**Official Religious Debate Thread**

[Husker_x]

 

Are you actually saying that an omnipotent, omniscient God created the universe "and it was good" , yet was not good? Things aren't going his way? If things were perfect, by the way, there is no world. The entire population is predicated on the fact that there was a fall. So, if you think about it really, there was no free will involved in that fall. If we were what God planned, then he planned the fall (where we live in so called sin and misery because God is a sick bastard). If we weren't what God planned, then God didn't plan the fall, and he's not omnipotent.

 

In my opinion, God did not want humans to sin, and did not plan for us to fall, but that doesn't prove his lack of omnipotence. Omnipotence is defined as a deity being able to do ____________, with the key word being able. God could have prevented us from sinning, but the only way that is possible is to take away free will, but since the primary reason we were created was because of love, God chose not to make us "slaves" of his desire, so to speak, but gave us the ability to choose our ways for ourselves. Free will, even though it makes evil possible, is the only way that there can be any worthwhile love or goodness in the world. The happiness God designed for us is the happiness of being voluntarily united to Him and to each other. Of course God knew that with this free will things could go wrong, and we could choose ourselves and not God, but apparently He thought it was worth the risk. The thing is you can't really disagree with that, because God is the reason that you are able to disagree in the first place, so we can't be correct and He wrong, it would be like cutting off the branch that you are sitting on.

 

The most popular argument I have heard against God/religion is the problem of God knowing all in conjunction with having free will. The difficulty in this is thinking that God progresses along the timeline with us, or in other words, that God has a past, present and future, but that He can "see ahead" on the timeline. If that were true, if God foresaw our actions, then you would be right, there would be no true freedom in the universe. But suppose God is outside of time. In that case, what we call 'tomorrow' is visible to Him much the same way that 'today' is visible. Every moment in time is 'now' to God, so he doesn't see you doing things yesterday, he simply sees you doing them, because even though you have lost yesterday (meaning it no longer exists for you), He has not. You never suppose that your actions at this very moment are any "less" free than future actions because God knows what you are doing right now, well He knows tomorrow's actions the exact same way that he knows your actions right now. Another way of putting it is that God doesn't know your actions until you have done them, but that in the moment you acted (although it was a certain place in time for you) it was right now to God.

 

"only one set of rules for how things work"

Do you mean logic and reason? So yes, there is only one set of rules for how things work. If God is outside of these rules, then I have no reason to deal with him because he's outside of this universe. If he intervenes in this universe, then he is subject to logic and reason.

 

God does deal within the boundaries of logic and reason, yes, but that's not really the set of rules that the other poster was talking about, and he only operates inside of logic and reason because he chooses to, not becuse he has to. He is (we will assume he exists for the sake of the argument), obviously, outside of our universe, and does just as obviously intervene, but that doesn't make him subject to universal law, although he can choose to be. It would be impossible, even for an omnipotent being, to create a society of free souls without also creating a relativey independent and 'inexorable' Nature. I like to think of it as an author writing a book. He can create characters, a story, locations, etc., he can even finish the entire thing and then go back in and change it later, but at no point does he have to operate under the parameters of the story. Another imperfect analogy, and please don't use this against me telling me that I am saying God is writing out our actions, I merely use it to demonstrate how God can have a hand in things and be a creator yet not have to follow the same rules as us, nothing more.

 

Lot of speculation, same question. Where's the beef? What's your evidence? This is the issue all the religious have. I could respond to the above point by point, but I'm more interested on what basis you believe any of what you wrote.

 

But one thing: If God is separate from Logic and did not himself create it, then he is subservient to it. You want to be careful with that can of worms, because if God exists outside of logic, then God (X) could be not God (not X). I believe that's called a paradox.

[Husker_x]

I really wish I'd stop thinking about all this sometimes, it can really consume you if you let it.

 

Try being the kind of person who is prone to pondering such things, and having insomnia. It's a real hoot.

 

I've been a life-long Christian, but I question my faith daily. Dogmatic belief in anything is a waste of life. I forget who said it up there about everyone really really being shades of agnostic, and I think there's some truth to that.

 

My pursuit of Truth has led in all kinds of directions, like studying Islam and Buddhism, physics, atheism (which isn't all that much of a study, really) and probably a few other things I'm forgetting. The science behind the Big Bang is absolutely fascinating. If you haven't read up on this stuff, you gotta. It's crazy how complex the universe is. The size is incomprehensible. The fury out there in space, while we're tucked in our safe little outlier of a safe little galaxy is terrifying.

