Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest

quote:

---

In a manner of speaking yes. Read the "Sermon on the Mount". Even just using those three chapters in Matthew, in which Jesus continuously quotes what we call the Old Testament we can understand what was of God as opposed to what came from human desires to try and conform God to their image and purposes.

---

I'm glad you know the instances in which it is appropriate to seek the Bible as an authority on Christianity, such as the passages concerning the sermon on the mount.It would be interesting watching you debate with other Christians regarding the TRUE way in which Christianity should be understood and represented.

quote:

---

Does a God who tells you to love your enemy also tell you to commit genocide?

---

Yaweh certainly did. Would you like the verses?

quote:

---

Your posts don't support that claim.

---

I've been an ardent Christian for most of my life and that's why it's amusing seeing your arguments. They seem to make so much sense when you aren't outside of the box looking at them. It was only when I decided to be honest with myself that I realized the error of my ways and my arrogance and my self-delusion. It actually wasn't easy because naturally we want to really think our "faith" makes sense, it gives hope and a supposed purpose to our lives -- but of course, it's not humility.

quote:

---

Interestingly enough people like Dawkins and Hitchens have agreed that they want to believe that there is no god as they find the idea very small and trivial, or words to that effect. You may not accept this but my beliefs are part of an ongoing search for truth as I can best understand it.

---

Why do you need to look for truth though when you already have the answer? Yet it's funny that you also admit you are still searching for truth which is an admission that you really don't know and that itself undermines your whole "faith". So why not just come clean and dispense with clinging on to a phantom Christianity that you already question to begin with?As far as Dawkins and Hitchens, they are human beings who acknowledge their ignorance rather than basing their lives on something for which there is absolutely no evidence.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

...as I've done in numerous threads over the years. You can look them up if you like. As I said, we aren't dealing with absolute knowledge. In the end everyone's worldview is based on their faith in something even if it is just in themselves. There you go again, imposing your understanding of the Bible on me. My point was that Jesus told us to love our enemy. The OT says that God tells us to love our enemies on one hand but that sometimes we are to commit genocide. Hardly compatible. In looking at it through the lens of what we have from Jesus it is clear that Yaweh would not have told His people to commit genocide which leaves us with two choices. Either they thought Yaweh was telling them to commit genocide and got it wrong or they claimed divine authority to jsutify what it was they were going to do anyway. (Personally, I'd be inclined to believe the latter.) This is the kind of patronizing claptrap that the majority of atheists on the board don't engage in. I understand the hubris behind the idea that as I got older I was way too clever to be drawn in by this nonsense. Actually, there are those more clever than you and I combined who have converted to Christianity well into their lives. If I KNEW, it would no longer be faith. As a Christian I'm prepared to question everything I believe, in much the same way that scientists question their knowledge. (Where would Einstein have been if he hadn't questioned absolute time and space?) You seem to be the only one with absolute knowledge. I have read and listened to both Dawkins and Hitchens fairly extensively and they are the first to admit that they don't KNOW that what they believe is correct.

In certain circles... sure.
In other circles... this is just plain wrong.
In all circles... laughably wrong.That's the problem with generalizations. They're correct every now and then to give you confirmation bias, but just plain wrong when you try to apply them to everyone. Didn't you just ask a bunch of people in this thread? ...who all told you that you were wrong. Right. Lets start using correct terminology.What you're describing isn't being "religious." It's being a "zealot" or "fundamentalist."
These are the terms people understand to relate to the kind of adherence to absolute dogma you're speaking about.Only the biased refer to all of religion in this way, which is neither scientific, or honest.

Any possibility that you could be wrong about what you are saying and what you believe? You don't seem to think so.HBD

quote:

---

In the end everyone's worldview is based on their faith in something even if it is just in themselves.

---

Yep. Keep fooling yourself.

quote:

---

In looking at it through the lens of what we have from Jesus it is clear that Yaweh would not have told His people to commit genocide which leaves us with two choices.

---

This is only clear to you because you want to believe in your version of Yaweh. You're already on the premise that it's true so you do what you need to do mentally to make it fit.

quote:

---

If I KNEW, it would no longer be faith. As a Christian I'm prepared to question everything I believe, in much the same way that scientists question their knowledge.

