Thread: Any christians here?

I was making a clarification, Steph; not offering up an argument.

Please be assured that, not only might I be one of those people who "take the viewpoint, that everything, which doesn't fit with the pretty picture must be mythology, made up, put in his mouth," I would take it one more step than that: I'm pretty sure that the gospels, all of which were written a minimum of 70 years after Jesus' death by men who never met him, not only put lots of words into Jesus' mouth on their own, but they also altered much of his life, words, and deeds to better reach their various audiences. Also, I think much of the "pretty picture" mythology, like loving one another, entered the Christian ethos many centuries after Jesus died, if not millennia. So I find literal interpretation of the Bible -- in any direction -- is not a helpful route to take.

That said, I read carefully all the verses you posted and found nothing that says, "If you do not believe, you will be damned to Hell." Sure, Hell was mentioned, as was the potential wrath and power of God (a popular theme for Matthew's audience, BTW), but I'm not seeing where it says that good men who do not believe in God will be damned to Hell. Did I miss it? Could you maybe be doing that which you are railing against, and finding stuff in the Bible that, if interpreted just right, will support your argument?

Again, I was just making a point; I really don't have the energy or interest in getting into a prolonged discussion about this stuff. Plus, believe it or not I don't find your "side" entirely wrong, so I would be a bit of a hypocrite to defend the other (As an aside: organized religion ranks 2nd on my personal list of the worst things in the world... that's organized religion, of course, and not personal religion, which is quite different)

If you really want to bolster (or temper, in some cases) your arguments, though, there is a recent book about Jesus you might want to get your hands on, if you haven't already, called Zealot, by Reza Aslan; it paints a picture of the historical Jesus that might surprise you.

Originally Posted by StephL

Well yeah - that third possibility would be that there was a historical person Jesus - but everything in the New Testament pertaining to the miracles - including his own incessant mention of doing/having done them - is freely invented and without his intention and knowledge.
You could claim that, yepp - but I find it so highly unlikely, that I dismissed the possibility.
The whole (historical) story of his depends on flabbergasting the gullible masses with his tricks - see above, that's the entry ticket to be heard for his disciples too.
Anyway - amounts to the same conclusion - rubbbish.

How is it unlikely? Take the Epic of Gilgamesh and its central character. Chronological examination of this narrative reveals a staggering inflation of the central character to the point near god like status. It matters little whether or not Gilgamesh actually existed and/or had any hand in any versions of the narrative; the latter being unlikely given the sands of time. The larger point is that the story grew over time regardless of the actual existence of the character and the inflation took longer than any possible character's lifetime. Basically, someone else probably wrote it and each successive writer inflated it.

Given that, I am basically suggesting a parallel between these two narratives to clarify my original point; when reading the narratives through the lens of time, it can be suggested that the central character's story was probably written by someone else and their status was inflated with each successive version (whether a version was from the same author or not).

In addition to my original point, it can be suggested that there is some shaky evidence, outside of the respective sources, that both characters may have actually existed. To that end, I suggest that it doesn't matter whether or not either of these characters viewed themselves as divine. Who cares? Neither of them wrote word one about themselves, so assuming that either of the actual people perpetrated their own myths is just that... an assumption. But who cares if they did? The only thing we have to go by is what is written, when and by whom. What I think is more interesting is the mindset of those that actually took pen to paper to document these tales. I believe it to be fairly evident, in the case of the Jesus narrative that is, that Paul, specifically, was attempting to further a belief system that was competing for the hearts and minds of an already crowded ecosystem.

In the end, we can call it rubbish all we want. But the fact remains is that the Jesus narrative worked. Perhaps the real conversation should be why did this narrative, which is so contradictory and so unbelievable, work? I don't believe anyone can honestly attribute it to everyone, but a select few, is just being duped by a few stories. In my opinion, there has to be something fundamental, something deeply human, at play here.

I see, what you mean, balban - it's possible of course!
Even the flood might have made a jump from Gilgamesh into the OT narrative, other topic.

In the end, we can call it rubbish all we want. But the fact remains is that the Jesus narrative worked. Perhaps the real conversation should be why did this narrative, which is so contradictory and so unbelievable, work? I don't believe anyone can honestly attribute it to everyone, but a select few, is just being duped by a few stories. In my opinion, there has to be something fundamental, something deeply human, at play here.

This is indeed a very good question - a much more interesting one.
I am afraid, I don't understand, what you mean with "I don't believe that ... stories." Could you please rephrase that for me?

I keep thinking of a short story by K. J. Parker, about how the main religion in the world, the novels and other stories are set in, came to pass. It is hilarious and wonderful, very insightful and clever - maybe I find a link and put it up.
Found it - highly recommended: The Sun And I by K. J. Parker — Subterranean Press

Ah - I'm unhappy with the below - I lost the prior paragraph in editing, but now I need food..

I believe that without giving a show of some sort with miraculous effects - people wouldn't have followed him in such numbers.
Just the pretty words - I doubt it - why should people believe him?
I'm sure, he didn't even have to give it much effort any more after having been established as wonder-doing - the miracles tend to work themselves after a while, and if only in retelling and embellishing. But if he wouldn't have set out like that - nobody would have listened.
Then a martyr's death - fantastic - nothing better - except rising from the dead..
And the huge strike of luck - but probably also based in the awe at the special effects - was Constantine making it official religion of the Roman empire, at a time in history, which was conductive to the following spread. The church as institution with money, power, political agendas... Until Luther, most people weren't even able to read the thing themselves.
People tend to be willing to believe almost anything, given that almost everybody else believes it as well..


@Sageous - I might completely misunderstand you here, I think. My conjecture: You hold a Christian belief, which is based on some parts of the bible, it is basically home-grown and fits in with a larger customized spirituality system. Is that in etwa the case?

First question of course - what convinces you of the truth of a Christian god?
And – what is it, that you do believe in exactly, which justifies, that you are a Christian as opposed to a "mere" Humanist?
It would be helpful to know, as what you personally see Jesus, for example - was he more than a philosopher, a religious reformer?

When I gave my polemically phrased "central Christian message" - basically obedience, reward and punishment - you said, that you think “the reasons Jesus showed up in the first place” was to dispel such notions.

Again - if so – why not say so?
Say it so clearly and often, that it manages to survive manipulation and editing?
That would be quite some massive manipulation, if Jesus would have wanted to do away with the notion of hell, and what came out is the New Testament. If you want to assume at the same time, that some of the messages do actually stem from him personally, that is.
He keeps talking about judgement, hell, heaven, redemption, salvation, guilt, evil - everywhere in the NT - and in shed-loads.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I was making a clarification, Steph; not offering up an argument.

Yes you were - by saying that obedience/reward/punishment was only a caricature and not absolutely central to the Christian faith!

Originally Posted by Sageous

Please be assured that, not only am I one of those people who "take the viewpoint, that everything, which doesn't fit with the pretty picture must be mythology, made up, put in his mouth,"
I would take it one more step than that: I'm pretty sure that the gospels, all of which were written a minimum of 70 years after Jesus' death by men who never met him, not only put lots of words into Jesus' mouth on their own, but they also alter much of his life, words, and deeds to better reach their various audiences.

Okay – now I really need clarification.
Of course I am with you, from step two onwards – but – do you really mean “not only” as in inclusively? That would mean, you accept that, and only that in the bible, which conforms to what for you consider as morally valuable – fitting, what you perceive is the true message - and discard all the rest.
Why not make up your own mind in the first place, if so?
Acknowledging, how much must seem wrong to you, probably especially in the OT - how can you bring yourself to believe in the truth of any of it? Like the basics - that the described god created the world and grants life after death and brings fair judgement?
You do believe in some sort of divine judgement, or don't you?
If you wouldn't - that would open up a whole new bucket of fish - but I await your answer.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Also, I think much of the "pretty picture" mythology, like loving one another, entered the Christian ethos many centuries after Jesus died, if not millennia. So I find literal interpretation of the Bible -- in any direction -- is not a helpful route to take.

Moment - now I fail to follow – I thought, you said, that the pretty picture is the only valid one above?
And that he came to dispel the older un-pretty picture with the new one?
That his was a message of purely love and forgiveness and peace?
If you think, that is add-on - then I really fail to understand, what you want from Christianity. Well if you do. Want something, I mean.

Originally Posted by Sageous

That said, I read carefully all the verses you posted and found nothing that says, "If you do not believe, you will be damned to Hell." Sure, Hell was mentioned, as was the potential wrath and power of God (a popular theme for Matthew's audience, BTW), but I'm not seeing where it says that good men who do not believe in God will be damned to Hell. Did I miss it? Could you maybe be doing that which you are railing against, and finding stuff in the Bible that, if interpreted just right, will support your argument?

