Jazzns' History of Belief

I really enjoyed your well written well thought out story to where you are today. In the last ten years I took a similar approach and came to many of the same conclusions as you, but also some different ones.I have retained my Christian faith although a much modified version of it. I really agree with you that there are many inconsistencies in the Bible if we understand it as a book dictated by God. I now see it as a history of the Hebrew people as told with the cultural and personal conditioning that would go into that. I think that Christians in many cases, although they would never admit it, wind up worshipping the Bible.Thanks for openly posting your thoughts. Lots to think about.One thing that we can likely agree on is Micah 6:8:He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.In the end it's pretty simple eh?

Hi JazznsThanks for asking about my faith but I don't want to go into detail on this thread as it could get bogged down into my beliefs and not yours.My faith is based on what I have read about science, history, a little biology, liberal and conservative theology, other religions, atheism and the Bible. (A little knowledge can be a good thing. ‘ )My quote from Micah was just suggesting that I think we would all agree that kindness, justice and humility are positive attributes, and if God exists, and if that's what it takes to please Him, it ain't so tough. Concerning that quote from Micah though, I put this to you which might confirm that you asked the right questions, and confirm some of your conclusions.A person who considers himself Christian sends $100.00 off to the 3rd world with the idea that this will help get on God on his side and give him an edge in the next life. Another person who calls himself an atheist quietly sends $20.00 off to the third world completely believing there is no payback in this life or the next. Of the two which do you think most exhibited humility, kindness and justice thus fulfilling what the Bible suggests God is asking of us?

I agree that those things can't be measured and we can never know what a person's intentions are. It all boils down to something inside of us that is largely indefinable. Half the time I don't know what my own motives are let alone the motives of someone else.Like I've posted other places I just find it more reasonable to believe that humility, kindness and justice are much more likely to have evolved from a source with similar attributes than from a non-sensing, non-intelligent and non-moral source.That does not in any way suggest the Christian God but whatever we are going to believe, including atheism, requires us to make a subjective conclusion about why things are the way they are.I also don't see it as defining oneself by these attributes, because for one thing we all have those attributes one way or another just as we all have their opposites. It's all a matter of degree I suppose. Probably even Hitler exhibited kindness at points in his life.

Sorry. For some reason I missed this response and only noticed it now. I don't agree that I backed off from the question. I was trying to make the point that there is a difference between giving because you expect some benefit coming back to you and giving with no expectation of receiving any benefit in return.I also don't agree that I am abandoning any part of the Bible. The question is how the Bible is to be understood. As with many atheists it seems that the Bible has to be read as if dictated word for word by God to be relevant and as it clearly isn't then the whole thing is discarded. I don't see where my statements were any form of tautology at all. It was essentially the same point I've made on this forum several times. As an atheist I see no way around the idea that you must believe that intelligence, knowledge and morality all evolved from a non-intelligent, unknowledgeable and non-moral source. I believe that it is quite reasonable to believe that there was a pre-existing intelligent, knowledgeable and moral source. I'm not sure what parts of the Bible you think are hogwash unless again you understand the Bible as being dictated word for word by God.It seems to me that the Bible has at its very core to central themes. One is the so-called social gospel which I believe is best represented by Micah 6:8 where, as I said we are told that what God wants of us is that we humbly love kindness/mercy and do justice. The second theme is God’s long term intention, which the whole Bible story is leading up to, which is to bring all things to resolution through a recreation which is probably best told in Eph. 1:10, (also last chapters of Isaiah and Rev 21), where it tells us that when times reach their fulfillment God will bring all things in heaven and on Earth together under Christ. The Bible is largely a narrative that tells the story of the Jewish people including God’s interaction with them and then finally how God’s message spread beyond them to the world.Yes I believe that to be true. Yes it is faith. I believe it is reasonable but that is subjective. The fact is that objectively the Bible exists, the world exists, we have certain human characteristics, the world exists in the manner it does and science tells us a great deal about it etc. As individuals we put all of these objective facts together and come to our subjective conclusions about what it all means.

