I have a new book coming out soon. There will be a chapter on atheism. Tell me, what do atheists (officially) believe about:
God, the Bible, Heaven & Hell, Sin, Salvation (from death and Hell), and Jesus.
NOTE: Thank you to those atheists who have already kindly responded so quickly: Alan Manuel, Adrian Hayter, Kaitlyn, Andrew, Daddy S, Paul, Siberia, Chuck, Irradiatus, Christ follower, Rando, Paul (NZ), Ella, Dakota Green, and Steven J. If any of you (responders) would like a free copy of the book, email your physical address (or box number) to mark@livingwaters.com
P.s. No more please. We have had adequate responses. Thank you.
Friday, August 29, 2008
A New Book
80 comments:
@Ray
Sure, I'd love to share what atheists "officially" believe.
Atheism, is a fairly large tent. Atheism means a lack of a belief in God. In other words, anyone who doesn't believe in a god is an atheist.
Some religious atheists exist such as most Buddhists. Also, some Jewish, Christian, and Islamic people might describe themselves as atheists too. Although, I doubt you will find many people who follow a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic tradition who claim to be atheists.
Tell me, what do atheists (officially) believe about:
God:
Atheists believe no one has yet to provide enough evidence to warrant a belief in god(s) or in the Christian context, God.
The Bible:
Atheism has no definitional opinion regarding the Bible other than one can say atheists do not believe enough evidence exists to conclude that the God of the Bible, Yahweh, exists.
Heaven & Hell:
Atheism, by definition, lacks an opinion on the subject of heaven and hell.
Sin:
Atheism, by definition, lacks an opinion on the subject of sin.
Salvation:
Atheism, by definition, lacks an opinion on the subject of salvation.
Jesus:
Atheism, by definition, lacks an opinion on the subject of Jesus other than rejecting the notion that he is a god.
Ray,
You've ignored our answers for pretty much every topic you've posted on.
You ignore it when we tell you that we aren't just pretending there is no God.
You ignore it when we tell you that "loving our sins too much" isn't the reason we are atheists.
You ignore it when we correct your factual errors regarding evolution.
So why should we bother telling you what we believe on these topics?
You'll just ignore our answers in favor of whatever it is you want to believe about us.
Besides, the only thing atheists have an "official" position on is that we don't believe any god exists. That's it.
Even though I'm sure it won't do any good, here are my answers.
God: Doesn't exist (obviously)
The Bible: Just a book
Heaven and Hell: Neither exist
Sin: A made-up concept that doesn't actually exist
Salvation: Since sin doesn't exist there isn't anything we need to be saved from.
Jesus: If he existed, he was just a man.
You won't get an "official" consensus on anything in that list but God. Atheism has no dogma.
Wowsers! A New Book!!!
Looking forward to it! You can really write well. I mean that!
Have a Great WX ! Good Luck with your 'fishing hole'. Tell Tony & Kirk I said Hello!
God Bless.
In His Love,
Terry Burton
There is no official belief in atheism, and the following in no way speaks for all atheists.
God (or any deity for that matter): There is no reason to believe that a supernatural intelligent creator exists.
The Bible: haha, which bible? the kjv? niv? i think the new oxford annotated bible is the most derived from the best copies of the earliest greek manuscripts. have you read it? it's a lot different from the kjv and niv. not to mention all of the other books that weren't canonized, and other books that have been found since, such as the book of judas.
at any rate, i think it's an excellent resource on the culture of 2000-3000 years ago, and with the different changes and additions to the new testament over the past 2000 years, an excellent resource on the culture of the past thousand or so years within the christian churches.
Heaven & Hell: I assume that you are referring to the heaven and hell within christian dogma, in which case, the modern vision of hell has little to do with the bible, but more to do with dante's divine comedy. either way, there is no reason to believe that there is any sort of reward or punishment after my life.
Sin: Sin is the christian concept that there are certain bad deeds that will send you to hell. many of these are antiquated, and part of human nature. sins are used to scare people into believing that they are going to burn in hell after they die if they don't ask for forgiveness from a supernatural deity.
salvation: salvation is a concept in many religions that one can only be "saved" by following the rules of the particular religion, thereby avoiding "hell" and making it in to "heaven"
Jesus: a radical Jewish rabbi that may or may not have lived around 2000 years ago. if he did live, he was human, probably had a wife, and children. his influence was great, and he had a few followers at first. after his death, his fellowship grew, and his followers eventually couldn't fathom that a man was responsible for their teachings and they deified him by removing passages from their texts that retained his humanity, and emphasizing passages that deified him.
Ray,
You are rather sad. Having read your posts for awhile, I am rather disturbed by your 'brand' of Christianity.
Why do you bait people? How can you presume to understand the hearts and souls of those you judge? Have you considered that many people that now reject religion grew up in circumstances where religion was warped and twisted as to be absent of any love or reason? Have you considered that many have suffered at the hands of religion during formative years of their life? Have you considered that for many, including me, that the charactered and simplistic Christianity you spout is actually destroying their faith?
I truly think that you do far more harm than good. For everyone's well being you should just stop. If you find yourself incapable of that then you should talk about the life and lessons of Jesus Christ. There is plenty of content to keep you busy. Also, take a class or two on critical analysis of the Bible. You seem to lack any ability to understand and interpret the historical and cultural realities of the authors of the Bible.
Take care,
-B
I can't tell you what the “official” beliefs are, but I'll be happy to tell you what I think about them
God: Gods are what people think up before they understand the world around them. Gods die when answers to these mysteries are discovered and the old ones finally stop teaching the kids the lie.
The Bible: The Bible is a collection of old writings from diverse sources. The authorship of most sections is in question, it's historical accuracy is spotty, and it's self contradictory. I don't trust it any more than I trust other mythologies. Actually it's not as interesting to read as most other mythologies. What's with the fascination with foreskins?
Heaven & Hell: I don't believe in Heaven or Hell. When I die, I will push up daisies and feed worms. I strive to make sure people will think fondly of me should I die happen unexpectedly.
Sin: I don't believe in sin. If something is harmful to others, it is wrong regardless of what God thinks about it. If something causes no one else any harm, it is not wrong regardless of what God thinks.
Salvation: From what? I don't need to be saved. You have to prove that I have a soul to save before you can convince me that you have the cure.
Jesus: Mostly mythological.
Daddy Stegosaurus
@Ray,
I forgot to say good luck, and I hope your book does well.
Keep us updated!
[silensanta, NZ]
Ray, I'm pleasantly surprised that you're actually asking atheists what they believe instead of telling them what they believe as you have sometimes in the past. I hope you continue this approach- that way, if you construct your arguments against what we actually believe, then you'll have a better chance of persuading us.
God:
I don't believe that such a being exists. While I can't -and don't- rule out the possibility, I can say that postulating a God or Gods doesn't usefully explain any observed phenomenon, and so I treat the idea in much the same way that I treat ghosts and fairies. Although, like ghosts and fairies, I can't rule them out, I think it's insensible to believe in them without compelling evidence first. After reading widely, I haven't t found Zeus or Apollo or Tūmatauenga or Shiva or Molech convincing, and I don't find any compelling evidence for YHWH (the Christian god) either. re: Jesus, see below - evidence for Jesus the Man is not convincing evidence for Jesus the supernatural God.
The Bible:
Arbitrarily selected religious scribblings writings written by various mortal men from a single culture in the distant past on the other side of the planet. Of large historical interest, due to the significant effects that it has had on history, but having read it, found there is nothing in it to indicate that it was divinely inspired (similarly, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas are interesting in their effects on history, but do not contain anything to indicate they were written by anything other than historic, poorly educated, fallible mortal men)
Heaven & Hell:
No more plausible than fairies, ghosts, witches, Baba Yaga, etc. I note with interest how hell doesn't really make an appearance in the Bible until the New Testament- before that the concept is 'Sheol' and has very different connotations. You can ask some practicing Jews about this.
Sin:
There are such things as right and wrong actions, which are derived from the suffering that is averted or afflicted (see: utilitarianism), along with other factors such as privacy, autonomy, dignity etc. People's actions are right or wrong based on their observed effects in the real world (this one).
However regarding the concept of 'sin', if 'sin' is defined as disobedience to a given deity, then sin is an entirely pointless concept until we have compelling evidence of the existence -and rightful authority- of that given deity in the first place.
Salvation:
No such thing as 'sin', or 'hell', so no need for salvation. It would be only after we have compelling evidence of a particular God that such a concept is even worth discussing.
