The Daily Dog: religion.
People are always seeing the Virgin Mary in tree bark and oil stains, why not in a Ridgeback? I mean no blaspheme. I’m just saying.
Speaking of, it may interest some of you to know that I just finished reading ‘Mere Christianity’ by C.S. Lewis. John Hawkins sent it off my Amazon Wish List for my birthday and as I’ve already told him, it was a truly fine gift.
The value in a book like that is not necessarily that it’ll turn any atheist or agnostic into a Christian, but I don’t think that was Lewis’ goal in any case. What a book like that is 100% successful at doing, for me at least, is explaining why intelligent people choose Christianity.
I’ll be perfectly honest: I’ve spent many, many years refusing to accept the idea that a truly rational, reasonable, smart adult could sincerely believe in any religion, including Christianity. It’s not that I didn’t try; I did. I used to spend hours “debating” with my dad on his back patio about this very subject. The reason he was never able to convince me is that those conversations happened when I was about 22 to 25 years old and still fantastically smug and sure that I’d figured things out that other people hadn’t because I was so much more introspective and thoughtful and all that happy horseshit.
(To put it into perspective, around that same time I also argued with my dad about whether or not it was any big deal that Bill Clinton was a lying sack of lies. I took the “no” stance. I thought I was being appropriately cynical but really I was being an intractable idiot.)
Anyway, what I always thought was my second biggest trump card was that there are so many Christians who are bad people (the primary trump card being the abject suffering of children throughout time and throughout the world). So many losers and assholes and liars calling themselves Christian, particularly certain ministers and preachers I’d known growing up. Dad told me again and again and again that the mistake I was making was that I hated the message because of the messenger and that one of the marks of a true adult is that they stop doing that, and instead analyze the message itself. Well, I didn’t bother doing that until lately, and do you want to know something? I really have been an arrogant prick about religion. I have. I own it.
That doesn’t mean I’ve decided Christianity is the One True Religion and that I’ve been wrong about everything. I still have legitimate and reasonable questions and issues with any organized religion. What it does mean is that after reading Lewis, I genuinely feel compelled to apologize to certain people (including many of you from past comment threads about religion) for assuming you simply hadn’t thought things through enough and that’s why you are Christians. There are plenty of people like that, but this morning I went back and read those threads, and didn’t come across a single one of you saying that you were Christian just because it’s what your mama told you. Which is what I always assumed, wrongly.
I’ll even go one step further and admit that I’ve realized lately that part of my problem with the whole subject was that I was doing exactly what I so very much HATE for other people to do: projecting. I assumed the majority of you who are Christian were such because either someone told you to be or more to the point, because you didn’t know any better, simply because you had not bothered to do the research. Well, hello. My name is Rachl Lukis and guess what? I hadn’t bothered to do the research.
One line from Lewis’ book that actually made me laugh out loud (at myself) was that if people “cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them”. I’ve mentioned before that I’ve read the Bible a couple of times, but the thing is, I didn’t read it as a real grown-up. The last time I read it, I was actively looking for faults to prove that I was right. I wasn’t truly being objective and considering it in a historical or scholarly context.
It’s difficult to articulate on a blog why I’m even bothering trying to learn about Christianity now because as I’ve mentioned before, I hate being misunderstood. The truth is that I am not exactly seeking salvation or God or anything like that, and frankly if I were, I would not talk about it with virtual strangers at this stage of the game. At this moment, my biggest aim is simply trying to relieve myself of the terrifying feeling I’ve had for years that I live in a society full of and run by people who believe a theology I don’t believe in, and that therefore I am surrounded by crazy people. It’s a bit of cognitive dissonance that I simply couldn’t take anymore.
Is my dad a crazy person? Are 90% of the people who read my blog crazy people? Are most of my friends crazy people? If I think Christianity is crazy, then the only answer to those questions is YES. But it just never added up. I had to know how they could believe something that I do not think is real and somehow not be crazy. That’s why I started asking about it here and why I started reading books like the Lewis one. And I have to tell you that the mission has been accomplished. It’s not even remotely “crazy” to believe in Christianity, and Christians have perfectly sound reasons to believe what they do, even if I disagree with some of their conclusions.
This probably deserves a better and more insightful post than this, but I’ve found that it’s best just to dump these thoughts out when I have them rather than try to formulate some brilliant essay. I just read the last few pages of the book while fixing supper for my piglets, and then that pic of Sunny made me think of Mary, and well there you have it. Truth is, after reading the Lewis book and some other stuff online over the last few weeks, and then going back and reading my own posts about religion, I felt like an ass for being so flippant, smug, and dismissive in the past. I really did. And since I think it’s awesome when people admit things like that, I decided to be awesome and admit things like that.
Hmmmmm…, do the underlying messages resonate, but the dogma grates?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:22 pmWell, when Romney was a big topic here, the most articulate Christians here were the Mormons. I don’t know much about the Church of Latter DaY Saints, but judging from those who belong to it, it must be a pretty good deal.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:28 pmAnd I try to take that tact with most religions.
As For myself, I am of the fanatical bent in my own religion. Which doesn’t win me any friends, but screw’em.
Ah Rachel, just because someones a Christian doesn’t mean they can’t be crazy too. I’m livin’, breathin’ proof!
The truth is, one of the things that bothers me most about some other Christians is that they*don’t* ask those questions. How can someone claim to believe in God and yet not be changed by that belief? How can they claim that the Bible is His word and yet spend so little time actually studying it?
How’s Rupert doing? Is he getting used to the transition?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:32 pmRachel, I’m a Christian, and I didn’t think you were being a smugass. You were questioning, and you were direct but respectful about it, and you thanked your contributors for participating. No problem.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pmWow. Nice. Lewis scores again, always good to see.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pmFantastic post - one only a “real person” aka a grown up could write. Good on ya.
ps. I wrote a fairly similar post about Cloverfield the other day. I found a huge disconnect between the movie I watched and the movie the guys in the commentary thought they’d made.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:47 pmRachel,
You’ve always been an insightful and often hilarious observer of the many moronic things humans do. Your questioning of Christianity has never been offensive to myself, and I dare say, most of your readership. I realize that my faith may be different from yours, and that’s okay. You are an intelligent, thoughtful lady, and it is a positive step to see you make such a bold move. Most people are too self-absorbed to ever admit any kind of personal failing. That you openly wore your own “failure” on your sleeve is a sign of an incredible personal ethic and integrity. The world needs more people like that…you can make it so when you become Supreme Leader of Earth.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:50 pmAll hail our Supreme Leader.
I just want to hug ya. But I’m not a hugger.
Good on ya!
Oh and I never thought you were being smug before either. No worries!
May 6th, 2008 at 8:53 pmI think that’s a beautiful picture of Sunny.
And as a Catholic, I think the Blessed Mother would agree too. Dogs give us the same kind of unconditional love that Mary, and of course God, gives us. I see the love of God in my pets’ love and loyalty towards me.
Believe it or not, Christians, and even God Himself have a sense of humor. They’re not as stern and serious all the time as most believe. A sense of humor has saved me from being a most miserable person. And I consider that a gift from Him.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:56 pmRachel - God certainly doesn’t mind questions. After all, He gave us curiosity, which lets us form the questions, and free will, which gives us the guts to ask.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:01 pm(BTW, Mere Christianity was one of the books I read that brought me back to my faith.)