---

You can try to make yourself feel better by thinking this, but it doesn't change reality. One is a willingness to revise our understanding based on emerging evidence, the other (your faith) is no different than believing that the flying spaghetti monster has a plan for our lives or that santa claus is real. Since it never took evidence for you to believe in your religion to begin with, why would you try to sell me the idea that you're willing to question your religion based on future emerging evidence? Ever stopped to think about that one?

quote:

---

You seem to be the only one with absolute knowledge. I have read and listened to both Dawkins and Hitchens fairly extensively and they are the first to admit that they don't KNOW that what they believe is correct.

---

The difference between us is that I'm already under the admission that I don't have a knowledge of things for which there is no evidence. You already believe in something without any evidence and you've convinced yourself that it is less silly than believing in the tooth fairy. Absolute knowledge is nonexistent, and then there is knowledge based on plausibility and probability.We both "know" that the tooth fairy doesn't exist based on plausibility and probability (not absolute knowledge). I also know that your religion isn't real based on the same understanding you share with me on the tooth fairy. Got it?Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Well, let's be clear and consistent. The author of Matthew and the author of Luke (whoever they were) claimed that Jesus told some people this. Why are you looking at the OT through Jesus lenses and not at the NT with OT lenses?How do you know that Jesus wasn't wrong? How do you know the authors of Matt and Luke weren't claiming divine authority to justify what they thought others should do? Or maybe the authors were wrong. Or maybe Jesus was merely claiming divine authority.What does loving one's enemies entail anyway? Is it ever loving to kill millions of people? And if it is (say, during World War II) - was it loving to commit genocide against the Amorites, Hittites, Girgashites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites? Was it loving to commit violence at the Temple? Was it loving to let Judas kill himself? Is it loving to create hell?Why didn't anyone record Jesus as saying anything about the slaughters in the OT? He seemed to hold the texts in high regard.Given that Yahweh commands genocide when the Israelites were strong, and meekness and humility when they are occupied...might it not be the case that both of these are pronouncements of convenience?

Modulous, but don't you understand, none of that genocide is described in the Bible, we are just "imposing our understanding" of the Bible on others. Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.Edited by scienceishonesty, : No reason given.

Absolutely. If it is alright I'll answer this in a general sense without responding to the specifics.As I have said before, I have two absolutes with the first being that God as I worship Him, from a theistic POV is loving, just, merciful etc. If this isn't true and God is actually a god that commands that His followers commit genocide or public stonings then I'm not interested. I accept that God is good on faith.Secondly, my Christian faith hinges on the belief that the bodily resurrection of Jesus was an actual historical event. I think that the historical evidence for the resurrection is strong, but in the end we can choose to believe or not believe that the bodily resurrection actually happened. The Christian faith, IMHO, does not rely on an inerrant Bible, nor for that matter does it rely on a virgin conception. (That is not to say that the virgin conception didn't happen, but if it could somehow be proven that it was a legend that grew up subsequent to the resurrection it wouldn't really change anything. )I believe in the resurrection as a historical event and that becomes my starting point for my understanding of the Christian faith. The resurrection by God becomes the vindication of Christ's life and message. It vindicates the 1st chapter of John's Gospel which is essentially that Jesus embodied the "Word" or the "Logos" of God.You of course are right when you say that I can't know that to be true. However, it is my belief and I'm prepared rightly or wrongly to base my worldview on that belief and organize my life accordingly.How then do I understand the Bible. I understand the Bible as the narrative of God reaching out into the lives of fallible humans as told by fallible humans. It starts out with the inspired, (non-scientific) mythologies of creation, then through the story of Israel which culminates in the one true perfect Israelite which was Jesus. The epistles tell the story of the early church and how they were led and structured and then the narrative points dimly into the future with the message that in the end all things will be renewed. We are currently part of that narrative between the point where we see Jesus in His renewed resurrected body and the eventual renewal of all things.The Bible is a narrative of what various people thought as they struggled to know God and follow Him, although it is much more than that. It is an evolutionary story as God continues to reach out through human hearts, minds and imaginations. As I said earlier it is an ongoing story which continues today.As to how the old and new testaments relate to each other, I see it this way. In the reading the NT we can see that Jesus constantly referred HIs followers back to the Hebrew Scriptures as He obviously saw what He was doing as being a fulfillment of those Scriptures. At the same time though we can see that he did bring correction to some of the teachings. He said that instead of an eye for an eye that we are to forgive. Instead of what Moses told them about divorce that with the possible exception of infidelity they were to stick it out etc.I don't see any need for Jesus to have to specifically say, (although who knows, maybe He did and we just don't have a record of it), that the slaughter of the Canaanites was wrong. It is obvious from "The Sermon the Mount" alone that He would have condemned it.As to how we are to love our enemies in our own time is obviously a difficult question. I guess I see it as a starting point and then we go from there. I might say this though. After the first world war we forced Germany into signing a punitive treaty that eventually provided an atmosphere in which Hitler could rise to power and we had WW II. After WW II the allies, (primarily the US), reached out by establishing friendly relations and even help in rebuilding. We can see the results in our relations with Germany, Italy and Japan today. That would be one way to love our enemy. Jesus' view was that ultimately wars are won by changing hearts from hearts that hate to hearts that love. Battles may be won militarily, but wars are never won until hearts are changed. Edited by GDR, : typo

