-
Website
http://atheists-and-christians.com/ -
Original page
http://atheists-and-christians.blogspot.com/2009/04/encounter-at-bjs-wholesale-club.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
ATTR
I'll be adding your blog to my blogroll. Great insight from a perspective I can relate to.
I love the spirit with which you write! I didn't know that you had a blog(can I blame it on Latvia...lol). I don't get a chance to read others blogs often but I will subscribe to yours because I like what you say.
To Beyondform, I agree with you about being relaxed about disbelief.
I am really big into studying the Founding Fathers and the original intent of the Constitution so when I see things that are unconstitutional it bothers me a great deal. So things like making laws regarding establishment of religion which is what would happen if churches were taxed. So its really a constitutional matter for me. I'm rather libertarian/constitutionalists in my politics. But at the same time I saw the value in what this leader had said.
Also, I think the church has historically responded in a less than helpful manner in our involvement in politics, not across the board, some have handled themselves well, but many have gone at it the wrong way. If we as Christians truly know God as we claim we should have some help to offer the world in economics, laws, social issues, etc. But typically we have just railed against things that offended us instead of helping anyone find a better solution.
I think the tide is turning on that front. I have seen an unprecedented amount of church leaders from varies denominations and movements rallying Christians to support the President and his administration with respect and with prayer despite the things he stands for which many of us do not. Scripture calls for us to respect our leaders no matter what, and constantly berating them is not doing that. I am very happy to see the change in the church, and in myself, for I used to be very unkind in the things I said about another President that didn't have my values. I see the error of my ways and how I can respect someone even when I don't agree and I have no cause for fear.
Sorry that was a long response.
I think you and I have encountered very different streams of Christianity and there is more out there you might not have experienced yet. I have seen and heard Christians who are as you describe, but I also see a whole lot of good in the Church and I recognize that people still have hurts they haven't surrendered to Jesus healing and I have compassion for those in the church that only know religiousness. Religion can be a bondage people are captive to even as money or sins or anything else can be. Only Jesus can set us free from that.
The inconsistency between nice and not so nice Christians does give some pause, but I know that there are nice people and not so nice people in all walks of life, regardless of affiliation.
Included in the American Heritage definition/description of "religion", is the following:
(3) "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."
If this applies - and I believe it does - then the above philosophy then becomes circular. Why? Because in the Christian's case, the "set of beliefs" is obviously the Christian doctrine, or, the supposed "Word of God", aka the "Holy Bible". You cannot circumvent the "Word of God" when attempting to know, follow, honor, worship, live by, etc., etc., the "teachings" of the "spiritual leader", in this case, "Jesus".
Thus, the philosophy becomes circular, IMO, when we are told that only "Jesus"(the "spiritual leader") can "set us free" from the very problem(the "bondage") that attempting to follow the "spiritual leader" creates. Again, circular argument, if the above definition of "religion" applies.
I see religion as an allegiance to a set of beliefs devoid of relationship with truth. So yes, in certain circumstances, Christianity can be a religion in this context. When I speak of Jesus or Christianity I am not talking about mere intellectual adherence to a set of beliefs and a system of values, but a tangible apprehension of the reality of Jesus.
Understood. But it is also my understanding that in order to obtain "a tangible apprehension of the reality of Jesus"(assuming "Jesus" is real for sake of argument), that, again, one cannot circumvent nor jettison the means by which we can supposedly "know" the "reality of Jesus". As I mentioned previously, the "means" to which I refer, is the supposed "Word of God", aka the "Holy Bible", which, unfortunately for Christians, is the same place that the intellectual "set of beliefs and a system of values" is found.
My point, once more, is that upon your recommendation that "Only Jesus can set us free"[from the "bondage of religion"], one needs to utilize the very same document that leads to the "bondage" in the first place. The premise is circular.
To give benefit of doubt---if you are proposing that there is an objective, "hard-line" that can be drawn between the intellectual "set of beliefs" and "spiritual leader", the person, then I'm definitely eager to learn where that line is drawn, and how you *know* it is drawn where you say it is. Until/unless you can provide such knowledge, I see it as completely subjective, in that, adherents of Christianity can simply draw that line wherever they please; whenever they please.
You continue by analogy.... You can know a lot of true facts about a person without knowing that person relationally
Perhaps. However, the crucial difference is that you can pit the "true facts"(redundant?) against the actual person in question if you sought to do so(provided the person is living and can be located, etc)
For instance, if you learned the "facts" about living, corporeal being "X", say, in an article you read about person "X", you could feasibly sit down face-to-face with person "X", and learn if the "facts" are accurate, or not. On the other hand, you couldn't measure these heresay "facts" against someone elses testimony of person "X", and expect it to be completely objective.
