Jesus paid the price??

[Tod]

We often hear that Jesus "paid the price" for our sins so we wouldn't have to. Apparently, God just couldn't forgive us and declare no sacrifice is necessary, we are told, because that somehow violates his "infinite sense of justice" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). He absolutely demanded a sacrifice because his infinite sense of justice will allow NO COMPROMISE. But...

My debt: eternal damnation
Jesus paid: a few hours of torture, death, and resurrection from the dead after two days to rule in paradise.

That would be like me owing David a bajillion dollars, and him saying "I'll wipe the debt clean if Jane over here gives me a dollar and you worship Jane for the rest of your life." If a dollar will cover the debt, why can't I pay the dollar myself??? It seems like God made a HUGE compromise here letting Jesus off so easy! If what Jesus went through suffices, why is that not the punishment for sin and nonbelief, instead of eternal damnation?

Hmmm... I don't have an infinite sense of justice, but that doesn't seem very equitable to me! What's preferable: eternal damnation, possibly in fire or other continuous pain or being tortured for a few hours and being dead for a couple of days, after which you get to live in paradise for all eternity? This one seems easy to me: I'll take the latter please!!

So if Jesus paid our debt, why the hell is he not roasting in Hell forever and ever?? Indeed, does his sacrifice even indicate the absolute love, compassion, etc. it is supposed to represent? If I did something unpleasant that helped you avoid an unpleasant fate, but by doing so I was made the divine king of all Creation, would you really view me as sacrificing solely, or even primarily, for YOUR benefit??

I'm not sure I even understand what "infinite justice" would look like it, but this isn't even finite, basic justice: this is gross and incompotent injustice!

[Lisa0315]

We often hear that Jesus "paid the price" for our sins so we wouldn't have to. Apparently, God just couldn't forgive us and declare no sacrifice is necessary, we are told, because that somehow violates his "infinite sense of justice" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). He absolutely demanded a sacrifice because his infinite sense of justice will allow NO COMPROMISE. But...

My debt: eternal damnation
Jesus paid: a few hours of torture, death, and resurrection from the dead after two days to rule in paradise.

That would be like me owing David a bajillion dollars, and him saying "I'll wipe the debt clean if Jane over here gives me a dollar and you worship Jane for the rest of your life." If a dollar will cover the debt, why can't I pay the dollar myself??? It seems like God made a HUGE compromise here letting Jesus off so easy! If what Jesus went through suffices, why is that not the punishment for sin and nonbelief, instead of eternal damnation?

Hmmm... I don't have an infinite sense of justice, but that doesn't seem very equitable to me! What's preferable: eternal damnation, possibly in fire or other continuous pain or being tortured for a few hours and being dead for a couple of days, after which you get to live in paradise for all eternity? This one seems easy to me: I'll take the latter please!!

So if Jesus paid our debt, why the hell is he not roasting in Hell forever and ever?? Indeed, does his sacrifice even indicate the absolute love, compassion, etc. it is supposed to represent? If I did something unpleasant that helped you avoid an unpleasant fate, but by doing so I was made the divine king of all Creation, would you really view me as sacrificing solely, or even primarily, for YOUR benefit??

I'm not sure I even understand what "infinite justice" would look like it, but this isn't even finite, basic justice: this is gross and incompotent injustice!

Here is the equity:

On one side, you have the sin of Adam. On the other you have the obedience of Christ. Obedient unto death even.

There is much we do not know about the life of Christ, especially how much He knew and when He knew it. Did He know as a small child? Did He know after His Baptism? Did He know only at the latter part of His ministry?

It is the sin/obedience factor that causes the scales to balance. The blood of Christ represents the sacrifice of Christ, to give His innocent life for those who were not innocent.

Finally, you need to understand that *we* merit nothing. It is not exchanging a billion dollars for one dollar. Instead, it is more like a gift of a billion dollars, but you must sign a form at the bank office to assume ownership of that gift. Those who refuse to go down to the bank for whatever reason do not take ownership of the gift.

Lisa

[David B]

I think I'd better get some popcorn.

David

[Lisa0315]

I think I'd better get some popcorn.

David

Loving it! I have really missed these kinds of discussions.

Lisa

[Tod]

That really doesn't make a lot of sense, Lisa, with all due respect, for a variety of reasons. I'll stick with the most glaring: you are arguing that Jesus didn't pay for the debt, he just gave us the "money" to pay for the debt (by believing in him).

That might just make sense if believing in Jesus was the only part of the equation. However, God demanded Jesus also be sacrificed to atone for our sins; the only way that makes sense is if Jesus is paying our debt. He died for our sin: ergo he took the punishment so we wouldn't have to. He sacrificed with his crucifixion so we wouldn't have to sacrifice our eternal souls in hell. That's analogous to paying a debt any way you slice it.

Go back to my original title: Why have Christians claimed for centuries that Jesus "paid the price for our sins" (key word being PAID), which makes no sense with your explanation. Jesus didn't make money available, he PAID himself with his own "life," he just didn't pay nearly as long (and therefore nearly as much) as we are supposed to!

If his sacrifice WASN'T meant to take the place of our sacrifice (i.e. pay our debt), why on earth did he need to be sacrificed at all? I guess centuries of Christians have had it all wrong; if only you had been there to explain to them that Jesus didn't pay the price for us after all!

[David B]

A picture can be worth a lot of words.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2006/03/01/lent/

David

[Lisa0315]

That really doesn't make a lot of sense, Lisa, with all due respect, for a variety of reasons. I'll stick with the most glaring: you are arguing that Jesus didn't pay for the debt, he just gave us the "money" to pay for the debt (by believing in him).

That might just make sense if believing in Jesus was the only part of the equation. However, God demanded Jesus also be sacrificed to atone for our sins; the only way that makes sense is if Jesus is paying our debt. He died for our sin: ergo he took the punishment so we wouldn't have to. He sacrificed with his crucifixion so we wouldn't have to sacrifice our eternal souls in hell. That's analogous to paying a debt any way you slice it.

Go back to my original title: Why have Christians claimed for centuries that Jesus "paid the price for our sins" (key word being PAID), which makes no sense with your explanation. Jesus didn't make money available, he PAID himself with his own "life," he just didn't pay nearly as long (and therefore nearly as much) as we are supposed to!

If his sacrifice WASN'T meant to take the place of our sacrifice (i.e. pay our debt), why on earth did he need to be sacrificed at all? I guess centuries of Christians have had it all wrong; if only you had been there to explain to them that Jesus didn't pay the price for us after all!

Fair enough. I did not mean to evade your main point. I was trying to show you the equity.

I do not know why blood was required, but it was. From the first moment after Adam sinned, blood was required. It began with the death of an animal to cover the nakedness of Adam. Then, a system of blood sacrifice was implemented. Why? I cannot tell you. I would guess that blood is a symbol of life and death.

However, if you think of it as a spotless lamb being precious in the eyes of God, and that blood is acceptable as a temporary price, then, how much more would the blood of the Son of God be? The Prince of Heaven shed His blood willingly for us.

How much blood was enough? Only God could say, and according to Scripture, the blood of Christ was enough.

It all goes back to what Paul said: Something to the effect of, by one man's sin, we were all condemned, and by one man's obedience, we were all saved.

The blood in of itself, I believe is symbolic. It is the willing and obedient giving of a pure and innocent life for the sake of others that was important.

As for punishment...Jesus did not just bear the pain of crucifixion, and the sting of death. Rather, He endured the sin of the world from the beginning of time to the end.

For one moment, imagine yourself as a pedophile, a child murderer, a rapist, the worst possible thing you can imagine, something, you could never, ever in a hundred million years actually do.

When the wrath of God was poured out on Christ upon the cross, what that means is that all sin was put on Christ as if He had committed those things. Pure and Holy, Jesus saw, felt, and endured the hell of being those things. On the cross, He was innocent, but He was a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, a warmonger, good grief, He was George Bush even. Do you get what I am saying? It is like mixing water and oil, or blocking out the sun, or some impossible thing that cannot be imagined, but it happened.

Worse even than the sin upon Him, Father and Son had always been One. For one split moment, when Jesus cried out, God turned His face away from Christ. So, not only did Jesus feel the evil and disease of all of the world's sin, but for the first time, He was without His Father. He was alone. Hell may or may not be a true place of fire and burning, but it most definitely is an eternal separation from God. One moment of separation from His Father was equal to an eternity of separation for the rest of humanity.

You say that it is not enough, but you must see it from the mind of God and the heart of Christ. Something so good, so pure, so innocent suddenly is plunged into filth and evil.

Lisa

[Tod]

I always find it terribly interesting when apologists argue contradictory things. Framing the question as I have, we now see Lisa trying to demonstrate that it can't be seen as Jesus paying a debt; no, no, he didn't pay our debt, he somehow provided us with a "gift" we could use to pay our debt ourselves.

However, when the question is "why doesn't god just forgive sin instead of requiring eternal damnation," they inevitably argue about God's sense of Justice and how the debt had to be paid. Here are a few of myriad examples I found with an extremely quick search:

Christ's sacrifice was God's special plan to cleanse us from our sins and reconcile us to Himself (Col. 1:22). If we refuse to put our faith in Christ, there is no "Plan B". By rejecting Christ we reject God (Luke 10:16) and cannot see eternal life (Jn. 3:36). If we will not allow Christ to pay the price for our sins, we must pay that price ourselves.

Found at http://www.rj-anderson.com/docs/lovinggod.html

The answer is that God so loved us, that he has abandoned Jesus (sent him to hell) to pay the price of our rebellion, so that God could in his love accept us, and yet maintain his justice (and not say that our offence does not matter).

found at http://www.christiansinthemedia.com/Start-ultimate-relationship/Answers-to-common-questions.html

So there’s the dilemma: God wants to forgive us our sins as a creditor would forgive his debtor. But if He does that, He’s left with the debt, and in that case, that means He has to suffer death.

God can’t die. But a human can.

If God became a human, then He could die and the debt would be absorbed. The books would be balanced all around. There would be both justice (because the books would be fairly balanced) and mercy (because we didn’t have to die).

at http://www.revelife.com/revelife/673115094/why-couldnt-god-just-forgive-us/

God in the ultimate act of mercy and love sent his perfect sinless Son to die our death. (Pay our penalty for sin).

Found at http://www.gracepoints.com/articles/gpsend.php

[DMB]

So many religions have a concept of a god or gods requiring sacrifice. I've always supposed that the idea of Jesus as a human sacrifice was easy to take on board because at the time he is supposed to have lived and died, the Jews were still making sacrifices of animals in the temple. One of Jesus's titles is Lamb of God.

If you live in a society where burnt offerings and so on are no longer the norm, the idea of the killing of an animal or person as a sacrifice becomes more alien and so requires more justification. As for eating Jesus...

[Pendaric]

You do know that Adam didn't actually exist Lisa? I thought you'd pretty much accepted evolution over millions of years over at TR?

[Lisa0315]

You do know that Adam didn't actually exist Lisa? I thought you'd pretty much accepted evolution over millions of years over at TR?

Whoa. I believe in evolution, yes. That does not mean there was no fall of man.

Lisa

[DMB]

Whoa. I believe in evolution, yes. That does not mean there was no fall of man.

Lisa

So what do you think is meant by the "fall of Man"?

[Pendaric]

Whoa. I believe in evolution, yes. That does not mean there was no fall of man.

Lisa

It pretty much does, at least in the traditional sense.

Evolution requires millions of years, and has mankind as we know it around for hundreds of thousands of years (the E&O boys can give better timelines).

It certainly doesn't tie in with a Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago.

[Tod]

I do not know why blood was required, but it was. From the first moment after Adam sinned, blood was required. It began with the death of an animal to cover the nakedness of Adam. Then, a system of blood sacrifice was implemented. Why? I cannot tell you. I would guess that blood is a symbol of life and death.

So it doesn't even make sense to you, in other words.

However, if you think of it as a spotless lamb being precious in the eyes of God, and that blood is acceptable as a temporary price, then, how much more would the blood of the Son of God be? The Prince of Heaven shed His blood willingly for us.

How much blood was enough? Only God could say, and according to Scripture, the blood of Christ was enough.

It isn't BLOOD we are talking about here Lisa, it is eternal damnation! We DO know what God expects in payment: eternal damnation. Jesus didn't do that, indeed he went through a veritable cakewalk in comparison, ergo he didn't sacrifice for our sins in any meaningful way.

As for punishment...Jesus did not just bear the pain of crucifixion, and the sting of death. Rather, He endured the sin of the world from the beginning of time to the end.

For one moment, imagine yourself as a pedophile, a child murderer, a rapist, the worst possible thing you can imagine, something, you could never, ever in a hundred million years actually do.

When the wrath of God was poured out on Christ upon the cross, what that means is that all sin was put on Christ as if He had committed those things. Pure and Holy, Jesus saw, felt, and endured the hell of being those things. On the cross, He was innocent, but He was a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, a warmonger, good grief, He was George Bush even. Do you get what I am saying? It is like mixing water and oil, or blocking out the sun, or some impossible thing that cannot be imagined, but it happened.

You're kidding me right? You would honestly rather suffer for eternity with no possibility of reprieve or parole rather than to temporarily realize what it would be like to be the most heinous people ever; not even BE those people, but simply understand what it is like to be them??

Let's see: eternal suffering on one hand or a few hours of knowing what it feels like to be a child molester, serial killer, etc. Hmmm... Well, I'm a rational person, so I think I have to go with the latter option, AGAIN.

There is absolutely no way you can make Jesus' "suffering" equal what ours is supposed to be, but it is very amusing watching you try.

Worse even than the sin upon Him, Father and Son had always been One. For one split moment, when Jesus cried out, God turned His face away from Christ. So, not only did Jesus feel the evil and disease of all of the world's sin, but for the first time, He was without His Father. He was alone. Hell may or may not be a true place of fire and burning, but it most definitely is an eternal separation from God. One moment of separation from His Father was equal to an eternity of separation for the rest of humanity.

You say that it is not enough, but you must see it from the mind of God and the heart of Christ. Something so good, so pure, so innocent suddenly is plunged into filth and evil.

Poor widdle guy, he has to endure all that for a few hours and then get to be god-king of all that exist after those few hours are over, and all I have to endure is eternal suffering forever and ever. Wow, I didn't realize how good us sinners had it compared to what Jesus had to endure; you really showed me the light here, Lisa.

