God. How the hell (pardon the pun) does it make sense?

[God, my arse]

I have noticed that there are a number of theists here and I wanted to ask how the hell could the idea of an invisible man floating in the clouds controlling our lives make any sense to a normal person? HOW HOW HOW?

[thomas]

I don't know. If I find anybody who believes that I'll be sure to ask them.

[God, my arse]

I don't know. If I find anybody who believes that I'll be sure to ask them.
Thanx:)

[Striver]

It's really simple. They don't question it.

When you're young, someone tells you, "God did this", and you don't question why because you're also told you'll get in a lot of trouble. You don't want to risk taking an alternate viewpoint for fear that you'll be punished.

So it starts as a meme, but gets held in place by fear.

That's why intellectual appeal only works on the very intelligent. it sort of worked to cure me, but what ultimately freed me was seeing the negative consequences of Christian beliefs and then having the courage to take the risk that it was better on the other side.

[Inventor Of Gods]

Because somebody frightened the ability to think critically out of them when they were kids.

[lesserpanda]

Doesn't seem to be too many theists clambering to hop on this one. Odd, isn't it?

[thomas]

I don't think it's odd at all. I just don't know any theists who believe in the "idea of an invisible man floating in the clouds controlling our lives". Which religion is trying to be described here ? None that I recognise.

When you're young, someone tells you, "God did this", and you don't question why because you're also told you'll get in a lot of trouble. You don't want to risk taking an alternate viewpoint for fear that you'll be punished.
Because somebody frightened the ability to think critically out of them when they were kids.
I know a lot of Christians and I don't think any of them would recognise these views as something that was descriptive of their life. The idea that you'll be punished for taking an alternative view is not something that I or any of them would recognise. Sure, many were brought up in the Church and accepted a bunch of stuff as a child. But also, most went through a process of going away from the Church to work things out for themselves and find their own faith. And some have no Christian background at all but came to believe in the truth of Christianity as adults.

[FiberglassDolphin]

came to believe in the truth of Christianity as adults.
I am terrible at searching for truth, where shall I come in contact with this evidence of truth?

[FiberglassDolphin]

I am terrible at searching for truth, where shall I come in contact for with this evidence of truth?
You fool, you can not just find truth in evidence. You must follow the yellow brick road. :mad:

[FiberglassDolphin]

You fool, you can not just find truth in evidence. You must follow the yellow brick road. :mad:
I assume that's a metaphor? :rolleyes:

[thomas]

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
I'm a schizophrenic,
And so am I.

[Thag - son of Thog]

1. Cultural: many who who are brought up religious just see it as their way of life. And as stated - it is not questioned much. It is just what they are "supposed to" believe in.

2. Comfort: I am dating someone who is Roman Catholic. She doesn't want to hear me pose the tough questions (indeed - I have seen her roll her eyes at some of my ideas more than I can count - she sees me as being as overzealous as any radical fundy) . The idea of a god is comforting and I believe that she does not want god to NOT exist.

[thomas]

came to believe in the truth of Christianity as adults.
I am terrible at searching for truth, where shall I come in contact with this evidence of truth?
Well, truth is all around you, and so the feeling grows
It's written on the wind, it's everywhere you go
So if you really love me, come on and let it show

[thomas]

1. Cultural: many who who are brought up religious just see it as their way of life. And as stated - it is not questioned much. It is just what they are "supposed to" believe in.

2. Comfort: I am dating someone who is Roman Catholic. She doesn't want to hear me pose the tough questions (indeed - I have seen her roll her eyes at some of my ideas more than I can count - she sees me as being as overzealous as any radical fundy) . The idea of a god is comforting and I believe that she does not want god to NOT exist.
Nah, most believe in Christianity because they think it is true. You're right that there is a cultural element. But if you are brought up believing something that doesn't make it more or less true. It's actually pretty tough to be a Christian and not have to answer questions about its truth for yourself.

And as for comfort, at least for myself, I find it inconvenient that I believe God exists because it takes me out of the place of being the primary reason for which I exist and changes my priorities towards what God wants and not what I want. I struggled with this for a long while before coming to the conclusion that I couldn't escape what I saw to be essentially true. I have discovered many benefits and comforts since I've "jumped in", but it wasn't a primary reason.

[FiberglassDolphin]

God feels like worms in my heart, like love.

[God, my arse]

I don't think it's odd at all. I just don't know any theists who believe in the "idea of an invisible man floating in the clouds controlling our lives". Which religion is trying to be described here ? None that I recognise.

When you're young, someone tells you, "God did this", and you don't question why because you're also told you'll get in a lot of trouble. You don't want to risk taking an alternate viewpoint for fear that you'll be punished.
Because somebody frightened the ability to think critically out of them when they were kids.
I know a lot of Christians and I don't think any of them would recognise these views as something that was descriptive of their life. The idea that you'll be punished for taking an alternative view is not something that I or any of them would recognise. Sure, many were brought up in the Church and accepted a bunch of stuff as a child. But also, most went through a process of going away from the Church to work things out for themselves and find their own faith. And some have no Christian background at all but came to believe in the truth of Christianity as adults.
I was using a stylised and simplified view of christianity at it's most basic because that is essentially what they tell children.

[God, my arse]

Oh ya and I don't see how a world where the world is so clear cut. you good go to heaven, you bad, go to hell so it's saying that you are either good or bad or with us or against us. The whole idea is ludicrious and is flawed and seems so made up.

