Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sven · 12-14-2004, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rational BAC

I am so glad that you understand now.

Belief is really a very simple thing. Divinely simple. You do or you don't. Comes from deep within---and that is all there really is to it.

Looks like as if jbernier disagreed with you.
And there's of course the problem of (de)conversions, which are not adressed by your "You do or you don't".

Quote:

Very understandable why atheists don't really have a clue on this subject and could not even begin to understand how a theist thinks and perceives.

You of course ignore that atheists (including me) are often former theists. Or were those never "true theists" (TM) ?

Quote:

Very understandable also why theists do not have a clue as to how atheists think and perceive.

And those theists who formerly were atheists were never "true atheists" (TM) ?

jbernier · 12-14-2004, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Looks like as if jbernier disagreed with you.

If you mean whether or not I agree that one either believes or does not, I would agree to an extent. Where I might disagree (although not sure) is in the definition of 'believing.' What does it mean to believe in Christ? I do not think that it is simply a mental exercise of agreeing with a certain set of dogmatic statements. I think that the New Testament witness suggests that it is much deeper than that. It is a metanoia, a renewed way of thinking. 'Believing in Christ' entails an entirely new way of seeing the world - and if that is not there then neither is belief for that is belief.

What is that new way of seeing the world? It is fundamentally one that does not see the powers of this world as autonomous and good on to themselves but subservient to the divine rule of Christ and the One Who Sent Him, that is, the Father. This is absolutely essential to belief (aka faith). It is not enough to say that one thinks that Christ is Lord and Saviour, yada yada. One must also, profoundly, truly, understand what means for the rest of the things that claim to be lords and saviours. Any institution, any ideology, anything, that claims to be lord or saviour must be 'put in their place' for the Christian - and that place is beneath Christ. To do otherwise is (for the Christian) idolatry - and the idolater does not believe, if we trust the New Testament witness. Belief is thus a specific attitude towards the world - one which refuses to see the eternal in the temporal.

Sven · 12-14-2004, 06:19 AM

Let me start with saying that I really appreciate this discussion, despite the misunderstandings - you are the only one who really came up with some arguments which can be discussed and which I find really interesting . It's really sad that there are not more of your kind around here (at least in this thread).

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

The assertion is that historical inaccuracy in a text that was not written according to contemporary understandings of proper historical practice means that the text is useless theologically.
You have made statements about its value as a historical document (which are, indeed, quite correct) and then suddenly jump to making statements about its value as a theological document - without offering a warrant for that jump. In my books that is assertion.

No, it's not. I only said that I see no reason to trust a text on anything if it's already wrong on many other things. This is a reasonable stance, I'd say. The categorically statement: "There's no truth in the bible" would be an assertion. But that's not what I'm saying.

Quote:

[no argument from "a god" to "christian god"]Fair enough. However, one needs to establish why this is a challenge to Christian belief; as far as I say you did not do so. You merely asserted that it was.

No, I did not. I merely pointed out that you can not use these arguments for christianity, meaning that you need other reasons to come to your belief. I never intended this to be an argument against Christianity.
Oh my, perhaps I should start over again and try to completely reword my OP to make it clearer.

Quote:

Assertion is not the right word. 'False assumption' would be more accurate. Christian theology is deeply suspect of personal revelation, preferring instead to stick with the canon which has been accepted through a communal process of discourse over the theological weight of particular texts. In Christian theology, revelation is always communal.

I only brought this up because I've often seen personal revelation as a "proof" for Christianity to be right. Again, I merely pointed out that you can not use this argument for christianity, meaning that you need other reasons to come to your belief. I appreciate that you (and apparently the majority of Christians) think otherwise. Do you have a link/reference for the last statement?

Quote:

Actually, this was your strongest point. [correlation of belief with culture] However, there is, again, a false assumption (although not necessarily an assertion; I will grant that). That false assumption is simple: That the source from which one acquires one's beliefs speaks to the veracity of said belief.

Again: No, it's not. I'm not talking about correct or not, but of knowing if it's correct or not. The existing correlation certainly doesn't help determing this, rather it hinders.

Quote:

[many beliefs are known to be fabrications]Again, though, the assertion comes in the suggestion that this is a challenge to Christian belief. I would counter by saying that all human knowledge is fabricated; that is to say, I dare you to show me any knowledge that has just popped out of thin air without any process of manufacture. However, fabrication does not mean 'not correct'; again, genesis and veracity are being confused.

