

I agree that eveyday existence is a real miracle and I recognize who the Creator of that real miracle is.

"God" is such a compliated issue. Some people are baffled how a former atheist like myself could ever become a thiest. I can understand their unbelief because I was there once myself. Since everyone has unique experiences the only way for somebody to really undersand my "journey" would be to have walked in my shoes...

[BobM]

"God" is such a compliated issue. Some people are baffled how a former atheist like myself could ever become a thiest. I can understand their unbelief because I was there once myself. Since everyone has unique experiences the only way for somebody to really undersand my "journey" would be to have walked in my shoes...

Been there. :)

Atheists much like theists when confronted by someone who converted to the other camp tend to have the same response: "well you must not have been a very good atheist/theist, then."

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by BobM


Been there. :)

Atheists much like theists when confronted by someone who converted to the other camp tend to have the same response: "well you must not have been a very good atheist/theist, then."

You are 100% correct! People can be so silly...:D

[Loki]

LCBOY,

Has my life changed dramatically since I came to Christ? Absolutely.
Why do you think that is?

As strange as this may seem, I think more clearly now. My life in Christ gives me clarity of thought and peace of mind I didn't have before.
Do you believe that your "Life In Christ" gives you "clarity of thought" that you could *never* achieve in any other way?

Do you believe that you "Life In Christ" gives you "Peace of mind" that you could *never* achieve in any other way?

Do you think that, on balance, "peace of mind" is desireable, even if based upon false premises? (not trying to say *your* particular premises are false, just asking the generic question of whether the "end" (peace of mind) justifies the "means" (beliefs)). Phrased another way, if I find "peace of mind" in the belief that the world is flat, do you feel it's better to leave me to my "peace", or to try and explain to me my error?

[Fade]

Here's a generic statement, put whatever beliefs you want in it:

I am a _____, because being _____ has made me happy. I didn't realize that _____ was so important until _____. I don't understand why everyone isn't a ______, because being ______ is the best way.


Now fill it in for your parents.

Now fill it in for your grandparents.

Now fill it in for your great-grandparents.


Amazing, it almost always says the same thing.

[Blue Monk]

I am a drunk, because being drunk has made me happy. I didn't realize that being drunk was so important until I got drunk. I don't understand why everyone isn't a drunk, because being drunk is the best way.


Hey! It works!

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Ruby


I pretty much agree...but think God has a big hand in it! :D

Yes, I've heard God has big hands. And he likes the smell of Barbeque. And he likes strolling around....wait a minute! Lyndon Johnson!

[Ruby]

Originally posted by triadboy


Yes, I've heard God has big hands. And he likes the smell of Barbeque. And he likes strolling around....wait a minute! Lyndon Johnson! http://home.att.net/~Jandk.pan/smiling.gif

[c4ts]

(Fade's generic form, filled out)

I am a berzerker, because being pissed off all the time has made me happy. I didn't realize that lopping off people's heads with a great big axe was so important until I found an axe that was big enough. I don't understand why everyone isn't throwing up over the side of a longboat, because the Viking way is the best way.

[Fade]

:D

[ntech]

Originally posted by triadboy


Yes, I've heard God has big hands. And he likes the smell of Barbeque. And he likes strolling around....wait a minute! Lyndon Johnson!

I'd bet Mrs. Big handed Magical being in the sky likes her hubbys big hands. You know what they say.

[BillyJoe]

But don't you remember LBJ's biggest asset?......

Johnson called his penis "Jumbo." Producing it, he once asked another man, "Have you ever seen anything as big as this?"

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ntech


I'd bet Mrs. Big handed Magical being in the sky likes her hubbys big hands. You know what they say.

<nudge><nudge><wink><wink> Say no more

[Finella]

Hmph. So much for civility.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Finella



Aw, that's nice. :)

That's lovely Finella. CS Lewis was a fine man, and a decent writer. However, this sentiment does not jibe with "high church" Christian dogma does it?

Indeed, C.S. Lewis is not representative of all Christianity, he was a universalist in the regard that he believed those in other religions could be 'saved'.

In the end it's "believe, be baptized, or perish"......as a Christian you cannot divorce yourself from the legalistic aspect of Christian dogma.

Yes. Yes, I can. Because it's my faith and I say so. :p Seriously, though, I'm trying to make the point that there are Christians -- and quite prominent ones, at that -- who have this belief in regard to those of other faiths. I'm not making this up as I go along here.

Sure you can... :) .....but if you bump heads over dogma with an Episcopalian bishop, you will lose. Of course then you can join or even start another Christian denomination. (I guess that's why there are so many!)

I think you and I have much in common. My wife is still a youth leader at the local Episcopal church, she has a real affinity for the kids and I do what I can to support her. But I don't go to church anymore. I remember having a conversation with our priest about universalism. I quoted something I'd heard about all religions being like fingers on the hand of God...that they all end up attached to the right place. This was soundly rejected by the priest who took great pains to remind me that the only way to salvation was Jesus. I have a feeling you'd get the same speech if you brought up your own similar ideas!

::snip::
If God exists, it exists as an "eternal first cause"....infinite in scope. How could we, as finite, mortal beings ever apprehend the infinite? Religion is nothing less than humanity attempting this impossible task.

Exactly. So why are you bothering to accuse me of not being a "true" Christian, if in the end it's all speculation? I totally agree that it's impossible to really, Really know what God's about. We have some hints, we have some clues. I'm taking what clues I can find and going with it. And so far, it's been working, and has worked for millions of people.

No...I wouldn't presume to accuse you of anything. You can be any kind of Christian you like...there are many choices. I'm just saying that if you hold these opinions, you are not in accord with Episcopal dogma. Episcopals are the most easy going Christians I've ever had experience with. I like them, and still have good relations with many at the church...but then again, I have learned to keep my mouth shut. :( Sure it works for millions of people...but that fact by itself is meaningless. A drunk man may be happier than a sober man at any given time....but it doesn't mean that state is "better" than sobriety.

