Religion has often been described as a crutch for the weak. It can also be a barrier to maturity.
According to Robert Price in The Reason Driven Life, the born-again Christian experience prolongs immaturity in at least three ways:
1. Morally
A believer, Price says, remains forever on the lowest rungs of character development. He is moral out of fear of punishment from his deity. His fear of hell keeps him from being evil, and he is motivated to do good in order to get heavenly rewards. There is no goodness for goodness sake.
This is why they see no morality outside of religion. It is why they fear atheists as evil people. For example, one time I was talking with a pastor about atheism. He said, “Let me tell you something. If I wasn’t a Christian, I’d have no reason to be good. Live up life! If someone offended me, I’d kill them. If was attracted to a girl, I’d rape her. Why would I care? Without God, there is no morality.”
“Surely you’re exaggerating simply to make a point,” I replied. “I don’t think you’re capable of such a thing.”
He looked me in the eye and said, “I’m not exaggerating.”
That’s despicable and downright frightening.
So if that’s the only way these people can be moral, then in order protect society, perhaps they should keep their delusion. But let’s not forget that it’s the worst reason to be moral.
2. Intellectually
Most evangelical Christians believe you go to hell if your theology is wrong. That’s why they think Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and all the other religions in the world go to hell. It’s a form of gnosticism, a salvation by knowledge. If you believe wrong things about God, he sends to everlasting torment.
That belief halts intellectual growth because deviation from their current beliefs have frightening consequences. ”If that’s the way things are,” Price says, “it is safest not to question, safer to sit down and shut up. This explains why so many born-again Christians can attain sophistication in many professions and disciplines and yet retain a sealed-off nursery school of religious beliefs.”
3. Personal Growth
“Embracing a party line of morals, beliefs, and opinions,” says Robert Price, “you do not learn to think for yourself.”
Christians are taught to “cast their troubles on Jesus” and to “take their problems to the Lord” instead of taking care of it themselves. They are taught to look for packaged answers in a holy book, instead of coming to a conclusion based on wisdom and advice.
Grow Up!
The Apostle Paul admonished his followers to grow up. He said, ”When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways” (1 Cor. 13:11).
Believers too often speak, think, and reason like children. Like children, they need to be told how to be good. They need to be threatened with punishment. They are given packaged answers to questions. When they fail to conform, they are shunned.
But it’s time to grow up and leave childish ways behind.
I truly acknowledge your atheist view.
However, I think that although some people call themselves Christians, they may be not. A true Christian should obey what God says because they love God from their heart and would do whatever he asks(mature), not because they are scared to go to hell(immature).
P.S.
Scroll down from his posts for LOTS of answers.
(no true scotsman fallacy).
are you a true christian?
very well.
drink poison.
handle snakes.
drive out demons.
Mark 16:9-20
sure, the SECULAR scientific evidence indicates this is a latter addition and could argue it’s not true because of this, but then this opens up a worse can of worms. how could god let such a _fundamental component_ of how to know who is a saved christan be perverted this way?
A “True” christian, huh? I love how every time some christians are confronted by the bad behavior of another christian, they claim the offender is not a “true” christian. Cheap. The problem is with the gross ambiguity of the religion itself. It’s incoherent and dishonest to try to label the other guy as some kind of false christian.
his definition of a ‘true’ christian is a valid one. it’s just basically useless in any practical sense. no the true issue comes with the implied definition of christianity versus his revised definition. the implied definition is the one we are all familiar with.
ie, those who believe in some form of god, some form of jesus christ, and some form of revealed truth in the bible.
that is a christian.
the details beyond that can determine which denomination you ostensibly belong to. though variations will exist in particular interpretation and beliefs upon minutia.
to THEN alter the definition in order to make a point, instead of using the evidence to fit your point. is what we call moving the goal post. it’s simply a particular form of the goal post moving fallacy, usually as it applies to implied and explicit uses of alternate definitions.
How do you love a being that you can’t see or hear?
Wow, a No True Scotsman on the very first comment. Must be some kinda record.
A no true Scotsman plus battered wife syndrome combined, in fact. True lunacy.
The reason I submitted to my ex? Not because “I loved him”, but because he’d farking beat me if I didn’t. The Christian “god” is much the same way: God as Abuser
Good article. I too was in an abusive marriage. I was set up for it because of my evangelical upbringing (or should I say “down-bringing”). It has taken many years for me to deprogram myself, but the scars remain. In times of lower emotional resources, the old fears come back. This is the legacy of christianity. If you are taught as a child that you are a terrible sinner, from birth, essentially “bad”, it’s hard to undo that damage as an adult. This is why speaking out on forums like this is so helpful for me. Someone needs to write an article on the mental health issues of being a christian – how it sets people up for depression and other chemical imbalances in the brain. One thing is the mixed messages in the bible – ie god is love, but will kill you if you don’t obey. God is about love, joy, and peace, but…he will kill you if you don’t obey. Bible literalists are taught that impossible things actually happened – Jonah in the fish, the three men in the lion’s den, walking on water, etc…we know these things can’t happen, but our natural ability to discern truth from fiction is irrevocably damaged when we are taught these things. This only skims the surface, but I’m so glad that there are other former-christians-turned-atheists who understand this.
For me, I see morality as empathy. If someone will kill or rape if they think they can get away with it, they are mentally ill because they don’t care about causing pain to others. They are probably either narcissistic or sociopathic. It’s quite scary, the thought that some christians are kept “in check” like this. In my view they completely lack morality. Usually, children who are brought up with love, affection, trust, boundaries, laughter, a sense of community responsibility, etc. will become loving, moral citizens. Children who are abused, neglected, or taught that the world revolves around them will usually not. We can overcome our upbringing, but it’s difficult. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with religion. But I do see that religion can prevent people from seeking help for problems like sociopathy. I know a christian pastor who said that he would have been a pedophile, but was saved by god. He never actually raped his children, but he would stare inappropriately, touch his wife’s breasts in front of them with a leering look at the kids, “accidentally” enter the bathroom when the teenage daughter was having a bath, etc. If he had not been “miraculously saved” by god, maybe he would have gotten to the root of this issue. Sadly, religion is often a tool used to prevent true healing.
“down-bringing” – what an enlightened phrase! Clearly you have come a long way. While i appreciate your post it’s simple phrases like that which make me thing long and hard that I truly enjoy. Good job and good luck!
I let logic dictate, as I’m sure you all do! I agree with you, often times a “christian” will choose to use religion in an inappropriate way, but there is another side. Unfortunately, a very hidden side. I have come to the conclusion that there is a god, and that the god is in fact the christian god. This is rather surprising, but pleasant. I wish I could explain the whole process of logic I used, but to be honest, it’s longer than you care to read. I do not wish to impose my beliefs upon you, I only wish to express that logic will not always yield the exact same result. And of course, none of our logic is flawed! We all have thought this all over a LOT. Oh! Here’s this:
http://ringnebula.com/is_the_universe_flat.htm
That’s a site about the geometry of the universe. This is a small factor towards my belief in god, but a good one that’s easy to explain. (I’m one of the intelligent design variety, not the 7 day literallists)
I find the first example about morality quite frightfull to be honest.
It reminds me of that text where a believer claims that atheists have no morality because they don’t believe in god.
This claim has made me think a lot about my own morality and where it comes from.
The fact that people could be so evil to do what that pastor says because there is no thread from god seriously makes me shiver.
It also leads me once again to the conclusion that an atheist actually has a better moral compass than most believers.
I’m sorry, this was meant to be a reply to Jesse’s post, above.
Miriam Wbster was a Christian. Do you trust him?
Merriam-Webster is a publishing companty famous for dictionary, not a person. Even if that was only one person, How does that have anything to do with morality?
I agree with you. As a good christian girl, I was taught to be obedient, and that any “talking back” was bad. I had one abusive partner after another, and didn’t figure out the connection until the last few years. I’m a late bloomer I guess.
How is it mature to do anything someone asks because you love them? That’s the height of immaturity- and exactly how a lot of teenage girls end up in trouble. Maturity is standing up for yourself, remaining true to your ideals even if it may anger the one you love.
The Apostle Paul–who could arguably be called the original jesus freak–should have taken his own advice about growing up. The new testament is full of his writings and influence, so perhaps if he had grown up and thought about the world in a clear and reasoned way (as opposed to the deluded way he tried to invent and spin the life and death of jesus in the fantastical, mythical, and apocalyptic way), then maybe we’d all be spared this childish nosense here in the 21st century.
1. Morally
The reality is that most people believer and non-believer alike try to live moral lives and there are some on both sides that fail miserably. What the pastor should have said is that the atheist has no compass for morality outside of themselves, and as I’ve said there are many atheist philosophers who made that point long ago.
2. Intellectually
I can’t speak for other churches, but in the one I go to questions are encouraged and we even have a regular time and many ways for them to be voiced. I’ve even played devil’s advocate and used questions people have on here. Those of us that answer questions even go as far as to say that we don’t have all of the answers in a definitive way for every question.
3. Personal growth
The goal here is responsibility, not complete self sufficiency. There is nothing more childish than saying “I’m a big boy, I can do it all by myself”. Being vulnerable and humble but striving for success should be the goal. But when we fail we don’t blame others for the mistakes we’ve made and we extend forgiveness to those that have failed us.
naw…love is better than food
“Jesus came before John lennon, but both were right about that all we need is love.”
To my knowledge, the latter didn’t say anything about us needing to believe the lyrics to his songs. Yes, I’m fairly certain we are free to reject the Beatle’s lyrics….. including, free from suffering emotional, and/or, bodily harm of any sort. With the former, we evidentally “need” to do something more than “love”, that is, if we value our emotional/physical safety. And that “need”, of course, is the “need” to *believe*.
Good post. I have repeated as much to my own father. Needless to say I will still be going to hell.
@Claid…
Its not so much about the external print (bible) but rather the internal blue…print (His nature) within. Until Christ be formed in you (Gal 4:19).
You could be wrong, there could be more to all this than you can “see” with your natural eyes, I mean its possible right? Maybe you just dont…know? So you are blameless.
The sky is falling
John C,
I think there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
(From someone whose writings went a tad further than any of mine, ha.)
And I don’t have certainty (“dont…know”).
It’s why I side far away form you, and with the atheists and hold you in some contempt: they don’t have the certainty (“dont…know”); they are the ones who reason and challenge and seek facts, what’s real.
vs. you, you’re the one with absolute certainty based on warm-fuzzy-muddy feeling based on circular reasoning belief babblings and a demonstrated lack of thinking capacity.
(Aside from NEVER directly or specifically answering a question.)
Even not being a hard atheist, I have NO belief in the christian god, either the external sky version or your internal heartworm version.
To strip you of your notion that you repulse only “closed-minded, narrow-thinking, godless atheists” (borrowed words, not mine!), you repulse me.
FYI – personally, I don’t deal with any of these three. I don’t think particular religions go to hell. I don’t do things or not do things out of fear. And I think for myself. Matter of fact, our entire belief system is based on thinking for ourselves. We’re not robots. If that were the case then point number 1 may make sense. Of course, it doesn’t.
Again, a person can’t make general assumptions about Christianity if they don’t know what they’re talking about and if they claim a super-radical fundamental background.
It’s like this – we believe in a relationship with Jesus. I know, go ahead and make your oh-so-creative sarcastic comment now. I’m waiting.
But you telling me how I feel and where I get my beliefs is like me telling you your thoughts and feelings about your wife whom I’ve never met.
You don’t have to agree with me but that doesn’t make my statement inaccurate.
ONCE AGAIN, you’re not asking the right people. I agree with many things said on this blog. But I’m not fun, I’m too rational of a Christian (again, bring your “creative” sarcasm now).
Perhaps you need a guest-blogger who actually knows what a Christian believes.
BY THE WAY, to clarify, being a Christian is NOT a person who reads the Bible and follows a bunch of rules. THAT is not a Christian regardless of what they say. If you get another dill who says that, send them my way. At that point I’ll be on your side.
BOTTOM LINE – most of the arguments on this blog are starting from the wrong place. You can’t even define a Christian so your sarcasm, anger, and “intellect” are all off from the beginning. SURE, atheists may agree but you can say anything and they’ll agree, you’re on the same side – bashing something you say doesn’t exist (doesn’t even make sense).
You can’t make broad statements about denominations and tag them as “Christian” because religion is MAN-made, not from God (yep, I said it). So there you’re still using misinformed people, even misinformed religious people who SAY they’re Christians but really aren’t.
Really, you need some background. And Mr. Florien’s fundamental background does NOT represent a Christian’s beliefs. So perhaps the blog should just be a target and appropriately named as bashing THOSE people, not Christians altogether. If that’s the case, you need to define what Christians are to believe.
AND you can’t even use the Bible for that. Again, you can’t read my wife’s journal and tell me what she means by it. You have to have a relationship with her. Again, you can argue all you want, but that’s the case. The Bible is NOT a textbook. There’s context. And without a RELATIONSHIP with Jesus (third time, bring your “creativity” now), then you have NO context.
Sorry.
ASK ME, I’ll bring all you want.
Perhaps you need a guest-blogger who actually knows what a Christian believes.
What a Christian believes isn’t really at issue.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree…
All the silly circular theological arguments in the world are meaningless extra filler on top of that accurate assessment of Christianity. That is the part that rational people universally have a problem with on top of all the other flaws, monstrously evil actions of your god, the hatred the ignorance and the sheer lunacy.
So your talk about trivial details on top of that load of hogwash is the problem.
Lose *all* of that, and then you’ll be left with a half ass lukewarm philosophy which were you willing to think about you could easily do better than yourself.
Of course its “man-made” not from god– there is no god!
Interesting post. I like the first point because the kind of new-age Christian response you will get to that is along the lines of what the first commentator wrote. I recently left christianity, and still have close christian friends. The other night I was chatting to one of them, and I pointed out: “According to your belief, according to your God, I’m going to hell for not believing”, and my friend replied, “That’s so WEIRD, I just can’t think like that, I can’t imagine you going to hell! *laughs* I’m sure God will… I don’t know… make a plan…”
I find Christianity, especially evangelical christianity, teaches it’s followers text-book defensive viewpoints pretty much the same way scripture is fed to them. “This is what God is saying when he says…” etc. It seems such a simple point that they cannot even come to terms with, and my friend only had to seriously face it when someone he knew and loved (me) for real (not the faceless ‘lost’) fell into that category of the hell-bound.
To add to that idea that Christians are morally immature because of what they believe, I also find a lot of the Christians I know have very little self-esteem or self-regard, because they are afraid of having ‘pride’ or not being ‘humble’. They constantly compare themselves to Jesus, who they believe is perfect, and so they’re never ‘good enough’, which keeps them grovelling and shuffling and being thankful to their God for not obliterating them for their sin. I’ve seen frailer people in the church get steamrolled, oppressed and abused into almost complete invisibility for this reason, and then they still believe that they are in the wrong. It’s frightful.
I did not read the rest of the comments so if I’m repeating what someone already said I apologize.
I want to add to the personal growth section. One of the things that I can’t stand is when people don’t credit themselves with their accomplishments. I often stop people when they are thanking god for something they work hard for and tell them to be enjoy and be proud of their personal achievement.
Bawk! Bawk!
Oh, sorry to use “fowl” language.
If only I were older and wiser….
“Why is it that Christians apparently speak and think like children? Because they don’t generally use fowl language which is for some reason attached to being “a mature adult?” How does saying the word Fuck make you an adult?”
It has nothing to do with foul language. Believing in fairy tales is what makes christians childlike.
“How about we all just live our own damn lives and stop trying to bring everyone else down because they think differently? Gee, what a novel idea.”
We’re in agreement. If Christians would only stop trying to evangelize the world we wouldn’t feel the need to point out flaws in their beliefs.
“I wonder why it is that nearly every elderly person I know believes in God…”
Because they are closer to death.
Or because they have become intellectually lazy and find it easier, in their golden years, to let dogma of their respective cultural heritage, i.e. religion and god, drive their remaining years…. just a thought….
Age and wisdom are not synonymous.
The elderly people you know are almost certainly not the wisest people in the world.
Being wise and seeking wisdom are not the same thing. The elderly are far less likely to seek out different opinions, or request advice.
I’m going to go ahead and assume that most of the young people you know also believe in god, and that the older people grew up in a time when not believing was far less acceptable. So, all in all, this is quite meaningless on several levels.
I think the blog was exactly spot on.
I think you’re still an immature child, a simpleton, incapable of the concept of internal ethics without an external authority.
This is not a light accusation. I am serious and mean it full force.
And so you jump to some simplistic simpleton’s conclusion having NOTHING to do with the blog: that growing up is using fowl language. Bawwk Brrawwwwk!
(Credit to Teleprompter for that one; good thing I had no drink to spray on my monitor when I laughed.)
@Jeffette: Why is it that Christians apparently speak and think like children?
Because they, and you, jump to a simpleton’s conclusions about what human maturity is.
Which they do because they are still too immature to even conceive of responsibility for self; innate ethics; doing the hard work of learning to think for oneself (this is where they really fail and what they avoid at all cost); determining what one’s values are; taking the responsibility of making the hard decisions for which they are responsible, without God telling them what to do (another one they want to avoid); and just any hard work that comes with being fully grown-up and a fully developed human being.
That’s all well and good…IF your “God” exists. However, there’s no empirical proof of this entity’s existence, so I’d rather live my life and cultivate relationships with real people instead of some dreamed up sky father.
“Isn’t a relationship with God it’s own reward? ”
Sure. In the same way that pretending to eat ice cream is delicious.
“Isn’t a relationship with God it’s own reward? In healthy friendships, it’s about more than material benefits, certainly not based in fear.”
See, now, this would be a true statement if you replace the word god with the name of an actual person you like.
Unless of course the person was invisible, never actually communicated with you in any way, and there was no evidence supporting her existence. In that case the realtionship would be exactly like a relationship with god.
And I would challenge you to talk to those elderly people, and find out exactly what their definition of “god” is. The radically conservative Christian beliefs that have overtaken our country in the last 30 or 40 years are radically different from the beliefs that my grandparents and their peers hold.
Dear Jeff:
The word “fuck” does not make you sound like an adult. Learning to use paragraphs makes you sound like an adult.
Daniel, that is so incredible, phenomenal, rare, sensational, spectacular; singular, uncommon, outstanding, remarkable; impressive, striking; animating, energizing, enlightening, enlivening, exciting, galvanizing, invigorating, stimulating; fascinating, and interesting!
(I wanted to say it was awesome, but that fell into popular overuse.)
I’ve thought this all along.
(With a corollary that Christianity, and Christian-based American culture, wants to keep women childlike. Dependent, weak, submissive, charming instead of strong, etc.. Not my mere notion; I’ve read feminist essays on the same thing.)
And I thought I was well-thought and articulate! Mmmphh.
You’ve just done to me what Emerson wrote about: If you don’t speak your mind, “to-morrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another. ”
That was awesome!
** the near eastern “divinities” know only submission to authority **
You have only to step outside monotheistic thought patterns to understand how much western atheists and theists alike operate on the narrowest bandwidth of knowledge.
If your model of religion is based on the big-3 near eastern monster-theisms, you won’t even understand non-theistic philosophical theories and practices so vigorously quashed by the hope-faith-charity crowd for the last 2,000 years:
1. There is no inherent relationship between religion and morals.
2. Xian “ethics” is not ethical at all.
3. As an example, the ethics of Confucius are superior to those of near eastern monotheisms
Xian ethics is irrational, otherworldly, and impractical. It promises much, and delivers nothing. Jesus’ “interim ethic” couldn’t outlast one generation of true believers. After all, the world was about to end. (Sermon on the Mount — search term: interim ethic)
The fideistic irrationality of Paul of Tarsus with its anti-intellectualism, misogyny, and revenge seeking has poisoned the West for 2,000 years. After all, the world was about to end and Christ would soon return to elevate believers and damn everyone else — but he didn’t show up and the world goes on. (Read 1Cor1:20-30 NIV)
Chinese culture was far luckier. From that very rational, this worldly, and practical book, The Analects [Conversations], attributed to Confucius.
Five hundred years before mytho-Jesus and hysteric Paul, Confucius was eons ahead of contemporary xian (jewish/islamist) thinking:
6:20 Fan Ch’ih asked what constituted wisdom. The Master said, “To give one’s self earnestly to the duties due to men, and, while respecting spiritual beings, to keep aloof from them, may be called wisdom.”
Get the point? No relationship between religion, “spiritual beings” and ethics, “the duties due to men.” The latter cannot be understood in terms of the former.
15:23 Tsze-kung asked, saying, “Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s life?” The Master said, “Is not ‘reciprocity’ such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” [trans. S.R. McIntyre 2003]
What follows? No religion police!
No prelate, priest, pastor, rabbi, imam is needed to dictate human behavior — submit to some god’s self-appointed ministers.
All ethics is irreducibly social (but not utilitarian). Harming others cannot be generalized; otherwise, no culture could exist.
Note: 1Cor1:20-30 NIV is shorthand for ‘the book in the New Testament named First Corinthians, the first chapter, verses 20-30 in the English translation named the New International Version.’ Hold your nose, these first xians smell bad.
the anti-supernaturalist
From above; that thread was getting crowded! :)
That’s an appropriate metaphor – Theistic and Non-theistic morality has the same “cash value”.
@vorjack
Pragmatist double entendre FTW! :)
While this is probably theologically true, I think when many Christians fault the morality of non-theists they are thinking about the reward/punishment aspect of theism. If you have a belief system that rewards or punishments you in an afterlife versus just ceasing to exist, there is no comparable reason for an atheist to do good.