Jesus:
Pretty-much like Krishna- there was probably have an actual historical figure at some point, who may have even said a few (but probably not all) of the words attributed to him. But what we have today is a hackneyed collection of sayings (with some ancients texts burned as 'heresy' and others canonized). Neither Jesus nor Krishna nor Muhammad nor Joseph Smith left us with any compelling evidence that they had a connection to any God or Gods- therefore, while our picture of the historical Jesus is vague and incomplete, we have no reason to particularly much care what he said any more than we care what anyone else says. I liked some of the teachings attributed to Jesus (cast the first stone, do unto others), but some of these ideas (do unto others) already predate Jesus by several centuries anyway.
Some of his other teachings I find disagreeable, eg I find it appalling that Jesus would advocate a woman should not get a divorce if she is in an abusive marriage, but only if her husband is adulterous (Matthew 1:31).
God:
The only "official" belief concerning God (shared by all atheists) is not really a belief at all. It is the *lack of belief* in the existance of a God.
The Bible:
Again, there is no *official* atheist belief concerning the Bible. My personal opinion is that it is nothing more than a collection of fables which were cobbled together from older Pagan fables. The virgin birth, resurrection,great flood, etc. were all borrowed from older religions and given a slightly different spin.
Heaven & Hell:
On par with Atlantis, Narnia,and Middle Earth.
Sin:
Against God or man? It is possible to wrong one's fellow man, and such could be called a sin. On the other hand, one can no more sin against God than one can sin against Santa or the Easter Bunny. One cannot sin against that which does not exist.
Salvation:
When you die, your consciousness ceases to exist. Salvation is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Jesus:
Jesus, if in fact such a man did ever exist, was just that...a man. He may have had a few radical ideas for his time. He may even have been some sort of magician (as in tricks, not as in supernatural).
These are my personal thoughts. Other atheists may have different ideas on the subject.
God: none
The Bible: I fail to see the relevance of this, but I think it's just a book of old judean myths
Heaven and Hell: I fail to see the relevance of this, but I think they're just made-up bits and pieces to comfort people's knowledge of death
Sin: I fail to see the relevance of this, but it's just something that hurts other people and, possibly, yourself. something that hurts the general level of goodness in the world (i.e. karma, general level of goodness, world peace)
Salvation: I fail to see the relevance of this, but I think this is just a wordy bit that's there to try to pull people in. kind of like "new and improved!"
Jesus: I fail to see the relevance of this, but He's just this guy, you know?
God: The closer we look at reality, the less need there is to postulate any being to explain nature. I am personally an "Agnostic Atheist", meaning that I do not and cannot rule out the possibility of a creator underlying the laws of nature themselves, but I find the likelihood of the existence of any such being to be astronomically small.
The Bible: A bit of history mixed with alot of fiction and distortion. Like every good book, there are important lessons to be learned. However there are some truly disturbing things in it that I would never let my children read.
Heaven & Hell: Non-existent. No reason to even entertain the notion that they exist. Ideas constructed to give people motivation to be "good" and to not fear death.
Sin: A human construct used to describe things that our psychology, culture, and evolution-derived "morals" defines as "bad". We all have our own embedded feelings of "right" or "wrong", but these can be subjective. Regardless, there is no such thing as absolute right or wrong. The universe doesn't care.
Salvation: Means nothing (see below)
Jesus: A relatively enlightened man for his times. Preached simple things such as brotherly love. Likely a real man. Some, like I, think his simple lessons were warped to control the gullible masses (which still works).
Soul/Afterlife: (i added this one). There is no such thing as an immortal soul. Everything about who you are - thoughts, emotions, memories, personality - is defined by the chemical and structural makeup of one's brain and physiology. When your brain dies, so does your consciousness and "self". Thus, afterlife and concepts such as "salvation" are meaningless. After life there is only nothing.
We've been doing that all along, but that doesn't stop you from making up your own versions, berk.
"Atheists are people who pretend there's no "God""? Right!
So why are you pretending to care about what our views are?
Why do you make a distinction between "officially" believe and otherwise? Are you going to be saying that athiests pretend to have one point of view on these things (which would be our views as expressed here) and then the "real" views that atheists have would actually be your dishonest strawman versions of what atheists believe?
Pathetic post, Ray!
Why write a chapter?
I think that the starter kit covered it pretty well.
make it a footnote.
I'd be glad to help a guy write a book, but I have misgivings about either working for free or (most likely) being quote mined or misrepresented.
If you need some help please click over to my blog or contact me, I'll go to bat for the atheist team. I can write an entry for any of these.
Tell me, what do atheists (officially) believe about:
There are no OFFICIAL beliefs. Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods.
God - There probably aren't any gods or deities.
The Bible - Like other holy books, it was written by people, the books were collected by people. It didn't magically drop from the sky into everyone's homes.
Heaven & Hell - The carrot and the stick in the chain letter that is the Christian religion.
Sin - "an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible" (from the dictionary)
Salvation - Some thing that happens after you're dead so you can't tell anyone if it's real or not
Jesus - A common name.
Hi! I found your blog from an atheist website. I heard, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you don't think atheists don't actually believe what they say. I can't claim to speak for all atheists, if that's what you mean by "officially," but here's what I believe.
God: There is none. That is to say, there was no "intelligence" that created the universe, no source of good and evil beyond humanity itself, no supernatural all-powerful force with a will.
The Bible: Parts of it make a good historical account, but it is a book of myths of varying provenance. Some of the myths would be quite repellent to a modern audience, for example the offering of one's virgin daughters to a crowd of men about to rape runaways in Judges 19:24.
Heaven and Hell: They don't exist. We aren't rewarded or punished after death for anything we do in life.
Sin: I do believe in ethics. These, however, don't come from God but from other people who decide as a group. It's not as solid a basis as God might be, but it's all we can work with. A God not existing, there is nothing that God does not want us to do.
Salvation: From what?
Jesus: The carpenter from Bethlehem existed, in all likelihood. He went around giving sermons, but He was not the son of God and He did not speak for God. My father, also an atheist, has speculated that Jesus himself was an atheist and preached his doctrine to give comfort to the minds of people on Earth. I am not sure about this.
Uh, Ray, in case you hadn't noticed, there is no atheist magisterium, and no authority that can excommunicate people for heresy from the tenets of atheism. There aren't any atheist officials to declare "official" atheist positions.
One might suppose that at least atheists would have a uniform opinion on the God (to wit: there isn't One). The trouble is, since there's no authority to regulate who can call himself an atheist, that can excommunicate atheists, you get cases like the recent Pew Forum poll that found that 6% of self-described atheists believe in a personal God, and another 12% believe in an impersonal God.
Ah, I get it. You would hold that really, in their lying hearts, 100% of atheists believe in a personal God, and just pretend to believe otherwise, so by "officially" you mean "by their own admission." And, of course, to get their own admission, you'd have to ask people who self-identify as atheists, and they seem to hold a rather wider range of views than one might have intuitively suspected.
If there's one thing that I would expect to unite atheists, it's an attitude that it's not up to them to prove that there is no God. They don't see atheism as comparable to believing there is no gold in China; they see it more as believing that there are no dragons in China, and would insist that the burden of proof is on you to actually provide evidence for either Chinese dragons or God, not on them to check under every sofa cushion and rock in China to make sure that no dragon is hiding there.
Since I self-describe as an agnostic, I'm not sure that you want my opinions. But on the Bible, I'll offer this one: I do not assume that the Bible is inerrant and that if I think the evidence contradicts it, either the evidence must be fake or my judgment must be flawed. I realize that this means subjecting the Bible to my own fallible powers of reason. So, of course, does your own declaration that the Bible teaches us that evolutionary theory is wrong (but does not teach us, for some reason, that heliocentric astronomy is wrong). When you ask us to put our trust in God and His revelation in the Bible, you're really asking us to trust your own judgment on where and how God has revealed himself (and, for that matter, on what that revelation means). I don't see how my fallible judgment is going to be corrected by adopting all the conclusions of your fallible human judgment.
God: No
The Bible: No
Heaven and Hell: No
Sin: No
Salvation: No
Jesus: No
Let's see ya quote mine that, Ray.
For what it is worth, I am an agnostic, but I will at me very best describe what I see to be the atheist view of religion
God - The Atheist doesn't believe one exists. Nothing else could be said about this
The Bible - Either one of the following: A book put together by a group of people over a period of time writing about what they have experienced. OR A fictional book put together, possibly to put people in check
Heaven & Hell - The atheist does not believe either exists, but views may vary on the afterlife.
Sin - Does not believe in the Juedo-Christian view of sin, but right and wrong in parts of the Bible can be used in their daily life.
Salvation - Since they don't believe that the Christian concept of religion exists, there is no need for salvation
Jesus - One of three concepts: A very wise man who offered great insight on how to live your life. Anything relating to God or religion was blown out of proportions or made up by its authors. OR A once-living human being, nothing more, nothing less. OR A fictional character in a fictional book.
