[ScottMayo]

But all that crap is enough to make me say the hell with "organized" religion.

No matter what all of you here believe, I of course respect your opinions. I hope the members of organized religion can understand the skeptics out there.

Heh. I'm a fundamentalist. (In the old sense of the word, NOT the modern, media sense. Don't even *try* to associate me with Robertson or his ilk; I'll have your kidneys for lunch if you try   ). I have no denomination. At the moment I go to a church which is an obscure branch of an evangelical movement out of Sweden, but that's because it's the closest one that takes the Bible seriously, and I've been in 3 or 4 others over the years.

Organized religion is a little like civilization - as Ghandi said when asked his views on Western Civilization, he's said to have replied "I think it would be a good idea." Church history and church structure, priests and services and even the soup kitchens and mercy work, is not Christianity. It's a lot of things, good and bad, but it's not a religion. Christianity is a small set of beliefs in certain truths, and a relationship with God, and that's *all* it is and all it will ever be.

[John Casler]

  Of course, I could write this a thousand times, and people will still take away "Scott believes in superstitions, so he's a flaming subjectivist."
...

"Scott believes in superstitions, so he's a flaming subjectivist." x 1K      

You do have to admit that the fundemental "premise" of Christianity is pretty far out there, and don't even get started on the blood/body eucharist ritual.  What is that all about?

It all gets pretty strange when you stand back and look at it.  If it were a science fiction movie most wouldn't think the plot reasonable.

And if you pull in the Old Testamant and all the poor animal sacrifices, it is even stranger.

[ScottMayo]

"Scott believes in superstitions, so he's a flaming subjectivist." x 1K      

And you're a mystic, times infinity, so there!

You do have to admit that the fundemental "premise" of Christianity is pretty far out there,

Which one? One premise is that there's a God. This is a claim that is either true or false, and seen dispassionately, *either* answer is unlikely. There are difficult philosophical problems either way. More difficult, I believe, for the materialist/atheist. (Modern physics has put forward explanations of the origin of the universe which are both untestable - which is bad science - and bizarre to the point of absurdity.)

Another premise is that mankind is "fallen" and capable of evil. I read the newspaper and I find that claim very believeable. Fresh evidence daily, delivered to my door. Another premise is that this evilness offends God. I don't know how "far out there" that is, but I'm glad the opposite is not true. A universe in which the Author got off on random cruelty and other evils would not, I think, be a place where anyone could stay sane very long.

And the last big premise is that God is willing to forgive the evil in exchange for, what amounts to a sacrifice that He made for us and on our behalf, if we are willing to accept that forgiveness. (That's simplified, but not much.) There is nothing unbelievable about that; I know plenty of parents that chose to help their kids out of trouble, even at personal cost. It's nearly a definition of what love is.

and don't even get started on the blood/body eucharist ritual. What is that all about?

Is this rhetorical? If not, I have to assume you have never sat down and read a theologian from the camp of this religion you seem to have rejected. Let alone the New Testament. Maybe I need to buy you a copy of CS Lewis's work, too.

I'll assume it isn't meant rhetorically and that, at your age,   if you haven't gotten around to reading up on the topic, you don't plan to. So here's my 5 minute sermon. (Note to the Christians - yes, I'm leaving out things here. Not worth dragging in the whole of Old Testament symbology in a quicky sermon for a guy who has likely never read it through  anyway.)


Those premises I mentioned, above, matter here. One of them is that God is offended (use whatever word you like: outraged, pissed off, ticked - English theologians are kind and stick with offended) by the evils done by humanity collectively, and people individually. God's standard, after all, is perfection - and humanity doesn't make that grade.

On the one hand, it doesn't seem fair that God should hold a limited species like ours, to a standard like that. Sure, I mean, we could choose, moment by moment, to be unfailingly unselfish, kind, and fair, but no one ever does it all the time, every time. We screw up and
call it "just being human", and you might argue that God should take that view, too. But look seriously at where that would get you. How would it go if God really did say "Well, it's *ok with Me* that you robbed Peter/Raped Jane/hated Frank. Go ahead, I don't mind"? We don't expect a decent *person* to condone evil; we wouldn't want it from God, either. If you want to know what it's like when people invent a god of that kind, go read up on thuggies (Kali worship.)

So. God has a standard, and we flunk. This, Christians teach, puts us out of contact with God: separated or "fallen" are the usual terms. (That's what the Garden of Eden story is conveying.) Why "separated"? Because He can't accept what we do without becoming morally imperfect himself. But he loves us and doesn't want to just throw us aside, either. Throwing us aside permanently is worse than a death sentence: we're designed to be eternal creatures, and being eternally cut off from God and at the mercy of our own fallenness... well, that's generally how Hell is defined.

So how to get us to take His standard seriously? How to make us lay off evil? It would help if we thought that rejecting evil was a good idea; if we were at least sorry about and tried to do better. That, for a start. Most people don't seem all that concerned about it, though.

So God needs to make it clear that evil is bad - you'd think it would be obvious, but if you read the papers you see it apparently isn't so obvious to a number of people. He does what every parent I know does, and He lays down consequences to reinforce this point. Little things, like, "if your nation persists in acting in that fashion I'm going to wipe it off the globe", which comes up a few times in the Old Testament. Read Amos: it can be neatly summarized as "If you keep oppressing your own poor, so help Me, you're going to take it in shorts."

But the more dramatic way he explains to us this demand of His, this idea that evil is unacceptable and intolerable, is to explain it in terms of a contract, a legally binding arrangement. He equates evil to a broken law, resulting in a serious fine that must be paid.  The fine in this case is death, the most serious punishment we as humans understand. And then

he arranges a way that, symbolically, this death-debt can be paid off. He explained that blood would have to be shed, something would have to die, but it could be a perfect animal instead of us.