I just read “The Problem of Pain” by Lewis this year, and yeah, he makes a compelling argument for why intelligent people believe in Christianity. I’m in the same position you are, but I reached it a while ago - if you choose to believe something, for whatever reason, that’s fine, that’s your choice, whatever makes you happy; just respect my choice as I respect yours. That’s why I took this religion class, which had me reading that book. It caused me to have many more questions, but it awakened my interest in reading more, which I haven’t done in nearly 10 years.
I’d highly suggest you read it. If you’d like to discuss it, I’d be willing to do so, from an agnostic to…whatever it is you are. “A Grief Observed” and “Mere Christianity” are next on my list of theological books, simply because I really like how Lewis expresses his beliefs about everything but Heaven…he cops out on that quite a bit…lol.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:12 pmI was raised Catholic, my brother is a priest. I was educated at a Catholic university and am no stranger to theology presented by very intelligent, well-educated people.
But it doesn’t matter how you couch the philosophy. Truths aren’t changed by wishing them so.
If Albert Einstein had claimed that two plus two equals five, the fact that he is a very smart man doesn’t change that he would be wrong.
Good old Albert may have been sincere in saying that there is a god, but he was wrong. As was Lewis. Nice guy, I’m sure, but not correct. His personal life was pretty weird, too. But that’s beside the point.
Now we have someone here telling us that a magical being has a sense of humor, and says so with a straight face and an air of authority. There’s no attempt to explain how this characteristic is known, especially since there is ZERO evidence in any christian scripture of a sense of humor. But this is how beliefs are propagated. I’m sure someone has written an intellectual treatise justifying their wish in a god with a sense of humor.
Your instincts are correct, Rachl. Don’t be waylaid by sophisticated language into accepting that these ideas are not wrong.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:14 pmI just think it’s nice to see someone be so thoughtful and open about where they’re at. Thanks.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:14 pmRachel,
There is a book by Lee Strobel called The Case For Christ: A Journalists Personal Investigation of the Evidence of Jesus. I think it might answer some of your questions. If I knew how, I’d buy you a copy and send it to you.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:15 pmActually, Skyler, the Wedding at Cana story is as funny as hell.
Jesus and friends come to the wedding and the wine runs short. His mother says to him “They have no wine,” and any mother can hear the unspoken subtext of “My friends are being embarrassed because YOU brought that wine-swilling gang with you, and now they don’t have enough…” Jesus puts her off: “What is that to me?” but instead of continuing to argue with him, Mary does an end-run around him by turning to the servants and saying, “Do whatever he tells you.” At which point Jesus no doubt sighed (you can’t get ahead of Mother) and performed his first public miracle.
And we know Jesus made at least one pun. The line usually translated “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church” is a pun in both Greek and Aramaic. And anyway, morose and scowling people don’t usually develop the kind of following that Jesus had in his lifetime, which leads me to believe that spending time with him must have been quite pleasant and occasionally downright fun.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:27 pmIt’s always nice to see somebody look at religion rationally. *thumbs up*
I must however comment on the picture of Sunny. Specifically, the decidedly not-Christian statue directly behind her. I had to laugh. A lot. A whole lot.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:34 pmWell, Anne B., that’s quite a stretch. But if it works for you . . .
May 6th, 2008 at 9:35 pmI want to second Donali about God having a sense of humor. Proof?
The Platypus
Puberty
May 6th, 2008 at 9:36 pmI love C. S. Lewis. I read Mere Christianity year before last, I think. I’ve got Surprised By Joy here somewhere. I haven’t read too many of his non-fiction works, and they’re gems. I need to make the time to read them, I’m always glad when I do.
I have faith, which Skyler apparently does not, due in part to my upbringing but also my life experiences. I was raised Presbyterian, but I’ve not been to church in — let me think — probably 26 years. I’ve seen enough in 51 years to know there is a God — whatever you may call Him, or Her — that when someone says they need “proof” I can only assume they haven’t been paying attention. The proof is all around us. Some choose not to see.
I believe God has a sense of humor, because what else explains the existence of porcupines? Or armadillos?
May 6th, 2008 at 9:38 pmDude. You HAVE to read my sister’s post for tomorrow. It’s called Lions and Christians and Bears and it’s all about the assholes that can be found in the Campus Christian groups who try to force you into Christianity. Even when you say you are in fact already Christian.
OK. Sorry to jack you post, but it was relevant.
I’m going to have to check out that book. I’ve never read anything by him.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:42 pmI second the “wow” from above. Forget the conclusion or even the topic for a sec. Rachel, your humility and honesty are breathtakingly refreshing.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:43 pmHappy day, Rachel. C.S. Lewis was himself converted by J.R.R. Tolkien, and has gently shown the Light to many people. Whether or not you ever embrace Christianity, you know where we come from. That’s a sweet, sweet thing.
I also think the Wedding at Cana is hilarious. And Noah and his Ark was pretty darned funny, if you think about it.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:44 pmInterestingly enough, Skyler, the late Bishop Fulton Sheen said the “divine sense of humor” was that “nothing matters, except the salvation of souls.” Something to chew on.
Wachel, that’s a good point about reading the Bible as an adult and having a different understanding. I didn’t understand much until I went to college and studied scripture in a couple classes. I haven’t read Mere Christianity yet but I loved The Screwtape Letters–and Peter Kreeft’s update The Snakebite Letters (I think that was the title).
IIRC the mom in Miracle on 34th Street tells her daughter, “Faith is believing in something when reason tells you not to,” or something like that. I guess it does smack of crazy.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:44 pmSkyler, the irony is amusing. The statement “there is no God” requires faith beyond mere logic just as the statement “there is a God” requires faith beyond mere logic.
That said, in the spirit of the thread, let us discuss God and humor. Obviously, from your personal beliefs, there is no God, therefore nothing exists to have a sense of humor. It is a pointless argument. There is no God, so god isn’t kind, there is no God, so God isn’t omnipotent. It seems a waste of time to have that discussion. So instead, for the time being and for the sake of discussion, I’ll ask you to grant the premise of God, and since I’m Christian, I’ll approach this from Christian God. Please, for now, grant this premise.
In the Christian world, God is the creator of the the universe, in all its glory, beauty, variation, and majesty. Nothing exists, but for God. He created man, man with free will. From our fall we have had an influence on the world, creating things God did not create, but using the intellect and ingredients he gave us, to do so. We look around, and we see funny things. We see things that make us laugh. Some times it is an animal doing something cute, or silly. Sometimes it is more crass. Have you ever seen anything, away from the influence of Man that made you laugh (like a baby dear slipping in the mud by a watering hole in the mountains)? God made those things.
Sure, you can posit that it is mere coincidence, that it is man’s sense of humor that filters the factual happening of an event into something humorous relative to man. It however doesn’t take much of a reach to believe that God has a sense of humor and can make things funny, or see things as funny too. From the Christian perspective, we were made in His image (God the father, not Christ, obviously). There are different theologies involved about whether this means God is an upright quadraped, about 1.8 meters tall, or instead the image we share with him is our sentience, those qualities that make us human and distinct from the rest of nature.