@cello
Yeah, you’re right, at a certain level I think that Theists have a hard time understanding what motivates Atheists to adhere to any given ethical standard, because Atheists tend not to believe in an objective final judgment esp. connected to any sort of reward/punishment. That’s what they get hung up on, the “why” Atheists behave, rather than the “how”.
Your arguments are the very definition of straw man fallacy. You take the weakest arguments for what you oppose, show them to be weak, and declare victory. If you truly want to understand a theology, dont talk to a pastor. Most priests and pastors are not philosophers, thats not their job. Their job is to make faith understandable to the masses. Talk to a scholar. Find a christian with a doctorate in philosophy (there are thousands of them). You will get a much more developed, educated, intellectual viewpoint.
Now I have even MORE contempt for Christians’ stupidity.
Before you shoot yourself and all Christians in the foot again – not many unshot toes left – you are STILL not up to:
The “SKY-GOD” Challenge
And, seriously,
I Am Not Sure You Should Talk
Yes, revelation is a great method for attaining precise and accurate results, producing such luminous works such as the Qur’an, the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Talmud, and many others!
(Wait…you’re not taking all of those together, but separately? Then how do you determine which ones to take seriously?)
If you really had confidence in revelation as a method of gathering information, wouldn’t you take all of its results equally seriously? That is, if you’re going to emphasize revelation over analysis, then why shouldn’t you be held to that standard? What makes the revelation of Paul better than the revelation of Buddha or Joseph Smith?
Revelation can produce claims, but it’s lacking a mechanism to sort them out, to see if they’re plausible or believable. Theoretically, revelation shouldn’t even need to be sorted out, should it? Shouldn’t it just be “self-evident” if it is divinely revealed?
But revelation never really is self-evident, is it? Thus the thousands of religions, and even the thousands of variations within Christianity!
You’re privileging revelation over rational analysis. So…bearing that in mind:
Do you (One) hijack rational analysis to try and provide some kind of support for your revelatory claims, which (by definition) should not need to be supported in such a manner?
Or do you (Two) admit that you have no way to evaluate any of your religious claims on the same basis as competing claims derived from revelation?
….Blessed is he that “believes” but has not seen. …
mark…. that sounds like sounds like foolish advice to me.
and of course this would only apply if your a christian could a muslim, jew or scientologist use this method to find god.
mark: any of them could use this method to find “god”!
That’s the beauty of revelation – it’s best used through the eye/mind of the beholder!
Just because you don’t have an education is no reason for you to slander those who do.
I’ve been really pleased at the not-too-personally-demeaning comments I’ve read on this blog so far, but I’m afraid I have to jump off the truck here…
John, the situation is not that Christianity NEEDS no intellectual validation, it’s that it’s impossible to PROVIDE any for the beliefs that are based on a feeling.
Next time you go have a chat with your physician about the ulcer you have developed, make sure he knows that you’d rather he spend his time studying God’s nature than attending continuing education and reading the latest medical journals to help him care for your health. I mean, you’ll be headed north soon, and won’t need that nasty old sin-riddled body anyway, right?
You know what a Phd stands for in Christendom? Piled High & Deep.
As someone who worked long and hard to earn his PhD, let me just take this opportunity to invite you to go fuck yourself.
Great post, Daniel – I couldn’t agree more.
So it’s bullshit and childish that we obey laws, and submit to authority figures in our society
We obey laws and submit to authority figures in our society hopefully because WE made the laws and WE elected the authority figures.
Not some god.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I just want to point out there are a lot of grammatical typos in this article. Things such as “sit down a shut up”, when it should be “and shut up”. I’m not trying to nitpick, but I found these words distracting me when I was trying to read your article, which has some very valid points.
Four years ago when I left the faith I was acting like a 12-year old. Today, I am struggling through the awful 17 ‘s.
Martin Luther King was a christian, and an exceptional man. But I think he actually followed the teachings of Ghandi in his civil rights work. Jesus never provided much guidance on how to stand up for yourself, with his “turn the other cheek” view on allowing yourself to be abused. And Mother Theresa has done a terrible disservice to people all over the world by discouraging birth control. This is highly irresponsible in an AIDS pandemic, and I would say that she may be directly responsible for many deaths because of her stance. If this is christianity, I’ll pass.
Hi
Mother Theresa thought that pain was God’s decision. So in her “hospitals” weren’t painkillers. Pretty awful and sadistic from a saint
Wow, I didn’t know that. Disgusting. And if that’s the case, wouldn’t she be consistent if she also didn’t believe in any drugs or medical care? Did she get care when she was ill? Doesn’t that interfere in god’s plan too?
Martin Luther King also cheated on his wife habitually. Not really relevant to his civil rights work, but I wouldn’t call him ‘exceptional’.
He also plagiarised the bulk of his doctoral thesis from an earlier student at another institution. Frankly I don’t think the man was worthy of the hero-worship his memory is given.
Hi again, to all. Been out of the country for a while…
Just wanted to say that (as a theist, and Christian) I for the most part agree with this post.
I have couple of question though…
When we say “born-again Chrisitan” are we referring to the generalized caricature of the American Evangelical Christian? If so, I believe the wording is a bit harsh, and polarizing, but I’ll sign off on the assessment.
There are, throughout recent history, a minority of people who have really taken the teachings of Christ at face value and lived their lives as best they could in response tho this message. The more notable names that come to mind are people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mother Teresa, Oscar Romero, Henri Nouwen and Dorothy Day. Can we really label these people as immature?
To me, these people are the picture of maturity. They are my heroes. Labeling them as immature based on their religious views seems very shallow, and dare I say, “immature”.
Good post Dan. Though as a Christian, I’d disagree with a lot of what’s on this blog, I think you have a very valid point. in your summary, Believers too often speak, think, and reason like children. Like children, they need to be told how to be good. They need to be threatened with punishment. They are given packaged answers to questions. When they fail to conform, they are shunned.
I agree that threat of punishment is a horrible basis for morality. Also I disagree with those who say an atheist cannot be a moral or good person. Their argument for philosophical grounding of morality may not make sense to me, but since when did that prevent a person from knowing right from wrong?
I also don’t think the Bible teaches that God sends people to hell because they get their theology wrong.
Finally it seems strange to me that many believers equate trusting God with switching off their minds… but they do. Christians may accuse you of committing the straw man fallacy here, but regardless of what the truth is about the Bible, Jesus, and God, you’re right, it is time to grow up.
This article…..is so narrow. It didn’t challenge me and was not informative at all. these “three ways” didn’t prove anything about maturity. I think that the writer of this article shoudl ask some more questions of other Chrsitians…and hopefully not arrogant ones that make such bold statements. The information he used in the articls were out of context or downright inaccurate. Love is the answer. Jesus came before John lennon, but both were right about that all we need is love. It’s cliche…but it’s powerful.
Merriam Webster definition of trust:
Your god is a non-interventionist god, and we can go round and round about that, but you know in your heart it’s true. In order to rely on something whose character, ability, strength, and truth are not evident in the observable universe, you need to be of a certain state of mind.
I would argue that that state of mind is one wherein you “shut off” the (very likely) possibility that god does not exist.
Thx Winter…lol. Actually I do have quite an education as you call it…and I wasnt slamming anyone just pointing out where the focus should be, not on our own qualifications.
This is one of the most blatantly biased and incorrect articles I have ever read! It’s rather humorous actually. Of all the Christians I know, possibly 5% of them are moral out of fear. The rest are moral because they strive to be the best they can be out of love for God and for others. It is ridiculous to say that all Christians condemn every other religion’s followers to hell because it simply isn’t true. Some do, yes, just as countless non-believers including the writer of this article condemn believers to eternal immaturity and stupidity. Sounds a bit like hell to me! I wonder why it is that nearly every elderly person I know believes in God… Now apparently being a Christian means you do not seek wisdom and advice to get make decisions, yet the oldest and wisest people in our world right now… Believe in God!! It appears that the person who wrote this is the one who isn’t seeking wisdom. Why is it that Christians apparently speak and think like children? Because they don’t generally use fowl language which is for some reason attached to being “a mature adult?” How does saying the word Fuck make you an adult? I know plenty of 12-year-olds who use those words. Christians are intellectually dull because they look down on non-believers, but please explain to me how this article is doing anything different at all. How about we all just live our own damn lives and stop trying to bring everyone else down because they think differently? Gee, what a novel idea.
“I also don’t think the Bible teaches that God sends people to hell because they get their theology wrong.”
mark: Huh, isnt that what hell fire and brimstone preaching over the years has been about.
If your statement is true then how do you explain this
“Heaven or hell is determined by whether a person believes (puts their trust) in Christ alone to save them (John 3:16, 36, “
Christians love to quote John 3:16. Jesus is like a get out of jail free card. But Jesus himself said that you had to do more that just believe.
(MArk 10:17)(Luke 18:18)
“Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus replied, “Only God is truly good. But to answer your question, you know the commandments: You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.” Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Have you sold all of your possessions yet? If not, you can always put hope in the “anything is possible with god” line.
I’m not a Christian, but I think you are mistaken on point #1. Christians don’t need to do anything other than accept that Christ is their personal savior in order to get into Heaven. So the argument that they are moral in order to get into Heaven is flawed. As I understand it, doing good works is more about evangelism via personal example, as well as simple gratitude for having been saved.
at john c
…Just wondering if you know these important story distinctions and the important symbolism. ….
mark… why dont you enlighten us since you have been fortunate enough to have the ability and wisdom to tell us what is literal and what is symbolic.
i would think that if your god were really serious about converting non believers and saving us from hell then at the very least he could inspire you to explain what is symbolic and literal.
Okay, maybe it wasn’t reductio ab absurdum, but I’m pretty sure that I showed that your argument doesn’t work.
“You could say there is no downside to believing.”
No – you might say that – I never would.
“We like you and we want you to be a part of it.”
This can’t possibly be true. You have no idea who I am.
FYI – “sharing” because you are “excited” is exactly the same thing as trying to convince us. There is no point in sharing unless you are trying to convince. That’s fine – I try to convince believers I’m right all the time – but at least be honest about it.
john you didnt answer my question. you have an all powerful god to inspire you with an answer will you please be honest and answer my question which is.
how do you know what is literal and what is symbolic.
for example are talking and hearing snakes symbolic or literal. did god really alter his own laws so that snakes could talk without a voicebox.
The one thing most people forget when regarding the bible is that God did not write the bible. Humans wrote the bible. It shouldn’t be taken literally and it has been copied a million times over meaning there are not only human mistakes from the beggining of when it was written but i’m sure just as many translational mistakes.
Mmm… very well-disguised No True Scotsman, Grace.
Daniel,
Do you personally agree with Robert Price? Has it been your experience that this is what the Christian faith actually teaches.
I don’t want to seem judgmental, but from my perspective as a Christian ,he is representing the view of people more immature in the faith, who really are childish in their thinking.
But, I do think it’s unfair to represent this as what all the Christians believe.
I think he illustrates some concerns, though. Where does morality come from? I know many believe here it comes out of the evolutionary process based in survival benefits. But, on a personal level, people feel they are doing good for goodness sake.
But, on what objective basis, do we even define “good. ”
Hitler sincerely thought that the goal of racial purification was good, and that the “end would justify the means.”
In communist China, even late term abortion is used as sex selection. Because of the two child policy, parents want to be certain of male children. This is considered acceptable.
I work with some folks who have actually sexually abused kids who think that their values are personally right for them, and can see no problem with what they’re about.
And, Claidheamh Mor, if it’s ok, would you share abit about your background. How did you come to your current views? Do you have any religious background at all, Claidheamh? I’m curious. Hope you are not offended by my question.
I agree with you, and I have talked to them. I do not conform to the radically conservative beliefs that you speak of. Thank you for your response.
I knew people who claimed they were ‘saved’ when they were three or four years old. When someone believes they have achieved their spirital zenith at such a young age, what room is there for growth?
Isn’t a relationship with God it’s own reward? In healthy friendships, it’s about more than material benefits, certainly not based in fear.
To know God’s love means not being afraid to question, and to live authentically. It means being able to take risks, to trust.
I think authentic Christian faith is the polar opposite of everything that Price has shared. Daniel, it doesn’t describe me as a Christian believer at all.
Respectfully,
Grace.
I’ve been thinking about how to frame my response to the morality question all day, and here is what I came up with:
For me, morality stems from the problem of other minds and Quine’s web of beliefs/knowledge (among other things, but I will focus on these two).
Here’s what I mean:
The problem of other minds means that I can know that my mind (or at least the phenomenology that runs on my brain that I call my mind) exists, but I can’t know that other minds exist. I can observe you and talk to you, and I can carry on a conversation with you and relate to you, but that is as far as I can say you have a mind. Indeed, I can’t prove that you have a mind (this statement refers to the Turing test of AI). Also, I can’t do any thing to confirm that God exists or has a mind.
Now, as a member of a society, I understand that there are moral convictions I share with some folks more “universally” than others. Here’s where Quine comes in. Quine thought that knowledge/propositions approached “truth” as consensus across/between cultures increased. (Mathematics is held to be “universal” while, say, certain other philosophies remain much more contentious).
Put these two things together (the problem of other minds and the web of beliefs/knowledge):
I can’t prove you have a mind, but I can observe you and say with some “certainty” that you exist. Further, you and lots of other people (but not all people) agree with me that certain things are bad (like murder) because they harm people and because we can imagine that they harm us. In this way, I have a responsibility to you as another person, even if I can’t prove your mind, but can only observe you from the outside. (In other words, I can’t ever imagine being you, but I can fairly well imagine what it is *like* to be you).
Now, I can’t prove that God exists, much less that God has a mind. Therefore, I have no responsibility to God for my morals because I can’t even imagine what it is like to be God.
For this reason, I feel that I have a strong moral commitment not to go crazy on other people, even though there isn’t some threat of hell hanging over me. Morals don’t have to be universal to have strong weight. Morals having a relative/cultural nature doesn’t mean anything goes.
Hope that makes sense.
You clearly didn’t understand what I wrote. I said that I have a responsiblity to others because, while I can’t imagine being you, I can imagine what it is *like* to be you. The responsibility lies here. That is certainly not out of the blue if you actually followed my argument (and it sounds like you didn’t)
Who defines them (the dimensions of responsibility)? We, as a larger society do. We make laws for this reason. We have government and social contract. They enforce what is “right” (aka “hold you to it”). It’s not a perfect system, but there is NO perfect system of morality, whether religion or legalistic.
The fact is, I DON’T break my moral code, because it is REALISTIC and based on cultural norms.
If you want to read about the problem of other minds and its implications, I suggest you click here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
If you want to read more about Quine, I suggest you click here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/
Until you have thoroughly read and digested these approaches, I suggest that you refrain from telling me that “It’s not working”.
Jon,
“You mention (out of the blue) that you have a “responsibility”. Says who?”
The good Samaritan — that’s who.
That is, treating others as we would want to be treated; it is fundamental. How is it fundamental?
Because it fulfills the greatest number of desires, as an altruistic act. The fulfillment of desires is not only part of the explanation, but it is also part of the justification.
“Where did that come from?”
I don’t know. Large aspects of it probably derive from our tribal history, from our interdependence on others for survival, especially in in-groups.
“How “binding” is it?”
That depends. From person to person, we have different psychological underpinnings. We behave differently; some of us are “wired” differently.
As far as society goes, the morality of altruism is very binding. Law codes throughout every society perpetuate the same general principles. The things that work well for societies seem to be perpetuated widely.
Our morality most likely has physical, psychological, and social components.
“What are the dimensions of this “responsibility”?”
Empathy is an important concept here. Laws are important concepts, too. Social interaction is an important consideration to think about.
It probably varies from person to person, and from society to society.
I wish I knew the answers to these questions. But the fact that there may not be or possibly cannot be a complete explanation doesn’t render these questions unanswerable or not worth answering.
“Who defines them?”
Tribes, families, judges, individuals; also, the honing of psychological mechanisms over millions of years of evolution, and also the social evolution of societies.
“How does anyone else know what it is?”
The same evolutionary mechanisms would instill roughly the same ideas in different people if altruism were promoted. And we also have figures within individual groups that spread moral concepts.
“And why should we hold you to it?”
Because it fulfills our desires, especially via the standpoint of altruism. (Yes, this is a justification.)
“Who gives anyone else the right to hold you to it?”
Have you ever studied the notion of implicit consent?
If you benefit from the society, other people have a right to hold you to a certain standard which benefits the society as a whole.
And this is justified in that this action – the holding of you to a certain standard by a society – fulfills the most desires.
“Why should anyone care what is in the theoretical minds of others?”
If this is just a simulation, it is at least self-evident that actions emanating from what appear to be other minds affect us in the simulation.
Also, we are interrelated with the people with whom we interact…whether in families, tribes, societies, groups, etc.
“Or why should you care that someone else exists beyond what you can gain from that person?”
Because if you only play for your own desires, other people lose the fulfillment of their desires, and so there are mechanisms to avert this.
Also, think about empathy (based in our psychological wiring) and how interrelated we are with other people in our lives, especially socially, and how prominent these relationships have been throughout human history.
“What happens when you break your moral code?”
Desires go unfulfilled.
“A chemical reaction in the brain?”
Yes. You can despise the outcome, but that’s the scientific consensus.
“And, to judge by all the theists who claim that “slavery was OK back then, but it’s not now”, theism does not preclude relativism.”
If you are to believe the original story of God vs the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, God doesn’t want us to have morality and the Serpent does. So, wouldn’t it make sense that God would give laws that aren’t so great on purpose to confuse our sense of morality and take away the morality the Serpent convinced us to steal from God by eating the fruit? Wouldn’t that explain why ceremonial observances (like Sabbaths, sacrifices, kosher-laws, and no mixing of linen and wool in the same outfit, etc.) are placed on a par with moral commandments like “thou shalt not commit adultery”? Is the point to make people say “sure adultery is wrong, but so is eating shellfish” so they can then confuse and destroy morality? Is this God’s strategy to take back what we “stold” in the Garden under the instigation of the Serpent?
Life has no meaning whatsoever without a God. Period.
I saw someone try the weak: “morals come from the community and from biology” line.
Not only is the latter rank speculation (unproven) but the former is stained in history.
There are no binding reasons to be good if our existence is just a matter of happenstance. Consciousness means nothing in this formulation, because it is a fluke of time (almost certainly bound to disappear in the future–and with nothing to remember it whatsoever).
I think the real gymnastics is done by non-believers who scramble to paint themselves in a moral light and to show that they are “good people” despite their unbelief. They are paranoid about this.
What “good” is and why anyone should “be” it is never defined.
(As an aside, it amuses me how many people consider themselves rationalist who also reside on the left side of the political and economic spectrum. Socialism and its spawn are even more irrational that religion. One would think that Objectivism would reign in atheist circles instead.)
LRA,
It’s not working. You mention (out of the blue) that you have a “responsibility”. Says who? Where did that come from? How “binding” is it? What are the dimensions of this “responsibility”? Who defines them? How does anyone else know what it is? And why should we hold you to it? Who gives anyone else the right to hold you to it?
Why should anyone care what is in the theoretical minds of others? Or why should you care that someone else exists beyond what you can gain form that person?
What happens when you break your moral code?
A chemical reaction in the brain?
While I am a Buddhist, not a Christian, I still find that a pointed attack on a religious group or someone’s beliefs (including Atheism), to be rather childish. Instead of criticizing another’s faults, better to reflect on one’s own. That’s a more mature approach to life and understanding, methinks.
Thanks!
You are contradicting yourself. Because your are correcting us about correcting others. You are not just worrying about yourself, you are seeking to correct others about not correcting others. So you are being inconsistent on every piont. If truth matters and if falsehoods can be harmful, then is it not doing someone a service to help them in big or small ways concerning the truth? Just caring about yourself and letting others just believe whatever, to their own peril, is not morally admirable to me.
Quite frankly, I’m just going to post a reply to the original post because i feel like there is WAY too much to try to reply to … post post. And to me, what i have to say to it is simple.
1. I am a Christian. But honestly, I HATE using that word and I hate that I hate using that word because I shouldn’t have to. However, “Christians” who have very warped views on Christ and are very vocal about those, have ruined what it means to actually be one, in my opinion. So just know that I follow Jesus Christ.
2. I am a very reasonable, logical person. I like learning. I like the discovery channel. I take academic religious studies classes. I like Darwin. I am a skeptic. I went through a block of time where i definitely did not believe in God. This quality has probably consistently been the biggest struggle and my biggest strength in my walk with Christ. Do you hate this phrase? Discard if so. replace with faith or whatever you want. I love people like you that don’t just take what is given to them and I’m pretty convinced that Christ does too.
3. Your basics: “Religion has often been described as a crutch for the weak. It can also be a barrier to maturity.” You are so smart… Is this not a ridiculous oversimplification? I mean… it’s RELIGION. You’ve taken ALL of it and given it one purpose. To keep it a LITTLE more concise, let’s just talk about Christianity. There are SO many “Christians” in America, alone. And everyone believes COMPLETELY differently. So you are not talking about Christianity, but the people you, personally, have encountered that think and live this way. You let one confused pastor define millions of people. Really?
