[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Feb 10 2007, 12:21 AM, said:

I think this thread was brought up for the same reason. Frankly, I don't think Peter cares at all about the number of Christians out there; I think it was brought up because he likes to vent about how much he hates christianity, and there's nothing I've read from him, or Richard that leads me to believe otherwise.

Not sure if I'm being tarred with that same brush, however, a response does seem justified.

I would never claim to “hate” Christianity. However, I do have severe issue with top down hierarchical decision making models. Many forms of organized religion, especially fundamentalist groups, fall into this category.

I think that its reasonable to contrast two different decision making models: The first model is a top down hierarchical model. The leader makes a decision. Society implements accepts this and implements it. The second model is based on distributed decision making. Information is distributed to all members of society. Individuals make their own independent decisions. Some form of voting model is used to move towards a rough consensus.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these models. The first model is much more efficient with respect to resource consumption. (Implementing the distributed decision making system that is required for the second model to work is extremely costly). However, the second model will likely lead to much more accurate decision making. Moreover, I would argue the choice of decision making models is likely to be a function of time. Lets assume that I have a small, poor society that's working to solve relatively simple problems. Maybe I'm a small group of hunter gathers making my way across the plain of Africa. Alternatively, I'm a group of farmers working together to build an irrigation system in ancient Babylon. That top down hierarchy is probably a pretty good choice. I might even go so far as to argue that susceptibility to hierarchical organized religion would be an evolution advantage. However, over time societies get more wealthy and decisions that they grapple with grow more complex. At some point in time, you hit an inflection point. That willingness to blindly follow switches from an evolutionary advantage to a significant disadvantage. I think that a lot of the problems that we're encountering in the world right now are related to that inflection point.

I think that my pattern of posting exhibits a fairly consistent pattern. I am extremely critical of fundamentalist groups, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or whatever. I think that their blind acceptance of authority and conviction that they know the “truth” is extremely dangerous. Moreover, I don't think that its coincidental that the most overtly religious members of this bulletin board also seem to have the most reactionary / conservative political bent.

I will readily admit that “religion” really isn't much of a factor in my life. I don't really understand it. I don't really feel a need for it. Very few of my friends are overtly religious. The few that are attend Unitarian Universalists services, Quakers worship services, or reform synagogues. From what I can tell, none of these groups seem to exhibit the same decision making models that I associate with the Evangelical “mega-churches”, the new more conservative Catholicism of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, or, for that matter, fundamentalist Islam.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Feb 10 2007, 12:21 AM, said:

Yes, now I'M being judgmental, but, I think it frequently dominates cocktail party discussions of like minded atheists, and I have no idea why atheists constantly feel the need to bring it up. I guarantee you that christians like Todd don't chat with other christians about atheists, and why they don't believe.

I suspect that this statement is inaccurate.

I don't spend much time with strongly religious individuals. I certainly don't socialize with them. None-the-less I have a distinct impression that the Religious Right spends an awful lot of time talking about atheists and the fact that they (we) don't believe. There is a rapidly escalating war brewing in this country over faith. It cropping up all over the place.

1. The whole "War on Christmas" idiocy of the last two years
2. Renewed fights over Scientific Creationism / Intelligent Design
3. Bebopkid's post from a couple days back about separation of Church and State
4. Defense of Marriage
5. Yada, yada, yada

The Religious Right made a concious decision to enter the political arena and did so with great effect. There is going to be backlash...

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 8 2007, 10:19 PM, said:

Quote

Guess there is no chance of any coffee smells in here.....

