Why are all Christians atheists?

Could be, but many 'fundies' did go thru a point of seriously considering fundamentalism with an open mind!

mike the wiz,As a Christian, I am fine with calling religion superstition.Many times the etymology of a word is more useful than the common definitions, which are attached more to the practical applications of the word.Superstition has come to mean something akin to an absurdity. What is really means is useless. It is like the word 'heretic'. A heretic is someone different in every case dependng upon the view of the finger-pointer.Superstition literally means to stand outside, or over, or beyond. What a person is 'outside' of, is entirely subjective.We can have Christians calling pagans superstitious, atheists calling Christians such, and even Catholics calling other Catholics such when the go 'outside' of orthodoxy, or when they begin to use the devices of the Catholic church in an empty manner.A superstition however, is NOT a religion. It is not a religious belief. It is a mindset that makes something into an empty gesture. The problem is that from different vantage points, what is 'empty' is not the same for everyone. I can call a Wiccan ceremony empty, they can call my Eucharist empty, but its not the religion that is 'superstitious' in itself, as superstition is only the word used by those apart from this view who attempt to describe its lack of validity.In other words, nothing is a superstition except by contrast to another view. It's not a 'slur' upon religion.

It depends who you ask.As I said before, a superstition is a thing that is held by another viewpoint as an empty ritual, or a belief without a causal agent.I could say prayer is a superstition, you could say any meditation that attempts to connect one to themselves or to nature or a 'state of being' is a superstition. What is true of both is that they sometimes work, and sometimes don't, and the 'result' is not something that can be guaranteed or repeated or predicted. They both make the doer feel good by engaging in them...so they are not completely without cause/effect.I would say that generally speaking a ritual must be 'proven' as ineffective. I also suppose that some rituals over time and evolution of beliefs, have become diconnected from some causal agent that they were attached to in the past. One custom stays after paganism and is picked up by Christianty in such a way that it gets displaced or does not follow the mode of that religion.If you look at Polish culture for one, the Easter customs involve many things which are picked up from prior religions. On Easter Monday there is a traditional dousing of young ladies by male suitors. It is without meaning or efficacy in Christianity, but there is a probability that at one time this act had a causal agent. In other words, the water may have symbolized something from an entirely different god/s that DID have powerful connotations.The idea is that superstition is like heresy. It can only be 'called out' by someone who doesn't believe it. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Someone marginally mentioned this, and I was going to say the same but never got to it yet with the 'superstition' musings coming up. IOW, I agree that the OP is faulty in not going far enough.Christians aren't rejecting other gods, they are rejecting entire religions. I am not going to pull Thor or Zeus out of an entire pantheon of gods. These figures are meaningless without the context which they are in.What the OP would be better saying, is why do we reject polytheism and other beliefs? Of course the answers to this are the same old, same old and vary from person to person.I do not feel that rejection IS the right word for the way I view other more ancient religions. I would more likely call them obsolete rather than rejected. Latin is not 'rejected' by me, it was rejected a long time ago because it no longer had use or meaning, and because it evolved into another language/s. I can walk around quoting it all day sure, but it won't be an effective form of communication at this point! It is not a matter of calling Latin 'false' and my reasons for not speaking Latin are not a judgement call upon its one time existance.That's a horrendous analogy! Anyway...if someone would present a more modern competitor to God and ask why I rejected that concept, it would be a slightly better question. I would still say that its not a disbelief in that God, but a disbelief in that portrayal of God. It's not an incredulity, it's not a 'my God is better/more powerful/saner/realistic/perfect God'. It's just a God that makes sense to me.Oh, and welcome back!Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

That's all fine and dandy Nuggin, but that isn't what you asked/stated in the OP.I appreciate your effort to make Christians even lower on your esteem ladder, but none of the monotheists who have responded to you are hostile or condemnatory toward other religions. When was the last time you lived in a predominantly Hindu society? I mean, how many Hindus do you hear period in any work day or any news report?Hindus obviously do not think monotheists have all the answers. 'What gives' is that you are not doing your research. Religions don't stay the same. The Christianity we have today is most likely a descendant of the same monotheism of Akhenatan's. It is also, as far as I know, still up in the air as to the extent of his monotheism. The only Johnny-come-lately is Jesus, and I am so sorry that you expect things to stay static in the belief world for believers to have any credibility. I bet I could find you elsewhere protesting the 'old-fashioned' and ignorant views of monotheists.