[whoneedscience]

I know a lot of Christians and I don't think any of them would recognise these views as something that was descriptive of their life. The idea that you'll be punished for taking an alternative view is not something that I or any of them would recognise.
Well, that's kinda the problem now, isn't it. I realize that we atheists could very likely be misdiagnosing the cause of religion, but really, what's so hard in recognizing that many religious teachings, including some at the very core of Christianity, are complete bullshit, and even immoral? If not "an invisible man floating in the clouds", then how about Noah's flood, Adam and Eve, the resurection, or the Church's views on homosexuality, birth control, and a number of other things. That many people don't agree with them is a testament to centuries of attempted secular thought and education, but that doesn't mean the institution itself isn't absolutely ridiculous. If people did take all the crap seriously, we'd be like the Middle East (or possibly the deep south for that matter). You still have to answer how you can possibly accept any of it.

[thomas]

I was using a stylised and simplified view of christianity at it's most basic because that is essentially what they tell children.
Not in my experience it isn't. Your "cartoon christianity" is way off mark.

Oh ya and I don't see how a world where the world is so clear cut. you good go to heaven, you bad, go to hell so it's saying that you are either good or bad or with us or against us. The whole idea is ludicrious and is flawed and seems so made up.
No, you're missing the point again. Christians don't believe these things either. Its OK to reject Christianity if you don't believe it, but at least take the time to find out what it is first.

[thomas]

Well, that's kinda the problem now, isn't it. I realize that we atheists could very likely be misdiagnosing the cause of religion, but really, what's so hard in recognizing that many religious teachings, including some at the very core of Christianity, are complete bullshit, and even immoral? If not "an invisible man floating in the clouds", then how about Noah's flood, Adam and Eve,
In my view, the flood and the eden story are early myths, that contain essential truths about who we are, why we are here and about our relationship to God and his character.

the resurection,
Well, we probably disagree but I think there is enough reasonable evidence to suggest that the resurrection was an historical event.

or the Church's views on homosexuality, birth control, and a number of other things.
I can't tell you what my view is on the "other things" but I can discuss the other items with you if you want to tell me (a) what it is that is immoral about Christianity's view on the topic and (b) what framework you are using to determine what is moral or immoral

That many people don't agree with them is a testament to centuries of attempted secular thought and education, but that doesn't mean the institution itself isn't absolutely ridiculous. If people did take all the crap seriously, we'd be like the Middle East (or possibly the deep south for that matter). You still have to answer how you can possibly accept any of it.
Look, cheap attempts to discredit Christianity by misrepresenting its beliefs will probably win you a bunch of atheist gold stars on the forum, but won't take you any closer to the truth.

[Little Earth Stamper]

...
Oh ya and I don't see how a world where the world is so clear cut. you good go to heaven, you bad, go to hell so it's saying that you are either good or bad or with us or against us. The whole idea is ludicrious and is flawed and seems so made up.
No, you're missing the point again. Christians don't believe these things either. Its OK to reject Christianity if you don't believe it, but at least take the time to find out what it is first.
Um, quite a few Christians do believe this. If we are talking historically, this has probably been the view held by the majority of Christians.

Well, actually, a key Christian view is that everybody is a sinner. But if we replace the terms "good" and "bad" with "saved" and "unsaved" (With those who worship Christ as the saved, and everybody else as the unsaved) then it becomes a pretty good capsule of a Christian theology that is currently and historically very prominent, and well supported by the bible.

Additionally, while Christians say that we are all sinners, and that they love the sinner but hate the sin, in practice they tend to divide society into good and bad people just like all other societies.

[thomas]

I'm not sure. Did you change your mind several times in that post ? I don't know any Christians who believe that if you are good you go to heaven. Christians beleive that we're all basically bad and that none of us deserves on our own merit to go to heaven.

Changing the terms to saved and unsaved does rescue the quote quite a bit, but it also changes its meaning completely. I aoplogise for not realising that Gma meant something completely different from what he actually wrote. My mistake....

Christianity teaches the opposite of dividing society into the good and the bad. It teaches that we are all bad and only made good by the gift of God, for which we can claim no merit whatsoever. Jesus saved his kind words and encouragement for those who acknowleged their moral bankrupcy and his harsh words for the religious figures of the day who thought they were good and others bad. The teaching is clear.

Now you are right that the Church has a really bad track-record and current day record on this issue. It seems really difficult for humans to follow these teachings.

[baric]

I'm not sure. Did you change your mind several times in that post ? I don't know any Christians who believe that if you are good you go to heaven. Christians beleive that we're all basically bad and that none of us deserves on our own merit to go to heaven.
Not all Christians believe that.

[thomas]

Baric, are you saying that there are Christians who don't believe that the death of Jesus on the cross was what caused sinful men and women to be able to get to heaven, and that without that act none of us could make it regardless of what we do or don't do ? Which denomination are you thinking of ? I can't think of one.

[baric]

Baric, are you saying that there are Christians who don't believe that the death of Jesus on the cross was what caused sinful men and women to be able to get to heaven, and that without that act none of us could make it regardless of what we do or don't do ? Which denomination are you thinking of ? I can't think of one.
There are denominations that are works-based, meaning that a non-Christian can get to Heaven for living a good life.

[baric]

Baric, are you saying that there are Christians who don't believe that the death of Jesus on the cross was what caused sinful men and women to be able to get to heaven, and that without that act none of us could make it regardless of what we do or don't do ? Which denomination are you thinking of ? I can't think of one.
There are denominations that are works-based, meaning that a non-Christian can get to Heaven for living a good life.
For example:
Jehovah's Witnesses - (works req'd!)
Mormons - (get baptised & follow the 10C)
Quakers
Seventh-Day Adventists

I also have a friend who attends a Presbyterian church where salvation by works is taught (it's currently a point of debate in the Presbyterian churches). This debate is probably going to split the denomination in the future.

[FiberglassDolphin]

In my view, the flood and the eden story are early myths, that contain essential truths about who we are, why we are here and about our relationship to God and his character.
I think God is an early myth about why we are here and our relationship with ourselves and others.