Good day.
I am arguing from the Christian worldview for the Christian worldview, I realize that. I think we go from knowledge to knowledge. We have to start somewhere. I think starting with something firm, like God makes more sense that starting elsewhere the way I see it.
Fair enough.
And subsequently, if there is not a "hard line", then this underscores my point that such a determination is subjective, and thus, proponents of the Christian philosophy are attempting to glean a supposed "Objective Truth", subjectively. Thus, it is, and always will be, your opinion versus another's, who may disagree with you, but, who also insists that they "know Jesus".
I'm merely talking about the difference between knowing about a person and knowing a person.
Unfortunately for Christianity, no Christian (that I've encountered) can offer any objective substantiation that they "know" the person refered to as "Jesus". Yes, they can(and do) insist that they know said biblegod, including, said deity's stance on all issues, and more. But again, it amounts to speculation, and it remains their word vs another's word.
I think starting with something firm, like God makes more sense that starting elsewhere the way I see it.
I respect your view and your right to hold it, but as you might've guessed, I believe the notion of a "God" is neither "firm", nor con-firmed.
Also, just because there is a subjective element to something, doesn't mean it's not true. I can't prove objectively that I'm hungry or that I'm happy, but that doesn't make it any less true.
However, that is not to say there aren't objective things that do point to the truth of Christianity.
I also think that there is a problem with anyone who thinks they know just how everything is to be with complete certainty. I know somethings for sure, but I don't know everything. And I don't know all there is to know about the things I do know.
I spent 2/3rds of my life being a believer, so, if one considers that - in conjunction with the fact that I have had myriad discussions on Theology and Epistemology with believers since being on the other side of the fence - I can pretty much assure you that there is practically nothing I haven't heard before in the way of "tangible miracles" and "personally experienced" phenomenon. And hopefully you are aware of the millions of people around the globe who claim to have had the same types of "miracles" that I'll wager you have had, but who attribute them to deities other than "Christ". They believe just fervently and passionately as you do that their respective "God" is manipulating the Natural laws of the Universe just for them.
If your assessment is that there is nothing supernatural happening to these people, but that they are misinterpreting natural, and/or, coincidental occurrences - or possibly even embroidering the truth to bolster their theological stance - then I agree with you. I believe that's precisely what's going on. However, as you might've guessed, I also firmly believe that this is what is going on in the Christian's case, as well. Also, consider the advent of the digital age. Camera/video on millions and millions of cell phones, but not one of these "miracles" captured. I find that simply astonishing.
Also, just because there is a subjective element to something, doesn't mean it's not true.
Correct, but Christianity doesn't claim to have "elements" of truth---it claims to have a monopoly on the Objective Truth. The problem (again) is that the contents of the bible are actually dependent on interpretation. To my understanding, there are upwards of 3,400 denominations/split-offs of Christianity, all which claim to know the One, Universal, Objective Truth. They all claim, just like you do, to "know Jesus"(personally).... yet, for some reason, they cannot seem to agree on what Jesus' Will is. Surely, you see the problem.
I can't prove objectively that I'm hungry or that I'm happy, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Forgive me, but you've chosen a rather poor example for an analogy.
Firstly, we have objective confirmation that all human beings need food for energy and to sustain life. Moreover, if we observe your food intake, we can infer when you'll likely be hungry, or not. Conversely, we have no such objective confirmation that we all need to adopt the Christian philosophy, nor can we observe you having a "relationship" with an invisible, conscious being.
Secondly, there's no need to "prove" your hunger or happiness, as no one is disputing your hunger or happiness---nor are there any reprecussions for my doubting your happiness or hunger.
I also think that there is a problem with anyone who thinks they know just how everything is to be with complete certainty.
I would have a problem with that too, and frankly, I don't know who's claiming such a thing...well, except for the redactors of the bible, all of whom are long since dead, but I take it you don't see a problem with their "complete certainty". Let's remember, a "God" didn't pen the bible; human beings did(and it shows).
but after undergoing a 6 month period where I questioned everything and almost lost faith entirely, I now understand to a greater degree how and why people struggle with / lose faith, and it gives me a heart to try and help those people.