The Christ cult has throughout its history used the threat of eternal damnation to swell its ranks. This is just one reason I'm not a Christian. I was once an Episcopal [sic] like you, but I heard one too many "Jesus is the only way to salvation" sermons.

Golly, you must've gone to a conservative Episcopal church. I was just talking with my mom about this yesterday, and I was saying how, as a cradle Episcopalian, I couldn't recall hearing a single utterance -- not a breath, not a whisper! -- that as Christians we had exclusive rights to salvation and everyone else was doomed to damnation. I could've screened it out, I might not have been listening very well, I don't know. But I can honestly tell you that a good portion, if not a majority, of the Episcopalian membership has a similar belief to mine in reagrd to this particular point.

---,--'--{@ [/B]

Yeah, it was (and is) quite conservative. Our priest is a woman, and was one of the first women to be ordained. But her ordination was (to my mind) a bit like Clarence Thomas's elevation to the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas was chosen for two reasons. #1. He was of the right race to fill the seat of Thurgood Marshall. #2. He was in reality a conservative Trojan Horse. The ideological opposite of Justice Marshall.

Our Priest (I made the mistake once of referring to her as our "Priestess"...which although correct, apparently had the wrong connotation! :eek: ) was such a person. She was of the right gender to have her ordination considered a liberal victory, yet her views on religion were as strictly conservative as they could be. Don't get me wrong, I respect her a great deal, but I also believe that she's as wrong as she can be.

Perhaps I just need a more "liberal" priestess! ;) Anyway, I'm glad that you are happy in your beliefs. For God's sake don't study philosophy, or you'll end up a "lost soul" like me! :D

Take care,
-zilla

[Finella]

It's lovely exchanging with you, rikzilla!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rikzilla


Sure you can... :) .....but if you bump heads over dogma with an Episcopalian bishop, you will lose. Of course then you can join or even start another Christian denomination. (I guess that's why there are so many!)

You obviously aren't familiar with Bishop Spong from NJ, or even Bennison, the current Bishop from PA, who just got himself in a lot of trouble for saying that "Jesus recognized his own sin" in his Easter pastoral letter. There's a hell [hee] of a lot of liberal bishops in the Episcopal church.

::snip::
I remember having a conversation with our priest about universalism. I quoted something I'd heard about all religions being like fingers on the hand of God...that they all end up attached to the right place. This was soundly rejected by the priest who took great pains to remind me that the only way to salvation was Jesus. I have a feeling you'd get the same speech if you brought up your own similar ideas!

Acutally, I know I wouldn't, because our priest has preached about this concept himself, so I know his views. I know he believes that Jesus is the way to God, but that other faiths can lead one to Jesus (kinda as I said before in this thread). Now, keep in mind, I'm not saying that _all_ religions lead to God. I'm saying that those religions which ultimately lead to the ultimate Good will lead to God. I don't believe all religions will take one to the same place. But I'm certainly not educated enough to say which ones would or wouldn't. I do believe, however, that Christianity, in its best form, will lead to God and some kind of immortal existence with God.

No...I wouldn't presume to accuse you of anything. You can be any kind of Christian you like...there are many choices. I'm just saying that if you hold these opinions, you are not in accord with Episcopal dogma.

Hee. "Episcopal Dogma" -- there's an oxymoron. :) I think, at the moment, there is a lot of leeway in this area in terms of "dogma". Hence why you see a lot of division between the conservative and the liberal parishes, and people threatening to leave the denomination, etc. As someone who has worked with people in many levels of the church, I can tell you with some conviction that this denomination does not have much in the way of clear-cut dogma.

Episcopals are the most easy going Christians I've ever had experience with. I like them, and still have good relations with many at the church...but then again, I have learned to keep my mouth shut. :(

That's sad that you've felt that way. I think one of the hallmarks of the Episcopal church is that people _can_ question and think out loud. Gosh, one of the vestry members at our church is a proclaimed agnostic, but he still comes and still asks questions and still is a part of the church. I think your experience is not representative of the Episcopal church.


Sure it works for millions of people...but that fact by itself is meaningless. A drunk man may be happier than a sober man at any given time....but it doesn't mean that state is "better" than sobriety.

By "works", I mean that I have guidance in the way I live my life; I am held accountable in the way I life my life by the community I serve and worship with. People support each other and live objectively "better" lives, in millions of cases, with their Christian faith than without. You cannot argue that in the case of drunkenness. of course, this is when Christianity is in its best form; in many other forms, such as conservative, prejudiced and literalist Christianity, it does far more evil than good. In this way I can understand why people are angry with Christianity as a whole.

Perhaps I just need a more "liberal" priestess! ;)

I can certainly recommend several for you! :D

Anyway, I'm glad that you are happy in your beliefs. For God's sake don't study philosophy, or you'll end up a "lost soul" like me! :D

No one is a "lost soul"... :) But thanks for the advice... at the moment I don't have time to study philosophy (another degree is in the works) but I do hope to someday. This is why I am happy with my beliefs... they give me room to grow and they don't limit me. That's the ideal in religious faith, as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for writing...

Finella
---,---'--{@

[Loki]

Finella,

I mean that I have guidance in the way I live my life; I am held accountable in the way I life my life by the community I serve and worship with. People support each other and live objectively "better" lives, in millions of cases, with their Christian faith than without.
This is a good statement to make, because you are claiming objectively better lives. So, to make this statemetn you must have evidence. Care to share? Can you list the best of the evidence (just a few key data points will do) that show how your local community is objectively better than, say, a similar community in largely atheist Scandinavia?

I have guidance, I an held accountable, and I have support. My community is largely atheist. You see, I doubt you can support this point *at all*. When I look around, I see success and failure in life for both theists (of many varieties) and atheists. If Jesus is a path to a better life "here and now", then he's only one such path. Which makes him fairly arbitrary, really - and therefore seems to argue against any inherent "truth" value.