[God, my arse]

I was using a stylised and simplified view of christianity at it's most basic because that is essentially what they tell children.
Not in my experience it isn't. Your "cartoon christianity" is way off mark.

Oh ya and I don't see how a world where the world is so clear cut. you good go to heaven, you bad, go to hell so it's saying that you are either good or bad or with us or against us. The whole idea is ludicrious and is flawed and seems so made up.
No, you're missing the point again. Christians don't believe these things either. Its OK to reject Christianity if you don't believe it, but at least take the time to find out what it is first.
Yeah well I have been to christian, lutheran and catholic schools and when I was little they simplified it and that is almost exactly what they said.No it isn't ok to reject and that is what they imply. You're looked down upon and judged my christians for not following there beliefs.

[thomas]

For example:
Jehovah's Witnesses - (works req'd!)
Mormons - (get baptised & follow the 10C)
Quakers
Seventh-Day Adventists

I also have a friend who attends a Presbyterian church where salvation by works is taught (it's currently a point of debate in the Presbyterian churches). This debate is probably going to split the denomination in the future.
JW - I agree they believe in salvation by works - but they are not considered part of the Christian church
Mormons - I agree they believe in salvation by works - but again they are not considered part of the Christian church
Quakers - Don't have a fixed dogma or creed, so it's possible some Friends believe in salvation by works - Not considered part of the Christian church
Seventh-Day Adventists - At least based on my understanding they do believe in salvation by grace not works. Do you have any information that contradicts this. I'll see if I can find a reliable source of evidence on this one.
Presbyterians - Well, which presbyterian church are you talking about. Can you point to any particular information that backs up your view. I was brought up in a presbyterian church and can tell you that in my experience they teach salvation by grace.

[Rhinoqulous]

JW - I agree they believe in salvation by works - but they are not considered part of the Christian church
Mormons - I agree they believe in salvation by works - but again they are not considered part of the Christian church
Quakers - Don't have a fixed dogma or creed, so it's possible some Friends believe in salvation by works - Not considered part of the Christian church
Seventh-Day Adventists - At least based on my understanding they do believe in salvation by grace not works. Do you have any information that contradicts this. I'll see if I can find a reliable source of evidence on this one.
Presbyterians - Well, which presbyterian church are you talking about. Can you point to any particular information that backs up your view. I was brought up in a presbyterian church and can tell you that in my experience they teach salvation by grace.
Why is it when a Christian of one flavor is faced with a Christian of another flavor, they start claiming that the other one isn't "really" a Christian? What is this all-encompassing "Christian Church" that JW's, Mormons, Quakers, and the like are missing out on? To me, they're all Christians; just the spicing is different (paprika as opposed to rosemary, etc.).

Rhinoq

[FiberglassDolphin]

To me, they're all Christians; just the spicing is different (paprika as opposed to rosemary, etc.).
Yes! They have certain differences, but they have Christ in common.

Chris·tian
adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
I don't like using the dictionary for giving evidence for some things. I didn't know that last definition.

[ocmpoma]

That wouldn't happen to be a MW definition above would it?

[Little Earth Stamper]

My family on my dad's side was Quaker, and I don't really appreciate being told that they weren't real Christians. They worshipped Christ as the son of god, and attempted to follow his teachings as laid down in the bible. I'd imagine the Jehovah's witnesses do the same thing.

Quite frankly, if belief in Christ's divinity, the bible's accuracy, and an attempt to follow Christ's teachings aren't enough to qualify you as a Christian, I can't imagine what would be.

And, as I've said before, my reading of the bible makes it seem most likely that good works can get you into heaven, as they count as a sort of Christ-worship in and of themselves. I read the gospels, and I have a hard time imagining that when judgement day comes, Christ is going to say "When I was hungry, you fed me, and when I was cold, you clothed me. You gave of yourself freely to me, but since you're a buddhist I can't let you in. Buh-bye".

Are you really going to tell me that that fits in with the rest of his actions and speeches in Luke and Matthew?

[baric]

JW - I agree they believe in salvation by works - but they are not considered part of the Christian church
Bigot

Mormons - I agree they believe in salvation by works - but again they are not considered part of the Christian church
Bigot

Quakers - Don't have a fixed dogma or creed, so it's possible some Friends believe in salvation by works - Not considered part of the Christian church
Bigot

Seventh-Day Adventists - At least based on my understanding they do believe in salvation by grace not works. Do you have any information that contradicts this. I'll see if I can find a reliable source of evidence on this one.
Are you going to kick them out of the "Christian church" if they do?

Presbyterians - Well, which presbyterian church are you talking about. Can you point to any particular information that backs up your view. I was brought up in a presbyterian church and can tell you that in my experience they teach salvation by grace.
I told you that it was a point of debate in the Presbyterian church. I asked my co-worker yesterday about it (just to be sure) and he assured me that there are plenty of Presbyterian churchs that teach salvation by works -- including his. (http://www.canyoncreekpres.org/)

[Philboid Studge]

... they are not considered part of the Christian church
Considered by whom? thomas?

[baric]

... they are not considered part of the Christian church
Considered by whom? thomas?
Of course. Rule #1 when your point is refuted is to change the definition of the words you were using.

Thomas has apparently decided that works-based salvation is now part of the definition of "true Christians". Therefore, his argument that no Christians support works-based salvation is now irrefutable, BY DEFINITION.