4. Your number 1: “He is moral out of fear of punishment from his deity. His fear of hell keeps him from being evil, and he is motivated to do good in order to get heavenly rewards. There is no goodness for goodness sake.” In short… wrong. For me at least and my beliefs, this is completely one hundred percent bs. I do not think atheists are evil as you said. Lots of my friends are atheists. I like them. And I wouldn’t worship a God who I thought was going to send them to hell. (Then am I just constructing my own God? No. I really don’t think so.) And I am not good because I want to go to heaven. And when you say “heavenly rewards,” I REALLY don’t think we are on the same page. Heaven is not a place you go in the clouds for being good and leaving tracts on subways. It’s the way I want this world to be. And being a Christian is building the kingdom. For everyone. (Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in heaven.) And I don’t not murder people because I’m scared God will throw me in hell. Come on now. Really? Do you think ALL Christians are this ridiculous? It makes me sad that these are the only Christians you have encountered. I don’t think it’s right. (That doesn’t mean I’m saying they’re not true Christians or whatever.) You were a Christian. Why did you love God? Because you were scared of hell? You usually don’t love someone because you are scared of them. Christ was a radical. And he taught things that go past “being a good person” for most people.
4. Your number 2: nope. This is stupid, in my opinion.
5. Your number 3: “Christians are taught to “cast their troubles on Jesus” and to “take their problems to the Lord” instead of taking care of it themselves. They are taught to look for packaged answers in a holy book, instead of coming to a conclusion based on wisdom and advice.” This does not even make a lot of sense to me. First of all, you are using “cast their troubles on Jesus” in the wrong context. It doesn’t mean let Jesus take care of it. Fyi, there are NO neatly packaged answers in the bible (which you reduced to “some holy book” which makes me think you think it’s just a manual written by God. … it’s not.). The bible is like, 99.9% gray area. Why do you think there are so many denominations and fights over just the basics? And have you ever tried just asking God what to do about something? A voice doesn’t just come out of the walls, telling you. And while I try to use the bible as a resource, of course I use “wisdom and advice.” From my oh so evil atheist peeps, in fact … gasp! I live my own life. I follow Jesus Christ. … because I want to.
6. I feel like you have seen Christianity a lot just from a very “me” perspective. A lot of people come to see evangelism as a game where the person who can get the most believers get’s the most points. Unfortunately, this often results in the “witnessing” going something like, “Right now, your life sucks. Come to Christ and it will make your life all better.” Which is sooo not right. What if your life doesn’t suck? And Christ is not going to make it all better. You don’t follow Christ for you. Which makes him a little different from most leaders we are accustomed to, just in that fact. You can see “religion” (what even is religion anyway?) only as a crutch for the weak if you are really that arrogant or unquestioning. Which, OBVIOUSLY, you are neither. Most atheists I know I don’t think would even say that. Because for some “religion,” maybe it can’t even BE a crutch for the weak. And it my opinion, being a Christian is not for the weak. You do have to realize that we are a broken people and need Christ. And that is a scary thing. But I think it’s true. And I want to see the reality of the kingdom.
No it does not. That’s my point: The story of Adam and Eve doesn’t make any sense to me.
And to comments like this:
Bill: “I’m also having some problems understanding why they are here trying to convince us of the existence of god when:
1. He apparently doesn’t care if we believe or not;
2. There is absolutely no down side to not believing.”
I’m not trying to convince you. And like I said, for YOU, sure. You could say there is no downside to believing. But the reason we (i don’t really know who i am referring to when i say we, but i know there is one) tell you about it is because we are excited about it. Being a Christian is not about “you.” We like you and we want you to be a part of it. That’s what you do with the things you love and the things you are passionate about. You invite other people. And this is a really …. really. big thing.
wintermute: duh. I meant he may think it’s supposed to act as a manual written by God.
Is it equally as immature to believe in nothing? And be willing to commit to it? Is your mind an open door? Is this how you define these things?
Perhaps Christians are intelligent, mature, personally growing people who, just perhaps, have found something they really believe in, and are committed to it just the same as perhaps, an atheist is committed to non-beliefs?
Are the two really that different? I suppose if you WANT them to be, they are. But really, you are no different than any Christian, you just have a different set of religious beliefs.
You can fool yourself, and some others here, but really, we’re all just humans, trying to find ourselves, and our way, and this divisive language serves only to add to the problems of the day.
Why not find a way to respect other’s rights to believe what they want, find some common ground and just go and do something productive with you time.
Peace
First, I think that another way faith keeps one immature is the continual ability to reductio your arguments ad absurdam by eventually recursing all argument to “goddidit”. Or “Because He’s your Daddy, that’s why!”
@Chloe
I’d say that yes, you’ve sort of invented your own god.
For one thing, the god of the Bible is pretty clear about what he wants to have happen to those who don’t follow him (see: wailing and gnashing of teeth). Indeed, he has previously given graphic and gory examples of what’ll happen if you don’t (see Elisha nd the Bears, and in fact most of the Old Testament and a goodly part of the New).
Your atheist friends, if your faith in Christ is correct, are going to the Hell God specifically built to keep them in.
Your argument fits very well into the “No True Scotsman” fallacy by claiming that there are no true Scots of any sort.
You begin by claiming you don’t think of yourself as Christian, but believe in Christ. Which is precisely the definition.
So which is it? Is it that you’re right and the other Christians are wrong? Or do you believe that anyone at all can be saved as long as they’re “a good person”, or is your God (who himself suffers the mortal sin of jealousy as he has told us) going to damn no-one at all?
Will he damn Seventh-Day Adventists? Mormons? Jews? Muslims?
Who, in fact, is left out of your big-tent salvation? You have said atheists can go to heaven. If one is not required to believe in any of the available gods to go to heaven, why would I bother?
“And they were shocked and exceedingly astonished, and said to Him and to one another, Then who can be damned?” (Metro 10:26)
I’m guessing you may not have reached your twenties yet, so I apologise if I seem unduly harsh. But you really don’t seem to have thought this through.
@tzugidan
Sigh: “Atheism is a religion too!!!”
No, it isn’t.
And where I differ from religionists is that I don’t believe an imaginary man is going to burn my friends alive for eternity for sins that are trivial by comparison. That’s one point.
No problem. No problemo there at all. All you need do is disband the American Family Association, Churches United for Israel, the Catholic League, etc. etc. … Repeal Proposition 8, quit bitching about “The War on Christmas” (which your man Bill O’Reilly–that tolerant, Christian gentleman, made up out of his hat), and quit trying to stick your Commandments up in courthouses.
Oh–and drop this weird thing you guys have with sex: Repeal prop 8, let dildos be sold in Alabama, etc, etc. How about letting a man buy a beer in those Mississippi “dry Sunday” counties? That was a nasty culture shock, I tellya.
Let me know once you’ve done that, and then maybe us atheists will quit being all nasty and divisive.
@ Metro.
Nope, not harsh- nothing i haven’t heard before.
“Who, in fact, is left out of your big-tent salvation? You have said atheists can go to heaven. If one is not required to believe in any of the available gods to go to heaven, why would I bother?”
Like i already said, but will repeat anyway because this is probably the biggest misconception about Christianity out there… Being a Christian is not about getting into heaven. No one is left out of my big-tent salvation, as you call it. Christianity is a movement. You are making it all about the “after-life.” But it is not. It is about right here, right now. You’re missing the point. It’s not about who get’s saved and who doesn’t. It’s about a better world led by Jesus Christ.
And, like i said, i don’t not consider myself a Christian. I just meant that I meet a lot of hostility when i use that specific word because of others’ associations with it. I am a Christian though. I wasn’t saying I don’t consider myself one.
And. “eventually recursing all argument to “goddidit”. Or “Because He’s your Daddy, that’s why!” -actually makes sense- and before you roll your eyes and bang your head against a wall, let me explain. If you come to know someone and really respect, love their ways and their cause and fully trust them (not just because “he’s your daddy” but because you have come to know them), you want to do what they tell you just because they tell you to. You are right in saying, however, that this is an insane argument for someone who doesn’t know Christ. Why would they do what someone they don’t know says just because?
Also, “Your atheist friends, if your faith in Christ is correct, are going to the Hell God specifically built to keep them in.” You need to be educated. The bible is a tricky book. I do not claim it to be the be all end all book of answers written by God. This is simply incorrect. Did you speak with God about this? Because a lot of people want to know the truth about hell and would love to end some big debates…
And i kind of tend to agree with you about the atheism is not a religion thing… although i can see where he is coming from. Just because everyone defines “religion” differently.
I appreciate the descriptions of the difficulties of character development from some Christian quarters, although I think your title is mistaken in the large.
The issue of religion is that the founders of religion understood the human condition very well. It is the basic human condition that fails to develop maturely. Well not in all cases but it is a long way to the top of Maslow’s pyramid. So it seems that often the laws and teachings of religion are exactly to direct the savage beast. In the past this was certainly with the lolly and club of heaven and hell. And let’s face it, the lack of religion among a greater number in our society hasn’t made them less dangerous, rather the contrary. If you are to truthfully look at the most dangerous persons or groups of people on the planet, most do not subscribe to religious ideas (although they might gang together along religious identity lines but this seems more a tribalisation than a religious movement). There is a huge failure in our global society for people to follow an ethical path whether religious based or humanist philosophy based. I would be happy if even 50% of the population was on either path. Sadly few are.
And does an ethically mature person by definition mean they are a person who believes in the betterment of humanity? If so, then there is only one purpose in life for the mature human, to help the education of humanity towards an increasingly ethical position. The question then, what method do we use to achieve this purpose. Blaming? Chastising? Backbiting? Turning our backs? Perhaps there is some need for chastisement but there is a good reason that a central teaching of The Christ is, “whosoever has done no wrong, cast the first stone” or Baha’u'llah, “magnify not the faults of others that your own faults may not appear great” because if it becomes the cornerstone of the educational process it will educate people including the ‘educator’ to become more petty, more aggressive, and thus to the weakness of our society.
Valid – I share in your frustrations. It clear that many Christian are not good representatives of the label. America is full of pharisees and wolves in sheeps clothing.
“It’s been mentioned upthread, but when teenagers follow this line of reasoning, it leads to under-age pregnancy. I take it you’re in favour of that?”
Yes. i love under-age pregnancy.
I’m not saying that this is the way we should always reason. But that’s why the trust God because he is God thing makes sense. And this really is not the same thing.
@boomslang:
the tricky book thing: the reason i say this is because you can take whatever you want from the bible. If you go in looking for a way to prove homosexuality is a sin… then you can. The inverse is easily true as well. If you go into the bible looking to disprove it… then go for it. you can. especially with good rhetoric. But if you go into it the opposite way, then again, the inverse is true. The reason it cannot be the be all end all ect. for Christians is because we have adequately proved that we are sometimes not so good at interpreting it. Which is understandable, considering that what American Christians are actually reading are pretty much always already interpretations of interpretations of… and on, when they read the bible. I do think it was “divinely inspired” though. But mostly, the bible is a book of stories that teach us how to live. And it begs for some recognition of the context instead of picking out little verses here and there to back a point. It is difficult to interpret. But bother with it, i will. Because it has got some amazing stuff in there. Like, eyewitness accounts. And i know you can say whatever you want about those being made up ect ect ect ect ect. But it’s what we have. And i really do think it’s holy.
“I couldn’t care less about ending any debates; I personally want to know the “facts” from any human being who claims to know about “hell”(and *how* they know), because the concept, as it is found in Christian doctrine, is the # 1 qualifier in my not believing that said doctrine is authored by any “ALL-powerful”, “ALL-loving” being…i.e..”God”. Please…”educate” us further.”
I apologize if i was being condescending here. What I mean is that no one really knows the truth about hell, including me. But I do know that from what I know about Jesus, that I really don’t think he would send his creation to hell. When i read one or two passages (w/out context) that contradict everything i know to be true about God, I don’t question God, I question my ability to understand or interpret what is written.
Bottom line, it is often a little weird to have a Christian- atheist conversation about this because I didn’t reason my way into being a Christian, I have faith. That’s why it’s called faith. I don’t claim that it makes perfect sense or that it is obvious (like the, there can’t be nothing… so there must be a God… *barf). I only claim that I know Jesus Christ and I believe in his movement. We say, show me and i’ll believe, but God says, believe and i’ll show you. And while I can understand why you might scoff and laugh and roll your eyes at this… it’s just the way it is. And there is no way of getting around it.
I think its also important to consider the denial of sexual maturity. Claiming that sexuality only starts when someone is married is just absurd, and it contributes to a complete lack of sexual understanding and acknowledgment of own sexual identity.
Plus, if you argue that you don’t need proof to be a Christian, but that “faith” is enough, than I might as well be praying to a giant chair in the sky, as you long as your basis is that no one can prove its non-existence, then you can’t possibly deny the potential existence of my giant divine chair. But that’s absurd, you think? EXACTLY!
Hey, psychedelic, I agree that an awareness of our sexuality begins way before marriage.
Here’s the advice I gave my guys, as a Christian mom.
The extent of sexual intimacy should parallel the depth of caring, responsiblity, and committment that’s actually there in the relationship.”
And, also making a life committment to one partner allows for a greater depth of trust, and loving initimacy to really be there. In the long run, sexual intimacy is better, and more meaningful.
So, what do you think? Is this good advice??
Yes, but the chair is hypothetical. God is not. But you don’t believe that. That is why it is hard to discuss.And I don’t pray to God just for the hell of it like you would the non-existent chair. And you might say… well i can make up all these great things about how the chair will save me ect. Yes. You could. But I do not believe the person of Jesus is made up. Again, it’s have faith and i will show you. Not, have faith and nothing will happen, as would with the chair.
in reply to Grace
Believing in the true greatness of sexual intimacy is a great thing to learn your children. My point is, and hopefully you agree with me, that you do not need to be married to, as Daniel said, -respect- the bonuses of true intimacy. It is evident that in our society many people feel most comfortable within monogamous, heterosexual, one-on-one relationship, but it is not necessary in order to live not just a sexually active lifestyle, but a healthy one.
There are more than a number of gray zones when it comes to sexuality, as everything cant be categorized under heterosexual monogamy, which is the true ideal, is considered deviant in our relationship. Even the concept of the word deviant is unnecessary, as say for example male homosexuals are born with a homosexual genetical component, and transgendered are born with a different chemical balance. So the entire argument that God, even if you believe in him or not, want everyone to be heterosexual and monogamous is simply logically and scientifically implausible.
Okay, I’m now being irrelevant, but let me get back to my point.
Statistically it is shown that couples living together as common-law, or just living together, as a married couple would, but that have not become legally (or socially) married are much happier than actually married couples. Marriage and the institution that comes with it much be carefully evaluated in its context, as the official status of becoming married entails a lot of values from early Christian era, such as the suppression of the woman, through domestication. Domestication of women is why we have the “happy pill”, such as valium, etc. If you look at Prosaz advertisements as recent as 1991 they used the “dirty kitchen equals no prosaz, clean kitchen equals prosaz” commercials, which was certainly to me extremely disturbing.
So what I am saying is that I support sexual intimacy, but not by Christian standards/values.
Chloe
Yes, the chair is hypothetical. The definition of “hypothetically” is something based on surmise rather than evidence. In other words assumption and “faith”. So yes, God is just as hypothetical as my beloved chair. To the same extent you assume there is a god I can assume there is a chair. Now please prove to me that there is no chair!
And I have dabbed into Christian spiritual belief before, and believe me, I was not “shown”. And since humans are all equal as it says in the Bible, or as I should say, the popular belief that the Bible says, (take into consideration the passages on human trade and slavery) then why are we not all “shown” when we do indeed believe?
@boomslang: yeah duh. every book is dependent on human interpretation. so what? and you think we should take a book as important as the bible simply at face value, whatever our first instinct is and not question it? would you do that with anything else even less important?
“rue – not as easily done, but yes – take the face-value language, and bend it, twist it, shoe-horn it to mean something else, or circumvent it, altogether.”
no. that’s if you are picking little passages out without context. and the bible is something that teaches us about the person of God so it’s not all about taking a little passage out and reading it as a command. The bible is not a long list of commands. and i am aware Christians do this, thank you. And it pisses me off.
“Are you suggesting that if it weren’t for your Bible, you wouldn’t know how to “live”? You couldn’t determine “ethical” behavior from “unethical”?? I really hope not.” No I am not because that is obviously bs. Do not treat me like a right wing fundamentalist crazy. It is bigger than what is right and what is wrong. WAY bigger. Like i have said about a gazillion times… Christianity is a movement. And Jesus was a radical. I’m not getting into a where do morals come from debate with you because we are on the same side. But the bible is not a book of rules. It teaches us how to live as followers of Christ. (Much like something that teaches you how to live as a follower of anything else.) The bible is not trying to prove anything.
“I disagree that in pointing out philosophical/logical inconsistancies in a given philosophy – especially one that claims to have a monoply on “Truth” – that “good rhetoric” is required. A basic knowledge of science is all that’s required.”
Again, do not talk to me like a fundamentalist. A) duh. the bible is not a history book and it’s not claiming evolution is wrong. ok??? like i said, i love darwin . This is not a church vs. science thing. WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE ( me AND you AND Jesus. He created it.). B) it does not claim a monopoly on truth because all truth that exists, God is a part of. God is the ultimate truth. It’s not your truth vs. his truth. There is only one truth. That’s what truth is. It’s that when you find real truth, you are getting closer to God. Which i’m sure will enrage you.
“What on earth do you mean by, “it’s what we have”???? We “have” all sorts of philosophies that claim “Truth”. For instance, why don’t you believe the Book of Mormon “eyewitness accounts”? Why don’t you believe that *it* is “holy”?”
I did not one day open the bible and say… oh hey, this guy said this so it must be true. Because then I *would* believe that all these other books are “holy”. Like i said, the bible is not trying to prove anything. It doesn’t make sense if you go into it believing that it’s bs.
“Forgive me, but what you “think”, isn’t good enough, considering that millions of people “think” differently. This is why I rely on what *I* think. I think I cannot believe the Christian philosophy on “faith”, and/or, because someone tells me its “true”. To do so would require that I lie to myself. For me, intellectual honesty trumps “faith”..or “hope”…or “wish-thinking”.”
Me too. intellectual honest trumps faith to me too. But this is different. Period. And that does not make me stupid. You can call me stupid just like i can call you stupid. And that’s our own opinions.
“And once again, underscoring my point, in that, for millions of Christians, the “Bible” is precisely what you insist it *is not*…i.e…a “be all; end all”.
I don’t know if you’re even reading what i write. the bible can be, if we could interpret it correctly. it’s not the bible’s fault, it’s human fault.
it is have faith and i’ll show you. not ask me for things and i’ll give them to you. Real faith in God changes a life. Not get’s you “stuff” or “healed.” Why do we want complete free will but then blame God when bad things happen and when good things don’t? God is not a drive through and faith is not currency.
And it’s not about the “afterlife” (by that i mean when you die, being taken up to the clouds and getting wings or being thrown into the fires of hell). Anyway, what the bible ever really talks about concerning that is bringing the kingdom here. (heaven on earth, on earth as it is in heaven, Jesus coming BACK to judge the WORLD, not each person), And often, if it has “you” passages about this, it was meant to be a you-collective. No one had personal bibles when the bible was first introduced. Again, following Christ is not something you do for you. It can be, but that is way missing the point if you believe in God and want him to show you stuff. By “have faith and i’ll show you,” i mean way more. It’s not that you have faith and then God pops out in a puff of smoke and says guess what!? you were right! now you’re allowed to see me! here is some stuff for you. This makes me angry.
But anyway, i can’t say much more about the chair. Because you cannot prove God just as you can’t prove the chair. Like i said, you have to have faith. Which is not easy… but I know it is real, not because i went to church to see if god would do anything for me, but because with him, i experience a joy that i do not recognize. you will roll your eyes that this too i am sure and tell me to disprove the chair. i can’t. Take you chair. But my God is real and i really want you to see this. I want you to know and experience this.
Jesus was a radical. Christianity is a movement. And despite the fact that it will make you mad there is no proof of it, i’m a follower.
because a human would know what God would be like. and you are as bad as Christians who take things out of context. and i don’t ignore the old testament.
it’s not a book of consistent rules. it’s a book of stories that teach us about the person of God. Events.
Because he’s created in our petty, emotional, unlovely image!
“because a human would know what God would be like” well then that would make a human God then would it not? I prefer to think God is a pink unicorn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36uAoe8e2dY&feature=channel
Hi psychedelic,
I would consider couples living together who have made a life-committment to be the equivalent of marriage. To my mind, it’s not a piece of paper that determines marriage, but it’s in the intention, caring, and the committment of the couple, gay or straight, btw.. Of course, if the couple claims to be Christian why not seek the support, and blessing of the church as well, “before God, and these witnesses?”
My concern would be for young people who just kinda go on, living together, and being sexual intimate with a succession of partners, not really committed, just seeing how things happen to work out.
I think this is a recipe for some real hurt, and consequences down the road on alot of different levels.