Agreed. But again, 'false' is in the eye of the beholder.The black cat stuff...that seems a no-brainer. What I was wondering earlier was whether some superstitions have removed a more legitimate agent from the belief. What if 'black cat' was a servant of Loki as serpents were seen as minions of Satan? Not that this is true! but if the true perp were removed from the scene, the black cat would look very innocent.I am not sure how a ladder could be the cause of anything!Anyway... Now I disagree. The agent here is still God. God would have to be proven false in order to prove that what He made happen is false. The agent must be observed and rendered as impotent/false etc. AND this can be done by any objecter. (o?)What you could say in relation to ID type stuff is; cause = life exists, so effect = God exists could still be seen as a superstition. I don't know that I am being clear...I assume you say that belief in God itself is not superstition because no effect has been assosciated with it yet. I am thinking that God was the effect of other causes?

I haven't read the other thread yet concerning jj.As jar said, Christianity does change very obviously on the face of it. Even the RCC just went through some big changes. I say 'even' because to some the RCC would seem the embodiment of stagnant doctrinarianism.People change, times change. If religion doesn't remain relevent it dies out.There are two things I would say. One is that I am not advocating that religion change just to cater to a time. I am talking about a more gradual evolution rather than a purposeful decision making process.The other is that the idea of God provudentially preserving His message does not mean that it has to be the SAME message for all people all of the time. Myabe I put things in perspective more than jj or others, in that I see Christainity as a changed and evolved Judaeism, which was in turn an evolution of something else. I don't see Christianity as an isolated event, but a timely revelation of more of God's message. I see no reason to assume that there will not be more in the way of revelation.Obviously things change...we don't use Latin anymore, the Mass has changed, we don't believe in the flat earth or the earth as the center of the universe. Evolution is taught in RCC schools. To deny obvious change is silly. Yet, extreme traditionalists would say that this is unwanted progressiveness. So to be clear, this is not the kind of change I am speaking of...this superficial controversial change. I am half and half on the benefits of such. I believe in change as in the evolution of ideas based on timely revelation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOL, Rick, I am pretty strictly Catholic! I don't see a reason to be either spiritual or doctrinal to the exclusion of the other. I won't even consider myself a 'free-thinker' because not much that I write is in any direct opposition to my religion.For your question, no, I do not think all Gods are the same by default.A Hindu etc. is not praying to the 'same God' because the images of their Gods are in opposition to the images of the Christian's God. There is more than the idea of facets. There is actual opposition in the facets, which MUST rule out some as being 'real'. BUT the same 'one God' can be intervening or communicating with good people of any faith.I perhaps can shift the emphasis from what men do and put it on what God does. Say tomorrow I start a religion based around the goddess Sigwa. Sigwa would be a facet of nothing save my imagination. She could coincidentally have some features of the 'real God' but that would not mean anything if I thought she was a different God or ruled out the real one. Even so, if anyone fell for my set-up, and conscientiously tried to live well and seek truth, whatever real God there may be could reach out to that individual.When you say facets there is the idea that one God revealed Himself to different people in many ways. This could be, but not in opposing ways! He can't be one AND one of many. I will not tell you that all religions must be 'correct' but different. I will not say that men will reincarnate just because they believe it, while others will go to heaven just because they believe that. We are not in control of what is true concerning God or nature.So, no, not all people pray to the same God, but the same God could very well hear all prayers!And yes, I believe that some polytheistic faiths use the concept of 'facets' of their one God, but whether or not this is the same 'God' is dependent on other things like 'does this God reincarnate us?', or 'does this God exist eternally?' or 'does this God transcend or condescend to human endeavor?'.

Ringo, a fundy will not say the God I worship is not the same God, but only that I don't worship Him in the right way!Let's see..shall we play 'Ask a Fundy'?Amd I wouldn't say my conception of Hinduism is 100 percent accurate or that I know as much about it as if I had spent a lifetime within it, but it is accurate IMO to say that polytheism and monotheism are mutually exclusive. Thus, whatever conceptions I have about the gods of Hinduism are irrelevent. They are not the same God that I worship, as my God has no THEY. As I said to Rick, even if the sum total of the THEYS/GODS = MYGOD, there would be other factors...reincarnation, etc. that would determine if Hindus worshipped the same God as I do.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