[thomas]

Presbyterians - Well, which presbyterian church are you talking about. Can you point to any particular information that backs up your view. I was brought up in a presbyterian church and can tell you that in my experience they teach salvation by grace.
I told you that it was a point of debate in the Presbyterian church. I asked my co-worker yesterday about it (just to be sure) and he assured me that there are plenty of Presbyterian churchs that teach salvation by works -- including his. (http://www.canyoncreekpres.org/)
From their website " We at CCPC seek to "Know Christ and To Make Christ Known". We recognize that God is our Creator and the sovereign Ruler of our universe, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our Savior, and Lord of the Church and that salvation is by God’s grace alone, a free gift to believers and not earned by our own merit. We believe that God has revealed Himself and His plan of salvation to us in His Word, the Bible." (emphasis is mine)

[Little Earth Stamper]

Presbyterians - Well, which presbyterian church are you talking about. Can you point to any particular information that backs up your view. I was brought up in a presbyterian church and can tell you that in my experience they teach salvation by grace.
I told you that it was a point of debate in the Presbyterian church. I asked my co-worker yesterday about it (just to be sure) and he assured me that there are plenty of Presbyterian churchs that teach salvation by works -- including his. (http://www.canyoncreekpres.org/)
From their website " We at CCPC seek to "Know Christ and To Make Christ Known". We recognize that God is our Creator and the sovereign Ruler of our universe, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our Savior, and Lord of the Church and that salvation is by God’s grace alone, a free gift to believers and not earned by our own merit. We believe that God has revealed Himself and His plan of salvation to us in His Word, the Bible." (emphasis is mine)
How does this jibe with the parts of the bible that say "faith without works is dead" (I believe that specific quote comes from James)? If salvation is by grace alone, how do we explain the bible's emphasis on good works (such as the passage in matthew I was referring to above that quite clearly seperates the saved from the unsaved by virtue of good works)?

[thomas]

You are all right that the definition of the word "Christian" is important. Without a good definition anybody can claim any belief and label it Christian and that would be absurd. And you are all right that it is a hot topic of debate. So, let me explain why I hold the views I do on what Christian means.

Let's take two aspects and start from there.

(1) In my view a Christian is somebody who believes in the deity of Christ, that he was the Son of God. Seems a reasonable defintion to me.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they are Jehovah's witnesses. That is why I claim they are not a Christian church.

(2) The essential doctrinal faith of the Christian church has passed unchanged from the very earliest church and creeds. So, for me, a test of the definition of a Christian is the ability to sign up to the early creeds like, for example, the Nicene Creed.

Mormons, would not sign up to the Nicene Creed for several reasons. But one would be that they believe that Jesus was created by God and not begotten. Sorry, this is diving deep into theological distinctions but is important. Another would be that they deny the concept of the Trinity.

Now for Quakers, they don't have a fixed creed or dogma ( actually they do have a dogma, that dogma's are wrong, but that's beside the point ). So, it's not possible to really say if they meet a particular definition of Christian or not. Some Quakers may believe in salvation by works whilst others do not. I was wrong and overspoke when I said earlier that they are not considered part of the Christian church. But the earlier posted claim by baric that Quakers believe in salvation by works is not correct.

I did a little more research on Seventh Day Adventists and confirmed that they do believe in salvation by grace, not by works as was claimed earlier by baric.

[thomas]

How does this jibe with the parts of the bible that say "faith without works is dead" (I believe that specific quote comes from James)? If salvation is by grace alone, how do we explain the bible's emphasis on good works (such as the passage in matthew I was referring to above that quite clearly seperates the saved from the unsaved by virtue of good works)?
LES, show me a christian church that meets your definition from your previous post that believe that salvation is by works alone and not by grace ? Yes, some Christian churches believe that works are required as well as grace, but none that I know of that works alone is sufficient.

[Little Earth Stamper]

You are all right that the definition of the word "Christian" is important. Without a good definition anybody can claim any belief and label it Christian and that would be absurd. And you are all right that it is a hot topic of debate. So, let me explain why I hold the views I do on what Christian means.

Let's take two aspects and start from there.

(1) In my view a Christian is somebody who believes in the deity of Christ, that he was the Son of God. Seems a reasonable defintion to me.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they are Jehovah's witnesses. That is why I claim they are not a Christian church.

(2) The essential doctrinal faith of the Christian church has passed unchanged from the very earliest church and creeds. So, for me, a test of the definition of a Christian is the ability to sign up to the early creeds like, for example, the Nicene Creed.

Mormons, would not sign up to the Nicene Creed for several reasons. But one would be that they believe that Jesus was created by God and not begotten. Sorry, this is diving deep into theological distinctions but is important. Another would be that they deny the concept of the Trinity.
...
This strikes me as a bit flawed. The nicene creed was created in 381, apparently, which means that, under your definition, for nearly 400 years after Christ, there were no Christians. Morover, I have difficulty accepting a definition of Christian that holds people to a non-biblical standard. To me, Christian speculation so far removed form Christ's actual life have little bearing on, well, anything.

We could plug anything in in place of Nicene creed; any papal proclamations, the book of mormon, the gospel of thomas. It elevates the Nicene creed to a higher place then the actual bible itself. But more then that, a definition of Christianity that excludes people who worship Christ through the tool of the bible is bizzare and unwieldy.

[thomas]

OK, so do you accept my other definitions and explanations ? Are we just down to Mormons ? If we are, I want to first point out that Mormons don't believe in salvation by works alone they believe in salvation by grace and works. That is, there is no salvation without belief in Christ. They just think that is not enough and that works are also required. They wouldn't agree with your interpretation that says that works alone are sufficient.

[Little Earth Stamper]

OK, so do you accept my other definitions and explanations ? Are we just down to Mormons ? If we are, I want to first point out that Mormons don't believe in salvation by works alone they believe in salvation by grace and works. That is, there is no salvation without belief in Christ. They just think that is not enough and that works are also required. They wouldn't agree with your interpretation that says that works alone are sufficient.
I don't know which churches believe in salvations through works alone, because frankly I don't care about what a bunch of churches think.