This throws modern folk for a loop. They wonder what God wants blood and death for. But this is a nonsense way of looking at it. If God had some use for blood, he's got a planetful of it, anytime He likes. So why mess with a ritual involving the blood of sheep and rams?

The blood isn't for God, it's for us (or at least for ancient Israel). With our nice neat modern butcher's shops, most of us don't see the process that leads to a McDonald's burger, but in ancient times the process wasn't hidden. People saw animals killed, and knew it for what it was: an intensely visceral and messy experience that brings home what mortality is, what spilled blood really implies.

So the guy dragging his unblemished (perfect) sheep to the temple to be sacrificed as an atonement for his sin, had a *very* clear idea what happened to the sheep - and understood that it was happening to the sheep instead of to him. The symbolism did not escape the ancient Israelites. They understood it, and they wrote about it. Was it a brutal and visceral and crude way to make the point? Well, yes. And yet it seems to have been barely enough to keep "your sins are intolerable, so knock it off" clear in the minds of people.

Ever wonder why Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God? The phrase is not a modern invention. Jesus established himself as the replacement for the animal sacrifices. In fact that was not exactly unexpected - John referred to Jesus as the Lamb of God several years before the crucifixation, but Isaiah had pegged the concept centuries before that. John the Baptist paraphrased Isaiah 53.

Given any of that makes sense, when why celebrate that sacrifice with a ritualized eating of the body and blood? Neglecing a lot of deeper symbolisms, I think it's back to the butchers again. It's hard not to recognise that something died for your benefit, when you eat. "Your
death sustains me, and gives me life" is the core idea of eating - and also of Israel's contractual atonement. That the ritual Jesus laid down for a celebration of forgiveness involved eating, just makes simple and tremendous symbolic sense. (You'd also expect washing to show up as a purification rite when dealing with forgiveness, and it does: baptism.)

The odd thing, in fact, is how well the symbolism of the old and new testaments, written thousands of years apart under different cultures, mesh together. So much so, in fact, that it used to be something of a hobby of atheists, to try to prove that some OT writings were actually added after Jesus's death. (They eventually gave that one up; there is simply too much solid evidence setting the date of the Old Testamant writings to well before Jesus's time; the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, with a complete copy of Isaiah dated into the BC era, was the final burial for that unusually absurd attempt to discredit Christianity.)

It all gets pretty strange when you stand back and look at it. If it were a science fiction movie most wouldn't think the plot reasonable.

Have you noticed that *most of reality* is like that? Read any account of history. How much of it would you be willing to believe if it showed up in fiction? Do people really kill each other to own shiny rocks? Is it possible that a leader in the last century rounded up about 12 million people and had them gassed, purely because of who their parents were?

How is it that every particle in the universe simultaneously attracts every other, across distance, invisibly, using a force that cannot be blocked? How likely is it, really, that you form a person by inserting part A into slot B and squirting? And yet it's all true.

Most of reality is just plain strange and the only reason we accept it is because we're surrounded by it day in and day out. It would seem strange otherwise. Things you don't see every day, continue to seem strange. (Try reading up on quantum physics - it's so odd it sounds like the scientists are kidding.)

So I would not expect information about a being who is not a part of out material universe to be totally, 100% in tune with my day to day expectations. My expectations for how reality "should" work don't even extend to entangled particles, realised virtual pairs at the edges of black holes, and the possibility of Hillary Clinton running for president. I should *expect* to be a little startled about God and his views, too...

[Tyson]

Scott, I've got to say that your writings and thoughts are very enlightening.  Thanks for the obvious effort and thought you have put in to them.  I for one am pondering them a great deal.

[Rob Babcock]

Philosophy level 101.  Nice to see it here, even though this only scratches the very surface.  Same old warhorses getting trotted out, but I guess it's new to someone.

[ScottMayo]

Philosophy level 101.  Nice to see it here, even though this only scratches the very surface.  Same old warhorses getting trotted out, but I guess it's new to someone.

One of the nice things about Christianity is that, when you strip away two thousand years of clever theologizing, you get something which is almost appallingly simple. Very simple ideas: sin, forgiveness, mercy, all things you can explain to a six year old - mediated through day to day experiences: eating, washing, death, birth. Even communion got tied to the two foodstuffs that are universal to every culture and time (bread and wine don't go out of style). This is why I'm a fundie - I stick to the Bible and just borrow from modern writers when I find them useful, but the rest of the traditions and accretions are fluff and I don't mess with them. They do help some people - I'm just not one of them.

This isn't to say you can't spend a lifetime sifting through the Old and New Testament and finding deep parallels, amazing symbolism, eerie prophecies, and all manner of subtelty. And some folk have. Or that there isn't a wealth of insightful stuff written after the 1st century. But Philosophy 201 is all optional material. You can be saved on the basis of things a six year old can grasp.

[John Casler]

 One premise is that there's a God. This is a claim that is either true or false, and seen dispassionately, *either* answer is unlikely. There are difficult philosophical problems either way. More difficult, I believe, for the materialist/atheist. (Modern physics has put forward explanations of the origin of the universe which are both untestable - which is bad science - and bizarre to the point of absurdity.)

...

While the "definition" of GOD could be a million things, the likelyhood of the game/role playing scenario of parent/child, is beyond probability.

The accompanying "morality" that is applied to GOD is simply the extension of "parental" morals and "societal" control mechanisms

Another premise is that mankind is "fallen" and capable of evil. I read the newspaper and I find that claim very believeable. Fresh evidence daily, delivered to my door. Another premise is that this evilness offends God. I don't know how "far out there" that is, but I'm glad the opposite is not true. A universe in which the Author got off on random cruelty and other evils would not, I think, be a place where anyone could stay sane very long.

Fallen from where?  


What (besides the biblical story) could lead you to believe in a man/woman that couldn't kill, injure, or steal before that.

