Why I am not a Christian

[Whaleboy]

Bayraven, I like you, you have a good way of putting your point across and you have some humility which is sorely lacking around here, so I'll give you some advice. The ability to reason and intellectualise our arguments is a useful skill, but like all skills and ideas it has it's limits. You remember what I said about faith and reason being contradictory? Well faith has a place too for some people, and as long as that faith doesn't make scientific pretensions, or claim that God objectively exists (which is completely different to the statement "God exists for me"), then all is good, indeed it is perfectly possible to concur with the atheist argument and hold that God exists for you... so the two positions aren't completely opposed . That's obviously just my opinion but then that goes for everything in all matters, I hope it's some help.

Obviously I'm all for taking the bible with a pinch of salt and interpreting it ones own way and not taking it literally.

[Berzerker]

WB

But is not that part usually taken figuratively, judging ones own life and actions but not anothers?

No, judging yourself and repenting before judging others, The passage does not prohibit judging, it condemns hypocrites for judging others. This is what Jesus repeatedly faced, people with ulterior motives and not genuine concern or inquisitiveness criticising him. It was the message he had for the people challenging him on what to do with the adulteress - let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

But this raises another difficult question for Christians, if only Jesus was/is sinless, how can anyone but Jesus judge and punish adulterers or other sinners? We are not without sin and I suspect those who are (Jesus?) would be very forgiving of sinners given how that comprises humanity. So how do sinful Christians "cast stones" in the name of Jesus? But this again has nothing to do with the wisdom of Jesus, only the adherence to his teachings by those claiming to be Christians.

My grandfather and Russell knew each other in the 40's and 50's, not closely of course, but my grandfathers memoirs state that he was a capable biblical scholar, and I have no reason to doubt that assessment.

I do have reason to doubt, Russell butchered the "don't judge" passage and a man of his intellect should not have done so. Frankly, I was stunned when I read Russell's analysis of that passage. And then he followed that up with the parable of the fig tree when it clearly has some deeper meaning other than some guy getting mad at a tree for not flowering out of season.

[Whaleboy]

But this raises another difficult question for Christians, if only Jesus was/is sinless, how can anyone but Jesus judge and punish adulterers or other sinners? We are not without sin and I suspect those who are (Jesus?) would be very forgiving of sinners given how that comprises humanity. So how do sinful Christians "cast stones" in the name of Jesus? But this again has nothing to do with the wisdom of Jesus, only the adherence to his teachings by those claiming to be Christians.

Do you not consider the topic of the sins of Jesus an acceptable point for discussion?

Consider in Russells case that he was speaking in 1927, and while I'm not massively familiar with the passages concerned I know that interpretations do change, it is in Russells character to be read of the subject and specifically the common interpretations of the piece at hand.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by BeBro

Rumours are not all atheists are "complacent", while on the other hand that description might fit for some religious people as well.....

Absolutely.

Anyone who's read any Victorian fiction, from Charles Dickens, through Antony Trollope, from George Eliot to Samuel Butler, will recognise the smug complacent religionista safe in the knowledge that the great almighty doom wielding Nobodaddy is on THEIR side.


I wonder how many atheists Elok knows, as opposed to presumes to know?- he clearly knows very little about my views on life, morality, or helping my fellow humans.

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Do you not consider the topic of the sins of Jesus an acceptable point for discussion?

the question is not to me but i wanna swing at it. Jesus said we (disciples) should go forth and and tell about Him and about what happened to Him [i'm not quoting intentionally]. One of the things about Him was a sinless nature. to discuss this begs the question- did he sin, so discussion is neccessary.
If your question is 'should Christians consider the possibility that He, in fact, was not sinless' then the answer is no.
Snowflake nailed this earlier in a response to a previous post (sorry i forgot who) that all good people go to heaven. A Christian can't say that. There is no point in the sacrifice if it wasn't NECCESSARY for redemption.

[Berzerker]

WB

Do you not consider the topic of the sins of Jesus an acceptable point for discussion?

Sure, I'm not a Christian so I'll claim a certain "objectivity". I agree with Russell on the whole "demons into pigs" thing, if that happened as described then Peta and I have a bone to pick with Jesus. But maybe this "omnipotence" ain't really as advertised. Just about every Bible scholar will argue that God created the universe according to Genesis but I don't see proof of that in Genesis, so when someone claims the biblical deity is all-knowing or all-powerful I need all the evidence to the contrary refuted.

Consider in Russells case that he was speaking in 1927, and while I'm not massively familiar with the passages concerned I know that interpretations do change, it is in Russells character to be read of the subject and specifically the common interpretations of the piece at hand.

That passage has not acquired a new meaning in the past few decades. "Judge not" is cited by people who get tired of judgemental Christians, but just as they ignore the context, many Christians ignore that Jesus included them among the hypocrites.

[bayraven]

Nobodaddy?

[Whaleboy]

But maybe this "omnipotence" ain't really as advertised. Just about every Bible scholar will argue that God created the universe according to Genesis but I don't see proof of that in Genesis, so when someone claims the biblical deity is all-knowing or all-powerful I need all the evidence to the contrary refuted.

True, I suppose that's a good point, the difference between belief/theism and the bible literature... that ones own belief in god or conception of, say, the soul or hell, may be 95% that of the bible but that 5% difference is always an interesting one.

That passage has not acquired a new meaning in the past few decades. "Judge not" is cited by people who get tired of judgemental Christians, but just as they ignore the context, many Christians ignore that Jesus included them among the hypocrites.

