(May 11, 2023 at 7:09 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(May 5, 2023 at 11:37 pm)Astreja Wrote: No church or community is "right" if the religion itself is nonsense.  I'm not going to waste my time hanging out with people who believe in things like Original Sin, resurrection, heaven and hell.

(May 11, 2023 at 1:15 pm)Kingpin Wrote: Interesting.  May I ask why exactly?

First of all, I would feel completely out of a place in a group of people who believe things that I think are ridiculous, unless they're deliberately playing a fun game (for example, engaging in science fiction/fantasy cosplay, dressing up as their favourite characters).

Secondly, here's a breakdown of the elements of Christian belief that I find intolerable and unacceptable:

• Original Sin:  Supposedly humanity inherited bad behaviour from Adam and Eve - two obviously mythical proto-humans.  I believe strongly in original neutrality, with no bias towards good or evil until the reasoning faculties of the brain are capable of making an informed choice on how to behave.
  
• Resurrection:  From a medical point of view, utterly preposterous and totally lacking in evidence.  Discarded as obvious mythology, and not even original mythology, as "god-man comes back to life" is a very common mythological trope in ancient religions.
  
• Heaven and hell:  I believe both to be literally impossible.  I do not believe in life after death, and have no desire to live forever anywhere.  Furthermore, I am of the opinion that any god that would deliberately create a place of eternal torment is insane and cannot be trusted to do the right thing, particularly not over an eternal timespan.  If a hell did exist, not even the most devout believer would be safe for long.
  

I'd also like to add to the above the utter repugnance of substitutionary atonement.  I believe that it is craven and irresponsible to acquiesce to Jesus (or anyone else) dying in one's place, and reject "salvation" unconditionally.

Thank you for the response.  I understand the "out of place" comment.  Now I have some follow ups:

1.  Original sin - Do your feel good/evil are objective truths or subjective notions based on popular societal opinion?  I would argue that one cannot even have logical discussions about morality without invoking an absolute morality that transcends space/time/matter.  

2. Resurrection - of course from a medical point of view, I agree. That is why it is defined as a miracle.  I disagree that it lacks evidence.  Even skeptical historians, and at least dozen non-biblical authors affirm Christ existence as a person, the tomb was indeed empty, and the apostles were willing to die to continue to spread news of His resurrection.  Even skeptics agree something happened.

3.  Heaven and Hell:  If it were true these places existed, who should go to either?  If God does exist and created all of this and us, on what grounds are we to pass a moral judgment against Him?  This one is a common one most people have difficulty with and as a believer I admit it is probably the most difficult.  If God is Holy, he must uphold Love and Justice without compromise.  If God created a world where all will choose Him and go to Heaven, love is not possible.  If you are a parent would you have a child knowing that they will utterly reject you?  This has happened to countless parents.  Do they love their child any less?  No.  But without the freedom to choose, we would be automatons, and love is not possible.  In a world where love is possible, so is hate. God will not force anyone to love Him.  

The substitutional atonement is remarkable showing how much God loves His creation in that He was willing to lay down his own life so that justice of sin was satisfied and mercy and grace given.  When you read a news story like that of navy seal, Michael Monsoor, https://militaryhallofhonor.com/honoree-...hp?id=1265 he is hailed as a loving hero.  There is no greater act of love than to lie down your life for another.

On what grounds it is irresponsible to accept Jesus atonement that he gives freely?  The good news here Astreja is that God does not force you to accept it.  If as you stated you do not WANT to live forever anywhere, God will not force you.  You have a choice.  

One last question, and please answer honestly.  If Christianity were TRUE, would you become a Christian?

(May 12, 2023 at 12:23 pm)Kingpin Wrote: Thank you for the response.  I understand the "out of place" comment.  Now I have some follow ups:

1.  Original sin - Do your feel good/evil are objective truths or subjective notions based on popular societal opinion?  I would argue that one cannot even have logical discussions about morality without invoking an absolute morality that transcends space/time/matter.  