First off Rick, there is no paganistic/polytheistic influence concerning the Trinity and the saints. There may be a similarity in result but there was no direct influence of paganism on the Nicene council or the formation of Trinitarian doctrine. There was pagan influence on many things...and pagan acceptance of many things because of similarities, but it is not correct to say that there was an 'influence' unless you want to provide examples from church fathers etc.Secondly, I don't care what facets the Christian God has...and this doesn't include a facet of Mary! but the question of the Trinity has nothing to do with the OP or whether all religions are facets of one God.One God may have several personas, and other personas may still be false.I think you would be better off getting your facts straight!The Trinity is present in the reformed church doctrine. So are Mary and the saints in some cases. Only in a very few of the churches that are not technically considered of a Lutheran branch, is the Trinity questioned. It does not follow that the 'unreformed' church allows scope for worship of non-deities, or that the other churches are worshipping more than one God.None of this has to do with why Christians don't worship other Gods.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Thanks R...and I must say you seem to have finally taken some advice and are able to speak openly as yourself. At least I am relieved that you are capable of this! although I know being yourself will still not always make you a favorite. Well, no, I think Ringo said it pretty well in his first post in the thread...the one with the little graph type thing...but that was shot down almost immediately by the OP originator, and you have to discern the 'real' Ringo from the Rinog who wants YOU to answer. True, God can always be with you, but I am still of the belief that we are to have a Sabbath and devote one day to God. COnsider that many folks will not keep God in mind during the week or while driving...its a fail safe. I mentioned earlier that without the proper causal (sp?) agents there are many things in Catholcism that can turn into superstition. A non-Catholic recently told me they were praying the rosary...without knowing their mind set I can not determine whether they feel just fingering these beads is holistic! Interesting idea Rob. You are much bigger 'in person' after all! And yes, I believe it could be frightening, just like the Publican and the Pharisee, to see who wins God's favour in the end. Good thing is that in Heaven I don't see it mattering much. The lesson in that story is not to judge now. And to be personal...well, you will find that God works in weird ways, and the people you find who seem most obstinate are sometimes coming to God from other angles.

Well, then, why?I don't think the fact of Catholics using statues in worship is a good reason to say the God is different, but in my experience it has only said that the humans were idolaters. If you want to tell me that one God allows statues and the other doesn't, we may be on to something. True, but 'which God' is still dependent on whether the God is mono or poly. We have already the premise of gods existing. Sp the question goes to 'how many' first before it can go to which one. You know Ringo that there could have been a 'they' and no one would have cared. If God wanted to havea son who was detached and another God, that would have been no easier/harder to accept than a son of God who was not detached and was a man. Probably easier actually, to accept.As I said, the amount of Gods a Christian could have is not relevent when it comes to answering why Zeus is not one of them. I do think it would be a better question to ask why the xian God is not in some polytheisic pantheon! Oh, If only we had more diversity here. Of course they do. You can't determine 'which God' without the trappings concerning what that God does or doesn't do.

What I was splitting hairs over was that there is more pagan influence on culture and customs than on doctrines. Yes, single. Yes, you were talking about the Trinity but focusing on Catholicism.My point was that Christianity is monotheistic, and whether or not the God has more than one form does not answer the question of why a Christian is an 'atheist' regarding Zeus etc. Thanks, don't get that offer too frequently around here!
I don't think I have any last word without being OT. I think you just noticed that polytheism/monotheism are not such clear cut examples of contradictory facets of God. But, when I talk about polytheism I mean groups who do not believe in many facets of One God, but in absolutely more than One God.

Yes, yes, no matter where you live the grass always grows more heretical on the other side of the fence. Dunno, I think that is exactly what the topic is about. If someone wants to know 'which one?' the logical way to eliminate others is to ask 'what do you have?' If you have many Gods in your pantheon there is little point in trying to defend why I don't believe in only Thor or only Zeus. If I believe in only one God then the question is about 'why one God?' and not 'which one?' at all. Obviously I think the idea of Christian atheists is dumb. I am just attempting to ask the question as it really is; why don't Christians follow other religions?...because its really not about the god/s in the long run. It's about the what-does-God-dos?. I am not catching this in the context.

Lordie, Ringo! The topic is about why people who pick one God (or one set) rule out the rest. The answers to that still seem to have something to do with wanting One or More Than One. Other folks here are claiming to like more benevelent gods. I am claiming to like One God. I picked that One as the TRUE God so I think others which are multiple versions are 'false'.Still, this is not an accurate portrayal. It's just the best I can do with your Pile O'Gods analogy.No, maybe not.The idea is that this Pile is full of viable God choices. When I pick one the rest are still viable for others. There you have the ol' 'just because I believe it doesn't make it true' thing.My choice doesn't MAKE any other God impotent. It just makes me believe they are, or rather, believe that I was not even picking from a pile of Gods at all. Just a pile of ideas. Some ideas are better than others. So, this still goes back to which are better, and 'more benevolent' or 'oneness' are some of the traits we have to choose from. Yeah, yeah, but you follow well in our little analogies, (and these I doubt any one else even gets at times!) and then it goes berzerk.When I talked about trappings I never said 'religion'. I meant the vestiges of God, His accoutrements, His devices. WE may need to pray or sacrifice or this or that. But SOME Gods may like it! If we have the Pile O' Gods again, and I had to pick a God that can talk or a God that can listen, or one that I CAN appease, maybe I would want that one. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.