 

I've never found Truth. Probably I never will, since mine isn't a unique pursuit. I know that, without animosity (which is a human trait, not a religious trait), we can all get along, whether we are atheist, agnostic or faithed. I'm comfortable with my Judeo-Christian faith. It's not damaging to me or you, and it has some pretty nice things for me to do to my friends and neighbors, and even my enemies. I can tell you this - if all people everywhere really followed the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, this would be one heck of a peaceful planet. But we don't, and likely we can't on a macro level.

 

More's the pity.

 

I'm not even saying I disagree with your assessment of your own faith, but the question about whether or not belief is harmful is important. After all, your search for truth, I can say from personal experience, is an extremely rare one among any brand of the faithful. In some fundamentalist circles, doubting your faith is the equivalent of the Unpardonable Sin. These are the same people that continually prosecute a war on science.

 

I like the question Sam Harris frequently raises. Is faith itself a good thing? Is it moral to believe something for which we have absolutely no evidence? To say that it has no harmful effects is debatable. To say that it has no effect would be absurd. Because again, the burden of proof is on anyone who advances the claim that they believe a supernatural entity did or wants something in the physical universe. As you've seen even in this thread, Christians––take Landlord, for example––make a number of bald assertions about the nature of the existence and desires of a deity. How far is that from legislation, science, or social theory?

[TheCheshireCat]

I really wish I'd stop thinking about all this sometimes, it can really consume you if you let it.

 

Try being the kind of person who is prone to pondering such things, and having insomnia. It's a real hoot.

 

I've been a life-long Christian, but I question my faith daily. Dogmatic belief in anything is a waste of life. I forget who said it up there about everyone really really being shades of agnostic, and I think there's some truth to that.

 

My pursuit of Truth has led in all kinds of directions, like studying Islam and Buddhism, physics, atheism (which isn't all that much of a study, really) and probably a few other things I'm forgetting. The science behind the Big Bang is absolutely fascinating. If you haven't read up on this stuff, you gotta. It's crazy how complex the universe is. The size is incomprehensible. The fury out there in space, while we're tucked in our safe little outlier of a safe little galaxy is terrifying.

 

I've never found Truth. Probably I never will, since mine isn't a unique pursuit. I know that, without animosity (which is a human trait, not a religious trait), we can all get along, whether we are atheist, agnostic or faithed. I'm comfortable with my Judeo-Christian faith. It's not damaging to me or you, and it has some pretty nice things for me to do to my friends and neighbors, and even my enemies. I can tell you this - if all people everywhere really followed the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, this would be one heck of a peaceful planet. But we don't, and likely we can't on a macro level.

 

More's the pity.

 

I've read a lot about the universe. I really enjoyed the books by Brian Greene (The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos). I think it's just troubling to everyone how truly inconsequential we are in one mode of thought. The other of course is that if there was nothing for you before you were born, and nothing after you die, then what exists now for you is the most important, meaningful thing because that's all there is. Another strange thought is - would you really want to live forever? When I stop and think about this question, the answer is no. But we also don't want to die. And what is heaven, what do you "do" in heaven for eternity? I almost think we cannot comprehend not suffering or desiring or wanting, and that makes heaven a strange thought. When you think about these things it's almost as if there is no good answer no matter what the state of things - God or no God. I'm not trying to sound ungrateful or unappreciative because I love my life and I treasure it. But when you contemplate what awaits you at the end, even the promise of eternal paradise is daunting and terrifying.

 

I'm just glad to see others think the same things, I was kind of worried about myself for awhile there haha.

[HUSKER 37]

God and me are buds.

 

But I cannot imagine him ever approving of any Religion.

[Landlord]

I'm not even saying I disagree with your assessment of your own faith, but the question about whether or not belief is harmful is important. After all, your search for truth, I can say from personal experience, is an extremely rare one among any brand of the faithful. In some fundamentalist circles, doubting your faith is the equivalent of the Unpardonable Sin. These are the same people that continually prosecute a war on science.

 

I like the question Sam Harris frequently raises. Is faith itself a good thing? Is it moral to believe something for which we have absolutely no evidence? To say that it has no harmful effects is debatable. To say that it has no effect would be absurd. Because again, the burden of proof is on anyone who advances the claim that they believe a supernatural entity did or wants something in the physical universe. As you've seen even in this thread, Christians––take Landlord, for example––make a number of bald assertions about the nature of the existence and desires of a deity. How far is that from legislation, science, or social theory?

 

 

Faith itself is neither good nor bad, it's entirely dependent on what you place your faith in.

 

 

After reading his post, I've come to realize that I am strikingly similar to Knapplc. I have my doubts about a lot of things that are cornerstones to Christianity (never doubts about my salvation or about Jesus...but about the teachings and how one should try to live their life, and what is truly right), and I spend the majority of my life looking for ultimate truth, and it's hard to deal with sometimes. Being a college student, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to be a Christian and hang out with a Christian crowd, but not to have others share your skepticism and to judge you when you ask questions or challenge things that other people blindly accept. Despite all that though, Jesus saved my life as far as I can tell (of course I'm sure some of you will say that's just my self-justification) and I try my best to repay Him for it, which is all He asks.

