Today, two days before Easter Sunday, I read a post on a popular networking site that said that Jesus' crucifixion "firmly established an historical event". This friend went on to say......
"we should all bow our heads to reflect and praise the history of Jesus' passionate life and death"
Okay, well, in short, "history" cannot establish (or prove) outrageous claims, and in this case, outrageous, supernatural claims. We can learn from "history" what most likely happened(or most likely did not happen), but "history" doesn't establish or prove claims of the supernatural. For instance, we can learn from history that George Washington was our first President. And since Washington, himself, left autobiographical writings behind, we can take this bit of history and safely conclude that he actually existed and was our first President. But did he really throw a silver dollar across the Potomac River? History says he did. So?...does that settle it for you? It shouldn't. That is a fantastic claim, and you have every right to be skeptical. That little anecdote was probably started as an embellishment made by a supporter who sought to exaggerate Washington's physical strength to make people fear and/or look up to the President.
So, we can conclude from history that people exaggerated or embroidered the truth because they had an agenda.
Moving on....
The Empty Tomb
If there was an empty tomb at one point in history, the notion that a man came back from the dead(AKA, became a zombie) and walked(or floated) out of that tomb is at the very bottom of a list of what most likely happened. Xian: "Yes, but wait, this is the BIBLE we're talking about!" Me: "Yes? And?...so, what?"
Moreover, just because there was supposedly eyewitnesses to this event means practically nothing, since, well, dead eyewitnesses - in other words - eyewitnesses that we cannot question or interview, carry no weight. If a lawyer told the Judge, "Your Honor, the state would like to call an eyewitness to the stand, but he's dead, so now what?", that lawyer would get laughed out of the courtroom.
The outrageous claims in the bible can only be taken on "faith", and BTW, I have no problem with that. But we should all be skeptical of "history proves it" sphere of thought.
87 comments:
Aww come on man - everyone knows the older the book, the truer it is :P
Nice agenda, stating we are all forgiven whatever we do for eternity and with us all others...
Now please take a moment and read this, this was posted on the same popular networking site.
This is Ishtar: pronounced "Easter". It shows the statue of a lady engraved in a wall.
Easter was originally the celebration of Ishtar, the Assyrian and Babylonian goddess of fertility and sex. Her symbols (like the egg and the bunny) were and still are fertility and sex symbols (or did you actually think eggs and bunnies had anything to do with the resurrection?).
After Constantine decided to Christianize the Empire, Easter was changed to represent Jesus.
But at its roots, Easter (which is how you pronounce Ishtar) is all about celebrating fertility and sex.
And all those that hate the truth... can now downvote.
Just quoting.
It's getting even more interesting when clicking this link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/29/happy-easter-which-is-not-named-after-ishtar-okay.html
Just a random bit here...
. . . But at its roots Easter (which is pronounced Ishtar) was all about celebrating fertility and sex.
Look. Here’s the thing. Our Western Easter traditions incorporate a lot of elements from a bunch of different religious backgrounds. You can’t really say that it’s just about resurrection, or just about spring, or just about fertility and sex. You can’t pick one thread out of a tapestry and say, “Hey, now this particular strand is what this tapestry’s really about.” It doesn’t work that way; very few things in life do.
The fact is that the Ancient Romans were smart when it came to conquering. In their pagan days, they would absorb gods and goddesses from every religion they encountered into their own pantheon; when the Roman Empire became Christian, the Roman Catholic Church continued to do the same thing, in a manner of speaking.
And do you know why that worked so well? Because adaptability is a really, really good trait to have in terms of survival of the fittest (something I wish the present-day Catholic Church would remember). Scratch the surface of just about any Christian holiday, and you’ll find pagan elements, if not a downright pagan theme, underneath.
Know what else? Most Christians know this. Or, at least, most of the Christians that I’m friends with (which is, admittedly, a fairly small sampling). They know that Jesus wasn’t really born on December 25th, and they know that there were never any actual snakes in Ireland, and they know that rabbits and eggs are fertility symbols. But they don’t care, because they realize that religions evolve and change and that that’s actually a good thing, not a bad thing. The fact that many Christian saints are just re-imagined pagan gods and goddesses doesn’t alter their faith one iota; because faith isn’t about reason or sense, it’s about belief.
So what's actually true and what's not?
"So what's actually true and what's not?'
As I was just saying on FB, I don't particularly care what is "actually true" about the origins of the name "Easter", and what is actually false. I only know that what is claimed about Easter by Christians and their bibles, is unproven, and furthermore, no amount of "history" lessons will change that fact.
because faith isn’t about reason or sense, it’s about belief. ~ from the article
Precisely. To have(need) "faith" is to imply there is doubt.
"To have(need) "faith" is to imply there is doubt."
Not sure I completely agree with that statement ... it implies that there is an unknown value/quantity ... it "could" be doubt or it could be any number of things... they choose to fill in the blank with a perception/deception.
But more specifically it's like the "X" in an algebraic equation - we can't knowingly call it any one thing without first solving for the value.
Me: To have(need) "faith" is to imply there is doubt.
Robert: "Not sure I completely agree with that statement ... it implies that there is an unknown value/quantity"
The key word here, is "unknown".
If "X" is "unknown", and in the context of religion, if we say that "X" = "God", then for believer "A" to come along and profess, "I have faith that God exists!", this statement implies doubt, whether believer "A" claims to be an Gnostic Theist, or an Agnostic Theist. IOW, "faith", in the context of religion, is a form of agnosticism(lack of knowledge).
This, of course, doesn't preclude believers from attempting to say that to have "faith" is merely to have trust, but this is equivocation and is simply not true, because the latter(i.e.."trust") is built upon a proven track record, whereas, "faith" - and again, I'm talking in the context of religion - implies doubt/uncertainty. There is no proven track record for any of the three leading monotheistic deities.
I again disagree ... Although I am not saying that it cannot imply doubt, i'm simply saying that it's not required ... specifically if one trusts the source of the person or book that says "God exists, I don't have proof but have faith, he exists" the listener is not required to ever entertain a doubt in this statement despite the lack of foundational proof - simply trusting the source is enough to believe/have faith
I think you and i might have similarly been indoctrinated into having faith via trusted sources (parents/teachers etc.) long before doubt was ever a question or consideration ... if fact I don't think the concept of "doubt" was even a known quantity to me before i had unquestionable unshakable faith in god
Question: When you say "To have (need) "faith" is to imply there is doubt."
Is this about the assumption that we only need faith because there is fear, which usually results in doubt? So if there would not be fear, then no faith would be required?
"I again disagree ... Although I am not saying that it cannot imply doubt, i'm simply saying that it's not required."
Alrighty. Well, first, I concede that, in some instances, we can be uncertain and not harbor/imply doubt, but these are strictly non-religious instances. For example....
- "I have faith that the Mets will win!"
- "I have faith that my dog will wake me up at 6:30 every morning!"
- "I have faith that my ol' Chevy will get me there!"
- "I have faith in my relationship!"
True, these don't necessarily imply doubt, but the people who might utter these things aren't certain in any absolute sense. That is a fact---they cannot *know* for certain that the Mets will win(etc), so, at best, "faith" is trust; at worst, it is wish-thinking.
I'm merely saying that trusting in invisible, conscious beings doesn't come across as confident or secure as the above examples, despite that the devout believer might claim to have "an unquestionable unshakable faith in god". The most damning in this, the believer can produce no track-record for their respective gods. Trusting in that which has no provable track-record of being reliable projects doubt and is the flimsiest of "faith", because, let's face it, if they were certain, they wouldn't need "faith".
"...but these are strictly non-religious instances. " -Jeff
Yeah - I still have to take exception here - as i stated above - I still assert in the absence of the concept of doubt and with nothing else to gauge the possibility of another outcome - i say faith, without doubt and in religious context, can and does exist. please refer to my above post that we (or at least me), as young kids/babies - did not conceive "doubt" when our parents told us of god and that our preacher/pastor would teach us "the way" - it was unquestioning - inconceivable that god could not exist any more than the ground under our feet could be water.
No - we learned to question and doubt through school, observation, friends etc and so forth - but if you were anything like me - god existed from the day i was born - i never had any reason to suspect otherwise ... but then so did santa claus - until i was 5 or 6 years old.
Happy chocolate zombie rabbit dawy
Bobbie:”… i say faith, without doubt and in religious context, can and does exist. please refer to my above post that we (or at least me), as young kids/babies - did not conceive "doubt" when our parents told us of god and that our preacher/pastor would teach us "the way…"”
I’m pretty sure as kids or babies we did experience fear and as a result doubt. This was long before “God” didn’t have any meaning for me, let alone I could grasp the concept of there being a God.
Which bring me back to my previous question Jeff, “Is this about the assumption that we only need faith because there is fear, which usually results in doubt? So if there would not be fear, then no faith would be required?”
Jeff: “…I'm merely saying that trusting in invisible, conscious beings doesn't come across as confident or secure as the above examples, despite that the devout believer might claim to have "an unquestionable unshakable faith in god".
Sometimes it’s the lack of something better which stimulates this. As a kid I had lots of lots of nightmares and not only when I was asleep. I was very sensitive for things happening around midnight. As a result I had a hard time going to bed alone till we got to move to this house about 12 years ago (no neighhours above or below and no previous residents).
So when I got to experience my Spirit Team a couple of years ago (whether it’s an illusion or not), this really helped me feeling more secure not only during night time, but also in daytime. It’s amazing how much fear and insecurity can get generated by feeling stuff and not knowing what it is.
@the Both of you: Have fun with all the chocolate, don't overeat though – besides this being a women’s thing (exceptions being there like me) LOL
"i say faith, without doubt and in religious context, can and does exist."
I've not said that "faith" cannot exist "without doubt". I'm saying(in a nutshell), that if a belief is held with complete confidence/certainty, and thus zero doubt, then "faith" is the wrong word for it. Either you've been careless in repeating my position back to me, or I've been failing at doing a good job of conveying my position, or possibly a little of both.
"please refer to my above post that we (or at least me), as young kids/babies - did not conceive 'doubt' when our parents told us of god and that our preacher/pastor would teach us 'the way'."
I do understand what you mean here, and it's worth pointing out that it applies to things besides "God"..e.g..Santa, the toothfairy, the stork, the boogieman, etc. Yes, we are taught - whether it be directly, or indirectly - to be skeptical of(to doubt) the above-mentioned characters, and more. Totally, 100%, agreed. My contention has more to do with the connotation of the word than it does the person using the word.
Like I stated above, if someone is 100% certain about something, then "faith" is the wrong word; using it is doing them a disservice. On the other hand, if "faith" boils down to mere "trust", then that comes up short, too, since "trust" is built upon a prior, proven track-record.
IOW, "trust" used in a non-religious context is acceptable..e.g..."I have faith that my ol' Chevy will get me there". The person's Chevy has obviously gotten them where they've needed to go in the past, and they can produce the evidence to support the vehicle's track-record. Moreover, their vehicle can be touched, tested, and the results can be repeated and examined.
Conversely, in religious context..e.g..."I have faith that God exists!" - regardless of how confident the person uttering the statement is - "God" cannot be touched or tested, and thus, there are no results to repeat or examine.
Both usages of "faith" can imply "trust", yes, but both statements are not equally plausible, and we are therefore being reasonable to doubt one claim more than the other. That is the crux of my position when I talk about "faith" and "doubt". I fully realize that the person using the word "faith" might not have a doubt in the world.
"Happy chocolate zombie rabbit dawy"
Went to Lowry zoo. Skipped the traditions of Easter this year, including all sweets. Oh....saw Jimmy Delisi at the zoo(not in a cage). haha
Did you get to see the cougar (Florida Panther)??? If so, I'm slightly jealous...
Jeff: " if someone is 100% certain about something, then "faith" is the wrong word; "
This is a pretty cool exercise since it gives me an opportunity to re-investigate words that i've taken their meaning for granted for decades and allows me to see if my original understanding of a word was either initially "off" or if I lost some aspect of it's meaning over the decades since I originally learned it Here is the Merrian-Webster definition
Faith:
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Me again - so my takeaway is: Belief, trust, loyalty - with conviction and/or without proof - I'm thinking I'm not far off what I thought it was from the outset of this discussion - "plausibility" never enters into the "faith" in something be it god or your chevy
Since "conviction" and sincerity are subjective, won't sit here and say your concept of these misguides your definition of faith, making you understanding of the word acceptable ... thus i say, we have slightly different but equally correct perceptions of what it means to have "faith"
Upon reviewing the thread I probably slightly misinterpreted your statement:
"Precisely. To have(need) "faith" is to imply there is doubt."
Thinking that in some way you meant it "Required" doubt to be present - I would certainly concede that anything we have faith in over time - especially in the absence of proof - doubts will eventually arise to some degree - but i still hold fast that in some instances, if the source that enlightens us to the concept requiring faith is trusted at a high enough level, doubt is not initial required or present in the initial adoption of faith
In short - I don't think anyone is "wrong" here.
Re: Jimi - His Killer Bees project sounds interesting, still kinda miss seeing him around ton in the "love bugs" - but really miss seeing him during football season - he's a Cleveland Browns fan too
@Lexje - It's always fun to see majestic animals like the Panther in a zoo - but even more so,and better to see them where they belong, in the wild.
Yes, I saw a Florida Panther. It was sleeping, however.