Humor is one of those qualities. We love, God Loves, we have anger, God has anger, we have joy, God has joy. God, in the bible, is declared to share most of our emotional states (I use most because I am not a biblical scholar and want to leave wiggle room), so it doesn’t require a large leap to end up believing He has a sense of humor.
I’ll try to rephrase, because I don’t know if I made my point well. For those of us who see the influence of God all about us, those of us with faith in Something (opposed to faith in Nothing), it is a simple observational extrapolation to deduce that He has a sense of humor, not a large leap by those who want to believe it.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:55 pmQuoth the Ninja from Ask A Ninja.com:
“Everyone is a weirdo freak. Except you, which makes you a weirdo freak.”
May 6th, 2008 at 10:17 pmChristianity is stupid. You were right the first time.
C.S. Lewis is the best of the Christian apologetics, but he still has a weak argument. He starts with the axiom that because men have a sense of morality — wildly different in different cultures at different times — this sense of right and wrong means it must have been placed in us somehow (true) by God (not true) — a basic sense of morality, with individual variation, can easily be explained as inherited traits of social animals.
He later goes on to his arguments for Chritianity vs. the other religions.
I’ll issue you and everyone a challenge. I’ve read the Bible and Mere Christianity so I think I’ve done my part.
I want you to watch 3 short videos and then tell me whether you believe Christianity is true:
Video 1: Jesus vs. the Old Testament
Video 2: Where’s Yahweh
Video 3: Debunking Christian Apologists: C.S. Lewis
…
May 6th, 2008 at 10:18 pm… and these 4:
Video 4: Top 10 Reason’s to Reject Pascal’s Wager
Video 5: Jesus Hates Democracy!
Video 6: Jesus Loves Slavery
Video 7: Two Greatest Fears
If you still believe it’s true, okay. I’d like you to explain why.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:18 pmMay reason, love, and your innate human decency allow you to chart your path in the most advantageous way to you, for those you care about, and for the betterment of mankind.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:20 pmWell, thanks to Maggie, that surely ain’t no virgin! (…and stop calling her Shirley)
May 6th, 2008 at 10:22 pmWOW. Seriously, this is an impressive post.
I have been reading you for years and sometimes I would be a bit hurt by some of what you wrote about Christians… but I do think you are being way to hard on yourself. If youa re really an ass about it I wouldn’t have been reading you all this time.
I will share a quote from Fulton Sheen that I think applies
I think that often this can be expanded to all of Christianity.
Sometimes some Christians are total asses about their faith and so it is fairly easy to see how people are unwilling to consider the possibility that all Christians are not idiot. I am a Christian (Catholic) and even I feel that way sometimes.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pmChris_RC,
To those who want to believe despite all lack of evidence, everything convinces them. They are incapable of understanding that their perception does not create reality.
But the truth is that reality exists independent of your perceiving it. Therefore, when that deer slips and falls, it has nothing to do with you. It’s just a deer slipping and falling. That you find it funny is simply your way of interpreting what happened, but your laughing at its misfortune is not proof of magic.
It’s a bit maddening when people say that recognizing that there is no magical being is itself proof of a magical being existing. It requires no “faith.” It simply is true, regardless of perception. That is either a correct statement or a false statement. All rational proof points to it being true. Wishful thinking makes people ignore rational proof, and wishful thinking is very powerful.
I applaud Rachl for reading and learning more about theology. But I would warn her that the likes of Lewis and others are not really the ones to be bothered by. They are otherwise rational and well-meaning and wouldn’t hurt a fly. They tend to be very tolerant of other beliefs, and that’s the best we can hope for. Because nothing will ever convince them that they are wrong. And that’s fine.
It’s the intolerant ones, the ones who insist that others believe as they do that are the problem. It’s not just the jihadists. It’s also the bible thumpers who would fire a person for having different beliefs. It’s the boss that insists that you go to their church. It’s the town that looks askance at those not attending services, and forces others to observe their sharia law, oops, I meant dry laws or blue laws. It’s the masses of voters that only vote for “evangelicals” no matter their other evidence of being very unsavory (yeah, Huckabee, that’s you). It’s the bigoted believers that are scary.
Lewis isn’t one of that type. But he allows them to claim a false intellectual pedigree that sounds nice, but is corrupted by them to foster intolerance and worse.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pmSunny’s looking radiant this fine day, pious, if you well.
I daresay God would smile…if I may be so presumptuous.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:23 pmI wonder if Skyler realizes the irony of his argument. He says that God does not exist but offers no proof, then claims we must reject the claim that God has a sense of humor because there is no proof.
And BTW, God DOES have a sense of humor. Just look at the platypus.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:25 pmWhy on Earth should we explain anything to someone who starts his argument off by calling us stupid?
May 6th, 2008 at 10:26 pmPuny Wannabe but ain’t,
I’m not attempting to offer proofs here because this isn’t the time or place. And I have no interest in converting anyone. It’s none of my business and it’s virtually impossible.
And there is no requirement to prove a negative.
I try my best to ignore you, I would appreciate the same in return.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:34 pm“You are fishermen. Come with me and I will make you fishers OF men!” is also a play on words. (I think it worked a little bit better in Aramaic.)
Thanks, Rachel. I appreciate your acknowledging that it is possible to reach faith through reason. I get very tired of being told that I am an ignorant dupe. I wasn’t raised in the church and spent a lot of time reading and studying before I became a Christian. And I still read and study. As Lewis says, Christianity demands intellectual commitment as well as faith.
And now, back to reading That Hideous Strength.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:37 pmI didn’t call YOU stupid. I called CHRISTIANITY stupid. And most certainly did not call GOD stupid.
Now, you may or may not be stupid — I don’t know. I know I realize the Bible is untrue.
On the subject of stupidity, you understand:
“us” ≠ “Christianity”
… right?
Anyway, don’t explain it to me. Just watch the videos. I think deep down you know the Bible cannot be true, not literally, and that’s why you will not watch the videos even though you may offer me — and will offer yourself — some other lame excuse.
Prove me wrong if you will. Then you’ll have the info to explain it to me if you want.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:38 pmPrecisely. You’re making claims without proof, while criticizing us for making claims without proof.
Hypocrite.
Then don’t argue a negative.
But you’re so entertaining when you’re angry.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:39 pmOh, I see. You’re not calling Christians stupid, you’re just ridiculing their entire belief system as stupid.
Which is…different…somehow…I guess.
I assume from the Youtube videos you linked that you are Jewish. Would you appreciate it if I called your belief system “stupid” and implied that you were stupid for believing in it?
Why should I? You’ll just tell me my proof is “stupid” and swagger to and fro like you’ve won the argument.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:42 pmRachel, you are truly awesome. I am impressed. It’s rare when a person admits her own shortcomings. You are blessed with the gift of humility. It’s not a small thing…
None of us Christians ever bothered to question why you had trouble with Christianity - BECAUSE WE ALL DO. We all just appreciated your God-given talent for satire and humor. And you are usually correct when you call hypocrites to the carpet.