I have a question, then: If you concede that the adherents of opposing religions experience the "supernatural"....say, "Divine" intervention - for instance, when a devout Muslim "prays" to the "Almighty Allah"("Allah" being the standard Arabic word for "God"), and said "prayer" is (believed to be) answered in the affirmative - then to whom or what do you attribute this supposed "supernatural" intervention on their behalf? Remember, we are talking about a people who are anti-christian, many of whom would have no qualms beheading a Christian, or any other non-Muslim. The reason I point this out is because I have had Christians actually try to tell me that the Christian biblegod is granting anti-christians these "miracles", which, I must tell you, is an insult to my intelligence, and I would hope it would be to yours, too.
So....who, or what, is granting Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and other non-christians these "Miracles"?
Yes, there are frauds out there, but not all are frauds.
I didn't say or suggest that "all are frauds". Again, I concede that there are people who believe, fervently, that they experience "Divine" intervention. This obviously wouldn't constitute a "fraud". On the other hand, just because they believe it, doesn't mean it's "true". And yes, just because I'm skeptical doesn't mean it's not "true". This is where evidence comes into play, and why I'm asking for it. You, simply telling me to read of your "Miracles" on your blog, or another, obviously isn't objective evidence, but anecdotal evidence.
Thus, you have quite a challenge if I am to believe the Christian philosophy is the Absolute, Universal Truth, when, to my knowledge, the only "evidence" you've got amounts to "Faith", ancient manuscripts, and personal testimony(andecdotal), all of which could make any religion a "Truth". I hope you see the conundrum that "Faith" presents.
In seeking some objective confirmation for what the Theist calls a "miracle", I followed through, under the recommendation/invitation to visit Karla's blog, and sadly, I saw no such confirmation. I did see one statement in particular, though, that is worthy of comment:
I am not defining "miracle" as something unexplained, but as something caused by a supernatural being.
Hence, a miracle is not unexplained, it is explained as being supernatural.
This argument is lacking for a few reasons. For one thing, the premise is circular. Also, if one cannot explain how this alleged "supernatural being" performs the said "miracle(s)", then they have no "explanation" at all, but only a speculative hypothesis(which leads to question begging)
And again, even if we grant that there exists an invisible, personal, creator-being who grants *certain* religious affiliates their wishes by way of metaphysical intervention, no Theist (to my knowledge) has offered any objective confirmation that their respective deity is this aforementioned "miracle"-worker.
Here's the deal. There is no way to tell who is or is not a True Christian™. You have committed the No true Scotsman Fallacy. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman If there is such a thing as a True Christian™ only God knows who they are.
You say you don't judge me, yet you also say "it was probably more of a religious thing than a relationship thing". It was all relationship and hardly any religion. I found religion troubling in that it seemed like something that just allowed one to go through the motions without really believing. I really thought what I was experiencing was God. Does God speak to you in a tangible voice, with words? That was all I was lacking. I felt what I thought was God's presence during worship both solo and corporate worship. I felt that God spoke to me in Scripture by revealing things to me. I felt that God gave me the right words to say when teaching his word and when witnessing to others. I went for very long periods of time directing nearly all my waking thoughts towards God, as close to praying without ceasing as I could get.
You say you do not judge me yet you call me a liar. "That is sad, but I think it is also not very honest." I used to have little patience for those that called me a liar, but I now realize that your misconception is not my fault so it's nothing for me to get upset about.
If I end up in Hell for being honest then so be it, but not all variants of Christianity would have me headed there, I would assume you would say they are not real Christians as well.
Lastly, you and many others have accused me of deciding not to believe. Tell me, how does one do that? I did not give up my belief willingly, there was not some sin that I desired so greatly that I pushed God away. If I could choose to believe in God I would, but that is impossible. Why would choose to alienate nearly all of my friends and family? The last several months of my faith involved me groveling daily at the foot of the cross. It would be so much easier just to believe, but I just cannot. That does not stop me from trying.
I admire how thoughtful you seem to be and how well you articulate your thoughts. This is fascinating. I respect where you are coming from and believe that you are comletely sincere.
One question I have for you is what do you think about Jesus?
Have you always felt that way about Jesus? That he was just a man who said some interesting things and drew some followers? What did you read or discover that gives you this point of view?
To me, Jesus is the crux of this entire discussion. Without Jesus there is no relationship with God. I am wondering if this is the piece you were missing in your Christian life experiment. It amazes me how many people call themselves Christians and do not actually believe that Jesus is who he said he was- God in the flesh. Jesus claimed to be God. That is an amazing thing that cannot make him just a man who said some interesting things and had some followers. He said that he was God so he was either 1)crazy/dillusional 2)an evil liar trying to trick everyone or 3)he actually was God incarnate coming to earth to tangibly demonstrate his love and redemption for all mankind. There are no other options. Which one do you pick?