One would have to awaken first, no?

i consider both remarks to be (slightly) veiled ad hominem remarks... i've often been tempted to take that tact myself, so i kinda understand being unable to refrain... imo it's still beneath the intelligence and argumentative skills you both possess - though i could be wrong

Quote

Yes, even without permission. The law has been fulfilled - there is no more law. There are no more parking tickets to be paid - you cannot give permission for something about which you have no idea has occured, an event that does not happen.

i tried to explain this in an earlier post, but your understanding of 'the law has been fulfilled' is faulty (according to my theology)... Jesus fulfilled the law in the sense that he obeyed it perfectly *for* us, because perfect obedience was necessary for salvation... God knew we could never perfectly obey, therefore none could be saved... all this means is that salvation is no longer about obedience to the law... in that sense, as paul said, the law is dead (as a means) and has been replaced by God's grace through faith in the sacrificial death of his son

Quote

There is no fine to be paid. You never have a pink ticket stuck under your windshield. As far as you know, you were lucky they didn't catch you this time - little did you know they never catch anyone - because the law has been fulfilled
And if you were born 10 years from now, you would not even know that once upon a time the police used to give out parking tickets - but they don't any more because all past, present, and future fines have been paid in full. . You don't have to believe it, say thank you, or even know what happened - you are still exempt from parking fine punishment (consequence).

your definition of 'the law has been fulfilled' is in error, therefore this does not follow... you no longer need to obey God's law *for salvation*

Quote

Those who have not been indoctrinated into the hard evangelical faiths cannot grasp the base, underlying fear that warps your personality.

winston, do you have any idea just how insulting this sounds? you insist that my personality is warped by fear, when i specifically denied fear of any kind... i do not know how you were raised or what you were taught, but do you grant at least the possibility that you were taught an error? christianity is about freedom, not bondage... love, not fear... i will grant that it can be confusing (at the very least) when a non-believer hears all sorts of things from all sorts of people, all claiming to speak the truth

todd said:

That is a Calvinist viewpoint. Most protestant denominations are not Calvinist. I personally agree with you here. Under Calvinism, if you weren't called then you shouldn't be blamed. That is why I find Calvinism abhorent. Some would be damned to hell and there would be nothing they could do about it.

there were other things said along these lines, so i just used todd's post as a catch all

this particular objection, and all such based on some souls damned and some chosen (or called) has been addressed for at least the past 500 years... the best and easies (imo) way to understand it is by reading the teachings of a spanish monk named molina... but i'd suggest doing so by reading the articles and debates of william lane craig... the main points are what craig terms 'counter factuals of creaturely freedom' and 'transworldly damnation'

briefly, God created man in his own image, which means that man is imbued with the same attributes God has, albeit to a vastly lesser degree... his attributes are all 'omni', ours are not... one of these attributes is his free will... this is a necessary component of man, if man was to have God-like attributes... but this very free will is what caused adam to fall

in any event, prior to creation God thought... he planned... he foresaw all possible universes he could create, with all possible souls (us) in all of these possible universes... to get a grasp of how complicated this would be, imagine yourself had you been born in, say, present day italy in 2500 BC... even with everything else remaining the same (and they couldn't), the complications would be staggering... and he did this for all possible souls for all possible worlds at all possible historic times

he rejected all universes in which man did not have free will... he could have easily created a universe populated with robotic humans programmed to love and obey him... but what good would that be?

now molina posited, and craig has been his greatest proponent, that God foresaw that no matter which universe he created, there would always be some who rejected him... he chose to create this universe because it contained the most who would, of their own free will, accept him and the fewest who would, of their own free will, reject him

it's far more complicated, so i'll stop... i don't want to rob anyone of the pleasure of reading up on this

[pbleighton]

Phil, your post is extraordinary.

"Say what you will, but its really taking a stance to say religion; organized or not, is a bad thing for society."

I point out that saying religion is a good thing for society is taking just as much of a stance as saying that it is a bad thing. However, speaking for myself, I have not taken such a stance. I think religion is a mixed bag, and is much more of a reflection of a given society than it is a driver of that society. For example, I think that many so-called "religious wars" are mostly about other things, i.e. Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestinians.

"I also think many atheists (Gerben excepted ) have a real deep-seeded hatred of religious people. Yes, now I'M being judgmental, but, I think it frequently dominates cocktail party discussions of like minded atheists, and I have no idea why atheists constantly feel the need to bring it up."

Having been to my share of discussions of like minded atheists, I can tell you that there is no such domination. We really don't talk about it much. As to the "deep-seated hatred of religious people" atheists supposed have, as you point out, you apparently don't know many atheists. Your ignorance shows.