OK. So stoning a sinner to death is not to be considered loving, neither is genocide. Presumably you think that the flood would have been unloving? Do you generally trust either anonymous reports from decades after the event and vague references by a non-anonymous report a few decades later to be strong evidence? Because I'm pretty sure most religions can meet this burden. There are numerous supernatural non-Christian events that are better attested to, with more supposed witnesses, so it makes me wonder, that's all. I think it has been as proven as possible that the virgin birth was based on a mistranslation from Hebrew to Greek.In any event, much of Pauline theology relies on there having been a historical Adam. And Matthew has Jesus saying 'as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;' (Matt 24)So even Matthew agrees that God committed ultimate genocide - killing even newborns in his wrath.Your criteria for ignoring this unpleasantness is based on what you think Jesus would think. So Matthew was lying when he was quoting Jesus talk of the flood - or Jesus was being dishonest about the historicity of the flood.I understand it doesn't have to be inerrant - but when the authors are saying such big things that aren't true such as the fall of Adam and the flooding of earth in the New Testament, how on earth can you rely on anything else being said? In the end - are you not just picking and choosing based on personal taste?Jesus gave an example of loving enemies: Always concede any lawsuit and give more than what was requested. Do you agree with this?And how does Jesus' 'come with a sword' speech or his violent expulsion of the lenders from the Temple square up with the Sermon on the Mount or his pacifistic sentiments elsewhere? I don't think Jesus necessarily 'corrected' an eye for an eye. Indeed he explicitly said in the same Chapter that the law was not changing one iota and the law is clear regarding lex talionis.One can pluck out someone's eye as long as one does not resist evil and forgives the evildoer. I can't parse this sentence for meaning I'm afraid. Not to me. For all we know, he might regard the destruction of those belligerent races to be 'peacemaking'.

GDR,It's obvious that you take some verses of the Bible as literal truth, such as the resurrection, for instance. By what criteria do you determine which verses are just a story written to convey some sort of "lesson" and which are to be understood as having really happened?

Here is how CS Lewis might partially respond to your question. It is from the book "Miracles".

quote:

---

My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.

---

I'm not sure that I would say that I read the various accounts of the resurrected Jesus as being literally true because there are obvious contradictions in the details. However, just as witnessess to a traffic accident will differ in the details they all agree that the accident happened.Without going into the details I have already gone over in other threads I contend that the argument for the bodily resurrection is considerable and I have never read any other argument that accounts for the rise of Christianity that I find to be reasonable. However, in the end it still does require faith or belief that God did resurrect Jesus.On the assumption that I am correct in that fundamental belief we can then look at what others have recorded of the words and life of Jesus, knowing that the writers of the NT all believed that Jesus had been resurrected giving them strong motivation to accurately preserve what Jesus taught. Through that lens we can then form our beliefs about the Bible, as well as what others have written or said, realizing that the narrative of God and His creation didn't come to an end 2000 years ago but is still ongoing and will continue into the future.The whole Christian story makes considerable sense of the world that I live in and even more so of my own life.I think we would all agree that we yearn for things like purpose, justice, and hope in our lives. It seems to me likely that as these yearnings seem to be a basic part of our nature that there is an ultimate answer. Atheism means that ultimately the sun will burn out, (or whatever else finishes life off prior to that), and there is no ultimate purpose. Atheism means that when someone who has lived enjoying the suffering of others and then dies have never faced justice, and will enjoy the same fate as someone who has live a life that found joy in the joy of others. Atheism means that there is no hope that there is life after our current existence that will provide purpose and justice for all.Christianity provides an answer to those yearnings. Of course it doesn't matter at all if it isn't true. If there is no god then it is totally irrelevant. I am only suggesting that the fact that we have these yearnings as part of our nature, then it seems reasonable to expect that there is an ultimate answer for them. It is my belief that Jesus Christ shows us what the answers are.Here is a quote from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.