RE: "Faith" and "doubt",
Obviously, a broader(Vs narrower) description/definition of a term will open up more ways to look at things. I was attempting to focus on "faith" in a religious context, and specifically, not that of where "faith" is likened to "trust"(because that is a lacking comparison for the reasons I gave, above), but where it used by those who claim to be absolutely, 100% certain that the deity in which they have "faith", exists. IOW, I'm talking Gnostic Theists.
Also, my position on this matter is predicated on the person on the receiving end of such "unquestionable unshakable faith in god" statements to be a non-believer. I mean, obviously, one devout believer isn't going to exude or pick up on any implied "doubt" from another devout believer. I thought that was a given.
So, for my original statement to hold up - and I still believe it does, albeit, I'll reword it below - a few assumptions need to be made, which are: 1) any implied doubt is being perceived from a nonbeliever's POV, and 2) I'm setting aside what the person of "faith" actually believes or feels for a moment.
So, revised, my position is this:
From a nonreligious standpoint, to have(need) "faith" is to imply uncertainty.
The explanation is this:
When Gnostic Theists(which are those who claim to know for certain that "God" exists) proclaim "faith in God", they are using a word that implies less than certain. Thus, "faith" is the wrong word to use in lieu of certainty or knowledge.
From there, while it's true that one can be less than certain but still not harbor doubt, this only applies to Agnostic Theists since they are the ones who hold to a "2. b" definition of "faith". Nothing in that definition implies "certainty" or "knowledge", thus, Gnostic Theists are doing a disservice to themselves when they profess "faith in God".
If (Gnostic) Theists knew "God" existed, they wouldn't need "faith".
Jeff: "From a nonreligious standpoint, to have(need) "faith" is to imply uncertainty."
My counter to this is - in any context, to have(need) "faith" is to imply a lack of readily available evidence. I suppose one could extrapolate uncertainty, doubt from that.
but then that is splitting a hair that has already been split 3 or 4 times ;)
"My counter to this is - in any context, to have(need) 'faith' is to imply a lack of readily available evidence."
Fair enough. So, you then agree, I take it, that if those who proclaim "faith in God" lack evidence, then it would be inconsistent of them to claim certainty, yes? If "yes", that aligns well enough with the point I wanted to make with my original statement.
"then it would be inconsistent of them to claim certainty" - Jeff
They can proclaim it, and feel certain of it - they can "know in their heart of hearts - but they cannot prove it - in fact they have scant evidence to even suggest anything even remotely close to the possibility of anything supernatural, all powerful, etc etc.
The equivalent of me holding up a Stephan King novel and proclaiming a pet cemetery that will reanimate fluffy and fido if you bury them in it over night and say the magic words.
To be fair - we cannot DISprove their assertion - but we do have tons of empirical evidence that disproves many of the assertions that the "faithful" proclaim - and thus at least we can make an educated extrapolation that their assertion are just too outlandish
So yes - we're in agreement :)
Back to the resurrection....
If "Jesus" was resurrected in "spirit"...IOW, if it was his "soul" that ascended to Heaven, then wouldn't we expect skeletal remains or a carcass in the tomb? I think so.
That's just but one of many ... shall we say ... sketchy details within the bible that at minimum should raise an eyebrow to even the most basic of critical thinkers.
Being more broad - i started having a most concerning issue when i realized that archaeologists and scientist across the globe TRYING to find evidence to help bolster the bible's authenticity, kept finding gospels and manuscripts and other writings and documentation from early history ... only to have them summarily dismissed out of hand
now, what kind of organization seeking truth does that? i contend, one that wants to keep the wool over the sheep's eyes
Wouldn't everyone WANT to know more details, and points of view? Why does Mary Magdelain have to be a "prostitute"? Why does Judas have to be a traitorous rat? Why couldn't Judas have been doing JUST as Jesus ordered?
If the gospels of Judas and Mary are propaganda stories - then it stands to reason their contemporaries matthew mark luke and john should be equally questioned for their motives and authenticity because i have not seen or heard any overwhelming evidence that suggest those are any more truthful other than so ancient geezers decided it to be so.
Jeff: “If "Jesus" was resurrected in "spirit"...IOW, if it was his "soul" that ascended to Heaven, then wouldn't we expect skeletal remains or a carcass in the tomb? I think so.”
Have I missed something or did we read a different version? As I recall Jesus didn’t resurrect in spirit, but he showed up with a body full of wounds, including wounds in his side, which for some reason were put to the test (just imagine sticking your hand in a wound surrounded by crusts, leading to who knows what…).
After this there was his ascending. Not sure what happened to his body then. Was this a trick question?
@Bobbie:
How about the apostles coming up with one version for the “people”, when realizing they all had different points of view (because of their backgrounds so they say) when it came to what Jesus had said?
Seemingly the Old Testament was easy to agree about, as opposed to the New Testament, which led to some arguments among one another.
"Have I missed something or did we read a different version?"
I'm not sure what makes you think that because we came away with different interpretations that we must have read different versions. There are upwards of 3,400 different sects/split-offs of Christianity, all with slightly different interpretations of the same bible. So, however that is possible, I guess that's how it becomes possible that it seems that one or the other person "missed something".
"As I recall Jesus didn’t resurrect in spirit, but he showed up with a body full of wounds, including wounds in his side, which for some reason were put to the test"
Okay, but if he "walked through walls", including the tomb(as reported), then it would stand to reason that he no longer had a physical body. So, in my view, that leaves a ghost, spector, apparition, or a "spirit". I'm just wondering where the remains of his physical body were left. If not in the tomb, then where? If "Jesus" was 100% man and 100% God(spirit), putting that contradiction aside, we'd still expect to find physical remains at some point and at some place.
And no, it wasn't a trick question, and neither is this: Are you defending the bible? 'Just curious.
"Seemingly the Old Testament was easy to agree about, as opposed to the New Testament, which led to some arguments among one another." - Lexje
If it is ALL God's Word - how could mortals disagree? ... mortals disagree when they're trying to find the best way to bamboozle people into believing it's gods word when in fact it always has been MAN's word - Men have agendas - what better way than to put the fear of god into people than to say YOU are the mortal voice of god? and since the vast majority of people could not read back in those days and there was not internet, who would know if you "tweak" "god's word" to get the people to do, act and think the way you want them to?
As for the apostles - they each saw and heard from different vantage points and interacted with jesus individually so it would stand to reason they'd have different perspectives and insights to their version of the stories ... they then walked them foot over foot all in different directions around the known world - no great surprise that Christianity instantly had multiple factions
@Jeff:
“I'm not sure what makes you think that because we came away with different interpretations that we must have read different versions.”
Well you started talking about him showing himself in the “spirit”, next wondering what had happened to his body. To me showing up in the “spirit” means without a body, as you seem to think so too, otherwise you wouldn’t have asked what happened to this body.
What struck me most about the story (back in the days) was how he returned after his resurrection, with his body full of the scars because of the cruelties done to him. So talk resurrection and I see him standing with these gaping wounds in his sides, which is not the same as showing up without a body in “spirit”.
This being said, I was wondering how it was possible we could have interpreted the same story so differently.
“Okay, but if he "walked through walls", including the tomb(as reported), then it would stand to reason that he no longer had a physical body. So, in my view, that leaves a ghost, spector, apparition, or a "spirit".“
Okay, I see your point of view. When viewing this as an impossibility, I would probably go for “someone helped him roll the stone away, so he could get out”, instead of “now he must have become a ghost”. But I get it, it’s contradictive that someone would be able to go through a wall when having a physical body. Then again so is waking up in a body that already has been decaying for three days.
Would he have been a “ghost”, we can safely assume hardly anyone would have been able to see him, except for the very few who are gifted with being clairvoyant. So this option doesn’t make sense either.
“I'm just wondering where the remains of his physical body were left. If not in the tomb, then where?”
Well I was wondering about something along those lines, but a little later on in the story, when he ascended to the heavens. What happened then?
“If "Jesus" was 100% man and 100% God(spirit), putting that contradiction aside, we'd still expect to find physical remains at some point and at some place.”
Well just maybe he had the skills of Dynamo, the magician? I’ve seen him ascending and descending and go through stuff and walk on water (okay on tv I admit). If one can do so nowadays, well why not back then? I assume being an illusionist is not limited to this period of time only.
“Are you defending the bible? 'Just curious.”
Let’s put it this way. If this story was about Rapunzel and you would have said she’d have black hair, I’d responded to you: That’s strange since I remember her being called Goldy-Lock, so unless she started bleaching it throughout the different versions…??? Something like that… :-)
But on a more serious note: I’m aware the Bible has a very high fairytale content to it. So one can wonder what bits can be viewed as facts and which not. The defending is something however I leave up to others. What’s there to defend about a book that constantly has been changed depending on “what the people ruling assumed were best for the people” or better yet “was best for themselves”?
Do you actually think I would defend the Bible? Why?
@Bobby:
“…they then walked them foot over foot all in different directions around the known world - no great surprise that Christianity instantly had multiple factions”
Well just maybe this says it all. How can a book be considered to be believed, if the people who originally had it written had so much trouble deciding on what was supposed to be the truth and/or best for “the people”?
“Are you defending the bible?
There's nothing wrong with trying to ferret out the reality from the fantasy - that doesn't necessarily qualify as "defending"
Take Jesus - the man - for example - i think there's enough clues to suggest that the mortal human lived and died - and probably did and said many of the things written - just not in the ways perceived ... and just like Mary bamboozled everyone that she was divinely impregnated with the son of god to cover up her whorishness ... best. conspiracy. ever.
..." if the people who originally had it written had so much trouble deciding on what was supposed to be the truth and/or best for “the people” -lexje
which "book" are we talking about here? - there are 66 individual "books" that comprise the collection known as the bible which is considered one book - that one book did not exist in totality until some 300-400 years after the supposed life of jesus so for christianity to take root it had to be preached from several different "versions of the events - many of which never even made it into the bible - i have a major problem with that fact - especially as i've stated, that archeologists have uncovered more writings that are contemporaries of those included in the bible yet were never given any serious consideration - this kills credibility ... like saying the manhatten project was just a big waste of time and nothing was learned from it so it should be disregarded
This article may give an interesting view on the subject. It’s from the website of one of my former teachers, Jacob Slavenburg, who actually has written a number of books on all books/scripts having to do with the bible, after doing extensive research. This is his website:
http://www.jacobslavenburg.nl/en/uncategorized-en/the-tomb-of-jesus/
This is the article:
The tomb of Jesus
According to church doctrine, Jesus bodily ascended to heaven. In esoteric and Gnostic Christianity, this has always been a curious and strange idea. A spiritual resurrection, OK! But a resurrection in the flesh is an event many sources of old could not accept. For instance, the writing “The Treatise on the Resurrection” from the Nag Hammadi Library (in the Jung Codex) is illuminating. In the oldest Christianity, the Judaic or Jewish Christianity, one never thought of a resurrection in the flesh.
At the time of Jesus’ death on the cross, people believed that the man died, but not his “power,” the Logos (or Christ Power) which was active in his followers. And now, all of a sudden there is the discovery of Jesus’ tomb containing his ossuary (bone box). He was buried in a tomb that was laid bare in 1980, together with his beloved Mary Magdalene (Mariamne), their son, Judah, his brother Joseph, his mother Mary, with Matthew and a few others whose names are not (yet) known.
In 1980, when builders stumbled on a tomb in the suburb Talpiot in Jerusalem, no one wanted to believe it with the exception of one of the archaeologists, who as one of the first to examine the tomb, Yosef Gat. He immediately made a connection between the names that appeared on the ossuaries. This was Jesus’ family tomb. The man experienced an intense inner conflict between truth or denial. Telling the truth would probably engender a new wave of anti-Semitism. This Jewish man raised in Poland under the horrible Nazi terror, chose in favor of denial. However, his widow, during the scientific congress in Jerusalem, chose for the truth. No matter how much this may sound like the Da Vinci Code story, it is not fiction, but reality, and may have far-reaching consequences for the traditional Christian faith. This may explain the persistent opposition in the theological world. Many bend over backwards with inaccurate and untenable arguments to say that it is all nonsense.
Just read the book, view the documents and judge for yourself.
A number of documents may be found at dsc.discovery.com (http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/media/tomb_evidence.pdf)(this site however is unvailable at the moment).
There’s more info on the website, however all Dutch. It seems it’s all about a movie directed by James Cameron “the Tomb of Jesus”, aired by Discovery Channel.
On You Tube a number of movies can be found who are opposed to this movie being true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d78xdHLR3Y
This film does a devastating critique of Discovery Channel's "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" (produced by Avatar director James Cameron). The same scholars who were interviewed in this documentary are interviewed here. Many of them express their dismay over how they were taken out of context to make it appear that they think the supposed lost tomb of Jesus was authentic.
What explanation can be given for the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth? The New Testament records the first-century event: The disciples of Jesus reported that he was risen from the dead, while Roman soldiers were paid to claim his followers secretly removed him from the tomb.
After 2,000 years, the latest challenge to the historical resurrection of Jesus comes in the form of a bone box discovered in Jerusalem. The recent documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus has popularized the hypothesis that Jesus' followers stole his body from the tomb by suggesting that the bone box inscribed with "Jesus son of Joseph" may contain the remains of Jesus of Nazareth.
As a new twist to the ancient debate, this challenge demands a response. Join us as we take a hard look at the evidence and answer the questions concerning the reliability of the resurrection. Have the bones of Jesus of Nazareth really been found? Is the resurrection history or myth? Find out here in this episode of Expedition Bible.