"Maybe I should start a thread about atheism."

Please do. I would be happy to participate. I don't consider bringing up a subject tantamount to a personal attack.

"I wonder, what does an atheist say to his family when a loved one passes? Oh, they had a wonderful life and its time to say goodbye?"

Yes, Phil, that is what we say. Does this offend you?

"I think this thread was brought up for the same reason. Frankly, I don't think Peter cares at all about the number of Christians out there; I think it was brought up because he likes to vent about how much he hates christianity, and there's nothing I've read from him, or Richard that leads me to believe otherwise."

1. You are dead wrong about what I care about.
This is ignorance.
2. You are publicly calling me a liar about what I care about.
Shame on you.
3. Would you please supply a quote which demonstrates my so-called
hate of Christianity (which BTW doesn't exist).

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

QUOTE 
Guess there is no chance of any coffee smells in here.....




One would have to awaken first, no?


i consider both remarks to be (slightly) veiled ad hominem remarks... i've often been tempted to take that tact myself, so i kinda understand being unable to refrain... imo it's still beneath the intelligence and argumentative skills you both possess - though i could be wrong

Damn. I hate it when I get busted exhibiting my human frailties. You are right, Jimmy. Was a cheap shot (from me at least) and undisciplined. Sorry. And sincerely, because the one thing I do know is that you may be right and I may be wrong.

Quote

winston, do you have any idea just how insulting this sounds? you insist that my personality is warped by fear, when i specifically denied fear of any kind... i do not know how you were raised or what you were taught, but do you grant at least the possibility that you were taught an error? christianity is about freedom, not bondage... love, not fear... i will grant that it can be confusing (at the very least) when a non-believer hears all sorts of things from all sorts of people, all claiming to speak the truth

Jimmy - this was not pointed at anyone in particular other than those who - like myself - were actually prosecuted by religion at a early age. There is a very real psychological damage inflicted by this type religious abuse that is almost impossible to free oneself from because it is so ingrained.

When you say you have no fear I have no reason to doubt you - and I don't; however, I know from my own experience that you can fear without realizing that you do.

I do not grant that I was taught in error - I know I was taught in error. And what I am saying is that anyone who has been subjected to this same type of religious abuse has no idea - unless he has made a deep, determined, and very painful study of his own psychology/reactions, beliefs/truths - just how ingained is the fear of retribution of a wrathful god.

Do you truly understand the evangelical mission of terrorizing into repentence? The church I attended - and the revivals I was forced to go to in between - did not teach of a loving god. It was all about sinning and burning. It was terrorism of the psyche. Damnation, hell, eternal lakes of fire, brimstone, and a wrathful god who would judge all at the end of times - and you'd better not be one of the F.Ups.

To say I should love and worship a god who can prevent me from all this torment is like saying I should love the executioner because he can take the rope from around my neck.

There are two primal motives in man - fear of loss and desire for gain. Desire for gain is associated with hope. Fear of loss is associated with panic. Neither is associated with logic.

I had a discussion a few years ago with a lady who attended the Episcopal church, and her view of god amazed me - it was a god who knew humans were humans and were going to screw up and it didn't matter.

In this scenario there is no executioner - you have been judged to be what you are - fallible - so there is no reason to apologize for what you are. It is a lot easier to love this type of god - the other type imo is not love but respect, the same type of respect garnered by mafioso holding a gun to your head.

Quote

i tried to explain this in an earlier post, but your understanding of 'the law has been fulfilled' is faulty (according to my theology)...

This is the issue, really. I have looked at it from your side of theology and rejected it as an inadequate and illogical explantaion.

Have you tried understanding what I have said from my theology?

One last comment. My impression from reading the posts in this thread is a confirmation of my world view - that those who are the most devout (and let's just call them for a better term christian theology believers) are the most defensive about their views. Other seems to be more open in explaining their views rather than justifying their views.

The defense mechanism is psycholigical in nature, and it is empowered when the psyche is threatened. The threat IMO is doubt, something that cannot be allowed to occur. This defense of the psyche is a closing of the mind to information that may create doubt - and it is done automatically and without knowledge that it has even transpired.