2. Resurrection - of course from a medical point of view, I agree. That is why it is defined as a miracle.  I disagree that it lacks evidence.  Even skeptical historians, and at least dozen non-biblical authors affirm Christ existence as a person, the tomb was indeed empty, and the apostles were willing to die to continue to spread news of His resurrection.  Even skeptics agree something happened.

3.  Heaven and Hell:  If it were true these places existed, who should go to either?  If God does exist and created all of this and us, on what grounds are we to pass a moral judgment against Him?  This one is a common one most people have difficulty with and as a believer I admit it is probably the most difficult.  If God is Holy, he must uphold Love and Justice without compromise.  If God created a world where all will choose Him and go to Heaven, love is not possible.  If you are a parent would you have a child knowing that they will utterly reject you?  This has happened to countless parents.  Do they love their child any less?  No.  But without the freedom to choose, we would be automatons, and love is not possible.  In a world where love is possible, so is hate. God will not force anyone to love Him.  

The substitutional atonement is remarkable showing how much God loves His creation in that He was willing to lay down his own life so that justice of sin was satisfied and mercy and grace given.  When you read a news story like that of navy seal, Michael Monsoor, https://militaryhallofhonor.com/honoree-...hp?id=1265 he is hailed as a loving hero.  There is no greater act of love than to lie down your life for another.

On what grounds it is irresponsible to accept Jesus atonement that he gives freely?  The good news here Astreja is that God does not force you to accept it.  If as you stated you do not WANT to live forever anywhere, God will not force you.  You have a choice.  

One last question, and please answer honestly.  If Christianity were TRUE, would you become a Christian?

1.  I believe that good and evil are subjective at an individual level, and intersubjective at a cultural level.  Cultures that have morality that protects individual safety and freedom generally endure longer than cultures that permit violence and cruelty.  Morality also evolves with cultures.

2.  I do not believe in miracles, not at all, and until there is solid empirical evidence that someone can come back from the dead after several days in the grave, I will continue to view resurrection as myth.  If the "empty tomb" actually existed, I can think of lots of scenarios that don't require a supernatural explanation.

3.  I consider infinite punishment for the crimes of a finite life to be infinitely unjust.  Therefore, no one at all should go to hell.  No exceptions whatsoever.  Surely a "holy" god would be smart enough to realize this.  Your comments about the possibility or impossibility of love are risible, as love does not need to be reciprocated.  A god that would send someone to hell for the "crime" of not reciprocating love?  Despicable.  The god that you are describing is neither loving nor just.

4.  I pay my own debts, as I take full responsibility for my own actions.  I do not consent to someone else dying in my place, particularly not for some nonsensical "debt" somehow inherited from imaginary proto-people.

I will not become a Christian because, even if it were true, it's an evil and psychologically damaging philosophy that has no place in the modern world.  However, I think that the possibility of Christianity being true approaches zero and I have no concerns in that regard.

(May 12, 2023 at 1:02 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(May 12, 2023 at 12:23 pm)Kingpin Wrote: Thank you for the response.  I understand the "out of place" comment.  Now I have some follow ups:

1.  Original sin - Do your feel good/evil are objective truths or subjective notions based on popular societal opinion?  I would argue that one cannot even have logical discussions about morality without invoking an absolute morality that transcends space/time/matter.  

2. Resurrection - of course from a medical point of view, I agree. That is why it is defined as a miracle.  I disagree that it lacks evidence.  Even skeptical historians, and at least dozen non-biblical authors affirm Christ existence as a person, the tomb was indeed empty, and the apostles were willing to die to continue to spread news of His resurrection.  Even skeptics agree something happened.

3.  Heaven and Hell:  If it were true these places existed, who should go to either?  If God does exist and created all of this and us, on what grounds are we to pass a moral judgment against Him?  This one is a common one most people have difficulty with and as a believer I admit it is probably the most difficult.  If God is Holy, he must uphold Love and Justice without compromise.  If God created a world where all will choose Him and go to Heaven, love is not possible.  If you are a parent would you have a child knowing that they will utterly reject you?  This has happened to countless parents.  Do they love their child any less?  No.  But without the freedom to choose, we would be automatons, and love is not possible.  In a world where love is possible, so is hate. God will not force anyone to love Him.  