Ray, I've been reading your blog for months and thank you for your commitment. You are truely using your God-given gifts! I can't tell you how sad all these responses have left me - really heart-broken for all these lost souls. The evil one is hard at work in the world! You are a real inspiration.
God bless
Liza
"Liza said...
Ray, I've been reading your blog for months and thank you for your commitment. You are truely using your God-given gifts!"
Since when is lying a God given gift? I would have thought that was more Satans gig.
"Liza said... Ray, I've been reading your blog for months and thank you for your commitment. You are truely using your God-given gifts! I can't tell you how sad all these responses have left me - really heart-broken for all these lost souls. The evil one is hard at work in the world! You are a real inspiration.
God bless
Liza"
Liza...thanks for your kind words. Watch the responses :).
In a quick answer to all your questions: We don't. None of those topics ever come up in my life, except when a theist mentions them.
Ray,
The problem is that you are assuming that there is an "official" atheist position to begin with. There is nothing "official" about atheism. There is no "official" atheist book or website that spells out in clear language what "we" believe. Indeed, it is impossible to talk about what "we" believe-- beyond the most basic dictionary definition-- since each person can only speak for her- or himself.
An example is your Jesus question. Beyond the obvious-- than an atheist isn't going to buy the notion that Jesus was divine-- you'll find a whole range of opinions. (E.g. he never existed, or he was just a wise mortal, or he was a foolish mortal, and so on...) And no answer will be "official" in any sense of the word.
Do please keep this in mind when you talk about atheists and atheism. There is a tendency to create two contrasting opposites. On one side, Christians, who have their rituals and holy scriptures and designated leaders, etc. So logically, you want the opposition to similarly have their rituals and scriptures and designated leaders.
Unfortunately for you, the reality is that atheism has none of those things.
blog
-- Lance
Sorry Ray for not answering, but I think you have a good assortment to work your book with.
I have a question myself for the Christians. I am reading a book called "why darwin matters." I know what you think of it, my question is not about that at all. But one little thingie in this book made me think of this question:
OK, if there is a God (uppercase despite it sounds a bit generic because I am supposing only one true God), and such God is amazingly powerful, beyond time and matter, and all:
Why would this God be hostage of that little book called the Bible?
I know it looks like a "charged" question. It somehow is, but not in a fallacy-intended way, but so you think about the implications of your possible answers.
I have more, but now just this one.
G.E.
No "official" belief - all we are is a bunch of people who don't believe in God. These are *my* beliefs.
God: No such thing. There's no one who had a hand in creating the Universe, us, and who cares what we do with our lives. Just as real as Santa Claus and Zeus.
The Bible: It's a work of fiction, very contradictory, and it's not sufficient by itself to prove the existence of anything therein. Not even Jesus.
Heaven and Hell: Obviously, there's no other belief than they don't exist.
Sin: As a concept? I don't believe there are any actions such that will go against my salvation (which I think is what sin means), since I don't think I need to be saved. I DO believe there are things that are right and things that are wrong. But they don't coincide with sin: For example, homosexuality, to me, just *is*, and is just as right or wrong as being blond.
Salvation: Again, asking this kind of misses the point of atheism. There is no God. No life after death. Ergo, no salvation.
Jesus: I believe someone existed at some point with that name, was Jewish, and had a following. Whether he did anything in the New Testament is a different thing.
Ray, thanks to you and your team for your work and taking these topics head-on. God bless you. Watching The Way of the Master and reading these blogs is helping to strengthen my beliefs; and clarify my thoughts of God. This current post brings up something I too have been wondering about someone who says their an atheist. My question may seem trivial, but I honestly would like to know of the non-believer - with all this very intense discussion on this blog, what exactly is it that you want?
I can't speak for all atheists anymore than you can speak for all Christians and its different sects, or all Americans, or all of humanity. We, as individuals, have different opinions on different things. We, as individuals, believe different things, or don't.
I suppose the definition of Christianism is belief in God and the Bible as His word (to several different degrees according to individuals; some take it literally, some don't, some cherry pick, but I digress) and Jesus as the son of God.
Atheism, by definition, means lack of belief in God. Therefore, the Bible as the word of God and Jesus as His son is pretty much moot, since, by definition, there is no God. Atheism has no dogma, no Holy Book, no institution. It's just a word for "lack of belief in God".
But I can give my opinions as an atheist. I am not everyone, or every atheist, so I can only speak for myself. Here we go:
God: an idea that is meant to be mainly a safety blanket, a guarantee of our "specialness", a way to cope with the unknown. That is not to say that God exists. I don't think He does in any tangible or meaningful sense, other than inside the collective imaginations of human beings of a creed or another.
Which, in short, doesn't affect reality at all.
The Bible: a fine book, certainly, but with little more mystical value than any other mystical book. May have historical value and even some moral lessons here and there, gives insight to civilizations long past. But then, so do the Eddas, the Vedas, the writings of Buddha, or any other mythology.
Heaven & Hell: I don't believe God exists. I do not believe in the Bible as the literal inerrant word of God. Thus, heaven & hell are, in my opinion, much like God: a feel-good idea that swims in the minds of people, but have little bearing in reality. It's also a nifty way to control people through fear, but I digress. Personally, I think the idea of Hell points to exceptional cruelty. An eternity of pain? That's pure evil. Heaven also sounds pretty boring. I'd rather reincarnate (but alas, I don't believe in that either).
Sin: are there are morally wrong things? Yes. Are there things that jeopardize society? Yes. Are they sins, in that they should be punished by forces infinitely vaster than our own and condemn them for an eternity (not awhile; an eternity!) of pain? No. There is no crime so terrible to merit that. I can't possibly believe in sin in the religious sense. Some things should be punished for the good of the population and the world as a whole, but for eternity? No.
Salvation: salvation implies sin, which I don't believe in. I do believe people can change (maybe I am just an optimist, but I do), that people can go past their petty crimes and move on, live better. Some people might not be, either because of the chemistry in their brains or the conviction of their own righteousness or something else entirely; but many people can change. If that's salvation - and not some feel-good "God will give you an eternity of pleasure if you just do this" - then I suppose I believe in it. It has nothing to do with God or Jesus or the Bible, and all to do with the human mind and our own capacity to overcome our limitations and grow.
Jesus: like King Arthur and so many folkloric figures, probably someone who existed, whose teachings and deeds were blown out of proportion by the human imagination. Certainly not the son of God (since I don't think He exists in the first place) or the redeemer of our sins (same deal). Probably a nice guy with some good messages and a lot of prejudices inherent to his time, but little else.
Ray,
I agree with what lance stated about atheism not having an official position.
Atheists are like cats, fiercely independent and impossible to herd into a single group.
Asking atheists about their personal stories regarding their lack of faith and questioning atheists as to why they believe a lack of a belief in god is preferable to themselves or others will yield far more interesting and relevant narratives.
B-
I know you addressed Ray, but I'd love to take a crack at this.
"Have you considered that many people that now reject religion grew up in circumstances where religion was warped and twisted as to be absent of any love or reason?"
I have considered this! I know many, many people who have grown up in such circumstances. Where their father would beat them{not discipline, actually bruise/bloody them} and then quote Bible verses. He is an incredibly evil, evil man. However, the children that he abused were taught the Truth by their mother. Thankfully, they saw their father for what he was, an abusive lunatic. He had nothing to do with Christianity. Satan himself can quote scripture.
"Have you considered that for many, including me, that the charactered and simplistic Christianity you spout is actually destroying their faith?"
This is the great part. Christianity is simple. You repent, turn from your sin and have faith that Jesus is who he said he is. There is nothing that anybody on this blog can say to convince you. It would be pointless for you to go thru the actions if you don't truly mean them. God doesn't force himself on anyone. It's a personal decision. If you refuse to accept the gift of salvation there is nothing anyone can say or do to make you.
Religion does destroy people's faith. It's sad, but that's the way it is. Preachers fall off the pedastals congregations place them on. Churches steal in the name of God. Rotten TV preachers exist.
Thank God, Religion and Christianity aren't the same thing.
Daddy Stegosaurus wrote:
"I can't tell you what the “official” beliefs are,..."
Isn't it an official belief of atheists that Ray Comfort is a delusional idiot? I'm pretty sure that's in the Gospel according to Richard Dawkins.
normdoering,
Isn't it an official belief of atheists that Ray Comfort is a delusional idiot? I'm pretty sure that's in the Gospel according to Richard Dawkins.
Nope, for instance, I do not hold a belief that Ray is a delusional idiot. I am pretty sure that he is a willful liar. That because of the evidence, not because of any "gospels."