And I firmly believe this defense mechanism is fear driven, as fear is the most powerful of the emotions.

[pclayton]

pbleighton, on Feb 9 2007, 05:27 PM, said:

Peter; you opened this can of worms. I'm sorry if the fallout isn't what you expected.

Quote

I point out that saying religion is a good thing for society is taking just as much of a stance as saying that it is a bad thing. However, speaking for myself, I have not taken such a stance.  I think religion is a mixed bag, and is much more of a reflection of a given society than it is a driver of that society.  For example, I think that many so-called "religious wars" are mostly about other things, i.e. Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestinians.

I didn't say it was a good thing. But if you really believe you really think its a mixed bag, feel free to bring up some positive examples.

Quote

As to the "deep-seated hatred of religious people" atheists supposed have, as you point out, you apparently don't know many atheists.  Your ignorance shows.

Do you speak for all atheists? Living in a place like Los Angeles, I have many friends who are atheist. We have had many conversations about why I am a Catholic and why I believe in God. Their reactions are much like the ones reflected in this thread, ranging from bewilderment to contempt. As a matter of fact, I'd be hard pressed to come up with a group that many atheists despise more then christians.

Quote

"I wonder, what does an atheist say to his family when a loved one passes? Oh, they had a wonderful life and its time to say goodbye?"

Yes, Phil, that is what we say.  Does this offend you?

No Peter, it doesn't offend me. It is certainly a nice sentiment. To me, it just feels a little empty thinking there is nothing else, and we just go off to a nice long sleep.

Quote

3.  Would you please supply a quote which demonstrates my so-called
hate of Christianity (which BTW doesn't exist). 

You are correct, you don't come out and say you hate christianity, and I apologize. I mean that.

However, you certainly don't come out and say you tolerant of it. Am I generalizing? Maybe a little. I guess I am taking the same tone as lumping atheists into the same hateful bunch that Richard is taking by lumping people that believe in God as the same whack jobs that advocate intelligent design and discouraging stem cell research.

Some of us can actually think.

[pbleighton]

"Peter; you opened this can of worms. I'm sorry if the fallout isn't what you expected."

I post in the Water Cooler a lot more than you do, Phil. I'm not shocked.

However, to tell you the truth, I'm a bit disapointed in the direction the thread has taken - I had hoped for a better mix of commentary. I really am interested in people's differing perceptions of what it means to be a Christian (and other religions as well, but Christianity is dominant in the U.S.), and how society is evolving religiously and philosophically.

"I didn't say it was a good thing. But if you really believe you really think its a mixed bag, feel free to bring up some positive examples."

Two (very different) examples which spring to mind are:
1. Charitable works by religious organizations.
2. The preservation of works classical civilization during the Middle Ages.

"Do you speak for all atheists?"

Oh dear no. Do you speak for all Christians? I'm just giving my experience of the atheists I know.

"Living in a place like Los Angeles, I have many friends who are atheist. We have had many conversations about why I am a Catholic and why I believe in God. Their reactions are much like the ones reflected in this thread, ranging from bewilderment to contempt. As a matter of fact, I'd be hard pressed to come up with a group that many atheists despise more then christians."

Some of the reactions in this thread have been very rude, and I do not defend them.

However, I get some VERY unfavorable reactions when a religious person asks me about my faith, and finds out that I am an atheist. Bewilderment is a mild reaction (and one which doesn't cause me to take any offense). This DEFINITELY cuts both ways. Half of U.S. voters say they wouldn't vote for an atheist for President. We call those who wouldn't vote for a Jew anti-Semitic. What does that make those who wouldn't vote for an atheist? In the U.S. today, the only "religious/nonreligious" group which has more people distrusting/not understanding/despising it than atheists are Muslims. If you were an atheist for a week you would know this. This explains but does not excuse bad behavior by some atheists. Again, those I know personally don't do this, but I know some do.