[fro daddy]

This has been a peaceful conversation, color me impressed. I thought I would share my thoughts for those that would like to read them.

 

I have always questioned religion. I have always had a scientific mind. Why, how, when. How does it work, what makes it work. You are getting the picture. I am a "prove it to me" person. With that said religion really is a big question for my thought process. How can something people are so certain about, have no proof? Just because there was a Jesus, that doesnt mean there is a god. I mean, what makes Jesus different from any of the other teachers of the worlds religions? And speaking of religions, which one is right? Who is 'the' god? Is there even a god at all? If Christian are correct, does that mean that 2/3rds of the world is going to hell? What if Islam is the real religion? Are nearly 80% of the worlds population in for a surprise?

 

These are all questions that I struggle with. And I have tried to seek answers from many sources. I just dont know what to think. But this is what I know. People want to be comforted. They want some certainty. Heaven, 20 something virgins, hell for sinners, damnation. I believe people want to feel there is more, there is a 'higher' being out there. There is someone with a plan. someone to watch out for us. I dont know if any of that is true. But I know that the belief that there is something is calming to billions of people. If a faith that there is something, however little or big, however leading or hands free, that faith is a comfort tool. And i find nothing wrong with that.

 

Ultimatly religions help to establish a common law. Most can transfer from one to another. Some are little quirks within their own. But as far as I am concerned if you believe in a christian/islam/hindu/buddist/jewish/primal/scientific alien god, and you just live a good life and have your faith, good for you.

 

My only issue is with people who would take the 'word' as the only thing that matters. The church was a corrupt business that ran nations, started wars, killed to protect their backwords views and destroyed mans progresive thought. The catholic church was one of this worlds greatest evils. No different than the crazies that kill for their gods in todays time. But that is a whole different issue and rant. Just remember that you are reading a political view that was changed thousands of times from the original story to the one that you are reading. If you are able to take out of the story a general teaching of being/doing good, then you have it right. But then again these are only my thoughts, to each their own. I wont tell you that you are right or wrong, just like I would expect you to not do that to me.

[Husker_x]

I'm not even saying I disagree with your assessment of your own faith, but the question about whether or not belief is harmful is important. After all, your search for truth, I can say from personal experience, is an extremely rare one among any brand of the faithful. In some fundamentalist circles, doubting your faith is the equivalent of the Unpardonable Sin. These are the same people that continually prosecute a war on science.

 

I like the question Sam Harris frequently raises. Is faith itself a good thing? Is it moral to believe something for which we have absolutely no evidence? To say that it has no harmful effects is debatable. To say that it has no effect would be absurd. Because again, the burden of proof is on anyone who advances the claim that they believe a supernatural entity did or wants something in the physical universe. As you've seen even in this thread, Christians––take Landlord, for example––make a number of bald assertions about the nature of the existence and desires of a deity. How far is that from legislation, science, or social theory?

 

 

Faith itself is neither good nor bad, it's entirely dependent on what you place your faith in.

 

 

After reading his post, I've come to realize that I am strikingly similar to Knapplc. I have my doubts about a lot of things that are cornerstones to Christianity (never doubts about my salvation or about Jesus...but about the teachings and how one should try to live their life, and what is truly right), and I spend the majority of my life looking for ultimate truth, and it's hard to deal with sometimes. Being a college student, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to be a Christian and hang out with a Christian crowd, but not to have others share your skepticism and to judge you when you ask questions or challenge things that other people blindly accept. Despite all that though, Jesus saved my life as far as I can tell (of course I'm sure some of you will say that's just my self-justification) and I try my best to repay Him for it, which is all He asks.

 

This is an issue I haven't really decided for myself, because it has a few factors involved in it. I know my grandparents are old-school Christian types. They go to services, they like gospel music, and after church on Sunday, they go to lunch with some friends and then have a nap. As far as I can tell they don't proselytize or engage in scare tactics with strangers. How could anyone construe their faith as harmful?

 

However.

 

The issue I take with faith is this: it is essentially the end of questioning. Ask a creationist how we have a universe or anything in it. Their answer: God did it. Well, you might as well say magic did it. The conversation is now over. And more generally, what is the actual value of adhering to a claim you have no evidence for? Why is it that when it comes to a god claim this is suddenly a virtue? Same Harris likes to use the example of a man who believes he has a giant diamond buried under his backyard. The man has never seen the diamond, though, and nor does he have any evidence of its existence. But it brings him comfort. He likes the idea of the diamond. Now we have some questions to ask ourselves. Is this man justified in his belief? Further, is his belief a good or moral thing? Will this belief influence in any respect his behavior? It's reasonable to assume that a man who believes his has a diamond under his lawn might 'take no care for the morrow.' He might blow his life savings on junk. Bottom line, what's the net gain of his belief?