I’m curious what your purpose is here. How do you think any wavering Christians are going to react? Will they feel more or less enamored with the process of exploration because you’ve pracitically declared they are immature and stupid? We can come out of Christianity and create a whole new sophisticated “deity” to whom we bow and hope for approval, be it atheism, be it intellectualism be it any seemingly worthy ism. Immaturity exists on many levels in many lives whether Christian or not and there are many who call themselves Christian who are mature, who know why “thou shalt not kill” has value with or without Christ and who are unafraid to explore all philosophies and religions and yet hold to a faith in Christ, even though his existence cannot be proven. Is this not a viable basic human function, this belief in a greater one beyond self and does it not have value just as a process of honoring a need to resonate beyond the grand god of self? It’s as if you want to seek and save those who are lost all over again. Why not consider this: within every human being there is a code that, when awakened, will free them from the restraints of fear that cause them to adhere to creeds and religions divorced from real solid self-acceptance, intrinsic innocence and mental freedom? Why not speak to the best in humanity? You make a caricature of your own intelligence when you so narrowly delineate the alleged sins of Christianity and condemn the “lost” to eternal dumbness as if this is the actual disease to target. Christianity is not the problem. And yeah, me too. Former fundie.
not all former christians rode such a bus and not all christians ride such a bus and that’s the point i was making. but that’s a really great simplification of some sectors of this religion and a wonderful analogy of humanity’s struggle both within and beyond religion. i don’t contend with anyone who wants to set people loose in a lush rain forest. but i’d say this bus rides through the lives of many people along some routes specifically paved by fear and resistance to pleasure, to balance, to discipline and some of those riders are atheists, some are deists, some are … you get the picture this time, maybe? it’s not exclusive to christianity. or any religion. when we polarize the issues and then posit freedom to those who listen, we risk isolating those freed souls in a new dogma that is, after a season, stunting. but hey, i’m with you on the rain forest… in fact, pardon me while i bow out to dance in the rain…peace…jR
Vidlord, and Claidheamh,
This will probably be my last comment here, as I’ve shared on another thread. But, I wonder if the actual problem might be a certain brand of extremely narrow, and legalistic fundamentalism, rather than in all of Christianity?
I can honestly share that my faith in Jesus Christ has led to nothing but long-term good in my life. I don’t feel stifled. I’m not in fear. I haven’t checked my mind at the church door by any means.
Jesus said, “I came that they might have life, and have it more abundantly.” So to my mind any type of religion that’s leading folks into misery, and greater judgment is not the faith of Jesus Christ.
My prayer is that people here would not allow negative experiences with a counterfeit, or distortion to close their minds to a real life-giving relationship with God in Christ, and that everyone would remain open to at least the possiblity of God.
I don’t know that Grace will read this but her comment reminds me of how much my sense of the spirit of Christ led me away from the more toxic elements within Christianity. [Much like an intelligent atheist can reflect on the qualities of any archetype, resonating with the purest elements of that symbolic persona and feel a sense of kinship with those elements embodied in the archetype. But maybe atheists can't do this because they've limited their imagination and shut off whole sections of soul to any resonance beyond what they worship between their ears? I don't know, really. I don't go to the church of the pink unicorn. I guess I'm not saved.]
I could not sense a loving God and reconcile some doctrine to that same love. “It was for freedom Christ set us free.” That alone will set you loose in a rain forest. and FAST. Or…not? It was an intelligent dissection of the shift of works-based acceptance to grace-based acceptance (old testament personality of god to new testament personality of god – which is a gross oversimplification of the “character” of god as shown throughout the bible) that put me on a path out of fundamentalism. It was an awareness that the bible was compiled by fallible men who could’ve just as easily put whole other “books” into it than what is actually present that continued me on that path.
But I was never sure to what extent those toxic elements within the religion were caused by or exaggerated by Christianity. People can be nasty, deluded, confused, misguided. Period, religion or not. No one is immune. I know the worthy logic (and research) that obliterates the likelihood there was ever a Christ. (in 200 years we may be able to obliterate the notion i ever existed) But that isn’t relevant to me anymore. What is relevant is that humanity has a Christ. And there is a truly worthy Christ process all people, whether religious or not, could stand to experience. And I don’t mean martyrdom.
Transformation happens. And the most fearless and intelligent of Christians long for that transformation and experience it on profound levels. To mock them for their ability to believe in a rain forest you cannot imagine is childish.
Does any stance have integrity if it cannot be open to the opposing view (JAB at atheism!)? It seems to protest much when there is this dogged refusal to acknowledge the worthwhile consideration of an opposing possibility. I have atheist friends. I considered myself an atheist for a season. But there is, I suppose, a God section in my brain and I know it was here before I was “christian.” And it’s still here. So, can we prove there’s a divine source that created that part of my brain? No. But I’m open. I won’t, in the meantime, deny those parts of me that resonate to a God I cannot prove. When I do, I stagnate and die. It is a frontier. It is unproven. What would the rain forest do, after all, if it had nothing to call to from beyond the trees?
In the final anaylsis, it’s about how you choose to use your intelligence, your sense of your own needs and wants and what you do with it consciously and rationally without fear of disapproval, or rejection or damnation. And it’s about what you value. to boil it all down to being valid or invalid based on “proof” is the equivalent of a two year old tantrum over not being able to be assured tomorrow will be a sunny day. so much faith we are willing to have for so many things but…
So far, I’ve not found many atheists who are not as in love with being right as many of the most toxic Christians I still love. They just have two totally different ideas of “right.” The spirit inspiring them, however opposed they be – atheist and fundamentalist, comes from the very same monster. And that monster is older than religion.
Hey,
Wow this generated quite the response! I was just wondering, if you are comfortable sharing, what led you to become a ‘former Christian’. What’s your story?
It’s a long story. I experienced Christianity as early as the age of 3. It was not your typical experience. I’ll be 42 this year. I can’t point to the year I quit Christianity.
I will say this: I birthed a daughter. There is something clarifying about loving a child so deeply that obliterates the narrow-minded doctrines created in fear and posing as “love.” But my walk out of Christianity began before her. I just didn’t know it. Also, someone I cherished killed herself so she could go be with Jesus. Christianity says that those who take their own lives are damned. My sense of the love of God was bigger than the Christianity bucket. It was never about proof. It was about the bigness of the heart of love and the best of humanity with or without religion.
It was also about the integrity of belief and therefore about the integrity of my own process of growth. A belief under the duress of damnation is not a true belief. And Jesus never, if you read the bible with an eye for the symbolic, meant the kind of damnation we have created in our inferno. So, he (or “he” in the “story” of the “bible,” if you prefer), in my view, did not mean for us to see it as a do or die thing in the eternal sense when he said “believe in me.” But, I digress.
I also discovered that many Christians had no hands or feet or muscle to the love they professed. And it sickened me. I suppose you could say it was a sense of the sickness of “immaturity” mentioned in this blog. But immaturity can run in veins. A person can be immature along some lines and highly developed along others. Also and significantly: the oppression of women did not fit my sense of Christ as one embracing men and women as equal. At some point, I got sick of Jesus. I took a vacation. But I’ve not come back to Jesus as a Christian. I’ve come back as one appreciating the value of the process and path of Christ, and Taoism and some Buddhism and some of the autonomy-inspiring attitudes of atheism.
But the best answer is this: I birthed a daughter. And it birthed me. And then came two sons. For me, that was the blasting change. I couldn’t reconcile myself to a dogma of “love” that was smaller than my own love.
BUT! I will repeat: my experience was not typical. There are many Christians who do not see women as unequal or lesser than men. There are many Christians who love beautifully. And have loved me beautifully.
Morally- Christianity is about loving God because of what he did for us, He sent his only son Jesus Christ to die on the cross to save us from eternal separation from Him aka Hell, I obey God out of love for Him not fear. The reason that Christians say that there is no morality outside of our faith is because we are held to such a high standard by God, God considers lust to be adultery and hate to be murder. While what your pastor friend said may sound like an exaggeration and potentially frightening, it is true. Think of all of the people that have committed murders or raped people. At some point allegiance to the their country and following the laws of the land failed them. They had no attachment to those rules there was nothing personal about obeying the law. When we live by the laws of Christ we have an extra attachment beyond allegiance to our country. We love God and out of respect and obedience to our creator who did everything He could to secure a relationship with us we obey him to please him.
Intellectually- If you look closely at the Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, and some Catholic theology you will see that it is VERY different from Christian theology. There is one core truth to Christianity John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave his only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. The core point in the Christian faith is to acknowledge that you have sinned against a holy and perfect God and believe that Christ died on the cross to set you free from that sin, any thing but that is a lie. Mormon and Jehovah’s witness believe that Jesus Christ was a prophet, and some Catholics worship other saints and Jesus rather than Jesus alone.
As for not being able to ask questions about our faith that is untrue. We are encouraged to find the answers to our questions and to look to the bible and research the meaning behind each word in the original text in which it was written because many of the translations leave something behind in the original text. I am constantly questioning the things I hear from my pastor and looking deeper into the text of the bible for further clarification. This has only ever reinforced my faith and never shaken it.
Personal Growth- personal growth is rather subjective, but when it comes to being my own person there is nothing better than following God I often find that I become the truest form of myself when I follow Him as closely as I can. Being a Christian does not erase your personality it enhances it. Going to God for advice is as natural as asking my best friend or my parents for their advice. I believe that it is the smartest thing to do, God created the universe in seven days surely He can handle my small problems. Although we are also urged to seek the council of others whom we respect and are wise in the Lord (God) Proverbs 18:15 says; The heart of the discerning acquire knowledge; the ears of the wise seek it out. Although those who seek knowledge from others on how to solve their problems are only going half way, we are told to cast our cares on Jesus not simply because it is easy but because it is healthy, doctors have been saying for years that worry can kill people and it doesn’t do a bit of good. Well giving all of my worrying to God and asking for his guidance in matters helps me to stop worrying about what the out come will be or whether or not I will mess it up, praying and giving my cares to the Lord helps me to proceed with a clear head and look at all of the possible solutions in a situation.
Getting enlightenment and comfort from the Bible is no fools errand and it is not to be taken lightly. The Bible is the direct words of God written down by believers who gave everything, some of them even their lives for the sake of Christ and sharing the Gospel (the good news that Jesus is living and wants to save us from our sins) with everyone who would listen with an open mind and especially an open heart. It may seem strange to go to a book that is thousands of years old for answers for today but I assure you each passage has an application for today; maybe not on the surface but if you were to dig deeply into the true meaning of the text you would find applications for living a life blessed by God, and there is something indescribably freeing about living the life meant for you. Each person is meant to live a Christian life style God offers his gift freely to everyone, He excepts you as you are and helps you to become a new creation beautiful and holy in his sight. Hebrews 4:12 says For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. We are also told in Isaiah 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. This means that God’s word always accomplishes a purpose. The Bible has meaning and manifests it in the lives of those who study it and live by it.
Lastly when Paul was talking about putting childish ways behind us he was talking about the difference between what we perceive about God now and how our perception of him will be cleared when we get to heaven. Make sure you read the whole passage to get the context of a passage or it looses it’s whole meaning.
1 Corinthians 13: 9-13 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
I know a lot of this sounds pretty impossible, in this world all the big promises of products or people being amazing and completely trustworthy almost always fall on their faces. Nothing is ever as good as it seems, but let me assure you God is. He promises that his presence will always be with us and never leave us. He loves you and wants you to accept him. This is not to say that it will be easy the Christian life is hard, but worth it.
Yahweh is a rapist. Mary did not even know she was raped until and angel came to tell her. God may have given her some sort of spiritual rape drug, that maybe the reason why she knew nothing about it, who knows how many time God knew her until she became pregnent.
Like King David who slept with someone else wife, God sinned like King David, for Mary was engaged to Joseph.
Then, God told righteous Joseph to sin by marrying Mary instead of divorcing her. Mary should have brought God to justice who raped her without her knowledge through the high priest, but she didn’t making her a sinner. Joseph should insist that Mary repented and brought the case to the high priest so that he can remain righteous and marry Mary.
Unrighteous Mary and Joseph had to raise up the son of a rapist. When innocent Jesus grew up, God demand human sacrifice, breaking the ten commandments, He had Jesus crucificed as a living sacrifice, thus the new evil religion was borned.
I got so carried away in my reaction to this blog it escaped me that the question from Lindsey wouldn’t be directed at my comment. Duh and pardon me.
This whole thread is really sad to me.
When we venture into the realm of the “supernatural” we believe things that look really dumb when tested against harsh and exacting logic divorced from imagination. Immaculate conception becomes “rape” if that is where your mind is, it seems. I wonder if such a rape as described here by darkmatter is any different from the rape of a point of view. Or the rape of imagination. Or the rape of symbolism. It seems the next question could be this: which rape is more “noble?” I assume you atheists will understand this since you can see Mary’s experience on different levels, no? Can you see anyone else’s experience on different levels? I guess you’re too smart for that…?
Atheism’s total divorce from the life of the soul is one of the ugliest components of its spirit. And one of the common traits I’ve experienced with many atheists is the propensity for intense mockery and disrespect.
I’m not sure which I prefer. The delusion of some Christian dogma or the hardened “regard” of atheism. Tough choice. Seems like agnosticism has more balance.
But there’s a distinct echo o o o here, so I’m off to the rain forest. Cheers…
jruthkelly,
Don’t be sad. I hope by say this you will feel better.
In the Book, prophets questioned God and God replied them, even rebellious Jonah. As a non christian, I too can be skeptical of the story of Jesus and it’s trivial.
If Yahweh exist, He can defend Himself. If you are a believer of Yeshua, you instead should rejoice, for the Book say that God will work all things for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purposes, I type this sentence with good intention.
The story of Jonah is supernatural if it indeed happened. Jonah did not imagine been swallowed by an imaginary dinosour fish, died and came back to life.
The attack of atheist’s moral by christian leaders because they don’t believe in God is totally uncalled for. By the Spirit of the Book they have sinned against their God. Paul said the he came to the church not by persuasive words of human wisdom but by the demonstation of the Spirit. So, they need not attack the world and non believing humans with their words.
By the way Jesus obeyed God because of his fear of God and it is written. The argument that christian obedience is unrelated to fear is questionable, at least and for the sake of reasoning, it seems christians are greater than Jesus.
Fabulous post what ever your persuasion. God prefers us atheists though, ’cause we don’t bother her with our problems.
I once let 2 Jehova’s witnesses into my home one Friday night… and kept them until I was ready to let them go.
I wanted the answer to one every simple question and I promised to join.
Who is going to be saved? The Jew, The Hindu, The Catholic, The Christian, The Muslim The Jehova’s witness? Who?
When you have convinced them that they are wrong, then come back. Because they like the you believe that they are the chosen ones.
So much division over several pieces of ancient fiction.
Nah, I’ll stick to getting and giving as much joy as I can everyday and take my chances on where I eventually end up.
Christians have already accused me of being the devils work and that I will rot in hell.
So much for tolerance, understanding and acceptance eh?
The Baldchemist
The post sounds true but it is just an example of overgeneralizing by picking on the easier cases.
1. Morally
Believing in God is more of a “golden standard”, similar as social norms and common laws are. The main difference is that a true belief in God becomes a norm of discovering and behaving according our deepest and true humanity. Any *authentic* deist (Christian or other) can confirm one way or another that it manifests a “power” inside man that “rewards” us with a sense of “Truthness” when we make sincere efforts to behave according our best humanity and try to develop ourselves in a honorable way. Reasoning on the origin and nature of such power is often the (vain) pursuit of scholars, though.
2. Intellectually
This might seem as a right observation but don’t throw the baby with the water by just picking on people probably less developed intellectually than you that fit happily inside that and other kinds of reasoning. There’s usually lot more if you dare to scratch the surface; may try to find out more by carefully, respectfully (and humbly) listening behind just the words of an authentic believer that inspires your trust.
3. Personal Growth
This is a personal mix of 1 and 2 in different proportions, depending on personal needs and tastes.
Grow Up!
Indeed!
I have posted a couple times before. I am a person of faith and a Christians nightmare. I am converting to Judaism. Most Rabbis’ do not take the bible as literal. Its just a guide about how to live, not what really happened. I am sure that Jesus would have been of this view as he was a Jew and most probably a rabbi himself. If you do not believe me, it only takes a little bit of research. No Jew would ever say “its either the Bible or science”. But I digress. I had a very bad childhood, and trust me, there were times only faith kept me going. I am still leaving Christianity because of this narrow view. I have found that Judaism gives me a much bigger world view. They have no hell and you cant say “the devil made me do it” because that idea does not exist. Humans must take responsibility for there own actions. All want to be a ‘mensh” which is just a good person, a cultural ideal for all people. Not because of fear of God, but because its just the right thing to do. Atheists can not believe in God and yet still be a ‘Mensh”. We all have that in us. If you are what you say you are, they you should go along with the idea that there is a spark of the divine in us all and so that “godliness”, that good person is in everyone, believer or not.
Hi,
Please excuse me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that atheists generally appear to be angry? Why not just say that you do not believe in God and focus on the benefits of how your life is now and not harp on those who chose to believe? I am no longer a Christian (for almost two years) and I used to have negative feelings towards them but have since decided to let that go and just live the way I choose to without putting my energy towards my former faith. There’s no need to “bash” religious folks. Spread positive energy and focus on you. :0)
@Visitor: Maybe all those angery atheists have had more negative expiriences than you’ve had. Just playing devil’s advocate. LOL.
Its like this…THERE IS A CHILDHOOD into which we have to grow, just as there is a childhood which we must leave behind. One is a childishness from which but few of those who are counted wisest among men have freed themselves. The other is a child-likeness, which is the highest gain of humanity. George MacDonald
whoever says christians are “childish” or “immature” are pretty much racists… its like saying african-americans or jews are “childish” or “immature”. Christians truly believe they are part of one family, a race of believers. you are broadly generalizing and labeling them just as the nazis did to the jewish race. can’t we try to love one another from our hearts, not hate each other with our minds because of “ideas” we have. the bible teaches to love thy neighbor, even if your neighbor is a different religion than u. I am a christian and I want every one to be forgiven and goto heaven but only god can make that decision… Not man.
Really? Being Christian is a race, now?
By the way, your post there didn’t help your side of the argument much. Just sayin’.
I think you’ll find it’s spelt “neighbour” not “neighbor”. Would you mind awfully just correcting that and re-posting?
He’s not immature, he’s just thinks anyone who disagrees with him is racist.
W.a.r. is saying something similar to another fundy has said to me at my workplace.
He believes he was born a christian, as if the environment in which he was raised had nothing to do with his beliefs. So in his retarded and immature worldview we are being racist.
So…are African American Christians biracial? Or tri-racial?
To clarify this … argument if it can indeed be called that …
To argue the validity of religion is in no way productive. In fact, it just makes people cross. I say this because apparently you haven’t learned this in any religion argument you have ever had. (talking to whoever this applies to). Its not called a belief for nothing. Proving it true or wrong is no method to improving the quality of lives.
The argument is which philosophy is healthier, which promotes better well-being. Surely, a philosophy grounded in observations, formed to the curve of modern life, and created for the promotion of well-being is healthier.
A philosophy based on thousands of years of myths, ancient observations, paranoia, the promise of eternal punishment/salvation, and created for the promotion of a made-up quality, is a poor way to promote well-being.
Although i must say there are certain individuals who, for whatever depressing reason, are quite inept at forming principles promoting well being. You know a lot of them. Their case is the one that gets sucked into radicalism, alcoholism, trashism, and/or general depression.
In promoting well-being, it seems these individuals would be better off being taught principles of well-being. Such principles should, probably, be based on observations and an individual striving for well-being.
To me, the essential question is the TRUTH of the proposition – not whether or not it “improves lives” (I would argue that religion has usually caused more violence & strife than secular societies, but that isn’t the point here). I cannot believe in christianity, or any other religion, because it strkes me as patently FALSE and frankly unbelievable. Therefore it cannot comfort me any more than the easter bunny.
This post describes many christians I’ve met to a tee. They are immature, fail to take responsibility for their actions, and blame their behavior on others, just like children sometimes do.
I bow to all you atheists’ and agnostics’ superior intellect, maturity and wisdom, not to mention humility.
*Blush*
Oh you.
I see no problem with stating a point from either side, but a little clarity would be nice. Lets start with the word mature, which means…
1.complete in natural growth or development
2.ripe, as fruit, or fully aged
3.fully developed in body or mind, as a person
4.pertaining to or characteristic of full development: a mature appearance
5.completed, perfected, or elaborated in full by the mind
6.no longer developing or expanding; having little or no potential for further growth or expansion; exhausted or saturated.
From the christian side, you cannot say that a christian is imature without establishing a christian context for the word. As a christian, meaning little christ, the ultimate end goal of maturity ( ala aristotle) would be to be christ like, therefore maturity can only be measured as a success or failure in this way. If a christian is fully developed and complete in becoming like christ (not that any are) they can be said to be mature. If they are in the act, then they may be said to be progressing to maturity. Christianity also allows more leeway for #6. As one can never reach there full potential in christ (Phil 4:13) then they may never have no potential for further growth. What hope does this give the non-christian, to be fully exhausted of growth potential? We also hardly think that being able to do whatever you want without fear of punishment is mature. We do not believe murder or rape is mature, whether following fearful ethics or not.
From the non-christian side, it is reasonable to say that a christian is not mature as a man. Since we do not believe in god, it is our reasonable right to become fully ripe, developed, and complete as a man. We reach this goal through success in this world. Tell us what is wrong with that if your god doesn’t exist. How will you feel? How many regrets will you have that you were not mature in our way and that fear held you back? We believe that we should reach our full potential and not regret anything, live for ourselves, and desire maturity in what is tangible. What can you say is wrong with this? You strive to do the same things, only you attribute them to God.
Either side has a valid argument…I just have one note…and it might even be used to back up the first point on this article…i dont care…”If I’m a christian and I die, and the atheist are right, then I am worm food. If I am an atheist and I die, and the christians are right, then I burn in hell for eternity. On a risk/reward basis…I’ll live my life so that I can be mature, and only chance the worm food.”
”If I’m a christian and I die, and the atheist are right, then I am worm food. If I am an atheist and I die, and the christians are right, then I burn in hell for eternity. On a risk/reward basis…I’ll live my life so that I can be mature, and only chance the worm food.”
Pascal’s Wager … how very quaint.
The thing is, Josh N, you don’t get to redefine what words mean. We see this a lot from religious people. “Truth” is a particular favourite, shortly followed by “science” and “theory”. We can now add “mature” to the list.