How do you think I feel when Senator A*****e Lieberman (from my state) gets up on his hind legs and says civilization isn't possible without religion? Substitute "Christianity" or "Islam" for "religion" and you'll see that sincerity doesn't excuse this comment.

"You are correct, you don't come out and say you hate christianity, and I apologize. I mean that."

I accept your apology. You were obviously upset when you posted. I have certainly said and written things I regretted later.

"However, you certainly don't come out and say you tolerant of it."

I haven't thought that this was necessary. However, as it seems have become necessary, let me state that yes, I am tolerant of Christianity, as I am of all religions (and non-religions).

I will, of course, continue to make inflammatory posts on politics, some of which involve harsh criticism of the Religious Right. You may have got your impression of my feelings about Christianity from THOSE posts

Peter

[Winstonm]

I only want to repeat that I respect the opinions of all who post here and hope that in no way does anyone take personal affront at anything I say. If I have something to say to you personally, I will not sugarcoat it and will call you by name. If it is a generic post, it is simply my beliefs, which are no more important than your beliefs.

Now that I hopefully have your attention, I would like to ask those whose beliefs are rather mainstream protestant and catholic if they would count members of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints as part of the christian body?

Quote

Some of us can actually think.

Phil, I agree with this. I think those on both sides of the fence too often generalize (me included) having been influenced by negative interrelationships with those of other beliefs.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Feb 10 2007, 05:04 AM, said:

Do you speak for all atheists? Living in a place like Los Angeles, I have many friends who are atheist. We have had many conversations about why I am a Catholic and why I believe in God. Their reactions are much like the ones reflected in this thread, ranging from bewilderment to contempt. As a matter of fact, I'd be hard pressed to come up with a group that many atheists despise more then christians.

...

However, you certainly don't come out and say you tolerant of it. Am I generalizing? Maybe a little. I guess I am taking the same tone as lumping atheists into the same hateful bunch that Richard is taking by lumping people that believe in God as the same whack jobs that advocate intelligent design and discouraging stem cell research.

Some of us can actually think.

I'm willing to make the following claim:

For all intents and purposes the "whack jobs" that advocate intelligent design are a subset of "Religious Fundamentalists". I admit that are a neglible number of Erich Von Daniken types out there with theories of ancient astronauts. Its possible that some of them might believe in intelligent design. However, I am hard pressed to think of ANY prominent supporters (or, for that matter, non prominent supporters) who are not religious fundamentalists.

In all seriousness... Suppose we were to recreate the Duke of Yarlborough's bet. I agree to pay you $10,000 each time you can find an intelligent design support who is not religious. In return, you pay me $1 for each intelligent design supporter that I find who is religious. Would you take this bet?

(Of course, the more interesting question would be to examine the converse relationship. What percentage of "religious" people believe in intelligent design / young earth creationism / the literal truth of the Bible what have you... Moreover, is this percentage rising or falling over time. I haven't seen any good studies about this)

Now lets turn to the example that you raised about your group of friends: I don't believe that the same causal link holds. I can find plenty of atheists who don't "hate Christians". I can find plenty of people who "hate Christians" who aren't atheists.

Moreover, I've never meet your friends, however, I'm willing to guess that you're completely misrepresenting their position... I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that your friends issues are not with Christianity per see, but rather with religious fundamentalism. As an experiment, you might want to consider asking your friends to contrast their feelings about the (largely) Christian Society of Friends with those they hold towards the Taliban and other forms of militant Islam.

In conclusion, I will once again recommend reading the current debate between right wing blogger Andrew Sullivan and noted atheist Sam Harris. The latest installment is available at http://www.beliefnet...ry_20904_5.html (I readily admit that the Mencken quote that I am currently using as my sig was lifed from Harris's latest post). Harris and Sullivan are having a quite interesting discussion and conducting this in a polite and respectful manner. I think that you'd be hard pressed to argue that Harris "despises" Christians, though he certainly argues that humanity should outgrow its fixation with religion.

[mike777]

Ok, I am lost....and the Question Peter still wants an answer to is?

Just asking.

Is this sort of like going between point A and Point B but never having evidence of crossing the space somehow?

