Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[fuddam]

No, your wrong here. I reject all of it as I have told you and I reject it because it makes no sense, is beyond reason, its implausible, illogical and totally without evidence.

let me clarify:
1) the very IDEA of an omnipotent God who asks for our surrender to Him irks the human spirit
2) even if He appeared in an undeniable way (eg the entire planet saw Him striding across the plains 1000ft tall, you could touch/feel/see Him etc), that does not imply people would accept Him.
I was not trying to say the simple reason people are (eg) atheist is because they don't like submitting.

I really am not sure where to start with this one.. So if you believe it all, the whole talking snakes bit, virgin birth, fire and brimstone ending, your just religious and not a real Christian like you?

1) Christianity is about a relationship with God, not simply believing He exists and He is who He says He is.
2) Even believing all the claims of God does not imply ACCEPTANCE of Him - the giving of your permission for Him to enter one's life/heart etc. Fundamental point, that.
After all, the most ardent believer but non-accepter would be satan.

I think we covered this sometime back and if I recall correctly I got you to concede that the voice in your head could in fact be a figment of your imagination. When we consider how many well known Christians (Mother Theresa would be a great example here) battled with the fact that they never got a sign from god and never heard him in their heads it makes your claim sound simply like a mental health issue.

lol. everyone has to concede that anything they believe could simply be a figment of their imagination, so no point there.
Prove that your entire life isn't just a dream - can't.
Prove that we aren't all the fiction of some other being - can't.
Prove anything you see/feel/touch/hear to be objectively real - can't.
Ok, so without getting ridiculous, from my own POV, I have this Voice. I learnt *of* the existence of the Voice via 3rd parties, ie not of my own making. I learnt *about* the Voice through a combination of own experience and 3rd party contribution (ie Bible, other Christians etc). That Voice has proved consistent, coherent, and effective, again internally and externally.
From your POV, all the millions of Christians are suffering from a global form of misperception/delusion/hysteria. That's fine. Can't argue with that position, but equally you CANNOT claim it's bogus - where's your proof? All you have is your opinion.

Re: Mother Theresa - would like to know more, if you please, purely for curiosity's sake.

Well I might come back to this later with some quotes from some prominent Christians who disagree with you.

yes please - curiosity

You seem to assume that these other people (like the guy in the video I linked) simply didn't open their minds or hearts or some other vague metaphor for 'abandon all reason' enough to hear him. Maybe those people really did open up and listen and really, in fact all they got was a deafening silence. Maybe your on your own here hearing things in your head, did you ever wonder 'what if I am wrong, what if I am nuts?'

Assumption on your part, and assumption on my part (as to his experience). God is not this non-stop jabber going on in my head. Sometimes He is quiet, sometimes He uses other means to communicate, but the point is, anyone with half a brain has to consider their own subjectivity at some point. Of course I have. Then I remember the amazing things I have seen Him do, both in my life and that of countless others, and on the balance of it all, it would be illogical to dismiss it casually.

[quote]
Well, clearly I reject all of it because there is a simpler explanation for it than 'it was a miracle'. I.e the writer was lying. [/url] nice. tight argument, that one.

Il reiterate a point made by a previous poster here. Just because the new series of 24 might show Gordon Brown as prime minister of the UK in it does not mean that the events depicted in the show are real or even plausible.

agreed. totally agreed.

Finding historical corroboration for the existence of Biblical claims / figures / facts does not prove God's existence at all. BUT it does make interesting reading when put up against the common charges of the Bible being purely mythological, fallacious, untrustworthy etc. Even if we could practically demonstrate every occurrence in the Bible has a secular verification (eg the 10 plagues of Moses), that would not prove God's existence, or that Christ was who He claimed to be. Sure.

[fuddam]

They may agree on fundamentals, but christianity is still least internally coherent religion I can think of.

sure. from your position, since you haven't spent the time digging deep enough.

Even Hinduism, with it's thousands of gods, is still more coherent. Followers of different gods within hinduism don't dispute the beliefs of others.

don't call on hinduism, please. It is famous for being all inclusive, i.e. let's all be friends and not argue over differences. Unfortunately this doesn't gel very well with a pursuit of truth. Not all beliefs can be true, if they contradict.