What I showed was, that a whole town will fall under the wrath of god, and be worse off even than Sodom and Gomorrah, if they don’t let the apostles in and do their preaching. Everybody in that town will be punished, for whoever decides about the preaching. I repeat from Matthew:

10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

If that is supposed to be a joke – a là S/G have been punished already – it is a very bad one.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Again, I was just making a point; I really don't have the energy or interest in getting into a prolonged discussion about this stuff. Plus, believe it or not I don't find your "side" entirely wrong, so I would be a bit of a hypocrite to defend the other (As an aside: organized religion ranks 2nd on my personal list of the worst things in the world... that's organized religion, of course, and not personal religion, which is quite different)

What is it in Christianity, which is superior to your very own moral compass?
Immortality?

Originally Posted by Sageous

If you really want to bolster (or temper, in some cases) your arguments, though, there is a recent book about Jesus you might want to get your hands on, if you haven't already, called Zealot, by Reza Aslan; it paints a picture of the historical Jesus that might surprise you.

Well – how is that picture in etwa? I needed a bit more appetizing.
Is there a punch-line?



@Sensei
I am curious about some administrative details of hell.
Do you believe, that hell is eternal - once you are there - that was it?
Or is there a possibility to repent and redeem oneself from down there?
Maybe the cases get rolled up anew on judgement day?
Isn't it so, that sinners went to hell no matter what before Christ - and after Christ, you can free yourself from all guilt by "taking him into your heart"? How is that fair to the ones born before Christ?

Originally Posted by StephL

Even the flood might have made a jump from Gilgamesh into the OT narrative, other topic.

Nice observation! The similarities are far too many to dismiss this as a very real possibility.

Originally Posted by StephL

I am afraid, I don't understand, what you mean with "I don't believe that ... stories." Could you please rephrase that for me?

I think my colloquialisms may have missed their marks. I apologize.

What I meant was that I don't think anyone can honestly make the case that the only reason someone believes in X is because they are simply being fooled by a few ancient stories scribbled down in a book. I think that is too simple of an answer. It certainly is a logical conclusion and I wouldn't fault someone for having come to that (I thought the same at various points in my life as well), but this really hasn't been my experience when talking with believers. I think there is something far more fundamental going on. Perhaps its part of our evolutionary process? But that is where my thoughts get kind of weird. I'll admit it.

Further, I have to admit that I tend to gravitate to discussions like these. During past conversations I often find myself wondering why I can read these stories and slap my forehead in disbelief and yet many people, if not the majority, can read these stories and consider them to be legitimate and live their lives by them. Why is this? I certainly don't believe "I" am smarter than "them". I've meet some really intelligent religious people who were very articulate in their beliefs. Yet when we start to discuss inconsistencies and such, they seem to descend into this bizarre, obtuse mindset of "well... you just have to believe". Exasperation ensues.

Originally Posted by StephL

I keep thinking of a short story by K. J. Parker, about how the main religion in the world, the novels and other stories are set in, came to pass. It is hilarious and wonderful, very insightful and clever - maybe I find a link and put it up.
Found it - highly recommended: The Sun And I by K. J. Parker — Subterranean Press

Sounds interesting. I will certainly take a look at it. Thanks.

Originally Posted by StephL

I believe that without giving a show of some sort with miraculous effects - people wouldn't have followed him in such numbers.
Just the pretty words - I doubt it - why should people believe him?
I'm sure, he didn't even have to give it much effort any more after having been established as wonder-doing - the miracles tend to work themselves after a while, and if only in retelling and embellishing. But if he wouldn't have set out like that - nobody would have listened.
Then a martyr's death - fantastic - nothing better - except rising from the dead..
And the huge strike of luck - but probably also based in the awe at the special effects - was Constantine making it official religion of the Roman empire, at a time in history, which was conductive to the following spread. The church as institution with money, power, political agendas... Until Luther, most people weren't even able to read the thing themselves.
People tend to be willing to believe almost anything, given that almost everybody else believes it as well..

Fair enough and you certainly may be correct. Again, from my perspective, most of the Christians I've ever talked to, it was only the miracle of the resurrection that really mattered. Sure he healed the sick and brought people back to life, cast out demons, etc... But all of that wouldn't have mattered without Jesus overcoming death. And through that specific miracle, I believe that he became the deity he is today.

Additional to this, I am reasonably sure that miracle workers weren't uncommon in those days (hell... even today there are stories of the exact same miracles being performed... whatever). I don't recall where I discovered this information over the years, which is why I am only "reasonably sure", so take it for what it's worth. But, if I am accurate, healing the sick, curing the blind, etc... happened through other people at the time. So I can't believe, putting myself in the mind of someone witnessing these events, that watching Jesus perform said miracle would have caused me to assume him being a deity, must less "my deity". But I don't doubt that the other miracles added to his elevation. Certainly. I could type more about this, but I'll probably bore you.

And yes, I completely agree with your notion that people will tend to believe if surrounded by believers. 100% accurate.

To further your thoughts concerning Luther, I think the most power thing he did for Christianity was bring a personal god to the people. And yes, reading "the word" on your own was part of it. YOU should know god personally, etc... Contrast that with many monotheistic religions, Catholicism, Judaism, etc... there is an intercessor - someone who speaks to god for you. Luther did away with that and basically gave the believer a personal relationship with their deity. That is some really powerful stuff.

I think that is enough for now or I will have to include a tl;dr paragraph.

Ah, Steph, your confusion about my answers only shows how well you understood what I really meant! Does that make no sense? Let me go the long way, then:

First, I said I was raised a catholic and educated in catholic schools, which I feel gives me a solid understanding of both the tenets of Christianity and what it means (to me) to be a Christian; I never said I believe anything in the Bible is true, because in truth I really don't care. I was speaking in my posts more from a position of knowledge and experience than belief. For me, the thing that is Christianity transcended the Bible a very long time ago, and if anything it is a shame that in recent years the Bible has become so important again (more in a bit).

On top of all that, I left all interest, or reverence for, any organized religion decades ago, and do not seek to defend anything they proscribe, including what the stuff in the Bible means. Any interest now, like reading Zealot, is more based on a curiosity about a subject that so many people find so important, and that has endured in the human zeitgeist for millennia. So in a nutshell I really hold no deep regard for the Bible, and I recognize that it was a book written by men with a mission that may or may not have had anything to do with Jesus -- but it was a mission. I might still have faith in something, and I certainly have the highest hopes that there is something "more" for me than just this existence, but it really doesn't line up at all with Christianity anymore -- especially the bible-thumping variety.

Now, more specifically [fair warning: almost all your questions would require book-length answers for me to properly address, so I hope this abbreviated stuff makes some sense]:

Originally Posted by StephL

@Sageous - I might completely misunderstand you here, I think. My conjecture: You hold a Christian belief, which is based on some parts of the bible, it is basically home-grown and fits in with a larger customized spirituality system. Is that in etwa the case?

Funny; I think you understand me just fine, but still have raised an incorrect conjecture! My belief system (or, rather, my hope system) left Christianity behind a very long time ago. As far as I know, I have based nothing of my current mystical mindset on what's in the Bible and do not look to it for guidance. So no; I don't hold a fundamental Cristian belief -- indeed, I would imagine that my "larger customized spirituality system" would prove quite blasphemous to the average fundamentalist. Not that some stuff -- like the Golden Rule -- in the Bible doesn't make sense or doesn't blend with my current beliefs, but you could say the same about stuff from the Bhagavad Gita, Tao te Ching, Bardo Thodol, or even the Koran... the best parts of all the belief systems tend to say the same things -- it's when all the ancillary crap is added in by well-intentioned (or otherwise) men that differences and contradictions are created.

I give up: what does "etwa" stand for, or mean?

First question of course - what convinces you of the truth of a Christian god?

Nothing. Indeed, the first line of one of my books reads, "First, there is no God." And if something were to convince me of the truth of a God, you can bet that that truth would not include the word "christian." Or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Muslim, or anyone else... God, in truth, would be God, period, with no need for human-initiated definition or embellishment.

And – what is it, that you do believe in exactly, which justifies, that you are a Christian as opposed to a "mere" Humanist?

What I believe in, or hope for, is that there is something "more" for us, and that something may well be created by us during our lifetime. In other words, the "more" may be based upon an accumulation of our lifetime of thoughts and actions and... you know what? I can't answer this here. To fully do so would take too long and wander way too far from the topic. Suffice it to say that I believe in nothing that "justifies" that I am Christian, and promise you I have not tried to make such a justification. And, given that I do still hope (and strive every day) for something "more," I'm not sure I could be deposited into a "mere" Humanist bucket either.

It would be helpful to know, as what you personally see Jesus, for example - was he more than a philosopher, a religious reformer?

If he existed at all, Jesus was likely a very charismatic, rough-and-tumble zealot of a man with Messianistic tendencies (messiahs were, believe it or not, fairly common in Jesus' time) and a transcendental understanding of himself and his world. Whether this understanding was his own invention or put there by God, I couldn't tell you; but I can tell you that it was a powerful enough trait to convince a small group of people to spend centuries organizing a mighty religion around it. And sure, his was a message of reform, of breaking away from the institutionalized mess that Judaism had become at that point, and of seeking freedom or release from the oppression of the Roman Empire (also a fairly big deal in Jesus' time). I also want to believe that if Jesus was a manifestation of God, he would have been a bit more efficient: I have a lot of trouble believing that a God who could create an entire universe would need to send his message in such a clumsy manner. So my confusion ensues.