A separation of the message from the messenger is a key element to any real knowledge/appreciation for the past - and we all have always known where you are coming from.
For me, I am not exactly a perfect Christian, because I have big problems with much of the story. But I do believe, in a secular way - that Christ was probably the bravest man who ever lived. I mean - who stands up to the High Priests AND the Romans - absolutely refuses to recant a single word in order to spare his own life - at a time when the consequences for doing so means that a gruesome execution is inevitable? Yeah, “Blessed are the merciful” and “Blessed are the peacemakers” are messages that people shouldn’t hear. Far too dangerous…
The answer is fairly simple - he was a man who knew that he had an important point to make. He reminded his people (who lived under the occupation of a conquering army) that God had not abandoned them - and that God loves everyone. Understanding and forgiveness are NECESSARY. This applied to enemies as well.
What is absolutely true is that he was killed for saying so. It’s a matter worth pondering. If there is such a thing as divinity, maybe this is it, in stark simplicity?
At any rate, it remains true that his words alone (ignoring the miracles, real or fiction) were earth-shaking propositions at the time. Western Civilization developed largely due to his new “philosophy.”
At the very least, and in my humble opinion, the man ought to be admired. There was a time when we all could recognize bravery.
But today ignorance and mockery are so much easier. The lazy and the arrogant do this.
Your father is not crazy (and never was).
May 6th, 2008 at 10:48 pmSkyler
One, the statement “There is no God” can not be proven. Logically the statement “There is a God” can fail to be proven, meaning you don’t believe in God. That is logically consistent. Believing there is no God, requires evidence that isn’t there. You may have evidence to convince you some, or all, elements of any particular faith’s take on God are false. But logically that can only lead to the conclusion that “their God does not exist as they believe it too.” Not the conclusion that “There is no God.” I don’t know of anyone has ever said that the belief that there is no God (for ease of conversation if nothing else I’m going to paraphrase your repeated deliberate use of magical being) proves there is a God. All that belief proves is that you faith beyond mere logic. That you are choosing to believe something for what ever reason, that the evidence does not support, can not support.
It is logic 101, you can not prove a negative. You can prove positive the logical opposite of something, but you can’t prove a negative. “There is no God” can’t be proven. (Logically its opposite can’t be proven either, that is the point of faith). Logically any evidence that “There is a God” might be disproven, which only means that other’s have failed to make their argument, not that you have proven yours. I’m not saying you have to believe there is a God. But if you are going to claim the mantle of fact and pure reason, the only position you can claim is that you have insufficient proof of God, or a god, or any god, and therefore do not believe the conclusions of others.
You also may have missed my point (or I yours, also likely). From your earlier post excerpt
The impression I have here is that you are saying people who are already Christian (from what ever belief in flawed data you posit) are struggling to justify their wish that God has a sense of humor. The only point I was making is that, from a Christian world view, we believe God as a sense of humor from what we witness, not that we seek to witness things in hopes of proving God has a sense of humor.
I was asking you to grant a rhetorical premise and discuss from there (since you proposed the scenario where Christians were trying to force their God to fit their view of him as having humor). You wouldn’t. That is of course your choice. But to merely keep saying “there is no God and all believers are stupid” (a paraphrase of your remarks, but I believe a fair one) especially in a thread where the point is honest discussion about it, is from where I’m sitting, petulent at best, intentionally insulting at worst.
I do not wish to ascribe any malicious intent to you, but it is hard to escape that impression. As will all forms of communication, it is possible that we simply missed each other’s point and heard something different than was said. If it seems I am arguing against a straw man, than I mis-understood your premise and invite respectful clarification.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:49 pmExactly.
Except for the word “entire”.
Christianity isn’t their “entire” belief system. Humans are far more complex. No person literally lives by the Bible, however much they try (and most don’t). It would be impossible because it contradicts itself.
Correct.
I am not. Why would you possibly make such a leap?
It wouldn’t offend me at my core.
I understand you already DO consider my belief system “stupid” or worse. I deny the person who you believe I must accept in order to get into heaven (and… probably more importantly… avoid hell a concept popularized by he, but strangely absent from the Old Testament) said much of what he is alleged to have said, and further believe the Gospel accounts are fabrications, and poorly written two dimensional ones at that (with some decent points made at times). I think you’re religion is based on a combination of ignorance and fraud.
Are you telling me you BELIEVE my beliefs are “smart”? By definition, you have to believe I’m terribly deluded, evidence to the contrary be damned. And I don’t have to believe anything but where the evidence takes me.
It wouldn’t faze me. I know objectively that I’m more knowledgeable on certain subjects than you, and the reverse is true, I assume. This time, undoubtedly correctly.
By the way, why do you conclude I must be Jewish? The person in the video’s nose? His last name of “Armstrong”? His first name if “Lance” (no relation to the cyclist)? His philosophy of Deism?
What great bit of evidence lead you to conclude I’m Jewish?
How’s your viewing going?
May 6th, 2008 at 10:51 pmMay 6th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
“And since I think it’s awesome when people admit things like that, I decided to be awesome and admit things like that.”
I think it worked.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:55 pmSo you admit to calling Christians stupid by implication? Thank you.
Your first link talks about how the Old Testament debunks the New Testament (I didn’t actually watch them because I refuse to be a party to anti-Christian bigotry). Is my assumption really such a “leap”?
Then you’re a liar.
And you seriously expect us to engage you in a rational discussion?
You are a bigot, Christoph. And so is the man in your videos. I will not be witness to bigotry.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pm(This got stuck in moderation for some reason, don’t know why, but it keeps happening to me at the most annoying times. I’m trying to edit the text, so if it suddenly seems jarring, it is because I had to change a clause drastically to get the post through.)
Christoph and Skyler,
Is your interpretation that all Christian’s follow the ideal of Biblical in-errancy? There are many denominations, we are not one homogeneous mass. There are many Dogmas, many creeds, many sects. Few ascribe to strict biblical in-errancy. I will not speak directly for any sect, but personally I recognize that Christ frequently used metaphor to teach and instruct. I don’t see why his dad wouldn’t have done the same.
But at least one of you seems to have dropped the pretext of respectful dialog. You actively intend insult. What is the point of that other than to amuse yourself by flaming Christians? That is honest curiosity by the way, not a rhetorical question.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:01 pmRachel,
Despite being quite a bit older than you, and, I assume, having had a lot more exposure to church, I find myself in about the same situation as yourself when it comes to Christianity. I’ve read a number of Lewis’ books, including Mere Christianity, and find them quite compelling. I would recommend Surprised By Joy, detailing how he came to be a believer.
Another author you might want to check out is Francis Schaeffer, especially a work entitled How Should We Then Live? In that book he traces the flow (decline?) of Western culture, and the stages it has gone through. Even though it pre-dates our current conflict with Islam, it goes a long ways towards explaining our seeming impotence in dealing with that situation. Ironically, despite the fact that he writes from the perspective of a Christian, this particular book could have almost been written by Ayn Rand.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:02 pmSomehow, in that picture, Sunny looks more like the Egyptian sphinx than the Virgin Mary to me.