Forgetting about "after you die", do you beleive that your faith :

(a) Is the only way to achieve "true" success in this life;
(b) Is the best of several ways;
(c) Is just one on many ways.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Finella
It's lovely exchanging with you, rikzilla!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rikzilla
[B]


[B]No...I wouldn't presume to accuse you of anything. You can be any kind of Christian you like...there are many choices. I'm just saying that if you hold these opinions, you are not in accord with Episcopal dogma.

Hee. "Episcopal Dogma" -- there's an oxymoron. :) I think, at the moment, there is a lot of leeway in this area in terms of "dogma". Hence why you see a lot of division between the conservative and the liberal parishes, and people threatening to leave the denomination, etc. As someone who has worked with people in many levels of the church, I can tell you with some conviction that this denomination does not have much in the way of clear-cut dogma.

While recovering from being fed up with some of the craziness in non-denominational *charismatic* churches, my hubby and I attended a *Spirit-filled* Episcopalian church. It was such a relaxed atmosphere. They were not *high church*...much more liberal than some other Episcopal churches in town. You are right, there is not exactly a clear cut dogma. I am in a wonderful little non-denominational church now. It's an exceptional church in the fray of other crazy Charismatic churches.:D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Finella



Indeed, C.S. Lewis is not representative of all Christianity, he was a universalist in the regard that he believed those in other religions could be 'saved'.

---,--'--{@


Ever since you said that, I have been reading Mere Christianity. I have read the Chronicles of Narnia...and love all the books....but have never read anything else by C. S. Lewis. I did not know he was a Universalist. I *inherited* a bunch of his books when I got married five years ago. Anyhow, I am enjoying Mere Christianity so far. My hubby does not remember anything about Lewis's Universalists beliefs. It's been a long time since he read the books.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Loki

Forgetting about "after you die", do you beleive that your faith :

(a) Is the only way to achieve "true" success in this life;
(b) Is the best of several ways;
(c) Is just one on many ways.

I hope you don't mind if I respond to this too.

(a)No
(b)Yes and no!
(c)yes...sort of :rolleyes:

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Ruby


I hope you don't mind if I respond to this too.

(a)No
(b)Yes and no!
(c)yes...sort of :rolleyes:

Ummmmmmmmmm.....maybe I should try again when I'm not so confused!!:rolleyes: :( :confused:

[Finella]

Hi, Loki...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Loki
Finella,

This is a good statement to make, because you are claiming objectively better lives. So, to make this statemetn you must have evidence. Care to share? Can you list the best of the evidence (just a few key data points will do) that show how your local community is objectively better than, say, a similar community in largely atheist Scandinavia?

Since I don't know what a "similar" community in "laregly athiest Scandinavia" is like, I don't think I could draw an accurate comparison. All I can compare my experiences to are to athiests who don't live or contribute to a community with a common belief system.

The parish where I attended while in high school is a good example. There are several people I can name who have begun attending on their own, often while in dire personal circumstances, and in need of support. Since the parish works hard to care for people both within and outside of the church community equally (e.g., support and study groups, as well as volunteering opportunities for the city), these people had a chance to take care of themselves while also being empowered to take care of others. They were, and are, better off -- by their own words -- being members of this community than not.

I have guidance, I an held accountable, and I have support. My community is largely atheist.

Would that be the JREF community? Or is there another athiest community of which you are a member? If so, I would like to learn more about it. If not, I'm not sure you can say that an online community -- while valuable -- is the same as an actual place with face-to-face contact.

You see, I doubt you can support this point *at all*. When I look around, I see success and failure in life for both theists (of many varieties) and atheists. If Jesus is a path to a better life "here and now", then he's only one such path. Which makes him fairly arbitrary, really - and therefore seems to argue against any inherent "truth" value.

As I said, my only point of comparison is with athiests who don't have a community -- since there is nothing to worship, there is nothing to bring them together. Perhaps this experience of mine is not entirely true, and if so, then I would love to learn about athiest meetings, support groups, etc. Jesus is indeed one of many paths... I've said so many times. But I think not all paths lead to God, and obviously athiesm doesn't take you there. :D That is the difference, I think, which to athiests prolly doesn't mean a whole lot.

Forgetting about "after you die", do you beleive that your faith :

(a) Is the only way to achieve "true" success in this life;
(b) Is the best of several ways;
(c) Is just one on many ways.

Based on my experience, I would choose B.

---,---'--{@

[Finella]

Originally posted by Ruby



Ever since you said that, I have been reading Mere Christianity. I have read the Chronicles of Narnia...and love all the books....but have never read anything else by C. S. Lewis. I did not know he was a Universalist. I *inherited* a bunch of his books when I got married five years ago. Anyhow, I am enjoying Mere Christianity so far. My hubby does not remember anything about Lewis's Universalists beliefs. It's been a long time since he read the books.

That's funny you say that.... I've had Mere Christianity on my shelf for ages, but I haven't read it -- but I just got it out again. :) I don't think that C.S. Lewis made his Universalist views (such as they were) very widely known... the scene in The Last Battle is an example of his views, however. The Great Divorce is another great example, too -- although it's been a while since I read it -- I don't seem to recall Jesus having much to do with whether or not people made it to heaven in his description of heaven/hell/purgatory.

Now that I'm done with my papers for the semester, hopefully I can get back to reading that C.S. Lewis!

---,---'--{@

[Loki]

Finella,

Since I don't know what a "similar" community in "laregly athiest Scandinavia" is like, I don't think I could draw an accurate comparison.
But you have already made such a comparison. Again, to remind you, you wrote :
.. and live objectively "better" lives, in millions of cases, with their Christian faith than without.
Perhaps I'm misreading this, or perhaps you spoke too strongly, but this seems to clearly state that you can :

1. objectively measure the quality of peoples lives.
2. Divide people into "with" and "without" Christian faith.
3. Show that quality is better in the "with" is better than the "without".