"There's nothing wrong with trying to ferret out the reality from the fantasy - that doesn't necessarily qualify as 'defending'." ~ R. Hall
As far as I'm considered, there's nothing "wrong" with ferreting out fact from fiction or defending the bible. As you say, those two things aren't mutually inclusive, but neither are they mutually exclusive. So, in these sorts of discussions, I just like to know from the onset where the person with whom I'm engaging stands.
"Well you started talking about him showing himself in the 'spirit', next wondering what had happened to his body. To me showing up in the 'spirit' means without a body, as you seem to think so too, otherwise you wouldn’t have asked what happened to this body" ~ Lexje
Bottom line, when "Jesus" (supposedly) rose from the dead, he either had a physical body that was detectable with the physical senses, or he didn't. The accounts from (supposed) eyewitnesses vary, which, alone, make it suspect, IMO, but either way, at least some of those eyewitnesses said that the risen Christ could "walk through walls". If this is true, this poses problems for those whom "faith", alone, doesn't suffice(e.g..me, for one).
Firstly, if "Jesus" could penetrate walls, everything we know about science tells us that he did not/could not have had a physical body. This is why I asked for the whereabouts of Jesus' physical remains after he was "seen" later on, and IMO, the tomb would be the first logical place to consider.
On the other hand, the tomb's "door"(a stone) was rolled away, which would be odd if Jesus could really walk through walls.
The stories don't align, even in make-believe land. It sounds to me like the bible's redactors wanted their Protagonist to have super-duper powers, so much so, that they didn't stop to consider that their various input didn't coincide with one another. We are, after all, to believe that the bible's authors were inspired by a perfect "God", so it raises the question of why such a "God" would allow such shoddy, contradictory authorship.
"I was wondering how it was possible we could have interpreted the same story so differently."
The key word here is "story". If the bible is just a series of stories, like Aesop's Fables, then there'd be no reason to take issue with chronology of events. But since Christians aren't asking us to accept their bible as a "story", but as fact, and further, since the book in which this whole resurrection rigmarole appears threatens those who doubt it, it is reasonable to ask questions about the chronology of events.
So, again, if the "Risen Christ" could penetrate walls, we are being reasonable to ask where he left his physical body, since, a material body cannot penetrate walls made of stone or wood. If some people in the narrative claimed to see him later on is just part of a "story", then fine. On the other hand, if I am to believe that the narrative is fact, then either no one saw him later on, or he didn't really die. Or, the whole thing is a bunch of malarkey. I'm not going to believe, unquestionably, a bunch of unproven nonsense simply because the chronology of events is consistent..E.g..."Oh? Jesus was seen later on and people were playing with his wounds? Okay, then maybe his body was both physical and metaphysical! That settles it!".
contin...
"Would he have been a 'ghost', we can safely assume hardly anyone would have been able to see him, except for the very few who are gifted with being clairvoyant. So this option doesn’t make sense either."
If "dead" people walking(or floating) out of their graves can "make sense", then practically anything else can make the same sense.
"Well just maybe he had the skills of Dynamo, the magician? I’ve seen him ascending and descending and go through stuff and walk on water (okay on tv I admit). If one can do so nowadays, well why not back then?"
Except that "Jesus" isn't claimed to be a great illusionist or magician; he's claimed to be the Son of the Creator of the Universe. 'Big difference.
"If this story was about Rapunzel and you would have said she’d have black hair, I’d responded to you: That’s strange since I remember her being called Goldy-Lock, so unless she started bleaching it throughout the different versions…??? Something like that… :-)"
So, okay, you're defending the bible's chronology. I, on the other hand, use the bible's chronology to show that it is a bunch of man-made nonsense.
"Do you actually think I would defend the Bible?"
I don't know. That's why asked.
"Why?"
Because many people, once they conclude that the bible is not the infallible "Word of God" after all, continue to defend it for other reasons. E.g..because it contains poetic truths and bits of Wisdom. That's why.
What explanation can be given for the empty tomb of Jesus of Nazareth?
For one, the corpse could have been stolen/moved by grave robbers. That is more plausible, more believable, and much more likely, than the hypothesis that a man got up out of his grave and went walking around town.
Is the resurrection history or myth?
At best, some discovered bones might give credence to the notion that there was an actual "Jesus". Those who posit that said bones prove that "Jesus" is the "Son of God", was crucified, and came back to life, and as such, is an historical event, still have the bulk of their work cut out for them. Archeological evidence doesn't prove supernatural claims.
Bobbie: "There's nothing wrong with trying to ferret out the reality from the fantasy - that doesn't necessarily qualify as 'defending'."
This actually seems like a good explanation for what I meant. This is initially what I meant.
Continuing with you Jeff…
You: “Firstly, if "Jesus" could penetrate walls, everything we know about science tells us that he did not/could not have had a physical body.”
It’s not supposed to align with science. It’s supposed to be something that’s out of the ordinary, above our comprehension. What keeps surprising me is that somewhere along the way we were not supposed to have intelligence. Then again I fell for it, maybe because I was told upfront it didn’t add up what was said in the bible.
You: “We are, after all, to believe that the bible's authors were inspired by a perfect "God", so it raises the question of why such a "God" would allow such shoddy, contradictory authorship.”
Humans have flaws. We can only mimic and try to reach for perfection, but will never achieve so.
Me: "I was wondering how it was possible we could have interpreted the same story so differently."
You: “I'm not going to believe, unquestionably, a bunch of unproven nonsense simply because the chronology of events is consistent..E.g..."Oh? Jesus was seen later on and people were playing with his wounds? Okay, then maybe his body was both physical and metaphysical! That settles it!".”
I’m beginning to see your reasoning here and why you have a different approach to the story.
You: “Except that "Jesus" isn't claimed to be a great illusionist or magician; he's claimed to be the Son of the Creator of the Universe. 'Big difference.”
Then let’s just go along with the reasoning of superpowers. Just an assumption: If we’re all made up of energy and everything around us is too, including things like walls, which seem massive, but our in fact also made of particles… Why wouldn’t one (with superpowers like Jesus supposed to have had) be able to blend with and separate from an object again?
You: “So, okay, you're defending the bible's chronology. I, on the other hand, use the bible's chronology to show that it is a bunch of man-made nonsense.”
After what you’ve explained before I see what you mean, so yes. That it may not make any sense at all wasn’t taken into consideration.
Me: "Do you actually think I would defend the Bible?"
You: “I don't know. That's why asked.”
Me: "Why?"
You: “Because many people, once they conclude that the bible is not the infallible "Word of God" after all, continue to defend it for other reasons. E.g..because it contains poetic truths and bits of Wisdom. That's why.
My dislike for the Bible has been growing on me for a while now. It’s not because of our discussions I’m suddenly starting to question it. If anything it just made things worse. I’ve had many discussions over the years with people who thought the bible to be holier than holy (if possible) and actually I got fed up with the rigidity of many people a long time ago already.
My fond memories are probably the ones having to do with the children’s bibles I got to read when I was still a young kid, going to church weekly and enjoying the colourful drawings. In other words the meaning behind it got lost. I guess it took me till recently to realize how gruesome and totally contradictive some (most) things are. And I do not like it one bit. So I guess the poetic truths and bits of Wisdom got lost on me along the way.
It keeps surprising me how with every thread, resulting in discussions and questions, things are more and more exposed. It’s an interesting process. Whereas this blog in part may be, a form of self-therapy for you, your line of questioning does put things in perspective (at least for me).
"It’s not supposed to align with science. It’s supposed to be something that’s out of the ordinary[...]"
Right, it's supposed to come across as something extraordinary, and in the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Presenting a 2000 year-old book which claims an extraordinary event took place as its *OWN* evidence is hardly extraordinary evidence.
"[It's supposed to be] above our comprehension."
Which is odd, considering how much believers claim to understand about it.
"What keeps surprising me is that somewhere along the way we were not supposed to have intelligence."
Which should raise an eyebrow with any critically thinking person. The bible says that the wisdom of man is "foolishness", and that, ideally, we should have the "mind of a child". Your average child can be duped much faster and easier than your average adult. 'Coincidence?
"Humans have flaws."
If humans who are "inspired by God" still have flaws, then they could have just left "inspired by God" part out. It's obviously an irrelevant distinction.
"We can only mimic and try to reach for perfection, but will never achieve so."
According to Christian doctrine, we cannot ever achieve perfection and are being held accountable for it. It's like tossing a goldfish in a bowl of water and blaming it for being "wet".
"I’ve had many discussions over the years with people who thought the bible to be holier than holy (if possible) and actually I got fed up with the rigidity of many people a long time ago already."
Admitting that the bible isn't perfect is the first step in admitting to one's self that Christianity just might not be "The "Truth". Many people aren't willing to do that, albeit, many Christians readily accept that the bible contains errors, but "keep the faith", despite that. In other words, they compartmentalize.
"I guess it took me till recently to realize how gruesome and totally contradictive some (most) things are. And I do not like it one bit. So I guess the poetic truths and bits of Wisdom got lost on me along the way"
The filth, immorality, and outright nonsense clearly outweighs the bits of wisdom you can find. Even "Jesus", assuming he existed, was Mr. Nice Guy one minute; a complete jerk, the next.
"Whereas this blog in part may be, a form of self-therapy for you, your line of questioning does put things in perspective (at least for me)."
People say that these discussions never get anywhere because people don't change their minds. Welp, they're wrong.
"[It's supposed to be] above our comprehension."
Which is odd, considering how much believers claim to understand about it.
Ok - that creates a whole new level of Epicness :P
“Presenting a 2000 year-old book which claims an extraordinary event took place as its *OWN* evidence is hardly extraordinary evidence.”
You know what I find to be an accomplishment? Getting people to believe and defend this book for over 2000 years. Then again churches are rapidly fading over here, since hardly any one ever attends church anymore.
“…and that, ideally, we should have the "mind of a child". Your average child can be duped much faster and easier than your average adult. 'Coincidence?”
At this moment I’m still amazed how I went along with it. It’s like I’ve lived in a fishbowl or something while still being part of the world and being proud of it at the time I was living in this fishbowl.
“According to Christian doctrine, we cannot ever achieve perfection and are being held accountable for it.”
Being held accountable, does not necessarily mean that access to “heaven” would be denied if being less than perfect. Actually I don’t recall what happens after the people who have died, arrive at the gate, get to talk to Peter and next get to rethink their life.
“… many Christians readily accept that the bible contains errors, but "keep the faith", despite that. In other words, they compartmentalize.”
You mean as in making a distinction between them being “real” believers and other being “so-called” believers?
“The filth, immorality, and outright nonsense clearly outweighs the bits of wisdom you can find.”
Are there any usable bits of wisdom left for you when it comes to the bible?
“People say that these discussions never get anywhere because people don't change their minds. Welp, they're wrong.”
Just wondering here, if just maybe people are not willing to get into a discussion, since then they would have to put some effort in it? And what’s easier than not having to change at all?
Could you tell me a bit about how things went down with you and your siblings, (grand)parents? Are you the only one with doubts? Was this acceptable? Did you ever discuss this?
I mean, it’s only because of my recent changes in belief that I got to discuss this with my sister and mom. I still have not even spoken with my brother about it. Then again I doubt he believes in “anything” at all. If so, I do not believe this to be the result of a “carefully” considered process.
"You know what I find to be an accomplishment? Getting people to believe and defend this book for over 2000 years."
But consider what's at stake, here. If Christianity and its bible are a just bunch of man-made nonsense....you know, like Christians believe all other religions are, then the promise that we can live forever in a state of pure, unadulterated bliss, is off the table. If that promise is off the table, then there'd be no other reason to defend resurrections, human sacrifices, and talking snakes, etc.
"At this moment I’m still amazed how I went along with it."
Like most indoctrinated people, we trusted friends and family to tell us the truth. 'Nothing really amazing about believing the people we trust. The problem is, they were indoctrinated by their family and friends, as well, and so on, and so on. The meme survives because it counts on hereditary indoctrination.
"Being held accountable, does not necessarily mean that access to 'heaven' would be denied if being less than perfect."
Access is denied if, in one's lifetime, they didn't accept Christianity as true, specifically, "Jesus" as their "Lord and Savior", yadda, yadda. It boils down to favoritism..i.e..everybody's imperfect, but Christian's imperfection is excused.
"Actually I don’t recall what happens after the people who have died, arrive at the gate, get to talk to Peter and next get to rethink their life."
'Depends on who you ask.
"You mean as in making a distinction between them being 'real' believers and other being 'so-called' believers?"
That, too, but no.....I mean compartmentalize(look it up)
"Are there any usable bits of wisdom left for you when it comes to the bible?"
Nothing that's unique to Christianity.
"Could you tell me a bit about how things went down with you and your siblings, (grand)parents? Are you the only one with doubts? Was this acceptable? Did you ever discuss this?"
I don't discuss it with them. If the subject's raised, I'll defend my stance if left with no choice, however.
After reading your answers today and following up on your instruction to look things up, like “compartmentalization” I continued with some other words/expressions like “meme” and “hereditary indoctrination” and I came to realize I’m slowly being pulled into this world of Atheism. It’s like leaving one world (Christianity) and changing it for another one. And I’m just not sure how I feel about this yet.
On one hand I’m happy with slowly being introduced to the terminology and better yet the views and on the other hand I’m wondering what I’m getting “pulled” into.
I do not know how this was for you, but with every answer you give, it’s like a new realization pops up. One moment because you say something and while interpreting why you’d say so I’m starting to discover the answers myself, other moments because you have me look things up, I get to stumble upon articles, names and websites and I get to understand why you refer to certain statements.