YMMV
May 6th, 2008 at 11:05 pmChris_rc,
No, that’s not fair at all. I said they are wrong, I didn’t say that they were stupid. In fact, I implied that Lewis and others such as Aquinas are quite smart. I know my brother is smart.
There’s a big difference between being wrong and being stupid.
As for the proof issue: Chris, is there an invisible monster sitting on your desk? No? Can you prove that? If not, why do you think it’s not there?
The answer is that with the totality of evidence, and the interpolation of all human experience, you can be certain, not simply believe, that there is not an invisible monster on your desk. The same holds for other magical beings. There is no reason to believe it, therefore the wild creation of such a conclusion is baseless and requires no belief to reject.
That you disagree is your right, but it requires no “belief” to reject that which has no basis.
But these are tired old arguments and no one will be convinced to change their minds.
The important thing is to have as close an understanding of right and wrong as possible, no matter what you ascribe that understanding to. If you treat people decently, that’s all good whether you’re muslim, atheist, budhist, or christian of whatever flavor.
But once you start inflicting an incorrect understanding of right and wrong on others, then a line has been crossed that should not be tolerated. That’s partly why Rupert is heading to Iraq.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:05 pm“I also think the Wedding at Cana is hilarious. And Noah and his Ark was pretty darned funny, if you think about it.”
I agree with Bonnie. God drowning all those people and animals, that is fukkin’ hilarious! At least some of those people were innoncent, and torturing innoncent people always makes me giggle. And don’t even get me started on cancer! That’s the funniest shit ever! Ha!
May 6th, 2008 at 11:06 pmFanniep,
So what you’re saying is “Bad stuff happened, therefore nothing can ever be funny”?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:09 pmSklyer, first there is a post of mine stuck in moderation at 11:01 PM. Nothing bad in it, but I get hit by that occasionally.
You are borrowing from Sagan (or are having a parallel thought, his was a Dragon in a Garage). Here is where your allegory falls short. Christian’s are saying God exists, not that he is sitting on your desk (other than the tenant of faith about him being omnipresent, but that is a separate issue). To enter your frame. I can fairly say with in your rules that there is no invisible monster sitting on my desk (in any relevant means, any claim I make against its existence on my desk can be argued against by applying no power, useful when dealing with omnipotence). However, logically, I can not say, that in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE there is no invisible creature. Monster is a pointless name to instill the creature with malicious or harmful intent.
I don’t believe that there are any invisible creatures (note, the word BELIEVE), because no evidence has been presented me to make the case for their existence. However, I will not say “There are no invisible creatures in the universe.” Because there is no way to know that. It would require presumption of the highest degree, arrogance rivaling that of your hypothetical boss that requires his employees to attend his church.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:16 pmThe wonderful thing about Christianity is forgiveness.
There was no way you could have offended any of us, Rachel. We had already forgiven you.
…well, at least I did.
I’m what you would call a non-practicing Catholic. I don’t go to services, but I do regularly read the Bible and pray. I always defend this on the basis that Jesus proscribed against prayer in public.
I used to go to mass regularly, when the services were at 8pm on a Saturday night and officiated by the former president of my alma mater (a Catholic university). I go on special events like Easter and Good Friday and all, but not every Sunday.
I will say that I find many Protestants’ hostility towards Catholicism very problematic.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:16 pm[sorry about the double post]
May 6th, 2008 at 11:21 pmotcconan, may I suggest that we leave the Catholic vs. Protestant discussion for another thread, this one is contentious enough. I’ll say I agree, the hostillity shouldn’t be there. Neither should there be the oft observed hostility of many Catholics towards protestants. There are many mutually exclusive articles of faith that are worth of discussion between the two groups (and with in the various forms of protestantism, or those who claim it), but none of that needs hostility, so I’ll back you on that.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:22 pm“So what you’re saying is “Bad stuff happened, therefore nothing can ever be funny”?”
No, not at all. Bad stuff happens, and lots of things are funny. Like you. But God killing and torturing lots of innocent people when he doesn’t need to is not funny. People unjustly suffering is not funny. Can I offer proof that God doesn’t exist? No; not in the same way that I can give a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. But I can give you an argument that seems to provide very strong evidence that God does not exist:
1. Assume that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God can prevent all pointless suffering.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows where all the pointless suffering is.
4. If God is omnibenevolent, then God wants to eliminate all of the pointless suffering.
5. But there is pointless suffering in the world.
C. Therefore, there is no God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
I don’t think that 1 through 5 leads to a strict contradiction, and, therefore, that argument is not a proof, in the mathematical or logical sense. But those premises seem to provide good evidence that there is no God. Unless you reject that God is omnibenevoleent and believe that God is a dick with a sense of humor. That kind of God might exist.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:23 pmTo Skylar and Christoph, et al:
I think you have many valid points to make - that your thoughts are at times squarely opposed to mine is certainly OK.
For all you Christians out there, you are either comfortable in your faith or you are not. I don’t mind a friendly argument at all. I look at it as a chance to maybe learn something. But when we descend into name-calling, what’s the point?
Neither I, nor any of my Christian friends take the bible literally. The dangers in that can be seen readily by witnessing the discussions here - there is so much miscommunication and talking past each other, it’s a wonder anything at all is ever understood.
I am a huge fan of Ayn Rand (an atheist) and I am indebted to her intellect. But I think that she was not perfect…and she was no Jefferson. I am quite familiar with her terms, and most of the rules of logic.
I have taken issue before at the idea that “you cannot prove a negative.” So, ignoring, the religious discussion for the moment, can you tell me in logical terms why this must be so? I have posted an answer to this axiom here before - relying on the law of identity for proof.
It could be that I am wrong, and would welcome your criticism.
Please note, I am foremost an admirer of Christ for what he stood for, and I think his integrity is a thing worth honoring. And I simply don’t understand people who are so willing to laughingly dismiss the life he lived, simply due to the notion that some choose to believe he was divine. I am reluctant to be a Jesus-basher.
But organized religion is wholly a different matter.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:26 pmWhat? No damn cuss-words in a blog post? Hinky.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pmSagan? I only know two things about Sagan; one is that he wrote “Cosmos” which I enjoyed as a youngster and the other is that his well deserved nickname when I worked at Apple Computer was BHA (b**t hole astronomer).
I don’t intend to convince you, Chris, it’s not going to happen. I’m just saying that I don’t require belief to know with certainty that the omnipotent being in your garage/world does not exist. I am not saying that there isn’t a being somewhere in the universe that is very powerful, but not omnipotent or omniscient, and not anywhere near us or influencing our existence. And I even doubt that much.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:29 pmfanniep, your flow can’t get past stage one.
omnibenevolence is not a universal claim I have ever seen or heard before, and I have been attending church and talking to people of other denominations and faiths since at least kindegarten. That he is benevolent is frequently stated. That he loves is frequently stated. That he gave us free will is frequently stated. He can not do all you suggest he should as an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God and still allow us free will. Put another way, in the biblical sense, he did exactly as you say, until Man chose to disobey him (using his free will).
God was willing to all that you suggest if Man was willing to follow but one commandment, do not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We ate of the tree, we then knew of good, and knew of evil. Evil, knowing it, truly, means knowing bad things. Your statement isn’t mathematical proof, you are right, but it also isn’t good proof that the Abrahamic God doesn’t exist.