When I gave my polemically phrased "central Christian message" - basically obedience, reward and punishment - you said, that you think “the reasons Jesus showed up in the first place” was to dispel such notions.

Yes, I did say that. And, in the context of "the central Christian Message," I still do say that. I could be wrong, and could be simply spouting wishful thinking, but from what I've read and learned over the years, it seems to me that Jesus was rebelling against the rules, and trying to extend a message that focused more on doing what is right, rather than what you're supposed to do (aka, what was written).

Again - if so – why not say so?
Say it so clearly and often, that it manages to survive manipulation and editing?

Excellent point -- that sort of matches my concern above about God working in such an inefficient manner.

That would be quite some massive manipulation, if Jesus would have wanted to do away with the notion of hell, and what came out is the New Testament. If you want to assume at the same time, that some of the messages do actually stem from him personally, that is. He keeps talking about judgement, hell, heaven, redemption, salvation, guilt, evil - everywhere in the NT - and in shed-loads.

Well, 2,000 years and a hundred generations of priests leave a lot of room for massive manipulation, I think. There is an excellent chance that nothing Jesus said or meant to say made it into the Gospels. He may have talked continually about Heaven, Hell, etc, or he may not have... remember that the entire New Testament was written based on what people thought he said, were told he said, or decided he said, and not necessarily on what he actually said. Perhaps these men thought or decided the right things; perhaps not. But the mere fact that men, and men with agendas (especially Paul), did that thinking and deciding is enough for me to question everything in the gospels, good or bad, and to steer away from accepting any of it as evidence as anything. The Bible is a valuable tool, and certainly has its place, good or bad, in human history, but to use it as an ultimate, infallible, and literal source for truth is, I think, not the best tool for growth.

Okay – now I really need clarification.
Of course I am with you, from step two onwards – but – do you really mean “not only” as in inclusively? That would mean, you accept that, and only that in the bible, which conforms to what for you consider as morally valuable – fitting, what you perceive is the true message - and discard all the rest.

I think I already said I don't think any of those things, so hopefully the rest of my asnwers above gave clarification -- let me know if it didn't. I believe what I believe, and choose not to use any part of the Bible to back up or justify that belief. I am not cherry-picking the Bible as much as I'm choosing not to pick at all.

Why not make up your own mind in the first place, if so?

I try to do just that in all things; I'm not sure what I said that might have led you to believe something else.

Acknowledging, how much must seem wrong to you, probably especially in the OT - how can you bring yourself to believe in the truth of any of it? Like the basics - that the described god created the world and grants life after death and brings fair judgement?

I cannot. Even the basics don't make a lot of sense to me these days (i.e., why would a loving God who created us, nurtured us, and above all knows us choose to judge us at all? If He created us to have a life after death, why would He take it away? And of course, there's my overriding problem with It All: Why would an omniscient, eternal God with the ability to create a universe encompassing 100 million galaxies even give a crap about the doings of a couple of humans on a lonely little planet circling the frontier of a mediocre galaxy?

You do believe in some sort of divine judgement, or don't you?

No. I do not.

If you wouldn't - that would open up a whole new bucket of fish - but I await your answer.

It sure would, wouldn't it? Especially when the proper Christians viewing chime in with why I'm wrong!

Originally Posted by Sageous:
Also, I think much of the "pretty picture" mythology, like loving one another, entered the Christian ethos many centuries after Jesus died, if not millennia. So I find literal interpretation of the Bible -- in any direction -- is not a helpful route to take.

Moment - now I fail to follow – I thought, you said, that the pretty picture is the only valid one above?
And that he came to dispel the older un-pretty picture with the new one?
That his was a message of purely love and forgiveness and peace?
If you think, that is add-on - then I really fail to understand, what you want from Christianity. Well if you do. Want something, I mean.

And that is why I dislike getting embroiled in these conversations! While struggling to speak within the context of the conversation, I so often step on my own thoughts with resounding clumsiness!

What I was trying to say was the the "pretty picture," or the Golden Rule, love one another, God is Love, My Kingdom Dwells in all of you, etc. symphony of ideas is what forms the core of the ideal "Christian." Now, aside from the Gospel of John, very little of that stuff is even in the Bible -- they formed in the hearts of thoughtful Christians over the centuries, passed so effectively from generation to generation that they have become the foundation of modern Christianity (in spite of the fundamentalist attempts to override it). The truly amazing thing is that the pretty stuff ever even developed, I think. But it did so because of Christians, and not because of what was written in the Bible.

What I showed was, that a whole town will fall under the wrath of god, and be worse off even than Sodom and Gomorrah, if they don’t let the apostles in and do their preaching. Everybody in that town will be punished, for whoever decides about the preaching. I repeat from Matthew:

10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

If that is supposed to be a joke – a là S/G have been punished already – it is a very bad one.

Not a joke, but a simple message meant to impress simple people... and a message that I truly believe a loving God would have nothing to do with. Sadly, that message still works with too many people, despite the fact that after all these thousands of years God has yet to smite a single city, regardless of what they believe.

What is it in Christianity, which is superior to your very own moral compass?
Immortality?

Not a thing. In fact, I think that the problem with Christianity, and organized religion in general, is that it offers a moral compass/direction to people who are too lazy or insecure to establish their own. I think we are all more than capable, through self-awareness, to understand what is good or evil, and to direct ourselves toward goodness or right-mindfulness. This is probably the most important thing a sentient being can do, and to pass that job onto someone else (or, worse, to decide that you do not need a moral compass) seems like a shirking of personal responsibility to me.

Immortality? That either exists or it doesn't; I do not need to believe in it for it to occur (though I do think it would help to prepare for it regardless, if that makes any sense), and as I said above, I do not believe that a God who bestowed us with immortal souls would deem take them away because we were bad for the extremely brief moment of time we spent as mortals.

Originally Posted by Sageous:
If you really want to bolster (or temper, in some cases) your arguments, though, there is a recent book about Jesus you might want to get your hands on, if you haven't already, called Zealot, by Reza Aslan; it paints a picture of the historical Jesus that might surprise you.

Well – how is that picture in etwa? I needed a bit more appetizing.
Is there a punch-line?

Again, I am not sure what you mean here... what is "etwa?" Am I going to be embarrassed by the answer? I only suggested Zealot because I thought you would appreciate it; no punch line.

Originally Posted by balban

During past conversations I often find myself wondering why I can read these stories and slap my forehead in disbelief and yet many people, if not the majority, can read these stories and consider them to be legitimate and live their lives by them.

Exactly!!
But - if we are honest - I guess, we have to acknowledge that we both come from a society, which is much more secular than the numbers of people officially part of churches in Germany might suggest.

Anyway - what I forgot - hell is a concept from the New Testament - there are only sparse mentions of a life after death in the OT at all.
What seems to have been the fate of "irrelevant" people is oblivion - not eternal punishment - only the very few exceptionally holy persons could pin their hope of being raised to the realm of God - such as Moses. What people were afraid of seems to be rather being smitten in real life.
I had to look that up - I wasn't aware of the fact, that "our" hell is a unique Christian notion - well - and Islamic, but that came after Christianity.
What did Old Testament Believers think of life after death?
"Is There a Specific Reference to Heaven or Hell in the OT?" - Probe Ministries
So it can't quite be that Jesus wanted to do away with such notions theoretically - no - hell is something added by Christianity.
How's that for loving kindness?

Uuups - missed your post Sageous - will come back later!

Originally Posted by Sageous

In fact, I think that the problem with Christianity, and organized religion in general, is that it offers a moral compass/direction to people who are too lazy or insecure to establish their own. I think we are all more than capable, through self-awareness, to understand what is good or evil, and to direct ourselves toward goodness or right-mindfulness. This is probably the most important thing a sentient being can do, and to pass that job onto someone else (or, worse, to decide that you do not need a moral compass) seems like a shirking of personal responsibility to me.

I tend to agree with the premise here, but I think its far too critical to lay laziness or insecurity at the feet of the believer. The environment the believer is immersed in plays a huge role in what they believe. The idea that if you grew up in whatever social group that believes X, you are probably going to believe X and breaking from the herd is kind of a frightening thing. In some archaic societies, disagreement with X could end your life. In my opinion, it has a lot to do with survival. Maybe not survival in a physical sense, but, at a minimum, emotional survival.

In saying that, I do agree that most everyone has the capacity to figure it out on their own. I don't, for a second, believe any kind of morality comes from some specific source. But I do wonder, if it were really left up to each of us to make up our own beliefs, what would that society really look like. Would we all start warring with each other because we seem attached to this I-am-right-and-everyone-else-is-wrong mentality? These same divisive feelings creep into nearly every aspect of our daily lives... politics, religion, economics, sports, etc... I honestly don't think we've evolved enough for that.

Anyway, Sageous. I think see where you are coming from with your bigger points. It isn't all the bizarre or complex to me. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but you are coming across as a bit confused. However, in your defense, I think that is the nature of where you are at as opposed to you not understanding what it is you do believe. I think it probably sounds right to you, but there is no way in hell you can explain it. I get it. Beliefs are a f'ing complex thing.