At first I thought it was about translation, next about learning new terminology, but it goes way further. Every term seems to refer to a certain vision on either the bible or the way of living/being raised as Christian. It’s a lot to dig in.
This being said, I’m going on with what you have written here.
“But consider what's at stake, here. If that promise [that we can live forever in a state of pure, unadulterated bliss] is off the table, then there'd be no other reason to defend resurrections, human sacrifices, and talking snakes, etc.”
Are you now talking about the possibility to stop wars over religion, or more so about the freedom we all obtain once we are no longer bound/limited by false promises and lies?
“The meme survives because it counts on hereditary indoctrination.”
Not so long ago I thought myself faith required being raised as children with the possibility of the existence of God and then later one deciding whether this would be true or not. Now I’m beginning to see that there is something seriously wrong with letting children read and believe in a book that’s full of contradictions, violence and even hatred. This is not about “love” and “being good to others” and actually this realization makes me very sad. I’m not sure yet how respect for others is best taught, but I guess it doesn’t require (solely) the ten commandments.
“It boils down to favoritism..i.e..everybody's imperfect, but Christian's imperfection is excused.“
What are we teaching others if we say one group of people can get away with almost anything regardless of their actions, solely because they of their religion?
I guess this may be what you were referring to in your earlier statement (being about what's at stake).
Me: "Actually I don’t recall what happens after the people who have died, arrive at the gate, get to talk to Peter and next get to rethink their life."
You: “ 'Depends on who you ask.”
Do I want to know as in "Is it relevant"?
“.....I mean compartmentalize(look it up)”
I’ve been looking it up. I was surprised to see the meaning behind it. It indeed doesn’t make sense that people who would normally apply normal reasoning logic in their day to day life, would constantly make an exception when it comes to defending the bible. But again this comes to down to what you said: “The meme survives because it counts on hereditary indoctrination.”
“I don't discuss it with them. If the subject's raised, I'll defend my stance if left with no choice, however.”
Then how do you cope/deal with it, especially as it seems Atheism is “not done” in America (being a minority)?
"After reading your answers today and following up on your instruction to look things up, like “compartmentalization” I continued with some other words/expressions like “meme” and “hereditary indoctrination” and I came to realize I’m slowly being pulled into this world of Atheism."
There is no "world of Atheism". Atheism is not a worldview; it's merely a result.
"It’s like leaving one world (Christianity) and changing it for another one."
What you are exchanging, if anything, is an inherited religious meme for the default position..i.e..nonbelief.
"And I’m just not sure how I feel about this yet"
What is true is true, regardless of how we feel about it. If certain beliefs make you feel better, then only you can decide if you want to stop searching in order to feel good. There's an adage that might apply here: You cannot "unring" a bell".
"On one hand I’m happy with slowly being introduced to the terminology and better yet the views and on the other hand I’m wondering what I’m getting 'pulled' into."
No one has "pulled" you into anything. You came here of your own volition; of your own volition, you are "free" to choose not to return. Or wait.... are you?(discussed in "Freewill" thread)
"Are you now talking about the possibility to stop wars over religion[...]"
No.
"What are we teaching others if we say one group of people can get away with almost anything regardless of their actions, solely because they of their religion?"
I don't know what we're teaching them, but I know we aren't teaching them personal accountability.
"I guess this may be what you were referring to in your earlier statement (being about what's at stake)."
Incorrect. When I talk/talked about what's at stake, I mean/meant losing the "comfort blanket"(e.g.."Heaven") when/if one gives up their religion. Few people are willing to do that, which is why people are "stuck" defending a book full of nonsense.
"Then how do you cope/deal with it, especially as it seems Atheism is 'not done' in America (being a minority)?"
I cope with it by having a blog.
“There is no "world of Atheism". Atheism is not a worldview; it's merely a result.”
It may just be a result, however the consequences are major. That’s all I wanted to address with the word “world”.
“What you are exchanging, if anything, is an inherited religious meme for the default position..i.e..nonbelief.”
You are aware that this whole “non-belief” for me might go beyond God? As in turning my life upside down and just maybe also inside out? (figure of speech)
Me: "And I’m just not sure how I feel about this yet"
You: “There's an adage that might apply here: You cannot "unring" a bell".”
No I most certainly can not. It’s not like I want to, I mean who wants to return to being “gullible”? Still feelings do apply even if we’re discussing “logic” here.
Me: "On one hand I’m happy with slowly being introduced to the terminology and better yet the views and on the other hand I’m wondering what I’m getting 'pulled' into."
You: “No one has "pulled" you into anything.”
No that’s true.
“You came here of your own volition; of your own volition, you are "free" to choose not to return. Or wait.... are you?(discussed in "Freewill" thread)”
I guess that adage “You cannot "unring" a bell" ” says it all. Should we now return back to the other thread?
“…I mean/meant losing the "comfort blanket"(e.g.."Heaven") when/if one gives up their religion. Few people are willing to do that, which is why people are "stuck" defending a book full of nonsense.”
I see. I was already wondering about this as you may have noticed.
However it’s not an easy decision (or just maybe I should now refer to it as process). I mean saying the Bible is like a fairytale and being done with Christianity is one thing. That’s actually easy enough, since the whole lot doesn’t make any sense. Saying there won’t be a heaven (or in my case an afterlife) is something else. And though taking it into *very* serious consideration, I do not know if I can ever let go off it completely.
"I mean saying the Bible is like a fairytale and being done with Christianity is one thing. That’s actually easy enough, since the whole lot doesn’t make any sense. Saying there won’t be a heaven (or in my case an afterlife) is something else. And though taking it into *very* serious consideration, I do not know if I can ever let go off it completely."
I assume, however, that you'd "let go of it completely" if you continued your search and found it to be false. If not, then you are attempting to "unring" the bell that you previously agreed couldn't be done.
“I assume, however, that you'd "let go of it completely" if you continued your search and found it to be false. If not, then you are attempting to "unring" the bell that you previously agreed couldn't be done.”
Well maybe that’s what I was trying to describe last night. The “letting go” to me feels like I’m stepping into a new – Idk… what would you call it? You say Atheism is not a world, it’s a result, but yet, one with major implications (I mean why else would there be a whole new language with its own definitions?) once getting “involved” with it.
And it’s one thing to read about it, think about it and answer questions about it, but next talking to my sister (for instance) about my findings, that’s strange. She’s bound to go into the defence mode even though she also says that not all things add up. It’s like hearing an echo from the old days.
Somehow with every answer and new thread you do seem to give me something to think about. When combining this with the reading about it, but also applying it in life (as in what’s still logical and what’s not anymore) there’s a little change every single day in the right direction (which still feels a bit lonely).
"Somehow with every answer and new thread you do seem to give me something to think about."
Something to "think about ". On the one hand, the one thing that the indoctrinated try to avoid too much of when it comes to the beliefs that they were spoon-fed by their parents, grandparents, church, and their friends. On the other hand, a requirement when it comes to cleverly squaring-up beliefs that, at face-value, don't make sense.
It seems as though it's a "catch-22". The trick is to teach people at a young age how to think, as opposed to what to think. This will lesson the chance of the need to compartmentalize later on in life.
oops..."lessen"
“The trick is to teach people at a young age how to think, as opposed to what to think.”
Sometimes (just for a split second) I wish I would not think those sentences through you’ve written down. However I do, as a result of what we discussed before and it’s facing me with a dilemma. I mean I’m a Godmother of two cousins after all. One of which I gave her own children’s bible. That same bible I now see as a story being close to a fairy-tale and which is highly prejudiced.
You probably understand that I’m the “woo” auntie talking about Angels. She doesn’t know I’m questioning the existence of these same Angels now. Should I tell her or just let her discover herself I’ve changed my belief system? She’s very bright so she should discover this soon enough. But then, what would this mean to her as to what has actually happened to both her grandparents, who she now expects to be up there, “safe” and sound?
I do not even know myself how to answer that very question. I mean the concept of heaven as proposed in the bible, may be ridiculous enough, but now saying there’s nothing at all? So since I’m not even able myself to make that distinction between what’s sheer imagination, dreams and what could possibly be true, how can I talk about this to her? Just a couple of days ago when waking up, I could feel my father holding my hand so vividly. At such a moment there’s a part of me that wishes/believes he’s still there. Sure I know it may be fantasy or the result of a dreamlike state, but there are so many moments in life I’m aware of a change in energy, most certainly when I’m at my mom’s. I sure do not want to be the one compartmentalizing, but getting away *completely* from this line of thinking/believing is a challenge in itself.
I'd rather not get into the business of counseling people on how to deal with family, friends, or whoever, who are still believers. On this blog, I provide an alternate view to what I and countless millions were taught in our formative years(and earlier). Yes, it's true that I believe that Christianity is immoral, repugnant, and demonstrably false, but by no means do I believe (or suggest) that Atheism is the only alternative to Christianity. If someone searches in earnest and sooner or later finds Atheism to be the logical result of that search, that is by his or her own doing. Moreover, since Atheism deals *strictly* with the non-belief in gods/"God", this doesn't necessarily preclude belief in things like "angels".
Also, my coming down hard on "woo" and pseudo-science is skepticism at work, not necessarily "Atheism".
As for what to tell your Godchildren, only you can decide that. But whatever you tell them, you can add that they should believe whatever makes the most sense. This way, they are accepting(or rejecting) your personal views with an opened mind.
“But whatever you tell them, you can add that they should believe whatever makes the most sense. This way, they are accepting (or rejecting) your personal views with an opened mind.”
That part about them being able to be open minded, sounds like a solid plan to me.
I guess my fear has to do with taking away any possible certainty about what follows once being confronted with death. She has been confronted with death way too often, including her father being nearly dead. So what does a little girl (well not so little since going to high school) need to hold on to in order to feel safe?
And I’m glad you got to explain that Atheism does leave room for other things to believe in.
"I guess my fear has to do with taking away any possible certainty about what follows once being confronted with death"
Certainty on what follows this life is not possible, so teaching young adults that they can be certain on this matter, while it might make them "feel safe", it can also be doing them a disservice. We've discussed the drawbacks of believing that life never ends. I'd rather not rehash that subject, though.
"... so teaching young adults that they can be certain on this matter, while it might make them "feel safe", it can also be doing them a disservice."
Being an adult I can comprehend this and yes I agree with you we might not do children a favor by denying them the possible truth. What is less damaging one can ask when it comes to a child...?
It sounds like a choice between two (im)possibilities: 1) Telling a possibly shocking truth with no comfort(zone) or 2) Enjoying and making the most of life (from the perspective of accountability) and start with this from as early on as possible which requires the first option to be discussed.
"It sounds like a choice between two (im)possibilities: 1) Telling a possibly shocking truth with no comfort(zone) or 2) Enjoying and making the most of life (from the perspective of accountability) and start with this from as early on as possible which requires the first option to be discussed." - lexje
If you're considering telling a child this "shocking truth" - there is a high likelihood that you really aren't in the proper position in this child's life to make this decision ... in other words, if this child was raised by it's parents to be a believer - you have no place or right to contradict those parent's choice - so the simple and easiest answer is - don't meddle in affairs that don't concern you - you want to tell children what's real and what's not? have your own kids. Then you can start to enlighten them at whatever age you choose.
The whole point of this is for you to find YOUR own truth ... not to go on a zealous preaching binge - there's enough of that going around with the believers that we don't need to go crusading.
If a child asks you to tell them about something you know their parents disagree with - you tell the child to talk to their parents ... or you present all sides OBJECTIVELY without choosing one over the other and leave the child to choose for him/her self
”If you're considering telling a child this "shocking truth"…” ~ Bobbie
You really think I’d do this on my own? No consulting with the parents whatsoever? First of all I love this child as it were my own, second I’m very fond of my sister and I highly respect her boundaries.
“…if this child was raised by it's parents to be a believer - you have no place or right to contradict those parent's choice” ~ Bobbie
Besides one parent being a believer and the other one being not, this child does talk to me about these things. As since I am the one to have brought her a little closer to believing in fairytales, I can at least think about the consequences.
“… have your own kids.” ~ Bobbie
You might want to be a little more considerate saying so. It’s not always about having a choice.
“…or you present all sides OBJECTIVELY without choosing one over the other and leave the child to choose for him/her self” ~ Bobbie
If I’m not mistaken this was already concluded before (“But whatever you tell them, you can add that they should believe whatever makes the most sense. This way, they are accepting(or rejecting) your personal views with an opened mind” ~ Jeff).
The only reason I stated "It sounds like a choice between two (im)possibilities: 1) Telling a possibly shocking truth with no comfort(zone) or 2) Enjoying and making the most of life (from the perspective of accountability) and start with this from as early on as possible which requires the first option to be discussed.", was because Jeff said the following: "... so teaching young adults that they can be certain on this matter, while it might make them "feel safe", it can also be doing them a disservice."
"[.....] you want to tell children what's real and what's not? have your own kids. Then you can start to enlighten them at whatever age you choose."
This is where/when it becomes a slippery slope. Just because we can choose to have our own kids doesn't mean that we have a right to treat them as we choose. For instance, we cannot physically abuse our own children, because if we do, they'll be taken away from us and/or we'll be locked up. So? Why should we be able to mentally abuse them? What do I mean? I mean taking young, impressionable children - and especially taking them before they have any theory of the mind - and teaching them that A, B, and C are "The Truth", and if they don't believe it, that they can plan on being physically tortured 24/7 in a "lake of fire" for all of eternity..AKA, the doctrine of "hell". I'm sorry, but that is nothing less than mental abuse, and BTW, that some parents really believe in this doctrine is besides the point. Some parents really believe that blood transfusions are "evil", too, and they'd let their children die before giving them one. Is that their "right"?