[mike777]

Winston, I am indeed sadden to hear your story, may God Bless You.

Yes, God is fully the God of love.
It is fully in mainstream Christian theology to say all or almost all are saved by God's love and Grace.
It only takes a Mustard seed size of faith.

[pbleighton]

"Ok, I am lost....and the Question Peter still wants an answer to is?

Just asking."

First post in the thread, Mike

Peter

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Feb 9 2007, 11:26 PM, said:

Winston, I am indeed sadden to hear your story, may God Bless You.

Yes, God is fully the God of love.
It is fully in mainstream Christian theology to say all or almost all are saved by God's love and Grace.
It only takes a Mustard seed size of faith.

Thank you, Mike. I appreciate you, your comments, and your sentiments.

Let me point out something that crossed my mind - a mustand seed does not have the capacity to think or believe, hence can have zero faith. Yet it's care is still assured.

And that's all I've been trying to say - it only takes the faith of a mustard seed.

[the saint]

pbleighton, on Feb 10 2007, 01:27 AM, said:

"I also think many atheists (Gerben excepted ) have a real deep-seeded hatred of religious people.

I think this is just plain wrong.

People generally don't hate each other because the are Christian, Muslim or whatever, just as they generally don't hate each other if they are black, white, yellow or brown, gay or straight or whatever kind of division you choose to to select. Although there are minorities who will do just that - but they are minorities, however prominent and vocal they may be.

I'm sure we all have friends whose beliefs or lifestyles - be they political, religious, sexual or something far more mundane like the music they like or they way they dress are vastly different from our own. That does not mean that these people are still not our friends. However, people will discuss politics, for example, but religion and a persons 'faith' is almost considered taboo. Discussion and debate is essential for getting to the truth. Religion and the existence or not of a God/Gods must not be exempt from that.

[helene_t]

I used to be tollerant of religion, and of Lutheranism in particular. I can give you some reasons for my (earlier) positive feelings of religion:
1: While religion is irrational belief, so is almost every possible belief. I happen to have a level of understanding of a few scientific areas (most notably evolutuionary biology) that enables me to assess the evidence critically. But with regard to most issues, my Weltanschauung is naive and/or based on authorities. From the point of view of someone for whom science and religion are just two competing systems of authority, one is probably not more rational than the other. At least (some) religious people have the guts to admit that their belief is irrational and/or arbitrary. (Of course, a scientific Weltanschauung is inherently more rational than a non-scientific one. But as a young kid I believed in dinosaurs and not in fairies because I was told by some authority to do so).
2: As a child I was brainwashed with Marxism. I had (and still have) the impression that we all have some "slot" in our mind that gets occupied by either one kind of religion or another. And Marxism is intelectually as well as morally inferior to religion, at least if you live in a secular Lutheran culture. Intelectually, because unlike secular Lutheranism which sticks to the spiritual/moral domain and leaves scientific issues to the scientists, Marxism tries to mold science into some kind of "politically correct" pseudo-science, thereby destroying it. And morally, because ...... well, try to compare the ethics of Stalin to that of Jesus. Looking at my own family, it was quite obvious that the religious wings of it has higher moral standars than the non-religious (genrally Marxist) wings. I often found myself regretting that I was unable to believe in God, since a religion might have filled up the slot in my mind that unfortunately became infected with the Marxist mind-virus. It has cost me a long struggle to get rid of that mind-virus.

In the last couple of years, my tollerance towards religion in general has become less. I now live in the Netherlands, a society that has suffered much more damage from religion than has Denmark, partially because (I think) of the less benign nature of the local Christian denominations. Getting in contact with so many people from the U.S., where the negative influence from religion on society is much more severe than here, adds to that. The upsurge in Islamic extremism and the schockingly defenseless reactions from Western politicians and intellectuals. And finally, having read "The god delusion".

