The most important reason I'm xtian

[Whateverist]

What have I claimed exactly?

Well if you say you are a Christian the core belief is that Jesus was the son of the one true god. Now strip him of all his magic powers, (kinda like Jefferson did) then he is just a man. Still would be no evidence of that God itself.

If you admit you have no evidence then you seriously need to consider that there is nothing there in what you chose to believe other than you merely find it comforting. Harry Potter and Star Wars have pleasant motifs in them too, but everyone accepts them as the fiction we know they are.

Brian this sounds an awful lot like so many of the xtians who show up here intent on telling us what it means to be an atheist. Jacob says he is a Christian. Shouldn't we allow him to say what that means to him?

[Jacob(smooth)]

So ask yourself if it's the religion that's the positive thing, or the way it makes you feel.

The way it makes me feel is the only thing I can comment on with any kind of certainty.

Sorry if I'm missing questions here, there's only one of me and I'm pretending to work!

[Whateverist]

No rush. I'm only pretending to ask questions. They give me cover for making statements.

[Brian37]

Well if you say you are a Christian the core belief is that Jesus was the son of the one true god. Now strip him of all his magic powers, (kinda like Jefferson did) then he is just a man. Still would be no evidence of that God itself.

If you admit you have no evidence then you seriously need to consider that there is nothing there in what you chose to believe other than you merely find it comforting. Harry Potter and Star Wars have pleasant motifs in them too, but everyone accepts them as the fiction we know they are.

Brian this sounds an awful lot like so many of the xtians who show up here intent on telling us what it means to be an atheist. Jacob says he is a Christian. Shouldn't we allow him to say what that means to him?

No it is not the same.

I am sure it means what he thinks to him. But the common core all Christians claim to have is that Jesus was the son of the one true god. If he believes it, then he is a Christian.

I am sure he believes in some form of "Christianity". So?

He admitted he had no evidence, all I was saying is that if he admits that then it should send up a red flag and tell him something.
I never said he was not a Christian, I said if you have no evidence then maybe they need to rethink their position rather than try to defend it.

Atheists are diverse as well in their political leanings worldviews and I have run into some with their own woo. But no matter how we as atheists want to view the word there is still the core of lack of belief.

[Aractus]

Interesting response. You're entirely correct insofar as that my faith in an inward looking and selfish thing. I mean of course it informs my world view and that affects how I interact with those around me, but that remains my faith looking in and myself looking out.

I don't know that I'd agree that the red letters you quoted translates to ask not what your church can do for you etc. I have a somewhat different perspective on that scripture, with which I Shan't bore our atheist friends.

And I'm militantly indifferent as to whether I can be called a Protestant, an Anglican, or any other religious faction . It makes no difference to me.

Were not the Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus confronted, as well as his other Jewish contemporaries, inward-looking and judging others by their faith?

So too the Roman Catholic Church had become absorbed with this way of thinking. I don't expect you to appreciate the reformation, or even recognize it, since as you say you are neither Catholic nor Protestant and don't identify with either camp.

The Counter Reformation by the Catholics began in Council of Trent in 1545. The Catholics had ideals that they wanted to claim as their own. This is why when you talk to Catholics they think they "own" everything in their church history going all the way back to Pope Peter I!

Protestants were actually invited to sit in the council and take part in the discussion, on the understanding that they would have no vote; this is a clear seizure of power undertaken by the RCC by stating that none of their heresies could be challenged by those present, since doing so would result in ex-communication for Catholics, and anyone else was excluded from voting anyway. This was their delusion that the Church had all authority over deciding what was and is and should be elements of the Christian faith.

A combination of this came together with their bizarre reasoning that the Latin Vulgate is holy and inspired scripture. This is akin to those today who are part of the KJO-movement, it's completely irrational, except when you consider that the RCC 1. wanted to take ownership of the entire history of the Christian church, even if it no longer resembled it, to claim it as their "sacred tradition" and 2. wanted to be the sole authority to interpret scripture and divulge its meaning, and this is akin to the Watchtower today.

It was also their way of pissing on the grave of Tyndale, who they had martyred a decade earlier, and they were madly burning all the copies of his Bible they could find. Bible-possession by the laity - especially "unauthorised" Bible - was strictly banned. The roots for this go back at least as far as 1229, when it was officially decreed that the laity were banned from possessing the Bible: "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books." (Council of Toulouse). The Bibles were smuggled among the faithful, who were persecuted for defying the church. Persecution that the RCC believe was theirs to divinely administer, and they were all too happy to do so.