 

The other issue is that by the measure of faith––belief without evidence––you can literally believe anything you want to. Do you think Muslims are any less zealous than you, or Hindus, or Scientologists? All major religions also have a stickler claim of exclusivity, now leaving us with a cosmic game of Russian Roulette. So, maybe you can answer this. Why one over the other?

[Landlord]

This has been a peaceful conversation, color me impressed. I thought I would share my thoughts for those that would like to read them.

 

I have always questioned religion. I have always had a scientific mind. Why, how, when. How does it work, what makes it work. You are getting the picture. I am a "prove it to me" person. With that said religion really is a big question for my thought process. How can something people are so certain about, have no proof? Just because there was a Jesus, that doesnt mean there is a god. I mean, what makes Jesus different from any of the other teachers of the worlds religions? And speaking of religions, which one is right? Who is 'the' god? Is there even a god at all? If Christian are correct, does that mean that 2/3rds of the world is going to hell? What if Islam is the real religion? Are nearly 80% of the worlds population in for a surprise?

 

These are all questions that I struggle with. And I have tried to seek answers from many sources. I just dont know what to think. But this is what I know. People want to be comforted. They want some certainty. Heaven, 20 something virgins, hell for sinners, damnation. I believe people want to feel there is more, there is a 'higher' being out there. There is someone with a plan. someone to watch out for us. I dont know if any of that is true. But I know that the belief that there is something is calming to billions of people. If a faith that there is something, however little or big, however leading or hands free, that faith is a comfort tool. And i find nothing wrong with that.

 

Ultimatly religions help to establish a common law. Most can transfer from one to another. Some are little quirks within their own. But as far as I am concerned if you believe in a christian/islam/hindu/buddist/jewish/primal/scientific alien god, and you just live a good life and have your faith, good for you.

 

My only issue is with people who would take the 'word' as the only thing that matters. The church was a corrupt business that ran nations, started wars, killed to protect their backwords views and destroyed mans progresive thought. The catholic church is one of this worlds greatest evils. No different than the crazies that kill for their gods in todays time. But that is a whole different issue and rant. Just remember that you are reading a political view that was changed thousands of times from the original story to the one that you are reading. If you are able to take out of the story a general teaching of being/doing good, then you have it right. But then again these are only my thoughts, to each their own. I wont tell you that you are right or wrong, just like I would expect you to not do that to me.

 

 

Here is what C.S. Lewis believes regarding how to know if there is a higher being or not (Note: This isn't even him trying to prove the existence of the Christian God, he has different arguments for that entirely, this is just his philosophy regarding some kind of higher intelligence), I apologize if it gets long, but I know it's helped me make sense of things a bit.

 

 

Ever since childhood, we have all experienced times where someone gets the raw end of a deal, and you hear the "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" or "Come on, you promised", etc. This is a universal feeling between all humans, and it isn't only a feeling that something displeases you personally, it's an appeal to some kind of standard or behavior that we expect other people to know about and live up to. This is a common thing I'm sure everyone would agree, and when a person is pleading for someone else to live up to this standard, the other person rarely responds "Screw your standards.", instead they try and find some way to justify their actions so that they don't really go against the standard at all. It looks a lot like both parties involved had some kind of idea of a Law or Rule of decent behavior or morality, whatever you want to call it, that they both agreed upon.

 

Now this Law or Rule (let's call it a law), back in the days of the older thinkers, used to be called the Law of Nature. They didn't mean gravity or genes when they talked about laws of nature, they meant the law of right and wrong, or the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all of us are governed by what we call natural laws today (gravity, genetics, etc.), that man also had this Law of Human Nature, but the difference was that it was the only law which we could actually choose to disobey. The Law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that everybody knew it by nature, that the idea of morality was obvious to every one, and that it didn't need to be taught, speaking for the majority.

 

Now the first thing most would argue is that this Law is unsound, since different civilizations, cultures, ages, etc. have different moralities, but that isn't really true. There are differences between groups sure, but there is never anything even close to a total difference. What does that mean exactly? Think of a civilization where people were admired and worshiped for running away from battle, or where children looked up in pride at someone who betrayed the people who trusted him, it just doesn't work, and there aren't any examples of that kind of morality in any recorded history. Men have disagreed about who you should be unselfish towards or how many wives you should have, but they don't disagree that you shouldn't always put yourself first or that you should take every woman you like (again, speaking for the majority of people, there will always be perversions of everything).