I understand what you are getting at but I don't see it that way. I see the Bible as the story of the people that God chose to take His message of unselfish love to the world.The OT is written by writers inspired to write down their history. Within this narrative written by many authors is a mixture of mythology, history etc along with divine revelation. These stories are written by these men, (at least I assume they were all men), with their cultural and personal biases. For example if they have gone down and wiped out an entire village it would be natural, when telling the story, to say that it was God who told them to do this. It doesn't mean He actually did. In fact one of the things I think that we should be taking from the OT is that we should not be mixing our nationalism with Christianity. God cares for all nations.This OT narrative climaxes with Jesus. In Jesus the whole narrative of the OT is focused on Him, the anointed one of God. The OT should be read through the lens of the message of Christ. Even in the NT we have to be careful to understand, that they have to be read within their cultural context to actually understand what it is about.The Bible is not a just a book of timeless truths, nor is it a book of rules and regulations. Actually my understanding of the Bible has formed my beliefs more than the other way around. I think I mentioned in another thread about how my beliefs have changed because of my understanding of God from the Bible.

I covered this to a large degree in my reply to Straggler.Any historical account is going to be coloured by the personal and cultural bias of the author. That doesn't mean it's a lie. It just means that it will be the truth as the writer understands it. I haven't done this, but I suggest that you would find a very different account of the Viet Nam War in an American text book than you would in a text book in Viet Nam. OK, so you have told me where I'm wrong but you haven't told me what intelligent source brought intelligence into the world. What is your point? What about it? The Bible has to be read in the context of the whole. This is the problem of fundamentalism when they insist that it be essentially deified, and read as if it was being dictated word for word by God. I understand that you don't put any stock in the accuracy of the Bible but I was just trying to explain my personal understanding of it. We just disagree which is fine. But you can't have it all ways. We all believe that our subjective views are superior to others. That is just another subjective opinion. I am not trying to use it as any kind of equalizer. As a theist on this forum it is always pointed out to me that there is no objective evidence for my beliefs. I agree, there isn't, and as a result, so I don't have to keep going over that again and again I point out that my view is subjective, which of course as is yours.

Actually C S Lewis was much more of a catalyst. I was visiting in your home town and was given "Mere Christianity" at a party I was at and it started from that. By understanding it as narrative within a metanarrative. The OT, from essentially Abraham on is the Israel story and Jesus is the climax of that story. Think of it as an Agatha Christie mystery. You can read through all the twists and turns of the story, and then when you get to the end all the clues you got along the way are sorted out and it becomes clear.As I've said before the OT has to be read through the lens of the NT, while understanding that the books of the Bible were written by men of a particular culture for people of a particular culture in a time much different than our own. It has to be understood that Jesus' audience were first century Jews and I think that it is important to read it with as great an understanding of first century Jewish culture as we can get. N T Wright, (it's your fellow Brits that have had by far the greatest impact on my beliefs ) as a first century historian and New Testament scholar has been a tremendous source of information in this regard. Simple answer is that theme is in the Bible. Abraham's covenant was for the world and Jesus' message was the same. If God is the creator of all nations then it follows that cares for all nations. That's true of all of us. I'm also influenced by reading the views of others regarding the Bible and all sorts of things. In the end it isn't about what we know, it's about what effect it all has on our heart. Of course it never was just the Bible. We are impacted by many things in our lives including family, friends, books, EvC, the Bible etc. In the end though, IMHO, the capacity for any of us to humbly love kindness and justice comes from God. Again IMHO if it wasn't for this spark of the divine in all of us we would still be living in a world where survival of the fittest would be the rule and it would be all about me.

I agree with that except for the altruistic part. Co-operation etc, as is common in the animal world, can obviously be of benefit to the individulal or group, but altruism is about the more fit helping the less fit with no personal or group benefit.

I read over what I said and you are right. The less fit could just as easily behave altruistically towards the more fit as the other way around. Good point! The last part of your statement though is consistent with the point I was trying to make. Instead of group I could have used the word tribe I suppose. If I as an individual or as part of a tribe, (for example I as a Canadian), take from my supplies and send them to the third world, it only decreases the supplies for me or my tribe with no benefit in return. I would actually be further ahead if those in the third world were to cease to exist so that I could have unfettered access to their supplies. That is the reason I'm saying that altruism is contrary to the concept of "survival of the fittest". It is one reason I believe there is more to life than just our evolutionary roots. JMHO Cheers

We don't seem to be connecting some how. I did point out that my tribe might be the Canadian tribe. We are all still tribal. I agree with your definition of altruism, I'm just saying that it doesn't fit the mold of the idea of survival of the fittest. There may well be an "altruism" gene. I have no problem with that. I'm just not sure how it's germaine to this discussion. If such a gene exists it tells us nothing about whether it is by design or by nothing but material evolutionary origins.