Think about this, 11 million people were killed in the holocaust - including 6 million Jews. But, at the time of the reformation about 50,000,000 Christians were martyred by the RCC.

Catholics are taught that this number is closer to 200,000 – and that’s what they repeat. They have no idea how offensive it is to deny the past, and to deny all the evidence that the 50,000,000 figure is based on (many contemporary reports, contemporary calculations, negative population growth in protestant regions, etc). It is honestly as dumb, naïve and ignorant as denying the holocaust – of course the 50 million figure is up for debate, it is only an estimate – but it’s one base on facts, and the point is that 10’s of millions of Christians were persecuted and killed for their beliefs under direction of the Roman Catholic Church. And whether it's 70 million or just 30 million, it still totally eclipses the persecution under Nazi Germany.

But for what it's worth, I did serve a two year term on my local churches parochial parish council before leaving in disgust after upsetting almost everyone else there. Don't know if that counts.

No it doesn’t count. That’s not serving. That’s “serving yourselves”, internal work of a church is simply self-serving inward and unconstructive in terms of Evangelism or Ministry or Witnessing, etc. It would count if you spent two years running a soup kitchen, volunteering a rape crisis centre, housing the homeless, doing the work for the community that the community needs, supporting those in need, empowering them, helping people overcome addictions like gambling, etc. The homless person living on a park bench doesn’t care how many people volunteer in the parish council, the single mother with no money to put food on the table for her hungry children doesn’t care either.

[Jacob(smooth)]

It just depends on whether you value believing true things, versus believing comforting things. Frankly, I find your outlook here very perplexing: what is it that you gain from believing in a claim that you can't confirm as true? What benefit has believing false things ever given anyone?

Well, if you take christianity as being false, then I have. As I said, I was doing a very bad job of being a human being, then started believing and following "false things" and subsequently started doing a much better job of being a human being. Now I'd be the last to say that the same effect could not have been acheived any other way, but still there was a clear benefit.

And understand that when I say you should abandon some beliefs, I'm not just saying it as a question of a cost/benefit analysis either. I'm saying that if your religious beliefs follow from this idea that you feel better with them, if you've got no reason to believe beyond that, if you just find them useful... then they probably aren't. In that case, my suggestion to you would be that the benefits you're finding that cause you to stay with your religion have nothing to do with the religion and its god, and everything to do with you and the mental adjustments you can make given the correct set of stimuli.

That seems entirely plausible. In this case, the correct set of stimuli was Religion. It has continued to be so.

Religious folk would have you believe that going atheist reduces your life, somehow. But there's nothing to subtract, because imaginary goals that offer nothing real have never been of any use to anyone; you leaving your religion, if you only believe for the reasons you've stated, isn't going to take away the capacity for good, or the purpose you have. It's just going to allow you to take credit- and responsibility- for those actions yourself.

You may be right, but why chance it?

---

I don't share your faith. Most Christians don't, as well. It would seem to me that you've chosen to dismiss so much of the Bible that what remains might as well be a completely new religious faith.

Could be, especially if it would get me tax exemptions! I'll look into that.

You seem very self aware in this and that makes you one of only a handful of intellectually-honest Christians I've seen on this forum (the rest either lie and claim to possess evidence or insist that evidence isn't important). You also have not shown an inclination to insist that the morality of your personal interpretation of the Bible is absolute and condemn those who don't share in it.

Meet my Penis. Its lovely, and I'm very happy with it. But there is no need for me to ram it down your throat (unless you want me to) . My religion is very similar.

I respect your candor and I wish more of your ostensible coreligionists had a tenth of you integrity regarding the lack of factual capacity of your faith and frankness to admit that you understand it. If your attitude towards your faith was mainstream, I'd have much less reason to think of Christians, in a general sense, adversarially.

I think there are a good many of us out there. However as in most things, the loudest ones are not always the best ones.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is a tough one which I shall come back to later. But I'm not ignoring it.

[Chas]

Don't mind him, he's a grumpy old prick wherever he goes, and has no ability to discuss or debate civilly or on-topic with anyone who doesn't share his particular world-view.

No, I'm a rational person who has no patience for delusional twats like you.

[Simon Moon]

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.

[tokutter]

Thankyou for sharing, and I would like to offer you some observations.