[Lisa0315]

I always find it terribly interesting when apologists argue contradictory things. Framing the question as I have, we now see Lisa trying to demonstrate that it can't be seen as Jesus paying a debt; no, no, he didn't pay our debt, he somehow provided us with a "gift" we could use to pay our debt ourselves.

However, when the question is "why doesn't god just forgive sin instead of requiring eternal damnation," they inevitably argue about God's sense of Justice and how the debt had to be paid. Here are a few of myriad examples I found with an extremely quick search:

Christ's sacrifice was God's special plan to cleanse us from our sins and reconcile us to Himself (Col. 1:22). If we refuse to put our faith in Christ, there is no "Plan B". By rejecting Christ we reject God (Luke 10:16) and cannot see eternal life (Jn. 3:36). If we will not allow Christ to pay the price for our sins, we must pay that price ourselves.

Found at http://www.rj-anderson.com/docs/lovinggod.html

The answer is that God so loved us, that he has abandoned Jesus (sent him to hell) to pay the price of our rebellion, so that God could in his love accept us, and yet maintain his justice (and not say that our offence does not matter).

So there’s the dilemma: God wants to forgive us our sins as a creditor would forgive his debtor. But if He does that, He’s left with the debt, and in that case, that means He has to suffer death.

God can’t die. But a human can.

If God became a human, then He could die and the debt would be absorbed. The books would be balanced all around. There would be both justice (because the books would be fairly balanced) and mercy (because we didn’t have to die).

at http://www.revelife.com/revelife/673115094/why-couldnt-god-just-forgive-us/

God in the ultimate act of mercy and love sent his perfect sinless Son to die our death. (Pay our penalty for sin).

Found at http://www.gracepoints.com/articles/gpsend.php

Don't do that. If you need me to clarify, just say so. Do not accuse me of evading etc.

Anyway, there is more than one analogy that is used when speaking of salvation. They are different ways of saying the same thing.

The penalty of sin is death. It is not just physical death but we are out of communion with our Holy Father. Were you to come face to face with God, rather than arguing with Him, you would suddenly understand why the loss of this relationship was so harmful to you. On sight, you would love Him. On sight, you would fall to your knees before Him, not because He made you, but because you would finally understand that missing part of you, the longing and desire that nothing on earth can possibly fill.

Hell, then, is eternal separation from God, and it will come AFTER having such an encounter. You will not hate God in hell. You will long for Him.

The blood...again, I cannot explain a mystery. I do not know WHY blood was required, only that it was. I do not know if one drop would have been sufficient or if the entire content of Christ's body had to be drained to be "enough". All I know is that the blood that was shed was judged as "enough".

It was enough because it was precious to God. You cannot understand how precious if you do not believe in God, or know God. I have tried to describe for you the depth of the sacrifice, but it is nearly impossbile. I used blocking out the sun or mixing water with oil, something that is absolutely impossible. The death of Christ, the blood shed, was on that level.

If God loves his creation, and grieves over its death, then, how much more would God grieve over His only Son? So, the blood, why it was required, I cannot tell you, but I can attempt to express why it was enough in the eyes of God to cover every sin that has and will be committed.

The blood was given. The blood was accepted. Every man, woman, and child were "saved" at that moment upon the cross. The ONLY requirement from us is to believe. The door of prison has been unlocked. We only have to walk though and out. Many refuse to believe that there is a prison, much less that God has opened the lock on it.

Give me a minute to do a word search on punishment in the original Hebrew and Greek. That may give us some insight.

As for why God could not just simply forgive us...I believe the answer is pretty complex, but I think the clue can be found in the book of Job. In many ways, man is but a pawn in a much larger game between God and Satan, i.e. Good vs Evil. We are not insignificant to God, but there is something bigger, a cosmic law at stake so to speak.

Think on this for a moment...There was a war in Heaven and Lucifer was cast out. Yet, Lucifer was used by God as the catalyst for the rest of it. Why bring Lucifer into it at all? Why not cast out Lucifer into hell and be done with it, leaving us all alone? We even have the curious prophecy that things are not complete even after the second return of Christ. Satan will be loosed for a little season.

Why? The ONLY answer has to be that there is some great thing at stake in the universe, and that war in Heaven was more of a battle than the whole war.

Put all of that together, and this scene on Earth is nothing more than that. One scene in a much greater play. Scientist proved that the universe was not centered around the earth. I think we are going to find out that our little scene here on earth involving sin, salvation, and victory, are not the only things going on either.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I do not know why blood was required, but it was. From the first moment after Adam sinned, blood was required. It began with the death of an animal to cover the nakedness of Adam. Then, a system of blood sacrifice was implemented. Why? I cannot tell you. I would guess that blood is a symbol of life and death.

So it doesn't even make sense to you, in other words.

However, if you think of it as a spotless lamb being precious in the eyes of God, and that blood is acceptable as a temporary price, then, how much more would the blood of the Son of God be? The Prince of Heaven shed His blood willingly for us.

How much blood was enough? Only God could say, and according to Scripture, the blood of Christ was enough.

It isn't BLOOD we are talking about here Lisa, it is eternal damnation! We DO know what God expects in payment: eternal damnation. Jesus didn't do that, indeed he went through a veritable cakewalk in comparison, ergo he didn't sacrifice for our sins in any meaningful way.

As for punishment...Jesus did not just bear the pain of crucifixion, and the sting of death. Rather, He endured the sin of the world from the beginning of time to the end.

For one moment, imagine yourself as a pedophile, a child murderer, a rapist, the worst possible thing you can imagine, something, you could never, ever in a hundred million years actually do.

When the wrath of God was poured out on Christ upon the cross, what that means is that all sin was put on Christ as if He had committed those things. Pure and Holy, Jesus saw, felt, and endured the hell of being those things. On the cross, He was innocent, but He was a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, a warmonger, good grief, He was George Bush even. Do you get what I am saying? It is like mixing water and oil, or blocking out the sun, or some impossible thing that cannot be imagined, but it happened.

You're kidding me right? You would honestly rather suffer for eternity with no possibility of reprieve or parole rather than to temporarily realize what it would be like to be the most heinous people ever; not even BE those people, but simply understand what it is like to be them??

Let's see: eternal suffering on one hand or a few hours of knowing what it feels like to be a child molester, serial killer, etc. Hmmm... Well, I'm a rational person, so I think I have to go with the latter option, AGAIN.

There is absolutely no way you can make Jesus' "suffering" equal what ours is supposed to be, but it is very amusing watching you try.

Worse even than the sin upon Him, Father and Son had always been One. For one split moment, when Jesus cried out, God turned His face away from Christ. So, not only did Jesus feel the evil and disease of all of the world's sin, but for the first time, He was without His Father. He was alone. Hell may or may not be a true place of fire and burning, but it most definitely is an eternal separation from God. One moment of separation from His Father was equal to an eternity of separation for the rest of humanity.

You say that it is not enough, but you must see it from the mind of God and the heart of Christ. Something so good, so pure, so innocent suddenly is plunged into filth and evil.

Poor widdle guy, he has to endure all that for a few hours and then get to be god-king of all that exist after those few hours are over, and all I have to endure is eternal suffering forever and ever. Wow, I didn't realize how good us sinners had it compared to what Jesus had to endure; you really showed me the light here, Lisa.

*sigh* Sarcasm noted. Is it necessary? I don't think so, but you do what you have to do.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

It pretty much does, at least in the traditional sense.

Evolution requires millions of years, and has mankind as we know it around for hundreds of thousands of years (the E&O boys can give better timelines).

It certainly doesn't tie in with a Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago.

Absolutely. It does not tie into a traditional 6000 YEC. Again, it is more likely to be a parable of creation rather than a literal account.

Lisa

[Gooch's Dad]

Wow, this is a good start to things. I enjoy reading such discussions, and kudos to Lisa for hanging in there on the theist side.

The vicarious atonement was my biggest problem with Christianity when I was a Christian, and is probably the one issue that led to me deconverting. I find it to be pretty much entirely irrational, for the reasons that Tod and others have pointed out.

[Brother Daniel]

The blood...again, I cannot explain a mystery. I do not know WHY blood was required, only that it was.
Either it makes sense, or it doesn't. "I cannot explain a mystery" looks like just another way of saying "I know perfectly well that my position is indefensible".
As for why God could not just simply forgive us...I believe the answer is pretty complex, but I think the clue can be found in the book of Job. In many ways, man is but a pawn in a much larger game between God and Satan, i.e. Good vs Evil. We are not insignificant to God, but there is something bigger, a cosmic law at stake so to speak.

Think on this for a moment...There was a war in Heaven and Lucifer was cast out. Yet, Lucifer was used by God as the catalyst for the rest of it. Why bring Lucifer into it at all? Why not cast out Lucifer into hell and be done with it, leaving us all alone? We even have the curious prophecy that things are not complete even after the second return of Christ. Satan will be loosed for a little season.

Why? The ONLY answer has to be that there is some great thing at stake in the universe, and that war in Heaven was more of a battle than the whole war.
Again, these speculations look practically indistinguishable from a fancy way of admitting that your position makes no sense whatsoever. You're not giving an answer, you're just casting about wildly for a place that an answer might, possibly, be found.

[Lisa0315]

Either it makes sense, or it doesn't. "I cannot explain a mystery" looks like just another way of saying "I know perfectly well that my position is indefensible".

Again, these speculations look practically indistinguishable from a fancy way of admitting that your position makes no sense whatsoever. You're not giving an answer, you're just casting about wildly for a place that an answer might, possibly, be found.

Or...you simply cannot admit that there are a million possiblities. Something unknown does not mean it is unknowable, true?

Lisa

[Tod]

*sigh* Sarcasm noted. Is it necessary? I don't think so, but you do what you have to do.

Lisa

Come on Lisa, you're coming at me with this argument that for Jesus a mere second of separation from God is like an eternal separation from God (you're apparent definition of hell), so that makes it equal. Problem is, you're pulling this stuff right out of your rear.

Show me the biblical support for this ridiculous argument, let alone a logical one. While you're employing logic, please explain how Jesus, who is by definition of the illogical trinity (another thread) an equal representation of God as the "Father," could be separated from himself even for a moment??

If you give me that, maybe I won't be so exasperated with what you present that I strike back with sarcasm. I don't see how what you said requires a serious response. You're basically arguing that Jesus having to spent a few hours experiencing what it is like to be all kinds of bad guys (and being separated from God for a mere moment, or how that even makes sense) is as bad as eternal suffering. No sane human would prefer ETERNAL suffering to any amount of finite suffering, no matter how bad it is. You imagine the worse suffering you can, and I promise you that I would rather do that for a few hours than even be BORED for eternity, never mind suffer for eternity!

[Brother Daniel]

Something unknown does not mean it is unknowable, true?
Certainly. But now we're dealing with some vague guesswork that your chosen worldview might eventually make sense, given some extra knowledge that no humans have. I can't see any justification for basing your life on that.

Human reasoning, by its very nature, can only lead to things that are humanly understandable. To play the "mystery" card is to admit that you're dealing with stuff that you haven't reached by reason. Worse than that, playing the "mystery" card makes a mockery of the whole idea of belief. Something that cannot be understood must perforce be misunderstood! So it can't even be a matter of divine revelation. It's monstrous to imagine that there's a requirement to believe in something that does not make sense to you.

I was brought up Christian. I'm familiar with the arguments. I couldn't make sense of the atonement, as a child, but I believed it all anyway. After all, all the grownup Christians acted as if it made sense to them. "You'll understand when you're older, dear." But no real explanation was ever forthcoming. This kind of thing has to have an expiry date.

[Brother Daniel]

It's worth noting, also, that our legal systems long ago managed to figure out the difference between a crime and a tort, between punishment and restitution. Why can't God figure this out? Paying a debt for someone else, voluntarily, makes sense; but taking a punishment for someone else simply doesn't. Punishing the innocent in place of the guilty simply adds another wrong to the picture. There is no possible way that such a thing could satisfy any meaningful notion of "justice". It's simply barbaric.

[Lisa0315]

Certainly. But now we're dealing with some vague guesswork that your chosen worldview might eventually make sense, given some extra knowledge that no humans have. I can't see any justification for basing your life on that.

Human reasoning, by its very nature, can only lead to things that are humanly understandable. To play the "mystery" card is to admit that you're dealing with stuff that you haven't reached by reason. Worse than that, playing the "mystery" card makes a mockery of the whole idea of belief. Something that cannot be understood must perforce be misunderstood! So it can't even be a matter of divine revelation. It's monstrous to imagine that there's a requirement to believe in something that does not make sense to you.

I was brought up Christian. I'm familiar with the arguments. I couldn't make sense of the atonement, as a child, but I believed it all anyway. After all, all the grownup Christians acted as if it made sense to them. "You'll understand when you're older, dear." But no real explanation was ever forthcoming. This kind of thing has to have an expiry date.

Well, of course. That is what faith is for. If it is all a bunch of hooey, well shame on the faithful.

I do understand, and it bothers me considerably. I don't understand the REQUIREMENT part myself especially in light of the fact that NO ONE can live up to that requirement. Those who think they do are delusional. Those who know they don't but continue to try are prolly as OCD as I am.

Here is the thing, and why I introduced myself to Tod as an apologist, but not a very good one. I am not a very good one because I cannot simply say, "Goddidit" or "TheBibleSaysSo". I can explain why a good fundie believes what a good fundie believe, but I cannot help but to go beyond the innate boundaries of fundie doctrine.

A fundie should say, "God knows and that is good enough for me". I question it all. Somehow, my belief remains despite the questions, and that is because at some point I realized that the possibilities are endless.

Let me tell you a true story. Recently, for my lab science, I had to do an experiment. My partner (my son) was "God", and I was the "scientist". We had a checkerboard, checkers of both colors, and my son had different patterns. I had to guess at those patterns. He was allowed to say, "Allowed or Not Allowed" until I figured out the pattern.

What occurred to me during this experiment is that we really start out knowing nothing. Experience teaches us about the world around us (the checker board), and testing that world helps us to find answers.

Yet, no matter how many patterns I figured out, there were still an infinite number of other possibilities and new patterns to be discovered.

My point? Keep an open mind. One cannot say with any assurance there IS a god, nor can one say the inverse. One can say, "I have experienced things in my life which cause me to believe that something greater is at work." One can say, "My life has taught me to test all things, and to discard anything that is random or untestable."

Are either of these wrong? In a way, that last one is far more limiting than the first. What if the belief in God is another step in the evolutionary process, but that process IS guided by God? What IF the decreasing number of believers is part of that evolutionary process, and as man progresses, God moves away from us more and more. What if we NEEDED a God 2000 years ago in order for us to be where we are today. What if in another five thousand years, we discover that there truly was a benevolent creator, but whom has since moved on to less advanced creations?