 

Even people who claim not to believe in a Right and Wrong still ultimately argue in their favor. If someone breaks a promise to you, and you try breaking one back to him he will complain about it being unfair. A nation may say that treaties don't matter, but then they say the treaty they were trying to break was an unfair one. But if treaties don't matter, or if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong, then what's the difference between a fair and unfair treaty?

 

If you can accept the existence of a universal Law of Right and Wrong then the next point is that none of us are really keeping the Law. Every single day we all fail to practice the behavior that we expect out of those around us (even if you don't believe in a universal moral code you would still probably agree with this, unless you have shamefully low standards of decency), and we all try and come up with excuses or justifications, which serves as more evidence that we all believe in this Law of Nature. After all, if we don't believe in universal decency, why do we try and justify our actions? And I'm not just talking about petty things like being late to work, I'm talking about lying to yourself. I'm talking about when you're married and you take a peek down another woman's blouse, but tell yourself that your eyes were just wondering, or about when you pass someone accepting donations for charity, and you decide that you shouldn't be bothered wasting your time just to give a dollar.

 

So what does this tell us about the universe we live in? Obviously, as far as we can remember men have been trying to figure out what the universe really is, how it came to be, etc., and there are two popular opinions. The first is the materialist view, that says matter and space just happen to exist, and nobody knows why. Everything just happened the way it due to chance. The other view is the religious view. According to it, there was something behind the creation of everything, and that it is conscious, has a purpose and prefers one thing to another. And on this view it made the universe, partly for reasons unknown to us but partly to creat creatures like itself - that is creatures that have the ability to think and reason. Now the question "why anything comes to be" is not really a scientific question, not knocking science, but it's job is to observe what can be seen as existing. The statement that there is such a thing behind the things science observes, or that there isn't are not statements science can make, and the more scientific a man is the more he would agree with this statement. Even if science had all knowledge of everything in the whole universe, the questions "Why is there a universe?" or "Does it have any meaning?" would remain the same. Given that, if there is something behind the creation of the Universe, it will either have to remain unknown or will have to reveal itself in some other way.

 

The great side of this seemingly bleak situation is that there is one thing in the universe that we know more about than we could learn from external observation, and that is ourselves, because we obviously do not only observe men, but we are men. I guess you could say we have "inside information". Since we do have this intimate knowledge of ourselves, we know that we find ourselves under this universal moral law, which we didn't create, but that we still can not escape. Now anyone studying Man from the outside would have no clue as to this moral law, because he could only observe what we do (the same as science can only observe what nature does) when the moral law is about what we ought to do.

 

The final point is this. If there is a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe - the same way that an architect of a house could not actually be a wall or ceiling or stairway. The only way it could reveal itself would be inside of ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way, which is exactly what happens inside of all of us.

 

 

 

 

Ok yeah, that was really long, sorry Anyways, that is the basis (I actually paraphrased the best I could), and I can post more if it generates responses.

[Landlord]

I'm not even saying I disagree with your assessment of your own faith, but the question about whether or not belief is harmful is important. After all, your search for truth, I can say from personal experience, is an extremely rare one among any brand of the faithful. In some fundamentalist circles, doubting your faith is the equivalent of the Unpardonable Sin. These are the same people that continually prosecute a war on science.

 

I like the question Sam Harris frequently raises. Is faith itself a good thing? Is it moral to believe something for which we have absolutely no evidence? To say that it has no harmful effects is debatable. To say that it has no effect would be absurd. Because again, the burden of proof is on anyone who advances the claim that they believe a supernatural entity did or wants something in the physical universe. As you've seen even in this thread, Christians––take Landlord, for example––make a number of bald assertions about the nature of the existence and desires of a deity. How far is that from legislation, science, or social theory?

 

 

Faith itself is neither good nor bad, it's entirely dependent on what you place your faith in.

 

 

After reading his post, I've come to realize that I am strikingly similar to Knapplc. I have my doubts about a lot of things that are cornerstones to Christianity (never doubts about my salvation or about Jesus...but about the teachings and how one should try to live their life, and what is truly right), and I spend the majority of my life looking for ultimate truth, and it's hard to deal with sometimes. Being a college student, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to be a Christian and hang out with a Christian crowd, but not to have others share your skepticism and to judge you when you ask questions or challenge things that other people blindly accept. Despite all that though, Jesus saved my life as far as I can tell (of course I'm sure some of you will say that's just my self-justification) and I try my best to repay Him for it, which is all He asks.