Or is there another athiest community of which you are a member?
Perhaps we are just using differnent terms of the word "community". I'm using it to refer to both the 'close' circle of people I interact with on an almost daily basis - workmates, parents at the local school, social friends, neightbours - and the wider community that I live within - the suburb. In all cases, there are a majority of either atheists or agnostics - theists are in the minority.

You seem to be using 'community' to refer only to your local church members?

As I said, my only point of comparison is with athiests who don't have a community -- since there is nothing to worship, there is nothing to bring them together.
What brings us together is society in general.

Perhaps this experience of mine is not entirely true, and if so, then I would love to learn about athiest meetings, support groups, etc.
I think this is a common misconception held by Americans - in Australia, many of the roles you are assigning to your local parish are actually undertaken by society as a whole, either through government policy and structures, or via private organisations that often receive government funding. As such, the organisations often exist in a "religionless" (rather than atheist) framework - they deal with the problem they seek to address, without necessarily invoking a religious perspective.

[Finella]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Loki
Finella,

Perhaps I'm misreading this, or perhaps you spoke too strongly, but this seems to clearly state that you can :

1. objectively measure the quality of peoples lives.
2. Divide people into "with" and "without" Christian faith.
3. Show that quality is better in the "with" is better than the "without".

I came back realizing that I hadn't really answered your question for "objective" data, and I see you already got me. I know of several nursing and medical studies, for example, that use quality of life measures in a quantitative manner and have found that those with religious faith (yes, I know I didn't say Christian) have higher quality of life measures than those without religious faith when faced with serious or terminal illness. That's just one example I can think of. Give me time and I can get references for you.

Perhaps we are just using differnent terms of the word "community".

Indeed we are. Community can be an open or closed association, one due to chance or intended for a purpose. A neighborhood community has a little of both elements, a religious or hobby club a little more closed and intentional than not. I am referring to the latter in comparing athiests and those with religious faith -- Christian to be more specific. To compare a religious community with a neighborhood community would not be an accurate comparison, since the neighborhood encompasses the parish community, if you see what I mean.

In all cases, there are a majority of either atheists or agnostics - theists are in the minority.

I don't know about Australia, but in the U.S. the stats say quite differently -- there's a very high percentage of theists here, something astronomical like 80%. I could low on that number -- anyone know for sure?

You seem to be using 'community' to refer only to your local church members?

For the sake of this argument, yes.

What brings us together is society in general.

Yes, ideally. But obviously, the point you're trying to make is that an athiest community is as good as a religious one. But I don't know of a purely athiest community. Do you?

[Loki]

Finella,

I know of several nursing and medical studies, for example, that use quality of life measures in a quantitative manner and have found that those with religious faith (yes, I know I didn't say Christian) have higher quality of life measures than those without religious faith when faced with serious or terminal illness.
Just to be clear, the point I'm making here is that you need to show that the "quality of life measures" are higher for "christians in a mostly christian community" than they are for "non-theists in a mostly non-theist community".

To compare a religious community with a neighborhood community would not be an accurate comparison,...
(Assuming for the moment that "religious" in this context means "christian")...Well, in terms of the sorts of issues you raised - support for people in need, etc - I think you can and should be comparing the outcomes that "religious communities" can achieve with the outcomes that "neighbourhood communities" (without nested parish communities) can achieve.

I don't know about Australia, but in the U.S. the stats say quite differently -- there's a very high percentage of theists here, something astronomical like 80%
From : here (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9658217EBA753C2CCA256CAE00053FA3?Open)

The Australian figure is offically "68% christian" as of the 2001 Census. However, this is a largely misleading figure (IMO) because it's very common to simply report your 'baptismal' denomination as your religion. A better indicator of just "how religious" Australians truly are is that Church attendance in Australia has slumped below 15% of the population.

But obviously, the point you're trying to make is that an athiest community is as good as a religious one. But I don't know of a purely athiest community. Do you?
Or that an Islamic community can be as good as a christian one. Or that a Hindu community can be as good as a christian one. In short, that "religion 'X'" and "good, supporting community that helps people improve their lives" are not linked in any specific way.

[Finella]

Hello, Loki.
This is going to be a long post... bear with me :)

Just to be clear, the point I'm making here is that you need to show that the "quality of life measures" are higher for "christians in a mostly christian community" than they are for "non-theists in a mostly non-theist community".

No, that is not the claim I made, and so, no, I'm not going to prove that. We still are not clear on our definitions of community. Let me go to a dictionary (dictionary.com):
com·mu·ni·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-myn-t)
n. pl. com·mu·ni·ties

1.A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government.
The district or locality in which such a group lives.

(this would be the definition you have been using, as I understand you)

2. A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community.
A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society: the gay community; the community of color.

(this is closer to the meaning I'm after, but it's more like #3)

3. Similarity or identity: a community of interests.
Sharing, participation, and fellowship.

(This is my meaning for this discussion)

4.Society as a whole; the public.

(or, possibly, this is also your definition)

5.Ecology.
A group of plants and animals living and interacting with one another in a specific region under relatively similar environmental conditions.
The region occupied by a group of interacting organisms.

(obviously not what we're after)

Thus, I'm not talking about a neighborhood or a social gathering which occurs by chance. I may live in a "mostly Christian community" but I barely know my neighbors; thus is the unfortunate state of affairs. I am referring to my parish and other religious groups of which I am a member. We are a community because we have a common interest, an identity, and drive which brings us together. As far as I know there is no such in-person contact among athiests, since there is nothing to bring them together other than their denial of God; they have no need to meet consistently and thus build an internally supportive structure.

Your demand that I prove that a "mostly Christian community" (in the neighborhood, societal sense) has a better quality of life than a "mostly athiest community" (in the same societal sense) is not at all the same as proving that Christians (or relgious people in general) live "objectively better lives" than athiests. The community structures in both neighborhood settings are the same and thus cancel each other out. Religious people, however, have the added support of their religious communities, and often also a personal rule of life (religious discipline), which is missing in the athiests' lives.