The substitutional atonement is remarkable showing how much God loves His creation in that He was willing to lay down his own life so that justice of sin was satisfied and mercy and grace given.  When you read a news story like that of navy seal, Michael Monsoor, https://militaryhallofhonor.com/honoree-...hp?id=1265 he is hailed as a loving hero.  There is no greater act of love than to lie down your life for another.

On what grounds it is irresponsible to accept Jesus atonement that he gives freely?  The good news here Astreja is that God does not force you to accept it.  If as you stated you do not WANT to live forever anywhere, God will not force you.  You have a choice.  

One last question, and please answer honestly.  If Christianity were TRUE, would you become a Christian?

1.  I believe that good and evil are subjective at an individual level, and intersubjective at a cultural level.  Cultures that have morality that protects individual safety and freedom generally endure longer than cultures that permit violence and cruelty.  Morality also evolves with cultures.

2.  I do not believe in miracles, not at all, and until there is solid empirical evidence that someone can come back from the dead after several days in the grave, I will continue to view resurrection as myth.  If the "empty tomb" actually existed, I can think of lots of scenarios that don't require a supernatural explanation.

3.  I consider infinite punishment for the crimes of a finite life to be infinitely unjust.  Therefore, no one at all should go to hell.  No exceptions whatsoever.  Surely a "holy" god would be smart enough to realize this.  Your comments about the possibility or impossibility of love are risible, as love does not need to be reciprocated.  A god that would send someone to hell for the "crime" of not reciprocating love?  Despicable.  The god that you are describing is neither loving nor just.

4.  I pay my own debts, as I take full responsibility for my own actions.  I do not consent to someone else dying in my place, particularly not for some nonsensical "debt" somehow inherited from imaginary proto-people.

I will not become a Christian because, even if it were true, it's an evil and psychologically damaging philosophy that has no place in the modern world.  However, I think that the possibility of Christianity being true approaches zero and I have no concerns in that regard.

First, I appreciate greatly your honesty and transparency.

1.  If good and evil are subjective than you have no moral basis to deem anything good or evil apart from your own opinion.  This would even apply to judgment against God.  If there is no ontic referent by which to measure, than there is no basis for morality at all.  Yet logically, be honest, no one lives that way.  We all affirm there are objective moral truths.  If there are, morality is not subjective and must transcend.

2.  I would argue that our mere existence is a miracle.  I won't get in to the Cosmological, Teleological debates but suffice to say even the most hardened atheists and contemporary intellectuals of our time like Hawking, Einstein and Dawkins admit that space, time, matter had a beginning and the fine tuning for the possibility of any form of life is incredibly precise.  This makes in my mind miracles at least possible.

3.  I appreciate this response.  As I said, this is one of the most difficult objections to answer.  Your comment about love not needing to be reciprocated is true.  In a world where God forces all people in His presence after they die is not love, but enslavement.  As you said, you don't want to go anywhere.  Including in God's presence.  Is it loving for God to put you in His presence eternally against your will?

4.  I understand this, but the debt cannot be paid.  We cannot be good.  We cannot do "enough" to be good.  Sin as the Bible calls it is a violation of purpose.  We have all sinned, not just inherited debt from Adam/Eve.  They brought sin in to the world by knowing good/evil, electing to be like God.  Be honest, we all want to be God over our own lives.  I admit that.  Thus it's not inherited, we are guilty ourselves!

You comment about Christianity being evil and psychologically damaging is very profound because that is NOT the Christianity I know.  I DO admit that there ARE "Christian" churches that are reprehensible in teaching and actions and I would argue are frankly NOT Christian and against what Jesus Christ said.  Those were also known as the Pharisees and Sadducees in His time.  He admonished them for their hypocrisy.  I don't think the proof is close to zero, quite the opposite but of course this is a MUCH larger tiered discussion.

