The most important reason I'm xtian

[Jacob(smooth)]

Mr Spock here speaks of being consistently analytical. How far is this a good thing? I mean clearly there are times when being analytical is appropriate (science, medicine etc), and times when it gets in the way (sex drugs and rock and roll).

Is being consistently analytical a good thing? Personally I'm not convinced. Might be a good thread that.

I guess it depends on whether you care if your beliefs are true, or at least likely to be true, or not.

Most atheist want our internal map of the world to be as close to reality as possible. We understand that this is not entirely possible, but we do know the best way to go about it. And that is basing them on demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic.

However my right brain, the sloshy and emotional bit is still nausatingly in love with the concept of an all knowing and all loving force, loosely defined as "love". In many ways I would like to be an atheist, but to do so would mean giving up my comfort blanket / crack pipe / happy-moist-joy feelings on tap. So no, I'm nowhere near to atheism.

You obviously don't care whether your beliefs are true or not. You'd rather base them on the 'warm fuzzy' feeling they give you.

Almost true. It depends on the beliefs.

If its a belief about what the best mortgage is, or whether I should get the flu vaccine or that sort of thing where the outcome is significant and affected by the beleifs then I'll take the "true" belief.

If its a belief over whether Dalwhennie 15 is better than balvennie doublewood, or whether I prefer "dexter" to "lie to me", or whether I decide I love my wife, or whether I decide to follow a moral code from the bible or one I make up myself, and whether I decide there is something ineffable and mysterious in the universe, yeah I go for warm and fuzzy.

What kind of music do you like simon?

---

Ok. This is by far the hardest question to answer.

I would like to ask you more about what you see the role of Jesus to be. Some will say that he took upon himself everyone's sins and thus made everyone worthy of being saved. Some take that in quite a literal way. To my mind this is reminiscent of human sacrifice to appease the gods.

Yes, its a direct parallel to the animal sacrifice in the old testament and many older religions.

When I believed in God, my bible belting father was away frequently as a navy guy. We didn't read the bible and my mother didn't talk about it, and she sure wasn't going to drag the seven of us to church. So I didn't have anyone intent on pounding a set interpretation into my head. As a result, the meaning I created for myself was pretty idiosyncratic. I just saw Jesus as an older peer, a kind of benevolent older brother. I didn't have a clear idea of God as such, nothing person-like. I just had this idea of Jesus as an interpreter of the good rather than as the mouth piece of God. God was something abstract having to do with what is best; Jesus was an accomplished practitioner of that. When I imagined an after life, I imagined hanging out with Jesus .. there was no God character in the picture. My only hope was to be a worthy companion, not by directly copying him but by figuring it out for myself and being that.

Its fascinating to see what impression someone got with minimal "interference" . Like many parts of the bible I suspect Jesus as a concept behaves as a sort of rorschach test, we see what we want to see (which is probably why republicans see him carrying a gun).

I enjoyed the mindset but by late adolescence chucked it all as not fitting in with the world/life as I found it. Now I don't find myself inclined to try and go back. I probably leaned on rationality as hard as anyone else until early adulthood when I got some insight into the totality of myself and the proper place of rationality.

Seems fair. I know a lot of people outgrow the need to believe.

I guess I could still think of Jesus as an esteemed ancestor/peer. What I can no longer do is imagine spending eternity hanging out with the guy. Afterlife no longer seems at all plausible to me. I wonder what you think about that. For me, eternity is more a desirable state of mind involving present moment than it is a span of time. Also, I wonder if you think of God as person-like or in more abstract terms.

As I've said before, I don't know. I think that the concept of a white beard on a cloud is rather obviously man creating god in his own image. Its an anthropomorphization, but what is it an anthropomorphization of?

Its probably another rorschach but what I think of as God is that part of humanity I find best and most noble. The instinct which had people running TOWARD ground zero when all self preservation and logic should have had them running away. The feeling you get when your child wraps their arms around your neck. The thing which makes me tear up when I listen to a certain piece of music. All things which psychology can explain, but somehow for me those explanations fail to capture the depth of them. I entertain the idea that there is something irrational and wonderful and somehow... joined up going on.

As for Jesus, take the story as a parable for a second. Whether he was a purely made up figure in the harry potter mould, a talented demagogue or something else is of secondary importance. The concept of somebody who was so in love with humanity as a whole, including all the broken bits, is quite a special one to me. Its a sort of extrapolation of the sort of love I feel for my kids, to a broader concept of mutural support and society. Can you imagine a world where everyone loved each other as much as you love your wife/kids/parent/cat?

All very nebulous and easy to dismiss, as I'm sure many here will take a childlike delight in doing (makes some people feel good to do so). But that's what God is to me, A word which sums up the feelings and actions which I think represent the best of being human, disassociated from specific origin or stimulus and accreted into something external. That's the model, and the crutch I've picked to lean on.