I'm going to have to defer to those other people who mentioned presbytarian churches that believe in works as sufficient for entrance into heaven.

But my basic point is, by a sane definition, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers and Mormons qualify as Christians. If some Quakers believe works are sufficient for salvation, then some christian churches believe this. Making the nicene creed a more important test for Christianity then the bible is bizarre, and quite frankly strikes me as heretical.

[thomas]

I don't know which churches believe in salvations through works alone, because frankly I don't care about what a bunch of churches think.
Well then, let's stop this discussion

[baric]

Presbyterians - Well, which presbyterian church are you talking about. Can you point to any particular information that backs up your view. I was brought up in a presbyterian church and can tell you that in my experience they teach salvation by grace.
I told you that it was a point of debate in the Presbyterian church. I asked my co-worker yesterday about it (just to be sure) and he assured me that there are plenty of Presbyterian churchs that teach salvation by works -- including his. (http://www.canyoncreekpres.org/)
From their website " We at CCPC seek to "Know Christ and To Make Christ Known". We recognize that God is our Creator and the sovereign Ruler of our universe, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our Savior, and Lord of the Church and that salvation is by God’s grace alone, a free gift to believers and not earned by our own merit. We believe that God has revealed Himself and His plan of salvation to us in His Word, the Bible." (emphasis is mine)
I know what their website says. That is from the Presbyterian USA statement but, like I said, there is actually considerable debate about this within the church that they are not going to put on their website.

I have a good friend who attends that church and is a youth minister and we've had long discussions about this.

If the church eventually splits on this issue (doubtful) you'll have another denomination that you can excommunicate from the Christian faith!

[FiberglassDolphin]

the truth of Christianity
Isn't it a fallacy to assume you know the truth about the unobservable universe, when humans cannot observe it, being unobservable? Where do theists begin to assume they know the ultimate truth of things out of the reach of science? Is it probably emotional misinterpretation of completely natural stimuli or hysteria. Also, people tend to believe what they want to believe, and many are persuaded by the too-good-too-be-true claims of charlatans, for example.

[thomas]

The only way you could know the truth about the unobservable non-material is if somebody or something from the unobservable, made themselves observable and told you what it was like. That is what Christianity claims, that God, angels, demons, the devil and Jesus all made themselves present within the observable universe.

Also, people tend to believe what they want to believe, and many are persuaded by the too-good-too-be-true claims of charlatans, for example.
When you say people, do you include yourself in that ? If not, why not ? What's so different about you that you think you aren't just believing what you want to believe, and being persuaded by the claims of charlatans ?

[thomas]

Well they are, but not necessarily all of the unobservable.

[FiberglassDolphin]

That is what Christianity claims, that God, angels, demons, the devil and Jesus all made themselves present within the observable universe
The ancient Greeks also claimed that Zeus and other mythological things made themselves visible in the observable universe; many religions claim things.

When you say people, do you include yourself in that ? If not, why not ? What's so different about you that you think you aren't just believing what you want to believe, and being persuaded by the claims of charlatans ?
Well, yeah, I do, it's human nature to believe what you want. But, then you grow some logic and realize that God is another chauvinistic attempt to place humans at the center of the universe, as people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Chauvinism is human (and any other animal) nature, as well.

[thomas]

The ancient Greeks also claimed that Zeus and other mythological things made themselves visible in the observable universe; many religions claim things.
Who claims that Zeus made himself visible in this universe ? Do you have a source ? To whom did he become visible ?

When you say people, do you include yourself in that ? If not, why not ? What's so different about you that you think you aren't just believing what you want to believe, and being persuaded by the claims of charlatans ?
Well, yeah, I do, it's human nature to believe what you want. But, then you grow some logic and realize that God is another chauvinistic attempt to place humans at the center of the universe, as people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Chauvinism is human (and any other animal) nature, as well.
OK, so you trust logic but not your ability to distinguish sound and unsound beliefs and not your ability to detect a charalatan ? Sounds great.

[FiberglassDolphin]

The ancient Greeks also claimed that Zeus and other mythological things made themselves visible in the observable universe; many religions claim things.
Who claims that Zeus made himself visible in this universe ? Do you have a source ? To whom did he become visible ?
There is mythology about the Greeks coming in contact with gods, like when Europa is being seduced by Zeus. But I guess a better example would be Islam, maybe, which claims Mohammed wrote the Qur’an through the inspiration of Allah.

There are also claims of witnesses to Mormon beginnings, http://www.irr.org/mit/bomwit1.html

OK, so you trust logic but not your ability to distinguish sound and unsound beliefs and not your ability to detect a charalatan ? Sounds great.
Clarify?

[thomas]

So, does Mohammed claim that he saw Allah in physical form ? The Mormons certainly have the 11 guys and Joseph Smith as people who claimed that they saw angels. For me there are other things that I don't find credible in Mormonism. But hey, each to his own.

On the other point. You said that all people, which you agreed included yourself :), just believe what they want to believe and are easily fooled by charlatans. You said you were different in that you "grew some logic". I was just asking how come you trust that conclusion given your previous doubt about your ability to arrive at correct beliefs.

[FiberglassDolphin]

each to his own.
Yes.

how come you trust that conclusion given your previous doubt about your ability to arrive at correct beliefs.
I see logic as seperate from validation via emotional response. Logic is something you need discipline to use, it's based on probability and deduction.

[Eva]

thomas, so you mean to say that you are skeptical of smith and those 11 men saying that they saw angels?

[Just Add Fire]

God, My Arse....you forgot onething in your opening statement... there is an invisible man floating on the clouds controlling our lives, but always needs money...he created everything in the universe but he just cant handle his checkbook...