Does anyone really think, there was a Garden of Eden? and a man with 2 ribcages??

You have to accept the story that a snake talked a woman into betraying God and her husband to forever change the world and mankind (humankind).

While it is not unusual for a "snake" to talk a woman into betraying her husband, I don't think it changes the world.

Additionally, the "tree" that was eaten from was the tree of the "knowlege of good and evil".  You really think that before that, they didn't know the difference?

And the last big premise is that God is willing to forgive the evil in exchange for, what amounts to a sacrifice that He made for us and on our behalf, if we are willing to accept that forgiveness. (That's simplified, but not much.) There is nothing unbelievable about that; I know plenty of parents that chose to help their kids out of trouble, even at personal cost. It's nearly a definition of what love is.

Exactly, God was fashioned as a parent.  

God doesn't sacrifice anything.  Remember he (she) is a Supreme Being, living in perfection (how can that be?).  Perfection cannot have dissapointment, sacrifice, and or any of those things.  The whole concept of "Supreme Being" is non-sensical the way it is set up.  

Additionally the idea that today's society would be "guided" by a series of writings written during a period where many/most were uneducated and beelived in spririts, ghosts, and who know what, is even more "out there" (to me)

John Casler wrote:

and don't even get started on the blood/body eucharist ritual. What is that all about?

Is this rhetorical? If not, I have to assume you have never sat down and read a theologian from the camp of this religion you seem to have rejected. Let alone the New Testament. Maybe I need to buy you a copy of CS Lewis's work, too.  

No it is not rheotrical, as in I don't know why it is advocated.  

I am well aware of the reasons and "symbolism" behind it, and find it beyond plausability.

My question is, that if we landed on mars and found the martians drinking grape juice and pretending it to be blood, and eating toast and pretending it to be flesh, we would probably be "very" concerned about them and their society.

May as well eat a cherry covered chocolate and pretend it is the "head".

See how distasteful it sounds.  It certainly (if nothing else) is a barbaric ritual.  It is a reflection of ancient thought, where things like drinking your enemy's blood made you stronger, and eating their brains made you smarter.

Sorry it doesn't work for me.  There is no Supreme Being in the Universe that would play a game that strange.

So God needs to make it clear that evil is bad - you'd think it would be obvious, but if you read the papers you see it apparently isn't so obvious to a number of people. He does what every parent I know does, and He lays down consequences to reinforce this point. Little things, like, "if your nation persists in acting in that fashion I'm going to wipe it off the globe", which comes up a few times in the Old Testament. Read Amos: it can be neatly summarized as "If you keep oppressing your own poor, so help Me, you're going to take it in shorts."

People "do" know the difference between right and wrong, but if you look closely many are driven to violence and evil, in support of their religion, or at least use their religion to "prop up" their aggressions.

God hasn't "wiped a nation off the globe" in supposedly 3-4K years.  I would suggest that he never did so, only humans did so "in his name", if it happened at all.  I can assure you that God will not be giving it to "anyone" in the shorts himself.  It will always be "interpreters" in human form swinging the clubs, pushing the bottons or pulling the triggers(in his name).

And then he arranges a way that, symbolically, this death-debt can be paid off. He explained that blood would have to be shed, something would have to die, but it could be a perfect animal instead of us.

Re-read the above and tell me it is not "strange"!  A death-debt can be paid off?  Blood has to be shed?  Something would have to die?  It could be a perfect animal instead of us?

Is this from some parallel Universe?  Sorry, but that type of crazy ritualism (to me) is nothing that can be assigned to any type of Supreme Being that I can imagine.

This is the 21st Century.  We are not uneducated sheep herders.

How is it that every particle in the universe simultaneously attracts every other, across distance, invisibly, using a force that cannot be blocked?

How do you know this is true?  It it "written" or did a scientist come up with it?  Either way, it is speculation or logical deduction and further even if there were 100% proof, it is not evidence of anything, except that "the physics" of the force exist.

It is much more than a leap to try and explain it by pointing to it and saying it proves there is a god.

Since it cannot be proven, it is like "cable magic".

How likely is it, really, that you form a person by inserting part A into slot B and squirting? And yet it's all true.

Never quite heard it put so eloquently    

How ever I do seem to remember a lot of "Oh Gods" during that act, but it didn't mean much to me (although I could say it bordered on a religious expereince )

Most of reality is just plain strange and the only reason we accept it is because we're surrounded by it day in and day out. It would seem strange otherwise.

I don't find "reality" strange at all.  Don't need a religion to deal with or accept it.

Things you don't see every day, continue to seem strange. (Try reading up on quantum physics - it's so odd it sounds like the scientists are kidding.)

Much like some religious concepts

No reason for anyone to build their life on either.

[maxwalrath]

Say a Quaker, for example, lives a wonderful and generous life, is respectful of all people and is very charitable.

Where would this person end up after death, according to most Christian thinking?

[ScottMayo]

While the "definition" of GOD could be a million things, the likelyhood of the game/role playing scenario of parent/child, is beyond probability.

I can't work out what you base these "probabilities" on. You don't seem to use the word as I do. Not only are you trying to talk about probabilities when we're not talking abut something that has repeated identical trials, but you aren't even explaining what the field of possible outcomes is supposed to be. What set of analogies would you *expect* a being like God to use?

Sorry: I've been an engineer for a very long time, and I'm also something of a word-freak. In a discussion like this I'm going to nit-pick. I'm going to demand very precise definitions of words. And since you're misusing this one, I'm going to try to recast your sentence into what I guess you were trying to say:

"Whatever I think God might be, I find it completely unacceptable that he would choose to explain himself as a "parent". That is, the idea of a being who 1) creates and sustains life, 2) provides a moral and ethical framework and 3) lays down the law as needed (at least, that describes my parents, your mileage may vary), is not one I can ascribe to a God - though I don't want to state why this is, or what I think a better paradigm would be."