A better indicator of just "how religious" Australians truly are is that Church attendance in Australia has slumped below 15% of the population.

Church attendance is not a measure of spirituality, it's a measure of one part of religiosity. Thus church attendance alone does not indicate the depth of faith of a person.

Or that an Islamic community can be as good as a christian one. Or that a Hindu community can be as good as a christian one. In short, that "religion 'X'" and "good, supporting community that helps people improve their lives" are not linked in any specific way.

I would hope that, reading all my posts thus far in this thread, you would know me better than to say I'm trying to make that point. My statement was: "People support each other and live objectively "better" lives, in millions of cases, with their Christian faith than without." I did not say that Christians had better lives than any other specific religion, I said that those who are now Christian live better lives than when they were not Christian, specifically without any faith. The Christian faith, in my personal experience, is the best of several roads to God, as I stated in your question earlier in this thread. I do not presume to say which roads also lead to God, nor to I presume to say others must be Christian. But spirituality and religious faith have been demonstrated to improve quality of life in scientific, quantitative studies. So, since I promised some for you, here's some references and some bits of the abstracts I found on Medline (.http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd ) for you. There's many more, but the abstracts were either missing or not clear as to the outcome of the study. One of these is a lit review, referring to many other studies not listed here. It's a good sample for you to start with. Enjoy. :)

Impact of religious activity on depression and quality of life of chronic peritoneal dialysis patients in Taiwan.
Kao TW, Tsai DM, Wu KD, Shiah CJ, Hsieh BS, Chen WY.
J Formos Med Assoc. 2003 Feb;102(2):127-30.
Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there may be a benefit to a moderate level of religious activity in chronic peritoneal dialysis patients in Taiwan, and that such activity is associated with higher quality of life and lower Beck Depression Inventory scores.

Religiosity and psychological well-being of older women in Hong Kong.
Boey KW.
Int J Psychiatr Nurs Res. 2003 Feb;8(2):921-35.
Department of Social Work and Social Administration, University of Hong Kong Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong People's Republic of China. kwboey@hkucc.hku.hk
The purpose of this study was to examine the religious belief of the elderly women in Hong Kong and how their life satisfaction and depressive symptoms were related to various dimensions of religiosity. Data based on a community sample of older women (N = 180, mean age = 74.2 years) indicated that majority of them (56.7%) reported beliefs in folk religion and ancestor worship. The Catholics and Buddhists appeared to enjoy a better mental health status than did the Protestants, which seemed to be mediated by better family supports and physical health condition. Objective measure of attendance at religious activities was not related to psychological well-being. In contrast, subjective feelings that religious faith was a source of strength and comfort, and that it would help in times of difficulty were significantly associated with psychological well-being.

Faith's impact on health. Implications for the practice of medicine.
Struve JK.
Minn Med. 2002 Dec;85(12):41-4.
Comment in:
• Minn Med. 2003 Feb;86(2):5 PMID: 12611100
Bloomington Lake Clinic, Minneapolis, USA.
The role of religiousness/spirituality (R/S) in health has been of growing interest in the medical literature in recent years. Studies have demonstrated enhanced health effects from religious prescriptions and proscriptions, religious/spiritual social support, and specific attitudes and behaviors linked to deep spiritual belief (e.g., compassionate view toward others and active religious surrender). This article reviews the recent literature on the role of R/S in health and offers suggestions on how physicians can explore whether their patient's R/S is a source of strength. Examples of simple questions that can be incorporated into a routine visit are presented. Physicians who ask about R/S issues may help patients recognize new ways of coping, new avenues for social support, and new sources of courage and hope.

Psychosocial variables, quality of life, and religious beliefs in ESRD patients treated with hemodialysis.
Patel SS, Shah VS, Peterson RA, Kimmel PL.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2002 Nov;40(5):1013-22.
Department of Medicine, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20037, USA.
RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of participants were African-American. Men had higher depression scores, perceived lower social support, and had higher religious involvement scores than women. No other parameters differed between sexes. Perception of spirituality and religiosity did not correlate with age, Karnofsky score, dialysis dose, or hemoglobin or albumin level. Greater perception of spirituality and religiosity correlated with increased perception of social support and QOL and less negative perception of illness effects and depression. A one-question global QOL measure correlated with depression, life satisfaction, perception of burden of illness, social support, and satisfaction with nephrologist scores, but not with age or Karnofsky score. CONCLUSION: Religious beliefs are related to perception of depression, illness effects, social support, and QOL independently of medical aspects of illness. Religious beliefs may act as coping mechanisms for patients with ESRD. The relationship between religious beliefs and clinical outcomes should be investigated further in patients with ESRD.

Relationships of religion, health status, and socioeconomic status to the quality of life of individuals who are HIV positive.
Flannelly LT, Inouye J.
Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2001 Apr-May;22(3):253-72.
School of Nursing, Webster Hall, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolula, Hawaii 96822, USA. flannel@hawaii.edu
The present study tested three hypotheses about the quality of life of individuals who are HIV positive. It was hypothesized that quality of life among HIV-positive individuals would be directly related to their (1) health status, (2) religious affiliation, and (3) religious faith. A correlational design was used with a nonrandom sample of 40 subjects (32 males and 8 females) who were HIV positive. Bivariate analyses were conducted to obtain intercorrelational among several independent variables, including two measures of religion (religious affiliation and a composite measure of religious faith), number of symptoms, level of physical functioning, and various demographic measures, including socioeconomic status. Stepwise regression confirmed all three hypotheses, revealing that four independent variables made significant, positive contributions to subjects' scores on the Quality of Life Index (QLI). These were socioeconomic status, religious affiliation (affiliation vs. no affiliation), religious faith, and a combined measure of health status based upon the participants' number of symptoms and Karnofsky Performance Status. The other independent variables (age, ethnicity, and gender) did not make significant contributions to the regression model, accounting for only 2.3% of the variance in the QLI

[Finella]

Originally posted by Ruby


While recovering from being fed up with some of the craziness in non-denominational *charismatic* churches, my hubby and I attended a *Spirit-filled* Episcopalian church. It was such a relaxed atmosphere. They were not *high church*...much more liberal than some other Episcopal churches in town. You are right, there is not exactly a clear cut dogma. I am in a wonderful little non-denominational church now. It's an exceptional church in the fray of other crazy Charismatic churches.:D

I just re-read this and saw that you're from Texas. Texas has the healthiest, coolest Episcopal churches in the nation! Yee-haw! :D But I'm glad you've found a place where you're happy -- it can be hard even within a denomination that you like.