Ahh, Lewis' trillemma. Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. There are no other options? Of course there are other options. He might not have said any of the words attributed to him. He may have said them all and sincerely believed them, most of us have believed things that aren't true at some point or another and that doesn't make us lunatics. He could have just been sincerely wrong.
I used to believe that Jesus was the son of God, the son part of the Trinity, God himself, creator of all.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
It would have been me writing comments nearly identical to years a few years ago.
"your Christian life experiment" That could be taken rather offensively as have several of the other things you have written.
1 Peter 3:15
15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect
Now I can tell that you do not mean to be offensive and that you have been careful in choosing your words, however if it is your wish to not offend non-believers you might want to try to put yourself in their shoes and read what you have written as if it were addressed to you.
I lived my faith for 20 years, my days spent in Bible study, prayer, fellowship with other believers, attempting to direct all my thoughts to God, etc.
I have no idea what changed. Maybe I would have slipped into some more liberal variant of Christianity or something else, but atheism? I did not choose this, in fact I went kicking and screaming. I call myself an agnostic atheist because I am not certain there is no God and I refuse to be certain of anything after spending 20 years certain of my faith. I have no idea what the future could bring.
You are so right. I can see how me saying "Chrisitianity experiment" could be taken as offensive and was not a very respectful way to share my point. I am sorry for that.
You said, "He may have said them all and sincerely believed them, most of us have believed things that aren't true at some point or another and that doesn't make us lunatics. He could have just been sincerely wrong."
That would be a good point if Jesus said something less radical than the fact that he claimed he was God. That is not something that you can merely be sincerely wrong about. It is not like someone thinking the world is flat and then being wrong about it. C.S. Lewis really makes a brilliant point that there really is not another option other than liar, lunatic, or actually God. The only grounds for argument is if he did not actually say those words and that is a very difficult thing to prove.
I realize that I am not going to convince you of anything through information that you already know. Faith is a difficult thing. If it were totally obvious then it would not be faith. But the thing is we all choose something to have faith in. You choose to have faith that God does not exist. I choose to have faith that there is a God and the Bible just makes the most sense to understand the world around me that I see. I have a peace about it, I talk to God all the time. I would like to hear from Him with an audible voice and sometimes feel frustrated that he does not do that. I wish he would talk to you and give you a tangible sign. But it is faith and by faith I believe that God has infinite wisdom and has perfect reasons. I have noticed that the more I reach out to God through prayer and reading his word, the more peace and contentment I have in life. I also become more loving and giving to others when I reach out and connect with God. Without faith in God, what is morals? and what drives your moral compass?
Thanks for the discussion Mike. I appreciate that you put scripture in your post. " Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." I am curious, without God, what is your hope?
"The only grounds for argument is if he did not actually say those words and that is a very difficult thing to prove."
Very true, it's equally difficult to prove that he did say those words.
"Without faith in God, what is morals? and what drives your moral compass?"
You do realize that lots of people act in what you and I would both agree is a moral way without believing in the Christian God, right? Yes, I know Romans 2:15 tells us the law is written on mens hearts and that's why nonbelievers do good. If that's the case then none of us could escape this ingrained moral compass. So your question would be moot.
You also realize that people can justify things that you and I would both agree are moral or immoral by using the Bible.
My hope for this blog is pretty clear. My hope is that Christians and non-Christians can sit down and discuss calmly, rationally, and respectfully. Do I have some sort of eternal hope similar to what the scripture is referencing? Nope.
We are squeezing the poor Disqus comment thread. ;-)
That's one of the things I don't like about this commenting system.
Is not a "true Christian" just another way of saying a "true believer" of the Christian philosophy?? If there's a definite distinction, I'm curious to learn what that distinction is.
In the mean time, I think the term "true Christian" is just another way of saying "true believer", and in that case, the term "true believer" then becomes redundant and nonsensical. The implication is that there are false believers. Now honestly, who would set out to believe something that was false?
Case-in-point, it is belief that makes one a believer in Christianity, thereby making them a "Christian". Unfortunately, there are no litmus tests; there is no way to measure who is, and who isn't, a "True Christian", because the belief, itself, is too broad. Subsequently, one cannot simply base it on people's actions.
Moreover, if one argues that the hallmark of a "True Christian" is that he or she, "could never decide to not believe anymore", then you are essentially eliminating free will. In other words, you are a robot for "Christ". 'Last I heard, being able to choose of your own free will whether or not to follow "Christ", is paramount to having a proper understanding of "God's Will". Did something change?