If volume of scripture relates to the quality of a religion, then scientology easily beats christianity. The reality is any religion which relies on faith is equally invalid, no matter how vehemently - or verbosely - you try to defend it.

agreed, if it were purely about faith.
unfortunately for you, Christianity is not purely about faith, it is not about BLIND faith. It is not like the FSM.

[TheAnimus]

agreed, if it were purely about faith.
unfortunately for you, Christianity is not purely about faith, it is not about BLIND faith. It is not like the FSM.

How is it not as blind as the FSM, because you hear voices?

What if i heard the voice of the FSM?

[directhex]

How is it not as blind as the FSM, because you hear voices?

What if i heard the voice of the FSM?

i've been touched by his noodly appendage

[Bazzlad]

How is it not as blind as the FSM, because you hear voices?

What if i heard the voice of the FSM?

I'd recommend Diazepam.

[G4Z]

Fuddam, after her death it came to light that Mother Theresa battled with faith her whole life and never heard the voice of god. I am sure there are a lot of articles out there about this but I found this one on time.com which I thought might interest you : Mother Teresa's Crisis of Faith - TIME

[MadduckUK]

Jesus fanfiction > your religion

[fuddam]

I was once visited by some Jehovah's Witnesses. One of the things they said to me was that people told them that the bible contradicted itself but that they believed that in fact it didn't. I replied that unfortunately it does and I could provide the evidence. Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine of Aragon drew directly on contradictions between Deuteronomy and Leviticus - one said you should marry your brother's widow, the other said doing so was 'unclean.' Sounds like a contradiction to me.

sure, it SOUNDS like a contradiction. A little more digging brings up the following:
BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered - covers 143 supposed contradictions in the Bible.
specifically: BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered
further, any translation I can find does not mention 'widow' in the Leviticus verse: BibleGateway.com - Passage Lookup: Leviticus 20:21;

The whole virgin birth thing is also problematic. Do you, for example, believe Christ was born to virgin in a stable

yes

on December 25th?

no

The point is, where do you think the word of the bible became fixed?

see my previous posts on that, in this thread. immediately fixed.

As Dawkins pointed out in his excellent series on atheism the Church has scripture and tradition and the latter tends not to be based on the former at all. Look at the virtual worship of Mary by the Catholic Church and all of the things associated with her.

which is *exactly* why one always has to go back to the scripture. relying on tradition is very dangerous. It's also why God gave us a scripture.

As the others have said, just because a figure appears in the bible and is historically real it does not mean it's a reliable source per se.

agreed.

There are also good theories (one supported by Islamic sources, I might add) that Christ was in fact a Buddhist teacher, survived the crucifixion (the biblical sources agree Christ's time on the cross was unusually short) and died an old man in Kashmir (where there were Jewish settlers) do a search on Issa/Yuz Asaf.

if you look for reliable sources, one has to measure them against history. Islamic sources are notoriously weak. The muslim canon was only formalised in the 20th century, 1300 years after Mohammed! Second, there are many gnostic sources (as were used in Da Vinci for example) which make many extraordinary claims about Christ, but that is just like the web today.
third, that was the reason for the spear, blood and water etc, on the cross - proof of death. That brings us back to reliability of the Biblical account, and short of finding a secular document from the very soldier who did the spearing, is unlikely ever to be verified - esp since all documents written on papyrus in those days, and thus very rarely survive.

If you try to justify the bible or a religion through historiography alone - or in a greater part - then you are on very shaky ground, I'm afraid (and this is something I feel qualified to talk about, as an historian.) The documentary evidence for the existence of Christ is very, very weak. Josephus' mention of him is now agreed by all serious scholars to have been a later addition and good biblical scholars will also tell you the early gospels were morphic in nature and subject to a deal of additions/rewrites.

um........I happen to know, personally, some of the best Biblical scholars on the planet. Through the work I do. Would like to hear your sources, since they don't agree with my sources. No morphing, no additions / rewrites etc.

agreed that purely historical justification would be insufficient, but have said so since you posted.

[fuddam]

Fuddam, could I ask for you to comment on this please? (All other input will be gratefully recieved). As a non Christian, I am interested as to what you believe God will make of me. Like G4Z, I've tried to lead a good life, respect my fellow humans and help others if possible.