Umm, sorry, I was talking about fabricating lies. The challenge to Christianity is how to know that it's not one of the beliefs which is based on lies. These lies can of course - by accident - be the truth; but again: how can we know this?

[snipped more misunderstandings]

Quote:

I am not surprised that you have not heard about him: He is far less known in North America than in his native France.

And apparently also far less in Germany.

Quote:

Probably the most accessible introduction to his thought is I See Satan Fall Like Lightning. Written when he was 75, I think he saw it as a summing up of his life's work while he still has the time to do so.

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll see if I have a look inside. No comments on "The Girard Reader"?

Quote:

In a nutshell, what I am suggesting is that the very act of rupturing the cycle of violence is an intrusion of the divine into this world; that the cycle of violence is inherent to the human condition and only something outside that condition can open the possibility of its rupture.

OK, thanks for the summary. I hope I understand your point now.

But this looks like a mere belief to me, or can you present any evidence that the "intrusion of the divine" is really necessary to break the "cycle of violence"?

Quote:

What I would say, though, is that acceptance of the idea that there is revelation present in the Christian scriptures does not a priori mean that there is no revelation present in the Qu'ran.

Agreed. But this looks a little bit strange: Why would a god reveal himself to different people and then not taking care of that they don't write contradictory things about him? This confusion among believers is certainly also consistent with no divine revelation - many would argue that it's even more consistent. These differences/contradictions make it certainly far more difficult to determine what's god's revelation and what isn't. So your god likes to confuse people - or does he simply not care?

Quote:

[...]I do think that the Gospels most fully reveal the divine - for the precise reason that I see in Jesus's refusal to return violence with violence, to the point of death, as the clearest rupture of the cycle of violence.

In other words, just believing in some sort of YHWHistic religion, caring not that much forthe details, is not sufficient? The "Christian version" is the "most correct" one of the three?

Quote:

[circle of violence also found in the animal kingdom]Yes, I would agree - and would suggest that, if anything, it bolsters my argument that it is something that we cannot escape on our own. It is an inherent part of the human as creature - and thus only that which is beyond either the human or the creation can break the cycle of violence.

I don't think that it bolsters your argument. There are many other things which we don't share with animals - worship of invisible gods, for example. And this also ignores that some animals do have morals which even include altruism.

Quote:

It would seem to [...] That having been said I must make clear that I am making positive statements about the Christian tradition, which does not necessarily mean that I am making negative statements about (for instance) the Buddhist tradition.

Agreed, I also didn't suggest this. I only pointed out that the Christian god is (perhaps) not necessary to realize that we have to break the circle of violence.

Quote:

That would not horribly affect my argument as it is not an argument for Christian exclusivity but rather an argument for how the divine is revealed in the Gospels.

OK. Then your point is that whenever a human being comes up with this idea (not striking back etc.), then it's because of divine revelation? And the gospels make the point especially clear, thus they are the "most correct" revelation?

I think I will nevertheless start a thread in BC&H and ask for other people arriving at these ideas independently of Christianity - it's an interesting question, I think.

Edited to add: Here's the thread.

McCravey · 12-14-2004, 10:48 AM

[QUOTE=Sven]

Quote:

Questions like this come up often, but mostly the existence of any god and all type of theists are included. I want to focus on non-fundy-Christians (that is, excluding Christians who take the bible to be literal and/or inerrant) and (obviously) the Christian god.

I like what run2white wrote in response to these, so I won't muddy the waters, except that I would like to add one point to #1---the people were not trustworthy. We have a lot of testimony that those who put together scripture were on a power high. They probably removed and added a lot of self supporting verses. This makes it a challenge for us to remove the "chaff from the wheat". We choose to work our way through these things.

Sven · 12-15-2004, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Here's the thread.

From the other thread in BC&H:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

"You christians have a saying that goes something like this: 'Don't resist a man who insults you; even if he strikes you, offer your other cheek as well.' This is nothing new, and its been better said by others, especially by Plato, who ascribes the following to Socrates in the Crito...'ts never right to do wrong and never right to take revenge; nor is it right to give evil for evil, or in the case of one who has suffered some injury, to attempt to get even...'"

The quote is from Contra Celsus by Origen.

So, jbernier, just to understand your position better:
Do you think that Socrates was also divinely inspired by your god when he wrote this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.