(May 12, 2023 at 1:25 pm)Kingpin Wrote: 1.  If good and evil are subjective than you have no moral basis to deem anything good or evil apart from your own opinion...

...We all affirm there are objective moral truths.

Divine morality is also[i] subjective, so there's no advantage there. I'm content to use intersubjective morality, because it works. You are completely wrong when you say "We all affirm there are objective moral truths." I do [i]not believe that. What I do see is a collection long-established subjective truths that are common to many societies because of their utility.

Quote:I would argue that our mere existence is a miracle.  I won't get in to the Cosmological, Teleological debates but suffice to say even the most hardened atheists and contemporary intellectuals of our time like Hawking, Einstein and Dawkins admit that space, time, matter had a beginning and the fine tuning for the possibility of any form of life is incredibly precise.  This makes in my mind miracles at least possible.

No, I don't buy that. I don't think that matter/energy began at the Big Bang - if there was a singularity, it was a concentration of preexisting matter/energy. As for fine-tuning, I consider that to be an illusion based on the fact that we exist in a universe with stable physical constants, on a planet (possibly one of billions) with materials suitable for life.

Quote:Is it loving for God to put you in His presence eternally against your will?

No, but subjecting someone to pain for eternity would be even worse. The best-case scenario is what I believe to be the truth: No afterlife at all, just an end to our lives and then insentience.

Quote:I understand this, but the debt cannot be paid.  We cannot be good. We cannot do "enough" to be good.  Sin as the Bible calls it is a violation of purpose.  We have all sinned, not just inherited debt from Adam/Eve.  They brought sin in to the world by knowing good/evil, electing to be like God.  Be honest, we all want to be God over our own lives.  I admit that.  Thus it's not inherited, we are guilty ourselves!

I reject this absolutely. I believe that it is possible to be good, and that good actions are of great value to individuals and societies alike.

Because it denies even the possibility of goodness in humans, IMO it makes no sense for Christianity to speak of morality at all.

Hey man! Long time, no see!
Sorry for butting in... but I couldn't help it.

(May 12, 2023 at 1:25 pm)Kingpin Wrote: First, I appreciate greatly your honesty and transparency.

1.  If good and evil are subjective than you have no moral basis to deem anything good or evil apart from your own opinion.  This would even apply to judgment against God.  If there is no ontic referent by which to measure, than there is no basis for morality at all.  Yet logically, be honest, no one lives that way.  We all affirm there are objective moral truths.  If there are, morality is not subjective and must transcend.

Just to complement Astreja's answer.
You seem to have failed to notice the detail where she mentioned society.
From the individual's point of view the morality accepted by the society to which that person belongs appears as an objective morality. A morality agreed upon by the grand majority of people. A people that is always getting replaced, while the overall morality is mostly static.... even though it does change through time... slowly. A good example of this is the present-day agreement that slavery is not something that we accept, while 1000 years ago, it was completely normal throughout Europe.

(May 12, 2023 at 1:25 pm)Kingpin Wrote: 2.  I would argue that our mere existence is a miracle.  I won't get in to the Cosmological, Teleological debates but suffice to say even the most hardened atheists and contemporary intellectuals of our time like Hawking, Einstein and Dawkins admit that space, time, matter had a beginning and the fine tuning for the possibility of any form of life is incredibly precise.  This makes in my mind miracles at least possible.

You are aware of the puddle comparison, right? The water finds that the hole in the ground fits perfectly for it to be that particular shape of puddle. The fine tuning argument may have some weight, but we have no way of knowing just how free those so-called constants could be.
All that science currently states is that the Universe was, at some point in the far past, reduced to a very dense, very compact state.
Then, the models (and they are just models, based on our perception of reality) fail. They fail because you get stuff dividing by zero which is indeterminate.... that when people bring up the notion of singularity... perhaps it was a thing with all the Universe's matter and anti-matter and energy and dark energy in a single dimensionless point, if that is at all possible... or maybe it was something different, something finite, something 3D or 4D.
What is assumed, however, is that the total energy of the Universe (and energy includes matter because of Einstein's E=Mc^2) adds up to Zero. It seems the distribution of what we call normal matter and anti-matter turned out not to be homogeneous. But, when you sum them up, there are equal parts of both and they cancel out... from nothing came the nothing that we are, even though we are locally not nothing.