Originally Posted by StephL

Exactly!!
But - if we are honest - I guess, we have to acknowledge that we both come from a society, which is much more secular than the numbers of people officially part of churches in Germany might suggest.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by StephL

Anyway - what I forgot - hell is a concept from the New Testament - there are only sparse mentions of a life after death in the OT at all.
What seems to have been the fate of "irrelevant" people is oblivion - not eternal punishment - only the very few exceptionally holy persons could pin their hope of being raised to the realm of God - such as Moses. What people were afraid of seems to be rather being smitten in real life.
I had to look that up - I wasn't aware of the fact, that "our" hell is a unique Christian notion - well - and Islamic, but that came after Christianity.
What did Old Testament Believers think of life after death?
"Is There a Specific Reference to Heaven or Hell in the OT?" - Probe Ministries
So it can't quite be that Jesus wanted to do away with such notions theoretically - no - hell is something added by Christianity.
How's that for loving kindness?

The Jews had an idea of a sort of "underworld" (for lack of a better word). It was sort of a place of non-existence from what I understand. But I think that this idea is really kind of nebulous. I don't believe an afterlife is something that Judaism really focus on traditionally. The Egyptians kind of had a "hell", but it's more closely related to the Shoal concept, in the Jewish tradition. If one was judged unworthy, you simply didn't exist anymore. Something like that. But no, I don't believe there was a place of eternal torture until Christianity came around.

As to the Christian tradition, I don't find the concept of hell to be in-line with a merciful god at all. If we are to come to god as our father (as described by Jesus), how is that that a father, any father, would damn his child to an eternity of the most horrible tortures for simply disobeying laws he obviously acknowledged that I couldn't follow in the first place (because he had to come down here and do it for me)? Seems preposterous. And yes... not very loving or kind. Not even close.

Let's take this a little further... if god made me and knew what I was going to become in my life (regardless of my supposed "free will"), then he basically made me to be eternally damned? He knew what I would become because his is omniscient; he knew and still created me anyway. WTF! That concept is worse that original sin, IMO. It's baffling how anyone could honestly believe that... but they do. Not only that, they defend it as if somehow this is justice. Silly.

Thank you Sageous - now I think, I also see, where you are coming from!
Sorry for the "in etwa" - that's common in German, and I was of the misconception, it would exist in English, too - like "et. al." or "a là".
What it means is "approximately" - that had a slightly different ring to my meaning-generator, though, and I was too lazy to check and find, I should use it anyway.
Thank God you are not a "proper Christian" - home-grown, hope-based spirituality systems are a topic for another thread maybe!

Originally Posted by balban

The Jews had an idea of a sort of "underworld" (for lack of a better word). It was sort of a place of non-existence from what I understand. But I think that this idea is really kind of nebulous. I don't believe an afterlife is something that Judaism really focus on traditionally. The Egyptians kind of had a "hell", but it's more closely related to the Shoal concept, in the Jewish tradition. If one was judged unworthy, you simply didn't exist anymore. Something like that. But no, I don't believe there was a place of eternal torture until Christianity came around.

This actually throws over one of my pet-theories - namely that the "power-base" of the three desert-religions would be the promise of life after death right from the start. It's sort of typical, that I wouldn't know that hell and heaven were a Christian invention. I was raised Lutherian, the usual watered down variety.
Like - the OT is the fairy-tale collection, and full of misunderstanding, and lets not dwell on it - and Jesus the big loving reformer, his miracles mostly metaphors except the rising from the dead and to heaven.
Somehow sneakily, hell and Satan were pushed in the same corner - "of course there is no punisher with horns, metaphor"!
Jesus a divine being, getting it all right, and stupid Catholics dwelling on their guilt-complex, sexual fixation etc., still sad, they can't buy themselves free of sins any more. That might have made it easier for me as a child to decide, that I can just as well throw the whole thing in the bin, if most of it doesn't count anyway. In a way I always found the Catholics more honest, who were at least taking their faith seriously.

Originally Posted by balban

As to the Christian tradition, I don't find the concept of hell to be in-line with a merciful god at all. If we are to come to god as our father (as described by Jesus), how is that that a father, any father, would damn his child to an eternity of the most horrible tortures for simply disobeying laws he obviously acknowledged that I couldn't follow in the first place (because he had to come down here and do it for me)? Seems preposterous. And yes... not very loving or kind. Not even close.

You speak from my heart - in general - and so concisely - lovely!!
There are so many such details - if you abstain from believing in young earth creationism - there is also the problem of at least 150.000 years of humanity, and god was cutting his toe-nails instead of taking an interest and revealing himself to somebody.
They had to struggle with a world they did not understand at all - full of dangers, sickness, misery and early death.
Supposedly, if you believe that god introduced the first notion of morals with his commandments - they have been constantly stealing and raping and killing, and leaving their elders to die in the desert. Nope. If they wouldn't have followed their inborn moral compass all along - they would of never have made it anywhere - incl. mount Sinai.
Revelations - another good topic - why did God not reveal, that the earth is round and goes around the sun, that matter consists of atoms and that creatures have evolved? Now that would have been impressive!

Originally Posted by balban

Let's take this a little further... if god made me and knew what I was going to become in my life (regardless of my supposed "free will"), then he basically made me to be eternally damned? He knew what I would become because his is omniscient; he knew and still created me anyway. WTF! That concept is worse that original sin, IMO. It's baffling how anyone could honestly believe that... but they do. Not only that, they defend it as if somehow this is justice. Silly.

That's what irks me so - the incredible obvious irrationality of this whole belief system - and on the other hand the billions of followers.
What is really marvellous, is that you don't even need to do anything immoral yourself - you need to be a devout Christian, in order to be properly saved. Why?
Because Eve had a thirst for knowledge, the bitch!
Of course God in his omniscience didn't expect that..?
And since all humans sprang from these two ancestors (lets just for now forget genetics) - we are all born with this original sin!
How practical - not that someone sets it in her head to decide being completely good and free of sin herself - and such she can abstain from following Jesus - nooo - not so!
In general - the message is - we humans are basically unworthy of god - seems he decided against genociding his second batch again with another flood, the batch stemming from righteous Noah and his family this time.
No - he sent his only son (is God now impotent? No more offspring possible?)! And now we have to be thankful for that - what a sacrifice he gave for us unworthy worms!
Can't he create proper humans, really after his own image, so that they finally function as he planned it?
Nope - he still has huge problems with quality control, it seems.

gaah.gif


But yeah - what is the lure, the gain you get from religion?
Besides hope for immortality and divine justice - being recompensed for the suffering after all - and the satisfaction of the wicked neighbour burning in hell, while you couldn't do something against him being more "blessed" in real life. Directions, rules - the possibility of being holier than thou?

Maybe that ritualized, community-based "raising of the human spirit" - esp. when you consider sacral music, also architecture and art in general, preachers with a heart aflame - it provides a feeling of "transcendence" (horrible word, but anyway) of the menial, hard or simply boring life - conveying, what can be had in nature-contemplation and with secular art as well, but seemingly more powerful - a sense of awe and wonder.
All validated by being institutionalized and shared.

Originally Posted by balban

Anyway, Sageous. I think see where you are coming from with your bigger points. It isn't all the bizarre or complex to me. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but you are coming across as a bit confused. However, in your defense, I think that is the nature of where you are at as opposed to you not understanding what it is you do believe. I think it probably sounds right to you, but there is no way in hell you can explain it. I get it. Beliefs are a f'ing complex thing.

Confusion about a subject like this seems a sensible mindset to hold. To assume that you know with certainty a truth that you cannot know in this life is to me a bit delusional... and yet the very nature of faith gives us a strong sense, a happy possession, of this knowledge, this delusion. A stance of confusion, or a willingness to shift your perspective as new ideas or facts trickle in, can both make the full volume of this stuff easier to absorb and help prepare you for anything that might follow death. In the meantime, though, belief is indeed a freakin' complex thing...

Originally Posted by StephL

This actually throws over one of my pet-theories - namely that the "power-base" of the three desert-religions would be the promise of life after death right from the start. It's sort of typical, that I wouldn't know that hell and heaven were a Christian invention. I was raised Lutherian, the usual watered down variety.
Like - the OT is the fairy-tale collection, and full of misunderstanding, and lets not dwell on it - and Jesus the big loving reformer, his miracles mostly metaphors except the rising from the dead and to heaven.
Somehow sneakily, hell and Satan were pushed in the same corner - "of course there is no punisher with horns, metaphor"!
Jesus a divine being, getting it all right, and stupid Catholics dwelling on their guilt-complex, sexual fixation etc., still sad, they can't buy themselves free of sins any more. That might have made it easier for me as a child to decide, that I can just as well throw the whole thing in the bin, if most of it doesn't count anyway. In a way I always found the Catholics more honest, who were at least taking their faith seriously.

I'd like to hear an expanded version of your theory. Care to share? Sounds interesting.