This looks like an especially weak restatement of Russell's argument against God: in short, it required him to accept things that were outside his daily experience and expectations: what's called an "a priori" rejection, these days. (Hard to imagine what he'd have made of quantum physics.) He decided not to discuss where the universe came from, for example, because it was philosophically inconvenient to come up with useful terms. (Inconvenient to him, anyway.)

Now I'll admit I have known Christians who don't have great love for the parent analogy, either. That is, I've known one, and it turned out he was a victim of parental abuse as a kid and had personal reasons for not wanting to associate God with that. I can certainly understand that.

As for the rest, you seem to have wandered off into some rather odd interpretations of what I tried to say. I pointed to some curious and strange truths about reality, not as some sort of proof of God - I didn't advance one, - but only to show that basing an argument on "but I don't think anything I find strange can be true!" is not any sort of useful argument. There are some arguments against God's existance, but "I just find the idea strange" isn't one that has teeth. The universe doesn't care what you personally find strange about it, and doesn't apologise for itself. Strangeness is a measure of ignorance, not of reality.

[ScottMayo]

The accompanying "morality" that is applied to GOD is simply the extension of "parental" morals and "societal" control mechanisms

I'm going to guess you've never read _Narnia_. So this is likely to mean little to you, but folk who have read it, will probably enjoy the parallel.

'Please it your Grace,' said the Prince, very coldly and politely. 'You see that lamp. It is round and yellow and gives light to the whole room; and hangeth moreover from the roof. Now that thing which we call the sun is like the lamp, only far greater and brighter. It giveth Light to the whole Overworld and hangeth in the sky.'

'Hangeth from what, my lord?' asked the Witch; and then, while they were all still thinking how to answer her, she added, with another of her soft, silver laughs: ' You see ? When you try to think out clearly what this sun must be, you cannot tell me. You can only tell me it is like the lamp. Your sun is a dream; and there is nothing in that dream that was not copied from the lamp. The lamp is the real thing; the sun is but a tale, a children's story.'

'Yes, I see now,' said Jill in a heavy, hopeless tone. 'It must be so.' And while she said this, it seemed to her to be very good sense.

Slowly and gravely the Witch repeated, 'There is no sun.' And they all said nothing. She repeated, in a softer and deeper voice. 'There is no sun' After a pause, and after a struggle in their minds, all four of them said together. 'You are right. There is no sun.' It was such a relief to give in and say it.

'There never was a sun,' said the Witch.

Of course, the witch had seen the sun, many times. But it wasn't quite... philosophically convenient... to say so, when trying to tangle people to her will.

But as John lacks the requisite magic sweet smoke, and at any rate I've smelt my share of burnt Marshwiggle, I'm not impressed with his bald, unsupported assertion.  



---
Lewis used without permission, but 1) He's used to it. 2) He'd approve of the use. 3) He's dead.

[John Casler]

I can't work out what you base these "probabilities" on. You don't seem to use the word as I do. Not only are you trying to talk about probabilities when we're not talking abut something that has repeated identical trials, but you aren't even explaining what the field of possible outcomes is supposed to be. What set of analogies would you *expect* a being like God to use?

Sorry: I've been an engineer for a very long time, and I'm also something of a word-freak. In a discussion like this I'm going to nit-pick. I'm going to demand very precise definitions of words. And since you're misusing this one, I'm going to try to recast your sentence into what I guess you were trying to say: - ...

In the dictionary "probable" means likely.

I said,

While the "definition" of GOD could be a million things, the likelyhood of the game/role playing scenario of parent/child, is beyond probability.

So if the word probability is too much like math, simply change it to:

While the "definition" of GOD could be a million things, the likelyhood of the game/role playing scenario of parent/child, is beyond what I think is probable.

I'm stating that if you started with a "clean slate" (if you could) and ask what a Supreme Being (one of supreme conciousness, intellect, and existence, that would have created infinity) might be, you wouldn't end up with a parent and all this eating flesh, and drinking blood for a Son story.

In fact, since we are talking about a Supreme Being, why would he need, and how would he even "get", a son?

Where is the Supreme wife?  I mean she is left out, and Jesus, God, and THG all have a great time, in their Trinity.

Then we have "all" education and communication done through 2-5000 year old writings, and tales that include people turning to salt, virgin births, burning, talking bushes, pillars of fire leading people through the desert, a flood that covered the world, a boat that carried 2 of every animal, a human that arose from the dead, people walking on water, Playing trumpets to disolve stone walls, getting water from a rock by smiting it with a rod, magically changing water to wine, a Diety who needs to "rest" one day out of 7, snakes talking to humans, a guy who looses his strength with a haircut, the feeding of a huge crowd with a small fish and a loaf of bread, a guy slewing thousands of the enemy with nothing but the jawbone of an ass.  Need I go on?

It is amazingly simple to me, to see that these were a people trying to explain their surroundings and soothe their fear of death, by creating a parental image to what they hoped existed.

Most all ancient peoples did it.

Strangeness is a measure of ignorance, not of reality.

OK, Mister! (word freak)   If you look up "strangeness" in the dictionary, it says not one word about "ignorance".

Strangeness is: the condition of being strange.

Strange is: unexpected or extraordinary

Strange, as I use it, in this case, is making leaps based on no logic or reflection of what happens in the real world.

Ignorance is simply: a lack of knowledge...it is a state of "not knowing".

There is no shame in saying "I don't know".  It is generally preferable to offering or accepting an explanation that has no foundation in reality that we can confirm.

As I mentioned earlier, there are "many" mistaken certainties that we all have.  Testing our awarness everyday, helps reduce them.

 Mistaken Certainties are not knowledge.