Do you believe he will hate me because I do not spend my life worshiping him? Or do you think that even if I lead a good life (minus religion) he wont accept me? Is it the case that the only way into Heaven (if you believe in this) is via a life of religious beliefs?

okey dokey

1) God does not hate people. Ever. Not one. (John 3:16, 1 John 4:19,
2) 'good' is subjective if non-scriptural. It is contextually bound, historically & culturally. Dangerous ground.
3) Nonetheless, I trust your perception of your life
4) however, Christianity is not about earning one's salvation / doing good. It is receiving salvation free of charge that was made possible through Christ's death on the cross, by accepting Christ into one's life. (Titus 3:5 amongst many others)

the problem with sin is that people like to quantify it:
eg I hardly do anything wrong, I am not a murderer, a thief, a rapist etc.
God does not quantify sin. It does not matter how big or small, SIN SEPARATES US FROM GOD.

Imagine a groom waiting for his bride. She is wearing a fantastic dress - the best you've ever seen. BUT there is one small black spot on the dress. A stain. Would that be acceptable? No, you'd want it cleaned.

God's holiness is something largely misunderstood in contemporary secular society. And I mean that in purely theoretical terms, let alone from a Christian POV.

God does NOT hate man. Never had, never will. However, such is His holiness, He cannot tolerate sin. At all. At the same time, He knows mankind will sin - such is our nature, whether you want to consider it from original sin or personal sin. So, He gives us a free pass to escape it.

After all, right from Genesis, God desires relationship with us. He wants to give us the world, but we reject it, and suffer the consequences (i.e. experience life without God's control).

We cannot enter into God's presence with the smallest stain on our being. He gives us the free miracle cure to get rid of it. why? Because He loves us. Simple.

No matter what you have done, no matter whether you have killed a thousand people or only ever been selfish about your needs over others, He accepts you. Fact. He accepts you now, already. But do you accept Him? THAT is the question. IF you do, He will clean you, and welcome you to join Him. Fact.

That is why Christ is the only way to God - it's only through His death on the cross that our sins can be cleansed. Not through some claims by other people (eg Mohammed, or Buddha or Confucious etc) or beliefs (Islam, or Judaism, or JW's, or Taoism or Hinduism etc).

God is a JUST god. He will never ever condemn someone for ignorance (unlike the local/UK law, where ignorance is no excuse).
Here is a radical answer: God wants all people. All. He gets NO pleasure from the death of sinners (Ezekiel 33:11)
As such, He will make it possible for ALL people to know of Him. How? Not my problem, but I have seen it happen / heard of it countless ways in my limited experience.
Right now, for example, in my crude fashion, you are hearing about Him.


HTH, at least clear up some misconceptions.

[fuddam]

...once you die and accept God, all your love if for Him and only Him, no longer for your partner.

correct in that you will no longer be married to anyone in heaven BUT we still have relationship in heaven. We are not there in solitude, individually, with God. We are there in joyous celebration WITH others.

[fuddam]

All those things that you should or shouldn't do. Do it or be smited, don't do it and be smited. Those are for the stupid people....

just wish to point out that so far as Christianity goes, it is NOT about rules and regulations for rules sake. It is about learning what is best in order to live a holy (and thus happy) life.

I continually instruct my children not to fight / be greedy / steal / lie etc. Why? For their own good. I know what is right for them.

God knows what works for us, and what doesn't. So He gives us an instruction book, to HELP us. He is a father.

[fuddam]

I'd also like to put forward a question.

I believe fuddam said that to be christian, you have to talk to God in some way. You have to communicate with him. If this is true, then how come so many christians interpret the bible in different ways? Is the way that fuddam interprets it the only correct way (because he speaks to god), or is god either not talking about that subject for some reason, or telling different people different stories?

simple answer: because we are human, and subject to unique experience of life, we will see things differently. So we interpret the Bible differently

However, there are certain areas which are more prone to intepretation, and others less open to such. Eg, across all the Christian denominations, there is a uniformity on fundamentals: who God is, who we are in relation to God, who Christ is, how and why He died for us, the redemption from sin, the trinity.

Anyone who disagrees with the above is not Christian. They are something else (eg the Mormons, JW's etc) but not Christian.