 

This is an issue I haven't really decided for myself, because it has a few factors involved in it. I know my grandparents are old-school Christian types. They go to services, they like gospel music, and after church on Sunday, they go to lunch with some friends and then have a nap. As far as I can tell they don't proselytize or engage in scare tactics with strangers. How could anyone construe their faith as harmful?

 

However.

 

The issue I take with faith is this: it is essentially the end of questioning. Ask a creationist how we have a universe or anything in it. Their answer: God did it. Well, you might as well say magic did it. The conversation is now over. And more generally, what is the actual value of adhering to a claim you have no evidence for? Why is it that when it comes to a god claim this is suddenly a virtue? Same Harris likes to use the example of a man who believes he has a giant diamond buried under his backyard. The man has never seen the diamond, though, and nor does he have any evidence of its existence. But it brings him comfort. He likes the idea of the diamond. Now we have some questions to ask ourselves. Is this man justified in his belief? Further, is his belief a good or moral thing? Will this belief influence in any respect his behavior? It's reasonable to assume that a man who believes his has a diamond under his lawn might 'take no care for the morrow.' He might blow his life savings on junk. Bottom line, what's the net gain of his belief?

 

The other issue is that by the measure of faith––belief without evidence––you can literally believe anything you want to. Do you think Muslims are any less zealous than you, or Hindus, or Scientologists? All major religions also have a stickler claim of exclusivity, now leaving us with a cosmic game of Russian Roulette. So, maybe you can answer this. Why one over the other?

 

You're asking me why Christianity, and not Islam or Buddhism, etc.? The answer to that lies in the gospel. When you only look at the philosophical side of things, there is no argument to choose any 'religion' over the other because they all boil down to exactly the same thing. The differences lie in the details, and the gospel of Jesus Christ has more credence, as far as I can tell in my search for truth, than any other religion. I could answer by saying "because I have felt God in my life", and I sincerely believe that I have, but so have billions of others of different faiths than me, so that is a strawman argument.

 

 

 

Edit: Maybe it's just me, but I am really, really enjoying this thread.

[The Maudfather]

I really wish I'd stop thinking about all this sometimes, it can really consume you if you let it.

 

Try being the kind of person who is prone to pondering such things, and having insomnia. It's a real hoot.

 

I've been a life-long Christian, but I question my faith daily. Dogmatic belief in anything is a waste of life. I forget who said it up there about everyone really really being shades of agnostic, and I think there's some truth to that.

 

My pursuit of Truth has led in all kinds of directions, like studying Islam and Buddhism, physics, atheism (which isn't all that much of a study, really) and probably a few other things I'm forgetting. The science behind the Big Bang is absolutely fascinating. If you haven't read up on this stuff, you gotta. It's crazy how complex the universe is. The size is incomprehensible. The fury out there in space, while we're tucked in our safe little outlier of a safe little galaxy is terrifying.

 

I've never found Truth. Probably I never will, since mine isn't a unique pursuit. I know that, without animosity (which is a human trait, not a religious trait), we can all get along, whether we are atheist, agnostic or faithed. I'm comfortable with my Judeo-Christian faith. It's not damaging to me or you, and it has some pretty nice things for me to do to my friends and neighbors, and even my enemies. I can tell you this - if all people everywhere really followed the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, this would be one heck of a peaceful planet. But we don't, and likely we can't on a macro level.

 

More's the pity.

Knaap, brother, you have just summed up exactly what I am doing right now. I am currently in the process of reading the Bible front to back and have every intention of diving into other religious texts, as well as physics books. And I think you are absolutely right though, if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth the world would be a better place...maybe somebody knew that? Maybe religion's only purpose is to keep people in line to avoid social darwinism? To this, I don't know that I will find an answer, but I intend on searching.

[huskertim]

Faith is not the end of questioning. Think of those things you believe in, do you fear to question them? I propose that if you do, it is not faith you have, but doubt. The wisest among us quest for wisdom. The best atheletes strive to be better. The cleric seeks God not as he would like him to be, but as he reveals himself to be. Doubt fears exposure but truth hides not from the light.

[huskertim]

I think it is funny that the OP has yet to chime in other then to post the original question, a follow up question (which was basically a play of the first question) 10 minutes later and then bolt.

 

Carry on.

Apologies. When I started the thread, I got a tid bit busy. Here is my opinion. Recently I have started to question my faith in Christianity...posing the very same points as the non believers in this thread. Like if we do have free will and God knows exactly what is going to happen, then logically we do not have free will or God doesn't know what is going to happen. I will say that the verse that really got me thinking was Ephesians 5:21-6:9.

 

"22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

 

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Ephesians 6

Children and Parents

1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2"Honor your father and mother"—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3"that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth."[c] 4Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

Slaves and Masters

5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

 

9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

 

This really makes me think...if God truly is a loving creator, then why would he advocate a something as terrible as slavery?