Do you see what I am getting at? I believe on many levels and for many different reasons. That does not make me irrational or rejecting logic. Instead, I am far more open to the wonders and possibilities than someone who utterly rejects the idea of a guding force in the universe.

So, my rant, my point of it, at least is this: I wonder. I don't know. I am curious. I postulate. I am playing a guessing game using a checkerboard. To me, atheists, have cast aside the checkerboard, and only want to see the page of patterns that are written down. There is the evidence! But, you missed all the other possiblities.

Lisa

[Tod]

Here is the thing, and why I introduced myself to Tod as an apologist, but not a very good one. I am not a very good one because I cannot simply say, "Goddidit" or "TheBibleSaysSo". I can explain why a good fundie believes what a good fundie believe, but I cannot help but to go beyond the innate boundaries of fundie doctrine.

Problem is Lisa, even "thebiblesaysso" is better than just making stuff up on the fly like you're doing. At least the average apologist plays within the bounds of what the Bible says; you just have an anything goes approach.

I find it terribly ironic that you admonish us atheists for allegedly not being open-minded, but yet you demonstrate how truly your mind is closed offering the ridiculous rationalization to protect your faith that you treated me to earlier. If you were half as open-minded as you say, you'd find the issue I presented at least slightly troubling, instead of believing it is solved by making up stuff that doesn't make sense logically and doesn't even have biblical support!

The reason many of us atheists are atheists is BECAUSE we were open-minded. I, like brother Daniel, was raised Christian. Like brother Daniel, I found this simplistic, nonsensical worldview irrational and unsatisfying, so I opened my mind to the other possibilities. I went from rather fundamentalist to liberal Christian and from there to New Age and into deism. I finally realized that they were all nonsensical and UNNECESSARY to explain the world, and realized that most of what made me cling to supernaturalism in general was wishful thinking more than sound logic. After a decade of raw atheism, I realized I did have what was analogous to a spiritual side, so I have since formed a worldview best described as naturalistic pantheism.

Do you have any idea how wide open your mind has to be to go from fundy Christian to atheist, visiting everything from Buddhism to Wicca in the process?

And you come at us with "a moment of separation from God is an eternity to Jesus so it's equal to eternal suffering in hell," claiming in almost the same breath how open-minded you are with the implication that we are not.

Fascinating...

[Lisa0315]

Come on Lisa, you're coming at me with this argument that for Jesus a mere second of separation from God is like an eternal separation from God (you're apparent definition of hell), so that makes it equal. Problem is, you're pulling this stuff right out of your rear.

Show me the biblical support for this ridiculous argument, let alone a logical one. While you're employing logic, please explain how Jesus, who is by definition of the illogical trinity (another thread) an equal representation of God as the "Father," could be separated from himself even for a moment??

If you give me that, maybe I won't be so exasperated with what you present that I strike back with sarcasm. I don't see how what you said requires a serious response. You're basically arguing that Jesus having to spent a few hours experiencing what it is like to be all kinds of bad guys (and being separated from God for a mere moment, or how that even makes sense) is as bad as eternal suffering. No sane human would prefer ETERNAL suffering to any amount of finite suffering, no matter how bad it is. You imagine the worse suffering you can, and I promise you that I would rather do that for a few hours than even be BORED for eternity, never mind suffer for eternity!

Do you understand you are asking questions that no theologian has been able to concretely discern? I told you I was not a good apologist. I am an honest one though. I will discuss this endlessly as long as you are polite. Bottom line though is I don't know, and neither do you.

I am often wrong, but I will never be accused of not trying...

The Trinity...How did God The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are ONE, somehow be split from each other. Were they 3 unique entities for even a moment in time?

Again, all I can do is speculate...

The answer again, we only have clues. The clues are that God is a triune being, or so we are told. Actually, the trinity is not even in Scripture. It is implied in the doctrine, and supported by things like the Hebrew use of the plural when referring to God. Not that they write or say His Name. Anyway, another clue is that Jesus said that He and the Father were One. The last clue, even more mysterious, is that every believer is imbued with the Holy Spirit. One Spirit, a gazillion people over 2000 years. David said that God was everywhere even in hell or something to that effect.

So, it has to do with omnipresence, and there must be another omni-trait that we have not defined. So, here is my speculation, and for all of this, understand that speculation is what much of Christian doctrine is based upon, similar to Science, actually. Science has physical evidence to back up its speculations, but sometimes, the evidence is misleading. (Speaking of Black Matter and the upset that science took upon its discovery)

So, I postulate, that it is similar to mind, emotions, and conscience. Without those three combined, you have an animal or vegetable. It is still life. A sociopath with no conscience is still life, and is a human being, but that intrinsic thing that truly makes us human are when these three are combined. With me so far?

So, if God the Father is something like the mind, and Christ is something like the emotions, and the Holy Spirit is something like the conscience, but not confined in a human body, it can be all three in one, OR parts of it can be poured into a vessel, a human body, such as Christ became. He was fully man, and fully God. He was perhaps a human being who loved perfectly. The mind of God and the conscience of God were still unified and could still harmonize with the vessel of Christ.

So that would be my stab in the dark at the Trinity, and how it was possible for the Father and Spirit to leave Christ on the cross, and how difficult it might have been for that to occur.

Now, as to the four hours on the cross and the three days in Hell compared to an eternity...the best I can do on that is this...How do you feel about the murder and rape of a newborn baby compared to the murder and rape of a woman around age 30? As bad as both are, there is something inside all of us that cannot really handle the idea of a baby being brutalized. Somehow the innocence and defenselessness of that baby tears at us, and its suffering seems worse.

So, Christ was that innocent, and the torture of such purity for four hours, WAS the equivalent of an eternity for a sinner.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Here is the thing, and why I introduced myself to Tod as an apologist, but not a very good one. I am not a very good one because I cannot simply say, "Goddidit" or "TheBibleSaysSo". I can explain why a good fundie believes what a good fundie believe, but I cannot help but to go beyond the innate boundaries of fundie doctrine.

Problem is Lisa, even "thebiblesaysso" is better than just making stuff up on the fly like you're doing. At least the average apologist plays within the bounds of what the Bible says; you just have an anything goes approach.

I find it terribly ironic that you admonish us atheists for allegedly not being open-minded, but yet you demonstrate how truly your mind is closed offering the ridiculous rationalization to protect your faith that you treated me to earlier. If you were half as open-minded as you say, you'd find the issue I presented at least slightly troubling, instead of believing it is solved by making up stuff that doesn't make sense logically and doesn't even have biblical support!

The reason many of us atheists are atheists is BECAUSE we were open-minded. I, like brother Daniel, was raised Christian. Like brother Daniel, I found this simplistic, nonsensical worldview irrational and unsatisfying, so I opened my mind to the other possibilities. I went from rather fundamentalist to liberal Christian and from there to New Age and into deism. I finally realized that they were all nonsensical and UNNECESSARY to explain the world, and realized that most of what made me cling to supernaturalism in general was wishful thinking more than sound logic. After a decade of raw atheism, I realized I did have what was analogous to a spiritual side, so I have since formed a worldview best described as naturalistic pantheism.

Do you have any idea how wide open your mind has to be to go from fundy Christian to atheist, visiting everything from Buddhism to Wicca in the process?

And you come at us with "a moment of separation from God is an eternity to Jesus so it's equal to eternal suffering in hell," claiming in almost the same breath how open-minded you are with the implication that we are not.

Fascinating...

You do know that I am not a fundie, and only barely a believer, right? I have not been to church in nearly a year now. You do understand that I am speaking fundie speak coupled with my own speculations for answers that no one has ever been able to give me too?

I don't think your frustration is with me as much as it is with past experience. I think you are projecting those experiences onto me and expecting certain things from me. You have encountered hard headed Christians who got mad and insulted the more questions you asked. I am not. I understand the questions. I just do not have the answers. No one does. My case in a nutshell is that just because no one can answer the questions does not mean there are no answers.

If I say right off the bat that it is speculation, then, it is not as if I am saying that you should believe in what I say, merely, that I am offering a possibility that you may not have considered.

Lisa

[Tod]

You do know that I am not a fundie, and only barely a believer, right?

Why must somebody who is "barely a believer" engage in such illogical mental gymnastics to answer the problem I raised?? When I was "barely a believer," I didn't engage in ANY mental gymnastics to explain problems, because I "barely" believed it any way, and by the time you get to "barely believe" you pretty much don't find any part of it so necessary to preserve that you turn your logic centers off!

I have not been to church in nearly a year now. You do understand that I am speaking fundie speak coupled with my own speculations for answers that no one has ever been able to give me too?

I frankly am not even sure what that means.

I don't think your frustration is with me as much as it is with past experience. I think you are projecting those experiences onto me and expecting certain things from me. You have encountered hard headed Christians who got mad and insulted the more questions you asked. I am not.

That's inventive: throw out a version of the ole "you must be reacting to bad experiences with religion" speculation. If I got a penny every third time an apologist said that to me I'd be a very rich man. Leave the psychoanalysis to Freud, he was so much better at it than you apologists. For the record, and David can vouch for this, I have debated countless Christians with countless reactions. From Roger who was ever cordial yet eternally illogical to John who made me look like the paragon of patience: I've debated all kinds, all stripes, and you are but one of literally hundreds and perhaps even thousands.

What frustrates me, if you'd allow me to speak for myself in the context of my own personal history, it is the total disregard for all that is logical that is shown by defenders of the faith that bothers me.

What also frustrates me is when they tell themselves I must have had a bad experience with religion or religious people in the past as a defense mechanism to make them feel better and keep them from seeing the obvious truth in looming in front of them: that they're argument didn't stand up to scrutiny, so it must be a problem with my personality, and not their argument.

What really, really frustrates me is when they say or imply I'm closed-minded while they demonstrate their own closed-mindedness by desperately clinging to anything they can conjure together, no matter what intellectual sacrifices it requires, to explain what is so obviously flawed from head to toe. That's called hypocrisy, and it not only frustrates me, but another famous historical figure I can't recall at the moment.

I understand the questions. I just do not have the answers. No one does. My case in a nutshell is that just because no one can answer the questions does not mean there are no answers.

It would be different if it was only a case of unanswered questions; what we have in Christianity and all religions to one degree or another is that which is illogical. There is a difference between the unknown and the illogical: a HUGE difference.

So you don't have the answers, but you will have blind faith in ONE answer because that is what an open-minded person would do, right? I always thought that blind faith without evidence was the hallmark of the closed-minded, but what do I know?

It's kinda like the whole blood thing above: you pretty much admit it doesn't make sense to you, but DESPITE that you will blindly believe it any way. Where is this vast, open space you claim is your mind??

If I say right off the bat that it is speculation, then, it is not as if I am saying that you should believe in what I say, merely, that I am offering a possibility that you may not have considered.

I'd prefer to consider logical or empirical arguments, and in the absence of that AT LEAST biblically based arguments.

[Barbarian]

Do you understand you are asking questions that no theologian has been able to concretely discern?The troubling aspect is that some of those questions are fundamental ones, variants of "If god wants the world to be in a certain way, why isn't the world that way?"

To whom has Jesus paid the price, who was the one unwilling to release humanity from some terrible fate before he got his payment? Who made the rules making such a payment necessary? If physical laws preventing us from doing certain things (flying by flapping our arms, for one) aren't considered interfering with our free will, and God does not want us to break his commandments, why aren't the commandments physical laws, making it physically impossible to sin without interfering with our free will? Does god intervene in individual events or allows nature take its course? Etc.

These are basic questions, not of the arcane category like how many kinds of energeia were there in Jesus, and if not even these can be answered, then theology has no worthy answers.

[Ray Moscow]

Fair enough. I did not mean to evade your main point. I was trying to show you the equity.


A very bad afternoon, however full of pain, could hardly "equal" all the sin and evil that humanity has supposedly piled up over the millennia.

Jesus didn't even stay dead very long.

Sorry, Lisa, that no longer makes sense to me at all. It just a remnant of the old "blood to please gods" religion that humanity should have grown out of by now.

[Brother Daniel]

Do you understand you are asking questions that no theologian has been able to concretely discern?
But these questions are not just little details to iron out. They're CENTRAL. If you have to cast about with wild speculations about how the CENTRAL issues of Christianity work, and even the expert theologians haven't been able to put it together, then that simply demonstrates that it's all make-believe.
I am often wrong, but I will never be accused of not trying...
Trying to do what, though? Trying to find justifications for what you're committed to believing? That's backwards, Lisa. You're starting with your conclusion and trying to make it work. Instead, you should start with the evidence and go where it leads you.

[Joykins]

So if Jesus paid our debt, why the hell is he not roasting in Hell forever and ever??

Oh, didn't you hear, he broke out and took a bunch of people with him. Awesomest jailbreak ever.

I don't think Christian theology rises and falls on blood sacrifice, although it was obviously meaningful back in the day when you propriated the angry gods with libations and a blood sacrifice.

[Brother Daniel]

In traditional Christianity, and in the actual Christianity of (I think) most serious Christians today, it has everything to do with blood sacrifice.

It seems to me that you're talking about fancy-schmancy nouveau theology about which the vast majority of Christians probably have no more clue than I do.

I'd love to hear more about it, but maybe it deserves a new thread?

[Joykins]

The models of atonement as listed by Wikipedia (which is as good a summary as I need here):

Ransom
Christus Victor
Satisfaction
Substitution
Governmental
Moral influence
Scapegoating

Blood sacrifice falls squarely in the satisfaction camp.

Some of the alternatives, such as Christus Victor, are very old actually.

[Brother Daniel]

It seems to fall equally squarely in the scapegoating camp and the substitution camp, and even the ransom camp (allowing for the traditional confusion between punishment and payment).

Point taken, though. :)

[Joykins]

The difference between substitution (on one hand) and ransom and scapegoating (on the other hand) is who is "satisfied" by the sacrifice. In substitution it is God; in Ransom, it is Satan, in Scapegoating it is people.

[Lisa0315]

*Lisa thanks God for Joykins* :D

[Brother Daniel]

So then, Joykins, which one of these theories makes sense to you? You seem to be disavowing half of them.

[Joykins]

So then, Joykins, which one of these theories makes sense to you? You seem to be disavowing half of them.

Christus Victor and moral influence resonate the most with me.