Incidentally, the reason Jabster pointed out that you just repeated Pascal’s Wager is that Pascal said it to illustrate how absurd religion is. Theists still use it all the time as some kind of trump card without even realising that they’re essentially mocking themselves. There really is no excuse in these days of Google and Wiki to not know what the full ramifications of Pascal’s Wager are before you use it, even if you lack the capacity to work them out for yourself.
Yeah, unfortunately for Josh N, Pascal’s Wager is on the immature side, even if you reverse it to bet on atheism to be true.
Also, confining the word “maturity” to Christianity is another silly thing to do. I think the more Christian one becomes, the less mature and out of touch with reality they are. Where I live is not overly religious – in my neighborhood, there are more orthodox jews than anything (or at least you can tell what someone is from a distance in this case because they are dressed differently; still not like areas of Brookline), but still not the predominant culture. It is not like a small town where everyone goes to church except me. I see houses of worship, devout believers walking around (recognizably orthodox jews, like I said), I read and respond to articles and videos on this blog, other posters, etc., but the thing that usually gets me is cars. I’ll be driving somewhere or parking in a parking lot and see a bumper sticker, jesus fish, or some rosary beads hanging from the rear-view mirror and it hits me in the gut like a punch: I can’t believe grown-ups even believe in god, and they’re proud of it, and they’re defensive, and critically insulting to non-believers, fearful and disrespectful of posters and signs put up by atheists.
What we’re not talking about here in Boston (a liberal and diverse city with some concentrated areas of mostly Catholics or Jews — as opposed to those “small towns” where everyone assumes you go to church and praise the lord out in the open, and shun the atheist or differently-worshipping — still has a presence. I have toyed with the idea of adding a sticker to my own car, but I can’t afford to risk the damage. I do not doubt that sooner or later, someone will F with my car because they are an immature coward who loves the lord and can’t stand that I breathe the same air, perhaps work beside them, shop at the same stores where their children can see me, just plain exist to upset their idiotic fantasy that they cling to like a child.
All these poor people. A documentary I would recommend; “Jesus Camp”. It literally made me sick. Religion, God, Jesus, Christians, Mormons, Witnesses, etc., these are CULTS.
The Bible is nothing but a book, written by men, to control the masses.
To take it a BOOK, and worship it, treat it as fact… is so beyond any scope of reason and logic.
I fear for the sanity of the human race.
Absolutely.
My Baptist Mother felt that I should obey her, even if it meant my personal destruction. And worst of all, “psychiatry”, medicine, and law enforcement colluded with her, all based on historonic heresay. I admit, after she drove me nuts, I did act out. A few years ago a psychologist told me I seem perfectly normal when my mother isn’t around. She seems to be wasting away these days, and honestly, she deserves it. I was a smart young man and shouldn’t have been crippled by a few old hags who hated men. Who is headed for hell? In my opinion, my teachers, parents, and doctors are head straight there.
Many of you should hang your heads for drugging up Gen Y
To be born again means that what comes NATURAL now is to do good… But as an evidence. The good now comes from within. You don´t just do kind things, you love. You don´t just “force yourself” to avoid bad things, you now love good things and hace bad things.
If I were a pig and I have garbage, and I also have the finest expensive human food, I´d choose naturally the garbage! But If I became a man, now becames natural to eat food!
There are MANY MANY verses that say that you can do good outside religion. But this is not something that comes natural. Nobody wakes up and thinks “I have to be a bad person today”. My mother was an atheist (now agnostic) and she has done many good things! So does Richard Dawkins helping others.
2. No one goes to hell for their bad theology, and no one goes to heaven for their good theology! Jesus said to this disciples that if they didn´t REPENT they´d still perish as the others!
3. That one is true at some point, but is not necesarily wrong. If you buy a new device, would´t you read the manual to know the instructions? How to plug in, how much to wait, how to clean, etc.
The warranty of those products doesn´t even apply if you didn´t follow the instructions properly!
If you believe that God knows EVERYTHING, why in the world would you look for advise somewhere else??
If they was a person that knows everything, wouldnt you go to ask them really important things like “Should I marry this guy”? Maybe that person would tell you. “No! He is pretending, he is abusive, drunk, drug addict, etc”.
So if God knows the deep thoughts of every man, isn´t He the best one to ask for advise?? You still make your own choices, but it seems to me a little bit proud to pretend to know everything and not even ask for advise!
Another thing, christians are not taught to do nothing about their problems, they are taught to ask God for wisdom and trust that He will help you. But You are the one that is going to have to do something about that! (Except in cases like mortal disease or something).
I think ill point out a few ovious facts to all you “athests” . Morales were not created from humans. If was the case i would like to hear about this man. The world did Just not “appear” , and we christians like being proscuted keep it up! we know were doin are jobs!
Ovious poe? Or just a christian who likes being prosecuted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Rather, it’s logically flawed to redefine what a Christian is just because someone who is in fact a Christian doesn’t live up to your standards. Hypothetically, you might not be a ‘true’ Christian in someone else’s eyes because you don’t satisfy their arbitrary conditions (same with anyone, hence if you accept that someone is not a true Christian then it’s likely that no one is a true Christian).
There’s also the related issue that anyone who looks down on their fellow Christians for not being Christian enough is clearly doing it wrong. There’s so many movements and sub-groups within Christianity – and the only constant is that they don’t agree on much.
It’s still bullshit.
The bullshit is in the “obeying” – something children do!
Grown-up, fully human people have internal ethics. They don’t need an external authority.
Compare that to children obeying.
Grown-up, mature vs. childish, immature.
You actually proved Daniel’s point equating Christianity with remaining undeveloped and immature with your reply of
better than I ever could.
Come back and shoot yourself in your other foot.
There are two glaring problems with this essay.
First, Mr. Price, based on the information provided, has a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity, which is made evident in a few areas. Most obvious is the statement (paraphrased, from what I can tell) that Christians are motivated to do good things to receive heavenly rewards. While that is a Catholic attitude, it is not true of all Christianity. Also, his concept that Christians are taught to find packaged answers in a book is patently inaccurate. Again, it sounds like he is talking about a very specific sub-section of Christianity. And, he is applying a rather broad brush-stroke, not unlike someone stating “All Muslims are Terrorists.” The actions of a few shouldn’t be allowed to speak for the many.
Second, nearly every argument suffers from being “Non Sequitor.” For example, “taking your problem to the Lord,” has nothing to do with resolving a problem. Your implication is that the problem ends there. That is not the case. You also make the (incorrect) assumption that Christians are motivated by fear of punishment, presumably based on the comments of one man. And Mr. Price’s comment, “This explains why so many born-again Christians can attain sophistication in many professions and disciplines and yet retain a sealed-off nursery school of religious beliefs” simply does not follow. “If that’s the way things are…” “This explains why…” The argument is false, therefore the conclusion is undefined.
But, even if we assume the conclusion is true, perhaps that’s because there’s nothing more to it than would be expected from a “sealed off nursery school.”
Finally, I think you got Punk’d. I’m pretty sure the discussion you mention with a pastor is very similar to a conversation from the movie “Elmer Gantry.” I’m not trying to imply that you fabricated this–but it wouldn’t surprise me if said pastor wasn’t familiar with that line of reasoning. In context, those statements are meant to be metaphor for the human condition, not with regards to a specific human.
I hope your path brings you back to church eventually. I’d recommend something more mainstream. There’s a reason there are so many different “flavors.” One might say it is because none of them are right. I’d argue it’s because they all are.
Love God from your heart……..how can you love someone when you have NO CLUE who or what they are and never met them. Do you really believe with all the billions of people in the world that he listens to everyone and your prayers? If you do, then you are truly delusional.
Religion is a crutch for people who are not strong enough to stand on their own two feet.
Do I believe in a higher power? I believe that we originated somewhere and were put here on earth. Do I believe in Adam and Eve? No, but it is a nice, simple story to tell the flock about how we got here because in the days of the bible’s origin, people were not as knowledgeable and intelligent as today.
If someone came to me and said we originated on another planet, we were brought here to colonize this one, that I would believe.
Do I believe I am going to hell for my thoughts? No.
Do I believe I am more mature than someone else because I question Gods existence? No. I just feel that I am a different kind of person who is a free thinker, willing to question things and think outside the box of religion and the bible.
I believe the bible is a nice collection of stories that gives some reasoning for our existence in a simple, understandable format.
I believe the 10 commandments were created because at the time we were people without laws and quite barbaric at the time. The were laws that were brought in so that we may live a nicer, more civilized existence. Much like our laws do today so we don’t speed and such.
Call me crazy but I think I’m closer to the bigger picture than those who follow a religion blindly.
I am not a christian but I was one for 30 years, even a pastor at one time. Mostly I was a worship leader.
Now I consider myself a Deist, I just don’t know who that deity is.
At any rate. While I can see what you are saying here I must input that, in response to 1. Morally – I knew many (certainly not all) christians who tried to live a good, moral life, not from fear of hell or God, but from love and respect of God, themselves and humanity.
It is so easy in this clash of religion vs atheism to make blanket statements like that. Just as all atheists are not alike – some come from a place of reason and intellect, while others come from a place of hate and anger, etc, not all religists (is that a word?) are the same. In fact you find the same groups mentioned above in religious circles. But I must concur – most religious people I know are sheep with no thought or reason for themselves.
Well, I’ve gone on long enough – thanks for listening and thanks for your articles…
Michael
rAmen.
> would do whatever he asks (mature)
What is so mature about doing something that someone asks you to do? That’s taking your own ability to reason and assigning it to someone else in the hope that they are absolutely right all the time. How is that possibly mature? Particularly when the God of the bible asks his followers to do all sorts of mad stuff (Exodus 35:2, Deut 21:18-21, Leviticus 20:10)
What is the best reason to be moral?
If you already live a life with morals then why rip on those that have no inner compass and have faith that God exists and guides them to find a better way to live this life? In that way God is a good thing yes? You and I are better off for it.
What the pastor should have said is that the atheist has no compass for morality outside of themselves
Which is preferable to relying on the Bible as a moral compass. It’s an odious, amoral piece of work, to be sure.
What the pastor should have said is that the atheist has no compass for morality outside of themselves
Or maybe the basis of morality is empathy.
Maybe the millions of years of evolving as social animals helped to create an innate sense of empathy in humans and other primates.
Maybe stating that I have no compass for my morality because I withhold belief in the super-natural is just ignorance and bigotry that is not supported by any actual evidence.
I call bullshit on that one.
If it’s factual that someone is an adult and can accomplish a task him/herself, saying it is fact, not childish.
Kids 8 years old get admonished to do their own accomplishments with those exact words. (“You’re…. by yourself”)
DUH!
A really good starting task for big boys and girls to do all by themselves is thinking for oneself, developing one’s reasoning capacity, taking responsibility for one’s actions, and determining one’s ethics and values.
While there is a demarcation problem, this is *not* a No True Scotsman. A No True Scotsman is an argumentation fallacy where one of the participants changes their demarcational definitions halfway through the argument to exclude being tainted by some consequence that is unfavorable. You can’t have a No True Scotsman at the *beginning* of a conversation, by definition.
What we actually have here is simply a definitional disagreement, with bakjewelas above offering an inclusive term (love of God) and an exclusionary term (attrite fear) as part of the definition. This is not, I might add, even a particularly unusual definition (it’s one that, for example, appears to derive pretty easily from Biblical passages), so it would even be tough to argue he was using some sort of definitional legerdemain to short-circuit the argument.
Almost nobody would say that a Christian is so simply by claiming so. If the definition is to mean anything, there need to be objective (or at least intersubjective) inclusive and exclusive criteria. A fruitful discussion would be trying to suss out exactly what those demarcations are.
————
While this is not directed at you specifically, I find it annoying that people often resort to claiming their opponents are committing informal fallacies as a way of dismissing a legitimate point. This especially occurs in non-deductive environments, when it is entirely inappropriate (you can’t commit a deductive fallacy in a non-deductive argument). To make an analogy, this practice is approximately as annoying on the “rationalist” side, as the practice of some religionists who say “Goddidit” as a way of waving away criticism or analysis.
While I’m willing to accept that you are a Christian, and that you know what you believe, and that therefore you know what “a Christian” believes:
Why should your beliefs be arrogated above those of everyone else who claims to be a Christian? Why should we not discuss what people who are not you believe?
I find it amusing you think that my “background” (which you don’t know very much about at all) defines what I define as a Christian. But I agree that you’re a Christian, and I agree that people who disagree with you are Christians (even though you don’t). I know there are many, many types of Christians. Perhaps you do not.
News flash: you’re not the standard of what a Christian is. But you seem arrogant enough to think you are. You are always saying you have the answers (“ASK ME”). But you don’t. You never give answers here — you only complain that no one answers your questions or accusations, when really it’s you who never comes back to read the replies. You don’t have much respect here, Steven “I owned you” Webb.
You said:
So if you disagree with #1, then you’ll agree with us that we don’t need God to be moral people. And if you disagree with #2, then you’ll agree hell is just a doctrine based on fear and control and isn’t real. And if you disagree with #3, then you agree everything is up to us and not God.
Then we agree! Why all this jibber-jabber then?
“Perhaps you need a guest-blogger who actually knows what a Christian believes.”
So people with fundamentalist backgrounds don’t count as Christians?
What about presbyterian?
I have/had attended BOTH of those churches for years. I no longer go to the fundamentalist one and I only attend the presbyterian one at christmas time with my grandmother or when I visit her (oh- and I was married there too).
I remember a particular sermon a few years ago when the pastor was talking about difficult times and he literally said “Put it on Jesus”!
So what have you to say to that???
“Perhaps you need a guest-blogger who actually knows what a Christian believes.”
I have 33 years of “Non-Fundamental” christian experience. I’d be happy to guest blog about what Christians believe.
It sounds like Stephen Webb needs to start his own Christian denomination since he has all of the answers. Maybe he is the second coming of Jesus to give final judgment to us all. Not only are atheists wrong, but also all christians that don’t do it the way he does. Give me a break.
“ONCE AGAIN, you’re not asking the right people. I agree with many things said on this blog. But I’m not fun, I’m too rational of a Christian (again, bring your “creative” sarcasm now). ”
OK – all sarcasm aside, I assume you think you are the right person to ask. Please tell us what real christians believe. Also, please let us know how you know what true chirstians believe.
Gaaahhhhh!
Another drive-by by Stephen “Just curious. Really” Webb, also known as “I ask questions but don’t get answers” Webb, “Pretend to be a liberal open-minded pastor who’ll hire an atheist but lashes out at anyone who challenges him” Webb, and “I’ll post comments in response to email, but if you want a response from me, you have to email me because I won’t read the answers” Webb!
Let’s see if my first try at HTML editing works.
“I’m-just-curious-Really-but I never read my answers” Webb
Webb Gets Nasty and attacks by calling posts “cute”
I-don’t-never-get-NO-ANSWERS–because I refuse to read them Webb
Comments-are for-me-to-post-but-not-to-read Webb
Webb Nasty-Summary as of March 2
I don’t disagree, exactly, but who has the authority to decide on this definition? If someone believes themselves to be a Christian, how can we say they are not?
My opinion is that a Christian is someone who follows the teachings laid down in the New Testament. Belief that Jesus was the son of god is probably a decent addition, though I’m not sure it’s truly necessary.
It may not, strictly, be a No True Scotsman fallacy to claim that Catholics / people who don’t keep kosher / Evolutionists / people who don’t hate the gays are not Real True Christians, but it certainly serves the same purpose.
That’s the difficulty, isn’t it? Never said the problem was easy. Only said it was inappropriate to shut down the question using spurious accusations of informal fallacies. :)
Personally, I’m a “know the tree by its fruits” sort of guy, so I tend to allow some wiggle room on definitional semantics so long as we are talking about testable propositions. There is no way to prove or demonstrate that a person “loves God”, so there can be no external test for that criteria. However, even though attrition as a motivation is not directly testable, people tend to act differently when they are afraid of punishment than when they are truly sorry, so that’s at least theoretically testable. One could add something about the Golden Rule and sprinkle in some other behavioral criteria (derived from things that the textual Jesus indicated, as you suggest) and come up with a working intersubjective definition. It wouldn’t be perfect (as no definition ever is), but it might be useable.
We know the song and dance from Stephen Webb: he’ll say NOTHING–not one blithering bit of babble–about what you just said, LRA. He made a generalization and had it knocked down swiftly with counterexamples. There’s nothing he can say. What he’ll do is wait till the next blog entry and then sweep in with his goddy nonsense as though no one’s ever heard his p.o.v. before and then write as though Daniel is somehow “deficient” in his knowledge of Christianity.
Again, duplicitious, evasive, illogical.
Agreed.
To take the moral compass analogy a little further, it’s like they’re navigating on a passing aircraft instead of the stars. This is how cult leaders/pastors/priests/imams are able to convince their followers to do things that any secular humanist would find morally abhorrent.
I have seen a pattern of christians waiting to be inspired by god to make changes they (christians) should start making through thier own sweat and intellectual enterprise.
For example I have seen people who have wasted thier money or who arent trying as hard as they can to find a job say things like I been praying about my finacial/job situation. Im specifically talking about people who were suffereing some kind of finacial hard ships either through bieng unemployed or by wasting money on things they dont need.
It appears to me that holy rollers wait on god to make changes in thier lives or to inspire them to make changes when in reality in order to bring change the individual will have to take specific actions that address thier personal situation.
This notion of putting something on Jesus/God is so intellectually irresponsible becuse instead of guiding and helping one to understand and overcome a problem or hard ship they are encourage to not deal with it and to release thier actual troubles to some imaginary sky daddy.
Excellent post Daniel
“One of the things that I can’t stand is when people don’t credit themselves with their accomplishments. ”
I completely agree with you!
Not only are they not giving themselves credit, but they are indicating that God helped them and not their opponents.
“Which is preferable to relying on the Bible as a moral compass. It’s an odious, amoral piece of work, to be sure. ”
Christians don’t get their morals from the Bible. Everyone has a perception of right and wrong whether atheist or theist. I think what the good man was pointing out was that from an atheistic world view – there are no moral absolutes. So how can you say that Moses killing the midianites was immoral, given your moral relativity? It could have very well been a morally right thing to do during that time. I’m sure your not being a Hypocrite sir, but if you are a moral relativist – you could definitely be accused of such (with respect).
I don’t think that’s accurate. Moral relativism is not a necessary consequence of atheism. Deontological ethics (monkeying around with the Categorical Imperative) is both non-theistic and not relativistic. Moral nihilism (the theory that all moral propositions are fundamentally incoherent or empty of truth value) is also a non-theistic non-relativistic moral stance. Objectivism puts forth a non-theistic non-relativistic ethic.
Absolutism is not the exclusive domain of theistic attempts to construct ethical systems. Now, I personally am an atheist and I am not a big fan of any of the above three non-theistic ethical systems. (Personally, I adhere to the Aristotle-Nietzsche-MacIntyre strands of Virtue Ethics, which is, at bottom, a relativistic group of ethical theories). My point only is that it is a mistake to assume that atheism implies relativism.
You’re so incapable of thinking that you couldn’t even read the blog straight.
It had nothing to do with moral relativism – you imagined that yourself and then replied to your own imagination.
You are incapable of even conceiving of innate, internal ethics not needing an external authority or anything to “obey”.
Which is why you don’t have them, and need that external authority – real or imaginary – telling you what you should do.
And, to judge by all the theists who claim that “slavery was OK back then, but it’s not now”, theism does not preclude relativism.
@Wintermute
An excellent counterpoint! :)
Because religious texts are, like all texts, wackily underdetermined, there are several mutually contradictory legitimate readings of any set of its precepts. One can make a given data set say pretty much whatever one wants, given the right massaging and interpretive tools. You are right that religious folk should not harp so much on their supposed moral absolutism, given that there have been seismic shifts and titanic disagreements throughout history over what exactly the moral values of any given religion are.
But, I think that some religionists are claiming something slightly different when they claim that God provides an absolute morality. From what I gather, they claim not that *they* have perfect knowledge of what is moral, but rather that whatever happens to be moral is so because the existence of a deity grounds the moral proposition in something absolute or logically necessary, and thus it is possible to make objective statements about what is right and what is wrong, or judge other such statements in an objective fashion.
Of course, then some try to gently slide this theoretical existence of theistically-grounded moral absolutism into a claim that their religion itself provides some sort of objective guidance towards the valuation of moral statements, at which point you can rightfully pwn them on what you were talking about.
Actually, I think the “absolute moral standard” they claim is “always do exactly what god tells you, even if it completely contradicts what he told you yesterday”.
Which leads directly to this.
I think Christians view God as a sort of gold standard–you know morality has worth because it’s based on God, the same way the dollar has worth when it’s based on gold.
But I doubt they realize gold only has value because we say it does.
@aproustian – “I think Christians view God as a sort of gold standard”
That’s an appropriate metaphor – Theistic and Non-theistic morality has the same “cash value”.
they claim not that *they* have perfect knowledge of what is moral, but rather that whatever happens to be moral is so because the existence of a deity grounds the moral proposition in something absolute or logically necessary, and thus it is possible to make objective statements about what is right and what is wrong, or judge other such statements in an objective fashion.
While this is probably theologically true, I think when many Christians fault the morality of non-theists they are thinking about the reward/punishment aspect of theism. If you have a belief system that rewards or punishments you in an afterlife versus just ceasing to exist, there is no comparable reason for an atheist to do good.
i would say the standard is ‘the golden rule’ for Christians at least.