Well Darwin used it but let's go with natural selection then. Altruism doesn't fit with the concept of natural selection. Natural selection means that we develop traits that help our descendents survive and prosper. Altruistic habits don't fit the mold. Read the first one and ok have now read the second one. They say the same thing and I have no problem with either. They are theorizing about an altrusitic gene and suggesting the reasons why such a gene might evolve.Incidently though as a disclaimer here is one quote:

quote:

---

Although the selective conditions favoring altruism are being increasingly understood, the evolutionary origins of the genetic basis for this behavior remain elusive.

---

However let's say they do find an altruistic gene. As a theist it is just what I would expect. As God IMHO seems to have used an evolutionary process to bring life to the point that we know it, I would expect that as part of the evolutionary process a gene such as the one they are talking about would evolve as well.

As I said. Darwin used the phrase.He used it as a synonym for natural slection. I have never intended it to mean in the best physical shape. Being most fit includes intelligence, adaptabilty fitness etc.As a matter of fact I did go to this particular source to confirm what I thought was the case.

Frankly I have no idea so I’ll have to take your word for it, but it would make sense. However, I can’t see where reciprocal altruism is altruism at all. Here is the definition of altruism.

quote:

---

The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
Behaviour of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.

---

Here is a quote from your link.

quote:

---

The concept of reciprocal altruism, as introduced by Trivers, suggests that altruism, defined as an act of helping someone else although incurring some cost for this act, could have evolved since it might be beneficial to incur this cost if there is a chance of being in a reverse situation where the person whom I helped before may perform an altruistic act towards me.

---

The definition of reciprocal altruism original benefactor is hoping for an eventual reward. It is no longer a selfless act, so it isn’t altruism at all. Once again though what you are talking about isn’t altruism. In your line of thinking you are considering that the one who temporarily weakens himself is thinking of the possibility that some day he will be the weaker being and is looking for an insurance policy, (reciprocal altruism), in case that happens. I don’t have a problem with evolved altruism, from a theistic point of view. If God chooses to use an evolutionary process to cause or help to cause to continually be more altruistic then I’m fine with that. I suppose that we have evolved physically so why not spiritually. However, I think we would objectively agree that if a parent behaves altruistically it is more likely that their children would behave altruistically than the children of parents who behave selfishly. There are always social influences that will impact our lives. This fact could also explain evolutionary progress for altruism as opposed to some genetic process.However, based on what Wright says it appears that whatever the process, world society is gradually going in the right, (how do we know it’s right?), direction. Considering either genetic or social evolutionary forces I think we could assume that the process could have gone in either direction. You might not agree but I think that if we are simply products of some non-intelligent non-moral material process then I think that the most likely result would be our evolving towards selfishness as opposed to unselfishness.Edited by GDR, : poor proof reading

You're probably unclear as I'm not completely clear myself. There may be a genetic component to our understanding of good and evil but I'm inclined to doubt it. However, I do believe that altruism is contagious and so in that sense we can evolve socially. Actually IMHO that is the job that Christians are called to, which is to infect the world with unselfish love and justice. I think in a way that's my point. From a strictly evolutionary sense, pure altruism, (never expecting any return for ones self, family or tribe), doesn't make sense. Those that provide support anonymously without any thought of reward in this life or the next are choosing to weaken themselves to their own detriment. I just don't see that as being consistent with evolution from a mindless source. If however the source for evolution is intelligent and moral then the whole idea of evolving altruism or unselfish love makes sense. IMHO.

Not at all.Here again is the definition I used in post 55 taken from wiki I think it was..

quote:

---

The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
Behaviour of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.

---

Yes, I agree that definition does agree with the sort of God I believe in but it isn’t a definition I made up. Sure but what does Wright, a materialist agnostic say about that? Here is a quote from page 434 of The Evolution of God

quote:

---

The fact that there’s a moral order out there doesn’t mean there’s a God. On the other hand, it’s evidence in favour of the God hypothesis and evidence against Weinberg’s worldview. In the great divide of current thought — between those, including the Abrahamics, who see a higher purpose, a transcendent source of meaning, and those, like Weinberg, who don’t — the manifest existence of a moral order comes down clearly on one side.

---

He carries on from there in the same vein. I’m afraid this time you’ve gone well over my head which isn’t really much of a challenge.