As far as the Old Testament, there is evidence that early Judaism wasn't monotheistic. It is suggested that it wasn't until the Babylonian exile that the individual gods where merge into one. This is one possible explanation for the contradictory nature of the OT god. I've taken a trip through Documentary Hypothesis a time or two in my life. It is an interesting theory and worth a look if you haven't already.

Originally Posted by StephL

You speak from my heart - in general - and so concisely - lovely!!
There are so many such details - if you abstain from believing in young earth creationism - there is also the problem of at least 150.000 years of humanity, and god was cutting his toe-nails instead of taking an interest and revealing himself to somebody.
They had to struggle with a world they did not understand at all - full of dangers, sickness, misery and early death.
Supposedly, if you believe that god introduced the first notion of morals with his commandments - they have been constantly stealing and raping and killing, and leaving their elders to die in the desert. Nope. If they wouldn't have followed their inborn moral compass all along - they would of never have made it anywhere - incl. mount Sinai.
Revelations - another good topic - why did God not reveal, that the earth is round and goes around the sun, that matter consists of atoms and that creatures have evolved? Now that would have been impressive!

I can't figure out how anyone could support the Young Earth Theory. These people baffle me. Science knows far too much to even consider that the Earth is only 6K years old. The problem is that these people make the claim that both parties are taking their beliefs by faith. It's because I can't "explain" the entire theory to their satisfaction. This is obvious and I openly admit that. However, the bar to understanding the big bang, evolution, etc... is very high. One needs to have a massive amount of knowledge in many things. I would venture to say that no one has this level of knowledge. The difference is is that, should I have the desire, the skill, the intelligence, to perform the tests, do the math, etc.. I would probably arrive at the same conclusion. It's a stark contrast to what the Young Earth theory has to offer. I consider myself to have a layman's knowledge of the science behind creation, but I understand it well enough to believe that science is probably on the right track.

I think the morality issue is where most believers fear that unbelief will lead us to a breakdown in the social order, which kind of bothers me. What goes on in their minds that they actually have fear that if there wasn't something all powerful always watching that they themselves would conduct themselves any differently (assuming they are doing good that is)? As if the fear of losing out on some big reward in the end is the only reason for "doing good"? How about not raping, murdering, stealing, etc., because it violates any kind of decency, which, I think, most of us can be on board with in order to get along? In all honesty, if anyone really think the social order will disintegrate any further without some deity or hope for an eternal reward, then I am just fine with them believing that. Things suck enough as they are.

As for revelations, I've seen all sorts of crazy claims attempting to match biblical stories with modern day science. It's shaky at best. I've always believed that god could convince me very easily that it exists. Yet... I am still waiting. And yes... I am putting god to the test. Shameful!

Originally Posted by StephL

That's what irks me so - the incredible obvious irrationality of this whole belief system - and on the other hand the billions of followers.
What is really marvellous, is that you don't even need to do anything immoral yourself - you need to be a devout Christian, in order to be properly saved. Why?
Because Eve had a thirst for knowledge, the bitch!
Of course God in his omniscience didn't expect that..?
And since all humans sprang from these two ancestors (lets just for now forget genetics) - we are all born with this original sin!
How practical - not that someone sets it in her head to decide being completely good and free of sin herself - and such she can abstain from following Jesus - nooo - not so!
In general - the message is - we humans are basically unworthy of god - seems he decided against genociding his second batch again with another flood, the batch stemming from righteous Noah and his family this time.
No - he sent his only son (is God now impotent? No more offspring possible?)! And now we have to be thankful for that - what a sacrifice he gave for us unworthy worms!
Can't he create proper humans, really after his own image, so that they finally function as he planned it?
Nope - he still has huge problems with quality control, it seems.

It can be annoying. I don't know what it is in me that argues over such things. Am I looking to "convert" someone as zealously as they are trying to convert me? In the end, my experience is that the discussions descend into an endless pissing match and it all just become a worthless exercise. Think about your own "awakening"... did someone convince you or did you ultimately convince yourself? I've come to realize that discussing religion with the believer is like pushing a stone up a mountain only to have it roll back down on me - obvious sisyphean reference because that is what religious discussions feel like to me. So I tend to shy away from unending diatribes. This is why I try to say things there are of value to me. I don't seek to take someone's faith away from them (like I can). It can be traumatic and you have to be in the right place to accept that this might be all there is and that death is probably the end (the big black). I still find myself, at times, trying to come to terms with it.

Originally Posted by StephL

But yeah - what is the lure, the gain you get from religion?
Besides hope for immortality and divine justice - being recompensed for the suffering after all - and the satisfaction of the wicked neighbour burning in hell, while you couldn't do something against him being more "blessed" in real life. Directions, rules - the possibility of being holier than thou?

Maybe that ritualized, community-based "raising of the human spirit" - esp. when you consider sacral music, also architecture and art in general, preachers with a heart aflame - it provides a feeling of "transcendence" (horrible word, but anyway) of the menial, hard or simply boring life - conveying, what can be had in nature-contemplation and with secular art as well, but seemingly more powerful - a sense of awe and wonder.
All validated by being institutionalized and shared.

What you mention here is very powerful stuff in the end. My quick answer is yes! Of course! That is the lure. What you get is an instant tribe. You gain an identity and some semblance of meaning in your life. You are probably less fearful because your deity is watching out for you. Maybe worry a little less about your future, etc... Putting aside the bad side of Christianity for a moment, they do tend to help others in some meaningful ways. And I wouldn't necessarily think that the average Christian would relish in the fact that someone is going to burn in hell. I believe this to be the main reason for all the proselytization. I had some well meaning dude actually cry for me because I was an unbeliever. It was really f'ing uncomfortable. But I believe his tears were out of genuine fear for my eternal soul nonetheless.

All this isn't to say that these things can't be gained from some other source, but I recognize the attraction and take it for what its worth. Ultimately, I think its a low buy in for a decent gain. Plus their music isn't bad.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Confusion about a subject like this seems a sensible mindset to hold. To assume that you know with certainty a truth that you cannot know in this life is to me a bit delusional... and yet the very nature of faith gives us a strong sense, a happy possession, of this knowledge, this delusion. A stance of confusion, or a willingness to shift your perspective as new ideas or facts trickle in, can both make the full volume of this stuff easier to absorb and help prepare you for anything that might follow death. In the meantime, though, belief is indeed a freakin' complex thing...

Being in the state of always searching isn't a bad place to be. I read a book called "The Spiritual Tourist" some time back. It brought some value to my life. I've never stopped looking for something, though I tend to gravitate to a this is all there is conclusion. But I will admin that, like you, I am hopeful that there is some kind of afterlife. Contemplations of the idea of "not existing" does bring me some anxiety. Which is kind of bizarre when I really think about it; I haven't existed for billions of years. So I should really know how to not exist by this point. I would even say I am an expert after all that practice!

I don't know why it bothers me, but I does from time to time.

I don't want to debate, or argue. StephL and Universal Mind. You are both poking and trying to get me to argue back, but I am not a bear... I am more like the Pillsbury Doughboy. There are people smarter than each of us on both sides of these issues, so it obviously isn't a matter of intelligence which one you believe.

@Universal Mind specifically. I know that a lot of athiest know a lot about the Bible, more than lots of Christians. I don't want to argue or debate though. It would be a huge waste of time for all of us. I find debating boring, and I have better things to do with my free time.

@StephL specifically. I don't want to debate or argue, you make fun of Christianity enough in your posts, that I feel no need to answer, if you want to mock Christianity, you can do it without my answers. sin and death were pretty well answered in the other thread, if you want to reread my answer from before. If you have real questions about what I believe I would recommend listening to this sermon series. But if you are just looking for ways to poke holes in Christianity, than I don't really care to answer.
Fresh Life Church | Kickstart: Salvation : Kickstart
^The first in the series called Kickstart.

I understand that Sensei - and it's true - I mock Christianity here, and am not exactly behaving like a "Friendly Atheist".
So I wouldn't hold not entering debate with me against you, if you were "just a regular Christian believer".
I would have to concede - my fault - I scare the sheep away - hopefully only from talking and not from reading, though.

But you are not that - you have nothing better to do with your life, than to become leading part in a fundamentalist Christian church.
If it was me, planning that - oh well - you bet I would tackle all of my and balban's posts (at least ours) in detail - for fear for the reader's souls.
Is it not so, that what I write here comes directly from the devil, to lead souls astray? Not worth your time?

I would see it as a test of my own abilities, too - fitness for the job, practice, you see? Maybe you won't ever encounter any doubt in your organized circles anyway, and think, debate is therefore irrelevant. And maybe you are correct in foreseeing it so. Shame that, just saying.

But thanks for this video instead - I am at it, and I guess, it will sort of suffice as substitute.
Charismatic guy - able to take an audience with him, surely - he's got what you need for good preaching and effective salesmanship - enthusiasm, radiating conviction, fervour, verve - you name it. I'm at 6 min. - and there is a lot left - but lets see, if I can't try and distil, what it says in a friendly, non-polemic manner - try to take a neutral look at this confession of faith.