It is a decent argument against the existence of a singular god that I’ve never heard mentioned before.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:29 pmOh, mightysamurai, now here’s where I prove you’re a liar, hardly a rare quality among people including Christians. Fortunately, you have the luxury in glorifying your sin because your Saviour’s blood will wash you clean. I, on the other hand, have no such false comfort, so I’m judged merely on whether I tell the truth or not.
This is what you say when I answer “Exactly” (with a caveat that you omit) to your question:
I don’t believe Christians are stupid. The very idea of that offends me. I know, love, and respect many people who are Christians. I believe Christianity is stupid, much the same as if a person had an incorrect theory on any topic (I’ve held several at times: all people have).
But you’re an intellectually dishonest person, so the intentionally lying misstatement of my answer to your question suited you.
Ah, I see. Because, in a discussion about whether Christianity is true or not, ONLY a Jew would point out contradictions between what Jesus “said” and the Old Testament. No one other than a Jew would be in the slightest interested in that.
Indeed, people who point out discrepancies between the Old Testament and new are most likely Jews… despite the fact that millions of non-believers have pointed these out over centuries and today.
Yes, showing you have a tendency toward bigotry, and stupidity.
Regarding my answer that “it wouldn’t offend me to my core” if you thought my belief system was stupid, that, indeed, I assume you must already think so because you have a different belief system that you believe explains the path to every person’s salvation, among other mysteries, you say:
You know my “core” so well you call me a liar — with certainty, no less — when I say it doesn’t offend me that you would find my ideas stupid. It doesn’t offend me more than would a marxist disagreeing with me on taxation policy or a flat Earther (as in the Bible
) disagreeing with me on cosmology. It hardly offends me to my core. Amuses, mostly, exasperates at worst, and very rarely threatens, but ONLY if the other person intends to act crazily based on their beliefs. Which happens on occasion, but rarely.
So you called me a liar falsely, unlike when I did so, truthfully.
When I said I think your religion is based on a combination of ignorance and fraud, you asked:
That’s an interesting question. Do I expect YOU to engage in a rational discussion? Hardly. Some Christians of the mold of, say, C.S. Lewis among others? Sure.
Now how could one do so? Well, one would apply the scientific method. “I don’t THINK my religion is based on ignorance and fraud, but let’s take a look at that. Let’s apply knowledge and look at the evidence.”
I.e., a rational discussion.
Rejecting (or accepting) something after looking at the evidence is not bigotry, it’s reason. The Bible is great evidence and I, having looked at it, find it preposterous.
Having not watched it and assumed I, and presumably he, are Jews, I’m sure you would know.
Or to any kind of evidence like explained in those videos or rational discussion, it would seen.
I’ll give you my opinion as to why. “mightysamurai”, you are a coward.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:31 pmfrigger, you have me confused with someone else, I believe. I’m an admirer of Rand as well.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:32 pmNonsense. Benevolence does not mean preventing anyone from ever suffering.
Surely you would agree that a parent is benevolent toward his/her child, right? Right. But should a parent prevent his/her child from ever experiencing any suffering? No they should not. That’s a recipe for a spoiled child. The world isn’t fair. We are not guaranteed justice until we reach the kingdom of Heaven. We can pray for justice on Earth and try to dispense it ourselves, but we have to accept that we won’t always get it.
Certainly God could end all injustice and suffering in an instant, but that would rob us of free will and remove the entire point to human existence.
Also, if you believe in the concept of Original Sin then the suffering experienced by humankind is our penance for the sins of Adam and Eve.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:34 pmHere’s the “belief” problem simplified. Granted it is by an admitted moron, but a crafty one.
There is definitely a right answer to whether God exists or not, pick one. You will be forced to stick with your answer, until at least the time of your death. At that time, I am guessing that your question is answered anyway.
While you live, if you determine that there is no God, your problem is completely solved, if you decide there is one, then pick a way to worship that God.
There will be a final exam. Maybe.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:35 pmfanniep:
All of your assumptions indicate a notion that believers in God necessarily believe in a God with the attributes you have cited. I think it’s more complicated than that, but we have neither the time nor space for the debate.
But to put it briefly, in a nutshell: I suppose I am a Deist, much like Jefferson. God may very well be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnidexterous, omnidirectional, Dodge Omni 024, on and on…
But we have free will - which would, in theory, require God to stay out of our messes, despite all his omnithings.
But you are right in assuming, that if I accept your premises, that your conclusion is logically correct.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:37 pmRachel-
I almost never comment on any blogs anywhere, but I just couldn’t let this post go without remarking on it. You have summed up perfectly where I am right now regarding religion in general and Christianity specifically. I had all the same conversations in my early twenties as you say you did. I had the same smug attitude and wondered how sane, apparently rational people could believe the things they do. Honestly I still have a hard time understanding how they could really believe any specifics that are a little too fantastical, but I begin to understand the greater meaning of the message as a whole. More importantly I am beginning to see how Christianity is more that just a slickly marketed set of moral guidelines, and is instead the foundation upon which almost all of western civilization, including modern science, is built. Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for putting my thoughts into words for me.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:40 pmChris, you’re right. The argument doesn’t work if you accept that God’s not omnibenevolent. But many (most?) Christians want to say that God is perfect, including all good. Like I said, if you want to say that God’s a dick, then the argument is not persuasive. But I don’t think you can say that God is just benevolent, if you believe that he is all powerful. Suppose that Bob could prevent just one innocent person, call him Steve, from suffering a terrible, agonizing death, and it wouldn’t take Bob any effort. Normally, Bob’s a good guy, but he just decides not save Steve. Then Bob’s a dick in my book. And it seems that God does this all the time. He has the power to effortlessly prevent all of the pointless suffering (and not all suffering is pointless) that has ever occurred. So if there is just one instance of pointless suffering, then God is a dick. And the free will defense just doesn’t work. Even assuming that all of the moral evil that occurs due to the free will of humans is worth it (which I doubt), there is the problem of natural evil. Birth defects, cancer, Alzheimer’s are just a few that come to mind.
But I like your response. I just wish more people would admit that God is an asshole, if he exists.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:40 pmSkyler, you don’t want to discuss it, that is fine. I’m not trying to convert you (here anyway
). The monster on the desk was your construct not mine. You were using it to try to shot the futility of proving a negative. Read my posts before you brought up the monster, I already discussed that. But I have to disagree with your assertion, from pure reason and logic, an omnipotent God can not be disproved. That is the nature of omnipotence. I have not tried or intended to prove to you, logically, that God exists (with a funny bone or not). I have merely tried to defend logic. Omnipotence is rationally tricky. Any claim made that should constrain the omnipotent being can be sidestepped, of course, because the being is omnipotent.
Call the use of omnipotence a rhetorical trick. A means of escape, of ducking conversation, what ever. But logically you can not prove that no omnipotent being exists. Thus to say “No omnipotent being exists” requires faith beyond logic. Believing (whether you think it true, factual, or not) a conclusion not 100% supported by logic requires faith.