I doubt Dawkins has any gospel, that he has addressed ray at all (but he might), and I have only read the selfish gene, which has nothing to do with atheism.
G.E.
normdoering said...
Daddy Stegosaurus wrote:
"I can't tell you what the “official” beliefs are,..."
Isn't it an official belief of atheists that Ray Comfort is a delusional idiot? I'm pretty sure that's in the Gospel according to Richard Dawkins.
No, that's just the observations made by most of us who read Ray's blog.
I have a similar request to Ray. Tell me, what do people who don't believe I'm the King of Spain (officially) believe about:
Apple pie.
Scuba diving.
post '83 Tom Waits.
The iphone.
@polite atheists: Thank you for spending time answering Ray's questions. I find your answers very interesting.
@not-so-polite atheists: :)
@G.E: You said: "Why would [this] God be hostage of that little book called the Bible?"
Let me first say that this is a very good question. I freely admit that I have no sufficient answer for you, but I still what to share a perspective that you hopefully find interesting.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - Joh 1:1.
"He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God." - Rev 19:13.
One reason why Christians have a "high view of Scripture" is the near connection between God Himself and His Scriptures. Although maybe none of this makes sense to you, I kindly ask you to consider this perspective of why we believe that "[this] God is hostage of that little book called the Bible." I believe that the Bible is not merely "a book about God" (as most books you find in a Christian bookstore would claim to be), but a "means of grace", through which man can receive faith in God through Christ.
I assume you would like the answer to your question to focus mostly on two things, namely "why is God 'confined' to a book", and "why is this book the Bible?". I'm sorry not to answer any of them here, hoping that other Christians would give you an answer as good as the question posed.
With kind regards,
Andreas
Oslo, Norway
tomh, I, and I assume others, are trying to be helpful. Perhaps we can help Mr. Comfort see how similar our beliefs are despite lack of a higher organization.
Tomh,
with all this very intense discussion on this blog, what exactly is it that you want?
I started because I could not stand the way Kirk and Ray abuse the trust of the Christians by misrepresenting evolution and science. Then, I found that there are many more problems, like your assumption that atheists have no morals, and that ethics can only come from fear of a god, your opposition to gay marriage with does not hurt anybody, and so on ...
G.E.
Andreas (tck),
Actually I am not expecting just one kind of answer. I am truly curious. So thanks for bothering to answer. I guess that required you to trust me a lot.
Is it OK if I take your answer to be?:
I believe that the Bible is not merely "a book about God", but a "means of grace."
I hope I will get more answers. What about I modify the question a bit as follows:
Why would such God be hostage of the Bible?
(I take out the "little book" part)
G.E.
Email sent to Mark at Living Waters.
Mark:
I responded to Ray Comfort's blog post "A New Book". I don't want a copy of his book. Please, do something practical and useful instead. Take the cover price of the book, add what it would have cost to mail it to me, then send that amount to Doctors without Borders. Thank You.
Sincerely:
Good morning G.E., and thank you for your kind reply. I appreciate it.
Your interpretation of my answer is correct. I do, however, ask you to not think of that interpretation as a "full answer", "complete answer" or anything near something like that, of your excellent question. As I said, I only wanted in my previous comment to share a perspective that I believe should not be overlooked.
With that said, I will try to close in on a true answer to your (now modified - thanks! :) ) question:
God is not a "hostage" in the normal sense of the word. Not in the church of believers in the world, not to any laws outside of himself, and thus not to the Bible or any book/books. I do understand that you are speaking metaphorically however, so I won't chase your wording down further.
Rather than being taken hostage in the Bible, God has revealed himself in it. That's as short as I can put it (in an already way to long comment!).
Next time, I'll try to actually answer you, by getting to the "why" part. Thank you for your patience.
Andreas
Oslo, Norway
"Rufus said... Email sent to Mark at Living Waters. Mark: I responded to Ray Comfort's blog post 'A New Book'. I don't want a copy of his book. Please, do something practical and useful instead. Take the cover price of the book, add what it would have cost to mail it to me, then send that amount to Doctors without Borders. Thank You. Sincerely:"
Rufus...it's true that you did respond, but there was no substance to what you said. So, as you can see from the list, you didn't qualify for a book. It's still not too late to send something that isn't so cynical. Do that, and we will be more than happy to send the cover price (plus S/H) to such a wonderful organization. I look forward to hearing from you. Perhaps the other atheists would like to match your offer.
@Ray
I would greatly appreciate it if you would donate the cost (plus S&H) to Doctore without Borders as was suggested by Rufus in stead of sending me a free copy.
Thank you.
Thanks again Andreas (tck).
G.E.
@get_education, @paul, and all,
I have found Ray and Kirk’s representations of evolution and science helpful. Ultimately how we view things is through our lenses of beliefs. Science is a word to describe a method of study and observe results. The results I see through my lense is order from created order; not order from time, chemical, self-generation, and probability.
Certainly both atheists and theists can have morals and ethics. And having common morals and ethics helps keep things running smooth for us all. So how does one, or who, decides what is moral/ethical/lawful? People? All that people have to work with is themselves; thinking, reasoning, wanting, self-preserving - beings. We’re capable of great and terrible things. People by themselves are imperfect and decay, God is perfect and everlasting. People need an injection of perfection to raise their level of imperfection.
There are so many ways and directions to expand on each point and idea. But this is a little challenging as I’m not used to putting my thoughts in writing. But I appreciate the ability to openly discuss things.
But let's help you about your questions. First of all I'm a functional atheist. If you want to find out what that means go to my blog and read the article "My atheism" that I posted this March.
On the political scale I'm a social-democrat which means simplified that I mean that the goal of all free marketing should be the welfare of all people of a nation.
Social-Democrats other than Democratic-Socialists trust the market that it can serve the welfare of the whole nation and will just interfere with the economy when neccessary, while Democratic-Socialists are generally speaking skeptical that the economy will serve the welfare of the whole nation and therefor put regulating the market before letting it free hand.
So far that you can sort my answers according to world-view.
God
If a divine being or divine beings exist then they didn't make their claims/demands of veneration clear enough so that a reasonable man could comply.
The Bible
The Bible is an old man written text. It gives us a great way to look into the past of mankind and see what was believed in antiquity.
One thing that is indicative of the moral that the Bible delivers is how arbitrary it is. Since you can hermeneutically interpret almost any set of moral code into the text the morality that you can read out of it will mostly depend on your central interpretive motive.
The arbitrariness of the Bible is actually one of the reasons why this book survived the centuries as authoritative text on morality. Whether you had societies under oppression like Russia under the czarist rule or the American as in pluralist freedom - both could be reconciled with the broadly interpretable verses of the Bible.
Heaven & Hell
(Functional) atheists don't care about the afterlife as long as there isn't enough evidence to prove it.
I don't furnish houses I don't own.
Which means that I won't start to make thought about what will be in afterlife as long as afterlife itself isn't proven to me.
Sin
There is not enough prove of God to have a concept of sin as a misdemeanor against him.
In the classical Christian sense one distinguishes between sin and guilt, where sin is vertical (towards God) and guilt horizontal (between human beings).
So I kind of have a concept of sin: A misdemeanor against an ethical concept wherein no other human being gets hurt.
Let me give an example: Abortion
As an atheist I don't believe in miracles, which means I don't believe that a human being comes into existence within a moment but that is develops gradually from nidation to birth.
(For pre-nidation time I may refer you to my blog article "The Human Embryo and Dignity)
During this period of time a the illusion of a human being grows more and more from 0 to 100%. Which means that the illusion of a human being gets perfect with birth and therefor the fetus a full human being.
This perfection of the illusion of humanity comes through the direct interaction with other human beings that isn't possible before the baby leaves the womb.
- at any time during the pregnancy the fetus therefor is considered by me a full human being when born.
What before that time. There comes my conception of sin into play. Killing fetuses doesn't kill a human being in my view, but it puts the notion of Humanism into question and is therefor a sin against this concept.
Historic experience should have taught us that violating the concept of Human Dignity can very quickly lead into the brutalization of customs.
So in the case of an abortion the human dignity of the pregnant woman stands against the dignity and the right of life of the fetus. Which is a dilemma.
The pregnant woman who don't want to become a mother is a full human being (since like I pointed out before she is born and therefor has the perfect illusion of human dignity). The fetus just constitutes a being with a partial illusion of human dignity but this partial illusion of human dignity already protects it from arbitrariness in aborting it. Not the rights the fetus has protect it but the possible infringements of humanity. If we kill a being that carries even partially the illusion of being a human being or make it a commodity we put Human Dignity into question.
In other words: We commit a sin against Humanism - without committing a misdemeanor against a human being.