As for telling children the "shocking truth", true, it might not be in one's jurisdiction to do so, but at least there is mounds of evidence supporting that this is the only life and that chances are, we won't be seeing our deceased family pets and grandparents in some "hereafter".
The trick is in prevention. IOW, if we didn't start off telling small lies to children, for instance, by teaching them that their dead hamster or goldfish is 'A-okay' in "Heaven", then maybe it wouldn't snowball and create a need for an explanation for their deceased family members..e.g..."Where's grandpa?" "Oh, Grandpa's in Heaven, dear!"
Nothing confuses a child more than lying to them. And if they didn't grow up being confused about life, and mainly death, then maybe there'd be no need for a superstitious crutch, as adults.
You really think I’d do this on my own? ~ lexje
I'll let your own previous words answer that ...
Should I tell her or just let her discover herself I’ve changed my belief system? ~ lexje
So since I’m not even able myself to make that distinction between what’s sheer imagination,
dreams and what could possibly be true, how can I talk about this to her? ~ lexje
You might want to be a little more considerate saying so. It’s not always about having a choice. ~ lexje
Apologies if this seems personal - i have no knowledge of your reproductive status so there is no other intent that to be factually accurate to the species in general - that said, with today's technology, there are very few instances where having/obtaining offspring is NOT a choice ... either through natural, legal or technological means, it's usually a choice of one type or other. Going forward i will try to my cognizant regarding this topic given your objection.
If I’m not mistaken this was already concluded before ~ lexje
Concluded? ... it was "stated" ... not so sure "concluded" would be the word I'd choose for how you received it. But that said, you're free to interpret it as corroboration or reinforcing or disregard it altogether ... merely offered for your consumption. But again, I'll refer to your own words the followed the original statement that you suggest was "concluded" ...
What is less damaging one can ask when it comes to a child...? ~ lexje
I guess my fear has to do with taking away any possible certainty about what follows ... ~ lexje
Bottom line, any way you want to view it - my answer stands and i stand behind my words - you, however, are free to accept and/or reject any or all parts of my submissions. You are the one who has to live your life, with your friends and family and as such are subject to the consequences of your own words or actions regardless of what Jeff, me or anyone else might say.
Jeff: “I mean taking young, impressionable children - and especially taking them before they have any theory of the mind - and teaching them that A, B, and C are "The Truth", and if they don't believe it, that they can plan on being physically tortured 24/7 in a "lake of fire" for all of eternity.”
Let’s face it. It’s embedded in the culture. Take events like St. Nicolas and Santa Claus. St. (!) Nicolas knows all you’re doing. He knows all the good and all the bad things. Children even write letters to both of them, which they do not even do to God (that’s left for when they grow up with the intents during mass). Next they get threatened if they do bad stuff to be punished (talking St. Nicolas still ) by being taken away in a big bag to Spain. And the punishment gets enlarged by showing black Peter holding a wooden rod. Then of course the presents are supposed to make up for all of this, till they are about 7 years old and they get told by others at school or friends, that all of it is one big lie. Well how impressionable do you want your kids to be when learning these things?
So then with the magic regarding St. Nicolas and Santa stops, shortly after follows the first Communion. And it just gets picked up where it was left off, this time talking about the bible. Also this is when things can get even worse when talking about eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood. My nephew got so spooked by the preacher, he’s afraid to go to church now and as a result no one in their family ever goes anymore (except on the very special occasions). Perhaps that’s a good thing, since he was the oldest and the others got spared the details. Still it was a very traumatic period leading up to that event.
Jeff: “The trick is in prevention. IOW, if we didn't start off telling small lies to children, for instance, by teaching them that their dead hamster or goldfish is 'A-okay' in "Heaven", then maybe it wouldn't snowball and create a need for an explanation for their deceased family members..”
This first requires educating the adults. Unless they know what’s right and wrong (when talking about these kind of beliefs) they can never properly teach their children. Also if they are not aware of the impact of these (little) lies, they’ll keep telling them. And besides most adults do not want to make the children more sad than they already are, so they much rather tell them (big) lies about what has happened about for instance their animals then facing them with the truth.
So what’s reasonable and responsible when one wants to diminish/take away the grief/pain a child has?
Jeff: “Nothing confuses a child more than lying to them. And if they didn't grow up being confused about life, and mainly death, then maybe there'd be no need for a superstitious crutch, as adults.”
Getting back at St. Nicolas and Santa Claus, the kids are taught at a very young age that when they “pretend” to do good things, they get rewarded. “Pretend”, since it’s only one month a year. The rest of the year they get to do whatever they please. Sounds a bit like Sunday Mass and confessing.
Question however remains: What is the (amount of) truth a child can handle when still being at an impressionable age? After all, you want them also to grow up being able to dream about things they can possibly accomplish (or even beyond) and believing in themselves.
Bobbie: “Bottom line, any way you want to view it - my answer stands and i stand behind my words - you, however, are free to accept and/or reject any or all parts of my submissions. You are the one who has to live your life, with your friends and family and as such are subject to the consequences of your own words or actions regardless of what Jeff, me or anyone else might say.”
It’s not about rejecting or accepting views. It’s about thinking things through, waking up and becoming aware of the things being said and done and what implications they have, not only for me, but also for the (little) loved ones around me. And since I’m still the adult, there is a certain responsibility on my side, even when I’m “just” (or maybe I should say ”especially” when I’m) the Godmother, most certainly knowing I was also part of the system getting her to accept religion, with its beliefs.
"Let’s face it. It’s embedded in the culture.
'Sorry, but that's no excuse. At one point in time, slavery was "embedded in the culture" of America. Does that somehow make it right, exempt from ridicule, or above challenge??
"Well how impressionable do you want your kids to be when learning these things?"
It's not a matter of how impressionable I "want" kids to be; it's a matter of how impressionable kids are, and given that fact of life, off-setting it by teaching critical thinking skills at a young age. Also comparative religion classes wouldn't hurt. For instance, if Christian parent X wants to teach their kids that "Jesus" loves them and watches them 24/7, 365 @ yr, then fine. But at least teach them that, in other countries, kids believe in a different "God" who does all of those things. No culture has any objective evidence that the "God" they worship is the "One True God", and yet, the world's three leading monotheistic religions all claim this. Wars are fought over this. And this is good for the kids of our future, how?
So, something as innocent as teaching a child that their pet is in "Heaven" can snowball into wars over religion. This is not an exaggeration or blowing things out of proportion; it's a fact. And this is precisely one of the reasons why I'm so vocal about the whole child indoctrination subject.
"This first requires educating the adults."
Incorrect. It's childhood indoctrination that produces adults who harbor religion convictions, IOW, *adults who have zero intention of changing their minds. There is an alarming amount of young adults ditching religion, and the reason is accessibility to alternate views, and most adults today had little to none of that.
*for any silent lurkers who are thinking, "Yeah, but you won't change your mind, either!", please remember that I *already* changed my mind once..e.g..from bible-believing Christian, to Universalist, to Atheist, and I'll change it again, once convincing evidence is put forth for any "God".
"So what’s reasonable and responsible when one wants to diminish/take away the grief/pain a child has?"
Why are the only alternatives, a) letting children bask in grief/pain, or b) teaching them a bunch of superstitious nonsense? 'Just curious.
"What is the (amount of) truth a child can handle when still being at an impressionable age?"
You'd be surprised.
Me: "Let’s face it. It’s embedded in the culture.
You: “'Sorry, but that's no excuse.”
It doesn’t make it right at all. I was just wondering how those things can be changed. It would probably require some drastic change. What could function as this wake-up call? If I just jump ahead to what you said about the younger generation being aware of what’s going in the world due to the new media, this just may be that answer.
You: “…it's a matter of how impressionable kids are, and given that fact of life, off-setting it by teaching critical thinking skills at a young age."
There’s a limit to kid’s minds. Yes they are very impressionable, but there is a difference between being impressionable and picking up on things and next understanding it. This being said, if they see and hear others being critical all the time, they should pick the critical reasoning skills up soon enough. More importantly though the parents and surroundings should take more responsibility by being aware what they do (or do not) teach the children at this very young age.
You: “Also comparative religion classes wouldn't hurt.“
If taught religion at all, then yes it would most certainly help if they learn at an early age about differences in religion and how this is part of certain in cultures. Also they should be taught the risks and consequences of religious beliefs and how these results (like war) in fact disagree what God should represent (love and peace).
Next it would be a good thing it they got to understand religion and politics are *not* the same and cannot ever be the same.
It could also be a good start to let children investigate the bible, as if it were a project. Let them discuss it, investigate what’s true about it and what’s not. Also teach them how to get rid of all the hatred and prejudice. Better yet, maybe it’s time for a new version altogether.
You: “… Wars are fought over this. And this is good for the kids of our future, how?”
It’s not. What scares me however is how many (young) people are now being recruited to become part of the Islam and next be involved on a war based on religious beliefs, while this is not even their own war.
You: “And this is precisely one of the reasons why I'm so vocal about the whole child indoctrination subject.”
I get that.
Me: "This first requires educating the adults."
You: “Incorrect. It's childhood indoctrination that produces adults who harbor religion convictions, IOW, *adults who have zero intention of changing their minds.”
It’s the adults however who raise the children and could start to teach the children the proper way of thinking from the get go.
You: “There is an alarming amount of young adults ditching religion, and the reason is accessibility to alternate views, and most adults today had little to none of that.”
If this is the future generation of adults, then they can teach their children to be critical, especially with the access to all this media and information. Just maybe solutions are a little closer than we seem to think right now, due to the internet.
This being said, it’s still very important to teach children the critical reasoning skills, so they can understand what’s happening nowadays and why and what they can do to change it.
Me: "So what’s reasonable and responsible when one wants to diminish/take away the grief/pain a child has?"
You: “Why are the only alternatives, a) letting children bask in grief/pain, or b) teaching them a bunch of superstitious nonsense? 'Just curious.”
It was a question. I was wondering what can be done to comfort children when they are in pain/grieving, without telling them lies or fantasies that could result in confusion later on.
Me: "What is the (amount of) truth a child can handle when still being at an impressionable age?"
You: “You'd be surprised.”
Enlighten me, please.
Evidence of absence is not the same as absence of evidence.
You say there is no evidence to support the existence of God, yet you have no evidence to support there is no God. Just as Christians argue His existence based on Faith alone, you base His non-existence on lack of "proof".
Just because you currently don't have "proof", does that mean He does not exist? I think not.
Even the scientific community argues within itself the validity of a null result as evidence of absence.
I am one of the Christians who find faults, errors, confusion, etc., within the Bible. I still have faith (not based in doubt). Faith and trust are not synonymous to me.
Trust does not have to built upon a proven track record. Trust can be established until proven otherwise. I am not trusting in the existence of God, I have faith in the existence of God.
Empirically, faith is something which can NOT be proven.
As you stated previously, there are upwards of 3,400 split-offs, yet you seem to be trying to pigeonhole all 3,400+ split-offs PLUS all of their individual followers into having the same opinion, interpretation, etc.
There was a time when people thought the Earth was flat.
I honestly don't think if God himself presented before you, you'd believe in Him. You'd have another explanation (IDK, brain hemmorhage, hallucination, or something).
(above not meant to be construed snarky or as a personal attack Jeff - just the same way I don't take it personal when you say we're Lemmings - or was it sheep - I've known you far too long for that, lol) ;-)
"Evidence of absence is not the same as absence of evidence." ~ Anonymous
Absolutely correct. At one point in time "Pluto" hadn't yet been discovered; there was no evidence for "Pluto", and yet, it existed. Point granted.
"You say there is no evidence to support the existence of God, yet you have no evidence to support there is no God"
This is, 1) shifting the burden of proof, and 2) the fallacy of negative proof.
Anon', you are making the positive claim, and I'm saying that you have zero objective evidence for said claim. There is a significant difference between saying that there is no evidence for "X", and saying that "X" doesn't exist. If we let "X" equal "God", I'm saying, "There is no evidence to support those who claim that God exists"; I am *not* saying, "God doesn't exist!".
If you cannot (or will not) concede that important distinction, then all discussion on the matter is pointless. Seriously, imagine if we had to disprove every single ludicrous claim in known history. It would be nearly impossible to live normal lives because we'd be assuming all sorts of weird things are true, just because they haven't been proven false. Do you believe "Paul Bunyan" is real just because he hasn't been proven false? How about "Allah"? Poseidon? I seriously hope not.
"Just as Christians argue His existence based on Faith alone, you base His non-existence on lack of 'proof'."
'Not entirely true. I base "His non-existence" on the attributes assigned to "Him" by Christians and their bibles. E.g.."omniscient" and "omnipotent"/"Atemporal" and "omnipresent". Both sets are mutually incompatible.
"Just because you currently don't have 'proof', does that mean He does not exist? I think not."
You are free to think not, but yet, you nor any other Christian I've encountered has overcome the glaring inconsistencies here**, above; and given the fact that the world behaves precisely as we'd expect a world with no God overseeing it to behave, I believe that I am being reasonable to conclude that the Xian god does not exist.