“He who has the gold makes the rules”?
Thanks — obviously, you’ve been watching Validation! ;)
Claidheamh,
I have been meaning to ask you, is your handle Irish, and if so is it pronounced anything close to ‘Clayow’?
I took some Irish linguistics classes in college, and I was just curious.
I don’t think we atheists have a better moral compass at all. I think we have comparable morals to Christians, it’s just they don’t realize where they come from. We atheists know that they are not handed down from a deity, but are a system of prohibitions agreed upon by a people, and that some may be biologically encoded.
There’s good evidence that Christians are following societal morals, and not biblical ones. I mean, they reject a great deal of biblical directives, like not working on Sunday, not taking the Lord’s name in vain, or stoning people at the drop of a hat. These aren’t morally imperative in the 21st century, so they give ‘em the brush off.
In some circles, it’s still okay to hate on gays, but societal morals are moving away from that, too. I would venture to say that in due time, Leviticus 18:22 will go the way of the other verses of Leviticus, which we largely ignore.
Anyway, back to the original point, religious people mistakenly place the root of their morality in religion, but for the most part, they have the same morals as we do, because despite what they think, even their morals are societally defined. When they say that if it weren’t for Jesus, they would skull-f*ck your 8 year old daughter to death, they wouldn’t actually do it. They have really just convinced themselves that abandoning religion equates with abandoning morality, which it doesn’t.
And I’m agreed with you.
Any of those in your list, religious institutions, operate by cutting people off from their internal ethics innate to life, so that then they need outside authority.
For ‘morals’, confession, what to follow instead of the hard work of learning to think for yourself and to live and learn your values.
Hell, one religion we know of doesn’t covertly cut people off from their internal ethics; it just comes out and even *says* people are born evil!
Some of the Christians I’ve challenged on that belief say “what’s with that crap?” – and still live their lives based on that belief. Otherwise, why would they believe kids need to be heavily disciplined and people need to be redeemed?
What if, in obedience to Love, there is great peace, oneness and fruitfulness? What if, as opposed to a lessening of one’s self, there is a strengthening of the true and original self? What if there is power in agreement, in humility? What if there is more than we can see? What if independence is a striving? A striation of sorts from wholeness, from the One?
You tend to think of obediance as a weakness, when in my own experience it has always led to just the opposite?
We are a rebellious people, we dont trust the Father cuz we dont know Him. When we truly know Him (His true nature/character) than we will naturally want to love & obey Him, we begin to see the wisdom of loving God.
All the best Claid…
Obedience is something which is fully mature; obeying the law, obeying social standards and norms, obeying linguistic restraints, are examples of obedience or conformity to some degree that adults acheive far more than children.
Once gain CM, you are showing how mature you really are. Only children obey??? Give me a break!!
It’s not an “external” sky-God authority but an internal light, witness. Truth resides on the inside of us. You mock what you dont understand with all due respect…sir/ma’am.
Christ IN you is the mystery of the ages.
The sky is falling
Judging from his icon, and my limited understanding of Gaelic pronunciation, I think it’s “Claymore“
wintermute is correct.
I haven’t taken any Irish (or in this case Scottish) linguistics; lucky, enviable you!
A blacksmith I worked with once told me it was pronounced “clathimore”, and IPA makesit look like “Clahyevmor” – wish I knew more. Maybe a True Scotsman will help me out here!
I enjoy it as a metaphor for cutting through diversions, manipulation, missing the point, irrelevant ramblings, name-calling, Christian apologetics while missing the point, making statements of pure belief as if they were fact without support, poor reasoning capacity, substituting emotional ranting for supporting with reasoning and facts, and cutting through to the facts, reasoning based on those facts, and people’s motives and hidden agendas.
OK, that made me laugh out loud.
Yes, I watched that when you posted it. The video is almost painful to watch: battling the constant need for approval or validation (kind of like needing an external God to validate one’s existence and value, hmmm?) is also part of growing up.
Part of not needing external validation and authority is having internal ethics and responsibility. (Some of us can do that without obeying parents or gods, imagine that!)
There are people with the former condition, but lacking the latter. This is who xians will refer to when they start spewing about how awful people would be if they quit needing external authority and validation (obviously “God’s”!).
This is an attempt to forestall those predictable Christian tantrums.
Interesting, thanks for the insight.
I remember a bunch of ridiculous rules about h’s weakening consonants, so a word like ‘bhuighaidh’ was pronounced ‘way.’
I have had a great deal of trouble convincing my friends that “sidhe” (as in “bhan sidhee”) is pronounced “she”. Or as close to that as anything alse I can easily write.
Yeah, in this particular case, the “dheamh” is silent.
Yes, I once wanted to name a Scottish fold cat, and a really great-looking name for “little one” was spelled something like “seamh”, and it was pronounced “shave”.
Put me off that one.
Let’s stop calling it Christ then, and follow the Buddha’s example. Or for that matter, call it a warm and fuzzy feeling.
It’s all interchangeable and easy to deconstruct, and frankly, much more useful when you rid yourself of the absolutes.
Yes. I’d call John C’s warm fuzzy feeling based on fuzzy thinking.
If I went to a religion, my internal ethics would prefer to be called Buddhist.
That’s even beside the bonus of not having to protect oneself against radical-right-wing, evangelical Buddhists!
Score: 15-love.
I have noticed that folks do like to take a shot at your background…was pretty courageous for you to share what you have, to be transparant, disarming. Thanks, otherwise we would not have this forum to share, discuss, fuss, etc. lol
Thx D
I’m pretty sure there are no True Scotsmen any more.
I just looked it up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Scottish_Gaelic_origin
There’s a lot of different ways to pronounce Gaelic, depending on dialect.
I know in Irish, ‘dh’ is either a [j] sound, as in yes or a [γ] sound like in Spanish hago. In Claidheamh it’s [j], because it’s surrounded by palatalizing diacritic vowels ‘i’ and ‘e,’ which are not pronounced, and serve only to indicate pronunciation of the nearby consonants.
‘mh’ can be a [w] sound or a [v] sound depending on the diacritic vowels around it, and in Irish Gaelic, ‘amh’ would be [aw] as in cow. There’s also sometimes a remnant of nasalization from the ‘m,’ so it could sound like the vowel in pounce.
Wikipedia says in ‘Claidheamh’ it’s a [v] sound, so I’m assuming it’s always [v] in Scottish Gaelic. If that’s the case you have:
[klajav] like ‘claw – yahv’
‘mor’ is easy, there are no ‘h’s to indicate lenition, and there are no palatalizing diacritic vowels. So its just [mor].
@wintermute
I’m pretty sure there are no True Scotsmen any more
lol
Had we been blessed with a better Bronze Age editing staff (publishing houses were crap back then), the Bible would have been much shorter.
2,000 years would have been plenty of time, and by now they’d be out of chapters and verses to apologize for.
More importantly, allowing the meme ‘you need god to be moral’ to continue to spread unchallenged empowers these cult leaders etc. to abuse their followers.
“There’s good evidence that Christians are following societal morals, and not biblical ones. I mean, they reject a great deal of biblical directives, like not working on Sunday, not taking the Lord’s name in vain, or stoning people at the drop of a hat. These aren’t morally imperative in the 21st century, so they give ‘em the brush off.”
Not to be nitpicky (although that’s exactly what I’m being), but Biblically the sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. It was changed a few centuries after Jesus’ death, to distinguish the Christian holy day from that of the Jews. Up until 300 CE, both Saturday and Sunday were considered Christian holy days. Then, Saturday became a day of mourning and fasting, while Sunday was a day of feasting and joy (an intentional snub to the Jews). After that, Saturday became like any normal day. So, even if Christians don’t kindle any flames or whatnot on Sunday, they are still being selective about what they take from the Bible.
I’m trying to picture a Sarah Palin/Hare Krishna rally.
*snort* Ha!
See? The xians who ask me “what will you atheists do all talking to each other, if we fundies leave the blog?”
are clueless about what a good sense of humor we have.
(Besides our being intelligent, having capacity for logic and reasoned thinking, supporting our claims with reasoning instead of spouting a belief, literate and interesting, I mean.)
…that represents a religion no-one actually believes in.
The viewpoints of biblical scholars are based on texts written by primitive men from barbaric civilizations thousands of years ago. That isn’t exactly developed, educated, or intellectual.
@Seveneleven81 -
If you’ll notice, Daniel is drawing from the work of Robert M. Price. Price is both a former evangelical and a former preacher. He also has a doctorate in systematic theology, surely enough to qualify him as a scholar. Daniel is “talking” to him, so your criticism does not stand.
Ah, so you have to have a doctorate in theology to understand the basics of Christian theology? No wonder the masses just don’t get it.
You would have been one of the people saying, “Don’t talk to those stupid fishermen who are talking about Jesus! Talk to the rabbis who have studied this in depth!” ;)
BTW, do you have a doctorate in theology? If not, how do you understand theology? If so, then enlighten us on what is the “true” Christian theology and how we’re getting it wrong.
Yea, a mostly wrong viewpoint. You know what a Phd stands for in Christendom? Piled High & Deep. I’ll leave the rest to your imagination. Christianity needs no “intellectual validation”, He is the spirit of Wisdom & revelation Himself. Book smarts are nothing, its spiritual discernment that matters, His nature within, a resurrected man in Christ, a new creation not a “scholar”.
We put way too much emphasis on those things.
Favorite quote from Sam Harris:
So what are you saying? Just because they did not have internet or all you intellectuals to tell them whats what they were stupid?
Respectfully, no list of accredidations, credentials or “religious” history qualifies us for anything Vorjack. Most “christians” have never pierced the veil of the flesh. When we enter the spirit realm we see the…more that Christ offered which has nothing to do with religious duty or dogma.
Attempting to comprehend the things of the spirit realm while residing in the fleshly, earthly realm is an exercise in futility. I have spent 25 years (not that that qualifies me either) deeply pursuing the things of God, the things He promised for them that believe. I have found they are truly spiritual and not religiously received.
So, Mr. Price, while he may be well-intentioned is yet another in a very long list of those who claim to know but have (obviously) never experienced, never traveled if you will. The recipience of the Holy Spirit, the spirit of Truth is a passport of sorts into the divine/spiritual realm of life, where the authentic life resides.
This is why I say that…there is more. But of course nobody believes me and are unwilling themselves to pay the proce themselves to find out, to peer into this unseen realm which is, ironically more substantive than the realm of appearances. Its all tied to the true offer & message of Christ which has been lost in “religion”.
“Most “christians” have never pierced the veil of the flesh.”
Well, as to that, Price is also a Lovecraftian. So he has pierced the veil – and seen the seething, unwholesome reality the lies behind it. He has born witness to the blasphemous aeons and the cyclopean edifices of those far older than ourselves. He has been sent shivering into that dark night to contemplate the insignificance of this frail mortal flesh and reeled back from the brink of blissful insanity.
Which may explain why he’s also a republican. Or maybe not.
No, it’s bullshit and childish to submit to imaginary sky-faeries who threaten us with hellfire and damnation for not sticking penises in vaginas (where they belong!) or for not venerating said sky-faerie with a tenth of our possessions, among other moral absurdities.
Yes, it’s a bad reason to be moral just because someone in authority says not to do something. If that’s the only reason you can be moral, then I’m glad it’s there — but for most of us, the reason to not do something is because it hurts other people.
Well, “it’s wrong because the law says so” is a childish attitude, yes. Works well for explaining to 5-year-olds why they’re not allowed to throw their litter on the ground, or some such.
A more adult attitude is to recognise that the law is a reflection of what society, as a gestalt, has decided is wrong. And that there exist bad laws that should be ignored or struck down.
In short, the law is not an excuse not to understand why things are bad, but simply a statement that things are deemed to be bad enough that action should be taken to prevent them, or punish transgressors. If you want to be part of the discussion, you have to be able to decide what is bad all by yourself.
Well, yeah.
A truly mature, close to perfect, fully human people would be so ethical and responsible they wouldn’t need “authority figures”.
Beyond the scope of your thinking ability. And not the case now. But a human possibility.
maybe it would be good not talk about Christians as a homogeneous group and instead speak to specific groups. it would make definitions a lot easier. you could test a statement like ‘no true baptist’ a lot easier than no true Christian.
As i’ve always understood it a christian is anyone who believes in Jesus power and his ability to save you (thief on the cross for instance). that’s all it takes and its in the denominations that it gets to tricky.
Agreed. Can you send a memo out to your fellow religionists, asking them not to claim that anyone they disagree with is “not a True Christian”? I’d do it myself, but they won’t give me the address…
Thanks.
@Philip & Wintermute
Yeah, basically that. The problem is that “Christianity” is an entity that gets referenced by a lot of people on any side of the aisle. They all mean something when they say it. The task is to come to some sort of discourse agreement on what we ought to mean when we say it.
I think that tackling the smaller sub-definitions may seem easier, but in the end you will get trapped by those definitions overdetermining the main definition. That is, we might define Baptists, and define Methodists, and then include in both that they are both Christians, but then what happens when something about being a Baptist is fundamentally incommensurate with being a Methodist? There are ways out of that sort of mess, but none of them are pretty. Usually they involve demarcating to what extent either Baptism itself and Methodism itself are *not* Christian, or attempting to demarcate what about being a Baptist or being a Methodist is irrelevant to being a Christian. And then hoping you find some agreement in those answers.
All of these semantics doesn’t change the non-sense that these people believe in, and the associated mental handicapping that goes along with basing your worldview on such drivel.
Sure, the ‘not-a-true-christian’ argument is put forth by believers, but it means nothing. My typical response is “Whatever you want to call it, it’s still self-delusion.”
Thanks for pointing out the typo. I try to catch them all, but sometimes I miss some!
“I have spent 25 years (not that that qualifies me either) deeply pursuing the things of God, the things He promised for them that believe. I have found they are truly spiritual and not religiously received.”
Wow – you don’t mention building houses for the homeless, or helping the poor, but 25 years to study?
I read the Bible in a week. What part didn’t you get?
Imagine if you had used those 25 years to actually DO something…
Thats a fairly presumptious statement there Christopher, not all of us go around shouting our good deeds to the world. You have no idea.
Why the hell is “obeying” “love”? That’s a screwed-up, muddy concept. I think it’s a nonsensical non-concept.
You don’t have the mental capacity to define anything: concepts, or even the words you use.
(Although I am steeling myself for more muddy concepts and word-definitions.)
Possibly because you have some permanent mental/developmental disability and, lacking some capacity to think, evaluate, and develop your own values, need guidance to which you need to be obedient.
I don’t think it applies to all believers — but I do think religion encourages it. It applies more to fundamentalists.
But I think even the “great” can fall into that tendency. Perhaps you don’t put CS Lewis in the “great” category, but I think some of this would apply to him. He was very smart, but when he started talking about religion, to me he became small-minded (I’m thinking of his arguments in “Mere Christianity”).
But I would much rather have Christians be like Lewis than Falwell! Lewis and I could get along very well, I think.
The Bonhoeffer story is fascinating. Was eventually hung by the Nazi’s for his part in the Valkyrie Hitler escapade.
I agree. I read Lewis’ Screwtape Letters and Great Divorce (highly recommended), but won’t ever try to hack his nonfiction.
He has scathing insight into the bullshit Christians pull to rationalize their actions, and his writing is addressed to them.
I gritted my teeth through his Christian premises about this behavior, but the man was a thinker with Twain-like cut-through-the-crap insight into Christians’ muddy thinking and the excuses they make about themselves.
For this reason, I hazard the guess that a lot of Christians won’t like him!
I always prefer Chesterton to Lewis. I enjoy Lewis’ writings especially his less formal essays (Meditation in a Toolshed is a great existentialist perspective). Mere Christianity, to me however, is a neutered version of Chesterton’s Orthodoxy. But, I give Lewis a bit of a pass there, as he never intended to write that book. It’s basically a set of well edited radio transcripts.
The Abolition of Man is, by far, my favorite of Lewis’ nonfiction works. I’d trade all the rest of his nonfiction works to save that one.
If I’m going to read that sort of writing, I much prefer Chesterton.
Daniel: Man, Price’s book is a painfully sad commentary on the state of the church. I have no disagreement there. But his conclusion that Christianity prolongs immaturity is debatable.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Price surveyed emotional, moral and intellectual cripples who sat under other emotional, moral and intellectual cripples. Like begets like.
So the thought that “Christianity is a crutch for the weak” should be re-stated, “The emotional and intellectually lazy use Christianity as a crutch.”
As Wade pointed out honest, serious, intellectual powerhouses like MacArthur, Lewis, Chesterton, Calvin and Paul are exceptions and demonstrate what happens when, as you pointed out, grow out of childish ways.
I bet if these cripples sat under these teachers, they wouldn’t grow. They’d bail.
Jesus came before John lennon, but both were right about that all we need is love.
And food. We need that, too. Good luck trying to feed yourself without killing something.
The bullshit is in the “obeying” – something children do!
Obeying is something EVERYBODY does. Do you have a job? Then you obey higher authority. When you microwave frozen peas, you follow the instructions. You obey them.
Cuz Love is who God is. The call to obedience is really a call to love…Love, get it?
None of it made sense to me either when I was in your mindset. We see no value in Christianity, only mindless dogma. Sometimes things are not as they appear.
not sure why that link re-directs to this page. It was coded to go here…
http://www.pseudobook.com/cslewis/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/meditation.pdf
“Abolition of Man” is pretty good. I also like “An Experiment in Criticism.” Lewis was influenced quite a bit from Chesterton.
But I think similarly about Chesterton. Though clearly a genius, when he started talking about religion (like in Orthodoxy and The Everlasting Man), he starts making absurd arguments (at least to me).
But I do prefer Chesterton on most other topics. He was very insightful.
Only if you have food.
Ha!
Either that, or they come from a generation that knew far less about the world around them, and so were predominantly religious.
Even though America is still a very religious country, I think it was probably even more so 70-80 years ago.
Yeah – I’m seeing a lot of this around here lately. Moderate christians who say that god doesn’t send people to hell for non-belief.
To each their own, but this is definitely outside the christian mainstream in my experince.
I’m also having some problems understanding why they are here trying to convince us of the existence of god when:
1. He apparently doesn’t care if we believe or not;
2. There is absolutely no down side to not believing.
“Have you sold all of your possessions yet?”
No. But I’m trying. It’s tough, but by the grace of God, I’m getting there.
Priceless!
So true!
A still-water, milk-and-honey haven for simpletons!
An escape clause from taking responsibility for oneself, as long as one repents in time!
If I suggest that you put it on a bumper sticker, some Christian will actually do it, and take it seriously, as a way of preaching. Barf.
“Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
The “Then come, follow me.” line is pure beauty. So simple and yet so powerful. Jesus had a way with words no doubt. His words have the power to touch you, *emotionally*. Some of the most “Christian” followers I know are filthy rich – with mansions and possessions that would border on hedonism. They believe the parts that are convenient for them – as every Christian does. You don’t see Christians running around stoning people as the bible instructs in black and white do you?
CS Lewis had a mentor, even “master” as Lewis referred to him…the scottish writer, poet, George MacDonald. If you have never read any of his stuff (1820′s-1905ish) I think you would really enjoy them, he’s a master story teller, writer.
In his proficiency (4500 published works), I’m sure Chesterton had more than one absurd thought… Which ones strike you as particularly so? Outside of the constant allusion to paradox throughout Orthodoxy. I do agree, alluding to paradox rarely holds any analytical value.
John C… Chesterton also had quite the influence on Lewis. Lewis cites “The Everlasting Man” as “baptizing his intellect” the same way MacDonald had “baptized his imagination.
You said “you have to be able to decide what is bad all by yourself”. Hmm…sounds a lot like what our forefathers did when they ate (chose to live from) the knowledge of good & evil as opposed to innocence, the tree of life which is Christ. Do you realize this is why mankind is in the mess we are in today? By us (the created being) choosing to be “like God” as opposed to agreeing with God?
Maybe this is the meaning of the graphic appeal Christ made saying we should now “eat of His flesh, drink His blood” so we can have a single (not divided) eye again and be made whole, restored. The fruit of the tree of independence was death, time to eat from another source, another ancient tree.
Catholics would disagree on the works point, pretty vehemently.
The bible says “faith without works is dead”.
It’s great if you disagree!
If you disagree with #1, then you’ll agree with us that we don’t need God to be moral people and that morality does not come from God.
If you disagree with #2, then you’ll agree hell is just a doctrine based on fear and control and isn’t real.
If you disagree with #3, then you agree everything is up to us and not God.
That would make you almost an atheist. So I’m very happy if you disagree with me here.
YES
It IS what Christianity teaches; it’s the very foundation of it. Regardless of how “immature in the faith” the xians are. It calls for an outside authority: giving your life over to an outside authority and doing what it wants; threat of eternal punishment; believing that people are born evil and need to be saved and redeemed; and negates an internal ethical compass by deletion of that concept.
You turn your life and basis of your decisions and morality over to this imaginary “relationship” with a god and jesus.
I already told you: Jesus said he’s tired of you and he finds me more interesting and likes my company better!
[Point to the clueless: my claim is exactly as provable as your relationship with jesus. Your claim to relationship with jesus is exactly as unprovable as my claim to him.]
Yes! Church of (we-are-not-a-denomination-we-are-the-original-church) Christ for three years age 17 to 20. I know the premises of Christianity from an insider’s point of view. Though not a scholar in it like Daniel, I studied quite a bit. You will be hard put to it to avoid getting your ass bitten by me if you try to argue concepts, and precepts. I’ll show you your premises [beliefs, not truth], and the arguments you build upon those.