Since I believe that our societies should be build on Humanism (whether you ground this in Christianity or Historic Experience is really just sophistry if you really hold to Humanism), I believe that we can't let women arbitrarily commit sins against this. If a woman wants an abortion than we (as a society) have to make sure that her will is informed, that she is still grounded in Humanism and that she does it as early in her pregnancy as possible.
Salvation (from death and Hell)
As a functional atheist I care about this world as long as I live in this world. If there is a world afterwards then I'll care about it then.
Jesus
Perhaps he was a philosopher, perhaps he is a fictional character into which philosophical streams of the 1st century condensed. If he is God then he didn't do a very good job (to put it mildly) to make his divinity believable after 2000 years.
Dear Ray (about the book
Everyone knows that the worth of a book generally exceeds the price that is on its back.
So to save you the shipping costs of this book to Germany I ask you to donate the money the book is worth to Doctors without Borders (Médecins sans Frontières)
GermanMike said...
"Dear Ray (about the book
Everyone knows that the worth of a book generally exceeds the price that is on its back. So to save you the shipping costs of this book to Germany I ask you to donate the money the book is worth to Doctors without Borders (Médecins sans Frontières)"
Sorry Mike, your kind offer came in too late. We have had adequate responses.
Dear Ray,
does that mean that my lengthy expansion on my concept of sin won't affect your book anymore?
"GermanMike said... Dear Ray,
does that mean that my lengthy expansion on my concept of sin won't affect your book anymore?"
That's right. You did write a lot, but you came in too late. Sorry to disappoint you. Think of how you will feel on Judgment Day, if you despise God's offer of mercy and miss out on that! This isn't some little book we are talking about--it's your enternal salvation. Please Mike, soften your heart.
Ray,
GermanMike gave you a lengthy answer. It might not make it into the book, but I never saw an explicit deadline. I do not think the price of one more book to doctors without borders would starve you would it? Since you already said Mike that the offer is over we can take it now, but it seems quite unfair to deny mike's request.
God's offer is dubious. There is n reason to believe in God, let alone in such offer. Using your offer without deadline to "give us a lesson" makes me feel nauseated.
G.E.
God, the Bible, Heaven & Hell, Sin, Salvation and Jesus
There is no evidence to support the idea that God exists. Therefore, it is not so much that atheists believe that God does not exist, but rather that there is no evidence to suppose God does exist.
This is a subtle point that is often missed by theists. Atheists do not believe in the existence of God, the same way that you do not believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy. You cannot know for certain that the Tooth Fairy does not exist - you do not have perfect knowledge and cannot be every where at all times to confirm with 100% certainty that the Tooth Fairy is not real. However, you have not seen any evidence that would lead you to suppose that the Tooth Fairy exists. Atheists do not believe that God exists for the same reasons that you do not believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy.
This problem is compounded when you ask the question as it relates specifically to the Christian God. Ray, you and many other Christians seem to assume that if you can show evidence of a creator or can discredit evolution that you win by default. That is not correct though. For the sake of argument, let me grant you that the theory of evolution is somehow incorrect and, further, that the naturalistic Big Bang theory is also incorrect. Let's also assume that a creator of the universe exists.
What evidence should make anybody suppose that the creator is the Christian God as opposed to some uninterested creator or the gods as conceived of by Muslims, Mormons, the Celts, the Greeks, etc? There is no reason (based on evidence) to believe that the "miracles" of Jesus were any more real than the alleged "miracles" of Mohammed (Muslims will say that the Koran is a miraculous book, verified as historically accurate, that Mohammed ascended into heaven in front of witnesses, etc.)? The Mormons proclaim that Joseph Smith performed all sorts of purported miracles that prove he was a prophet. Almost every religion will claim that they have many people who witnesses miracles by their gods. There is no reason to dismiss one rather than the others because non are supported by evidence. You are "atheistic" towards Islam, Mormonism, Taoism, etc. Atheists just take it one step further to include all religions, none of which are supported by evidence.
tomh,
I appreciate your friendly tone. But I have to answer to you. Please do not take it personally if it seems to insult you.
I have found Ray and Kirk’s representations of evolution and science helpful.
I cannot understand how misinformation could be helpful.
Ultimately how we view things is through our lenses of beliefs.
The video is not an interpretation through some lenses of beliefs. It is an intentional twisting of facts and ideas, a construction of strawmen of evolution (saying something evolution does not state and then debunking such thing pretending it is evolution that you are debunking). Misrepresenting a few faked fossils (debunked by scientists by the way) as if they were the whole thing, lying about the lack of fossil records demonstrating the evolution of lots of organisms. The whole thing is tendentious and fallacious, not just an interpretation through a different lens of beliefs.
Science is a word to describe a method of study and observe results. The results I see through my lense is order from created order; not order from time, chemical, self-generation, and probability.
Well, this requires you to ignore, not just the interpretations, but the amount of results that support the interpretation (the scientific one). But it is fine by me as long as it is honest, not based on the misrepresentation of results, ideas, and evidence available. In other words, if you prefer not to look at all the evidence, and keep your belief, that is fine. But if you come and tell me that evolution is a lie, construct a caricature of what you think evolution is about (instead of learning what it really is about), then I have to speak out.
Thanks for your effort tomh. But believe me. This dispute is not just about lenses, but about willful lies.
G.E.
Dear Ray,
Apropos Judgment Day:
If you look into the article on wikipedia how many humans ever lived you will see a number around 100 billion.
If I'm now a literalist on the word 'Day' in a 24 hours sense and would assume that a quarter of those people are saved (which is I guess much more than you would assume), there would still be 75 billion people to be judged.
That would be 1.152 microseconds per person to speak the judgment. Seems kind of short to bring every idle sin into the light.
So lets be a bit more realistic and say that it takes God half an hour to bring every idle sin into the light.
Then it would take 4.278 million years to judge mankind in its entirety.
Each year God could judge 525,960 persons (and bring all their sins into the light).
That means: if the 75 billion humans who are to be judged could maintain a population growth of 0.00070128% a year they would outbreed all of Gods judging efforts.
(Calculations assume the duration of a year with 365.25 days)
So if there is a Judgment Day (it will be in Jerusalem, won't it?) I will try to get into the end of the line.
Which might be somewhere close to Vladivostok.
Since you have asked a question of atheists, can I ask a question of you Ray (or other Christians here)?
Does your belief in the Bible stem from reading it and believing it to be reasonable? Does your belief stem from God revealing himself to you and therefore, based on that revelation, you accept that the Bible is true without analyzing it independently to make a judgment as to its reasonableness?
The reason I ask is that it seems kind of silly to me that God would need people to believe in him so badly. Even assuming that God exists, it just seems kind of vain and below a being that is capable of creating a universe to need to be believed in. This is especially true when that being remains unobservable.
Why would God send people to hell for not believing in him based on their reasonable review of the evidence? I guess more to the point, why would God care so much that people believe in him that he would send them to hell?
If you came to the conclusion that the Bible is true based on your review of the Bible, how do you believe that this is a reasonable way for God to act?
In asking these question, I am assuming that you have made an independent review of Christianity's tenets and the Bible before deciding to believe in them. Therefore, while making this review, I am assuming that if you came to the conclusion that these beliefs are unreasonable, that you would have chosen not to be a Christian. If I am incorrect in that assumption, please let me know.
Ray, the fact that you would even ask a question such as what atheists 'officially' believe shows that you are no more qualified to talk about atheism than you are to talk about science.
OK.. here goes
Firstly there is no official set of beliefs. Each atheist is a seperate individual who may have various opinions that differ from me.
1) God: Simple. I don't believe he exists.
2) The Bible: I believe it is one in a long tradition of books that were written by people who believed in deities.
3) Heaven and Hell: I dont believe they exist.
4) Sin: Sin is what religious people believe is immoral.
5) Salvation: I do not believe we can be "saved" from death. Everyone dies it seems. And I do not believe there is a Hell, so I don't believe you can be saved from it.
6) Jesus: I think he probably existed, may well have been a preacher of some note, but I do not believe he is a god.
"Camport said...
This is the great part. Christianity is simple. You repent, turn from your sin and have faith that Jesus is who he said he is. "
It's not that simple! The Catholics have loads of rules about standing, sitting and kneeling. You have to get Baptized, Confirmed, take Holy Communion. The list goes on.
Ray, I'd be happy to offer my thoughts on these concepts as an atheist, but ONLY if you can PROMISE me that you will quote carefully selected passages out of context in order to deliberately and dishonestly misrepresent what I said.
Can you promise me that much? I don't think anything less is worthy of the Ray Comfort name. ;)
Dear G.E.