"Trust does not have to built upon a proven track record. Trust can be established until proven otherwise. I am not trusting in the existence of God, I have faith in the existence of God."(italics added)
So, I take it that you don't have "In God we Trust" on your license plate, then? IOW, if trust can be established until proven otherwise, then why not have both "faith" and "trust"? You don't think they're mutually inclusive. Okay, fine. However, they aren't mutually exclusive, either(according to your own descriptions)
contin....
"Empirically, faith is something which can NOT be proven." ~ Anonymous
Except that no one is denying that "faith" exists. "Faith", AKA, wish-thinking, is most certainly proven to exist. You are refuting a nonexistent argument.
"As you stated previously, there are upwards of 3,400 split-offs, yet you seem to be trying to pigeonhole all 3,400+ split-offs PLUS all of their individual followers into having the same opinion, interpretation, etc."
No I am not. Someone asked how two people can read the same bible and come away with two different interpretations. I'm merely making the point that the bible is dependent upon interpretation. And BTW, this fact makes the bible a subjective truth, and thus, not the "Objective Truth" that it is often claimed to be, especially when it comes to morality.
"There was a time when people thought the Earth was flat."
There "was"? FYI, today, some people still believe that the earth is flat, and ironically, they use the bible as evidence.
"I honestly don't think if God himself presented before you, you'd believe in Him."
Here's the thing---it wouldn't take a face-to-face encounter to change my mind. I'd gladly change my mind if testable, repeatable evidence of God's intervention here on earth was proffered. If "God" is interacting on/in the physical world(as Xians claim), then by definition, the evidence would be physical, and therefore, it would meet scientific conditions.
"(above not meant to be construed snarky or as a personal attack Jeff[.....]"
You haven't attacked me. I'll let you know when I feel attacked.
"just the same way I don't take it personal when you say we're Lemmings[.....]"
I don't recall making such a remark, so yeah, you definitely shouldn't take it personally.
"[....]or was it sheep - I've known you far too long for that, lol)"
I don't recall calling anyone a "sheep", either. Are sure you're not getting me confused with the bible? It refers to its followers as "sheep".
Also, if we've know each other for as long as you say, then perhaps you won't mind disclosing your identity.
In any case, feel free to keep posting, since I think its important for any of my Christian readership to see why I no longer find their beliefs convincing.
"I was just wondering how those things can be changed. It would probably require some drastic change." ~ L
It would require, and count on, our youth having access to alternate views, thus, letting them weight the evidence and arguments to then make an informed decision. My generation and all before it had little to none of that. The internet has made a huge impact on the fate of religion.
"Also they should be taught the risks and consequences of religious beliefs and how these results (like war) in fact disagree what God should represent (love and peace)."
Who says "God" should represent "(love and peace)"? You?
'See the problem, yet?
"Next it would be a good thing it they got to understand religion and politics are *not* the same and cannot ever be the same."
It's hard to teach them that, when religion - for instance, the bible - claims to be the be all/end all on ALL matters. This is precisely why the very beliefs that provide comfort to believers get caught in the crossfire..i.e...because many believers try to impose their religious beliefs into public affairs. Take all of the social issues of the day..e.g...abortion, war, right to life, etc., and you'll find Christians using the bible to back their personal views on these matters. Then these same people cry "foul" when the "faith" they claim provides them comfort, is challenged or ridiculed.
"It’s the adults however who raise the children and could start to teach the children the proper way of thinking from the get go."
Talking about the way things could be is a point of no practical value. You're not going to find many, if at all, any, indoctrinated adults who have intentions of telling their children that Christianity could be wrong. You will find plenty of indoctrinated adults who would do the exact opposite, however.
"It was a question. I was wondering what can be done to comfort children when they are in pain/grieving, without telling them lies or fantasies that could result in confusion later on."
There are numerous books that deal with what can be substituted.
"Enlighten me, please."
I'm merely saying that children are more intuitive and resilient than adults give them credit for being.
You: “The internet has made a huge impact on the fate of religion.”
True. It’s a good thing. It’s hard to except nowadays there are still countries which forbid the use of the internet or even worse.
You: “Who says "God" should represent "(love and peace)"? You? 'See the problem, yet?”
Let’s put it this way. The bible says one thing. The way we got taught things in (our) church was another, in this case God was all about “love”. That’s why it’s unbelievable realizing what the bible (quoting God) actually states.
But yes I get to see the problem, especially with all the different views being out there. I recently posted a picture and it showed a red/orange lava like scene and next this was referred to as what “hell” would look like by someone else. This surprised me. But it is like you’re saying, there are those out there who do think there might actually be a “hell”.
ME: "It’s the adults however who raise the children and could start to teach the children the proper way of thinking from the get go."
You: “…You're not going to find many, if at all, any, indoctrinated adults who have intentions of telling their children that Christianity could be wrong.”
Fortunately there are also a number of adults who have changed their minds. A number of people from our (your ;-)) age have been raised by parents having done their own research. Their children either do not care about religion, or get very angry what’s happening in the name of “religion”.
Me: "So what’s reasonable and responsible when one wants to diminish/take away the grief/pain a child has?"
You: “Why are the only alternatives, a) letting children bask in grief/pain, or b) teaching them a bunch of superstitious nonsense? 'Just curious.”
Me: "It was a question. I was wondering what can be done to comfort children when they are in pain/grieving, without telling them lies or fantasies that could result in confusion later on."
You: “There are numerous books that deal with what can be substituted.”
The most important thing is that a child should be able to ask questions, talk about their fears and doubts (if having any). So they need to feel safe in order to open up. Things which could help would include colouring, drawing and writing down messages. Basically anything that would help them voice their thoughts and emotions, again whilst feeling safe.
The question next is if it’s even necessary to talk about where he is. Say for instance grandpa has died. I can say “he no longer is in pain, has no more struggles.” I don’t need to say if he’s anywhere and when asking I can simply say “I do not know”. Adding, “but I’m confident wherever he is, he now feels a lot better. He no longer has any pain, since he no longer has a physical body holding him back.”
And yes I could also say: “Sometimes it might help to just imagine… nothing wrong with feeling a little better…”. I don’t know.
Every situation requires it’s own answer. What I do know for sure it’s about being there if the child wants to know or just express doubts, fears and/or emotions.
You: “I'm merely saying that children are more intuitive and resilient than adults give them credit for being.”
Most certainly they are very resilient; question however is what the effects will be later on in life. And yes intuitive, for sure, until the trust in their intuition gets destroyed/taken away by others (especially adults). Fortunately there are also those out there *supporting* children.
"I still have faith (not based in doubt)." ~ Anonymous
I overlooked this and wanted to comment on it in relation to when I previously said, "faith implies doubt".
For starters, I fully "get" that those who hold religious (or spiritual) beliefs on "faith" are not basing said faith in or on "doubt". When I believed, I had no doubt that I had a relationship with "Jesus", yadda, yadda.
So, what I mean/meant is, from nonbeliever's POV, believers wouldn't need "faith" if they were as sure as what they'd like people to believe they are that the invisible, intangible being that they worship, exists.
If you are cocksure that individual "X" exists, you know and can demonstrate that they exist, and thus, you don't need to employ "faith".
Case-in-point: "Faith" is the wrong word to use when/if we have knowledge and facts to present.
"The bible says one thing. The way we got taught things in (our) church was another[.....]" ~ L
Yes, but not just your church. This 'cherry-picking' type of ministry is done in every church, from the most fundamentalist Baptist church, to the most liberal Universalist church. The church knows that if their pew-sitters actually read the bible and were left to interpret it for themselves, that this would be disastrous, as in, they'd lose followers. Is it just a coincidence that they have such mantras as "Keep the Faith!"? I think not.
"[.....] in this case God was all about 'love'."
Yes, "God" is "all about love", until it's all about whatever else the church wants to capitalize on.
"That’s why it’s unbelievable realizing what the bible (quoting God) actually states"
Yes, "unbelievable", that's the best word to describe it, and precisely why I no longer believe it.
"I recently posted a picture and it showed a red/orange lava like scene and next this was referred to as what 'hell' would look like by someone else. This surprised me. But it is like you’re saying, there are those out there who do think there might actually be a 'hell'."
No one is more afraid of "hell" than those who actually believe in it. Believers just cannot grasp that threatening me with something that I don't believe in; threatening me with something for which there is not one scrap of objective confirmation, is an empty threat, as well as a complete waste of time. Do Christians start shaking in their boots when Muslims mention "Jahannam"(Islamic "Hell")? Of course they don't--- that's just a bunch of man-made mythology to them. Uh-huh. Hello?
We just have to try to remember that Christians are victims. This, admittedly, is one of the hardest things about being an Atheist.
"The church knows that if their pew-sitters actually read the bible and were left to interpret it for themselves ..." - Jeff
This was precisely the beginning of the end of my "relationship" with religion/god/faith/belief ... i kept running into discussions that went deep into the little known recesses of the bible and finally had to say "hey, how did i NOT get all this in all the time i spent in church/sunday school" ... so i sat down and read most of it word for word ... and i came away with how completely erratic and random and contradictory it all was (this ties into my response on your more recent topic/post).
"We just have to try to remember that Christians are victims. This, admittedly, is one of the hardest things about being an Atheist." - Jeff
It is difficult to fathom ... makes me feel a bit like Neo from the Matrix ... where I'm Awake/Aware ... and they're still tied into the system - it's hard to entice them to "see" outside their comfortable (un)reality that's being spoon fed to them.
The other stumbling block is the whole "atheism is a different type of religion" fallacy that believers have been brainwashed to believe.
As an aside ... I saw a meme on someone's FB wall:
"If the only thing keeping you from being a horrible person is your religion ... you are ALREADY a horrible person"
Me, to Anonymous:
Also, if we've know each other for as long as you say, then perhaps you won't mind disclosing your identity.
I just want to make sure that this wasn't misconstrued as a demand for the poster's identity to be disclosed. It wasn't. In my blog's settings, I have the option to "allow" anonymous posters, and I chose that option. For one, if someone happens to know me and he or she feels more comfortable posting anonymously and/or if he or she feels that they can submit their views more objectively(and in turn, get a more objective reply from me), then fine. I'm good with it.
"[....]so i sat down and read most of (the bible) word for word[....]" ~ R. Hall
Yeah, I did a post on this a while back saying that once someone sits down and reads the bible for themselves, that one of two things will happen: 1) they will be forced to compartmentalize their beliefs, and in turn, make bloated rationalizations for the parts of the bible that are unpalatable, or 2) they will become an Atheist(or at best, a Deist).
"It is difficult to fathom ... makes me feel a bit like Neo from the Matrix ... where I'm Awake/Aware ... and they're still tied into the system - it's hard to entice them to 'see' outside their comfortable (un)reality that's being spoon fed to them" ~ R. Hall
I know. It's hard to be sympathetic towards someone who remains willfully ignorant, and I don't mean ignorant in the pejorative sense; I just mean lack of accurate knowledge/info'. It's hard to be sympathetic towards a victim of *abuse, albeit, they don't recognize that abuse, but who chooses to stay right where they're at. Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind..i.e..the victim comes to rationalize the abuse, mistaking it as "love".
*A telltale sign of a cult is when the cult leader breaks the members down, making them feel worthless and that they're unable to accomplish anything on their own.(Christianity? *check*) Another is making the members fearful of leaving the cult(Christianity? *check*) Another is attempting to shield the members from the outside world, including any info' that contradicts the cult.(Christianity? You betcha) All of the above are forms of abuse.
And make no mistake, a cult can have as few as two members, and as many as a million.
"The other stumbling block is the whole 'atheism is a different type of religion' fallacy that believers have been brainwashed to believe."
Yes, uh-huh. If Atheism is a "religion", then "off" is a TV channel.
And another annoying sound-bite is, "Atheists believe in nothing". I actually got that one once from a long-time acquaintance.
Jeff: “Yes, but not just your church. This 'cherry-picking' type of ministry is done in every church, from the most fundamentalist Baptist church, to the most liberal Universalist church.”
It’s beginning to sound like a world wide scheme. If so, it’s a pretty well though of plan. Better than the whole bible is written (as in inconsistent).
Bobbie: “... so i sat down and read most of it word for word ...”
Well that’s one advantage of preventing boredom in church by reading in the (children’s bible) I know most of the stories by heart. Now comes the shocking truth of realizing what I actually read and incorporated to be normal.
Jeff: “…or 2) they will become an Atheist(or at best, a Deist).”
Still don’t know where I am in the process, but I guess I’m getting pretty close to becoming that Atheist as well. I mean if not believing there’s a personal God means I’m an Atheist…
Jeff: “Is it just a coincidence that they have such mantras as "Keep the Faith!"? I think not.”
It was actually these statements we had to say out loud that made me question whether I could really say I still believed in the Catholic church or not. But stating all these non-sensible statements actually made it so unbelievable, although the most problematic thing was saying I believe in the “holy catholic church”. Well, we need to start somewhere I guess.
Then your wake-up call about (not) taking responsibility made me think some more and the rest is history, though still in progress.
Jeff: “Yes, "God" is "all about love", until it's all about whatever else the church wants to capitalize on.”
That’s probably why they are loosing a lot of “followers” as well. I mean all this nonsense about not being able to use conception or judging people being gay…
Jeff: “No one is more afraid of "hell" than those who actually believe in it.”
Would believers being “afraid of hell” actually prevent them to eventually stop believing?
Jeff: “We just have to try to remember that Christians are victims.”
This would imply you and Bobbie and I were also victims?
Jeff: “This, admittedly, is one of the hardest things about being an Atheist.”