See ya later brothers and sisters - will take a while - after all this is not my main mission in life!

Steph makes a good point, Sensei...

Originally Posted by Sensei

I don't want to debate, or argue. StephL and Universal Mind. You are both poking and trying to get me to argue back, but I am not a bear... I am more like the Pillsbury Doughboy. There are people smarter than each of us on both sides of these issues, so it obviously isn't a matter of intelligence which one you believe.

@Universal Mind specifically. I know that a lot of athiest know a lot about the Bible, more than lots of Christians. I don't want to argue or debate though. It would be a huge waste of time for all of us. I find debating boring, and I have better things to do with my free time.

@StephL specifically. I don't want to debate or argue, you make fun of Christianity enough in your posts, that I feel no need to answer, if you want to mock Christianity, you can do it without my answers. sin and death were pretty well answered in the other thread, if you want to reread my answer from before. If you have real questions about what I believe I would recommend listening to this sermon series. But if you are just looking for ways to poke holes in Christianity, than I don't really care to answer.
Fresh Life Church | Kickstart: Salvation : Kickstart
^The first in the series called Kickstart.

An example of the "hit and run" tactic, everyone. Post something in regards to an argument, but when confronted, back off and say you don't want to argue.

Originally Posted by Sensei

Fresh Life Church | Kickstart: Salvation : Kickstart
^The first in the series called Kickstart.

First, I will admit to not completely watching the entire first video. I did watch about 45 minutes of it and realized that there really wasn't anything new that I haven't already heard many times over. You can take that for what it's worth, but I'll explain why I am saying this. I've been to MANY churches that present this exact same message in the exact same way. My earliest recollection is sitting in a large hall, in Calvary Chapel, on a Wednesday night, listening to the youth minister present a nearly verbatim message to the "new christians" as well as the "unsaved". Ultimately, this evening lead to a horrible experience (for me and probably those who gathered around to watch the process) because I was dumb enough to actually challenge someone that chose me to walk up to me and ask me if I was "saved". It probably isn't worth sharing for the purposes of this discussion, but I will say is that this experience didn't sour me to this style of Christianity. Again, take that for what it's worth.

In attempt to invite you back into the discussion, I will only make one personal point concerning the video. The speaker talked briefly about Paul. Paul has always been an interesting character to me. Here is a lifelong Jew whose apparent mission was to destroy this new movement centered around a man whom the Romans executed for what was essentially blasphemy against the Jewish tradition (this is just the kernel and not relevant to my point). Paul is then visited by the resurrected Jesus, which caused Paul's immediate conversion. I can imagine being in Paul's shoes and the level of fear he would have had in that moment. I make the connection that this is the "rattle to the core" life event that these pastors like to reference in the born again process. I get it.

But here is my problem with this story. And let me preface this by saying that I am making the assumption, for the sake of my larger point, that all of this really happened and that God is real in order to demonstrate my confusion with this particular story. First, for the vast majority of us, we have to basically "guess" whether or not God is real; or better, most of us have take it all on faith. I've never met anyone who could, beyond a shadow of a doubt, prove anything beyond their insistence that I just have to accept it on faith alone (so it is my fault, not God's.. fair enough). Paul, on the other hand, received some pretty solid evidence in that God directly revealed himself to Paul and basically proved that he was wrong (not that God was real - he probably already believe that, but that Jesus was in fact who he said he was). He even received a specific direction for his life along with the initial message. Along those lines, I've always believed that God could very easily prove that he exists, at least to me. I freely admit that I am a doubting Thomas who needs to see with my own eyes. I've honestly given God every opportunity to reveal himself (I am lacking better vocabulary to explain precisely what I mean without sounding arrogant - hopefully you won't take it that way), and continuing down this honesty road, I still do keep myself open to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, all this is true. God certainly knows this about me, yet nothing... crickets. And the bigger rub, I am not out persecuting his church - far from it. I am just some schlub, on a forum, who is earnestly looking for the truth. Why wouldn't God, who loves me so much, reveal himself under those conditions as some kind of a mercy (at a minimum)? <--- I know there is no answer to this and I don't expect you to answer it. I mean this rhetorically.

I've had others explain to me that it's all about free will. God doesn't want to reveal himself to me because he desires ME to come to him freely, faithfully and beyond all reason or logic. Blessed are those that believe without seeing! It is a gift that God is lovingly handing to me by NOT revealing himself -- I should feel lucky! Then what about Paul's "free will"? Extending this out further, this is to mean that Paul isn't as "blessed" as me because he got what I am openly admitting that I need? Considering Paul's stature in the church, I find that hard to believe.

Logically, this is completely broken. And the very nature of this break is why I can't imagine an all knowing deity using any of this as a means to connect with his creation.

In the end, Sensei, and if I can step in and speak for StephL for one sentence, this is the general confusion that manifests in us BECAUSE of these these logically bizarre stories. At times, these conversations make me feel frustrated. I feel like I am in this tiny minority of people, standing on the outside and completely baffled as to how anyone could believe this. It seems so basic and simple to me that I wonder if I am somehow broken because I just don't get it. StephL has her own reasons for reacting in the way that she reacts. But I can tell you, with some certainty, that this is the core of why (if that makes any sense to you).

I guess this was the long way to make a point of "let's all just take a breath"? Sorry for that. :/

Originally Posted by balban

My earliest recollection is sitting in a large hall, in Calvary Chapel, on a Wednesday night, listening to the youth minister present a nearly verbatim message to the "new christians" as well as the "unsaved". Ultimately, this evening lead to a horrible experience (for me and probably those who gathered around to watch the process) because I was dumb enough to actually challenge someone that chose me to walk up to me and ask me if I was "saved". It probably isn't worth sharing for the purposes of this discussion, but I will say is that this experience didn't sour me to this style of Christianity. Again, take that for what it's worth.

I would love to hear about this in detail!
As promised I'll try myself at summing up the video in a non-polemic manner, which I did watch completely with making notes - but that's not ready yet - even if it's not going to be much. In the meantime - I am really curious as to your experience, balban!
And - I guess, that didn't is a typo there?


Edit: By the way - the second part of this series is seriously cringe-worthy - but it was to be expected, of course.
Every single word of the bible is true. Literally. How do we know that? Because it says so in the bible!
At least he is correct in saying - if you dismiss only one single passage - the whole thing comes tumbling down.
That I can full-heartedly agree with.

Soo - Sensei - when was the earth created?
Evolution?

Originally Posted by StephL

I would love to hear about this in detail!
As promised I'll try myself at summing up the video in a non-polemic manner, which I did watch completely with making notes - but that's not ready yet - even if it's not going to be much. In the meantime - I am really curious as to your experience, balban!
And - I guess, that didn't is a typo there?

Surprisingly, no. That wasn't a typo. I think you are going to be more surprised after reading this. My guess is that your next question will be "WHY?"

This is going to be long. And I mean long. Book long! Which is why I didn't want to really go into it. But you asked... so grab your popcorn. Here goes...

This happened when I was 15 years old. The funny thing is that, at the time, I probably would have considered myself to be a "believer". I wasn't a very "good" one, but believer nonetheless. Suffice it to say that I was a believer when I went to Calvary Chapel that night. But... that wasn't what got me there. It was a girl. I really liked her. When she mentioned that she was "Born Again", it didn't even register in my mind as to what that meant. I probably just thought that she was saying that she believed in god they way I did, which, admittedly, was pretty watered down. Something I think you can relate to, StephL? Either way, she told me about her church and invited me to this "Wednesday night youth worship service" thing. I honestly don't even think I heard that part. For me, it was a chance to be close to her. :/

I arrived at the event. I see her there. She smiled at me and then proceeded to ignore me. After several attempts at trying my best to get her attention again (hey... I was 15 and far from smooth), I still stayed. I took a seat, in the back of course. Being alone in a new group of people is a little intimidating for me, so I was happily surprised when I saw a few people that I knew and I felt relieved that they had came over to sit with me during the service. It made me feel a little more "comfortable" so to speak.

The "pastor", if you really want to call him that, appeared on the stage (this place was huge and there were a lot of kids there, maybe 200 - 300?) and the audience erupted with excitement at his presence. He hushed the crowd and talked for a bit. If I can remember correctly, he was basically saying what the night was going to be about (benign stuff). He then said a prayer and the concert began. It was a spectacle, chock full of excitement for a young mind. Musicians running all over the stage. Loud music. It certainly whipped everyone into a frenzy. This part was actually kind of "fun" dare I say? Then, just as suddenly as it all began, the pastor popped out on stage and everything got really quiet. Everyone returned to their seats and that is when the movie started.