I am certainly able to admit that my views may be "mistaken".

But until there is greater awarness, that doesn't take a total leap of blind faith and acceptance of hundreds of inconsistancies, to accept, it seems unlikely that I'll see the "light" you see. (Although I do have to compliment you on your seemingly thorough exploration of your faith)

I doubt Lewis would show me anything new, but am WIDE open to reviewing his thoughts.  You might want to look at "The Blind Watchmaker" and the "Passover Plot", yourself.

I trust you're able to see how many/some might not accept the whole premise?

And to answer Max's question:  Most Quakers end up in Pennsylvania after death.

[ScottMayo]

I'm stating that if you started with a "clean slate" (if you could) and ask what a Supreme Being (one of supreme conciousness, intellect, and existence, that would have created infinity) might be, you wouldn't end up with a parent and all this eating flesh, and drinking blood for a Son story.

Kind of a pointless exercise, isn't it? If there is no God, then making up a more believable story about one isn't helpful. Heck, if there's no God, let's insist that all fictions written about God are firmly impossible, so no one seriously believes them. And if there is a God, then your particular (and I might add, quite meaningless) views about what He "should" or "shouldn't" be like, are irrelevant. Things that are real are real as they are, and what you *think* about it doesn't change that. So either way, why fret about what you'd do if there was a "clean slate"? This is called a philosophically null line of inquiry.

To make my previous point transparent, because you apparently didn't latch on to it last time I tried, let me apply your same approach to something else:

I'm stating that if you started with a "clean slate" (if you could) and ask what physics should say about the properties of the material universe, you wouldn't end up with virtual pairs popping in and out of nothingness, and entangled particles, and matter attracting other matter for absolutely no discernable reason, and massless photons bending in gravity fields despite having no mass.

(If you don't know what these terms mean or why they are strange concepts, two hours in Google will give you a deeper understanding, and probably a massive headache. The quantum world is serious freak-out land.)

See how it works? The claims of physics are pretty damned strange, improbable, fantastic and "unlikely." Not in our expectation-set at all.  Four hundred years ago, if you'd asserted any of these modern claims, people would have been trying to drain the bad humors out of your brain with corkscrews. But eventually we found out these were *all* real and even measurable phenomena: however odd and improbable it seemed, it was reality.

I'm not saying all strange things are automatically true; that would be absurd. I'm asserting that whether something seems strange, unexpected, or even "unlikely" to any given individual has NOTHING to do with whatever it is true or not. Everything was strange to us at one time; we aren't born with much in the way of knowledge about reality.

So if the bulk of your reason for discarding religious claims is that you demand that all of your reality be (to your way of thinking) "probable", then I expect you're going to be denying quantum physics as well. And since that computer you're using (and that gear you sell) is dependent on certain quantum phenomena, well, that could get a little awkward.  

Anyway, I'm still kind of bemused over your hangup with a Father figure in Christianity. One the one hand you're saying it's "improbable" - that you wouldn't have written it that way, though you don't say why. On the other, you're saying that God is just a blown up copy of the concept of earthly parents, and you probably conclude this because both God and parents create life, both God and parents establish moral frameworks, both God and parents generally claim the right of punishment (and if you've raised any children or spun off any universes recently, you'll know why.) All of which makes it a pretty *probable* kind of analogy after all, I'd say - maybe even an inevitable one. (The big surprise is that the father-analogy was such a *late* development - I don't think there is much of it showing up before Isaiah, and it was Jesus who really pushed it.)

The fact that your argument works just as well in reverse - ie, that God patterned human (and musch of animal) life, parenting and all, after the kind of relationship He intends to have with us - apparently didn't occur to you. I mean, I agree that it's unlikely that the concepts of a religious father figure and a biological father figure arose independently of each other, they are just too similiar to be fully independent, but how do *you* know which was patterned off the other?

In fact, since we are talking about a Supreme Being, why would he need, and how would he even "get", a son?

Where is the Supreme wife? I mean she is left out, and Jesus, God, and THG all have a great time, in their Trinity.

What, did Mormons throw rocks at you as a kid, or something? God's not human, and I don't remember Him ever claiming to have a phallus. The Father/Son thing is an analogy, which as you probably know means there are parallels between two ideas, but not exact matches. God claims to be our Father too, and yet I don't believe there are any claims He jumped Eve. If you are looking for that kind of action, you probably want to stick with Greek mythology.

OK, Mister! (word freak)   If you look up "strangeness" in the dictionary, it says not one word about "ignorance".

Yeah, yeah. I think you get the point? Things which are strange to us, and yet true, are only strange to us because we don't fully understand them. When we really understand something, it ceases to seem strange or unlikely.

Did you know that 'gullible' is not in the dictionary?  

Passover plot...

Lewis's apologetics (while informal) are at least somewhat respected by skeptics, and he doesn't overextend his arguments. PP, on the other hand, decides to claim the NT record as reliable enough to make guesses off of, but somehow unreliable everywhere that contradicts the author's pet theory. And what a theory! He goes on to construct this amazing conspiracy theory clique of secret keepers, and weaves together every empty-tomb theory around - all of them discredited and rejected by serious athiest historians, before he'd written his book. It's populist trash, not scholarship. Morison polished off those arguments decades before PP was even written.

If you want a trivial way to knock it all down, try this: The Romans were known to use spears to finish off the lingerers on their crosses. Historical fact - we know their law, and occasional remains have been unearthed which show spear damage in crucifixation victims. Romans, by law, simply didn't release crucified bodies for burial (when they released them at all: usually they let animals eat the remains) until death had been confirmed. They used spears to make sure, because spears are very, very fatal. There is not one bit of historical suggestion that the Romans ever let anybody off a cross alive, not Jesus, not anyone. They either waited until the body was chewed to bits by animals, or they stabbed through the heart. Fatality guaranteed.