I don't think I'm disavowing the theories so much as-- I see the alternative theories as ways of making the atonement accessible to those with varying worldviews. Penal substitution/satisfaction should resonate with people who already have a worldview that includes "but of COURSE you offer blood sacrifice to God/the gods"--this would include Temple Judaism and many contemporaneous pagan traditions. To modern people, blood sacrifice is not considered a usual way of establishing a human relationship to the divine and therefore I wouldn't expect it to resonate strongly in most modern people.

In fact modern people who use it sometimes end up sounding a little strange because the for us whole concept of blood sacrifice is kind of a backstory to explain the atonement metaphor/theory. We've never hauled a heifer to the block and had it butchered and burnt a bit so the smoke could be wafted up to God--we have no idea what that's like let alone how much it would cost.

Why would God require blood? He made it after all and could theoretically call it all in like some kind of celestial vampire if he wanted to. Or maybe it was the only way to get it through the skulls of relatively primitive pastoral people that reconciliation with God may involve giving up something of value, because it was the best way they could emphasize that they really meant it this time? I don't know...

[Brother Daniel]

Hmmm. So Jesus's sacrifice was all about God reinforcing crazy primitive ideas about blood sacrifice in order to teach (indirectly) some obscure lesson, on the nature of which we are forced to speculate?

(Kind of like the way Jesus later flew up into the sky (before disappearing into heaven), in order to reinforce primitive cosmology? After all, we wouldn't want 1st-century people suspecting that heaven is not actually located in the physical "up" direction.)

[Joykins]

Hmmm. So Jesus's sacrifice was all about God reinforcing crazy primitive ideas about blood sacrifice in order to teach (indirectly) some obscure lesson, on the nature of which we are forced to speculate?

No, Jesus's sacrifice (at least, in the satisfaction theory) was all about how crazy primitive ideas about blood sacrifice were unnecessary (or, no longer necessary), because any bloodthirst God might have had, he satisfied with his own self. The Old Testament itself is ambivalent about the value of sacrifices.

(Kind of like the way Jesus later flew up into the sky (before disappearing into heaven), in order to reinforce primitive cosmology? After all, we wouldn't want 1st-century people suspecting that heaven is not actually located in the physical "up" direction.)

No.

[Ray Moscow]

The OT might be "ambivalent" about blood sacrifices, but it has God requiring them nonetheless.

It really is the basis of the Christian message, even though it makes modern Christians uncomfortable for obvious reasons (in that it makes no moral sense).

[Brother Daniel]

No, Jesus's sacrifice (at least, in the satisfaction theory) was all about how crazy primitive ideas about blood sacrifice were unnecessary (or, no longer necessary), because any bloodthirst God might have had, he satisfied with his own self.
As I said, this simply reinforces the blood sacrifice idea.

So explain again how it is that Christian theology does not depend on blood sacrifice?
The Old Testament itself is ambivalent about the value of sacrifices.
Sure, some of the later prophets weren't so keen. Not sure of the relevance of this observation, though. (See Ray's response.)

[Ray Moscow]

To be fair, there are Christian theologies and doctrines that don't depend on the bloody sacrifice idea. I'm just saying that the central and most commonly cited ones do. (As does the Bible itself, repeatedly.)

[Joykins]

As I said, this simply reinforces the blood sacrifice idea.

So explain again how it is that Christian theology does not depend on blood sacrifice?

Sure, some of the later prophets weren't so keen. Not sure of the relevance of this observation, though. (See Ray's response.)


Hos. 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

You're telling me you don't see this as an attempt to move beyond barbarism?

[Joykins]

To be fair, there are Christian theologies and doctrines that don't depend on the bloody sacrifice idea. I'm just saying that the central and most commonly cited ones do.

And I'm saying I'm not surprised it doesn't work because modern people don't see blood sacrifice as part of their culture or worldview.

[Ray Moscow]

I always kind of liked the Eastern (Orthodox) Christian idea of the soul gradually being transformed into Christlikeness -- deified, if you will.

But church is largely about being "washed in the blood of the Lamb".

[Joykins]

I always kind of liked the Eastern (Orthodox) Christian idea of the soul gradually being transformed into Christlikeness -- deified, if you will.

Theosis, yes. It's similar to Wesleyan views about sanctification IIRC.

But church is largely about being "washed in the blood of the Lamb".

Some very much more so than others.

[Brother Daniel]

You're telling me you don't see this as an attempt to move beyond barbarism?
An attempt, sure. Not a very successful one, if Christian tradition can be taken as any indication. But poor Hosea had a lot of prior baggage to fight against, so I can't blame him for that.

ETA: To elaborate on my comment on Christian tradition: There's all the difference in the world between "God's not really into sacrifice" (as in Hosea) and "God's totally into sacrifice, but don't worry about it, because all the necessary sacrificing has been done already" (as in most of Christian tradition).

[Ray Moscow]

I think we see a lot of attempted reform in the prophets, where they speak for God to say "What I really meant was this," and even "I never said that [even though in the Torah, I did]!"

It's easier if one remembers that when "God" speaks, it's really various writers putting words in God's mouth to back up their theology, politics, or both.

[diana]

Hi, Lisa.

I don't think we've met, but it's inconsequential. (Hello! I'm another poster on this bulletin board! :)) I've read your discussion with Tod with a great deal of interest. I understand your frustration, as well as Tod's.

In my opinion (and I clash a bit with Tod here), anyone who says "Goddidit" or "because the bible says so" doesn't qualify as an "apologist" at all. An apologist is "a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution," and the aforementioned answers don't pretend to present an argument; they are designed, rather, to stop all logical consideration of the question. You must believe or not, PERIOD. (Needless to say, they aren't terribly convincing to anyone who managed to reach maturity sans religious indoctrination.) The clutch of Christians I come from are not apologists at all, for example. If you question the existence of God, they got nothin'.

You're at least trying, which is honest (and it does make you an apologist, at least; being a good apologist comes with study and practice). You're putting yourself out there and taking that chance. I respect the hell out of that.

You made a couple of comments I'd like to remark upon:

Let me tell you a true story. Recently, for my lab science, I had to do an experiment. My partner (my son) was "God", and I was the "scientist". We had a checkerboard, checkers of both colors, and my son had different patterns. I had to guess at those patterns. He was allowed to say, "Allowed or Not Allowed" until I figured out the pattern.

What occurred to me during this experiment is that we really start out knowing nothing. Experience teaches us about the world around us (the checker board), and testing that world helps us to find answers.

Yet, no matter how many patterns I figured out, there were still an infinite number of other possibilities and new patterns to be discovered.

My point? Keep an open mind. One cannot say with any assurance there IS a god, nor can one say the inverse.This is perhaps a nitpick, but people say one or the other all the time. You mean, I think, that we can't prove it one way or another, which is true.

One can say, "I have experienced things in my life which cause me to believe that something greater is at work."In which case, I'm keen to hear details. As a matter of fact, I always ask for details when someone says something like this. Most people, I've found, cannot actually provide such details when asked. Those who do--so far, to a man--clearly feel ridiculous relating the "miracle" which changed their minds. Why do you suppose this is?

One can say, "My life has taught me to test all things, and to discard anything that is random or untestable."Let's replace "discard" with "question," and I'm with you. I find garden fairies random and untestable, for instance. I haven't entirely discarded them, but at the same time, I find no reason to believe in them. Does my position regarding garden fairies strike you as reasonable?

Are either of these wrong? In a way, that last one is far more limiting than the first.Yes. The last one is far more limiting than the first. Does it exclude the possibility of the first? Not the way I ask the question (which, I wager, is the way the typical atheist would). But does it limit the number of things I will lend credence to? Betcherass it does.

I want the number of things I will simply believe in limited. I want them limited by logic, for starters, and...that's enough to preclude any religion I've heard of yet. I don't want to be the idiot on the nightly news saying aliens have landed when the government was just testing a new top secret aircraft. I don't want to be the imbecile at the Bigfoot convention screaming that Bigfoot exists because no one has yet proven he doesn't. I don't want to be the uneducated sucker who sends her life savings to Ethiopia, expecting to collect $3M from a long-lost trust fund. I want to limit what I believe in, and I'm not ashamed of that fact. Logic is only one of my limits, but I'd have to say it's the most important one. Do you have any limits of your own? If so, what are they?

What if the belief in God is another step in the evolutionary process, but that process IS guided by God? What IF the decreasing number of believers is part of that evolutionary process, and as man progresses, God moves away from us more and more. What if we NEEDED a God 2000 years ago in order for us to be where we are today. What if in another five thousand years, we discover that there truly was a benevolent creator, but whom has since moved on to less advanced creations?As soon as the concept of God makes sense, I'll address these questions. Meanwhile, though...I must say, you appear to be grasping at straws. While we're on the "what ifs," what if there is nothing more? What the biblical Satan is in fact God and the creature tagged "God" in that book is in fact Satan--and you will be punished for worshiping the evil one? (And I admit, yes, Satan seems far more admirable than God ever did.) If you're worshiping the God of the Bible, then you must believe that might makes right (because what he does throughout the old testament certainly isn't moral). What if the only thing you'll be tested on is your intellectual honesty regarding any religion?

Maybe you really believe. I doubt it, though. You talk like someone who is clinging to a hope. You talk like someone who is clinging to Pascal's Wager. What if's aren't a basis upon which to bet your life (and possibly your soul), which reminds me of the biggest "what if" you face: what if you have the wrong god altogether? (IOWs, how did you choose this one? What made you reject all the rest?)

Do you see what I am getting at? I believe on many levels and for many different reasons. That does not make me irrational or rejecting logic.What levels do you believe on, though? Your string of "what ifs"? Those don't seem based in logic at all.

Instead, I am far more open to the wonders and possibilities than someone who utterly rejects the idea of a guding force in the universe.You misunderstand us.

So, my rant, my point of it, at least is this: I wonder. I don't know. I am curious. I postulate. I am playing a guessing game using a checkerboard. To me, atheists, have cast aside the checkerboard, and only want to see the page of patterns that are written down. There is the evidence! But, you missed all the other possiblities.This atheist (like most, I imagine, who started out religious), wanted to believe in God. That's right. I wanted to. I just couldn't convince myself that any of it made sense (remember the logic thing). Interestingly, I note that much of it doesn't make sense to you, either. I couldn't believe in what didn't make sense. Maybe I'm a mutant, but I'm intellectually incapable of simply pushing the "I believe" button. How can you?

Have I missed all the other possibilities? Nah. I see them out there. I also see that none of them have anything to substantiate them.

d

[His Noodly Appendage]

Lisa:

You say that we merit nothing, in a context where 'something' means 'not being tortured with fire for eternity in a realm of infinite suffering'.

Think about that for a second.

You are saying that every shred of suffering that every human has ever experienced was good and right and proper. That all of it was deserved - that we actually merit far, far worse, and that any less that we manage to escape with is actually an injustice. The judge is letting us off the main sentence - not because he ought to, but just because he wants to. He's actually really quite corrupt and abusing his power in the perversion of justice, in that way.

So, a toddler who had her face burned off in an accident had it coming.

You're saying that every callous, sadistic, evil, or depraved act everyone ever committed on anyone else is vigilante justice. It's the equivalent of cellmates giving that paedophile a good and proper beating before the rigged system lets them off scot free. It doesn't matter what anyone's done; even a newborn baby deserves infinitely worse than could possibly be done to them in an entire lifetime of really zealous torture. Just pick a target - it's all good.

You're saying that your god has no compassion and no tolerance, at all. That there's no suffering so great nor offense so trivial that he can turn around and say "I don't care what he did - he doesn't deserve that"

Fuck's sake, Lise. Even the very worst humans imaginable draw that line somewhere. How is it that even they are better, kinder people than your god?

[Lisa0315]

Hi, Lisa.

I don't think we've met, but it's inconsequential. (Hello! I'm another poster on this bulletin board! :)) I've read your discussion with Tod with a great deal of interest. I understand your frustration, as well as Tod's.

In my opinion (and I clash a bit with Tod here), anyone who says "Goddidit" or "because the bible says so" doesn't qualify as an "apologist" at all. An apologist is "a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution," and the aforementioned answers don't pretend to present an argument; they are designed, rather, to stop all logical consideration of the question. You must believe or not, PERIOD. (Needless to say, they aren't terribly convincing to anyone who managed to reach maturity sans religious indoctrination.) The clutch of Christians I come from are not apologists at all, for example. If you question the existence of God, they got nothin'.

You're at least trying, which is honest (and it does make you an apologist, at least; being a good apologist comes with study and practice). You're putting yourself out there and taking that chance. I respect the hell out of that.

You made a couple of comments I'd like to remark upon:

This is perhaps a nitpick, but people say one or the other all the time. You mean, I think, that we can't prove it one way or another, which is true.

In which case, I'm keen to hear details. As a matter of fact, I always ask for details when someone says something like this. Most people, I've found, cannot actually provide such details when asked. Those who do--so far, to a man--clearly feel ridiculous relating the "miracle" which changed their minds. Why do you suppose this is?

Let's replace "discard" with "question," and I'm with you. I find garden fairies random and untestable, for instance. I haven't entirely discarded them, but at the same time, I find no reason to believe in them. Does my position regarding garden fairies strike you as reasonable?

Yes. The last one is far more limiting than the first. Does it exclude the possibility of the first? Not the way I ask the question (which, I wager, is the way the typical atheist would). But does it limit the number of things I will lend credence to? Betcherass it does.

I want the number of things I will simply believe in limited. I want them limited by logic, for starters, and...that's enough to preclude any religion I've heard of yet. I don't want to be the idiot on the nightly news saying aliens have landed when the government was just testing a new top secret aircraft. I don't want to be the imbecile at the Bigfoot convention screaming that Bigfoot exists because no one has yet proven he doesn't. I don't want to be the uneducated sucker who sends her life savings to Ethiopia, expecting to collect $3M from a long-lost trust fund. I want to limit what I believe in, and I'm not ashamed of that fact. Logic is only one of my limits, but I'd have to say it's the most important one. Do you have any limits of your own? If so, what are they?

As soon as the concept of God makes sense, I'll address these questions. Meanwhile, though...I must say, you appear to be grasping at straws. While we're on the "what ifs," what if there is nothing more? What the biblical Satan is in fact God and the creature tagged "God" in that book is in fact Satan--and you will be punished for worshiping the evil one? (And I admit, yes, Satan seems far more admirable than God ever did.) If you're worshiping the God of the Bible, then you must believe that might makes right (because what he does throughout the old testament certainly isn't moral). What if the only thing you'll be tested on is your intellectual honesty regarding any religion?