 

Werein do you see advocacy that man shall enslave man. The author here clearly intended that the behavior of all men is thier responsibility regardless of station or circumstance. One could as easily be a rich a-hole or a poor a-hole, likewise one can make the best of what is given and strive always to act accordingly. Far too often people reationalize horrible behavior and cruelty because they themselves have suffered (mommy never loved me, so it's not my fault that I shot the people at the mall). Remember, Christ offered himself as a servant, not a king and clearly prefered humility to celebrity.

[redout22]

I think it is funny that the OP has yet to chime in other then to post the original question, a follow up question (which was basically a play of the first question) 10 minutes later and then bolt.

 

Carry on.

Apologies. When I started the thread, I got a tid bit busy. Here is my opinion. Recently I have started to question my faith in Christianity...posing the very same points as the non believers in this thread. Like if we do have free will and God knows exactly what is going to happen, then logically we do not have free will or God doesn't know what is going to happen. I will say that the verse that really got me thinking was Ephesians 5:21-6:9.

 

"22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

 

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Ephesians 6

Children and Parents

1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2"Honor your father and mother"—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3"that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth."[c] 4Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

Slaves and Masters

5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

 

9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

 

This really makes me think...if God truly is a loving creator, then why would he advocate a something as terrible as slavery?

 

Werein do you see advocacy that man shall enslave man. The author here clearly intended that the behavior of all men is thier responsibility regardless of station or circumstance. One could as easily be a rich a-hole or a poor a-hole, likewise one can make the best of what is given and strive always to act accordingly. Far too often people reationalize horrible behavior and cruelty because they themselves have suffered (mommy never loved me, so it's not my fault that I shot the people at the mall). Remember, Christ offered himself as a servant, not a king and clearly prefered humility to celebrity.

Very nice post

[Husker_x]

I'm not even saying I disagree with your assessment of your own faith, but the question about whether or not belief is harmful is important. After all, your search for truth, I can say from personal experience, is an extremely rare one among any brand of the faithful. In some fundamentalist circles, doubting your faith is the equivalent of the Unpardonable Sin. These are the same people that continually prosecute a war on science.

 

I like the question Sam Harris frequently raises. Is faith itself a good thing? Is it moral to believe something for which we have absolutely no evidence? To say that it has no harmful effects is debatable. To say that it has no effect would be absurd. Because again, the burden of proof is on anyone who advances the claim that they believe a supernatural entity did or wants something in the physical universe. As you've seen even in this thread, Christians––take Landlord, for example––make a number of bald assertions about the nature of the existence and desires of a deity. How far is that from legislation, science, or social theory?

 

 

Faith itself is neither good nor bad, it's entirely dependent on what you place your faith in.

 

 

After reading his post, I've come to realize that I am strikingly similar to Knapplc. I have my doubts about a lot of things that are cornerstones to Christianity (never doubts about my salvation or about Jesus...but about the teachings and how one should try to live their life, and what is truly right), and I spend the majority of my life looking for ultimate truth, and it's hard to deal with sometimes. Being a college student, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to be a Christian and hang out with a Christian crowd, but not to have others share your skepticism and to judge you when you ask questions or challenge things that other people blindly accept. Despite all that though, Jesus saved my life as far as I can tell (of course I'm sure some of you will say that's just my self-justification) and I try my best to repay Him for it, which is all He asks.

 

This is an issue I haven't really decided for myself, because it has a few factors involved in it. I know my grandparents are old-school Christian types. They go to services, they like gospel music, and after church on Sunday, they go to lunch with some friends and then have a nap. As far as I can tell they don't proselytize or engage in scare tactics with strangers. How could anyone construe their faith as harmful?

 

However.

 

The issue I take with faith is this: it is essentially the end of questioning. Ask a creationist how we have a universe or anything in it. Their answer: God did it. Well, you might as well say magic did it. The conversation is now over. And more generally, what is the actual value of adhering to a claim you have no evidence for? Why is it that when it comes to a god claim this is suddenly a virtue? Same Harris likes to use the example of a man who believes he has a giant diamond buried under his backyard. The man has never seen the diamond, though, and nor does he have any evidence of its existence. But it brings him comfort. He likes the idea of the diamond. Now we have some questions to ask ourselves. Is this man justified in his belief? Further, is his belief a good or moral thing? Will this belief influence in any respect his behavior? It's reasonable to assume that a man who believes his has a diamond under his lawn might 'take no care for the morrow.' He might blow his life savings on junk. Bottom line, what's the net gain of his belief?

 

The other issue is that by the measure of faith––belief without evidence––you can literally believe anything you want to. Do you think Muslims are any less zealous than you, or Hindus, or Scientologists? All major religions also have a stickler claim of exclusivity, now leaving us with a cosmic game of Russian Roulette. So, maybe you can answer this. Why one over the other?