And it's not remotely plausable that someone could take a drug and survive the process, anyway. That contradicts what is known about biology. Here's a biologist's view of crucifixation: http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm . It's a little graphic, but it explains why the crucifixation process was so invariably fatal. You died of suffocation and blood loss, and drugs don't prevent that.

So we're asked to believe that Jesus was simultaneously the word's best schemer, and a moron who didn't know Romans invariably confirmed kills on those sentenced to death. We're also asked to believe that his accomplices never admitted to his little scheme, even after it failed, even after decades, even under the ostracism, eventual torture, and death of themselves and their friends. Yeah, right. And you're the one complaining about badly written fiction!

Blind Watchermaker: haven't read it. Don't plan to. I remember reading that Dawkins decided that if it was complex it must be "biological" (using his own definition for this, mind you) in nature , and once you start flinging around a priori claims like that, you might as well write sonatas for the deaf. I get my favorite nonsense from Lewis Carroll and Douglas Adams, whom do you like?

[maxwalrath]

Say a Quaker, for example, lives a wonderful and generous life, is respectful of all people and is very charitable.

Where would this person end up after death, according to most Christian thinking?

bump. I suspect I know the answer, but I'm really not sure. Religion has not been a large part of my life.

[John Casler]

Kind of a pointless exercise, isn't it? If there is no God, then making up a more believable story about one isn't helpful. Heck, if there's no God, let's insist that all fictions written about God are firmly impossible, so no one seriously believes them. And if there is a God, then your particular (and I might add, quite meaningless) views about what He "should" or "shouldn't" be like, are irrelevant.

...

Not pointless at all from my point of view.  See you already think you know the answer, and all that you have studied and absorbed feels right to you and makes sense.

I (and other skeptics) say that all that you have presented does not offer enough info and what info there is, doesn't begin to offer enough perspective to begin to believe.

So I simply ask, what if you didn't have access to this info.  There are plenty of situations where people can't receive (your) the Word.  I say that a Supreme Being, if he felt communication or belief in him important, would certainly offer significantly better opportunities to understand.

The "index finger"extended, one way salute, seems slighty less than adequate.

fictionalJohn wrote:

I'm stating that if you started with a "clean slate" (if you could) and ask what physics should say about the properties of the material universe, you wouldn't end up with virtual pairs popping in and out of nothingness, and entangled particles, and matter attracting other matter for absolutely no discernable reason, and massless photons bending in gravity fields despite having no mass.


(If you don't know what these terms mean or why they are strange concepts, two hours in Google will give you a deeper understanding, and probably a massive headache. The quantum world is serious freak-out land.)

Since I'm not using quantum physics, or big bangs as an argument, the example doesn't relate.

See how it works? The claims of physics are pretty damned strange, improbable, fantastic and "unlikely." Not in our expectation-set at all. Four hundred years ago, if you'd asserted any of these modern claims, people would have been trying to drain the bad humors out of your brain with corkscrews. But eventually we found out these were *all* real and even measurable phenomena: however odd and improbable it seemed, it was reality.

Interestingly enough, basic physics has substantial, repeatable proof, but after thousands of years, this is still offered on faith alone, although thousands, if not millions of attempts have been made to explain or prove such.  Not one has succeeded.  There is probably more paranormal evidence relating to psychic phenomena than religious phenomena.  Rest assured, I have no specific beliefs in this area either.

Anyway, I'm still kind of bemused over your hangup with a Father figure in Christianity. One the one hand you're saying it's "improbable" - that you wouldn't have written it that way, though you don't say why.

I'm not hung up on it, other than to observe that it seems a likely extension of man looking for security and guidance in establishing a diety.

I find the "picture" of God, portrayed by most, or the image they have of him, less than God like.  I wouldn't have written it at all.  

If I were a Supreme Being in this position, I would probably offer "concious understanding" as an inate quality of understanding similar to "natural instincs".  In fact, in my personal religion, that understanding "is" fundemental and pure, without external manifestation.

There is absolutely no reason (other than some type of religious control mechanism) to have this set up as a "believe or rot in hell" scenario.

On the other, you're saying that God is just a blown up copy of the concept of earthly parents, and you probably conclude this because both God and parents create life, both God and parents establish moral frameworks, both God and parents generally claim the right of punishment (and if you've raised any children or spun off any universes recently, you'll know why.) All of which makes it a pretty *probable* kind of analogy after all, I'd say - maybe even an inevitable one. (The big surprise is that the father-analogy was such a *late* development - I don't think there is much of it showing up before Isaiah, and it was Jesus who really pushed it.)

To be sure, the wrathful, vengence bent, Jehovah did get a "make over" when JC arrived He must have softened a bit with age and fatherhood. (please know that I am joking )

The fact that your argument works just as well in reverse - ie, that God patterned human (and musch of animal) life, parenting and all, after the kind of relationship He intends to have with us - apparently didn't occur to you. I mean, I agree that it's unlikely that the concepts of a religious father figure and a biological father figure arose independently of each other, they are just too similiar to be fully independent, but how do *you* know which was patterned off the other?

Interesting premise, if you are looking for a "man creates god, to create man scenario", but I would simply think that a being/entity that is "ALL that was, is or will be", would not have any resemblance to any of us, in any way.

The "god created man in his own image" passage is from a man's pen, not from God.

In my mind we're talking about the "physics of infinity"!!  This does not resemble an earthbound man (in my mind) in any way.

Reducing this to Biology won't work, and in fact, takes even more possibilities out of the whole scheme, due to senses, brain, and individual intellect from comparitive analysis, in a 3-D, time rationed, world of reality.

I am open to the idea that the pre and post "essense" of man is part of this God.  Pre and Post in this example means, before birth and after death.  

Did you ever notice that little attention is given to "where we came from" in religious dogma?