Now for all the claims you made about him not existing in “my world” (I’m sorry to correct you here, but it is our world), you can say, based on your observations, and all rationality brought to bare, that this being is irrelevant to this existence. Logically that is a supported conclusion because there has been insufficient evidence offered to prove his relevance. Existence is a separate issue.
We may have to agree to disagree here though. I’m not trying to convince you of God. You don’t intend to convince me of his non-existance. Where we are arguing is where logic can take you, and from there what conclusions can be claimed. If we can not grant each other’s premise on even logic, so be it. We can still be civil about it, and respectful of each other, which is kind of Rachel’s point in this whole thing.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pmOh, and I almost forgot this tidbit. People that do not believe in God certainly try to make a point that God has to be a dick.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pm“Nonsense. Benevolence does not mean preventing anyone from ever suffering.”
Fallacy of equivocation. I said ‘omnibenevolent’, not ‘benevolent’. Please see my previous post.
Frigger- thoughtful post, but I have to disagree. Again, even setting aside the free will defense, there’s the problem of natural evil that leads to pointless suffering.
Cheers!
May 6th, 2008 at 11:45 pmSorry for the confusion Skylar -
to be more clear, I was fairly certain that you were an admirer of Rand, and that you were not an admirer of Christianity. Am I correct on that point? I just thought some Christians here were dismissing your views too easily, when actually, counterpoints are often good things that ought to be faced.
I am an admirer of both Rand and Christ, which, to many folks, is an impossible task.
And Acquinas was quite good. Aristotle too.
I only wished to point out that you had fair points to make about the Christian faith. I think my admiration for Christ actually grew after pondering the thoughts of the opposition.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:45 pmI don’t necessarily pull all of my Christian faith from my belief in Jesus and Scripture, but the impasse that I believe science has reached. I know this is shaky ground to base a scientifically semi-unprovable belief on, but it has worked for my grandfather for 75 years. Jesus was certainly a revolutionary figure in many ways, and his deeds mysterious and wonderful. But tangible items always seem to trump my emotional attachment to faith. We’ve whittled science down to the atom, the smallest possible existing physical entity. Yet somehow my mind can’t wrap itself around the finite. To me, it only makes sense that there is the infinite. And how can we come to possibly comprehend even the smallest part of the infinite? The revelation of itself in a way that can connect to the human mind. My two cents.
I take a cynical approach to organized religion, while still being a decently committed Catholic. Taking everything with a grain of salt and using my own mind to try and decipher dogma definitely helps. And my faith continues to build.
Ironically, I can’t stand to read C.S. Lewis. Too ADD for me.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:45 pmNo, you just think the entire Christian religion is stupid.
And that’s….different…..I guess.
Yes I do. Because that’s exactly what you are.
EVERYONE takes offense when their core beliefs are insulted. Whether you act on that offense or lash out at the offender is another matter, but either way it doesn’t change the fact that you take offense. To claim you don’t take offense at all is a lie, because all humans take offense when their beliefs are insulted.
Except you’re not rejecting or accepting a position, you are ridiculing an entire belief system as “stupid”.
That is intolerance towards opinions or attitudes different from one’s own. The textbook definition of bigotry.
You have to act rationally before you can expect people to engage you in a rational discussion.
Calling Christianity “stupid” is not a rational argument. I refuse to engage you rationally until you apologize and retract your bigoted and irrational statement.
And you’re a bigot. So I guess we’re even.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:46 pmfanniep, it’s worse than that if you’re talking about the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God. Watch the “Rape in the Bible” video above. And mightysammurai, in particular, we’re he courageous enough, and smarter than he appears, could really benefit from the “Where’s Yahweh?” video before discussing God’s omnipotence.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:46 pmYou’re going to quibble over terminology now?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:48 pmChristoph,
I haven’t watched the videos you’ve cited, but if you are talking about the passages concerning how a woman should be punished if she is raped in the city because she didn’t cry out, then I hear you. I’m trying to be fairly generous, but I agree with you: If God exists, then he is more than a dick. He is the most immoral person (in the broadest sense) that has ever existed.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:51 pmThis might be a useful place to drop in an hilarious line I spotted on JerryPournelle.com:
I’m not much of a believer myself, but this seems like a handy caution to have at the back of a non-believer’s mind. I think one could substitute “atheism” for “evolution” without obscuring the meaning of the quote.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:52 pmI’ll ‘quibble’ over terminology when you shift terms in order to address my argument. There’s a big difference between ‘benevolent’ and ‘omnibenevolent’, just like there’s a big difference between ‘potent’ and ‘omnipotent’. My boyfriend is potent, but that asshole isn’t omnipotent.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:53 pmSure, my CORE beliefs.
For example, I believe paedophilia is wrong, even though the Bible is silent on this. I believe rape is wrong, even though the Bible advocates this. I believe slavery is wrong, even though the Bible advocates it far more than it denounces it. I believe in democracy, even though Jesus supported the divine rights of kings.
So, MAYBE if you get near some of my core beliefs you’ll have some semblance of a point. For the first time in this discussion.
However, my views on cosmology, God, etc., are all evidence driven. I’ve changed them with time as I gained knowledge and thought about things. Your saying you think these beliefs are stupid is going to make me mad is wrong.
Now, if you start telling me that God was right to order certain rapes, then maybe I’ll get pissed at you… although more likely I will look at you with horror and disgust as opposed to the mere contempt I have for you.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s too stupid to give attention to. I don’t say all Christians are stupid. I say you are, as well as being a bigot (amusingly enough), and a coward.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:54 pmSo I guess that’s a “no” to my implied question of “Are you going to address the rest of my post?”
May 6th, 2008 at 11:54 pmThere are many examples from the Bible covered, although I don’t remember that being one of them. I’m more talking about God ordering Jews to rape war slaves, after killing women who’ve had sex before, and keeping the virgins for their wives or, if the sex experience was unsatisfactory, letting them go.
Among other examples.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:56 pmDude, at this point I’ll be hard pressed if I can bother to read it.
How’s your viewing going?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:58 pm“If something looks implausible, it probably is.”
Good point. Christianity writ large is the belief that a magical super-hero spit into some dirt to make hoomans, cursed them for eating some silly fruit, and then tortured and murdered his kid in order to save us from being burned alive in a lake of fire, even though when he made us, he knew we would eat that fruit.
I like this game. Me likey.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:59 pmThen you obviously have not read the Bible.
Matthew 18:6 (New International Version)
“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
The Bible does no such thing, and in fact expressly forbids this.
Proof? I’d love to see the passage that says “You must own slaves.”
And this proves the Bible is anti-democracy…how exactly?
The Founding Fathers never advocated that King George be cast off his throne. I guess they must not have believed in democracy either.
Be honest, have you ever cracked open a Bible before? Or did you just watch your little Youtube videos and think “Golly, that dude sounds awful smart. He must be right!”
May 7th, 2008 at 12:01 amHow’s your apology going?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:01 amI must take exception to your last point, fanniep. That’s only one of the two creation myths in Genesis. I don’t think you’re being fair by not lampooning both, contradictory, myths from chapters 1 and 2 of the bible, the hideous, ghastly book that it is.