---

I was raised in an anglican household, where faith was something we did on sunday morning between 945 and 1030. As a teenager I was therefore what you might call a social christian. Went to university and while there got into a modest amount of trouble with alcahol and other recreational substances, to the point where I was using them because I needed to rather than because I wanted too. I would not be able to get up and go into clinic without a couple of shots of rum and some pain killers inside me. I was also very out of place at uni, I didn't really like most of the people there and hated going out (but did so because I was young and stupid and trying to conform). Also got quite involved in self harming, which is very easy to do when you have a ready supply of scalpels and sutures. I practiced closing wounds on myself.

Scraped through the course and graduated in a haze. Started work but was still lacking in either boundries or self control. In this state I had my religious experiance and was born again in the classical evangelical sense. I won't bore you with the details.

My life, at that point, improved rather dramatically. I dried out, stopped staying up for 36 hours at a time, started to enjoy life. Got married to somebody I had known from before university, had a career, 2 kids etc.

During this time my religious beliefs moderated from what you would think of as fundamentalism to a more liberal sort of faith. I was exposed to the writings of an American ex Baptist minister by the name of tony campolo, who has written lots of books on the subject of liberal christianity, and the concept of red letter christianity, that being that the words of Jesus in the bible are more important than the rest. I somewhat extended beyond that and now consider the rest of the bible, especially the OT to be very errant. The inerrancy of scripture being one of the things that i discarded by the wayside. However the Sermon on the mount

My view at the moment is that I see the bible as much like a self help book. I read it, the bits which resonate I think "gosh yes, that seems right" and the bits that don't I put down to a bad day on the part of the author. I see the bible as special, probably because that was the context of a very useful and positive religious experience, but not infallible.

Intellectually, I admire atheism and I suffer a good deal of dissonance because a big chunk of me, the scientific and analytical bit, has a sneaking suspicion that its actually correct. This is cemented by having done a diploma in hypnotherapy and being able to recreate religious type experiences in others, on demand. 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.

Having said that, I am acutely aware that my experience is absolutely no proof of the reality of anything I choose to believe in. As such I'm a rubbish evangelist, as the best I can ever do is "it worked really well for me, give it a go". Which is much the same line drug dealers use and for much the same reasons. I try to deal with the dissonance the same way I deal with the things in medicine I don't understand. Some things seem to work in defiance of the fact that I / We don't understand them. I don't stop using them just because I don't know how they work, and I don't try to force the facts to conform to my model of how they work. But I'm happy to use and to recommend them BECAUSE they seem to work.

So there you go. For what it's worth and on the off chance anyone is interested. It's not a unique story, nor an especially interesting one.

Any questions? Anyone else want to say why they are Christian?

---

What I read into your story is a very selfish/inward-looking approach to Christian faith.

The entire reason for the Protestant Reformation was to break free from the shackles imposed by the Catholic Church who were a very inward-thinking and controlling organization. The theology reflected this, and in 1517, Dr. Martin Luther wrote the famous 95 Theses, infuriating the Church.

• 6. The pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.
  41. Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.
  42. Christians should be taught that the pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.
  43. Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.
  49. Christians should be taught that the pope's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.
  85. Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,—why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?
  86. Again: since the pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?
  87. Again: What does the pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect repentance, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?
  88. Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.
  89. What the pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?

Well you get the picture. Anyone who forgets the reformation, anyone who doesn't believe in freedom from Catholicism, doesn't deserve to be called a Protestant, much less an Anglican. The Catholics remain proud of their faith, through doctrines and sacraments we consider heretical - but also self-serving, inward-looking selfish, primitive, nonsensical, the list goes on and on and on.

Christian faith is an outward force, and by that I mean it is measured not in deeds, but in faith and the evidence for it, the expression of it, the intent and the temporal results of the faith - the gifts of the Spirit - walking in faith.

Ask not what the Christian faith can do for you ie "self-help"/"prosperity-gospel" etc. ask what you can do for the good of the Christian faith, for the good of your neighbour, your community, your God. This is all broken back down to what I think you'll have to accept as a "red letter":

• When the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they came together. And one of them, an expert in the law, asked a question to test Him: “Teacher, which command in the law is the greatest?”
  
  He said to him, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important command. The second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands.”

---

---

Ask me a question about science, or medicine, I'll give you an analytical answer. Those are the areas where analytical is important, nay essential.

So far as a world view, individual morality, psychology and suchlike goes, I'm satisfied with functional. If analytical works well for you then give yourself a big hand . Woot for the more analytical than thou chas

---

Don't mind him, he's a grumpy old prick wherever he goes, and has no ability to discuss or debate civilly or on-topic with anyone who doesn't share his particular world-view.

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???


.

[Lion IRC]

---

text

---

[H1de]
[/hi de]