---,---'--{@

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Finella


I just re-read this and saw that you're from Texas. Texas has the healthiest, coolest Episcopal churches in the nation! Yee-haw! :D But I'm glad you've found a place where you're happy -- it can be hard even within a denomination that you like.

---,---'--{@

Yep, I live in East Texas. It's very pretty here....but you live in Pennsylvania....I'd rather live there! It's actually the one state that my hubby and me are planning to live some day. My hubby is from the New Hampshire. He is a real fish out of water here. I grew up in Enlgand and travelled around a lot before coming here...so I'm not really Texan either.

[Loki]

Finella,

Short on time right now, but I'll try to reply in more depth in the next 24 hours or do. For now...

No, that is not the claim I made, and so, no, I'm not going to prove that.
Fair enough - I think I have incorrectly interpreted your earlier statement, but more on that in a later post.

We still are not clear on our definitions of community./quote]
Correct, and your definitions help a lot.

[quote]Church attendance is not a measure of spirituality, it's a measure of one part of religiosity.
It was offered only as a simple "rule of thumb" to paint a general picture, not as a firm measure of "spirituality". I mentioned it specifically because you have been using "community" in the "church-based" sense. The point here being that only 1 in 7 Australians would be in a 'community' in your sense of the world.

I would hope that, reading all my posts thus far in this thread, you would know me better than to say I'm trying to make that point.
Again, I think I *do now* see that I have misinterpreted some of your original meaning. Sorry! But there is still a point here I wish to make - when I find the time!

But spirituality and religious faith have been demonstrated to improve quality of life in scientific, quantitative studies.
Ah ... two quick points : correlation does not equal causation; and "placebo effect". Studies also show correlations between health and pet ownership, and health and homeopathic medicine, for example. Again, this deals with issues of 'truth' and 'effect' - I wouldn't ever attempt to claim that religious faith can have no positive effect on various people. That doesn't answer the questions of whether (a) there are corresponding negatives that might out weight the positives and (b) whether there are alternatives that produce similar or superior outcomes.

[Finella]

Hi, Loki...

I didn't mean for this thread to die out, but since I didn't have time to reply to your last post when I first read it, I figured you were going to post again before I got a chance. Guess not... so I'll get this going again. Such a nice discussion!

Re: community/Christian community:
It was offered only as a simple "rule of thumb" to paint a general picture, not as a firm measure of "spirituality". I mentioned it specifically because you have been using "community" in the "church-based" sense. The point here being that only 1 in 7 Australians would be in a 'community' in your sense of the world.

It can be a general guide, true. Actually, though, I started reading Michael Shermer's How We Believe, and it cited Gallup Poll stats from 2000: 86% of Americans state they believe in God, approx. 2/3 of the American population attend religious services at least once a month or more often, with 36% attending at least once per week. 28% stated they "seldom" attend religious services, and 8% stated they never go. Two-thirds of the American population said they were members of a religous institution, while 9% said they had no relgious affiliation. That's still a very significant portion of the population who practice their faith in a community. it makes me wonder why the figures in Australia are so dramatically different, though. Hm.


Ah ... two quick points : correlation does not equal causation; and "placebo effect". Studies also show correlations between health and pet ownership, and health and homeopathic medicine, for example. Again, this deals with issues of 'truth' and 'effect' - I wouldn't ever attempt to claim that religious faith can have no positive effect on various people. That doesn't answer the questions of whether (a) there are corresponding negatives that might out weight the positives and (b) whether there are alternatives that produce similar or superior outcomes.

Yes, I know correlation does not equal causation, and thus, of course, one probably could never absolutely "prove" that religious faith leads to "objectively better lives." I'll concede that. However, I'm perplexed by your assertion that there are "corresponding negatives that might out weigh the positives" -- wouldn't these negatives, in the cases of the studies I cited, affect the QoL scores? If we are looking at individual lives and the effects of faith on their lives, and if we assume the QoL measure is valid, then the studies indicate that if there are "corresponding negatives" due to religious faith, the positives have actually outweighed the negatives, otherwise the scores of the faithful wouldn't be higher than those of the not-faithful.

I am curious to know if there are indeed healthy alternatives to religion/faith that could produce similar QoL outcomes in people. One idea I can think of is probably more bound by personality than by any philosophical or religious outlook -- perhaps those people who are more optimistic than most would have 'faith' in daily life being meaningful and productive without following a religious faith. But what can one do for those who do not have that kind of personality? Hmm...

[ntech]

quote:
_______________________
Gallup Poll stats from 2000: 86% of Americans state they believe in God, approx. 2/3 of the American population attend religious services at least once a month or more often, with 36% attending at least once per week.
_____________________________


Yes, Sad indeed!

[Darwin]

"But spirituality and religious faith have been demonstrated to improve quality of life in scientific, quantitative studies."
I only have witnessed one documented study,on a page of a science magazine.
It intended to show that religious faith does not necessarily translate to better health.
In this kind of cases,as previously stated,claims to a side or another can be both horrible vulnerable,yet rather non-falsifiable at the same time.

What we could rationally suspect is that a religious faith may guide one´s actions to a direction which could be considered healthy,practically stay away from directly harmful activities that this faith would not allow.