It was about this guy who had it all (except for Jesus of course). He was rich, powerful, had a loving family, great health - the works. A perfect life in the grandest sense. Along the way, there would be certain people in his life, his boss, his wife, a friend or two, that would ask him about his "relationship" with Jesus. He would brush them off, sometimes harshly, because he had little time in his life for "all that". As expected, his life began to crumble. He loses his job, his friends disown him, he starts drinking, then descends into drugs. He finally loses his wife and kids, his fancy cars and his home, etc... In the very next scene, he is sitting alone in some no-tell motel, cigarette smoke billowing throughout the room, beer cans everywhere, drug paraphernalia thrown about the room... and... of course... he had a gun. He's would bounce between weeping and cursing god for what god had done to him. These statements were occasionally interrupted by him saying that he's going to end it all because of YOU GOD! YOU DID THIS TO ME! He put the gun to his temple and "click". Pissed off that he is even a failure at suicide, he grabs the television remote (for some unknown reason... well.. because it was just there), throws it down... and poof, it magically switches channels to some televangelist reciting the Sinner's Prayer. "Just pray it with me..", he said. The guy falls to his knees, a heaping mess and with tear stained eyes pointed toward the ceiling, he recites the prayer along with the televangelist. Then... just like Job, god restores his life. He reconciles with his wife and kids, becomes really active in his local church, gets a new set of Christian friends, he gets a job, etc... you get the picture.

Now... I was 15; young and dumb. And I watched all this unfold knowing that this is not how life really works - believer or not. But... whatever floats your boat.

Then came the altar call. This is where they invite you to go up to the stage and receive Jesus into your life in front of everyone. And these kids went up in droves. So many kids went up to that stage, one after the other. I kept thinking that this can't be real. It seemed... well... cultish(?) and a little uncomfortable. So, no... I did not go up and receive Jesus that night.

After the alter call, that was pretty much it. The house lights came on and kids all got up and began milling around, talking to each other. I stayed where I was at, just sitting and talking with the people I knew. This is when we were interrupted by some 18ish year old guy. A little on the smarmy side and he seemed to be "trying too hard" to talk to us. He opened with some talk about surfing, but quickly looked right at me and directly asked me if I was "saved". The question surprised me. Being a little off balance and not knowing how to handle that question, I asked him why he chose me, out of the four of us, to ask this question. He said he noticed that I didn't go up during the altar call (I wasn't nearly the only one that didn't... still... why me, dude?). He also told me that god was "directing" him toward me and that he had been watching my reactions during the movie because of it. He continued on that he had noticed that I was "laughing" at the movie. Well.. I wasn't laughing. Winching maybe. A little mocking, perhaps? But no... not laughing. But I bit down on the hook anyway and made the claim that, "If that is what you call 'Being Saved', I don't think I can believe in that." Keep in mind, I did believe in god. I really did. My real position was that I didn't believe in THAT. So...

Well... from that one statement I made, the high pressure salesman came out in him. This kid (well... kid to me now) just wouldn't let it go. He kept telling me how I was going to hell because I was a sinner and the only way to escape it was to be "saved" and "born again", to have a "relationship with Jesus!" He kept telling me, over and over, how much Jesus cared for me... that he cared for me... that everyone that was there cared for me. No one wanted to see any of god's wonderful creation to burn in hell forever... and ever... and ever! I remember reiterating that I do believe, but I just don't believe in THAT brand of Christianity. But it really didn't matter to him. I was bad... he was good... end of story.

There was finally a lull in the conversation, which gave me a few seconds to look around and notice the rather large group of people surrounding us. Apparently, they had been watching us talk the whole time. This made me feel really uncomfortable and totally awkward. To add insult to injury, I also noticed that the people I knew, who were sitting with me, abandoned me at some point in the conversation. And... obviously, the girl I liked was standing right front and center, right behind the guy. That, above all, embarrassed me and it started a chain of events that lead up to what was about to happen.

During the lull is where the 18ish year old guy let me know that I was frustrating him. Why wouldn't I just believe? What was wrong with me that I just don't see how simple it was? Then he asked me if it would be OK if he had someone else talk to me. Someone who could explain it "better". Someone he really wanted me to listen to. Whatever... I've already jumped down the rabbit hole... let's see where this will go (again... too patient, plus I didn't want to the girl I liked to hate me... Yes... that stupid!).

The crowd parted, allowing the "pastor" through. He takes a seat near me and just stares at me for an unnerving amount of time. And I mean it; it felt like FOREVER! Ever been just stared at for a minute or more? Come to find out, it's not all the fun when it happens. Then he began to talk. He said that he had heard my arguments, he knew that I "thought" I was a Christian. But the reality was that my belief in my belief was the devil making me think it it was true. He also mentioned that god was telling him that I, in fact, needed to be "saved". He then said he wanted me to hear something.... He raised his arm, snapped his fingers and called out for a bible. I wouldn't be exaggerating when I say that more than 25 bibles were immediately thrust in front of him. They came from all directions. He took one, opened it up and started reading passages from it. I couldn't even begin to recall what they were and, honestly, I wasn't really listening. But there he sat, reading one passage after another, refusing to let me say anything; silencing me with total contempt when I tried to stop him. So... I just sat there and let this 30+ year old man calmly recite bible verses AT me. After a brief pause and some more uncomfortable staring, he asked if I now had realized how condemned I was because of the "truths" that he had just read to me. I might have had a better answer had I been listening, but the situation was so damn uncomfortable - all those eyes looking at me... feeling like I was the most hated guy in the room... mostly, feeling like I had somehow let down the girl I liked (yes... that stupid).

But something welled up in me after he said that to me; rage! And I mean f'ing RAGE! That is the only way I can accurately describe it. But it was deeper and way more primal; more scary. Dare I say, uncontrollable? Then, just as if someone had spun up a top that let go, I took off into this visceral, verbal tirade. I don't even know what I said. It was all a blur, but I know it made everyone gasp and clutch their pearls with each word that left my mouth. I am pretty sure I turned beet red, I sprouted horns and pulled a pitchfork from my pocket. I even remember standing up and pointing around the room at all the others in the group, muttering some kind of foolishness. "You call me convicted... Nay!!! YOU!!! YOU, FOOLS, ARE THE CONVICTED ONES!!!" Yeah... it got pretty ugly and I can't say it was a proud moment in my life. I guess the point is that I had become the devil for them that day.

And all the while, that f'ing "pastor" just sat back, watching me with this shit-eating grin. He had this satisfied look, like he had handily defeated his enemy. And he did. I acknowledge that. He won. I lost. I get it.

After I calmed down (more like exhausted myself), I fell back in my chair. You could hear a pin drop and I could feel everyone glaring at me. I remember feeling really, really guilty. All I could do was look at the girl and mouth the words, "I'm sorry." (Yes... that dumb! Starting to see a trend here?)

Then something possessed me to lock eyes with the pastor and point blank ask him, "So... what you are basically trying to say is that if I don't believe in exactly what you believe in, I am a piece of shit?" He smiled and simply said, "Yes."

Finally, f'ing FINALLY, that was it. I stood up and calmly headed toward the door, holding my head with as much dignity that I could find for myself. Dead man walking! That is kind of what it felt like. And to top it all off with a cherry... that a-hole pastor had the balls to yell toward me and ask, "Would you mind if we prayed for you?"

So... that's the story, in detail.

tl;dr, but you're still curious... I was 15 and stupid enough to stay in a no win situation. A pastor of a church was mean. I reacted poorly. All over a girl. Hilarity ensues.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

An example of the "hit and run" tactic, everyone. Post something in regards to an argument, but when confronted, back off and say you don't want to argue.

He also accused us of being fight pickers and threw in a "There are people smarter than you on this!" on his way out. The religious instigator tradition used to be to start an argument, act like a victim when people respond, and then say there isn't enough time to argue because of a paper that's due or something. This latest one did the first two and then just said that there are better things to do. I guess times have changed.

I have said before that these people make me think of people who show up for soccer games and walk out onto the field to play but then start whining and acting like victims when there is a game happening on the field. This is a religion forum. People who come here and post but don't want to discuss and debate religious ideas are very much in the wrong place.

@ balban That's a fine story, and you are a fine story-teller, too! Thank you for sharing!
And says something about you, that you still feel, that the affair didn't sour this style of Christianity for you and once and for all.
It would have surely done the trick to me.
No chance with the girl after that, I suppose? Of course I think "thank God for that" - if you hadn't flipped - who knows under which sort of pressures and influences you might have fallen with her. You probably were darn unhappy - but right you were!


@UM So there used to be somebody a bit more energetic in religious extended discussion? Shame I missed out on that fun!
"There are people smarter than you on this!" - well yeah - Sensei formulated it like this:

Originally Posted by Sensei

There are people smarter than each of us on both sides of these issues, so it obviously isn't a matter of intelligence which one you believe.

Now while I feel, the meaning you (UM) address is indeed implied as well, he goes a step further there.
Namely saying that being an atheist vs. being a Christian fundamentalist is a feature, not being related to intelligence.
I don't have intelligence tests at hand - but I do have numbers concerning higher education - here we go - from this year:

Originally Posted by FriendlyAtheist

Educational attainment is also related to these attitudes, with belief in the creationist perspective dropping from 57% among Americans with no more than a high school education to less than half that (27%) among those with a college degree. Those with college degrees are, accordingly, much more likely to choose one of the two evolutionary explanations.