I have more going for me than people who never believed it in the first place. Watch out; I know whereof I speak!
Do NOT do the sappy Christian thing of saying “I’m sorry”. That would be an ASSumption so disgusting I would have to rip it apart in a separate post.
I’m not alone here in being a former Christian. Like the others (I think), I am a seeker for what’s real and of value in life, and Christianity has been tried and found egregiously wanting. (Deficient, a failure, self-contradictory, counter to well-being, etc..) It fosters and relies upon immaturity, and stunts becoming fully human.
If I were to buy into the myth, I’d say that is why we are as well off as we are.
But then, some of us don’t like the idea of even benevolent slavery…
No, really, it’s pretty easy. Just put everything on the lawn with a sign reading “all offers accepted”, and it’ll be gone by the end of the day.
And on the rare occasions the bible talks of heaven and hell, it always stresses works over faith:
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2009/03/h-e-double-hockey-sticks.html
JC – love is a human emotion. It has no basis in logic or reason. But you seem to find a great inner peace in the love your brain feels, and I commend you for speaking what you feel. We all want to be happy and if you find happiness in believing God loves you, then who are we to interfere with your happiness? My main argument is not with your happiness but with religion. Check out this link to understand where I’m coming from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity
“every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin”
You know all too well that I could never satisfactorilly address your questions to your liking so I would always be at a disadvantage by the rules you have set there Claid..ster.
But I try…
Not really. I’ve lived a material life for a longtime. Asceticism is not a life easily ventured into in our culture, but I’m trying my best to work it out.
Join a monastery.
Or go bankrupt.
When you do get to the point that you’re ready to unload it all, I recommend freecycle.com as an outlet.
this is what i mean:
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848
What did He mean when He told the “rich” man to “sell out”? Why did Jesus refer to the young man as a “rich young ruler”?
Who is Jesus talking about when He speaks of the “rich”?
Just wondering if you know these important story distinctions and the important symbolism.
Absoulutely right, Claid… We teach our four-year-old son that he’s a BIG BOY to do things by himself – it’s not an immature thing to take on responsibility for your own actions and to manage difficult positions without running to mommy and daddy. We’re there, we support him if necessary, and provide guidance… but he has to learn to make his own good choices.
And guess what – he can learn right from wrong and respect for others and for himself without having to be told God wants him to behave that way. It’s just the way a human should behave.
It’s obvious that the period of growing up for children is the ability to do more and more things for themselves, I’m not questioning that. My point is that it is childish and prideful to think your sufficient within yourself for everything. I don’t know you, but I bet I after talking to you, I’ll find something you can’t do or do as well as someone else. Maybe you can’t fix your own car engine or fill out corporation papers for your business it doesn’t matter, because being a grown up is acknowledging your shortcomings and finding someone that can help you.
No “sky-God Rog…at least not in Christianity…not where He lives, not what Christ taught.
Blessed is he that “believes” but has not seen.
I love food, does that cover both bases??
I could probably sustain a long-term relationship with some Dove ice cream bars and omemade mac and cheese.
We “sell out” our external values and false identities tied to our ancestral, human life to find our true, original identity in Him, a “son” meaning offspring of God.
The “rich” are those who are self-satisfied, content in and of themselves without Him.
Sell all YOU have, all YOU (think) you are in this world, all you cling to.
And yes, God loves you very much.
or maybe there is no symbolism. And when Jesus said, sell all you have, and give to the poor he meant it. The Church in Acts seemed to take that passage quite literally.
Right, and all the other world religions are correct, too, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Islam, because the human perception of the “spiritual” is not amorphous and subject to cultural influences and psychological mechanisms.
Oh wait…the worlds’ major religions can’t all be right, can they?
Is one transcendent, divine source really the best explanation for the diversity of religion?
No thank you, no appreciation for letting you the un-believer peer into the eternal wisdom, the secrets? lol.
Because I know His voice. “My sheep know my voice”…John 10:27. How do you know when your dad is speaking literally or metaphorically? You just know because you know him.
You can know too…the offer is extended graciously. He is not interested in you becoming religious, but intimately knowing and being known.
The most frequently spoken statement in the ‘Unreasonable Faith” website.
Our numbers are legion.
“The most frequently spoken statement in the ‘Unreasonable Faith” website.”
mark: I know, Ive been going through this for the last 15 years with the holy rollers.
They are so shallow.
Hehe…my bad on the fowl/foul thing. Thanks for the humorous correction though!
I didn’t mean that the elderly people are seeking the wisdom, I just meant perhaps we should be seeking it from them. And no, most of the young people I know are not believers…maybe 30% of them at best. It is true that the old people right now did grow up in a more intolerant society towards non-believers. And now our society is becoming intolerant toward believers. Oh how the tables are turning, eh? I guess we’ll just have to see what happens.
Jon,
“Life has no meaning whatsoever without a God. Period.”
Thing (A) has no meaning whatsoever without Thing (B). Period.
Why? Is thing A predicated upon thing B? Is thing A derived from thing B? Have you presented any evidence that this is so?
I see no reason to believe your claim.
Is a sunset meaningless without a god? Is laughter meaningless without a god?
It’s certainly meaningless with the god of the Bible, but that’s another issue altogether.
Find me one genuinely funny moment in the entire Bible and you’ll have found one of the strongest proofs for Christianity I may ever encounter.
However, I bet you won’t find it, Jon.
Wouldn’t you expect an author of the universe to know comedy? Irony? Sarcasm?
The god of the Bible is just as sophisticated as the people who compiled it and no more.
“They are paranoid about this.”
Jon, have you ever been labeled as immoral, selfish, and unempathetic just because of what you believe?
Have you been forced to endure these accusations at a relatively high frequency? Have people made slurs about your character based on your belief system?
If you tried to run for political office, would people refuse to consider you just because of your stance on the presence or absence of the supernatural?
In short, do you have any idea whatsoever of what you’re talking about?
I don’t think you do.
Many theists think atheists and agnostics are immoral people. Many of them attack us viciously.
We respond. Most of us respond patiently, mildly, and then we get it thrown back in our faces. We get called “paranoid”. We get called a lot of things, Jon.
You have no idea whatsoever, do you?
By the way, often the best method to deal with a systemic problem (such as a global financial collapse) is with a systemic solution.
But you’d just reject that possibility out of hand, wouldn’t you?
Just like you’d reject the possibility out of hand that there could possibly be any hint of meaning in our world without a god.
Why am I even asking if there would be meaning? There *is* meaning.
That’s all we need to establish.
There *is* meaning in our world. Now is there a god or gods or isn’t there?
If there isn’t, then how does that retroactively change what we already know?
Yet it wouldn’t be fully proper to say that, there is meaning in our world, therefore there must be a god.
You haven’t established how the presence of a god denotes meaning, nor how it is the only thing that could do so, nor have you eliminated that possibility that some things could have meaning whether there was a god or not.
You are slippery. You say “well, everything will ultimately vanish, therefore there is no ultimate meaning”. That’s a nice card trick, a nice optical illusion.
But it’s not accurate. Ultimate meaning is not the entirety of meaningfulness. Meaning in the here-and-now is critical, and you’re not acknowledging it.
Jon, I can prove to you that ultimate meaning is less important to you than meaning in the here-and-now:
1. Have you ever watched a World Cup match, a Nascar race, a World Series game, a Super Bowl, gone to a concert, attended a lecture, or gone to a religious service?
2. Can you name the winner of every game, the list of songs from every concert, the content of every lecture, and do you remember the theme of every sermon you’ve ever heard?
If you can’t remember any of this, why did you even bother going in the first place, Jon?
Because obviously, none of those things matter…at all.
Why did you go to those things? You obviously didn’t do it because it would help you now. You did it because it would help you then.
Jon, I have just demostrated through reductio ad absurdum that your argument about meaning does not work.
A primer on meaning for those with black and white ideas:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/
There are no binding reasons to be good if our existence is just a matter of happenstance. Consciousness means nothing in this formulation, because it is a fluke of time (almost certainly bound to disappear in the future–and with nothing to remember it whatsoever).
If by binding, you mean eternally accountable then I don’t disagree with you. If at the end of the day all we are is worm food, well, there you go.
But, frankly, so what?
Just because you – or anyone – would find more comfort in an eternal system that rewards behaviors you like doesn’t mean that your preferences are *true*. All your statement shows is that you would prefer the world to be a certain way. If there was a God who chose to throw everyone but Muslims into hell for eternity – well I wouldn’t like that either. But if there was an actual omnipotent God and that was what God decided to do, well, there you go. All us non-Muslims would be in hell. End of story.
What we want the truth to be is not proof of what that truth really is – and that goes for theists too.
One would think that Objectivism would reign in atheist circles instead
The fact that it doesn’t is a point in our (atheists) favor, I should think. Objectivism is pure idiocy.
Your blathering has no meaning whatsoever without any evidence or reasoning or support. Period.
Trust me, I do not think that human maturity is using foul language. That was kind of the whole point. I am very much an introspective person, I have come up with my own idea of internal ethics that is unlike that of many believers, and I have worked extremely hard to learn to think for myself even in the midst of being raised to think a certain way. So in fact, my journey to being an individual thinker was probably more difficult than that of someone who was not raised in the church. I am very much annoyed by people who do not take responsibility for their own actions, and I pride myself in not being one of those people. I do not blame my troubles on God, nor do I believe that every good thing in my life has come only by the hand of God. You are jumping to conclusions about me and putting every believer into some cookie cutter of what you want to view them as. That, is the immature and naive thing to do if you ask me. If I know anything, I know I don’t know much at all. Especially not about someone I’ve never even met.
While I am not trying to start any kind of debate, I must say that your judgement that Christians are immature seems quite hypocritical being that your response to everyone’s simple reply to your blog has been EXTREMELY judgement, close-minded, and VERY immature.
You could have saved yourself a lot of effort by just saying god works in mysterious ways. I mean is this the best ‘reason’ you can come up with.
Sooo…. God wants us to do evil things out of ignorance? Does that really make sense to you?
Intolerant towards believers? Really?
Bwahahahahaha.
Why? As I pointed out, they don’t hand out wisdom with your AARP card. For the most part, the elderly are intractable and reactionary. They stick with what they knew in their youth no matter how the world has moved on. I know plenty of old people who think that segregation was a damn fine idea. And no doubt their grandparents thought he world had gone to hell since they ended slavery. Should we seek out their advice, just because they’re old?
Assuming you’re in America, this is a highly unusual number. There are possibly areas in New England or California where this makes sense, but more likely is that most of the people you think are non-believers are simply not church-goers. Overall, 80% of the US population self-identifies as Christian, with another 15% self-identifying as a member of a different religion. Amongst people between the ages of 15 and 25, that goes down to 60% Christian and 20% other. Unless you live in an incredibly liberal area, I really find it hard to believe that your numbers are so vastly different.
Did you mean to suggest that you very much annoy yourself, or does this sentence need a re-write?
I’m pretty sure Daniel would agree that it was not written by God.
Unfortunately, a large percentage of Christians do believe the way Daniel has described. Also unfortunately, those who don’t believe that way don’t get a lot of media coverage, so it’s very hard for us to know that they exist.
I find it somewhat irritating that every time an atheist makes a point about a very real problem, people start jumping down his throat for generalizing. Obviously, if I talk about someone performing this behavior and you do not perform this behavior, I am not talking about you.
The entire article is, in fact, a very accurate depiction of many born-again Christians. If you doubt this, take a look at the “Left Behind” mindset of people. These are exactly the sort of things they believe (except the third one, which is usually only held by more fundamental Christians). The fact that you do not behave this way does not invalidate the things he is saying about other people who do.
If you want to drop by and let us know that you’re not like the Christians described, by all means, do so. But do not rake us over the coals for describing any sect of Christianity other than the one that you follow.
Anywho, I like your Jesus a lot better than mine. He sounds like a really cool guy. ;)
Christianity doesnt hold to a mere argument Tele…rather an inward experiential relationship that makes zero sense to the natural man.
‘but we speak the HIDDEN mystical wisdom of God’ 1 Cor 2:7
It is veiled to those who do not believe…lest they turn and be made…whole. Mysterious huh?
Reason is not so mighty as you suppose, it has its limitations. It can be surmounted when superior states are contrasted against its minor capacities.
tzugidan,
Will religious people respect our right to not believe what we want?
Christians and other theists call atheists and agnostics immoral. Will you stand up for us the next time this accusation is made?
People always say “why can’t you just live in peace?” and then suspiciously, they often don’t try to bring the peace that is sought.
“Is it equally as immature to believe in nothing? ”
Not believing in god is not the same as believing in nothing.
“Are the two really that different? I suppose if you WANT them to be, they are. But really, you are no different than any Christian, you just have a different set of religious beliefs.”
Yes – atheist ask for evidence before believing things.
FYI – atheism isn’t a religion. Atheism isn’t a “religious belief.”
What they really mean is “shut up and know your place”, of course. which is why gays not wanting to be beaten to death are “asking for special rights”.
Sure Tele…I’ll come to your defense when Christians are calling you immoral if you’ll come to mine when unbelievers are picking up rocks to stone me with…deal?
Do you mean literally throwing rocks at you, or saying that they think you’re wrong? Because I somehow doubt you can point to a single time the former has happened.
God forbids him to fuck himself.
Facetious 18:22
Most of the Christian responses have SUPPORTED the point of the blog.
Utter inability to grasp the concept of fully human adulthood.
(That’s in the posts that manage to be literate!)
This one is even worse. Sounds like a pre-adolescent broad not making good grades in middle school. I will translate it into English:
“You guys are immature meanies, you’re so hypocritical and immature, you just judge, judge, judge like the immature meanies you are, not like us Christians, and you suck big hairy donkey balls!”
Yeah, so what?
Nothing in the article says or implies that maturity is thinking you’re absolutely sufficient at everything and you mustn’t acknowledge your shortcomings.
I re-read it to see if it did [it didn't!] or whether you dreamed it up [you did!].
Try replying to the article, instead of imagining something and then replying to your own imagination.
It’s been mentioned upthread, but when teenagers follow this line of reasoning, it leads to under-age pregnancy. I take it you’re in favour of that?
And does this love, trust and respect work both ways? Should God do whatever you ask of him, just because you asked?
Someone said….“Your atheist friends, if your faith in Christ is correct, are going to the Hell God specifically built to keep them in.”
Chloe responds: “You need to be educated. The bible is a tricky book. I do not claim it to be the be all end all book of answers written by God. This is simply incorrect.”
If, by your own admission, “the Bible” is a “tricky book”, then how do you intend to prove to us that you possess the only correct Understanding of said “tricky” document, while insinuating that other self-professed adherents of said document have a proclivity to error, as in, when they claim said document to be the “inerrant word” of the Creator of the Universe….or, the “be all end all book of answers written by God”? BTW, if said document doesn’t qualify as the latter, then why should we bother with any of it? The few “poetic Truths” found therein certainly don’t require belief in the supernatural to uphold those “Truths”. “Love your neighbor”. Wow.
Continues….”Did you speak with God about this?”
Of course not. Did you?
Continues….”Because a lot of people want to know the truth about hell and would love to end some big debates…”
I couldn’t care less about ending any debates; I personally want to know the “facts” from any human being who claims to know about “hell”(and *how* they know), because the concept, as it is found in Christian doctrine, is the # 1 qualifier in my not believing that said doctrine is authored by any “ALL-powerful”, “ALL-loving” being…i.e..”God”. Please…”educate” us further.
Did you just put John MacArthur in the same “intellectual powerhouse” category as Lewis, Chesterton & Calvin?
It hurts just to contemplate such a reality. :)
Perhaps there is some need for chastisement but there is a good reason that a central teaching of The Christ is, “whosoever has done no wrong, cast the first stone” or Baha’u’llah, “magnify not the faults of others that your own faults may not appear great” because if it becomes the cornerstone of the educational process it will educate people including the ‘educator’ to become more petty, more aggressive, and thus to the weakness of our society.
Hi Owen,
Are you saying here that if chastisement becomes the cornerstone of the educational process, it will lead to pettiness. Or are you saying that if withholding judgement becomes the cornerstone of the educational process, it will lead to pettiness? I think you are saying the former but wasn’t sure due to the structure of the sentence.
I tend to agree that the structure of organized religion can prompt more responsible behavior in some individuals. It kinda all depends on the specifics of any given person and where he is starting from (and what the religion and its leaders teach.) I am starting to think few people actually follow “religion” but instead follow religious leaders, and whatever they are teaching at the moment.
Chloe, @boomslang: “the tricky book thing: the reason i say this is because you can take whatever you want from the bible.”
Thus, underscoring my point: The Bible – or any religiously revealed document – is *dependent* upon human interpretation..i.e..subjective.
Continues…”If you go in looking for a way to prove homosexuality is a sin… then you can.”
Yes, simply take the language therein at its face-value.
Continues…”The inverse is easily true as well.”
True – not as easily done, but yes – take the face-value language, and bend it, twist it, shoe-horn it to mean something else, or circumvent it, altogether.
Continues…”If you go into the bible looking to disprove it… then go for it. you can. especially with good rhetoric.”
I disagree that in pointing out philosophical/logical inconsistancies in a given philosophy – especially one that claims to have a monoply on “Truth” – that “good rhetoric” is required. A basic knowledge of science is all that’s required.
Continues…”The reason it cannot be the be all end all ect. for Christians is because we have adequately proved that we are sometimes not so good at interpreting it.”
And once again, underscoring my point, in that, for millions of Christians, the “Bible” is precisely what you insist it *is not*…i.e…a “be all; end all”.
Continues…”Which is understandable, considering that what American Christians are actually reading are pretty much always already interpretations of interpretations of… and on, when they read the bible. I do think it was ‘divinely inspired’ though.”
Really?..every single passage? Or, again, are fallible, prone-to-error human beings left to determine which passages are “literally” from the “Creator of the Universe”, and which passages are “poetic”, or just the embroidered ramblings of Bronze-aged man trying to make sense of the world around him?
Continues…”But mostly, the bible is a book of stories that teach us how to live.”
Are you suggesting that if it weren’t for your Bible, you wouldn’t know how to “live”? You couldn’t determine “ethical” behavior from “unethical”?? I really hope not.
Continues…”And it begs for some recognition of the context instead of picking out little verses here and there to back a point.”
As you know, or should know, Christians constantly extract verses “here and there to back a point”. Is that unacceptable, too?
Continues…”It is difficult to interpret. But bother with it, i will.”
I’ve already “bothered” with it, thanks, and found it severely wanting.
Continues….”Because it has got some amazing stuff in there. Like, eyewitness accounts. And i know you can say whatever you want about those being made up ect ect ect ect ect. But it’s what we have. And i really do think it’s holy.”
What on earth do you mean by, “it’s what we have”???? We “have” all sorts of philosophies that claim “Truth”. For instance, why don’t you believe the Book of Mormon “eyewitness accounts”? Why don’t you believe that *it* is “holy”?
Continues….”What I mean is that no one really knows the truth about hell, including me. But I do know that from what I know about Jesus, that I really don’t think he would send his creation to hell.”
Forgive me, but what you “think”, isn’t good enough, considering that millions of people “think” differently. This is why I rely on what *I* think. I think I cannot believe the Christian philosophy on “faith”, and/or, because someone tells me its “true”. To do so would require that I lie to myself. For me, intellectual honesty trumps “faith”..or “hope”…or “wish-thinking”.
Continues….”When i read one or two passages (w/out context) that contradict everything i know to be true about God, I don’t question God, I question my ability to understand or interpret what is written.”
Right, you hold yourself culpable if there is a question, rather than look at it from an objective standpoint, including, that it might not be the Truth it claims to be at all.
Continues…”Bottom line, it is often a little weird to have a Christian- atheist conversation about this because I didn’t reason my way into being a Christian, I have faith.”
If it is a matter of “faith”, then why try to “reason” with those who disagree with you? For instance, I fail to see why you bother with such things as suggesting that there’s a right and wrong way to “interpret” the Christian philosophy in the first place, that is, if it boils down to a matter of “faith”.
Continues…”We say, show me and i’ll believe, but God says, believe and i’ll show you.”
How convenient. So, you have to be committed, *in advance*(you have to take a doctrinal stance) that “God” is real, and then all of the sudden God’s existence becomes clear? Or is it, you take and interpret whatever happens *after* you make this committment that “God” is real, to be “evidence”? Hmmm…..
Continues….”And while I can understand why you might scoff and laugh and roll your eyes at this… it’s just the way it is. And there is no way of getting around it.”
Oh, but there *is* a way around it, and that is if this “God” would stop requiring that people believe in its existence on “faith”. You see, “God” can appear(just as it supposedly did to the “Twelve” and the 500 “brethren”), and we can still choose to reject its “Plan”.
“God”, appearing, doesn’t harm our “free will” one iota.