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 9 2007, 09:04 PM, said:

Do you truly understand the evangelical mission of terrorizing into repentence?

i was raised in what is known as a missionary baptist (not southern baptist) church... at our revivals you could smell the sulphur and taste the brimstone... so yes, i truly understand

Quote

To say I should love and worship a god who can prevent me from all this torment is like saying I should love the executioner because he can take the rope from around my neck.

a lot of what i've read, especially from richard's and peter's posts, show me that the basic problem revolves around God's sovereignty... they seem to have a problem with the fact that we and all of creation belong to God... he created us, we are his... i know you remember Jesus' parable about the man who hired men to work for him? he promised a certain amount to those he hired in the morning... he went back to the market to get more workers and promised them a certain amount to work the rest of the day... still not having enough workers to finish the job, he returned to the market in the afternoon and promised more men a certain amount to work the rest of the day

when pay time came, those hired in the morning bitched and moaned because they had worked all day for the same amount as those hired at midday and those hired in the afternoon... the man told them, "is it not legal that i do what i want with what is mine?"... meaning, can't i pay what i want to whom i want, and didn't you agree to the price?

in the same way we tend to rebel against God's right to do what he wants with what is his... God created us with his attributes and we chose to rebel against him.. this sin had one punishment, and God's justice demanded it be paid... but his love demanded a way be found where our debt could be paid and we could be saved... the plan he came up with was the only one that solved the problem in a way that satisfied his holiness, his justice, his love...

i don't love him because he can take the rope from my neck, i love him because of what he did for me, because of what it cost him.. remember, 'fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom' but 'perfect love casts out fear' ... that suggests to me that wisdom has a beginning and an end... mine began with a fear of God... while my love isn't perfect, far from it, it has developed to the point where it outweighs the fear i had - usually

Quote

This [what it means to fulfill the law] is the issue, really.  I have looked at it from your side of theology and rejected it as an inadequate and illogical explantaion.

what is illogical about it? i find it to be sublimely logical... no man can perfectly obey God's law.. perfect obedience is required for salvation... Jesus is our substitute in all ways, both in his life and in his death... which of those do you not believe?

Quote

Let me point out something that crossed my mind - a mustand seed does not have the capacity to think or believe, hence can have zero faith. Yet it's care is still assured.

And that's all I've been trying to say - it only takes the faith of a mustard seed.

you seem to be looking at this differently from mike (and me)... you seem to be saying that since a mustard seed has no faith, you need no faith... that's a unique interpretation of this scripture... there are a few problems with it, from my view... we are told by paul that God has given each of us the faith necessary to believe... therefore, either he also gave a mustard seed the faith to believe else your interpretation is wrong

eph 2:8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."
and
rom 12:8: "For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith."

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Feb 10 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

a lot of what i've read, especially from richard's and peter's posts, show me that the basic problem revolves around God's sovereignty... they seem to have a problem with the fact that we and all of creation belong to God... he created us, we are his...

Speaking for myself, the concept that you describe as sovereignty doesn't really enter into it. I don't rule this out as a possible explanation. I've never been particularly good at blinding following orders from above. However, I think that I have a entirely different set of issues that kick in well before sovereignty ever has the chance rears its ugly little head.

For me, the basic issue is a conflux of three distinct observations:

First: You and DrTodd both seem to maintain that "good deeds" are insufficient for salvation. Faith in Jesus as one's personal saviour is an absolute necessity.

Second: The existence of "god" can't be proved logically or empirically. It boils down to a question of faith. For better or worse I, along with the vast majority of the people who have ever been born either don't have faith or believe something very different.

Third: At this this point in time, salvation boils down to making a lucky guess between a multitude of conflicting faiths, each with their own distinct set of beliefs, doctrines, and requirements.

The resulting system is logically inconsistent. You postulate a god of infinite power and infinite love who created a ludicrous system where millions upon millions of people are damned for eternity because they were born in the wrong place or time.

This doesn't seem like something that I should be hoping for...

[jikl]

Quote

The resulting system is logically inconsistent. You postulate a god of infinite power and infinite love who created a ludicrous system where millions upon millions of people are damned for eternity because they were born in the wrong place or time.

Expanding on Richard's idea...

You were born in India, hell for you.

You were born in China, hell for you.

You were born in Indonesia, OK, hell for most of you.

Damn that is a lot of people gone.