Sorry for taking so long trying to write an answer like I said I'd give you. I hope your patience hasn't fully run out. :)
"Why has God chosen to reveal himself in the Bible?" - a somewhat modified version of your answer. I assume you won't challenge the wording too much.
First: Let me start off by saying again that there is probably a ton of well-written and well-spoken material on the net touching this subject. I don't expect you to search it out for yourself, although I'm absolutely certain it would prove beneficial to you. However, I say this to repeat what I've said earlier: I freely confess that I have no complete answer to the excellent question posed.
Second: Hebrews 1:1-2. The Bible states that God has spoken through the prophets of old, and through the Son Jesus Christ "in the last days". I know you disagree with all of this, but the Bible still says so. The Bible again, tells us about Christ, about the prophets God spoke to (and about some prophets He didn't speak to).
Before anyone throws in "but what about the 'insert religious book here'?", let me mention my..
..third point: 2 Tim 3:16 states that "All Scripture is inspired by God", and the previous verse mentions what this "Scripture" is: "sacred writings .. able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." So, why The Bible?
I would like to be honest about something which may be relevant here.
I'm well aware that these "sacred writings" didn't get sent from heaven to the mailbox of every Christian during the first century, or anything of that sort. I am certainly not a church history expert, but I have taken a couple of courses in it.
Before anyone mention theories of how the texts of the Bible got handpicked by a corrupt pope in the late fifth century, I would like to share a possibly challenging thought: Is there not a huge possibility that there might be an answer closer to the truth among the work of very many wise and respected conservative theologians (who would claim something very different about how the Scriptures were "compiled")?
Fourth: I'm sorry for this, but I hope what I've written so far might be of interest, despite seeming way off-topic at times.
Why did God choose the Bible? As of right now, I cannot think of any verse that states why. If I do though, I would be happy to share it with you. (And if you come across anything in your studies, agreeing with it or not, please let me know: stikkpille 'at' "google's emailservice".com )
If you have time, I would like to ask a few questions:
- Is it a bad idea of God to chose to reveal himself through a book / books?
- What alternative way would you consider to be better? A constant revelation in the sky, in the hearts of men, through prophets, not to reveal himself at all, or something else?
I ask because I'm interested.
Thank you for your patience, both for waiting for this comment and reading through the whole thing!
Have a good day.
Andreas
Hi Andreas (tck),
Well, part of the reason for my question, which is probably one of your guesses, is that the term hostage, though metaphorical, reflects what I mostly see in most of the Christians posting here. Ray included. For them, a single error in the Bible would mean that God is a liar, or that God does not exist (I do not know about this second, but the first I have seen).
So, whenever confronted with a mistake/contradiction, they claim there is no such thing, and twist in as many ways as possible to get "their way." To the point that they claim the Bible to contain advanced scientific facts here and there.
Now, that is not the thing I am trying to discuss, but why oh why would God be such a pitiful thing to be hostage of the Bible!
Another person said to Ray "it seems like you have made the Bible your idol."
I could not agree more!
Other Christians say that Jesus went all over the world after resurrecting, but that other people's did not believe him, so their descendants were lost, not because they were born to the wrong religion, but because their parents refused to believe. To me, this nonsense (why would all cultures reject Jesus if he really came to tell them? Not just one, but all of them?) is just justifications of a huge hole because they keep God a hostage of the Bible.
This, sure thing, most Christians guessed from my question. But truly I do think fundamentalist Christians keep God hostage of the Bible, and thus, have a pitiful belief, rather than a God, they have this idol in the form of a book.
So, I want to know why, why if God is so powerful they keep him hostage right there.
If the Bible is about revelation, and all, even if corrupted/tampered by humankind, there could be something in reading it that gets you to a "revelation." but there would be other ways to have such revelations. That would save souls all over the world without a Bible, without a Jesus flying all over, because a true all powerful God should be able to reveal himself to all of them. Right?
Yet, what I see is rejection of scientific discoveries because of the Bible (not because of God, clearly because of the Bible).
So, you have answered my question from your point of view quite nicely, and I thank you. Actually, I enjoyed your other two, shorter, answers better. I do not think any other Christian will do so. Maybe they will go for my arguments instead of the keypoint. But I will be grateful if anyone else can give me a good reason to keep God hostage of the Bible.
G.E.
Andreas,
Your questions, sorry:
- Is it a bad idea of God to chose to reveal himself through a book / books?
I do not think it to be a bad idea. What I find as a bad idea is that the revelation should be an inerrant Book, rather than something deeper.
- What alternative way would you consider to be better? A constant revelation in the sky, in the hearts of men, through prophets, not to reveal himself at all, or something else?
I do not know. I am not a theist. I read this book about why Darwin matters, and I found that there have been theologians, Christian ones, with less pitiful ideas about God than Biblical literalism. So, I got curious. There is also that issue about the Bible as an idol, and the constant rejection of true evidence because it contradicts the Bible. I know they equate the Bible to God (by the word), but that is exactly how I see the Bible becoming a prison to this God, or an idol to these Christians.
G.E.
Here I my thoughts, as an (un)offical atheist:
(oh, having just typed all of this, I have only just noticed the "ps, no more responses" in the original post. Ray, feel free to post it anyway.)
In fact, I'm more an uber-agnostic: while I can't rationally discount entirely the possibility of a deity of somesort, I think the probability of it's existence to be astronomical; I also think the evidence AGAINST the existence to be unassilably strong. Therefore, I am so agnostic as to be, in practical effect, an atheist.
God:
I don't believe there is a Deity of any sort. For exactly the same reasons you don't think Vishnu exists, I don't think your God exists. I don't think the Universe had, or needed a creator - and there are much more interesting ways of looking at finding answers than suggesting an invisible man in the sky was behind it all.
I don't think there is a God who intervenes in human affairs. I don't think there is a God who responds to prayers.
What do I think God is? An attempt to explain things by earlier cultures that had no alternative explanations. God's the world over are constructs of human minds, grappling with concepts they did not yet know how to analyze and understand. God's are also constructed to give humans a sense of significance and importance in an otherwise unpredictably hostile world.
The Bible:
The Old Testament is an unusual and fascinating mix of history, myth, metaphor, story-telling, poetry and stored-cultural wisdom from one particular culture that lived in the middle east thousands of years ago.
I don't see why the various actions of these tribes, their geneology and their myths should have any bearing on modern society, any more than I suspect a Christian would think that ancient Shinto manuscript from Japan detailing the myths of Izanagi and Izanami giving birth to the Islands of Japan has any bearing on modern society.
The New Testament is an even stranger mix of stories retelling experiences with a possibly-authentic figure called Jesus, letters written between various early Christians already arguing over dogma and interpretation of Jesus' actions, and some crazy nutcase-stuff like Revelation. The most import is usually placed on the four gospels, as "eye-witness" accounts (although their status as actual eye-witness accounts is highly questionable.) And yet there are other "gospels" which give accounts of the life and actions of Jesus which are not included in the Bible, which seems very strange given that Christians should surely hang on every one of Jesus's words and actions. The New Testament seems to have suffered from a lot of editing and mis-translation.
One thing that is clear: It is not "the word of God" - the word of Paul to the Thessalonians is just that: Paul's word, not God's, and he makes no claim otherwise.
In some ways, I could consider the Koran to be a more authorative word of God - at least that was claimed to be channeled directly from God, so it has some claim to divine origin. The Bible has no such claim. Likewise the Book of Mormon - again, even more recently in history, we have someone claiming to channel God - why are we to believe him any more or less than we believe an old letter from Paul to the Thessalonians that appears to be involved in trying to rectify disputes that were already appearing in the earliest church over appropriate doctrine and behaviour. The word of God? The infallible word of God? This old collection of misfitted nonsense? I don't think so. An almighty God would surely have a better way of communicating than this!!!!!
Heaven & Hell:
Non-existent. A ridiculous concept of eternal punishment and eternal torture, or eternal bliss and angelic music. They simply do not exist - while some churches recognise this and distance themselves from it, others are only too happy to play the fear card to increase their membership (and income) and keep their members under their control. No christian has any idea what hell and heaven are actually like; no christian can truly say what the criteria are for being sent to one or the other - it's all bluff and balderdash.
Sin:
As a biblical term, sinning against God is impossible when that God doesn't actually exist. However, in real life, there are of course things that could be considered sin. Murder is obviously wrong - and yet it never stops christians going to war. Sin as a biblical concept has always been a moveable feast, one of control. One could buy ones way out of sin with the early catholic church.
If we don't have religion, then of course we need some other way of judging our morals, relating to each other, and teaching our children moral judgement. This is where modern ethics come into play: there ARE other ways of thinking about moral/ethical problems than through a religious prism of what an invisible God might or might not want. Modern ethics can recognise just how often we are confronted with grey-shades that a bible can't answer. "What action causes the least suffering?" would be a very good thing to start teaching children, rather than "God hates fags."