[Choobus]

ps again



wankaaaaahhhh

[Coldbourne]

I have noticed that there are a number of theists here and I wanted to ask how the hell could the idea of an invisible man floating in the clouds controlling our lives make any sense to a normal person?
The general thought that there is any affiliation between "up" and "God" is a common misconception.
An omni-present deity would not be in any direction, but in all directions and present in all things.

The general belief that the above mentioned omni-present deity controls the aspects of any life is a misunderstanding of biblical text, and a scapegoat for "religious" individuals . Quite the opposite, the general theme is of humans making decisions and the consequences that follow. If nothing else, the text provides an accurate portrayal of the human condition and gives some nice historical insight. To continue, to override the freedom of choice would be to excuse humanity from responsibility, which is a rather hypocritical concept coming from a Christian/theist. This has become popular, however, due to the vast amounts of income generated from gullible individuals by profiteering opportunists. Thus, the "God wants you to send money" scheme continues to prey on weak minded but well meaning individuals. Of course the problem is that said individuals are basing their understanding of what is supposed to be their faith off of what someone else tells them. No faction represents this better than the "Word of Faith" crowd.
This is not faith, it is religion a.k.a political/social control.

Peel away the absurdities and moronic tendencies of prominent so called "Christians", ignore the broadcasted ravings of money hungry gluttons, and kick all denominations/cults to the side; and in the end you get one basic reason for belief in a higher power. Hope.
People who actually have faith do not feel it necessary to impose this concept on anyone else, but will happily tell you about it if you would like to know. People who have religion, though, tend to want to impose their world view on un-suspecting congregations/social groups/populations/countries. These are the frothing at the mouth, holier than though extremists who are unfortunately very visual, and generally associated with Christianity.

Faith= The recognition of human limits and the hope of better things.
Religion= Narrow-minded profiteering gluttons with a political/financial agenda and ever changing code of conduct

Unfortunately, the religious individuals have somehow become the spokesmen of a faith that they fail to adhere to. Thus, most of the bad press.
Why believe in a higher power? Because the other choices are belief in humanity (which history shows is quite good at being petty/selfish/ignorant/genocidal) or belief in ones self. Personally I know myself too well to make that mistake.


Logic is something you need discipline to use, it's based on probability and deduction.
Logic is based on prior assumptions of the individual and an already established world view, usually inherited from ones society and environment. Logic is subjective, speculative, and inconsistent as it's parameters change with each individual.
Thus, logic is something you need faith to use, as you have to be confident in your belief in said logic and your ability to deduce such logic if it does even exists anywhere but existentially. Your argument is baseless and a typical fallacy of egotists, as much mired in their own delusions as the worst thiest.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Some people may have come to the conclusion that YHWH interferes with our free will because that's exactly what he does to pharoah in Exodus.

Furthermore, Paul argues (In Romans, if I recall) that this does not absolve pharoah of responsibility.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Thomas - As for meetings with the gods in flesh and blood form, I believe I have already recited a tale of an Aztec expedition to find their mystical homeland of Aztlan, which did indeed succeed, and met the godess Coatlicue in the flesh and blood. She predicted the arrival of the Spanish. I believe this is recorded in Fray Diego Duran's pioneering "History of the Indies of New Spain".

Meanwhile, the story of Quetzalcoatl appearing on earth as a king, and Tezcatlipoca coming to challenge him, is widespread throughout the region and can be found in numerous sources, among them the "Annals of Cuahtitlan" (Which is published under the title of "Codex Chimalpopoca" for reasons I won't get into). The Annals is the sacred history that was kept and recorded in the city of Cuahtitlan. As I have said before this Annal actually corresponds quite well with archeological discoveries about the Aztec's early history.

To be frank, you seem to have no criteria you use to determine whether religious manifestations are real and which are false, and you have no explanation in your world-view for the existence of false revelation. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I said that Christian's dismiss other world-views without reason.

[thomas]

LES, I only see Aztec religions described anywhere as myths and legends. I take this to mean that there is no credible link between the written beliefs and oral histories and any claimed actual events. By credible link, I mean any written document or oral history that can be traced to people who witnessed or were close in time to witnessing the events described. Do you have any evidence to the contrary of this ?

[thomas]

thomas, so you mean to say that you are skeptical of smith and those 11 men saying that they saw angels?
I don't really have any good evidence one way or the other about those 11 guys. My main reason for suspicion about Mormonism is that Joseph Smith produced his own translation of the Bible that is clearly just a bad translation in order to get around issues where his theology differed. For example, Mormons believe that Jesus was created by God and not begotten of God and so J Smith mis-translated the beginning of the gospel of John to make it refer to the gospel and not to Jesus. Another example is that Mormons believe that God has a physical body and is not spirit, and so another section of the translation ( sorry don't have the exact ref, but can find it if needed ) where the greek says "God is spirit" very clearly was re-translated in a way that is just blatently a bad translation.

Mormonism is very close to Christianity, and Mormons would call themselves Christians but I think some of the thelogical positions they hold don't sit well with the majority of Christian denomination.

[schemanista]

LES, I only see Aztec religions described anywhere as myths and legends. I take this to mean that there is no credible link between the written beliefs and oral histories and any claimed actual events. By credible link, I mean any written document or oral history that can be traced to people who witnessed or were close in time to witnessing the events described. Do you have any evidence to the contrary of this ?
Good question. Let's go ask the indigenous Aztec population. Oh wait...

Well then, let's ask the Spaniards.

Oh, wait...

Christianity's "success" is due as much to historical accident as any other factor.

[thomas]

ps again
wankaaaaahhhh
Choobus : A fine example of why the idea of being an atheist is so unattractive.