Maybe you really believe. I doubt it, though. You talk like someone who is clinging to a hope. You talk like someone who is clinging to Pascal's Wager. What if's aren't a basis upon which to bet your life (and possibly your soul), which reminds me of the biggest "what if" you face: what if you have the wrong god altogether? (IOWs, how did you choose this one? What made you reject all the rest?)

What levels do you believe on, though? Your string of "what ifs"? Those don't seem based in logic at all.

You misunderstand us.

This atheist (like most, I imagine, who started out religious), wanted to believe in God. That's right. I wanted to. I just couldn't convince myself that any of it made sense (remember the logic thing). Interestingly, I note that much of it doesn't make sense to you, either. I couldn't believe in what didn't make sense. Maybe I'm a mutant, but I'm intellectually incapable of simply pushing the "I believe" button. How can you?

Have I missed all the other possibilities? Nah. I see them out there. I also see that none of them have anything to substantiate them.

d

You are the kind of "opposition" that I truly appreciate. You have made many points and countered my arguments with respect and without an ounce of derision in your tone. You have no idea how much that means to me.

You are right about a lot of things. My belief is shaky at best. Whatever faith I had, if I ever had it, seems to be gone. My indoctrination is just about all I have left now. Couple that with Pure O on the OCD scale, and I suppose you can see why I simply cannot throw it all away.

I guess in a nutshell, I believe because I am afraid not to. Not a nice way to live, and not even an ounce of glory to God in that. If there is a God, and if He is the God I have been taught to believe in, He doesn't want that kind of belief, nor does He want my fear. Awe? Yes. Fear? No.

Chemical inbalance, I cannot help, and I simply cannot overcome it despite pretty strong meds. The counseling for Scrupulosity is practically non-existant, and even if it were available, my OCD would not allow me to believe that fundie God is not who God really is.

I have said I am not a good apologist, but I think you are more right when you say I am not an apologist at all. I am more of someone who simply explains a point of view. I cannot prove a thing and I am not even trying to. I am simply trying to answer the question of "Why", and much of that is pure speculation much like the checker experiment. I am guessing.

Experience? I had something of a supernatural experience prior to my conversion. It could have been a mini stroke for all I know. At the time, I truly believed my experience was from God.

The things that have happened since my conversion have been so terrible that it is hard not to be angry at God, if God is who fundies define Him as. Since my departure from fundamentalism, as in quitting church, and not even trying to be "Christian" anymore, my life has improved 1000% in very material ways. My mental state is much better as well.

I am sure my "What If's" are more to convince myself than anyone else. I want God to be real. I just do not want Him to be fundie God. I cannot for the reasons mentioned previously completely rule out the possibility that it is indeed all true. If it is, I suppose I am fucked. If it is, we all are.

There is a part of me that truly loves God. There is a part of me that *shudders to say it* hates Him. I want Jesus to be real and who He says. I do not want OT wrathful fundie God to be real. I want God to love the whole world. I do not want people writhing in hell because they were simply unable to believe. Worse, I do not want people in hell because ONLY THOSE DRAWN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT will be saved. It sounds as if there was a game of Eeeny-Meeny-Miney-Moe being played.

I am so afraid that fundie God is real. I am so afraid that Jesus, the Lover of My Soul is not. I am so afraid that people are born gay and God is going to punish them for acting on it. I am so afraid that I will get in on a technicality, (OSAS) and others will not because they did not speak the words or have an "experience".

I do "apologetics" in a weak sense because I enjoy the challenge. It does not mean that I do not see the obvious weakness and holes in my arguments.

Does that make sense?

Lisa

[His Noodly Appendage]

Here's a thought:

You don't subscribe to Fundie God's ethics, as they don't correspond even slightly to human concepts of right/wrong/good/evil/deserve/justice/etc.

So, instead of using words like 'good' and 'evil' in the context of Fundie God's ethics, try substituting some different ones.

After all, if Fundie God used 'dead cat' to mean 'tomato', and 'strontium 90' to mean 'olive oil', and other such idiosyncracies, you'd look pretty bloody silly posting his recipe collection without a translation.

The same thing happens when you say that people 'deserve' hell. That's not the word you're looking for.

I hazard to guess that you don't think that we 'merit nothing'. I bet that when it comes down to brass tacks, you think we deserve a fair go - but that the Power That Be disagrees.

How would you write about the policies of an oppressive government?

[Lisa0315]

Here's a thought:

You don't subscribe to Fundie God's ethics, as they don't correspond even slightly to human concepts of right/wrong/good/evil/deserve/justice/etc.

So, instead of using words like 'good' and 'evil' in the context of Fundie God's ethics, try substituting some different ones.

After all, if Fundie God used 'dead cat' to mean 'tomato', and 'strontium 90' to mean 'olive oil', and other such idiosyncracies, you'd look pretty bloody silly posting his recipe collection without a translation.

The same thing happens when you say that people 'deserve' hell. That's not the word you're looking for.

I hazard to guess that you don't think that we 'merit nothing'. I bet that when it comes down to brass tacks, you think we deserve a fair go - but that the Power That Be disagrees.

How would you write about the policies of an oppressive government?

Yeah, but there is no chance to overthrow this One if He is truly what He says He is. See how the therapy will not work for me. My mind will ALWAYS figure out a way where the authority and power of God supercede all concepts of good and evil.

My only way out is to become a Judas, but that would be stupid considering that I BELIEVE that God wins in the end.

Lisa

[His Noodly Appendage]

Well, a fly stands no chance to overthrow the one pulling the wings off it, but that doesn't mean it has to approve. No matter how outgunned, a slave need not excuse slavery. In fact, for him to do so would be quite inexcusable.

Might can't make right - it can only make it moot.

[diana]

You are the kind of "opposition" that I truly appreciate. You have made many points and countered my arguments with respect and without an ounce of derision in your tone. You have no idea how much that means to me.I have some idea, I think. Back when I was lambasting Christians (on IIDB--and yes, I projected many judgments and beliefs like mad, as I was working my way through a lifetime of pain), I also posted on a Christian board where I was appalled at the presumptuous, insulting comments they could make to me without the moderator saying a word. It was a lesson, and I'm ashamed to admit I learned it slowly. So, sincerely...thanks! :)

You are right about a lot of things. My belief is shaky at best. Whatever faith I had, if I ever had it, seems to be gone. My indoctrination is just about all I have left now. Couple that with Pure O on the OCD scale, and I suppose you can see why I simply cannot throw it all away.Even without the "O," I know it's hard.

I asked several questions in my previous post. A couple of them were really important to me. If you don't mind, I'd like to repeat them for your consideration:

1. Logic is only one of my limits, but I'd have to say it's the most important one. Do you have any limits of your own? If so, what are they?

2. What if you have the wrong god altogether? (IOWs, how did you choose this one? What made you reject all the rest?)

I guess in a nutshell, I believe because I am afraid not to.Yes. Perfectly natural. A story:

I told a good friend of mine, Dana, that I'd become an atheist but I was still afraid of hell. I didn't understand why, but the fear was clearly there. Dana was confused. She's a believer. She said, "Why be afraid of hell if you don't believe in God? That makes no sense!"

And it doesn't. However, the fact remains that humans fear punishment more than they anticipate rewards. The "punishment" part of any structure will remain (in the human brain) longer than the "reward" one. This is a very common phenomenon. It doesn't mean the punishment structure exists; it only means you fear it. Emotions follow the intellect, but slowly.

Chemical inbalance, I cannot help, and I simply cannot overcome it despite pretty strong meds. The counseling for Scrupulosity is practically non-existant, and even if it were available, my OCD would not allow me to believe that fundie God is not who God really is.What a pity! There are so many more reasonable approaches to deism--some of which may truly resonate with you.

I have said I am not a good apologist, but I think you are more right when you say I am not an apologist at all.Actually, I was saying you are. You aren't very good at it, but that's because you yourself are searching. This is a good thing, though.

Trust the man who seeks the truth; doubt the man who finds it.

Experience? I had something of a supernatural experience prior to my conversion. It could have been a mini stroke for all I know. At the time, I truly believed my experience was from God.Like I said, I always ask. Care to share?

The things that have happened since my conversion have been so terrible that it is hard not to be angry at God, if God is who fundies define Him as. Since my departure from fundamentalism, as in quitting church, and not even trying to be "Christian" anymore, my life has improved 1000% in very material ways. My mental state is much better as well.Preach it! I was fundy. Preacher's kid. The bible was inspired, literal, and infallible. Just giving yourself permission to question (and expecting real answers to those questions) is freeing and immeasurably improves your life.

At the very least, consider leaving fundamentalism. It's indefensible. But I think you know that already. This is one of the reasons you're so torn.

I am sure my "What If's" are more to convince myself than anyone else. I want God to be real. I just do not want Him to be fundie God. I cannot for the reasons mentioned previously completely rule out the possibility that it is indeed all true. If it is, I suppose I am fucked. If it is, we all are.Oh, now. I wanted God to be real, too. I think many of us did. Many of us simply trusted that he was real. But see...the desire to believe is reason to doubt.

I do "apologetics" in a weak sense because I enjoy the challenge. It does not mean that I do not see the obvious weakness and holes in my arguments.Really? I think you do apologetics because you yourself want the answers.

Does that make sense?Yes.

d

[Joykins]

Lisa, I don't know if this would help you but it sure helped me.

I sat down and tried to identify what I truly believed--about ethics, about the supernatural, everything, quite separate from what I'd been *taught* about Christian theology, but what I actually really believed. This involved wrestling with some of the issues our friends here have brought up, and evaluating whether these were important to what I believed or not.

Then I had to see if Christianity still had something for me and if it would be a good fit for my beliefs. I believe it did and does, but those things which kept me in the faith are not a lot of things that seem to drive fundamentalists and my approach is not a fundamentalist one.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Are you using 'believe' to mean 'think is factually accurate' (eg: "I believe in tennis") , or 'support the principle' (eg: "I believe in corporal punishment")?

If the former, then if not through what you were taught, where do you get your information?

[Brother Daniel]

My belief is shaky at best. Whatever faith I had, if I ever had it, seems to be gone. My indoctrination is just about all I have left now. Couple that with Pure O on the OCD scale, and I suppose you can see why I simply cannot throw it all away.

I guess in a nutshell, I believe because I am afraid not to. Not a nice way to live, and not even an ounce of glory to God in that. If there is a God, and if He is the God I have been taught to believe in, He doesn't want that kind of belief, nor does He want my fear. Awe? Yes. Fear? No.

Chemical inbalance, I cannot help, and I simply cannot overcome it despite pretty strong meds. The counseling for Scrupulosity is practically non-existant, and even if it were available, my OCD would not allow me to believe that fundie God is not who God really is.
I'm trying to interpret this. It sounds like you simultaneously believe and don't believe. It's clear that you believe -- since you say so explicitly -- but at the same time you're standing outside your belief and pointing at it, in terms that only an unbeliever could use.

Am I on the right track? At all?

[Joykins]

Are you using 'believe' to mean 'think is factually accurate' (eg: "I believe in tennis") , or 'support the principle' (eg: "I believe in corporal punishment")?

A little bit of both but weighted toward the latter.

[diana]

Lisa, I don't know if this would help you but it sure helped me.

I sat down and tried to identify what I truly believed--about ethics, about the supernatural, everything, quite separate from what I'd been *taught* about Christian theology, but what I actually really believed. This involved wrestling with some of the issues our friends here have brought up, and evaluating whether these were important to what I believed or not.

Then I had to see if Christianity still had something for me and if it would be a good fit for my beliefs. I believe it did and does, but those things which kept me in the faith are not a lot of things that seem to drive fundamentalists and my approach is not a fundamentalist one.Hi, Joykins. :)

With all due respect--because so far, I've found plenty of reason to respect you--how do you determine the validity of a belief system based upon your predetermined notions of how things should be? I mean, if that works, aren't atheists justified?

d

[Joykins]

Hi, Joykins. :)

With all due respect--because so far, I've found plenty of reason to respect you--how do you determine the validity of a belief system based upon your predetermined notions of how things should be? I mean, if that works, aren't atheists justified?

This language of predetermination and justification sounds kind of Calvinist, but I've probably just spent too much time on CF.

What I proposed is attempting to separate stuff that you've been taught but DON'T believe from the things that you do, actually, believe, as a first step. From there you can move into what is the best fit for your beliefs. This doesn't necessarily "justify" you (whatever you mean by justified), but it does make you honest.

[diana]

This language of predetermination and justification sounds kind of Calvinist, but I've probably just spent too much time on CF.Good morning, Joykins! :)

Understandable reaction, but rest assured, I'm not Calvinist. I'm just trying to understand your approach.

What I proposed is attempting to separate stuff that you've been taught but DON'T believe from the things that you do, actually, believe, as a first step. From there you can move into what is the best fit for your beliefs. This doesn't necessarily "justify" you (whatever you mean by justified), but it does make you honest.I see. I'll try to clarify what I mean. Lisa said the following:

...I want God to love the whole world. I do not want people writhing in hell because they were simply unable to believe. Worse, I do not want people in hell because ONLY THOSE DRAWN BY THE HOLY SPIRIT will be saved. ...

I am so afraid that fundie God is real. I am so afraid that Jesus, the Lover of My Soul is not. I am so afraid that people are born gay and God is going to punish them for acting on it. I am so afraid that I will get in on a technicality, (OSAS) and others will not because they did not speak the words or have an "experience".From this, I take it that some of her preferred beliefs are as follows:

- God should be an ideal "father figure," one who loves all of us and understands/forgives our shortcomings, as long as we earnestly and honestly want to find the truth
- If God holds us all to the same standards, we should all get the same opportunities (the Holy Ghost should reach out to all of us in equally obvious ways)
- God should not have a problem with gay people, since it appears they were born that way (IOWs, he shouldn't set anyone up for failure)

(All of these strike me as reasonable and logical expectations for a God worthy of worship, incidentally.) If I understand your suggestion, Joykins, she should list all of the characteristics of a God she can believe in, then find the God/belief system which matches those preferences. Yes?

My concern with this approach, however, is that it seems designed to find a religion that's a comfortable fit, but it doesn't pretend to find the religion which she can honestly believe is true. Maybe it's just me, but if you can't believe in the fundamental truth of your belief system, what's the point? Doesn't it even lose its ability to reassure, console, inspire and guide you when you know deep down that you selected it based on what you wanted to believe instead of upon your conviction of its truth (even if you don't really want to believe it)?