Grace,
I think it is very good advice … but also a little idealistic if that’s the extent of it (which I’m sure it isn’t). I’m an atheist dad who grew up a christian, my wife was born an atheist. We’ve been married almost 20 years. I want my children to understand what their bodies are going through in adolescence, and the pressures that hormones and peer groups are going to put on them. From personal experience I agree the the most satisfying intimacy comes about through a long-term commitment to another person. At the same time my children inhabit a world super-saturated with sexual messages and, quite frankly, in this environment such religious solutions as abstinence programs have proved woefully inadequate for protecting young people from either STDs or unwanted pregnancy. I don’t want my children sexually active early, but just in case I want them to know everything that might be valuable to them concerning sexuality, contraception, self-protection and so on. Of course I’d rather they were in caring, intimate relationships, but haven’t almost all of us had relationships which failed, which as a teenager we might have done almost anything to preserve? There’s little I can do to defend my children as they age against a sexual opportunist who might say all the right things and have all the wrong motives. (There were plenty of those in Church when I was a teenager). The key, to me, is respect. I tell my kids to respect themselves, their bodies and their sexuality, and show and demand that same respect from any partners. If the partner isn’t prepared to respect them, they’re not worth knowing. My religious upbringing kept me completely in the dark about sexuality–most of what I learned was a garbled mish-mash of information from friends and the occasional girlie magazine smuggled into school. As the hormones kicked in sex seemed the most enticing forbidden fruit in the garden. By contrast, my kids at twelve knew almost more about human sexuality than I did at twenty. My strong conviction is that the knowledge will empower them and hopefully they’ll be happy to take their time about getting physically involved with another person. It seems to be working so far.
My cousins are very religious Chloe. Their faith would put most believers to shame. One of them, a mother with three young children, was diagnosed with cancer last year. They prayed and prayed–around the clock, in rosters, through various churches, even had people praying through world-wide prayer networks. The cancer ravaged her and she died. Her husband had an emotional breakdown and ended up in hospital. The children are being cared for in three separate homes.
Now, you are right. I don’t believe in god. As far as I’m concerned any chair serves more use than the thing you pray to. From the start my cousin’s prognosis was terrible and her chance of survival almost nil. I knew that no amount of prayer would change that–and their energies would have been better spent making her final weeks as memorable as possible. The sad thing is that even in the face of such futility, they still cling on. Yes, yes… I know… it’s called faith (or naive stupidity depending on your point of view).
I know this is an extreme example. But my cousins had faith and their faith wasn’t rewarded. I also know all the explanations and justifications: God has a plan; who can know the mind of God?; in experiencing suffering we are bought closer to Christ; you’ll be made stronger through this test, and so on, and so on. In fairness to God, he did make someone’s leg half-an-inch longer at a healing meeting a couple of weeks later, so clearly miracles aren’t dead.
You keep your God, Chloe. I’ll take a chair any day.
“Yes, but the chair is hypothetical. God is not. ”
Please prove this through objective, verifiable evidence.
Thought that might get a rise out of you. Maybe I should of said John Piper. ;-)
Thank you for proving my point.
No, you proved mine. I mean that fully and sincerely.
You don’t have the mental capacity to understand what maturity is.
Innate ethics; not needing an outside authority; responsibility for self; not avoiding the hard work of having to think for oneself by imagining an omnipotent external authority who makes the rules for you so you don’t have to think; evaluating the world and learning values from your experience instead of turning your life over to the external authority.
I think the article put it beautifully, how Christianity encourages and *requires* stunted maturity by its rules.
It’s an easy cop-out for you to say “that’s SO judgmental!” *pout*
You say that like it’s a bad thing! Didn’t your kindergarten report card have a section to evaluate your ability to use judgment? Or were you supposed to have your self-esteem bolstered up, whether you earned it or not?
I found the in the article excellent good judgment based on excellent thinking and reasoning. YOU are immature to call it immature. I’m sincere: it evoked the image of a child on the playground saying, “You’re immature! So there!” It said nothing, proved nothing, supported nothing, accomplished nothing.
Christianity stunts developing into a fully human, human being. You just showed how incapable you are of even comprehending that.
Superb point.
I think Chloe cannot reply with any good argument that would support her claim on understanding this “tricky book”.
I think the “tricky book” needs to be entered as another charge against Jehovah in the blog “Jehovah’s Many Failures”.
“I re-read it to see if it did [it didn't!] or whether you dreamed it up [you did!].”
I suggest you re-read it again and figure out the point then. Price is setting up a fallacy that says that either we depend on God and are children, or we doing everything for ourselves and are grown-ups. Maybe Christians are more enlightened than what this article assumes and and actually embrace a dialectical method, both/and in this area of personal growth.
My humble point, your greatness, was that in fact that this fallacy is a bunch of crap and then I proceeded to give a couple of examples. My point wasn’t to assume a total self-sufficiency or nothing. It was to point out that in fact though we may be unable to do something, fix a car, we are still responsible as adults to do what we can, find a mechanic that can. Now if I go to the mechanic it doesn’t make me a child, but if I don’t and don’t fix it myself, it does make me childish because I assumed the problem would go away or I didn’t care if my car was ruined.
Now let us say a believer prays to God for strength to talk to their boss about a co-worker stealing, does that make them a child, no. If they prayed to God and hoped the situation fixed itself that would be childish. I’m not here to defend the “evidences” people use to show God’s work, my defense is that praying to God doesn’t negate maturity or responsibility.
I reread it again, and you are msiing the point.
It’s not a fallacy, and it can’t be reduced down to your narrow, black-and-white, either-or knee-jerk reaction (a better term than “thinking” for your reaction).
AND
Looks like you did indeed ASSume “total self-sufficiency”. It’s right there in your quote.
You’re lacking the mental capacity even to understand the kind of maturity he was referring to, so you will continue to make assumptions, continue to squeeze it into your narrow either-or view of life, and continue to miss the point.
Two things:
Your right I did miss something, I was attacking Daniel’s comment about the Price quote, my mistake. But the fallacy still resides, no matter how much you complain that it is not.
So we’re clear, Daniel claims that as Christians:
Either
1. We cast all of our cares on Jesus
Or
2. We take care of it ourselves
I’m not cramming into the either/or he has with the statement. Neither is it a knee jerk reaction, a knee jerk reaction is to use demeaning tones and arguments and not deal with the substance.
“Barry March 5: My point is that it is childish and prideful to think your sufficient within yourself for everything”
I could have been more clear with this statement, but I felt I cleared it up with the next post. My point is sufficiency to handle one’s problems shouldn’t preclude asking for help, when warranted.
Doing it ourselves and still praying about it isn’t anymore illogical than the example I gave of going to a mechanic to fix your car.
Your more recent post was somewhat more civil, your nastiness.
You corrected some of your own contradictions. Backpedaling and rethinking isn’t all bad. But your thinking and initial assumptions and your imagining what the article said still stand.
My impression that you are incapable of comprehending true fully human maturity still stands.
I apologize for being uncivil, but your posts that I’ve read on several blogs are more typically Menkenian so I felt you might appreciate some return sarcasm.
In all seriousness though, I’ve found some of your posts to have some insight, so I’m still waiting for you to show me how my simple assessment of what Daniel said is false. Instead all you’ve done is been dismissive, by calling my argument a simply an assumption. You’ve rightly called out John C on several posts because of his evasiveness in answering questions. I’m simply calling you to the same standard.
Chloe – you obviously only really care about the new testament and Jesus’ teachings. It’s convenient for you, and I see this all the time, to totally disregard the old testament – because let’s face it, how do you put into “context” this:
Isa. 63:3 “I will tread them in mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.”
You may read that and say, wow God really gets angry a lot. But wait! A God would have no emotions, no fears, no desires, no curiosity, no hunger right??? Why would an omnipotent being, for whom nothing is a challenge, have petty human emotions? hmmm..
oh and as far your comment: “But I do not believe the person of Jesus is made up. ” I beg to differ:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw
Chloe, @boomslang: “yeah duh. every book is dependent on human interpretation.”
But “every book” doesn’t claim to be the Absolute, Universal Truth. So, yeah….”duh”, indeed.
Continues…”….the bible is something that teaches us about the person of God so it’s not all about taking a little passage out and reading it as a command. The bible is not a long list of commands. and i am aware Christians do this, thank you. And it pisses me off.”
And I’m sure the way you interpret it “pisses” other “Christians” off. So, let’s see…..”Christians” disagree on what “the Bible says”. No astonishing disclosure there.
Continues….”I’m not getting into a where do morals come from debate with you because we are on the same side.”
No, actually, we’re not on the “same side”…. that is, if you believe the Bible is necessary in knowing “how to live”(paraphrased from a previous statement of yours).
Continues…”But the bible is not a book of rules. It teaches us how to live as followers of Christ.”
Notice that your previous claim about the Bible, i.e..”…shows us how to live”, and the more current claim, “teaches us how to live as followers of Christ”, are two entirely different claims. In any event, the latter is pointless to a nonbeliever such as myself, until/unless you can provide credible, objective evidence that people *need* to “follow Christ” to live a meaningful, productive, ethical life. If you aren’t claiming such a thing, then perhaps this whole discussion is pointless. Let me know.
Continues….”The bible is not trying to prove anything.”
Perhaps not, but many proponents of “the bible” *are* trying to prove something. Again, it boils down to personal(subjective) interpretation, which is why it’ll likely never get resolved. Again, this underscores my point, that even *if* there is Objective Truth in the bible’s pages, it will not likely be gleaned because of the subjective interpretation dilemma. You said it yourself—the bible’s contents can mean anything you “want it” to mean. Perhaps you don’t see that as very problematic, but I do.
Continues….”duh. the bible is not a history book and it’s not claiming evolution is wrong. ok???”
Frankly, your repeated use of the word “duh” isn’t helping your argument as much as you might believe it does, as millions of self-professed, bible-believing “Christians” would *disagree* with “Chloe” that, a) the bible is not a history book(or an accurate rendering of history), and b) That the bible’s “Creation” account allows for the Theory of Evolution.
Let me be perfectly clear: I am NOT accusing you of being a “fundamentalist”. I’m saying, *again*, that you have not illustrated (to me) that you are special and unique, in that you are exempt from human error, while all those who disagree with your interpretation have some sort of proclivity to human error. This is the hurdle, as far as I’m considered.
Continues….”like i said, i love darwin.”
::sigh::
But some think the work of “darwin” is actually the work of “Satan”. You don’t. Wonderful for you.
Continues….”This is not a church vs. science thing. WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE ( me AND you AND Jesus. He created it.).”
Existential fallacy.
Continues…”[the bible] does not claim a monopoly on truth because all truth that exists, God is a part of. God is the ultimate truth. It’s not your truth vs. his truth. There is only one truth. That’s what truth is.”
You’ve just made a distinction without a bit of difference. You “know” all of the above as “fact”, because “the Bible” says so.
Continues…”I did not one day open the bible and say… oh hey, this guy said this so it must be true. Because then I *would* believe that all these other books are ‘holy’. Like i said, the bible is not trying to prove anything.”
I didn’t ask you if, or what, “the bible” may or may not “prove”. I tried to make a point about “eyewitnesses” by analogy, one that was evidentally lost on you.
Let me try it another way—**are you saying that if you would have *first* picked up the Book of Mormon(before “the bible”), that you’d be a Mormon instead of Christian(because of *its* “eyewitness accounts”)? If not, *why* not? In other words—it seems as though you apply one standard to your chosen religious philosophy, and yet, a *different* standard to others when it comes to “eyewitnesses”. By all means, correct me if I’m wrong……but don’t forget to answer here**, above.
Continues…”It doesn’t make sense if you go into it believing that it’s bs.”
Right, it only “makes sense” if you believe, a priori, that it’s “Truth”, then everything falls into place, because with “faith”, anything/everthing is “possible”. Nothing spiritual required; only a willingness to believe.
Continues…”….intellectual honest[y] trumps faith to me too. But this is different. Period.”
Yes, it’s different because you’ve gone on record to say it’s a matter of “faith”, not logic.
Continues….”And that does not make me stupid. You can call me stupid just like i can call you stupid. And that’s our own opinions.”
I haven’t called you “stupid”, or anything else degrading. It seems you are paranoid, and also, a bit miffed that you have encountered people who don’t believe your metaphyscial, personal beliefs.
Continues….”I don’t know if you’re even reading what i write. the bible can be, if we could interpret it correctly. it’s not the bible’s fault, it’s human fault.”
I’m reading what you write just fine, and responding point-by-point, BTW. Moving on….
I AGREE that the problem is HUMAN INTERPRETATION. I cannot make it any clearer.
Now—which human being(s) do we trust to have gleaned the “Ultimate Truth”(your description) from the bible’s contents, and how do we *know* they are presumably exempt from human error?
Continues…..”And it’s not about the ‘afterlife’ (by that i mean when you die, being taken up to the clouds and getting wings or being thrown into the fires of hell). Anyway, what the bible ever really talks about concerning that is bringing the kingdom here. (heaven on earth, on earth as it is in heaven, Jesus coming BACK to judge the WORLD, not each person), And often, if it has ‘you’ passages about this, it was meant to be a you-collective. No one had personal bibles when the bible was first introduced. Again, following Christ is not something you do for you. It can be, but that is way missing the point if you believe in God and want him to show you stuff. By ‘have faith and i’ll show you,’ i mean way more. It’s not that you have faith and then God pops out in a puff of smoke and says guess what!? you were right! now you’re allowed to see me! here is some stuff for you. This makes me angry.”
Okay.
Continues….”But my God is real and i really want you to see this. I want you to know and experience this.”
Evidentally, you want nonbelievers to know “God is real” more so than “God”, itself. I find that fascinating(assuming “God” exists)
“it’s not a book of consistent rules”
Sorry, what? Millions of Christians believe it is exactly that. They believe it is the divine and perfect word of God.
Seriously Chloe, I think you are posting on the wrong blog. You clearly have an important insight into the bible that millions of your fellow Christians don’t have. You’d better get out there and explain about the “stories”–’cos those biblical literalists are really messing up the lives of lots of other people.
Of course humans would know what God would be like. We invented him!
Grace: “seek the support, and blessing of the church”
Why not seek the support and blessing of the pink unicorn church? (see my link above) I hope to someday start a small church in las vegas called “Our Lady of the Invisible Pink Unicorn Holy Church of Latter Day Humans” to marry couples as well as provide blessings and support (in the form of parting gifts) for them on their journey. I expect this church will grow as more Christian followers find the light of reason. We will have only one single prayer:
“Awareness is about unlearning”
Seek the support, and blessing of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
We have written records of His greatness – that proves he exists! It’s not a very “tricky book” to read, it’s just the truth.
I know in my artichoke heart that I have a personal relationship with him. I can feel the warm fuzzy feeling it gives me when I pray, and my cell phone isn’t even set on “vibrate”.
If we raise our al dente spirits to Him, He will cook us to full doneness. We will be washed in the tomato sauce of the Lamb, also known as His Meatball, or Mutton Chop.
Thou shalt have no other gods before him, because He created the earth 7,000 years ago, and all those other impostor gods came after him. Many of their impostor Bibles have plagiarized our Lord Spaghetti Monster’s Holy Book.
The Old Menu was the giving of the Law, and it said that slavery was OK.
Now FSM hs changed His mind, like those other impostor gods, and their fickle followers, and the New Menu preaches love.
The Holy Gas Bubble pleads for us in groanings too deep for words, and in the end days we shll enter the Dining Hall of heaven, and there will Beano gas for the sons of FSM. The daughters, like in those other fake religions, are not considered worth much.
*snort*
Yeah – she’s got it exactly reversed.
Time to see the nice men in the white coats.
jruth – very well spoken post. Imagine you’re on a bus traveling with 30 other young Christian children. All the window shades are drawn down so no one can see out the window – except for the preacher at the front of the bus.
As the bus travels the preacher stands at the front, looks out the window, then describes a stark desert with little vegetation and horrifying, evil creatures lurking around. If you don’t behave and do certain things these creatures will torture you forever.
You, being young and impressionable, and having never looked out the window yourself, cower in fear and do exactly what is instructed of you.
But then a kid near the back figures out how to open his window shade. He inches it up a crack and notices that its not a desert at all but a beautiful lush rain forest filled with many colorful birds and animals, rolling hills with rivers, blue sky and warm sun. That kid stands up and screams Wake up! Wake up! It’s not true!!! Everything the preacher is saying is a lie!! That kid is Daniel and many others that comment on this site from time to time.
“My prayer is that people here would not allow negative experiences with a counterfeit, or distortion to close their minds to a real life-giving relationship with God in Christ, and that everyone would remain open to at least the possiblity of God.”
I don’t have a closed mind to there not being a possibility that there is a god but with no evidence for and lots of evidence against any of the main-stream gods existing then it’s that naturally position not to believe. A more interesting question is are you open to the possibility that there is no god or indeed that there is a god but it’s not the Christian god — do you think we should remain open to at least the possibility of Zeus or is it only ‘closed’ minded not to believe in your god?
Your internal beliefs (what YOU DECIDE is real) and distortions and internal filters obviously make you incapable of comprehending something:
The process of learning, discovering cognitive dissonance, challenging one’s own beliefs, being open to new information, the gutsy strength to change one’s beliefs, and continuing to evaluate one’s beliefs by the effects (or mal-effects) on well-being, is NOT what you imply by “negative experiences”.
As if what happened to us is tragic or sad – YOUR highly distorted take on the process.
You equate this learning and changing with “negative experiences”, and they ain’t equal.
You just don’t get it.
You aren’t capable of getting it.
Sooooo….
You’re saying that morality is universal and comes from God. You say that Christianity gives you reasons to be good (because you love God) and to NOT do very bad things like rape.
Please explain the rapes that the Israelites do in the Old Testament as they commit genocide on people in the name of Yahweh.
More to the point, you love an evil god.
I try and explain that here:
http://unreasonablefaith.com/about/
Yeah Grace, how is not accepting a Christian God equate to not being open to possibilities? Are YOU open to the possibility of reincarnation, for instance?
Difference b/n me and you: I know my belief is something accepted as real, with uncertainty, subject to change with further information. It’s learning and changing. It’s NOT something I just *know* in my heart because I think I have a relationship with a ghostie in my head.
Referring to your equating things with no basis for in my post below:
Not buying a Christian God doesn’t equate to being closed to a few thousand OTHER possibilities. (As you apparently are.)
>What is so mature about doing something somebody asks you to do?
Colm I would consider it childish and a bit immature if you didn’t. Of course I am 40, I don’t remember how to be a child.
Michael, you know what kills me? All you “I once was a Christian for X amount of years” people. Quiters to sum it up in a word. COME ON!!!! yelling intended Daniel. I have never heard so much whining from a group of people in my life. My wife leftme, my dad abused me, my preacher ran off with my choir leader, the bible doesn’t make sense, I grew up in an extreme fundamentalist right wing Christian church. BOO FREAKIN HOO!!! DO you know how much bad crap goes on in Real Christians lives where the thought of quitting Christianity isn’t even fathomable??? I don’t either but I for one am a living example of at least one. I was left abandoned when I was 3 or 4 in a house by some relatives. Was a foster kid for 3 or 4 years after that. Sexually abused by men and women while I was there. Adopted when I was 7. Physically and emotionally abused til I left at 18. All by christian homes. Did I give up on God? NO!!! I grew stronger in Christ, I knew ther was a brighter future with him than without him. This kind of strength is not taught at the church or by any religion. It isgiven to you through Christ and by Him alone. Do I sound childish to you? Then maybe I am. I’m a child of God. The one true God. Not some paganist buddist god but the 1 Living GOD.
But childish and immature? Grow up you guys. Daniel and the rest of you so called “I was once a Christian but something weely weely bad happened” people are a joke and a mockery to Christianity. You all are the reason people supposedly turn. Compounded with the fact I don’t think ya’ll were ever really saved in the 1st place.
Do people actually TYPE y’all on purpose? Yes, it does sound just as rednecky when typed as when it’s said…
So Mike, where exactly do I say this “but something weely weely bad happened” that you accuse me of? Seriously. Where?
Can’t find it? Because that’s a lie. Don’t put words in my mouth in your attempt to convert the heathen UF readers.
I didn’t leave Christianity because of some bad experience. I left because it was intellectually bankrupt with no evidence for its supernatural claims.
There goes that nit-pickin again.
Hey D, I put you under the “I came from an extreme fundamentalist right wing church” group. You are only calling me a liar cause I called you out on your marriage quotes. Thats real mature D.
Now stop that. You know what we’re saying. The fact that the ancients lacked the knowledge that we have does not make them stupid. But it also doesn’t make them right, and we have to bear in mind the limitations they were under.
To put it another way, you don’t think less of people with no telescopes for thinking that the stars are just lights in the sky. But you don’t look to them for advice on astronomy, either.
CM, mature people don’t generally attack immature people. You do sound childish.
V, we meet again. We only know what we are told. They actually lived walked and talked with Him. Some stuff was watered down over the centuries. We only think and suppose. They lived it.
I apologize, Noah Webster was a Christain. The Merriams took over after his death.
I think we should follow the example of Peter Griffin and start the Church of the Fonz. Too dated? OK – the Church of Brangelina. Good head start because many people already worship them anyway. But the upside is that they won’t threaten to burn you for eternity if you don’t.
so your arguing that your’s is the one true faith because you have suffered evil but the all powerful all knowing all wish granting god you supposedly believe in DIDN’T grant you your prayer?
sure, makes perfect sense.
yes, many atheists where christians. yes many left there beliefs because of personal tragedy or pain.
so?
this detracts in no way from the fact that the claims of christianity are laughably wrong, that the moral precepts are flawed or in practice horrible, and that the god claim is so unlikely as to be a joke. thats simply the way things are. yes, human beings some times need to have false beliefs knocked out of them. yes, some times it requires something extreme to let go of the comfort blanket of religion. that doesn’t make the comfort blanket REAL. it’s the rare few Christian who loses there faith through purely logical reasoning. after all, only flawed reasoning could get you INTO religion (usually it is simply brain washing and emotional appeals), so why would you assume that only reasoning could get you out of it?
“the bible doesn’t make sense,[...] BOO FREAKIN HOO!!!”
Lol! Yes, that is a problem for many people.
The bible does make sense.