Can you explain that imbalance?  Could it be we didn't need to explain it because we don't fear it?  In my book, the pre and post, are the same place.

Give that one a little thought and see if you have any revelations, since "pre-birth existtance" must have as much importance and "post life".

Did you know that 'gullible' is not in the dictionary?

 

I reserve the right to not comment of who might be gullible in converstions like these.

So we're asked to believe that Jesus was simultaneously the word's best schemer, and a moron who didn't know Romans invariably confirmed kills on those sentenced to death. We're also asked to believe that his accomplices never admitted to his little scheme, even after it failed, even after decades, even under the ostracism, eventual torture, and death of themselves and their friends. Yeah, right. And you're the one complaining about badly written fiction!

Interestingly you go on about how they make sure the crucified were dead, yet you claim an equally implausible story that he was resurrected, the only time in the history of the world.

Since it was 2000 years ago, it seems unlikely we'll ever really know, but to me it doesn't matter.  It only matters to those who feel the need to follow that faith.

Scott, again I say you are a good example of your belief, and I respect that, and trust my "not" beleiving is of no consequence.

If you come to CES, we can have dinner, but chances are, we'll be talking shop and not religion my friend.

Happy Listening Big Guy

[ScottMayo]

I (and other skeptics) say that all that you have presented does not offer enough info and what info there is, doesn't begin to offer enough perspective to begin to believe.

Interesting. What apologetics have you read? You're saying there's no reason to believe; have you read through the reasons that exist? Because I haven't seen any discussion of them here; I've just heard you assert that you expect someone else (God) to do things the way you'd do them, if He exists at all. And that's simply not an argument of any sort.

I find the intellectually honest atheists admit the case for God isn't really all that flimsy, just as the intellectually honest Christians admit to reasonable doubt and abmiguity. It's the real amateur philosophers, who have never looked at either side of the equation, that get dogmatic.

So I simply ask, what if you didn't have access to this info. There are plenty of situations where people can't receive (your) the Word.

Well, I've already suggested _Mere Christianity_. This is exactly what Lewis does. He doesn't start with Bible verses - he starts with what most people believe about human nature and the natural world. This is why I recommend him to non-Christians. He started out as an atheist himself and he knows better than to weigh in, Bible-cannons firing.

Since I'm not using quantum physics, or big bangs as an argument, the example doesn't relate.

Can someone else, if there are any other readers at this point, tell me if I'm really being this unclear? I'm just not getting across my point: that the claim "I wouldn't have done it that way" has nothing to do with whether something is true or false. And you act as if these ideas are somehow connected. The point I'm making has nothing to do with physics, John, I'm using physics as an example of the idea that what is true and what we want to be true or expect to be true can vary - in fact can be expected to vary in any realm outside our immediate experience.




Anyway, I'm still kind of bemused over your hangup with a Father figure in Christianity. One the one hand you're saying it's "improbable" - that you wouldn't have written it that way, though you don't say why.  


I'm not hung up on it, other than to observe that it seems a likely extension of man looking for security and guidance in establishing a diety.

I find the "picture" of God, portrayed by most, or the image they have of him, less than God like. I wouldn't have written it at all.

If I were a Supreme Being in this position, I would probably offer "concious understanding" as an inate quality of understanding similar to "natural instincs".

If this means, "we should have some instinctive sense that there's a larger reality than what we see, that there's something else out there..." well, a LOT of people do. History is full of that conviction. Sometimes a little too full, in my opinion - it can go awry.

In fact, in my personal religion, that understanding "is" fundemental and pure, without external manifestation.

You have a religion? Do tell.

[woodsyi]

Say a Quaker, for example, lives a wonderful and generous life, is respectful of all people and is very charitable.

Where would this person end up after death, according to most Christian thinking?

bump. I suspect I know the answer, but I'm really not sure. Religion has not been a large part of my life.

In the Medieval times, they went to Limbo -- not heaven, not hell, not purgatory.  Church just set them aside until the end of time when JC comes back and offer to take them on if they accept him.  Since Vatican II, Catholic church recognizes men of good standing who never accepted Jesus as the savior.  Karl Rahner devised a scheme commonly known as "anonymous Christian" which states that if a good man (of any faith including none) died and went to heaven, it is because he/she accepted Christ as the savior without knowing it.  This way, the Christological requirement for salvation still applies to everyone.  Gandhi would be a prime example.  Dalai Lamas would qualify.  It doesn't matter if they cared or not -- the Church will proclaim you Christian if you were good.  So John Casler, you may be a Christian and you don't even know it!  Some Protestants tacitly go with this and some don't.

[ScottMayo]

In the Medieval times, they went to Limbo -- not heaven, not hell, not purgatory.  Church just set them aside until the end of time when JC comes back and offer to take them on if they accept him.  Since Vatican II, Catholic church recognizes men of good standing who never accepted Jesus as the savior.  Karl Rahner devised a scheme commonly known as "anonymous Christian" which states that if a good man (of any faith including none) died and went to heaven, it is because he/she accepted Christ as the savior  ...

This is what I mean about the recent accretions of theology. People who (in theory) accept the idea of relevation, should know better than to make up answers on the fly.

Paul, moderately well known New Testament writer, was the one who mentioned the "spiritual escape clause" for people who had never even heard of Jesus. It wasn't a late invention and I don't think the Catholic church gets to claim it as their own (well, except in that they claim everything, but that's why I think they're so adorable.   )

But folk who have heard the gospel and made the decision to reject it are very definitely not in that category. I've seen nothing to indicate that John, for example, really has any clear idea what the gospel teaches - mostly he's offered up some barbs at inerrantism - but if in fact he does get it, and has decided he's not having any, than I don't think we'll be seeing him in heaven, no matter how good his audio deals are. You lie in the bed you make.