Thank God and/or nature this is not the source of human morality.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:02 amChristoph, here’s the passage I was thinking of, but I think yours might be even better.
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
May 7th, 2008 at 12:02 amThis from the person who claims to want a rational discussion.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:04 amChris_rc said,
I’m confused. What am I not discussing?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:04 amFanniep, I believe you are creating false dichotomy: perfect omni benevolence or total dick.
This is a strictly Christian response to your 1-5 as regards benevolence, and omni-benevolence. With in the the realm of the Christian faith, life on earth is but a blip of eternity. We all die. We all have the potential (thanks to Christ’s sacrifice) to spend that eternity in Heaven with God. Those living on earth can’t see eternity, so we place emphasis on hear and now, thinking that our suffering matters. God recognizes the infinite eternity beyond the here and now, our suffering, while significant to us, is irrelevant to that, and is often required for us to believe in his Son and join him in heaven upon our death.
Put another way, true omnibenevolence would be to ensure our long term best cause. This is Heaven. Can’t get there with out death.
Looking at your analogy with Bob and Steve. Would a benevolent being ever incarcerate, and restrain some one, poke them, prod them, render them unconscious, force objects into their body?
This is why free will is relevant, so long as it exists. Steve’s free will may be to die. He may spend every waking moment trying to die. Trying to hurt himself. Trying to hurt others so that they will kill him. Now Bob comes along. He respects free will, he values free will, he created free will. The only way to stop the gruesome death of Steve (which you posit is a bad thing) is to lock him away, in a straight jacket, in a room with padded walls. But he refuses food and water, trying if nothing else will work, to starve to death. The only way to keep him alive now is to force feed him. Tubes down the throat or needeles in the veins. he resits, struggles, he must be sedated.
Where is the benevolence, look at the torture Bob must put Steve through to prevent the gruesome end Steve searches for.
This is the example of the obsurd, but it illustrates a case where benevolence, short of omnibenevolence, is insufficient, with out requiring the individual to be a dick or an asshole.
Biblically, original sin knew we must know evil (that was the sin, choosing not to listen to God, but instead to know good and evil). This evil can be the willful evil of man, or your so called natural evil.
I however, should have gone to bed an hour ago. So I must sign off the thread for the night (I hope to have the time to come usefully back to it tomorrow).
May 7th, 2008 at 12:05 amOK fanniep, I fear that you will draw me into a lengthy discussion that I can ill afford… with the workday starting in just a few hours…
But as I said before, free-will (if we believe we have it) implies that any Deity (if one exists) to not meddle in our affairs. This is a point that you have already indicated that you understand and probably agree with. It’s a simple logical assertion. Point conceded?
As to “natural evil,” this is a concept that troubles me, logically. Life exists. Life evolves. Some forms of life are parasitical. Some forms of life are viruses. They developed, through history, just as we have. But as these other life forms (that are not sentient) cause disease, and sometimes suffering - does not make them “evil.” By definition, they cannot be “evil” because “evil” implies knowledge and consciousness and intent, right? These things are simply in existence. Concepts of good and evil should not obtain, in a metaphysical sense - (though the discussion changes if we simply define “evil” as something that is detrimental to our health or livelihood).
What about other diseases, not caused by the aforementioned? When our own DNA just short-circuits which causes birth defects, auto-immune diseases, etc and then pain and suffering?
I suppose then that your belief that God does not exist rests on this? At least an omnibenevolent God? I am not sure, this is a guess. My assertion that the deity does not intervene so as to preserve our free will, means that there are a gazillion other consequences too resulting from said non-intervention. This is where the time and space necessary for the debate becomes untenable.
Would appreciate more input please. Thank you.
By the way, have you seen Ben Stein’s movie, “No Intelligence Allowed?”
Good stuff.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:06 amChristoph, you’re one step ahead of me again. I wish more people noted the two creation stories and how they contradict. For some reason, I thought “super-hero spit into some dirt to make hoomans” was a bit funnier than “super-hero made man and woman at the same time” but your point is well taken.
Sometimes God makes something out of something (e.g., rib into a woman), and sometimes BAM!, he just makes shit out of thin air. I love that goofy bastard.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:06 amYou might like it even more, were you to make a good-faith effort to address a point raised in good faith, know-it-all.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:15 amChristoph and fanniep,
The details of the bible are largely irrelevent to any argument about christianity or belief in god. For every so-called flaw in that tome any believer will easily refute it by any number of means, such as saying that it was a simple parable, or that it was corrected by later beliefs, or that your interpretation is incorrect, etc.
When people believe in a magic being, all other beliefs are inconsequential and can be suitably bent to one’s desires, such as ascribing humor to a god that has no text or tradition indicating humor. Simply putting a current cultural context onto what was originally very sober conversations, or pointing out the oddity of certain animals, they can perceive an anthropromorphic sense of humor in an omnipotent being.
You can always find flaws in the Bible. They are largely uninteresting because they don’t matter to the overall structure of the belief system. And besides, those videos are terrible.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:16 amfanniep, I love you woman (man). I got to go. Remember, religion aside, life is about being good, accomplishing goals, having sex, raising children, wine (Jesus — if he existed — was right here), laughter, making fun of morons, and all the things which God has put us on this Earth to do.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:19 amYou guys are all reminding me of this webcomic:
xkcd
I hate to be “that” person, but you’re arguing in the comment section of a blog. I’ve been there, done that, got the tee shirt, still do it sometimes, but think about it: you’re arguing about RELIGION in the comment section of a blog. I know you all want to be heard, but in this case, I’m going to respectfully suggest that, for the sake of your blood pressure, you just let this one go. If you’re secure in your own opinion, there’s no need to try to convince anyone else - if you’ve truly made the right choice for yourself, you’ll know eventually, so why worry about others if they’re so vehemently against your perspective?
I mean, you’re free to tell me to go to hell, too, but I had to lay that out there, because while I find this amusing, I can’t imagine that the folks who have this being emailed to them via the comment-follow option are very amused.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:22 amRachel,
Great post! I read Mere Christianity again this year and passed it on to my know it all 20 something daughter. I think it is just young women in their 20s that are know it alls…never fathers.
Normally, you have a very funny and respectful group of commenters…it apears that some woke up this morning and had a bowl of TROLL A LOT cereal for breakfast and starting sounding like the “progressives” at DD, Daily KOS, Huff-in Puff, etc.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:31 amRachel,
Thank you for this generous post. You’ve previously commented that you couldn’t say anything about Christianity without Christians calling you arrogant or condescending or somesuch(disclosure: I was one of those voices, and sometimes I went too far in my accusations). At present, it turns out you could not say anything about Christianity without later accusing yourself! Such fun.
I don’t want to jinx it, but I like the religion posts the best. Partly b/c - though I shoot my mouth off in your comments - I am still learning about Christian doctrine and belief. The comments to the posts have been lively, and I’ve even gained new perspectives while reading them.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:39 amChristoph, after watching the first video you reference, it is plain to me that this person who made the video doesn’t see the bigger picture. The concept that is missed is that the Old Testament was given to the chosen people to establish Gods authority as the divine creator. It also established the Law of God for the people to follow in order for Jesus to be able to contrast God’s forgiving grac