Do you see what I mean?

d

[Joykins]

I think I see what you are saying, diana.

There are things we wish to be true, there are things we fear are true, there are things we objectively know to be true, and there are things without sufficient evidence that we think to be true.

There are also things we wish to be good and right, there are things we fear are good and right, there are things we know to be good and right, and there are things we think to be good and right.

Sometimes it is hard to tell the wishes and fears from the latter 2.

On the other hand, when we adopt a religion we do not only adopt the factual claims, but we adopt an ethical system and worldview. For me, the ethical system expounded by Jesus enhances and encourages what I believe to be good and right, and the rich mythology of redemptive death and resurrection do seem to me to be true on at the very least on the mythic level (while many of the actual facts seem unknowable at this chronological distance: I have my opinions but everyone has those). I also believe there are real benefits (both to myself and others) to participating in a particular kind of religious community. As such it retains for me the ability to reassure, console, inspire and guide.

[Lisa0315]

I'm trying to interpret this. It sounds like you simultaneously believe and don't believe. It's clear that you believe -- since you say so explicitly -- but at the same time you're standing outside your belief and pointing at it, in terms that only an unbeliever could use.

Am I on the right track? At all?

Yeah, I am a believer and an atheist concurrently. That is the crux of my OCD, I suppose. I have a possibility of something very wonderful about to happen for me, and I sat at lunch today, thanking God, and still not sure if it is from God.

Hard to explain. Am I being blessed because God loves me? Or is Satan distracting me with earthly things and furthering my distance from God? See how the OCD mind works? I thanked God just in case, and want with all my being to believe that God loves me enough to want me to be happy. As in a dream coming true for me, a material dream, but at the same time, bringing my family (less the crazy husband) back together even for a brief time.

I suppose I am just fucking crazy. :D

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I see. I'll try to clarify what I mean. Lisa said the following:

From this, I take it that some of her preferred beliefs are as follows:

- God should be an ideal "father figure," one who loves all of us and understands/forgives our shortcomings, as long as we earnestly and honestly want to find the truth
- If God holds us all to the same standards, we should all get the same opportunities (the Holy Ghost should reach out to all of us in equally obvious ways)
- God should not have a problem with gay people, since it appears they were born that way (IOWs, he shouldn't set anyone up for failure)

(All of these strike me as reasonable and logical expectations for a God worthy of worship, incidentally.) If I understand your suggestion, Joykins, she should list all of the characteristics of a God she can believe in, then find the God/belief system which matches those preferences. Yes?


You put it far more succinctly than I could. Hammer meet nail.

My concern with this approach, however, is that it seems designed to find a religion that's a comfortable fit, but it doesn't pretend to find the religion which she can honestly believe is true. Maybe it's just me, but if you can't believe in the fundamental truth of your belief system, what's the point? Doesn't it even lose its ability to reassure, console, inspire and guide you when you know deep down that you selected it based on what you wanted to believe instead of upon your conviction of its truth (even if you don't really want to believe it)?

Do you see what I mean?

d

I sure do. It would not be an honest belief in my opinion if you cherry-picked what you believed about God. To me, one of the parts about believing is you have to accept who God is, even the parts you may not like.

Universalists, for example, will literally throw out any Scripture that does not meet their ideal of God. I have argued with them extensively, and asked them, "How do you know which parts to keep and which parts to throw away?"

Lisa

[DMB]

Lisa, I'd be very grateful if some time you could get round to answering my questions in this thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=373).

For me it's a real mystery how anyone in the modern world who is exposed to the multiplicity of religions feels confident enough to pick one particular one as worthy of beleif.

[Lisa0315]

For Diana...

My experience? I was a non-believer, sort of, for 23 years, having left the faith at age 13. I never, ever expected to be a Christian again, much less a fundie.

I was to meet my daughter at the movies. We were going to see Passion of the Christ. Backstory, I had reached a point in which I figured if it were all true, I was going to hell, and I was pretty much resigned to that.

My daughter could not get off work in time, so I went to see the movie alone. I thought to myself, "Yeah, I be this will change me for about a week."

I sat down and looked around. There was about a million big haired fundie women there with their suited husbands. (Who the fuck gets dressed up to go the movies?) Of course, I was sitting beside one of those big haired women who was wearing a bucket of perfume. I looked around to find another place to sit, but the theatre was full. I resigned myself to enduring it and knew I was going to have a hell of a headache when it was over.

The movie started, and within the first scene, I had some kind of experience. Call it a psychotic break, (as in Moriah's thread somewhere in here), or a mini-stroke, or a real experience. I do not know. All I know is that I no longer saw the movie, but instead, I saw myself and all the times that I had rejected Christ, all the times He had reached out to me, and the sorrow and sadness that I had caused Him.

I came back to myself because I heard someone crying audibly. I looked over at the woman beside of me, and she was staring straight ahead. I then, realized, that my face was soaking wet. I was the one who had been crying.

I spent two days trying to talk myself down, trying to figure out exactly what had happened to me. I could not sleep, eat, concentrate, oh, and those tears had not stopped. I cried for two solid days. I had spent a lifetime training myself not to cry. I was not at that time a person who cried not even at the death of someone I loved.

Finally, on the second night, March 15, 2004, I got on my knees. I do not remember exactly what I prayed, but I do remember saying something to the effect of "Whatever, Whenever, However". It was a complete submission and acceptance of whatever God required of me.

I knew such joy and peace that I had never known in my entire life. It lasted 3 months, and then, very dreadful things began to happen in my life. Two heart attacks (hubby), death (grandfather), alzheimer's (grandmother), depression (me), bipolar diagnosis (hubby), hubby disabled, financial distress, losses of jobs, you name it...

I stayed faithful despite all of this for a long, long time, I suppose 3-4 years. What finally broke me was the discovery of my husband dealing drugs, and the realization that my family/marriage was never going to be whole no matter how much I prayed. I had fasted, I had prayed, I had trusted God, and as time passed, I felt more and more alone. I did not feel the comfort that I had been promised. I kept waiting for God to show up as He promised, but He didn't.

When I gave up completely, just in the last year, my life started getting better. Why? None of this fits what I was taught. How am I cursed as Job as a believer and God does not come down to defend me, but when I walk away, suddenly, everything starts working out for me?

Now, couple all of this with OCD. Do you understand the hell of being a believer and the hell of not believing for me? I am more "myself" now. There are still moments of absolute terror that God is just waiting to punish me, and I am beyond confused. Exactly WHAT does God want from me?

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, I'd be very grateful if some time you could get round to answering my questions in this thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=373).

For me it's a real mystery how anyone in the modern world who is exposed to the multiplicity of religions feels confident enough to pick one particular one as worthy of beleif.

Done. :)

[diana]

For Diana...

My experience? I was a non-believer, sort of, for 23 years, having left the faith at age 13. I never, ever expected to be a Christian again, much less a fundie.

I was to meet my daughter at the movies. We were going to see Passion of the Christ. Backstory, I had reached a point in which I figured if it were all true, I was going to hell, and I was pretty much resigned to that.

My daughter could not get off work in time, so I went to see the movie alone. I thought to myself, "Yeah, I be this will change me for about a week."

I sat down and looked around. There was about a million big haired fundie women there with their suited husbands. (Who the fuck gets dressed up to go the movies?) Of course, I was sitting beside one of those big haired women who was wearing a bucket of perfume. I looked around to find another place to sit, but the theatre was full. I resigned myself to enduring it and knew I was going to have a hell of a headache when it was over.

The movie started, and within the first scene, I had some kind of experience. Call it a psychotic break, (as in Moriah's thread somewhere in here), or a mini-stroke, or a real experience. I do not know. All I know is that I no longer saw the movie, but instead, I saw myself and all the times that I had rejected Christ, all the times He had reached out to me, and the sorrow and sadness that I had caused Him.

I came back to myself because I heard someone crying audibly. I looked over at the woman beside of me, and she was staring straight ahead. I then, realized, that my face was soaking wet. I was the one who had been crying.

I spent two days trying to talk myself down, trying to figure out exactly what had happened to me. I could not sleep, eat, concentrate, oh, and those tears had not stopped. I cried for two solid days. I had spent a lifetime training myself not to cry. I was not at that time a person who cried not even at the death of someone I loved.

Finally, on the second night, March 15, 2004, I got on my knees. I do not remember exactly what I prayed, but I do remember saying something to the effect of "Whatever, Whenever, However". It was a complete submission and acceptance of whatever God required of me.

I knew such joy and peace that I had never known in my entire life. It lasted 3 months, and then, very dreadful things began to happen in my life. Two heart attacks (hubby), death (grandfather), alzheimer's (grandmother), depression (me), bipolar diagnosis (hubby), hubby disabled, financial distress, losses of jobs, you name it...

I stayed faithful despite all of this for a long, long time, I suppose 3-4 years. What finally broke me was the discovery of my husband dealing drugs, and the realization that my family/marriage was never going to be whole no matter how much I prayed. I had fasted, I had prayed, I had trusted God, and as time passed, I felt more and more alone. I did not feel the comfort that I had been promised. I kept waiting for God to show up as He promised, but He didn't.

When I gave up completely, just in the last year, my life started getting better. Why? None of this fits what I was taught. How am I cursed as Job as a believer and God does not come down to defend me, but when I walk away, suddenly, everything starts working out for me?

Now, couple all of this with OCD. Do you understand the hell of being a believer and the hell of not believing for me? I am more "myself" now. There are still moments of absolute terror that God is just waiting to punish me, and I am beyond confused. Exactly WHAT does God want from me?

LisaThanks for sharing, Lisa. I appreciate your honesty and putting yourself out there like that.

I have a couple of thoughts for you:

1. Outside of what you feel may be supernatural intervention (as you just described), why do you believe in God? (I'm looking for something more than "I was told he exists" here, because you're obviously a very bright woman and you know you need more than just someone's word to believe in anything extraordinary.)

I ask this because it's clear to me that you need something more than your wishes coming true to maintain your faith, as we all go through ups and downs (and you're clearly in a "down" now). As the bible says, it rains upon both the just and the unjust.

2. What fundamentalist flavor of Christianity were you raised in, and did you return to it or go to another denomination?

d

[DMB]

Lisa, thank you so much for coming out with all that. It must be quite difficult to do so. :notworthy:

I venture to suggest that such experiences you describe have an internal origin. I decided at the age of 14, on grounds of reason, that I was an atheist. But I have never stopped being fascinated by religion and from time to time wondering if I was wrong.

When I was 17 I had an experience that I would decribe as an epiphany. I was sitting in an ancient cathedral asking god to communicate in some way with me. I was suddenly overwhelmed by an idea that flooded into me:

There is nothing there

Now, as I have said, I was already an atheist, so this wasn't really a new thought. But I think it was the result of my mind mulling over all my ideas on the subject and reaching a conclusion. I don't think that thought came from god, satan or non-god. I would suppose that in your case all your childhood conditioning had planted seeds that flowered into your cinema epiphany.

[Lisa0315]

Thanks for sharing, Lisa. I appreciate your honesty and putting yourself out there like that.

I have a couple of thoughts for you:

1. Outside of what you feel may be supernatural intervention (as you just described), why do you believe in God? (I'm looking for something more than "I was told he exists" here, because you're obviously a very bright woman and you know you need more than just someone's word to believe in anything extraordinary.)

I ask this because it's clear to me that you need something more than your wishes coming true to maintain your faith, as we all go through ups and downs (and you're clearly in a "down" now). As the bible says, it rains upon both the just and the unjust.

2. What fundamentalist flavor of Christianity were you raised in, and did you return to it or go to another denomination?

d

I swore I would not return to fundamentalism. I was actually planning on going to a local Friend's church. However, I allowed my hubby to pick the church thinking this would encourage him to attend as well. He picked my family church, and while, it was nice for awhile, there I was caught up again in the same thing that had driven me away from God over twenty years previously. I LOVED being with my family, and the church I was attending was far less crazy than anything that I had grown up with. My uncle (the pastor) kept a tight reign on shit like that. He would openly from the pulpit speak out against dramatic displays, and over the top crazy behavior. Not the way he would say it. Plus, there was something pretty special about that chruch. People REALLY loved each other there.

As time progressed, yeah, they LOVED each other, but I found that they had the same ole hatred for those who did not believe the same way as them. There were other things as well.

To answer your first question, I have no basis, nor does any other Christian, EXCEPT faith.

Lisa

[diana]

I swore I would not return to fundamentalism. I was actually planning on going to a local Friend's church. However, I allowed my hubby to pick the church thinking this would encourage him to attend as well. He picked my family church, and while, it was nice for awhile, there I was caught up again in the same thing that had driven me away from God over twenty years previously. I LOVED being with my family, and the church I was attending was far less crazy than anything that I had grown up with. My uncle (the pastor) kept a tight reign on shit like that. He would openly from the pulpit speak out against dramatic displays, and over the top crazy behavior. Not the way he would say it. Plus, there was something pretty special about that chruch. People REALLY loved each other there.

As time progressed, yeah, they LOVED each other, but I found that they had the same ole hatred for those who did not believe the same way as them. There were other things as well.

To answer your first question, I have no basis, nor does any other Christian, EXCEPT faith.

LisaGood morning, Lisa. :)

Most of the Christians I know personally seem to feel that their belief is based upon more than faith. While I agree with your assessment, ultimately, I think those who feel their faith rests upon more than simple hope tend to find lasting strength in it.

Maybe you just need to work out what you believe and why, because fluctuating between the extremes isn't doing it for you. Why don't you try the Friends?

d

[Lisa0315]

Good morning, Lisa. :)

Most of the Christians I know personally seem to feel that their belief is based upon more than faith. While I agree with your assessment, ultimately, I think those who feel their faith rests upon more than simple hope tend to find lasting strength in it.

Maybe you just need to work out what you believe and why, because fluctuating between the extremes isn't doing it for you. Why don't you try the Friends?

d

I have considered going to Orthodox as well. I am still working things out in my head. I will hopefully return to church eventually, just not sure where. I want to make sure that I am not believing something because I am being taught that way first.

Lisa

[diana]

I have considered going to Orthodox as well. I am still working things out in my head. I will hopefully return to church eventually, just not sure where. I want to make sure that I am not believing something because I am being taught that way first.

LisaI thought that was the way faith worked. ;)

Best of luck.

d

[Norrin Radd]

I always kind of liked the Eastern (Orthodox) Christian idea of the soul gradually being transformed into Christlikeness -- deified, if you will.

Theosis, yes. It's similar to Wesleyan views about sanctification IIRC....