"Ah ... two quick points : correlation does not equal causation; and "placebo effect". Studies also show correlations between health and pet ownership, and health and homeopathic medicine, for example. Again, this deals with issues of 'truth' and 'effect' - I wouldn't ever attempt to claim that religious faith can have no positive effect on various people. That doesn't answer the questions of whether (a) there are corresponding negatives that might out weight the positives and (b) whether there are alternatives that produce similar or superior outcomes."
Studies do indicate that pets can be good for you,in terms of reducing stress,as far as lowering blood pressure (psychosomatic mechanisms that can affect somatic outcome)
New studies are also turning over the idea that pets could be responsible for asthma/respiratory problems,they are pointing to the opposite.
When I debate alternative medicine practitioners/consumers,they may point out that some studies are indicating that they may help this and this disease and so on but since this cannot be even properly analyzed from the very beginning in a way which would satisfy both sides (studies that indicate alt. medicine works cannot be explained by rational reasoning other than psychosomatic and secondary causes,studies that indicate that it does not...well)

[ntech]

Also, drugs can make you feel great. Certain ones can give you a constant feeling of euphoria and bliss. The result is a life in a fog with reality clouded.

I can understand those who can’t help but believe in a magical being in the sky that created the universe but to actively convert others who live in reality is not a good thing. I choose reality for myself and my family.

[Finella]

Originally posted by ntech
Also, drugs can make you feel great. Certain ones can give you a constant feeling of euphoria and bliss. The result is a life in a fog with reality clouded.

Refer to my earlier post regarding research showing the correlation between religious belief and higher quality of life (QoL) scores than those who have no religious belief.

How do you think drug use will affect QoL scores? Perhaps you may have some constructive suggestions for our discussion?

---,---'--{@

[ntech]

Finella,

Not really!
No offense but I have but a casual interest in this part of the forum.

I still contend that it is a life of ignorance. There are many other ways to improve ones life besides belief in a magical being in the sky.

Please realize that this is in my humble opinion. Feel free to live any way that you wish. My wife and I are simply fighting to stop people from ramming the magical being down everyone else’s throat.

It makes me sick to constantly read opinions in the newspaper or in the media of people who blame my family’s beliefs for all the ills of the world.

[Finella]

Originally posted by Darwin
I only have witnessed one documented study,on a page of a science magazine.

Hi, Darwin.

As you can see above, I cited several studies showing a correlation between religious faith and better quality of life than those without religious faith. That was through a brief search on medline, with some 39 pages more of search results that I didn't go though (not to say that all of them would have been relevant, but there's obviously a lot out there). I didn't even go into search engines on PsycInfo, where there's even more. There's many, many studies.

It intended to show that religious faith does not necessarily translate to better health. In this kind of cases,as previously stated,claims to a side or another can be both horrible vulnerable,yet rather non-falsifiable at the same time.
"horrible vulnerable"? I don't know what you mean exactly. I'm not sure I agree that they are non-falisfiable; obviously a lot depends on the integrity of the study design, but if there is a large volume of research showing the correlation of faith and good quality of life (and it seems that there is), then I would say that the correlation is true.

What we could rationally suspect is that a religious faith may guide one´s actions to a direction which could be considered healthy,practically stay away from directly harmful activities that this faith would not allow.

And that may be one of the major factors, and one of the healthy, helpful parts to religious faith. To which I say, what's wrong with that?

Studies do indicate that pets can be good for you,in terms of reducing stress,as far as lowering blood pressure (psychosomatic mechanisms that can affect somatic outcome)
New studies are also turning over the idea that pets could be responsible for asthma/respiratory problems,they are pointing to the opposite.

The "placebo" effect intrigues me. Why would the body respond in such a way? Are such responses unique to humans? If so, why? If there is a God, could such responses be wired into us by God to help us heal and stay healthy? If there isn't a God, what is the purpose of such responses?

---,---'--{@

[Darwin]

"As you can see above, I cited several studies showing a correlation between religious faith and better quality of life than those without religious faith. That was through a brief search on medline, with some 39 pages more of search results that I didn't go though (not to say that all of them would have been relevant, but there's obviously a lot out there). I didn't even go into search engines on PsycInfo, where there's even more. There's many, many studies."

Hello.
I see.I must admit that I did not read your earlier posts.
From valleyskeptic;
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/resear~1.htm

""horrible vulnerable"? I don't know what you mean exactly. I'm not sure I agree that they are non-falisfiable; obviously a lot depends on the integrity of the study design, but if there is a large volume of research showing the correlation of faith and good quality of life (and it seems that there is), then I would say that the correlation is true."
It is understandable to study the effects a large religious institution that many people sucscribe to,but we could as well create studies on how naturalism or reductionism supposedly effect health and then compare the results,theoretically speaking.
I checked some study which claims to indicate positive effects and points of seemingly healthy lifestyle,solid social group etc. that follows can probably be good for health,and to maintain health.
Faith seems to be merely a tool,we cannot completely honestly say that faith itself (faith in a "higher" context) is responsible (surely a lot of alternative medicine can work trough faith)
Whether it be religious faith,earthly faith,as long as one catches the bait,there can be results.Being wired to think/act in a certain manner as in faith context,faith can act as a powerful psychological defense mechanism to relieve some pressure and still,it is nearly criminal to forget about previously mentioned mechanisms maintaining balance in life.
It all boils down to the realization that to build this kind of a "dam" for oneself can be effective,it can be built by whatever material rocks your boat-the working mechanism shall finally be the same.
For those suspecting something else,I´ll be quick to point out that occam´s razor cuts deep.

"And that may be one of the major factors, and one of the healthy, helpful parts to religious faith. To which I say, what's wrong with that?"
Absolutely nothing.