I’ve never seen myself as one. Interesting.
Jeff: “It's hard to be sympathetic towards a victim of *abuse, albeit, they don't recognize that abuse, but who chooses to stay right where they're at. Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind..i.e..the victim comes to rationalize the abuse, mistaking it as "love".”
I sincerely hope you are sympathetic to those who have “Stockholm Syndrome”. There’s a reason they call it a syndrome.
Jeff: “…All of the above are forms of abuse.”
And still you’d say: “It's hard to be sympathetic towards a victim of *abuse”?
Bobbie: “The other stumbling block is the whole 'atheism is a different type of religion'..."
&
Jeff: “And another annoying sound-bite is, "Atheists believe in nothing". I actually got that one once from a long-time acquaintance."
So true. I’m still getting used to the fact that it isn’t. It’s so common there is “something” to believe in, that not believing at all is a very strange realization.
Continued…
Lately I’ve been adding some pages on FB. First some Atheism pages and then I also got to add some Pantheism pages. But next they talk about “God” again (total confusion on my side), except for Scientific Pantheism (which then talks about nature) and then there are other varieties. Now I’m aware you’re not familiar with Pantheism, but after looking critically at “God” for a while now on this blog, it’s a bit hard to just accept what Pantheism says, even when not talking about a personal God.
Just going on about those pages for a moment, I got a bit disillusioned by the Atheism pages, cause most of them seem to make downright “fun” of everything religion is representing. That doesn’t seem right either. If it’s about respect and truth why mock everything religion stands for? It’s not going to give Atheism a better reputation when doing so.
If Atheism is a "religion", then "off" is a TV channel. - J
I've been searching for just such a slice of genius - Goddamn (so to speak) brilliant!
Thank you :)
The only xians i really have little sympathy for are the militant, thumper, in your face types that do the judging that their god reserved for himself
"It’s beginning to sound like a world wide scheme. If so, it’s a pretty well (thought) of plan"
Considering things like the amount of money the church takes in, their tax exemption, and the protection the church provides for clergy who molest children, yeah, it's crystal clear that it's a scheme. Of course, believers would disagree.
"Still don’t know where I am in the process, but I guess I’m getting pretty close to becoming that Atheist as well. I mean if not believing there’s a personal God means I’m an Atheist…"
Actually, no, a lack of belief in a personal god doesn't necessarily make one an Atheist. E.g..a Deist doesn't believe in a personal god, and yet, Deists don't qualify as Atheists because Deists believe in a god.
"Would believers being 'afraid of hell' actually prevent them to eventually stop believing?"
That is the whole point of the doctrine of Hell. And what better way to keep people in the fold than to threaten them with the most gruesome, torturous pain imaginable, should they stop believing.
"This would imply you and Bobbie and I were also victims?"
I can only speak for myself, and the answer is, "yes", I was a victim.
Previously, me: “…All of the above are forms of abuse.”
You, partially quoting me: "And still you’d say: 'It's hard to be sympathetic towards a victim of *abuse'?"
Here is the entire sentence in context...
It's hard to be sympathetic towards a victim of *abuse, albeit, they don't recognize that abuse, but who chooses to stay right where they're at.(bold added)
I merely saying that it's harder to be sympathetic towards an abuse victim who consents to the abuse and who sticks around, than it is to be sympathetic towards an abuse victim who tries to get away from their abuser. Please be careful about quoting me out of context.
"Just going on about those pages for a moment, I got a bit disillusioned by the Atheism pages, cause most of them seem to make downright 'fun' of everything religion is representing."
I've said it before; I'll say it again: There are times when the ridiculous calls for ridicule. I agree that making "fun", in and of itself, won't likely change minds. However, to say that ridicule never works or that it is never called for, ignores the demonstrable fact that, over time, peer pressure works in many cases, especially on the young.
"This would imply you and Jeff and I were also victims?"
For me ... i would disagree with this conclusion. I have a very difficult time arriving at the belief that there was a conscious grand conspiracy to cause me harm ... no, i'd simply say, "I was ignorant".
No more than a doctor using an outdated method/treatment to try and cure a patient - to the doctor, he is doing everything in his power to create a positive result. I believe this would be the case with those who had influence over my spirituality - their intent was meant as heartfelt and positive - not as something negative, deceiving and hurtful.
The argument could be made that everyone in my sphere of influence was victims ... but that does not make the other victims collaborators and accomplices in the overall crime.
@lexje - this falls under "It's always been done this way" ... and as we've discussed outside of this forum, there's no overt intent when we're just going through the motions as we were taught ... until the question is posed "but WHY is it 'always' done this way?" ... once you become cognizant - then we have a decision to make - to ignore the facts and carry on the "way it's always been" or to do it the right way, the enlightened way - to adopt the new information.
If the doctor in my example chose to reject a vascular procedure that would save the limb of someone - then he is criminal and the patient is a victim ... but if he was never aware of it and amputated the limb to save the patient's life - then he simply did his best as he knew how - his intent was to help - not harm.
So although i am now enlightened - i don't view my parents and pastor as having the intent to harm or injure - quite the opposite
"So although i am now enlightened - i don't view my parents and pastor as having the intent to harm or injure - quite the opposite"
Understood. And of course they didn't intend to harm or injure you. Agreed. No one knowingly believes a lie, after all.
Notwithstanding, people buying into passed on misinformation can still be victims, despite that there is no overt conspiracy to commit a crime(fraud). A drunken driver doesn't intend to mow down pedestrians, but those mowed down by drunk drivers still qualify as victims.
Likewise, our parents and pastors didn't intend to mislead us with a bunch of BS, but we were still misled, and it is in that context that I consider myself a victim of religious indoctrination. And again, I'm just speaking for myself, here.
... buying into passed on misinformation can still be victims - J
Agreed - I guess it comes down to context ans scope ... in the broader scope i'd agree we (you and I) are victims - but in the more limited scope - locally within the current generations (me, parents, grandparents) - no - just ignorant - we drank the kool aid because it was "good for us"
I can't necessarily buy your drunk driver example as framed - the drunk can reasonably expect something bad to happen - he knows he is accepting some level of risk ... a more apt scenario would be the guy in the car innocently sitting at the red light that get's hit from behind by the drunk and it's the innocent guy's car that wipes out the pedestrian - that guy was just going out late for some ice cream because he couldn't sleep and ends up killing someone - but yet is every bit the victim as the pedestrian ... but if i'm the pedestrian, i am NOT a victim to the poor schmuck (parents/pastor) going for ice cream ... we have to go back in scope to get to the real criminal - the drunk ... or even perhaps the bartender/provider of alcohol
My point being scope and context - so yes - i agree that we're victims in the broad scope - but not necessarily in a narrower scope ... speaking for myself, of course :P
As a completely off topic thought ... I'm curious if you find the whole saying of "out thoughts and prayers go out to ... (Insert victim of tragedy here)" as disgusting, dishonest and disingenuous as i do? ... I cannot tell you how that makes me cringe every time i hear it - it just feels so insulting ... worry, with recent events it just brought it back to the forefront of my mind - perhaps it's a discussion for it's own thread
~ Jeff
“Actually, no, a lack of belief in a personal god doesn't necessarily make one an Atheist. E.g..a Deist doesn't believe in a personal god, and yet, Deists don't qualify as Atheists because Deists believe in a god.”
So then there’s a difference in believing in a personal God (like Xians), a God that’s responsible for the cosmos or nature (like Pantheism and Deism) and then Atheism (no God whatsoever). Is this correct? So what if I do not know and I only know I do not believe in that personal God anymore? That qualifies me as what?
“I merely saying that it's harder to be sympathetic towards an abuse victim who consents to the abuse and who sticks around, than it is to be sympathetic towards an abuse victim who tries to get away from their abuser.”
You previously referred to the Stockholm syndrome. When keeping this in mind how can you say someone would willingly “consent” to this? They cannot start choosing until they are truly aware of what’s happening to them.
“Please be careful about quoting me out of context.”
I’ll keep it in mind.
“… However, to say that ridicule never works or that it is never called for, ignores the demonstrable fact that, over time, peer pressure works in many cases, especially on the young.”
Nothing wrong with ridicule, it clarifies things, when otherwise it would not or hardly be noticed. But recently there was this “joke” on FB showing a game on the “wii” and people got a chance to “whip” Jesus. I can no longer see the fun in this. I’d even say this could eventually lead to (more) violence.
B: “So although i am now enlightened - i don't view my parents and pastor as having the intent to harm or injure - quite the opposite”
J: “Understood. And of course they didn't intend to harm or injure you. Agreed. No one knowingly believes a lie, after all. … Likewise, our parents and pastors didn't intend to mislead us with a bunch of BS, but we were still misled, and it is in that context that I consider myself a victim of religious indoctrination. And again, I'm just speaking for myself, here.”
The feeling of being a “victim” probably has to do with the impact this has had on our personalities and our lives.
You Jeff have told us that it has “hurt” you even so to a degree it has turned inward.
When I look at others who do not believe and why they don’t (anymore) and now look at my own process I see a big difference. To me this is a big deal and I do feel very gullible and which every post I get more aware of my responsibility of having passed this on myself and how to deal with this (myself). It influences me daily and as a result I take this whole process of transitioning out of Xianity and into ??? very seriously.
Do I consider myself a “victim”? I don’t know. My parents didn’t pass this on to hurt me. The church (as an institute) however is a totally different story. If I do look at the impact and the confusion, I consider this to have a huge impact on my thinking and acting and with it also on others.
B: “... we have to go back in scope to get to the real criminal - the drunk ... or even perhaps the bartender/provider of alcohol”
In my previous example that would be the church. So they would be the actual perpetrators.
B: “I'm curious if you find the whole saying of "our thoughts and prayers go out to ... (Insert victim of tragedy here)" as disgusting, dishonest and disingenuous as i do?”
It depends on what those thoughts are. Also the intent behind both thoughts and prayers are meant well. But what would you suggest as being more appropriate?
"I can't necessarily buy your drunk driver example as framed - the drunk can reasonably expect something bad to happen - he knows he is accepting some level of risk" ~ R. Hall
And in said drunk driver taking that risk, still, he or she (hopefully) does not intend to kill or maim someone. A drunk can intentionally become inebriated, yes, but the resultant adverse effects of those intentions(if any) are not, by default, intentional.
But this little disagreement is neither here nor there, though. If you feel duped, but not necessarily a "victim", regarding your previously-held religious beliefs, then so be it. I feel the two are inseparable when it comes to religious indoctrination, but that's just me.
"As a completely off topic thought ... I'm curious if you find the whole saying of 'out thoughts and prayers go out to ... (Insert victim of tragedy here)' as disgusting, dishonest and disingenuous as i do?"
**Sending "thoughts", and sending "prayers", are two entirely different things, albeit, both have zero effect on reality. The problem is that the latter gesture evokes the "divine", specifically, asking a "god" to get involved in fixing something and/or comforting people, when the same "god" could have just prevented the mishaps in the first place.
I obviously have zero problem with someone expressing sadness and "sending thoughts". But sending "prayers", yes, it grates on me a bit, despite that it's well-meaning, but more so when believers say "prayers" for nonbelievers. Please. Believers have been uttering prayers for thousands of years, and there is not one scrap of evidence that reality has been affected by it. Atheists are growing in number; people are still dying from illness; America is still rampant with crime; natural disasters still occur, and more so.
The world appears precisely as it would if not one prayer has ever been answered. And let's face it, if your "prayer" is answered with a "yes", "no", or "maybe later", that works if you pray to a flippin' jug of milk! It's called good luck/bad luck.
"So then there’s a difference in believing in a personal God (like Xians), a God that’s responsible for the cosmos or nature (like Pantheism and Deism) and then Atheism (no God whatsoever). Is this correct?" ~ L
If you are seriously still unclear on whether there's a difference between Christianity and Atheism, then I must be a horrible writer/communicator.
"So what if I do not know[EDIT]"
What if you do not know what? Do you mean, as in, do not know if you believe in a god? Or as in, do not know if there is a god? Belief and knowledge are two different things. If you claim to not know if a god exists, that doesn't preclude you from belief (or disbelief) in a god. I do not know if there exists an invisible unicorn, but I don't harbor a belief in one. So, you could say that I am an Agnostic A-unicornist(no, it's not a real word)
If you don't believe in the Xian god, well, then maybe you believe in some other personal god, or maybe you believe in a non-personal god, or wait, maybe you believe "nature" is god. I don't understand the urgency in needing to label yourself on this matter......
"[....] and I only know I do not believe in that personal God anymore? That qualifies me as what?"
It's too few details for me to be telling you what you should call yourself.
"You previously referred to the Stockholm syndrome. When keeping this in mind how can you say someone would willingly 'consent' to this?"
There are different dynamics with Stockholm Syndrome. In some instances, the victim is abused, mentally, and/or physically, and said victim mistakes this abuse as "love". In other cases, for instance, in a kidnapping, the victim isn't abused at all, but yet, said victim mistakes this as an "act of kindness". Patty Hearst was a good example of this.
"They cannot start choosing until they are truly aware of what’s happening to them"
If you're getting your a$$ kicked daily, trust me, you're aware of what's happening to you.
Look, I'm merely saying that it is harder to be sympathetic towards those who stick around and rationalize such beatings, than it is to be sympathetic towards those who actually *want* to get away, but maybe they can't. This isn't complicated.