Each of them could have done better by choosing other terminology. The EO may be a little closer, since the tense in 2 Pet. 1:4 does allow (by my limited understanding, at least) for "partak(ing) in the divine nature" to be a "not yet accomplished" event. "Sanctification," OTOH, is often (but not always) used in Scripture in an "already done" sense. As such, it is similar to "justification" and "salvation," even though common usage views "salvation" as already done, but "sanctification" as ongoing.

[Norrin Radd]

Hi, Lisa.

I don't think we've met, but it's inconsequential. (Hello! I'm another poster on this bulletin board! :)) I've read your discussion with Tod with a great deal of interest. I understand your frustration, as well as Tod's.

In my opinion (and I clash a bit with Tod here), anyone who says "Goddidit" or "because the bible says so" doesn't qualify as an "apologist" at all. An apologist is "a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution," and the aforementioned answers don't pretend to present an argument; they are designed, rather, to stop all logical consideration of the question. You must believe or not, PERIOD. (Needless to say, they aren't terribly convincing to anyone who managed to reach maturity sans religious indoctrination.) The clutch of Christians I come from are not apologists at all, for example. If you question the existence of God, they got nothin'.

That would be me. I'm more interested in discussing Scripture than trying to "prove" anything, or give logical explanations for things that transcend logic.

[Norrin Radd]

I always feel this combination of amusement, puzzlement, and annoyance when some unbeliever goes on a rant about how some aspect of Xian belief is "illogical" or "doesn't make sense," as if we're supposed to go :facepalm: "D'oh! I never noticed that! Well that destroys my whole belief system!"

I don't really have any "heroes," but Gordon Fee and Craig Keener probably come as close as any. Keener has referred to himself as a "Biblicist," and I find that's a term I like.

Why the heck should anyone with a modicum of regard for Scripture care whether some Xian doctrine appears to unbelievers to be illogical or nonsensical, since SCRIPTURE records that unbelievers were already saying that sort of thing around 2000 years ago?

Interesting how the central beliefs of Xianity -- the deity and humanity of Christ, and His crucifixion and resurrection -- have for 2000 years consistently been the things that provoke the most rage and mockery among infidels.

[BWE]

I think it's the acting on beliefs that gets the infidels riled. Most of the infidels I run across ask me a few questions about God and shake their heads and change the subject. Never yet got a rant on my spiritual perspective.

[SallyAnne]

I always feel this combination of amusement, puzzlement, and annoyance when some unbeliever goes on a rant about how some aspect of Xian belief is "illogical" or "doesn't make sense," as if we're supposed to go :facepalm: "D'oh! I never noticed that! Well that destroys my whole belief system!"

I don't really have any "heroes," but Gordon Fee and Craig Keener probably come as close as any. Keener has referred to himself as a "Biblicist," and I find that's a term I like.

Why the heck should anyone with a modicum of regard for Scripture care whether some Xian doctrine appears to unbelievers to be illogical or nonsensical, since SCRIPTURE records that unbelievers were already saying that sort of thing around 2000 years ago?

Interesting how the central beliefs of Xianity -- the deity and humanity of Christ, and His crucifixion and resurrection -- have for 2000 years consistently been the things that provoke the most rage and mockery among infidels.



Exactly. Well said Mr Radd.

[SallyAnne]

I think it's the acting on beliefs that gets the infidels riled.



:confused:

[SallyAnne]

Most of the infidels I run across ask me a few questions about God and shake their heads and change the subject. Never yet got a rant on my spiritual perspective.


Why? You don't live in line with your beliefs?

[Ray Moscow]

I always feel this combination of amusement, puzzlement, and annoyance when some unbeliever goes on a rant about how some aspect of Xian belief is "illogical" or "doesn't make sense," as if we're supposed to go :facepalm: "D'oh! I never noticed that! Well that destroys my whole belief system!"

I don't really have any "heroes," but Gordon Fee and Craig Keener probably come as close as any. Keener has referred to himself as a "Biblicist," and I find that's a term I like.

Why the heck should anyone with a modicum of regard for Scripture care whether some Xian doctrine appears to unbelievers to be illogical or nonsensical, since SCRIPTURE records that unbelievers were already saying that sort of thing around 2000 years ago?

Interesting how the central beliefs of Xianity -- the deity and humanity of Christ, and His crucifixion and resurrection -- have for 2000 years consistently been the things that provoke the most rage and mockery among infidels.

Yeah, stupid or unsubstantiated ideas, pushed aggressively on others, have a way of attracting ridicule. Go figure. I cannot imagine why others expect educated people to make some sense when they express themselves. Why do ideas need to have some rational basis, anyway? Isn't tradition, especially the faith of our ancestors or at least that of powerful, monied churches, enough?

Why isn't the Authority of Scripture enough for these infidels, anyway? It's ridiculous of them to expect the believer to establish the validity of a document before allowing them to use as evidence in arguments, or even to dictate how everyone else should live. It's just arrogant to expect substantiating evidence when one already has God's very Word in hand.

Stupid infidels!

However, I did rather like Gordon Fee's book on "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth", despite its frequent double-talk.

[SallyAnne]

Stupid infidels!




:yup:

[BWE]

Most of the infidels I run across ask me a few questions about God and shake their heads and change the subject. Never yet got a rant on my spiritual perspective.


Why? You don't live in line with your beliefs?

On the contrary. I live very much in harmony with my beliefs. I decided I wasn't going to give the word away anymore to people who mean things like a human without a body but jealous and up in the sky and tells us to believe stuff that is quite mundane and non-spiritual that is impossible in our reality but that somehow he (because other people always seem to attribute a penis to God, even though god has no body unless you need him to for a particular idea but then god hates all the same people as his followers and they all hate each other which ought to make people wonder but it usually doesn't) tells us to believe that our senses provide inaccurate information which means that even our information about God or breakfast has no real validity but that somehow prompts people who need more control than is healthy to get behind a group of people with an agenda and claim that god wants it even though none of them have any statements signed by god affirming the desire (and anyway what is a desire without a body?) while my own God found me when I was a very young child, and asked me to take nothing on faith but to simply open my eyes to the intricacies of the universe and to realize that any number of metaphors might help me come to terms with god but to remember that they are all simply metaphors to assist my own understanding and god has given special understanding only to people who have discovered that it is in fact laughable to assume that any of our knowledge whatsoever is in some fashion accurate but that rather it is expedient for utilitarian purposes not relating very much to god at all.

I grew up in a temperate rainforest on a mountain and I know the secret that strong life energy mocks people who assume they know things, that the best we can do is go with our working hypotheses and maybe try to love people for real. If I died in the woods, In a week, I'd be a half a billion new life forms. I don't need to control my neighbors so I see that heaven and hell are metaphors and I discard them as unimportant. Everything else is just window dressing.

So I listen to everything people say but reserve judgment until I find evidence because even if god is testing us by having evidence that makes it look like he isn't what people say he is, the penis thing especially, I'm sticking with evidence because at least I can be consistent in action based on considered and supported beliefs about the physical world and I find a metric for improvement which makes me happy and gives me some direction.

Does that answer your question?

ETA: So I keep the word God and I use it and I mean something very specific when I do. It's just that my word isn't saddled with the same neuroses that shared Gods carry. I add my very own and I guard them jealously.

[SallyAnne]

nevermind

[SallyAnne]

ETA: So I keep the word God and I use it and I mean something very specific when I do. It's just that my word isn't saddled with the same neuroses that shared Gods carry. I add my very own and I guard them jealously.


Ah, ok, here is what you believe. Sorry, I missed this bit.

So what do you mean by God?

[dancer_rnb]

......
Why the heck should anyone with a modicum of regard for Scripture care whether some Xian doctrine appears to unbelievers to be illogical or nonsensical, since SCRIPTURE records that unbelievers were already saying that sort of thing around 2000 years ago?


Why the heck should anyone with a modicum of regard for the Koran care whether some Islamic doctrine appears to unbelievers to be illogical or nonsensical, since the Koran records that unbelievers were already saying that sort of thing around 1000 years ago?

Add: which scriptures, in any case? My sister recently converted to Conservative Judaism,
so I think she has a different opinion of what is valid.

Add yet again: I'll have to ask her if the 10 commandments apply to gentiles, or if something called Noachian applies. (Maybe this way I can avoid a response of "which 10?")


Interesting how the central beliefs of Xianity -- the deity and humanity of Christ, and His crucifixion and resurrection -- have for 2000 years consistently been the things that provoke the most rage and mockery among infidels.

There was a fair amount of argument in Byzantium about the diety and humanity of Christ among Christians

[BWE]

Edit: deleted redundantly redundant stuff.

My own God found me when I was a very young child and asked me to take nothing on faith, to simply open my eyes to the intricacies of the universe and to realize that metaphors might help me come to terms with god but that they are only metaphors to assist my own understanding. God has given special understanding only to people who have discovered that it is, in fact, laughable to assume that any of our knowledge whatsoever [including knowledge of God] is in some fashion accurate. The wise know that they don't know or something along those lines. Plato wrote that his teacher said something along those lines too BTW. (Just doin' some name dropping to keep it real.)

I don't need to control my neighbors very much, so I see that heaven and hell are metaphors and I discard them as unimportant. Everything else is good for what an individual can get out of it but no one knows anything about God for real. We just aren't big enough to comprehend our universe.

I listen to what people say on the topic, but I only add ideas about god or the universe or even ideas derived though scientific investigation to a 'maybe' folder in my mental filing system. They all start with a level value in terms of truth or usefulness or whatever you want to call it. That value goes up as evidence accumulates in its favor, stays neutral if it doesn't change with the addition of new information or declines if new information (evidence) seems to contradict the idea.

Even if god is testing us by making evidence that directly refutes what people say he is (the penis thing especially), I'm sticking with evidence as a basis of judgment. I do that because at least I can be consistent in action. If my entire understanding of the universe began with the idea that the rules of reality are subject to change, based on the whim of something which is beyond our comprehension entirely, then I might as well go out and rape and kill because I wouldn't have a way to judge those actions. But accepting a need for evidence, I at least have a structured system which I can use to form attitudes that lead to my actions.

You can't take direction from something you call god and be moral. You can act morally and do your best to live with God. At le3ast, that is my current working hypothesis. As with all of them, it is subject to change with new information.

[SallyAnne]

Edit: deleted redundantly redundant stuff.

My own God found me when I was a very young child and asked me to take nothing on faith, to simply open my eyes to the intricacies of the universe and to realize that metaphors might help me come to terms with god but that they are only metaphors to assist my own understanding. God has given special understanding only to people who have discovered that it is, in fact, laughable to assume that any of our knowledge whatsoever [including knowledge of God] is in some fashion accurate. The wise know that they don't know or something along those lines. Plato wrote that his teacher said something along those lines too BTW. (Just doin' some name dropping to keep it real.)

I don't need to control my neighbors very much, so I see that heaven and hell are metaphors and I discard them as unimportant. Everything else is good for what an individual can get out of it but no one knows anything about God for real. We just aren't big enough to comprehend our universe.

I listen to what people say on the topic, but I only add ideas about god or the universe or even ideas derived though scientific investigation to a 'maybe' folder in my mental filing system. They all start with a level value in terms of truth or usefulness or whatever you want to call it. That value goes up as evidence accumulates in its favor, stays neutral if it doesn't change with the addition of new information or declines if new information (evidence) seems to contradict the idea.

Even if god is testing us by making evidence that directly refutes what people say he is (the penis thing especially), I'm sticking with evidence as a basis of judgment. I do that because at least I can be consistent in action. If my entire understanding of the universe began with the idea that the rules of reality are subject to change, based on the whim of something which is beyond our comprehension entirely, then I might as well go out and rape and kill because I wouldn't have a way to judge those actions. But accepting a need for evidence, I at least have a structured system which I can use to form attitudes that lead to my actions.

You can't take direction from something you call god and be moral. You can act morally and do your best to live with God. At le3ast, that is my current working hypothesis. As with all of them, it is subject to change with new information.


So are these Gnostic beliefs?

[Monad]

We often hear that Jesus "paid the price" for our sins so we wouldn't have to. Apparently, God just couldn't forgive us and declare no sacrifice is necessary, we are told, because that somehow violates his "infinite sense of justice" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). He absolutely demanded a sacrifice because his infinite sense of justice will allow NO COMPROMISE. But...

My debt: eternal damnation
Jesus paid: a few hours of torture, death, and resurrection from the dead after two days to rule in paradise.

That would be like me owing David a bajillion dollars, and him saying "I'll wipe the debt clean if Jane over here gives me a dollar and you worship Jane for the rest of your life." If a dollar will cover the debt, why can't I pay the dollar myself??? It seems like God made a HUGE compromise here letting Jesus off so easy! If what Jesus went through suffices, why is that not the punishment for sin and nonbelief, instead of eternal damnation?

Hmmm... I don't have an infinite sense of justice, but that doesn't seem very equitable to me! What's preferable: eternal damnation, possibly in fire or other continuous pain or being tortured for a few hours and being dead for a couple of days, after which you get to live in paradise for all eternity? This one seems easy to me: I'll take the latter please!!

So if Jesus paid our debt, why the hell is he not roasting in Hell forever and ever?? Indeed, does his sacrifice even indicate the absolute love, compassion, etc. it is supposed to represent? If I did something unpleasant that helped you avoid an unpleasant fate, but by doing so I was made the divine king of all Creation, would you really view me as sacrificing solely, or even primarily, for YOUR benefit??

I'm not sure I even understand what "infinite justice" would look like it, but this isn't even finite, basic justice: this is gross and incompotent injustice!

Here is the equity:

On one side, you have the sin of Adam.

What sin? Seems like he grew up faster than god ever did.

Oh and let's not forget Eve - Eve is my heroine (she's the Judao-Christian Prometheus)

[BWE]

Edit: deleted redundantly redundant stuff.

My own God found me when I was a very young child and asked me to take nothing on faith, to simply open my eyes to the intricacies of the universe and to realize that metaphors might help me come to terms with god but that they are only metaphors to assist my own understanding. God has given special understanding only to people who have discovered that it is, in fact, laughable to assume that any of our knowledge whatsoever [including knowledge of God] is in some fashion accurate. The wise know that they don't know or something along those lines. Plato wrote that his teacher said something along those lines too BTW. (Just doin' some name dropping to keep it real.)

I don't need to control my neighbors very much, so I see that heaven and hell are metaphors and I discard them as unimportant. Everything else is good for what an individual can get out of it but no one knows anything about God for real. We just aren't big enough to comprehend our universe.