In this way, if I took an action that unfairly caused a high level of suffering to others, then I could be said to have "sinned" - not against an imaginary-god, but against my fellow humans and against my own responsibilities as a citizen.
In my opinion, there are two roads to travel with issues such as homosexuality. The first is to increase persecution and make their lives utterly miserable, based soley on what we think we're interpreting from a 2000-year old family tree. Or, we recognise that homosexuality is present both in humans and animals, always has been, always will be, and recognise that homosexuals in a loving relationship are not causing anyone any suffering, and let them be.
We actually have the opportunity to reduce suffering and persecution in these areas. Often we consciously choose not to. Imagine a homosexual couple wanting to adopt a child. People might hysterically claim that is unhealthy for the child to raised in such a way, that they would suffer psychological trauma from bullying at school etc etc etc. What they fail to realise is that it is only they themselves that are inflicting the psychological trauma. If we raised all our children to believe that there is nothing at all wrong or abnormal about homosexual relationships, and there is nothing wrong about being raised by a homosexual couple, then there would be no psychological trauma as we'd all just accept it, and get on with enjoying life. No suffering would be inflicted on anyone.
That would require a lot of "consciousness raising." How can we actively make the world a better place for our descendants? These are questions for which the Bible has long since worn out it's usefullness.
Salvation (from death and Hell):
No Hell, no worry about salvation. However, death exists, and as yet we can't be saved from it. Who knows, maybe one day we will slow/halt aging, maybe one day we will "cure" death. That wont stop us getting hit by a bus occasionally. Death is always going to be here.
Jesus:
Like the Bible - a chap who was probably around 2000 years ago, who said some stuff that was likely misquoted and distorted, was probably an all-round nice guy. May have been deluded into believing he was the son of God - lots of people are. Some of his sayings formed the basis of a cult that became quite successful, much like L Ron Hubbard.
(and, taking a cue from someone else) Afterlife:
Tricky one. I don't think I believe in the soul. I believe our consciousness is within our brains. When we die, whether something can happen to that consciousness I don't know - I suspect not. But I also think there are enough interesting stories about re-incarnation etc, eastern monks who can choose when to die by entering a deep trance and never coming out, etc etc that one can keep an open mind on these things. The consciousness and the way it interacts with a quantum world, as we are just discovering, is truly fascinating, and although I'm sure there's lots of charlatans out there making quick bucks out of selling "spiritual" books to people that bandie around words like "quantum physicis" and "observer" with no true understanding of their meaning, I'm willing to bet there's possibly something quite interesting down that road: and it wont be Jehovah.
G.E.
#1: Thank you for your reply. I truly appreciate your kind tone.
#2: Regarding contradictions and mistakes in the Bible, I, for one, have heard soooo many ridiculous ones during my thus far short stay on earth. I'm not saying there are "no problems" in God's Word, by all means. But many, and I would say the majority, of them has several good answers.
While I have the impression that you personally claim to have a humble and "agnostic-atheistic" approach to God's existence, the authority of the Bible and so on, many "on your side" have an agenda to destroy the faith of Christians, and "expose" the Bible by all means (and arguments) possible, whether they be good or bad.
This indeed is a problem. When Ray (and others) mentions "red herrings", it's not just an excuse for not answering a "smart question" (although it can be used that way). There's no value in spending time to answer questions which the questioner have no interest of hearing the answer to, and in this context, I'm sure you would agree to this.
I guess it's becoming a tradition here that I don't give you a direct or sufficient answer to the problems/questions you post. ;) I trust that your patience hasn't changed, and that the perspectives I share may prove enlightening or at least interesting.
I shall try to get to "Bible = idol", problem of revelation, rejection of scientific discoveries and your answers to my questions (thanks!), in a later comment.
Have a good day.
Andreas.
Dear people who say they deny the existence of God "for the exactly same reasons as you [Christians] deny the existence of 'non-biblical deity'".
What do you believe is the full reason why Christians don't believe in the true existence of idols?
Andreas,
As the fall term is starting, and as I have to get out of my semi-vacation, I will be posting less, and I might miss your comments later on. Still, I will try to read them if you post them.
I know about those "answers" to bible errors, but I just do not buy them. Many are way too twisted to be trusted, and the only way they can be convincing is if you have a strong desire for them to be true. So, let us not discuss that part, but concentrate on the Bible=Idol, and "Hostage of the Bible" issues. I think these are way more important, because if we start discussing the errors of the Bible, and you start to show obvious denials .. well, let us say that I have lost my patience for that.
G.E.
Andreas,
Sorry for not answering your question about reasons for Christians not believing the existence of "other idols."
G.E.
G.E
Thanks again for your answers. I know how it's like to be busy when the semester starts, so I understand that it will be difficult for you to post/read as much as before. Don't worry about that. I left my email address three or four comments up, feel free to write me there if you think you won't be able to keep track on Ray's blog.
To your post:
- One reason why I try to be honest and humble when I post here, is what you just said about "bad Bible answers". I completely agree that there are many bad "answers" to otherwise good and legitimate questions about things the Bible state. I guess one of the motives of people who give them, is that they feel they need an answer quickly in fear of having to say "I don't know" or "I don't know how to explain that" to someone who are not Christian. I believe it's worse to give a bad answer, than to give none. Enough said, I agree in focusing on the topics you mentioned.
First, the "Bible = idol" thought. I would agree with you that the Bible may become an idol to Christians (and non-Christians), for instance the same way the Israelites worshiped the bronze serpent (Read Numbers 21:9 and 2 Kings 18:4. Intriguing!). Of course, this is idolatry in the clearest sense of the word. One doesn't need to burn incense for the Bible, I would dare to claim that closing it and letting it stand on a prominent place on the shelf does the same trick. I hope you understand my illustration.
However, if the Bible is opened, read and exegeted (sp?), I believe the chances for it to become an idol is smaller. I think I wrote earlier a tiny bit about how God is "close" to His Word. God *is* not the Bible, as if His entrance door is the cover of a book, but I would again point to what the Bible says about God and the Word. For the sake of shortening this comment, I will not repeat everything I said or say more about that here.
- A short note about our little hostage situation: ;)
If you've read or seen C.S. Lewis' "the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", there is an important scene where Aslan talks about "old magic" at the stone table. Knowing that Narnia contains many allegories of the Bible and the gospel, when you look at this part of the book, you could get the impression that God is under some kind of universal law that is higher than Him. Naturally, a Christian would hesitate to say something like that. Not only because we tend to (at least should) have a rather high view of God, but God in the Bible doesn't say anything like that. He is not under any laws, laws come from Him.
However, we see the phrase "He cannot deny Himself" and things like that a couple of times in the Bible. While God is not a hostage inside the Bible, He is not a liar, (To understand what I mean by this, look up Titus 1:1-2) and, I guess, because of the "closeness" to His Word, He will not deny it.
Again, "Andreas' law" about not giving complete and final answers still stands, and I appreciate that you seem to be comfortable with that. Personally, I feel a bit sorry that my answers fall so short, when such an interesting and important issue is at stake. However, what I said about "no answer > bad answer" earlier, is something I believe firmly in, and I think of my words to you more of sharing perspectives than giving final and complete answers. (for and until now at least)
Don't worry about my questions, I will be no means return your patience and politeness with impatience and pride. :)
Have a good day.
Andreas
Andreas,
I am going to take this bit, but correct me if it seems out of context:
He is not a liar,
So, you use this to mean that whatever in the Bible has to be literally true?
If so, then let me ask:
1. Why would you really be so convinced that God himself wrote this book?
2. Why would a supreme God make himself hostage of a book?
3. Let us pretend that God did inspire the Bible, not wrote it, but people wrote out of inspiration, right? So, wouldn't God try hard to communicate at a level that these writers would understand and still manage to put some deep meaning in the Bible? Otherwise, unless possessed and blind during the process, the writers would not feel they have understood correctly, and thus put the words together correctly.
3.1 Would that be a lie or some form of making a point?
3.2 Would the writers not tantalize the bible trying to make it even clearer for the rest of the audience?
If you saw "the sword in the stone," at some point merlin tells arthur that the earth is a globe, and the owl tells him not to do that, because if arthur went all over the place saying such a thing people would think him crazy. Things have to advance at their own pace merlin, you cannot teach things people are not ready to understand. Or something like that. So, if these cartoonist understood this crucial point, why can't christians put things into perspective?
So many questions, but the main one might be, why making a point, at a level and using words that people wold understand, constitutes a lie?
G.E.
G.E.
Thanks again for sharing your questions and point of view.