That's your interpretation of what "religion" is. Here's what American Heritage says on the matter:
Religion: "1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."
As best as I can tell, you, and all Christians, are most certainly religious. This is not to say that each individual Christian does not believe that they have "a relationship" with their biblegod. The thing is, they can believe this, and still qualify as belonging to a "religion".
Continues...[a "true Christian" will] realize that Jesus is exactly who he said he was and can restrore our relationshiop with God.
I defy you to find me any believer in the Christian philosophy who readily concedes that "Jesus" was not "who he said he was".
In other words, despite your efforts, you are failing to provide any sort of objective distinction between a "Christian" and a "True Christian". The best you've got, as far as I can tell, is that a "True Christian" thinks and believes like "Jeff" does.
I think a lot of people who call themselves Christians understand this concept, but have not humbled themselves enough to fully experience this.
First of all, all "Christians" are "people who call themselves Christians". You've made a distinction without a drop of difference(again).
Secondly, how on earth do you know what other human beings have, or have not, experienced? Again, the implication seems to be that if a person doesn't believe, then they are deficient in some way. For example, they are not seeking with right humility, or they are too proud, or they weren't sincere, etc., etc.
In other words, you assume that the "faith" cannot fail the person, so then, in your mind, the only alternative is that it must be that the person has failed the "faith". If I have assessed this correctly(and I think I have), then answer this: What about a devout Muslim who converts to Christianity later on??? He or she certainly held their previous belief on "faith", right? Right, yet, that "faith" failed them, because they now believe something entirely different.
Case-in-point: If "faith" can, and does, fail people of other religions; if people of other religions can be self-deceived by their "faith", then guess what?... so can a "Christian" be deceived by his or her "faith". This is the quagmire that the religious have--their beliefs are not falsifiable. Their position dead-ends at "I believe".
Continues...Anyone who has experienced the redeeming work of Jesus authentically, I believe, can never go back.
What "redeeming work"? And how do you know what makes someone's experience "authentic", or not? Again, aren't you more or less just saying that if a person believes as you do - meaning, just as faithfully; just as fervently - then their "experience" is "authentic", but if they are skeptical and/or change their mind, then their experiences were not "authentic" to begin with?
Not that they are not able to choose to go back, just that they would not even think of going back to their old life because of the incredible peace that they have found reconnecting to their creator.
If a drunk finds "incredible peace" in drowning his or her sorrows in a different kind of "spirits", is that then a good reason for them to "never think of going back" to being sober and living in reality?
In other words, just because a religionist would "never think of going back", doesn't mean that they have found an objective, Universal "Truth".
Interesting blog. I have never ever been hardcore Christian. At best a lackidasical Greek Orthodox. But I will admit I loathe organized religion with a passion. My daughter and I watched her friend in a prayer circle Wednesday morning. All gathered round the flag pole like good little Americans. I told my daughter that it made me sad that so much time was spent worshiping the creed and forgetting the message. I then said that it made me sad to think of the damage that some of them would grow up to do in Jesus's name.
That night one of those boys committed suicide. He was gay. Case closed.
Here's the problem: Where does "the creed" end, and "the message" begin? To my understanding, no bible-believing Christian can demonstrate(in any objective terms) that he or she knows the answer to this question.
If, for sake of argument, it is argued that "the message" is love your neighbor or perhaps "the Golden rule".... well, one doesn't need "Christianity" to uphold/promote these philosophies, or to know that these philosophies ensure our survival.
From what I've seen many read the Bible and learn different theologies and
some parts resonate with them and some do not. That which resonates with
them or seems true to them is true to them. I've seen this from liberal and
conservative Christians. Like any other work of literature we each take
something different away. It's just that some decide that their
interpretation is the correct one. Of course no one claims the holy spirit
told them that their interpretation of Othello is the only correct one.
The only folks who have a leg to stand on are ones that have a good
understanding of the actual languages the Bible was written in and even then
we don't have any autographa so we have no way of knowing if what we have
today are even close to identical to the autographa. We can do lots of study
and approximation, but none of it can be known for certain.
By the way. I was watching the Discovery Channel last weekend and saw a
piece on your namesake. That's one frightening snake!
Right, that's where "faith" should take over, but unfortunately, too many Christians claim to know "for certain". Some try to argue that "faith" is simply to "trust" that it's true, but we know that "trust" is built upon a proven, verifiable track-record, whereas "faith" is not.
PS: Boomslang's generally mind their own biz' in nature. It's when you try to screw around with them that they may bite.
Adios.
or trod on though.