[max-greece]

Jacob,

Firstly thanks for the enlightening post. I was wondering about you for a while now. I guess we've all just gotten used to the resident Christians who are a little more strident in their convictions.

Now I am not one to kick a man's crutch away - particularly if I am not certain he no longer needs it so I will say this:

You come across as a reasonable man. What you believe may be merely a comfort blanket but so what? Where does it say what we believe has to be correct anyway? If belief can be held in such a way that it does not afflict others, does not bring direct harm and does not prevent you from making whatever contribution you do to this planet then more power to it and to you.

I have met many people who appear to have a deep seated need to believe that there is "something up there," as in a positive force. For some reason I do not feel any need for that. That makes us different, not better nor worse. Some of those people have been most admirable in my eyes. One of them I married. 30 years with her and its never really been an issue.

Carry on as you are. A reasonable voice within the Church is better than another depressed one out of it IMHO and all that.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Thank you max, I appreciate that sentiment.

[Simon Moon]

Almost true. It depends on the beliefs.

If its a belief about what the best mortgage is, or whether I should get the flu vaccine or that sort of thing where the outcome is significant and affected by the beleifs then I'll take the "true" belief.

If its a belief over whether Dalwhennie 15 is better than balvennie doublewood, or whether I prefer "dexter" to "lie to me", or whether I decide I love my wife, or whether I decide to follow a moral code from the bible or one I make up myself, and whether I decide there is something ineffable and mysterious in the universe, yeah I go for warm and fuzzy.

There are several problems.

Peoples beliefs inform their actions. Your beliefs do not live in a vacuum.

Christian beliefs have some real world negative outcomes.

When it comes to tastes in music, which single malt tastes better to you, what TV shows or movies you like, etc, these are non-rational decisions that don't effect your worldview.

When it comes to unsupported, irrational beliefs in supernatural beings, with moral edicts he wants you to follow, there is a problem.

whether I decide to follow a moral code from the bible or one I make up myself

So, how do you know when it is OK with 'God' to not follow his moral edicts, and make up your own? What heuristic do you apply to Biblical morality in order to discern this?

Actually, what I think is really going on, is that you are always using your own morality. When the Bible's morality lines up with yours, you just say you are using Biblical morality. Almost every Christian I've ever met is more moral than the god they believe in.

whether I decide there is something ineffable and mysterious in the universe

This is not much different from my feelings about the universe.

But, this should be where you say, "we've reached the end of our current understanding, the rest we don't know (yet)". That is the intellectually honest response to unknowns.

Not...

yeah I go for warm and fuzzy

Especially since you take it even further and apply all sorts of miracle working, supernatural attributes to this god, that you can't possibly have knowledge of.

What kind of music do you like simon?

My tastes are pretty obscure. I listen to -

Progressive, Prog-metal, Fusion, Technical-metal, contemporary classical. I'll give you examples of each genre is you want.

[Bad Writer]

Kudos for the "more moral than god comment"!

[Whateverist]

whether I decide to follow a moral code from the bible or one I make up myself

So, how do you know when it is OK with 'God' to not follow his moral edicts, and make up your own? What heuristic do you apply to Biblical morality in order to discern this?

What's clear to me is that Jacob both takes responsibility for his beliefs and doesn't foist them on others. Pretty golden.

To my mind, to preemptively eliminate any belief which can't be vouchsafed as true in a third-person, impersonal way is going way overboard. There is a first-person reality which no third-person account can ever adequately take the measure of. To deny it is a kind of self-abnegation as heinous as we so often see fundamentalists impose on themselves. I find it revolting when one of them speaks of giving it all over to the lord. Anyone who attempts to do the same in regard to science is also engaging in a kind of suicide of one's identity.

Understand the distinction which is being made: empirical beliefs, reason should prevail; personal beliefs about one's self, purpose, values .. these are not derivable through third-person means. All you'd be left with is some watered down, cipher like existence. But most people seem to be afraid to be themselves and find out what that may be. Most choose to play it safe. Pass as normal. Don't make any waves. When you consider that it is we, who don't expect any kind of afterlife, who have the most need of living an authentic life the first (and only) time, you'd expect that we would be less conformist.

[Aractus]

Aractus........... a dyed in the wool catholic who says you are wrong and will never change his faith...........where is his soul ending up?????.


P.S. how do you use the show/hide content feature???


.

It's not my place to pass judgement on others, I simply judge the RCC as an institution for its heresies. There are many God-fearing Catholics who reject certain heresies of the RCC, etc.

[Lion IRC]

I like the saying;

In necessariis unitas,
in dubiis libertas,
in omnibus caritas.

In necessary things unity; (The Nicene Creed is necessary and sufficient and unites most Christians.)

In uncertain things freedom; Many doctrines are not strictly essential to salvation - eg. age of the earth.

[houseofcantor]

Don't listen to him! He is an agent provocateur! Generating fuzzy thoughts and fueling internal discord, burn the witch, I say, burn him!

[Lion IRC]

I think it's a very helpful approach to doctrinal differences.