Another POV: we are imperfect beings trying to understand a perfect truth. We cannot get it right all the time. We cannot claim to have the perfect answer. Which human would you seriously trust to have perfect knowledge on any subject, eh? None, right.

The subjective element is actually good It keeps us humble. In all spheres of life - well, it should.
Knowing I am fallable keeps me reliant on God for guidance, keeps me from arrogance (in theory), keeps me from being judgmental (in theory) - it is the cornerstone of why we cannot judge others. In essence, we are freed from that burden - hah! I love it. It means there is always another way to look at things, more to learn, more to understand, a reason to recognise the opinions of others etc.

[fuddam]

As for the going to hell if you don't believe card, well that's one played by a fair few religious types. I've had this argument with a number of them and when I said "So Ghandi is burning in hell?" they've either dodged the question or said yes because he had access to the Truth and didn't take it. What about all those people born before the bible was widely available? Before it was rendered into the vernacular and thus understandable to the common man? People from every other faith will be burning too? Clearly, it's cobblers.

clearly the reply you received was cobblers

A good friend of the family became a priest and he used to quote something from the bible that all lost sheep will be gathered into the fold by the end of things. He was quite sure that all went to God in the end, just that his lot probably had the more direct route. I believe St Jerome taught something similar that if a man has a much loved coat that needs patching then he doesn't throw it away.

a comfortable idea, but unfortunately not supported by scripture.
As for what Jerome said, one would have to look for scriptural support of whatever anyone claims / preaches.
Also, what kind of God would He be to ignore a decision that rejects him? If people do not want Him, He accepts that, no matter how much it grieves Him.

I try to live my life in a moral and pleasant way and treat others as I'd wish to be treated myself. I try though I often fail (especially when driving). I think all the great faiths have a similar tenet but I don't think you need a faith or a religion for that.

Yep, as there is truth in the world, it will emerge, but that does not mean all perceptions will get the whole picture. If they contradict, stands to reason that not all can be right (or all could be wrong, from a skeptic's POV).

I was reading Bernard Cornwell's Swordsong recently and the central character (who's a pagan) says he'd rather burn for all eternity than share paradise with the judgemental, holier-than-thou types who're telling him he's destined for hell fire. Quite.

agreed. anyone being holier than thou has kinda missed the boat on 'thy shalt not judge', wot. Where's the love?

[pollaxe]

Thanks for the reply - I hope to provide a detailed response during my lunchbreak.

edit nope it's going to have to wait a bit longer. Bloody work.

[LWA]

okey dokey

<snip>

HTH, at least clear up some misconceptions.

Thanks Fuddam.

So to sum up: (and please correct me if I'm wrong)

You believe I (as a non religious individual) will be accepted by God. This then leads to the question, "If God accepts you without worship/religion, why do it?". To which, as far as I understand it, you believe you gain the ability to converse with the almighty and through that you gain a unique understanding on life.

Very interesting topic, thanks again all.

[fuddam]

Fuddam, after her death it came to light that Mother Theresa battled with faith her whole life and never heard the voice of god. I am sure there are a lot of articles out there about this but I found this one on time.com which I thought might interest you : Mother Teresa's Crisis of Faith - TIME

yep, interesting article. Had heard about her crisis of faith before but not the details

well, as to her particular situ, I have no answer. Mine not to reason why.

another consideration: when one first becomes a Christian, there is often a joyous, ecstatic celebration within. Much like a marriage - the wedding part. All about feelings. Then, as the relationship matures, understanding develops, trust, etc. Joy remains, but it matures.

The point is that some Christians claim, sometimes, that they can't 'feel' Christ as much as they used to. The problem with relying purely on feelings is what children do, not adults. When we are children, we are fed on milk, but as grow, we eat adult food. So it is with Christian growth.

Job, when he was going through his trials, but surely not have felt too good. It would have been easy for him to say "where is God, he has left me, why has he left me? etc" but instead he soldiered on. He knew God from before the trials, he already had trust built, which enabled him to endure the hardships. If he had died during his trials, it would not have changed his perception of God.

The dark night of the soul is something all mature christians of my experience have been through. Not necessarily only once, either. But, that is not to diminish the truth of their prior experience. It sounds crazy to me that Teresa went through so many years struggling with this problem. Did it cause her to lose faith in Christ? Did it cause her to reject Him? Nope.