I listen to what people say on the topic, but I only add ideas about god or the universe or even ideas derived though scientific investigation to a 'maybe' folder in my mental filing system. They all start with a level value in terms of truth or usefulness or whatever you want to call it. That value goes up as evidence accumulates in its favor, stays neutral if it doesn't change with the addition of new information or declines if new information (evidence) seems to contradict the idea.

Even if god is testing us by making evidence that directly refutes what people say he is (the penis thing especially), I'm sticking with evidence as a basis of judgment. I do that because at least I can be consistent in action. If my entire understanding of the universe began with the idea that the rules of reality are subject to change, based on the whim of something which is beyond our comprehension entirely, then I might as well go out and rape and kill because I wouldn't have a way to judge those actions. But accepting a need for evidence, I at least have a structured system which I can use to form attitudes that lead to my actions.

You can't take direction from something you call god and be moral. You can act morally and do your best to live with God. At le3ast, that is my current working hypothesis. As with all of them, it is subject to change with new information.


So are these Gnostic beliefs?
They were fully formed before I turned 5 so I doubt they fit a perfect mold but The Gospel of Thomas strikes me as beautiful sometimes.

[dancer_rnb]

Stupid infidels!




:yup:

Anyone who doesn't recognize Mohammed as God's prophet

[dancer_rnb]

We often hear that Jesus "paid the price" for our sins so we wouldn't have to. Apparently, God just couldn't forgive us and declare no sacrifice is necessary, we are told, because that somehow violates his "infinite sense of justice" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). He absolutely demanded a sacrifice because his infinite sense of justice will allow NO COMPROMISE. But...

My debt: eternal damnation
Jesus paid: a few hours of torture, death, and resurrection from the dead after two days to rule in paradise.

That would be like me owing David a bajillion dollars, and him saying "I'll wipe the debt clean if Jane over here gives me a dollar and you worship Jane for the rest of your life." If a dollar will cover the debt, why can't I pay the dollar myself??? It seems like God made a HUGE compromise here letting Jesus off so easy! If what Jesus went through suffices, why is that not the punishment for sin and nonbelief, instead of eternal damnation?

Hmmm... I don't have an infinite sense of justice, but that doesn't seem very equitable to me! What's preferable: eternal damnation, possibly in fire or other continuous pain or being tortured for a few hours and being dead for a couple of days, after which you get to live in paradise for all eternity? This one seems easy to me: I'll take the latter please!!

So if Jesus paid our debt, why the hell is he not roasting in Hell forever and ever?? Indeed, does his sacrifice even indicate the absolute love, compassion, etc. it is supposed to represent? If I did something unpleasant that helped you avoid an unpleasant fate, but by doing so I was made the divine king of all Creation, would you really view me as sacrificing solely, or even primarily, for YOUR benefit??

I'm not sure I even understand what "infinite justice" would look like it, but this isn't even finite, basic justice: this is gross and incompotent injustice!

Here is the equity:

On one side, you have the sin of Adam.

What sin? Seems like he grew up faster than god ever did.

Oh and let's not forget Eve - Eve is my heroine (she's the Judao-Christian Prometheus)

This also leads to a universalist argument:

If Adam can condemn us all by his actions without our consent,
Why is our acknowledgement required to be saved?

[BWE]

Jesus said that heaven is within us, that the kingdom is within us. His disciples were still thinking he would reign in a real kingdom on Earth (She gives us legs to dance). When the tomb was empty, they were forced to see that it was already there.

As a metaphor, it's nice.

[Brother Daniel]

I always feel this combination of amusement, puzzlement, and annoyance when some unbeliever goes on a rant about how some aspect of Xian belief is "illogical" or "doesn't make sense," as if we're supposed to go :facepalm: "D'oh! I never noticed that! Well that destroys my whole belief system!"
That's only one of several possible responses. Another one would be to attempt a rational counterargument.

You know, the sorts of responses that one could expect of people who care, at least a little bit, about truth. But I suppose it's silly for us to expect even that much of believers.
Why the heck should anyone with a modicum of regard for Scripture care whether some Xian doctrine appears to unbelievers to be illogical or nonsensical,
It's not that you should care, it's that you apparently do care. (Not you in particular -- I don't know you from a hole in the ground -- but you (believers) in general.) Why else do you take such offense when your nonsense is exposed? (Again, a general "you".)
since SCRIPTURE records that unbelievers were already saying that sort of thing around 2000 years ago?
And what relevance is that observation supposed to have?
Interesting how the central beliefs of Xianity -- the deity and humanity of Christ, and His crucifixion and resurrection -- have for 2000 years consistently been the things that provoke the most rage and mockery among infidels.
Mockery, yes. But rage? That's projection. Rage is mostly on the part of the believers. It's a response to the mockery. It's also a response to mere arguments -- when the believers know they have no good responses.

[alien billie]

Stupid infidels!




:yup:

.... :happyno:

[DMB]

I always feel this combination of amusement, puzzlement, and annoyance when some unbeliever goes on a rant about how some aspect of Xian belief is "illogical" or "doesn't make sense," as if we're supposed to go :facepalm: "D'oh! I never noticed that! Well that destroys my whole belief system!"
That's only one of several possible responses. Another one would be to attempt a rational counterargument.

You know, the sorts of responses that one could expect of people who care, at least a little bit, about truth. But I suppose it's silly for us to expect even that much of believers.
Why the heck should anyone with a modicum of regard for Scripture care whether some Xian doctrine appears to unbelievers to be illogical or nonsensical,
It's not that you should care, it's that you apparently do care. (Not you in particular -- I don't know you from a hole in the ground -- but you (believers) in general.) Why else do you take such offense when your nonsense is exposed? (Again, a general "you".)
since SCRIPTURE records that unbelievers were already saying that sort of thing around 2000 years ago?
And what relevance is that observation supposed to have?
Interesting how the central beliefs of Xianity -- the deity and humanity of Christ, and His crucifixion and resurrection -- have for 2000 years consistently been the things that provoke the most rage and mockery among infidels.
Mockery, yes. But rage? That's projection. Rage is mostly on the part of the believers. It's a response to the mockery. It's also a response to mere arguments -- when the believers know they have no good responses.

Yes, who over the centuries have persecuted people for blasphemy, heresy and apostasy? -- Believers! That suggests getting in a bit of a rage, doesn't it!

[BWE]

it also sort of nominally justifies some hard feelings on the part of the infidels.

[DMB]

Another word on Jesus paying the price:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/04/08/whoop/

[Joykins]

I always kind of liked the Eastern (Orthodox) Christian idea of the soul gradually being transformed into Christlikeness -- deified, if you will.

Theosis, yes. It's similar to Wesleyan views about sanctification IIRC....

Each of them could have done better by choosing other terminology. The EO may be a little closer, since the tense in 2 Pet. 1:4 does allow (by my limited understanding, at least) for "partak(ing) in the divine nature" to be a "not yet accomplished" event. "Sanctification," OTOH, is often (but not always) used in Scripture in an "already done" sense. As such, it is similar to "justification" and "salvation," even though common usage views "salvation" as already done, but "sanctification" as ongoing.

Sanctification in the WESLEYAN view is an ongoing process. Just to clarify.

[Norrin Radd]

Sanctification in the WESLEYAN view is an ongoing process. Just to clarify.

Would you happen to know the Calvinist and Lutheran views? I'd gotten the impression that "salvation is instantaneous, sanctification is ongoing" was widespread, well beyond Wesleyanism. In fact, I'd sort of thought Wesley's distinctive twist was "entire" sanctification -- which as I understand it is the idea that the process is at least potentially something that can be completed in this life.

[SallyAnne]

For Diana...

My experience? I was a non-believer, sort of, for 23 years, having left the faith at age 13. I never, ever expected to be a Christian again, much less a fundie.

I was to meet my daughter at the movies. We were going to see Passion of the Christ. Backstory, I had reached a point in which I figured if it were all true, I was going to hell, and I was pretty much resigned to that.

My daughter could not get off work in time, so I went to see the movie alone. I thought to myself, "Yeah, I be this will change me for about a week."

I sat down and looked around. There was about a million big haired fundie women there with their suited husbands. (Who the fuck gets dressed up to go the movies?) Of course, I was sitting beside one of those big haired women who was wearing a bucket of perfume. I looked around to find another place to sit, but the theatre was full. I resigned myself to enduring it and knew I was going to have a hell of a headache when it was over.

The movie started, and within the first scene, I had some kind of experience. Call it a psychotic break, (as in Moriah's thread somewhere in here), or a mini-stroke, or a real experience. I do not know. All I know is that I no longer saw the movie, but instead, I saw myself and all the times that I had rejected Christ, all the times He had reached out to me, and the sorrow and sadness that I had caused Him.

I came back to myself because I heard someone crying audibly. I looked over at the woman beside of me, and she was staring straight ahead. I then, realized, that my face was soaking wet. I was the one who had been crying.

I spent two days trying to talk myself down, trying to figure out exactly what had happened to me. I could not sleep, eat, concentrate, oh, and those tears had not stopped. I cried for two solid days. I had spent a lifetime training myself not to cry. I was not at that time a person who cried not even at the death of someone I loved.

Finally, on the second night, March 15, 2004, I got on my knees. I do not remember exactly what I prayed, but I do remember saying something to the effect of "Whatever, Whenever, However". It was a complete submission and acceptance of whatever God required of me.

I knew such joy and peace that I had never known in my entire life. It lasted 3 months, and then, very dreadful things began to happen in my life. Two heart attacks (hubby), death (grandfather), alzheimer's (grandmother), depression (me), bipolar diagnosis (hubby), hubby disabled, financial distress, losses of jobs, you name it...

I stayed faithful despite all of this for a long, long time, I suppose 3-4 years. What finally broke me was the discovery of my husband dealing drugs, and the realization that my family/marriage was never going to be whole no matter how much I prayed. I had fasted, I had prayed, I had trusted God, and as time passed, I felt more and more alone. I did not feel the comfort that I had been promised. I kept waiting for God to show up as He promised, but He didn't.

When I gave up completely, just in the last year, my life started getting better. Why? None of this fits what I was taught. How am I cursed as Job as a believer and God does not come down to defend me, but when I walk away, suddenly, everything starts working out for me?

Now, couple all of this with OCD. Do you understand the hell of being a believer and the hell of not believing for me? I am more "myself" now. There are still moments of absolute terror that God is just waiting to punish me, and I am beyond confused. Exactly WHAT does God want from me?

Lisa



Thanks for sharing Lisa.

[David B]

Now, couple all of this with OCD. Do you understand the hell of being a believer and the hell of not believing for me? I am more "myself" now. There are still moments of absolute terror that God is just waiting to punish me, and I am beyond confused. Exactly WHAT does God want from me?

Lisa, I'll tell you a little secret. I have a history of having crushes on people (who doesn't?) but I'd guess that at least half of all the ladies I've had crushes on have been Lesbians.

And they are not just telling me that to get rid of me:D

I've been warned off by their girlfriends, become friends with some.

Anyway, one of the ladies I had a bit of a crush on had been brought up as a Jehovah's Witness, and was gay. And had been disfellowed by her family, who lived in Liverpool as I recall. She had pretty much run away to Wales. And has since moved away.

She didn't really believe in JW stuff any more, but she was sometimes terrified of hell.

She seemed to be in pretty much the same place as you. She didn't find it easy.

JWism is bollocks.

She had nothing cosmically to worry about, from the remnants of her religion, apart from the extinction that will greet us all, when we die. This is simply what grown up people have to deal with once we realise that there is no sky fairy around to give us an eternity of bliss, or an eternity of suffering.

I could see the terror in her, as I see it in you.

It's hard to let go of one's past beliefs, but really - what do you really have to convince yourself that heaven or hell exist?

Nothing that I can see, that stands up to any sort of reality test.

Let it go, Lisa.

And start to live the life you have, rather than torture yourself about a next one. All the evidence points against there being a next one.

David

[SallyAnne]

Lisa, I'll tell you a little secret. I have a history of having crushes on people (who doesn't?) but I'd guess that at least half of all the ladies I've had crushes on have been Lesbians.

And they are not just telling me that to get rid of me:D



LOL David! :D

[SallyAnne]

Do you understand you are asking questions that no theologian has been able to concretely discern? I told you I was not a good apologist. I am an honest one though.


I agree. And that makes you a GREAT apologist, imo.:)

[HinduWoman]

OK so run by me this debt/loan thing again.

Why can't God just write off the loan instead of requiring to kill off a part of himself and resurrect it?
After all humans owe the debt to him, so why all this?

[Lisa0315]

OK so run by me this debt/loan thing again.

Why can't God just write off the loan instead of requiring to kill off a part of himself and resurrect it?
After all humans owe the debt to him, so why all this?

I think God is OCD like me. I think He MUST have everything in balance. To write off the debt would be out of balance and it would drive him bat-shit crazy. Maybe that is why he killed all of those people in the OT. (There I said it for you.)

The death of Christ made everything balance in the eyes of God. One man's sin caused the world to fall. One man's sacrifice made it right again.

Lisa

[Brother Daniel]

So two wrongs make a right?

[Lisa0315]

So two wrongs make a right?

...and you thought God couldn't do the impossible...:D

I am in a mood today. WTF is wrong with me? I sound like YOU PEOPLE! ;)

I think my snarky button got turned on and I can't remember how to turn it off. :evil:

[kombucha]

OK so run by me this debt/loan thing again.

Why can't God just write off the loan instead of requiring to kill off a part of himself and resurrect it?
After all humans owe the debt to him, so why all this?
I thought most spirituality was underrated, but then I met my first Wiccan; duotheism, what is up with that shit?. If the Horned God wants me to pay some kind of perceived debt, couldn't he have chosen a better messenger than Gerald Gardener? The Truth is that King Kong (so say we all) died for your sins. Everything else is just an affirmation.

Sorry, what were we talking about?

[Nohweh]

It's hard for most of us today to appreciate the notion of sacrifice. No, I don't mean skipping the Hostess Ding-Dongs for the sake of your diet. I mean KILLING something you value to appease some supposed superior force. This was a driving principle for most primitive peoples. No wonder it finds an echo, no matter how elegantly couched, in Fifth to Twenty-First Century philosophy.

[HinduWoman]

We can appreciate killing or allowing a beloved one to die for the sake of something higher --- nationalism or saving other people. But it is the sacrifice to something that cannot be proved to exist that is so bothersome and horrifying.