And this is looking at only a small number of countries, but a very large percentage of the world population.

Sean

[helene_t]

akhare, on Feb 10 2007, 12:48 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Feb 9 2007, 05:06 PM, said:

To me it seems that natural selection has favoured religious people since they have more children than non-religious people, and have their children earlier.

You do raise an interesting point -- is it possible that there's something in our brain chemistry that pre-disposes us to belief in the supernatural? It has to be said that the religion "meme" has had phenomenal success in our species...

Just to clarify (you're probably both aware of this):

Dawkins makes a distinction between
1) our general propencity to believe in irrational things (which he sees as a by-product of childrens' acceptance of practical knowledge they aquire from their parents without being able to follow the reasoning)
2) the characteristics of specific religions, which he attributes to "memetics", i.e. selection of features of the religion itself that allows it to replicate succesfully. For example, a religion based on faith will have more chance of replicating itself than one based on evidence, because future evidence may undermine the fundament.

He doesn't go much into depth with either argument, though. I suppose a lot could be said of the role of religion in shaping bonds between humans, and maybe the role of mythology in preserving knowledge.

[Winstonm]

Quote

i was raised in what is known as a missionary baptist (not southern baptist) church... at our revivals you could smell the sulphur and taste the brimstone... so yes, i truly understand

I do not mean this to be an insult to your intelligence, beliefs, thinking, or you, Jimmy, as I know you deeply believe in what you say.

But my contention is that this severe of instilled fear is impossible to change, it is part of the subconscience and you react to it without knowing it or even knowing about it. Psychologists have confirmed this to me. One told me that this is religious abuse and is as damaging to the young as sexual abuse or physical abuse.

As you grow older and gain more cognitive powers, you can justify other reasons to believe - because he did so and so for me I love him - but when it comes down to whether or not you sleep with your hot nextdoor neighbor, it is the fear that stops you, not the love.

Quote

you seem to be looking at this differently from mike (and me)... you seem to be saying that since a mustard seed has no faith, you need no faith... that's a unique interpretation of this scripture... there are a few problems with it, from my view...

Just trying to make logical sense of Mike's oft quoted remark. It is scripture, is it not? It is in black and white, direct, and easy to understand. One should not need a convoluted explanation of such a simple phrase. Mustard seeds have no faith - you need an equal amount. What is hard to understand about that?

I believe a lot of christian religions made negative assumptions about scripture that is not so stated by the scripture. Christ said, I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one comes to the father but through me. Religions make the negative assumption that then belief in christ is necessary - but where in that passage does it say that? If could just as easily occur automatically after death when no belief or attempt to live a virtuous life - and that is consistent with the passage.

If you want to get into the metaphysical, then my belief is that god is within everyone and a part of everyone, that the physical body is subject to the law of actions and consequence, that mortal actions have consequences within the mortal lifetime, but after death the spirit is reunited with the whole regardless of what the body believed, didn't believe, did or did not do.

Quote

eph 2:8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

Let's look at this same quotation under my views. I can read and comprehend English - it has always been one of my strong suits. The phase says, "have been saved." Regardless of what the hellfire and brimstone crowd tries to say, that very plainly states an action which has already occured - there is no futher action necessary. "through faith" - this clearly mean the faith of god, not man. "and this is not from yourselves" - well, duh, you just said that. "it is a gift from god" - in the sense that blond hair and blue eyes is a gift from god, something you do not have to accept because it is a done deal and you can't change it. "not by works" - oh, so this gift cannot be earned - nor can it be spurned - works are irrelevant.
"so that no one can boast" - or say he has the key to heaven so drink the Koolaid.

So you see there are other ways to comprehend the written word, so if we want to continue our discussion I would ask that scripture be left out as an argument for voracity. OK?

You deserve to know why I ask this. I believe the old testament to be a collection of mostly jewish mythology mixed with a little history - not reliable. Most of the new testament is man's interpretations - again unreliable. If anything is close to true, it would be the actual words spoken by jesus - as an important historical figure to the people of that time I feel of all the words these may have had more urgency to be recorded accurately.