"The "placebo" effect intrigues me. Why would the body respond in such a way? Are such responses unique to humans? If so, why? If there is a God, could such responses be wired into us by God to help us heal and stay healthy? If there isn't a God, what is the purpose of such responses?"
It is probably easiest to detect on humans due to obvious reasons (have to remember that to deny that other animals could not react this way,is equal to saying that they do not think simply because they do not speak)
I believe I´m not the right person to say,if we assume there is a God I will have to mention that I´m pretty ignorant about his mysterious ways,not that he could NOT have inserted that to us.
Taking an alternative view based on neuroscience and evolutionary psychology,we do know that attention,social interaction,eating or sex as examples do work to "reward" us and produce soothing neurochemical reactions (it leaves little doubt that this encourages us to keep participating in them)
There are certain neural circuits that will be activated,as "reward" circuits.These responses must have evolved to keep us alive and spreading.
Briefly put.

[Finella]

Originally posted by ntech
Please realize that this is in my humble opinion. Feel free to live any way that you wish. My wife and I are simply fighting to stop people from ramming the magical being down everyone else’s throat.

It makes me sick to constantly read opinions in the newspaper or in the media of people who blame my family’s beliefs for all the ills of the world.

Then please realize that this Christian, and I'm not alone in this, is not trying to ram anything down anyone's throat. I hope you can dialogue without feeling threatened by me in any way.

---,---'--{@

(edited for bad grammar!)

[Finella]

Originally posted by Darwin

Hello.
I see.I must admit that I did not read your earlier posts.
From valleyskeptic;
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/resear~1.htm

An interesting link, thank you. If you'll note, I was careful to say that the studies indicate an improved "quality of life" and they do not claim that health is improved or that cures happen due to faith.

Somehow people who have a healthy faith are able to bear difficult illnesses with serenity and grace. Not to say that people without faith cannot, but that I don't think it happens as frequently among people without faith (I admit this is purely based on my own observations). Thus, even though they are challenged with pain and death, they are able to continue living and gain meaning out of their experiences. This is what is meant by "quality of life."


Faith seems to be merely a tool,we cannot completely honestly say that faith itself (faith in a "higher" context) is responsible (surely a lot of alternative medicine can work trough faith)
Absolutely. This is what I am advocating: cannot religious faith be 1) constructed in a manner which is respectful of all people and other views, and 2) be lived in a manner which produces a healthy, meaningful life and socially harmonious relationships with others? If so, then why not use it and why attack those with religious faith?

Whether it be religious faith,earthly faith,as long as one catches the bait,there can be results.Being wired to think/act in a certain manner as in faith context,faith can act as a powerful psychological defense mechanism to relieve some pressure and still,it is nearly criminal to forget about previously mentioned mechanisms maintaining balance in life.
It all boils down to the realization that to build this kind of a "dam" for oneself can be effective,it can be built by whatever material rocks your boat-the working mechanism shall finally be the same.
I think we more or less agree, I'm just saying that the possibilty exists that God could have done the "wiring", that s/he created and executed those natural forces.

---,---'--{@

[Darwin]

"Somehow people who have a healthy faith are able to bear difficult illnesses with serenity and grace. Not to say that people without faith cannot, but that I don't think it happens as frequently among people without faith (I admit this is purely based on my own observations). Thus, even though they are challenged with pain and death, they are able to continue living and gain meaning out of their experiences. This is what is meant by "quality of life.""
I see.

"Absolutely. This is what I am advocating: cannot religious faith be 1) constructed in a manner which is respectful of all people and other views, and 2) be lived in a manner which produces a healthy, meaningful life and socially harmonious relationships with others? If so, then why not use it and why attack those with religious faith?"
I hope that the last sentence was not directed towards me.
Besides,I would agree.

"I think we more or less agree, I'm just saying that the possibilty exists that God could have done the "wiring", that s/he created and executed those natural forces."
I understand.

I do not have anything more to add.

[ntech]

Originally posted by Finella


Then please realize that this Christian, and I'm not alone in this, is not trying to ram anything down anyone's throat. I hope you can dialogue without feeling threatened by me in any way.

---,---'--{@

(edited for bad grammar!)

Finella,
I won't if you don't. As radical as my wife and I are for the sake of our children, we don't exclude religious people as friends. In fact a respected old friend "Stephanie Lewis" won 2002 Christian music songwriter of the year.
See: http://www.ascap.com/playback/2002/december/christianawards.html

We are simply countering those who would bad mouth my wonderful atheist children. I know it is hard for a theist to understand however one just needs to put on the sunday morning preachers or news shows or read newspapers to see the abundant bigoted remarks by theists against my families beliefs. They are a constant barrage of nasty remarks that are quite simply unfounded. My wife, me and my children are good, moral, kind and atheist.
Although atheists make up about 11% of the general population, we only make up 1% of the prison population. No theist group matches that record. I state this only to show how wrong the bigoted theists are, not to put down the theists in general.

Forums like this and infidelguy.com are the proper context for those kinds of remarks of opinion however TV, radio and newspapers should not be the place for such bigotry. This is a free nation and it took us so long to expose bigotry against blacks, women etc. Bigotry against my family or any other good atheist people should not be tolerated by anyone theist or atheist.

[BillyJoe]

:D ATHEISTS OF THE WORLD UNITE :D

[Loki]

Finella,

I figured you were going to post again before I got a chance. Guess not... so I'll get this going again.
Yes, I am intending to post to this thread, but I can't find the time at the moment for a proper response (I need to do some research into the links you've posted in order to frame an appropriate reply). All I need is just a few more hours in each day....

You may notice that I'm posting in other threads - that's not because those threads are (necessarily) more important, just requiring of less preparation.

For the short answer to your (most important?) question, the "negatives" I mentioned would be things "outside" of the terms of reference for a particular "Quality of Life" study. For a farcical example, perhaps theism directly leads to higher traffic congestion on freeways (now, there's something christianity is rarely accused of!). If your studies do not count "traffic congestion" as a measurable outcome, then the study can both (a) report a positive QofL and (b) be overlooking significant negatives. But I need to look more into your links before I can make a more meaningful (and therefore less ridiculous) reply.