 

You're asking me why Christianity, and not Islam or Buddhism, etc.? The answer to that lies in the gospel. When you only look at the philosophical side of things, there is no argument to choose any 'religion' over the other because they all boil down to exactly the same thing. The differences lie in the details, and the gospel of Jesus Christ has more credence, as far as I can tell in my search for truth, than any other religion. I could answer by saying "because I have felt God in my life", and I sincerely believe that I have, but so have billions of others of different faiths than me, so that is a strawman argument.

 

 

 

Edit: Maybe it's just me, but I am really, really enjoying this thread.

 

Not much of a leap, but I expected someone would say this at some point. The issue of the gospels and the historicity of Jesus is something I've spent quite a bit of time rummaging through. Eventually if you look long enough (and can get past the 5,000 copies of manuscripts arguments), what we find is a series of good questions with underwhelming answers.

 

1. When were the gospels written?

2. Who wrote them and how do we know?

3. Do we have these gospels?

4. Were there any competing texts that we don't have?

5. What are the gospels, and are they internally consistent with each other?

6. Finally, how did we come to have the canon of sacred texts we do? Who compiled them, and for what reason?

 

There's a book that could be written on each of those questions, but I'll try for the sake of the thread to offer a concise answer to some of them. Were the gospels inspired? Possibly. But the fact is it doesn't matter. We don't have the gospels. We don't even have copies of the gospels. We don't even have copies of copies of copies of copies of the gospels. Our earliest manuscript fragments don't appear until at least a century after the autographs were lost. The subsequent dispersal of religious writings pertaining to Christ and his disciples was a product of a culture which placed absolutely zero importance on the need for a written tradition or any kind of copyright law. ALL of the original copies (and copies of copies, etc.) were done by unprofessional scribes. The stories you hear later about the hardened practices of monks didn't appear until centuries later. This of course says nothing whatever about how the books we have in our canon actually came down to us. Contrary to some apologists' claims, no one really buys into a conspiracy theory tied to a council. The truth is a little more complicated and involves doctrine wars and a little luck. The first canon of scripture was produced by a man named Marcion who was later declared a heretic (by who? The stronger faction). His canon included only one gospel (a heavily edited Luke) and a handful of Paul's letters.

 

Step back in time a few centuries for a second, to answer the first couple questions, the four gospels we have are thought by scholars to have been written between 60-120 A.D. They actually came with no names, and were ascribed authors later through oral tradition. Of the synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke), it is thought that Mark was first because Matthew and Luke have a lot of resemblance, including many word for word transcriptions. Whoever came from what, there's little dispute that these fantastic tales weren't actually put into written form until decades after the event. How we came to have these particular gospels is another bizarre tale I'll skip for now.

 

What we do know about the early church and the transmission of the gospels is that several church fathers had some odd views. At first the books of the new testament were not considered scripture. Certain books were read in churches, but not all of the church fathers counted them as inspired. There were also books like The Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter which were, in some circles, accepted. The debate over so-called 'apocrypha' wages to this day, in case you've never picked up a catholic Bible. Even during the Reformation guys like Martin Luther were trying to pry out James and Jude, considering them heretical. The infighting only gets worse the further back in the timeline you go.

 

Bottom line, I'd encourage you to do a study on this. Most 'liberal theologians' know this stuff (the kind of guys that hang out a Princeton Seminary), but the general public for some reason remains in the dark. I'd avoid the evangelical 'build-your-faith' books, and try cutting your teeth on some hard scholarship. Bart Ehrman is a good one. But be careful of the idea that the Bible just mystically fell out of the sky one day. In history it has a tone more like natural selection than divine intervention. And it can be a quite revealing experience.

[Husker_x]

Faith is not the end of questioning. Think of those things you believe in, do you fear to question them? I propose that if you do, it is not faith you have, but doubt. The wisest among us quest for wisdom. The best atheletes strive to be better. The cleric seeks God not as he would like him to be, but as he reveals himself to be. Doubt fears exposure but truth hides not from the light.

 

Very poetic, but also not addressing the issue.

 

Belief is not the end of questioning. But faith––belief WITHOUT evidence––operates under an entirely different agenda. There's also a subtle difference between the striving of a scientist and the striving of a preacher. The scientist may think he knows the answer to the question he's designing an experiment to answer, but is rewarded whether his hypothesis is proved right or wrong. With a preacher, he has faith that no matter what his quest turns up, his fundamental assumption will hold true; and since no demonstrable evidence was needed to establish his faith to begin with, no competing evidence would ever have the hopes of dislodging it.