I am going to take this bit, but correct me if it seems out of context:
He is not a liar,
So, you use this to mean that whatever in the Bible has to be literally true?
It is indeed unfortunately a bit out of context, sorry. If you didn't understand what I wrote, I'll try to clear it up next time. Also, reading paragraph 5 and 6 of my last post might help you see what context I had in mind when I said what I said.
I will though try to say something about the topic you brought up.
This might come as a shock, but the fact that I believe the Bible to be inerrant doesn't mean that I take every single sentence of the Bible to be the revealed truth of God. When I explain what I mean by this, you might think of it as just a game of semantics. Please don't. :)
An example of what I mean is found in the book of Job, where Job's friends gave advice to Job about his difficult situation. However, in the last part of the book, (Job 42:7ff) God spoke against what some of Job's friends had said about Him. I conclude that several chapters of the book of Job is to be read with those verses as part of their context, and the words of Job's friends are not to be ripped out of context as "proper descriptions of God" standing by themselves.
Well then, do I believe that it's God's will to have these chapters (!) "talking falsely about Him" still in the Scriptures? Absolutely. If you wonder why I would believe anything like this, please tell me, and I'll try to say some more about it in my next post.
Despite being out of context, the rest of your questions remain interesting and intriguing, but due to lack of time, I will not be able to answer them all now. I also have some trouble understanding what you mean because of my English knowledge. Actually, this goes for not only your "main question", but also point 3, 3.1 and 3.2. Could you try to rephrase please?
Also I don't quite get the illustration with Merlin. I'm not saying it's a bad illustration, I guess I'm just the slow one today. :)
As always, thank you for your time, I hope we can continue conversing despite both of us being busy these days. I truly enjoy talking and discussing this with you.
Have a good weekend.
Andreas.
My whole point about God being hostage of the Bible, and the Bible as an idol, are closely linked to the Bible as both inerrant and as literal truth. In other words, God is kept hostage in the Bible because if the Bible has some literal mistake, then either God is a liar, or else, God does not exist. My whole point is that if there were an almighty God, then he could not possibly be the same as the Bible, that the Bible might not be inerrant in a literal sense, and that, if God inspired, it serves a purpose other than provide scientific facts.
So, when you say that God cannot lie, I can accept that. But where is then your God cannot lie go? It is trying to justify why to have the Bible at such high level of reverence, which again, makes it an idol, rather than a vehicle for revelation by means beyond its words.
My point with merlin was that merlin was trying to teach arthur things he was not prepared to learn, things that if he had learned them, he would have had a hard time talking about them to the rest of the people of his time and culture. This is my point. An almighty God might have used words and stories appropriate for revealing himself to those people's. Not as literal truths, but as vehicles.
So, I still think I did not take your words out of context. But then, what was the purpose of "God cannot lie"?
I re-read your two paragraphs, and I still do not see any other purpose. Please clear this up.
G.E.
Hello again G.E.
Before trying to clear up what I wrote earlier, I will get back to your last post really quickly (and I don't mean to be snarky (sp?)):
Given that the Bible then is a "vehicle of revelation" of God, doesn't that qualify for some reverence in your opinion?
Then to what I wrote earlier.
When I mentioned that "God is not a liar", my intent was not to bring up the topic of Biblical inerrancy. I did think however, that my mention of the qoute from the Bible could turn out to be something you would understand to be talk about literal inerrancy and so on. :) Again, I didn't mean to do so.
What I tried to say (cf. mentioning Narnia) was a little bit more about the "closeness" I've talked about earlier. Personally I find the topic intriguing, and I apologize for only scratching the surface of it.
When I said that "God is not a liar", I meant it in the context of Titus 1:1ff which talks about how God has kept His promise of salvation given from eternity. It talks about how God *is*, not "confining" Him inside two book covers, nor does it say primarily anything about the Bible's inerrancy and so on.
Your last post contain a lot of interesting points that I would like to comment on, but perhaps I should wait with doing so until my previous point about "God cannot lie" has either been cleared up or buried? Come back to me on this one, if you please.
Until we write again, have a great day.
Andreas.
Hey Andreas,
Thanks for the patience.
Given that the Bible then is a "vehicle of revelation" of God, doesn't that qualify for some reverence in your opinion?
Nope. God's word could cause you awe, whatever, but not reverence in and of itself. Otherwise you can make the Bible an idol, even if unwillingly. Just like some (or lots of) Catholics have made the piece of bread an idol. Even within Catholicism the piece is supposed to be just a symbol, but some Catholics make it an idol, and you can see what happens. I think the same happens with fundamentalists and Bibles.
So, your point then, God cannot lie. For our discussion is going fine. We cannot think of an almighty all-benevolent God and all as a liar. Does this suffice to get to the rest of the points?
G.E.
Hello again G.E.
Thank you for your quick and very interesting reply.
I must say I hope it's just my understanding of the English word "reverence" that is wrong, because I find the first part of your reply simply stunning! :)
I agree that God's Word could also 'cause' awe, but it, in and of itself, being the Words of God revealed.. Even (for you being) "hypothetically", I cannot see how that this is not a very tremendous thing!
Other than with the examples I've posted previously, I cannot say I can imagine the Bible becoming an idol for Christians. Well, perhaps "Bible-reading" - being an act in which some may take pride - might also be a scenario. I guess that either way we can continue pass this point, as I believe most has been said. If you do want to add something though, please feel free to do so.
We cannot think of an almighty all-benevolent God and all as a liar. Does this suffice to get to the rest of the points?
I agree with you, we should continue with the points.
... and.. Hehe.. I must confess that when I review our lasts posts, the main question you asked was:
So many questions, but the main one might be, why making a point, at a level and using words that people wold understand, constitutes a lie?
As far as I can see, this is where you would like to continue the discussion. And here I have a problem. Could I ask you to please rephrase the question? You don't need to post anything else in the next post, just rephrase the question.
Again, you'll have to excuse me for my English knowledge, it is somewhat limited.
Also, if this was not the question/direction you had in mind, please ask another question if so. I will try to answer your question (or - as usually - at least try to share some perspectives) later. :)
Thank *you* for your patience.
Andreas.
Hey Andreas,
I like it when people can make questions without been attacked.
So, here it is again (not your English, but, perhaps, also my haste when I write):
You tried to make sure I understand that God cannot lie because that is against his nature.
So, I agreed, but then, guessing, perhaps wrongly, that you were leading to biblical inerracy, I said that I agree, but that the Bible might contain its treasure (if it does), at levels beyond science. In other words, if the Bible is not 100% historical, if the Bible is not 100% scientifically accurate, if the Bible is not 100% literal, it does not mean that God lied, but that he presented stuff in a way that the people of whichever times would be able to "get it." So, the question was: If God inspired something to those who wrote the Bible, and that was not historically/scientifically accurate, but made the point, does it mean God lied?
G.E.
G.E.
Thank you for clearing up the question. I think I understand it much better now, and will here see if I can give a reply.
If God inspired something to those who wrote the Bible, and that was not historically/scientifically accurate, but made the point, does it mean God lied?
Ah, this is where the Merlin analogy fits in I take it? :) Sweet.
Don't make this a hermeneutic rule, but I guess my short answer to your question would be "no". Obviously I still mean what I've written a couple of times, that God is not a liar. I can however, think of a few places where the "accuracy" of the numbers given is not something that I see as foundational for my faith in the Bible as the perfect Word of God. (Example: Numbers 1.)
So. If the Bible says that of the tribe of Judah there were 74.600 enlisted men, (Num 1:27) is God a liar if it really was 74604? Let's just say that I wouldn't pull that one out of the hat on the day of judgment.
This is only one type of several examples which also could be given in this respect.
If one takes these principles to heart and apply them to the Bible in general, the way is short to a "The Bible is *always* inaccurate" point of view. This I would claim, is wrong, the same way that the perfect complete accuracy of the numbers in Num 1 should be the basis of any Christian's reason for trust in God.
Also, that God would, as a rule, say things with "purpose" - not truth - as the most important thing in mind, is not a good interpretative rule. If this is of your interest, please ask me to expound (sp?) on it.
In closing, I guess an example of what your saying could be found in many of Jesus parables. I believe that the "main point" of parables is what Jesus was focusing on, and when people go wild expository with the smallest details of the parables.. Well.. "Interpret the unclear with the clear" someone said.
Wish I could be clearer on some of these points, but right now my time commenting blogs on the internet is up for today!
Looking forward to your reply.
Andreas.
Hey Andreas,
What about we take this again in another thread when is seems suitable?
I do not think I can argue a lot right now.
Thanks for your comments.
G.E.
Sure G.E. Thank you for your comments as well.
Have a good day.
Andreas
Post a Comment