Also, nearly a third of Millennials (ages 18-29) accepted evolution without God’s “guiding hand” compared to only 11% of Americans 50-64. The younger generation, of course, is already far less religious to begin with, so the correlation is strong. There’s hope for the future!

It's these numbers that convince me, that it is worthwhile to to debate, even fight - on the one hand these horrifyingly high absolutes - on the other hand, that it looks as if at least the younger, more educated and probably more intelligent population slowly rids itself of cultural impregnation.
There are also numbers, on how many actual scientists believe in each of the categories - I don't have them at hand - but there are almost none at all subscribing to Creationism, and only a small (hopefully I remember correctly) minority to God-guided evolution.

So I guess, I made a good case against Sensei's argument here.


@Sensei I'll give it a shot with summing up the video:

The only way, not to go to hell is to become a born-again Christian. All and everybody else has to go - even regular Christian believers with saintly conduct, if they haven't undergone this salvation process properly, with taking on the correct doctrine.

So how do you get born again?
First of all you need an invitation from god - you are being dead before it happens - "and dead people can't do anything on their own - not even seek for salvation."

I have a question here - what is meant with invitation? Does one need the church for that, the specific brand you follow, Sensei?
Or did the invitation go out to everybody, when Jesus died on the cross?
If so - why are not all Christians born again, once they believe in Jesus Christ?
Besides - how can I become born again, if I was "dead" before?

With invitation - in the very moment, when you start to “believe in Jesus Christ being what the bible says he is”, in that moment you are saved.
Salvation is instantaneous and final.
It entails regeneration - that would be the being born again - something which changes your state of being, a happening in your soul, and it protects you from the power of sin (to a degree).

Secondly – justification, which is what happens before god's throne - defines your standing - it's the declaration that you are hereby per definition a righteous person. And that means, that not only all the sins, you committed before your salvation are washed from you - but also all the following sins are - "case dismissed".
God is outside of time - he sees the beginning and end of your life - and when he declares a life justified - all that, what follows in that life is entirely justified by god as well. Because that's God's gift - all the infinite righteousness of Jesus goes on the scales - and you can't ever sin enough to tip the scale against you any more. Even if you lose your faith. You have been adopted by god.

How is that fair to the souls having lived and died before Jesus Christ, or without knowledge of him?
That's glaringly unjust in my eyes. But believing in the OT verbatim - you are probably okay with an unjust, capricious and cruel god. So this is progress, of course.

Then there is sanctification - that's what you got to do in your life-time - an ongoing process - you can't help to become at least little bit holier with true salvation, that's implicit. How good and righteous a life you lead is about your happiness while alive - and it also promises extra reward in heaven.
You are supposed to level up your character and conduct to your state and standing, which are unconditional presents to a person, who at least once in their lives truly had the Holy Spirit come into their hearts.

The third thing then is glorification - comes after the second coming and the endgame between god and Satan.
“The sky will roll back and there'll be lightning from the east to the west and the bodies will shoot out of the ground ..” and so forth.
And in the kingdom of god thereafter - you will not only be free from penance for your sins (justification) and from the power of sin (regeneration) but also from the presence of sin, that's glorification then.

How do I know this is true? Because of the holy spirit in my heart as down-payment!

But at the same time, he acknowledges, that some people will "feel nothing" while being born again - so how do I know, I got that spirit?



Did I get this correctly, Sensei?

What can I say?
It’s a fairy tale - directed at people feeling guilty and dead on their own devices.

Again Sensei - please don't forget to tell me, when you think, the earth was created, and if you believe in evolution - humans having evolved from animals?


An aside:
What is sort of funny, is that he cites somebody saying in the bible, that glorification would be nearer in time, than the time the addressed person started to believe in the first place. That concurs with the notion, that people in Jesus time expected the end of days being immediately ahead - in their own life-times.
And it did not happen - how can he cite this, and not notice the dissonance? Remarking again, how the end is really, really near now - and advise us to check our cell-phones for the time?

Originally Posted by StephL

I understand that Sensei - and it's true - I mock Christianity here, and am not exactly behaving like a "Friendly Atheist".
So I wouldn't hold not entering debate with me against you, if you were "just a regular Christian believer".
I would have to concede - my fault - I scare the sheep away - hopefully only from talking and not from reading, though.

But you are not that - you have nothing better to do with your life, than to become leading part in a fundamentalist Christian church.
If it was me, planning that - oh well - you bet I would tackle all of my and balban's posts (at least ours) in detail - for fear for the reader's souls.
Is it not so, that what I write here comes directly from the devil, to lead souls astray? Not worth your time?

I would see it as a test of my own abilities, too - fitness for the job, practice, you see? Maybe you won't ever encounter any doubt in your organized circles anyway, and think, debate is therefore irrelevant. And maybe you are correct in foreseeing it so. Shame that, just saying.

But thanks for this video instead - I am at it, and I guess, it will sort of suffice as substitute.
Charismatic guy - able to take an audience with him, surely - he's got what you need for good preaching and effective salesmanship - enthusiasm, radiating conviction, fervour, verve - you name it. I'm at 6 min. - and there is a lot left - but lets see, if I can't try and distil, what it says in a friendly, non-polemic manner - try to take a neutral look at this confession of faith.

See ya later brothers and sisters - will take a while - after all this is not my main mission in life!

Let me know if you have any questions about the videos. I am glad you are listening to them.

If you want to set up a debate on one issue when you are done listening, then we can debate the Sheol out of that issue. But one debate is all that I have the time and effort for. There won't be any changing the subject or debating seven thousand things, but one singular issue. Sound like a compromise?

I have a question here - what is meant with invitation? Does one need the church for that, the specific brand you follow, Sensei?
Or did the invitation go out to everybody, when Jesus died on the cross?
If so - why are not all Christians born again, once they believe in Jesus Christ?
Besides - how can I become born again, if I was "dead" before?

Didn't see this post. I will answer what I can with the time I have.
The invitation is any time God reaches out to you. Any sermon you hear or anything like that. In Turkey, 50% of the people in the Church were actually converted through a dream, before anyone had told them about Jesus.
To be born again is to trust in Jesus.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever "trusts" in Him will have eternal life.
The word you normally see here is believe, but the idea in the Greek is stand solely upon, or to trust only in Him. So to be born again, you have to trust in Jesus as the way to heaven. Calvary Chapel (Fresh Life is a type of Calvary Chapel) is distinctive in the fact that they believe that most all denominations are fine, as long as they have Jesus right. Jehovah's witness for instance believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and change around a bunch of verses to fit that, and they don't believe in salvation through Jesus sacrifice, so they wouldn't be saved because they don't trust in Jesus, but actually their works (that is why there is so much door to door stuff by them, they are trying to get to heaven that way). Catholics, add some books that we don't think are Cannon, but what do they think about Jesus? Died for our sins, and rose again. Sounds good. Some of them put stock in the legalistic side and not in Christ, but all denominations will have people that miss the point because they were not trusting in Jesus, but in their works.

To be born again is to be a Christian. Many people call hardcore Christians born again.

We believe in God the Father
We believe in Jesus Christ
We believe in the Holy Spirit
And He's given us new life
We believe in the crucifixion
We believe that He conquered death
We believe in the resurrection
And He's coming back again.

In a simple way^^

I'll answer the rest later.

Originally Posted by StephL

@UM So there used to be somebody a bit more energetic in religious extended discussion? Shame I missed out on that fun!

I LOVED this forum from 2005 to 2010. It was a total riot. There were multiple fundamentalists who came here and did what Sensei did, but they were more extreme about it. They would start thread after thread with really provocative titles and claims and then respond to the storm of comments by saying that they didn't have time to answer questions or counter points. They would do that even with threads where they challenged people to ask them questions. Then they would drop a few majorly flaming comments in and still say they didn't have time to answer questions. They might have all been trolling, but it was hysterical. The forum was flooded with atheists who were really getting into the discussions. This forum was created in 2005 because a character named Awaken4e1, who claimed to be a preacher, stirred up so much chaos in the Philosophy forum. For a while, only members who electronically signed an agreement were allowed to even see the Religion/Spirituality forum.

I talked about that recently. You might have read what I wrote, but it's worth telling others about it. There was no better discussion forum on the internet in the second half of last decade than this one.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I LOVED this forum from 2005 to 2010.

Ne-yo taking quotes from scientists out of context (e.g. Francis Crick) to support creationism was pretty fun.

Okay - good news for all the Christians with faulty doctrine - somehow I got the impression from the first, but especially from the second video, that it would be important to believe in the correct doctrine in order to be saved.

Originally Posted by Sensei

We believe in God the Father
We believe in Jesus Christ
We believe in the Holy Spirit
And He's given us new life
We believe in the crucifixion
We believe that He conquered death
We believe in the resurrection
And He's coming back again.

So if you believe this, and nothing else in the bible, it is sufficient?
Why the urgency and need for proselyting from the side of the fundamentalists towards people already holding a Christian belief then?

Be that as it may - answering my two little questions about when you think, the earth was created, and if you believe in evolution, especially in humans having evolved from animals should be easy and really fast to do.
A number and a yes or no.
Don't stall!