quote:

---

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

---

Two points to make about this quote. The first is that what God wants of us is that we have our hearts that love unselfishly. It isn't a matter of giving intellectual assent to a specific doctrine nor is it a matter of going out and doing good deeds in order to please God. It is a matter of having hearts that genuinely find joy in the joy of others which isn't a conscious decision, but something that hopefully becomes a part of our nature as we bumble along through life.The second point that I would take in the quote from Corinthians is that we don't have absolute answers. There is considerable ambiguity in our beliefs. Ultimately Paul is saying that we should have faith - faith that God is good, just and loving and that His desire is that we reflect that goodness, justice and love into all of creation.

Sure. It is ancient mythology. The message that we can take from it is that God isn't about to give up on us. It is more than just the Biblical accounts. We know of numerous messianic wannabes from that era whose movements just died out when they were put to death even though that from a geopolitical POV they had accomplished much more than what Jesus had done. The resurrection IMHO gives the most plausible explanation for the early rise of Christianity. He refers to it in the same way that a preacher might refer to the Prodigal Son today to make a point. The same holds true for Adam. I suppose I'd have to know about the first century Jewish culture to comment but that is one verse and should be taken within the context of His entire message. Turning over tables in the Temple is not much of an act of violence.The passage from Matthew is obviously a metaphorical sword. He agreed however that His message was not going to bring peace to the Jews. There were living in a country occupied by the Romans. His message was that the Romans were there as the result of the evil in the world and that the weapon against evil is love. He was calling on them to love the Romans, turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. It is pretty obvious that this would turn neighbours and family against His followers. It has to be taken in context. Love God and neighbour as all the law is based on that. From Matthew 19

quote:

---

8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

---

'Yearn' is one of those hyperbolic pulpit words never heard outside church but despite that, yes people want their society to be fair. Agreed Complete and perfect non-sequitur. Why should there be an ultimate answer and to what question? No it doesn't. Obviously. Atheism means no more and no less than there is no god. Why do theists try to make it more complicated than that?Purpose, hope, yearn - the pleadings of childlike humankind on its way to growing up.
The recognition that we're just another creature born to die is a necessary step to being able to make our lives have some real meaning now - which is all we have. We want to make our children's lives easier than ours - that's the human drive, to make things better for our descendants in the real world, not some fantasy afterlife. Atheism means only that there's no god. Do try to get that, it's pretty simple.
All this justice after death nonsense is religious imagination and wishful thinking. Atheism means that there is no god.
So let's do our best to make our short lives happy and fulfilling whilst we're lucky enough to have it and not waste our time on some fantasy that it'll all be put right when we're all dead.

My point is simply, as you seem to agree that part of our nature yearns for purpose justice and hope. As they are part of our nature it seems to me that it suggests that it suggests that the there is an answer or fulfillment of those yearnings. Hardly conclusive but food for thought. You only took a fragment of the sentence. I'm not. I'm only pointing out the ramifications if there is no god. Whether theistic or atheistic we should be looking for meaning in our lives now and working to improve the lot of our children. If it makes things better in a renewed creationthen we can look on it as a bonus. The first sentence is obviously true and the second is a statement of your beliefs. I guess it largely depends on what it is that we do to make our short lives happy and fulfilling.Edited by GDR, : typos

If someone has a need for food, it is not an indication of an afterlife where all will be provided for.I agree that people want a sense of purpose and a fair society but there is nothing in a need to suggest that it will be fulfilled by some mythical afterlife.The way to provide for those desires is to deal with them here on earth and stop dreaming..