Poor kid'd be turning in his grave . But seriously I agree latterly, and you raise a good point that Christians do not have a monopoly on Jesus.

the question is not to me but i wanna swing at it. Jesus said we (disciples) should go forth and and tell about Him and about what happened to Him [i'm not quoting intentionally]. One of the things about Him was a sinless nature. to discuss this begs the question- did he sin, so discussion is neccessary

Agreed. To start of course one would need to decide Sin, which is one hell of a debate in itself.

If your question is 'should Christians consider the possibility that He, in fact, was not sinless' then the answer is no.
Snowflake nailed this earlier in a response to a Christian's post (sorry i forgot who) that all good people go to heaven. A Christian can say that. There is no point in the sacrifice if it wasn't NECCESSARY for redemption.

Ah again related to the "good people" problem, especially relative to "God's eye view" as we see it, and problems with how we might see it. Who wants to start?

[bayraven]

way off-off topic:
what is poly, pbem and pwns?

[Whaleboy]

Poly = short for Apolyton
pwns = owns... owning = completely routing or humiliating someone

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by bayraven
Nobodaddy?

Indeed. Not my term, but a useful one nonetheless:

'The mystic, William Blake, called this God of the religionists “Nobodaddy” – nobody’s father - and mystics, whatever their tradition, refuse to worship, or even to believe in, such a partisan creation of the disordered human mind, and it is probably for this reason that they have been, and are, viewed with suspicion by orthodoxy.'

http://www.unitarianchurchdublin.org/sermons/sermon5b.htm

[Last Conformist]

PBEM=Play By E-Mail (kind of multiplayer format for turn-based games)

[Elok]

Originally posted by Snowflake
I'm not sure of the five-year-old map thing. If the child does not know the right direction of the destination, his map can only confuse you more. The key of the issue is not how well the theology each religion has, it is whether a religion leads to the final right destination.

The little I know about Christian, for example, says that it doesn't matter even if you do all the right/good things a Christian believes, as long as you don't believe in Jesus, you are not going to be saved. Is it not true?

Orthodoxy's position, and mine, is that it's not for us to say who's going to heaven and who isn't. It's called Judgment Day after God's judgment, not ours. Our position is faith justified through works, so I guess you'd say that having the right intentions and acting on them to the best of your ability is the important thing from my POV. Most of the "maps" seem to be pointing in the same general direction: abandon wordliness, throw aside pride, turn right at the know yourself, etc. That's got to be worth something.

BeBro: I think atheism is often symptomatic of a failure, or a refusal, to see evil in the world as it really is. Earthquakes and such happen, yes, but much of the troubles of the world are caused by people, to people. We either hate each other or can't be bothered to prevent it. And that springs from within the character of every human. The original Greek phrase for sin is etymologically similar to "missing the mark."

When it is said that nobody is without sin, the meaning is not that we're all overblown cartoon supervillains who want to eat puppies alive, but that there's something within us all that doesn't care what happens, something mad and cruel and selfish. Too often we listen to it. But in a godless worldview-every godless worldview I've heard of-the problem is ignored entirely. People either call our problems a necessary evil or else shrug and say there's nothing to be done about it, it's just human nature. If it is human nature, we need to try to stop being human, because our natural human nature is killing us.

Or worse yet, we blame evil on ideology. That's the most popular delusion that I've seen. Problems are caused by people believing the wrong thing, and if we had a different, more perfect set of ideals, things would be better. The most frequent scapegoat on Poly is Religious Fanaticism. Also favored among various factions are America-Haters, Communists, Libertarians, and Corporate Fat Cats. We firmly believe that catastrophes come about from flawed personal philosophies, even while we propound the completely incompatible belief that zealots, crusaders and assassins are just doing what they want and using their beliefs to justify their actions.

The French Revolution is to me the best example of why this manner of thinking is stupid. It was the first documented religious war without any kind of religion. They had show trials and executions in the name of no doctrine beyond a basic commitment to liberty, fraternity, and equality. The problem isn't some belief, or even lack of it, but that people themselves are freaking nuts.

And I've never met an atheist who really seemed to understand what I was talking about when I said that. They all seemed to think that scientific progress or a stronger commitment to democracy could compensate for human weakness. I've met religious people who are stupid that way too, only their answer is for everybody to take a loyalty pledge to Jesus, give a televangelist a check, and have a big slice of American apple pie. Different kind of stupid, but they're basically culturally biased pseudo-pagans in my book. They believe in magic. But there are some who actually know what they say when they tell you they believe, and I'm on their side.

I mentioned Kuci just because he's the exception I've found. I don't understand what makes him tick, but he appears, just based on my limited impression of him, to both refuse to believe in God and to understand that the emperor has no clothes. But of course I don't know him that well.

[GePap]

I am not Christian because I do not believe Jesus of nazareth was the Messiah, the annnoited one, nor do I believe he was born from a virgin mother, or that he resurrected after being crucified.

Its rather simple.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Elok


Orthodoxy's position, and mine, is that it's not for us to say who's going to heaven and who isn't. It's called Judgment Day after God's judgment, not ours. Our position is faith justified through works, so I guess you'd say that having the right intentions and acting on them to the best of your ability is the important thing from my POV. Most of the "maps" seem to be pointing in the same general direction: abandon wordliness, throw aside pride, turn right at the know yourself, etc. That's got to be worth something.

Why would one need a religion to have the right intentions and act to the best of his ability? Why couldn't people without a religious belief abandon wordliness, throw aside pride, turn right at the know yourself, etc, using your own words? Do you really have to belive in a supreme being or some supreme beings for you to behave or do things that you believe to be good?