(May 12, 2023 at 1:25 pm)Kingpin Wrote: 3.  I appreciate this response.  As I said, this is one of the most difficult objections to answer.  Your comment about love not needing to be reciprocated is true.  In a world where God forces all people in His presence after they die is not love, but enslavement.  As you said, you don't want to go anywhere.  Including in God's presence.  Is it loving for God to put you in His presence eternally against your will?

I feel like the concepts of Heaven and Hell are coincident with the concepts of reward and a punishment which gives them a hint that they were conceived by humans in order to steer others into behaving "properly".

Like the internet quote attributed erroneously to Marcus Aurelius claims, just live a good life. If there are gods and they are just then they shall not care about how devout you were in life but reward you for a life of goodness. If there are gods and they are unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then your goodness will live on in the memory of your loved ones.

(May 12, 2023 at 1:25 pm)Kingpin Wrote: You comment about Christianity being evil and psychologically damaging is very profound because that is NOT the Christianity I know.  I DO admit that there ARE "Christian" churches that are reprehensible in teaching and actions and I would argue are frankly NOT Christian and against what Jesus Christ said.  Those were also known as the Pharisees and Sadducees in His time.  He admonished them for their hypocrisy.  I don't think the proof is close to zero, quite the opposite but of course this is a MUCH larger tiered discussion.

Part of the problem is that there are multiple "Christian churches". With one god and one set of teachings, how can the one kind and loving god have allowed mankind to devolve into so much chaos inspired by himself? One would think that this god would have managed to foresee this state of affairs and would have done things, 2000ish years ago, in such a way as to avoid it becoming like it is today.
And, just to put some more logs in this fire, the same argument extends to the existence of any other religion... one would think that god would have managed to pass down its message in such a way that mankind would receive it equally all around the globe... not just on the one spot in the Middle-East.
This provides a very good hint that religious beliefs are cultural constructs that sprung and evolved with human societies. Again, society informing the divine, just like in 1., where society informed morality.
Don't forget, Humans are social animals. Judging by how other great apes live, I'd wager that humans evolved from a previously social species of ape-like creatures.
Society made humans. Humans make up society.

What is the problem with their being multiple churches? I thought diversity was a good thing....right up until it bumps into some secular or political agenda.

All concern troll no substance. Poca just told you one of the problems that these bajillion lunatic churches have created in life? Heaven sits, arms crossed, as ever.

(May 12, 2023 at 11:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: What is the problem with their being multiple churches?  I thought diversity was a good thing....right up until it bumps into some secular or political agenda.

There's really not a problem with there being multiple churches.  The problem is that the different flavors of Christianity all think that their version is the 'right' one and everyone else's is wrong.  Their beliefs come from the same book but are different.  How do you choose?  You choose by what speaks to you and that makes it difficult to say that The Bible is the be all, end all.  If everyone has their own interpretation...who is to say who is right?

(May 12, 2023 at 11:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: What is the problem with their being multiple churches?  I thought diversity was a good thing....right up until it bumps into some secular or political agenda.

The Abrahamic religions are zero-sum, so the existence of competitors poses an existential threat. Diversity is seen as an evil rather than a good.

(May 13, 2023 at 10:46 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(May 12, 2023 at 11:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: What is the problem with their being multiple churches?  I thought diversity was a good thing....right up until it bumps into some secular or political agenda.

The Abrahamic religions are zero-sum, so the existence of competitors poses an existential threat. Diversity is seen as an evil rather than a good.

With respect to some truth claims but certainly not all...elephants and blind men, etc. But there really is not all that much different between Roman Catholicism, Othodox, Methodists, and Quakers. Nowadays, most of it is bickering over earthly authority and dogma differences are taken with a grain of salt. That has not always been the case....but it has been a long time since somones been publicly burned at the stake.