[The Judge]

ps again
wankaaaaahhhh
Choobus : A fine example of why the idea of being an atheist is so unattractive.
*looking down one's nose* Because clearly Atheists are just vulgar little urchins on the sole of humanity's shoe aren't they?! christians would NEVER be so vulgar.

Cheaps shots aside, wtf has this got to do with Atheism? - nothing. Atheism is unattractive to you because it is antithetical to what you believe and therefore "evil and wrong."

Or is it really just cos sometimes people are a little bit nasty to you on here?...

[Rhinoqulous]

ps again
wankaaaaahhhh
Choobus : A fine example of why the idea of being an atheist is so unattractive.
Come on thomas, we don't base our ideas of you and Christianity on how George Bush or Bill Frist acts, do we? Let Choobus have his fun, and you can always ignore his posts. This is an inter-web forum, not a ladies tea room, so a but of colorful language and posts are to be expected.

Rhinoq

[schemanista]

Come on thomas, we don't base our ideas of you and Christianity on how George Bush or Bill Frist acts, do we?
Um, yes we do. It's a common rhetorical tactic.

[HeWhoAsks]

LES, I only see Aztec religions described anywhere as myths and legends. I take this to mean that there is no credible link between the written beliefs and oral histories and any claimed actual events. By credible link, I mean any written document or oral history that can be traced to people who witnessed or were close in time to witnessing the events described. Do you have any evidence to the contrary of this ?
Thomas, LES gave you exactly that in post #61, complete with a bibliographic citation. What part of that don't you understand?

[Little Earth Stamper]

LES, I only see Aztec religions described anywhere as myths and legends. I take this to mean that there is no credible link between the written beliefs and oral histories and any claimed actual events. By credible link, I mean any written document or oral history that can be traced to people who witnessed or were close in time to witnessing the events described. Do you have any evidence to the contrary of this ?
Well, you've been sadly misinformed; For the most part, they are imbedded in historical documents that were updated as events happened. Books like the Popul Vuh or the Annals of Cuahtitlan all contain accounts fo the spanish invasion. Go get them from the library if you don't believe me.

The Codex Mendoza (A book commisioned by a Spanish official and written by surviving Aztec scholars) lists all the Aztec kings, and the years they reigned. It places Montezuma I's ascension in the year 1441, and extends his rule to the year 1469. There is some variation in sources, but the earliest his ascension is ever placed is 1438.

Fray Duran's history was written based on the testimony of Aztec informants, and a history (unfortunately since lost) written by an Aztec, and was completed in 1581.

This gives us a span of at most, 140 years between the original events and the first mention of them (and that's assuming Montezuma I sent the expedition out in the first year of his reign). There are, morover, two wild cards; I don't know when the history Duran reffered to was written, and I do not know when Montezuma I actually sent out his expedition. if we place the history a decade earlier and the expedition a couple of decades into Montezuma's reign, I time-span of 110 years doesn't seem to be an unreasonable guess.

One thing you have to understand about Aztec histories is that the Spanish missionaries made it their buisness to burn every book in New Spain, with the result that now we only have about 120 pre-hispanic books from all of Mesoamerica, which includes lands far to the south of the Aztecs, all the way to the Mayans in the Yucatan. Spanish accounts of the time indicate that a middle or large sized town would probably have at least 120 books. So we really only have about %1 of the primary sources produced in Mesoamerica by the aboriginal peoples (By the way, it makes me cry that an entire continent's literary tradition was so totally destroyed. Thanks for reminding me).

More often, we have sources that were written by Aztecs who secretly consulted surving older books, and wrote their stories out in spanish. Any histories written at the time of the story are gone, because the Spanish tossed them on a bonfire.

Anyway, to sum up, the story of Coatlicue is farther removed from the events in question then the gospels, but not by too much.

[Little Earth Stamper]

Oh, and the reason that Aztec stories are described as myths and legends is because the Aztecs don't write the history books you've read, and many archeologists consider details like people living for centuries to be themselves evidence of falsity.

But that's archeologists. You personally accept a man returning from the dead as a possibility, and nothing in the Aztec stories is really any less likely.

[Little Earth Stamper]

you are forgetting that the monuments themselves have a lot of information, not just inferred but actually written on them.
Dennis Tedlock's book "Breath on the Mirror" contains good explanations of how stories related in the Popul Vuh jibe with historical mayan monuments that were erected at the time.

I also forgot to ask how far apart the events relayed in the OT are from the time they were written down.

[thomas]

LES, before I get too involved in reading up on all this stuff, just one thing. Where is Aztlan ? I want to visit there and see the Goddess Coatlicue.

[Little Earth Stamper]

LES, before I get too involved in reading up on all this stuff, just one thing. Where is Aztlan ? I want to visit there and see the Goddess Coatlicue.
It's in the same place as Noah's ark.

Actually, Aztlan is located somewhere in the south-western United states, although an exact location eludes archeologists. Furthermore, the story indicates that the Aztecs had to be magically transformed before they could enter this realm of gods. You may not be able to go their on foot.

Personally, I would suggest you start your Acoma, New Mexico, which is apparently the oldest continuously inhabited city in America. People seem to have been living there since before the Aztecs left Aztlan, so maybe there's some old tradition that can point you in right direction. You'll probably want to bring a suply of bottled water.

[thomas]

I have no problem saying that Noah's ark is a mythical story. It probably has its roots in some real flood event, just like the aztec myths probably have some roots in some real event that occurred. The question is does the Aztec religion have anything other than myth and legend ?

I checked out the myth about Aztlan and the journey to find it. The version I saw involved no magic transformation ? Maybe you've seen a different account.

Anyway, I'm rejecting that religion because either it's a myth that Coatlicue is in a mountain somewhere in New Mexico or someone has been very forgetful in the last 600 years to remember where that was. Either way it seems less than credible to me.