Somewhere above I asked him to detail up what he does believe. So perhaps we'll see.

[woodsyi]

But folk who have heard the gospel and made the decision to reject it are very definitely not in that category.

There are are GOOD people who have heard the (Christian) gospel,  have not rejected the validity of it's claim for its adherants but chose to go or stay in other GOOD ways.  Your position condamns these folks, not that they care. These are the folks who would be covered by "anonymous Christian"  interpretation of the Catholic church.   It's an admirable effort even if a little presumptuous.  The world would be a better place if exclusivity was left out of religious doctrines.

[woodsyi]

accept the idea of relevation

I accept!

[ScottMayo]

There are are GOOD people who have heard the (Christian) gospel,  have not rejected the validity of it's claim for its adherants but chose to go or stay in other GOOD ways.  

OK, let's deconstruct this.

First of all, what's a "good" person? Presumably someone who doesn't do evil things, right? So if we toss together a list of what's considered evil (let's go for a consensus position and just use the "behaviour" parts of Ten Commandments as our metric), and if you keep clean on those, we'll call you good. Sound fair?

Now... know anyone who qualifies?

I mean, there's "bear false witness". Even lied about anyone? How about theft. Do you have a perfectly clean claim to everything you've ever owned? Most people I know have been a little "off" on these two, and they are the easy ones. Now fast forward to Jesus, who claimed that thinking about adultery was, morally speaking, not different than doing it. I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I'm nailed on that one alone.

The usual response is "oh, yeah, but everyone does that stuff". Yup, I expect everyone does. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with whether it's right or good; there's no evidence that morality is relative, let alone relative to varying human standards. Instead, you get David saying "No one is 'good', not even one."

Sure, our slips-ups don't look so bad from a human perspective, but let's keep in mind what the human perspective is. We're the species that brought the universe such shining moral activities as slavery, gas chambers, economic-based genocide, rape, and torture. As a species, we're so greedily shortsighted that we're overheating the whole planet; we're so depraved that we think Grand Theft Auto is entertainment. I mean, frankly, wtf(1)? A species that has ever tolerated that sort of behaviour loses the right to call itself a moral authority. So who are you calling "good", and using what measurement?

To be honest, the whole "good people" mythology blows me away. I know Catholics (not the theologians, they know better, but the lay teachers and popular writers) have been touting this whole "be good and you'll go to heaven" sthick. It's solid crap. Yes, it works if you *can* be good, but no one manages that. It's like saying "if you want to be rich, turn yourself into gold". It's useless advice.

The fact is, the gospel (which means "good news") starts with a piece of bad news. It starts from a claim: "you're not perfect, you're not even what *you* consider good, let alone with God thinks is good, and if you are honest with yourself for two minutes, you know this very well."

Only then does the good news kick in: "God knows your situation, He isn't abandoning you, and has laid down a way to make you, if not good, then forgiven, and, slowly, better. The Get Out Of Jail Free card is right here on the table. Free means you don't pay. Payment's taken care of."

Of course... not many people want to be honest enough with themselves to face the question of what good means. It's a lot easier to decide there is no God, there is no absolute standard, and that it doesn't really matter what happens, especially not last night with Susan, or at work when the boss's back was turned, or what I was thinking when my wife complained about the mess I made. It's a wonderfully simplifying assumption and it definitely makes for a less complex life. It just happens to be incorrect, like most simplifying assumptions.

Secondly, you write "people who have heard the (Christian) gospel,  have not rejected the validity of it's claim for its adherants but chose to go or stay in other GOOD ways". Well, the first claim of those adherents, is that God is God of everyone, and His demands are universal to all humanity. The demands of God are not, as far as I know, "if you are Christian you have to be good this way, and if you're something else you can be good that way instead."

Instead they seem to be "This is my world you're living on, and if you live here, you're expected to be good, by my standards, no matter who you are or what you think you believe. When you screw it up, I have this thing people call Christianity - a way to get your sins scraped off so you can get back to a relationship with Me. Got it?"

Christianity can do nothing about the fact that it's an either-or, exclusive religion. Either it sticks to Jesus's teaching - and these are hopelessly exclusive, you have Him baldly saying that "no man comes to the Father except by Me" - or it isn't Christianity.

Older Christian writers faced this dead on. There is an old expression, "the offense of the cross", which sums up the fact that Christianity makes demands which are flat-out offensive. It demands that people are sinful, it demands that there is a price to be paid for that, and it lays down a non-negotiable cure for the problem which, frankly, costs a little in the pride department. It takes a high degree of impassive, determined bravery - plain old guts - to face these claims straight on, evaluate them, and either buy in, or spit on them. (Some people spit by closing their eyes, creeping off and hoping no one notices, but it's the same thing in the end.) There's not much in the way of middle ground.

I'm reminded of my daughter's room. It's frequently a mess. Enough of a mess that sometimes she can't quickly find her diabetes supplies, which is a dangerous state of affairs for a diabetic.

So I go and say "I want this room cleaned up."

"Why?"

"Let me think... It's not good for you, it looks and smells bad, and frankly this is my house and I don't like it?"

"How about if I wash the dishes?"

"Feel free. Right after this room is clean."

"Or if I sing for you?"

"No thanks, it's hard to sing well when you're pushing a vaccuum."

"And I was about to go visit some friends..."

"Great. I'm a big fan of social interaction. When they call, I'll let them know why you're delayed. Now, do you remember how to plug in the vaccuum?"

If you're a parent, you know this drill. Rebellion is a normal part of being a teen. It's not always bad - but in some cases it's stupid and if you make a determined career out of it, it can be fatal. My daughter is bright enough to try to negotiate my demands - which is why, in the end, I learned to cut off negotiations and just stick to mandates, when it mattered.

God, apparently, was way ahead of me on that one.



(1) What Total Fantasy, if you were wondering.