"Nothing wrong with ridicule, it clarifies things, when otherwise it would not or hardly be noticed. But recently there was this 'joke' on FB showing a game on the 'wii' and people got a chance to 'whip' Jesus. I can no longer see the fun in this. I’d even say this could eventually lead to (more) violence."
I do not advocate violence to make a point. But in all fairness, there is also a Christian video game called "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" that promotes violence and bigotry.
"You Jeff have told us that [religious indoctrination] has 'hurt' you even so to a degree it has turned inward."
What I said, was, that I'm angry at myself for not trusting my doubts and innate skeptical nature at a young age, but instead, bought into the whole, "just have faith!" mantra that I was spoon-fed constantly, which, subsequently, was instrumental in my wasting 2/3rds of my life believing a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, albeit, *that mumbo-jumbo was useful in a way.
*please do not ask me in which way it was useful, as I've covered that extensively in previous posts. Thx.
“If you are seriously still unclear on whether there's a difference between Christianity and Atheism, then I must be a horrible writer/communicator.”
I know the difference between Christianity and Atheism by now, as in not believing there is “any” God. It is the “any” part I am getting somewhat confused about. As for instance when you say: ” E.g..a Deist doesn't believe in a personal god, and yet, Deists don't qualify as Atheists because Deists believe in a god.”
So the God described in the bible is not a God I can relate to. Check.
The God as been talked about in church is not consistent with the one in the bible and therefore is not any more believable. Check.
I never had an answer from God I was praying to and besides I agree God seems to have preference if he would listen to one and not the other. Check.
And next it gets blurry.
Do I believe there might a God responsible for the setup of this world? Well no, not as described in the bible. But yes, nature is a wonder in itself.
Let’s put it this way. It gets rather confusing when I start reading about Pantheism and next Scientific Pantheism. First one calls itself a religion and talks about God, the other one do not believe in God. After all this discussion on this blog the concept of “God” is a little hard to hold on to or better yet to believe in. After all, it’s not visible, we cannot tell for sure it’s there.
All these question and doubts make it somewhat confusing at times, since I do not “just” want to believe in anything anymore, but still have a certain background. As a result I get to read things related to this background, which next are raising lots of question marks on my part.
…With reference to the Stockholm syndrome…
“Look, I'm merely saying that it is harder to be sympathetic towards those who stick around and rationalize such beatings, than it is to be sympathetic towards those who actually *want* to get away, but maybe they can't. This isn't complicated.”
Well to you it may not be. To me it is. What seems to be important here is whether or not someone is aware of the abuse (which shouldn’t be too hard I agree) and next wants to get away or not. But if someone’s is aware and does not want to get away because of being brainwashed (read confused), than why does this qualify them all of sudden as less of a “victim”?
I would agree with you when talking about people who are being abused, are aware of this, are talking to others about it, understand (fully) what’s happening and still do not want to get away, even when getting all the help offered possible. Even so, I would still add considering they know their loved ones won’t get hurt in the process either and therefore will be safe.
"It is the 'any' part I am getting somewhat confused about." ~ L
What is so hard to understand about the value 0, as in, none, zero, zilch, nadda? An Atheist, by definition, doesn't harbor a belief in *any* "God"/gods. 'Pretty cut 'n dried.
"As for instance when you say: 'E.g..a Deist doesn't believe in a personal god, and yet, Deists don't qualify as Atheists because Deists believe in a god'."
Again, 'nothing difficult or vague going on here. A Deist doesn't qualify as an Atheist because a Deist believes that the universe, alone, is sufficient reason to believe that a god was responsible, but they also believe that said god assumes no control or influence over said universe.
Needless to say - but I'll say it anyway - Christians are miles apart from Deists. Why? Because Christians believe that God("Yahweh") cares about what we wear, what we eat, what we say, what we believe, and how and with whom we have sex.
Now, if there are any Christians lurking, hopefully they can see how ridiculous and petty the god they worship comes across to nonbelievers.
"So the God described in the bible is not a God I can relate to. Check."
That you cannot relate to said God does not preclude said God's existence. I cannot relate to the two bombers who recently bombed Boston. Okay, that should make sense. But that doesn't necessarily mean that said bombers don't exist.
IOW, it's not that I disbelieve in the Christian god because I hate him or can't relate to him. No. It's because the attributes assigned to said god are mutually incompatible.
"The God as been talked about in church is not consistent with the one in the bible and therefore is not any more believable. Check".
It's not that its not consistent; it's more like that it's not the whole story. The church likes to focus on the "lovey-dovey" aspects of the god of the bible(usually "Jesus"), while ignoring said god when he turns into a raging lunatic. Seriously, what person in their right mind would worship or extol a being who recommends that we dash our enemy's children's heads against rocks? Who could feel safe around a guy who would drown an entire planet, including women, children, animals...and even plants? Oh, but said being gives his "promise" that he'll never do it again, right? And THAT makes it okay?
What if I was in the market for a nanny, and upon doing a background check on the first applicant, it was revealed that she had previously drowned two children of former clients because one time she became disappointed when said children didn't eat their vegetables? Should I hire her? Would it make things all better if she gave me her "promise" that she won't do it again?????
If you are sane, intelligent person, you know damned-well that I shouldn't hire this nanny, and neither would you.
contin...
"I never had an answer from God I was praying to and besides I agree God seems to have preference if he would listen to one and not the other. Check'." ~ L
Precisely, no answer, but Christians would be quick to point out that you were answered, alright, it's just that sometimes the answer was "no". Um, hello? I guess good luck vs bad luck never crossed their minds? THIS is the "pink elephant in the room".
"Do I believe there might a God responsible for the setup of this world? Well no, not as described in the bible. But yes, nature is a wonder in itself."
Yes, nature is wonderful......at times. Other times?.. it is brutally, relentlessly horrible. I mean, are you in awe of tapeworms? How about tsunamis? Fleas? Cockroaches? Cancer?
"After all this discussion on this blog the concept of 'God' is a little hard to hold on to or better yet to believe in. After all, it’s not visible, we cannot tell for sure it’s there."
That's what "faith" is for, and this illustrates the point I made previously when I said that those who hold religious beliefs on "faith" come across doubtful(uncertain) about their beliefs to nonbelievers.
"But if someone’s is aware and does not want to get away because of being brainwashed (read confused), than why does this qualify them all of sudden as less of a 'victim'?"
I don't recall saying anything about being "less of a victim". I'll make an analogy, and then I'm dropping the subject.
There are two couples, couple A, and couple B. The wife in couple A is physically abused regularly when her husband comes home drunk after work each day. She wants to leave him, but is afraid he'll kill her if she does, so she stays.
The wife in couple B isn't physically abused, but she is mentally abused, and this done daily by her domineering husband. He demeans her in front of her friends, family, and peers. When these people ask her why she stays with him, she says, "Oh, his dad abused his mother the same way. I know deep down he really loves me!"
Once more: For me, it's harder to be sympathetic towards the wife in couple B, and it's easier to be sympathetic towards the wife in couple A. The reason should be obvious, but at this point, it's fine by me if your opinion differs.
“A Deist doesn't qualify as an Atheist because a Deist believes that the universe, alone, is sufficient reason to believe that a god was responsible, but they also believe that said god assumes no control or influence over said universe.”
OK. Get it now.
“Needless to say - but I'll say it anyway - Christians are miles apart from Deists. Why? Because Christians believe that God("Yahweh") cares about what we wear, what we eat, what we say, what we believe, and how and with whom we have sex.”
Understood too. Thanx.
“It's because the attributes assigned to said god are mutually incompatible.”
I know what you mean by now (the omniscient and omnipotent) but it’s one of these things which keep confusing me time and again. I get the big picture, but it’s a constant challenge to explain it to others.
“It's not that its not consistent; it's more like that it's not the whole story. The church likes to focus on the "lovey-dovey" aspects of the god of the bible(usually "Jesus"), while ignoring said god when he turns into a raging lunatic.”
It makes sense the way you say this. They indeed emphasize the good aspects and leave out all else.
“Precisely, no answer, but Christians would be quick to point out that you were answered, alright, it's just that sometimes the answer was "no".”
Based on what one might ask… (not an actual question).
“Yes, nature is wonderful......at times. Other times?.. it is brutally, relentlessly horrible. I mean, are you in awe of tapeworms? How about tsunamis? Fleas? Cockroaches? Cancer?”
You always know how to show the other side. No of course I’m not. And you are right nature is anything but perfect. So partly it’s amazing, but one can wonder if God had created nature, wouldn’t it had been perfect and completely balanced? (I believe that is some sort of question here :-)).
“That's what "faith" is for, and this illustrates the point I made previously when I said that those who hold religious beliefs on "faith" come across doubtful(uncertain) about their beliefs to nonbelievers.”
So faith is gone on my side.
“I don't recall saying anything about being "less of a victim".”
You didn’t. To me it seemed like you did. However you’ve explained otherwise.
“When these people ask her why she stays with him, she says, "Oh, his dad abused his mother the same way. I know deep down he really loves me!"”
It’s a pity I’ve seen this in real life and still hear about it. For some reason these people are not aware of the effect mental abuse has on them and the next generation after them.
“The reason should be obvious, but at this point, it's fine by me if your opinion differs.”
It’s obvious the last one is only coming up with excuses.
Something totally different: I somehow ended up in a church today for a lecture on body-soul-mind-fusion. Not so much because of the topic, but because I wanted the English version (instead of the Dutch version) from a specific book by the author, which I could only obtain by going to the lecture.
Anyway, my first reaction was oh no, body-soul-mind-(con)fusion, but then to my surprise she started to talk about the negative and damaging influence of church. She talked about how we constantly got to blame ourselves during mass repeatedly while pounding ourselves on the chest and some other stuff and I was pleasantly surprised how this matched with what you’ve been saying on your blog all along. It’s typical to hear these thing in a church of all places.
Me: Precisely, no answer, but Christians would be quick to point out that you were answered, alright, it's just that sometimes the answer was "no".
You: Based on what one might ask… (not an actual question)."
It might not be an actual question, but I think it deserves an answer, nonetheless: It's based on the Christian's belief that "God" answers all prayers that are asked in earnest and with the right humility, which is something that they get from their bibles. But since we all know that this isn't true, including Christians, they have simply devised a "loophole" that gets God off the hook, and that loophole is that sometimes the answer to their prayer is simply "no". People on the outside of the Christian bubble see the problem immediately.
"So faith is gone on my side."
It may seem like a huge loss now, but once adjusted and able to trust your own skeptical "inner voice", things will improve.
"I was pleasantly surprised how this matched with what you’ve been saying on your blog all along. It’s typical to hear these thing in a church of all places"
I assume you meant atypical. In any case, it's not uncommon for one church group to disparage other church groups. Each "church" thinks that they are representing the bible the way it was intended, and in thinking so, it becomes easy for them to clump other churches together, ironically blaming "the church" for misrepresenting the bible, never once considering that the problem is the bible, itself. The central tenets of the Christian philosophy..e.g...Substitutionary Atonement, Original Sin, Heaven/Hell(reward/punishment) are all outmoded, demonstrably unreasonable tenets. Aside from a few poetic truths..e.g..love your neighbor, yadda, yadda, the bible should be denounced.
“It might not be an actual question, but I think it deserves an answer…”
Always good an answer…, also very appreciated.
“It's based on the Christian's belief that "God" answers all prayers that are asked in earnest and with the right humility, which is something that they get from their bibles.”
True. I had that belief too. I still ask occasionally when getting into the car to be safe. Some things are hard to change. However it’s not directed to a God anymore. Don’t ask me what it is directed to, it’s a combination of habit and knowing it helps because of focussing. Besides I’m not able to let go just yet of the thought about Angels and my Spirit Team. I may be in doubt about them, but it’s to say the least confusing, especially since I know I might be making all of this up and therefore give hardly any credibility to what comes to mind. Let me correct this. I do pay attention, I just don’t know if it’s me or … For now I’ll just say it’s me, however arrogant this sounds (there’s a difficulty in this, ouch…)
“But since we all know that this isn't true, including Christians, they have simply devised a "loophole" that gets God off the hook, and that loophole is that sometimes the answer to their prayer is simply "no".”
Never thought of it like this.
“People on the outside of the Christian bubble see the problem immediately.”
That insight is starting to develop on my part.
“It may seem like a huge loss now, but once adjusted and able to trust your own skeptical "inner voice", things will improve.”
I’ll just hold on to this… :-). Promise?
“I assume you meant atypical.”
Let’s say it was at least very remarkable. We literally translate this in Dutch with typical.
“In any case, it's not uncommon for one church group to disparage other church groups.”
Actually this had nothing to do with a church group. The lecture just happened to take place at a church. However the first reference was to Christianity and specifically the Catholic Church.
“The central tenets of the Christian philosophy..e.g...Substitutionary Atonement, Original Sin, Heaven/Hell(reward/punishment) are all outmoded, demonstrably unreasonable tenets.”
It indeed had everything to do with its tenets. And since we constantly do everything wrong, we therefore have to confess, resulting in openly blaming ourselves, making ourselves feel pretty worthless (subconsciously).
"I’ll just hold on to this… Promise?"
Hold on to it if you'd like, but know that I will make no such promise. I can't make promises where people's livelihoods are at stake. I don't have, nor want, that kind of responsibility.
“I don't have, nor want, that kind of responsibility.”
Fortunately some things never come as a surprise. It (as in the whole process having to do with losing faith) just sounded a little less harsh/complicated when you said “…things will improve.” The thought of things improving in the end was nice while it lasted.
Post a Comment