[baric]

I have no problem saying that Noah's ark is a mythical story.
That is a good to hear, but where exactly do you draw the line at what is myth and what is true? How about...

Jonah surviving 3 days inside of a whale?
A talking snake convincing a woman to eat an apple?
The Earth's rotation stopping for 24 hours?
Trumpets used to blow down city walls?
A woman turning into a pillar of salt?
Methuselah living to be a thousand years old?
The Nile river turning into blood?
The Red Sea parting to allow Moses to cross?
A virgin birth?
A man walking on water?
A man rising from the dead?

[thomas]

That's a great question. I'd say that it doesn't much matter to me one way or the other if most of these are myths or true. The God of the Bible is certainly described as being able to do those things but it's tough to be certain.

The two I really do care about are (a) the virgin birth and (b) a man rising from the dead. Without (b) Christianity is a waste of time ( Jesus wasn't God, No salvation ). (a) is a big nice to have but not absolutely essential in my mind.

[baric]

That's a great question. I'd say that it doesn't much matter to me one way or the other if most of these are myths or true. The God of the Bible is certainly described as being able to do those things but it's tough to be certain.
Fair enough

The two I really do care about are (a) the virgin birth and (b) a man rising from the dead. Without (b) Christianity is a waste of time ( Jesus wasn't God, No salvation ). (a) is a big nice to have but not absolutely essential in my mind.
Why does that make Christianity pointless? Are you saying that you cannot comprehend of a god that rewards good people without the contorted theology of sin, redemption and salvation?

The earliest gospel, Mark, does not have a virgin birth story and the resurrection story was added on later. That's a pretty good indication that neither of these elements were part of the original gospel story of Jesus.

Just be good for the sake of being good and let the chips of fate fall where they may. If there is a god and it rewards goodness, then you will be rewarded. Anything else is just guesswork. I have a feeling that the purpose of our huge brain is not to accept things on faith, but to investigate, reason and learn.

[thomas]

I can comprehend of a god that rewards good people, that just isn't the God described by Christianity. Muslims have "the scales" whereby your good and bad deeds are weighed at the end of your life and you get "heaven" if the good outweighs the bad. Christianity has the cross which says that you can't do enough good deeds to outweigh your bad deeds, but instead you get to go to heaven by just accepting a free gift of salvation.

The idea that Christianity did not have the resurrection from its earliest days is I think a myth. Look at 1 Thessalonians or 1 Corinthians. Both of these documents pre-date the gospels and are undisupted as the works of Paul, at most 20-30 years after the event. Both of these describe the resurrection of Jesus and it's central place in Christian theology.

[baric]

I can comprehend of a god that rewards good people, that just isn't the God described by Christianity. Muslims have "the scales" whereby your good and bad deeds are weighed at the end of your life and you get "heaven" if the good outweighs the bad. Christianity has the cross which says that you can't do enough good deeds to outweigh your bad deeds, but instead you get to go to heaven by just accepting a free gift of salvation.

The idea that Christianity did not have the resurrection from its earliest days is I think a myth. Look at 1 Thessalonians or 1 Corinthians. Both of these documents pre-date the gospels and are undisupted as the works of Paul, at most 20-30 years after the event. Both of these describe the resurrection of Jesus and it's central place in Christian theology.
Saul/Paul was not a witness to the supposed resurrection, unlike the author of Mark.

If the synoptic gospels tell us anything, it's that there were several versions of Jesus' life story floating around in the years after his death. In addition, it is pretty clear that the gospels are not source documents, but amalgams of earlier documents.

The virgin birth and resurrection are very important elements if one wants to convince unbelievers of Jesus' divinity. Why the author of Mark chose to exclude them is unknown. I think that the simplest explanation is that Gospel of Mark was put on paper before its author became aware of the birth & resurrection stories.

[thomas]

Hate to disappoint you but the author of Mark was most likely not an eye-witness either. By tradition Mark was a disciple of Peter, who was an eye-witness. This is not undisputed but is credible based on internal and external evidence. Mark was most likely written after AD65, but maybe earlier.

For me the amalgamations etc, just show that there was a strong reliable oral history for the stories prior to them being documented. Especially if you take into account that the four gospels were written in many different places by people who probably had little contact with each other.

I don't think the evidence supports your final conclusion. As I said earlier there were widespread documents that were used and known by the church with undisputed authenticity that recorded the Christian belief. It doesn't seem credible that the author of Mark would not know of them. Further many scholars believe that there is good evidence that the passion narrative in Mark was composed before the gospel was written, maybe as early as before AD35, even though it was appended to the gospel later.

[Little Earth Stamper]

...
Anyway, I'm rejecting that religion because either it's a myth that Coatlicue is in a mountain somewhere in New Mexico or someone has been very forgetful in the last 600 years to remember where that was. Either way it seems less than credible to me.
Not so mucc forgetful as the subjects of a campaign to stamp out Native American religion. The mayan writting system was in common use at the time that the spanish conquistadores arrived in the Yucatan. They were so succesful at suppresing native beliefs that they managed to stamp out all knowledge of it in at most about 200 years.

So, if people don't remember where Aztlan is, that's not much of a surprise.

Morover, I'm not sure Coatlicue wants a bunch of white tourists (Descendants of the people who destroyed her son's empire, and his physical embodiment on earth) stomping around sacred Aztlan.

That said, I'm not really convinced you wouldn't find Aztlan if you really looked for it.

So, does your story have any physical evidence to support it?

[God, my arse]

God, My Arse....you forgot onething in your opening statement... there is an invisible man floating on the clouds controlling our lives, but always needs money...he created everything in the universe but he just cant handle his checkbook...
Lol yes that is true :lol: