yguy

As William Penn observed, men who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants. I am aware that there are atheists who are not ruled by tyrants, but I submit that such atheists are ruled by God even if they don't know they are. Some atheists only go by that label as a rebellion against the hypocrisy they see in organized religion.

yguy

Forgive me, but I don't buy that anyone could believe that on an intuitive level.

I would suggest that in these times, it is harder to believe in Christ while in the company of other "Christians" than it is otherwise.

IMO, belief in Christ does not require that one know his name, because He is not a name. The real question is, if you ever met Him, whether you would hate Him. If not, you have nothing to worry about.

I am at a disadvantage, as your knowledge of other religions is vastly superior to mine. However, AFAIK, the Judaeo-Christian paradigm is unique in that it contains the story of Adam and Eve, their fall from grace, and the redemption of mankind from that fall. I'm not aware that other religions address the compulsive nature of sin.

Yes, He is - but they didn't make Him.

You presume, evidently, that Christ was lying when He said, "Before Abraham was, I am". You'd have a difficult time convincing me of that, to say the least.

<gasp> I'm talking to a GIRL???

Not sure I get your drift here. Perhaps you could give an example.

If I understand the question, there is no answer. I've found spiritual truths in Tolstoy, Flaubert, Stephen King, Frank Herbert...

philechat

Never believed in a god in my entire life (even during the period when I believed in magic), not even when I was in a Catholic school. Maybe it is due to some kind of personality disorder of mine ?

Any generic god can do? Even Nature? And why would I hate another human being in some ancient storybook for no reason?

Why must the "compulsive nature of sin" be addressed to be a true religion. Could we not, for example, say "the idea of gaining enlightenment through rebirth" to be the most important spiritual problem? Wouldn't that make Buddhism the One True Religion? Or could we define the most important spiritual problem "the recollection of knowledge we lost during birth", making Platonism the One True Religion? It is always possible. The "compulsive nature of sin" hardly needs to be the most important problem in our life.

How do you know? Through the Bible? What if I said Brahma exists instead, and the Hindus never made him? Or that the Dreamtime is true, for it was perceived and not created by the Native Australians?

Or was Buddha or Confucius lying when they talked about their truths? Couldn't Jesus be mistaken like the other men? Perhaps he imagined himself to be the original God of the universe, but to tell the truth this idea was not new--Krishna said similar things in the Bhagavad Gita. And later, Muhammad stated that what the Prophets and Jesus knew about was the God of Islam, Allah(PBUH).
Oops...got discovered
For example, the entire Mosiac law (of animal sacrifices, circumcision, not wearing clothes made of two fabrics) God commanded the Israelis to follow. Was he the same God the God Jesus was talking about?
Yes. It is a lifelong search. Who wants the answers to be flat out stated? Shouldn't we seek knowledge everywhere we go?

yguy

More likely the people who said they believed in God weren't credible to you for some reason.

There is only one real God. Nature is His creation.

If He is alive today, and you meet Him tomorrow, your reason for hating him would be that he bears witness to the evil in you, just as He did to the that of the pharisees. How do I know there is evil in you? I don't, of course, just an educated guess...but if there is no evil in you - or you don't have a problem with someone pointing out what evil is there - you have nothing to worry about.

How can it be anything else if indeed it exists? If you are subject to any compulsions, you are a slave, are you not? By compulsions, I mean acts that you know you shouldn't do, but do anyway because you can't stop - like alcholism, overeating, etc.

Yes. My intuition tells me to believe it, for the most part, though you are likely familiar with problem areas in it.

I see no reason to believe that.

I have no idea what Dreamtime is, but you cannot help but find elements of truth in most religions, as they would otherwise be unattractive to the human mind, which has a taste for truth.

I don't know. I know Confucius said lots of neat things, so I doubt he was lying.

I don't see how. He said he was the Son of God. I don't know that the other guys made comparable claims. If He wasn't the Son of God, it appears He was either lying or insane.

Yes. Those laws became part of Jewish culture, but I don't quite see how you get from there to the idea that the Judaeo-Christian God is cultural. Those laws were sort of a band-aid to keep mankind from going the way of the children of Cain until the Crucifixion, as I see it.

There ya go.

philechat

I guess I am not yet convinced by anyone, including you.

But what properties does he have? Why is the Biblegod more convincing than Voltaire's? Why is the Biblegod more convincing than Brahma?
I don't understand the Christian hung-ups on hate and judgment. I find no reason hating Jesus, if you asked me. If he happened to be the god who judges me tomorrow, I will accept my fate like good Prometheus with his Zeus.
Because the Buddhists have another explanation for it--suffering and attachment. How simple and parsimonious is the Buddha's explanation compared to the Christian explanation! No resentment, no blaming-the-others, more fatalistic and gentle...
Have I not told you my intuition convinced me that the Biblegod is no truer than the other gods men dreamed up in history?
Have you read the Hindu texts? Yes or no? Perhaps truth is indeed everywhere, including those you have not encountered yet in your readings?
Lord, liar or lunatic trilemma? There are more alternatives--perhaps Jesus never said it, but the others made him, a simple human being, into a god by putting words into his mouth? Perhaps he was a mystic thinking of his unto-union with God (which was not exactly unique in ancient cultures. A lot of people were sons of deities in ancient Greece and Rome)?
Any evidence from the OT that states this? Is it a mystery that the modern Jews do not believe in the divinity of Jesus?

Why must I treat one book alone as having all the spiritual truths, when human wisdom and natural beauty are everywhere? Why should we not see profound ideas even in the non-religious texts, a testament of the human spirit in its diverse manifestations? Why must our aesthetic judgement be limited first and formost by The Bible?

Wiploc

I'm thinking you're not serious about engaging with the issue, but I'll try once more. Your point is that I should do as Jesus says because:

1. William Penn says so?

2. Out of self interest (to avoid being ruled by a tyrant)?

3. Some other reason?

Are any of those what you believe to be the logical foundation of morality, the reason we ought to be good?

In you think one of them is on topic, here are my responses in order:

1. Why ought I to do what Penn says?

2. Is self interest really the basis of morality? Isn't morality often the justification for self sacrifice rather than self interest?

3. Why don't you tell us what you really believe?

crc

yguy

I don't particularly expect to convince you. I'm here to say what I think, not get notches on my keyboard.

My guess he's like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington - only infinitely more so.

Properties? Objects have properties. I don't know that God has those.

The only thing I've read of his is Candide. Don't remember much of it, but I do remember that I found it disctincly uninspiring. Voltaire "died eating his own excrement, as everyone knows", said Flaubert. I tend to believe it. That opinion was formed so long ago that I've forgotten the actual basis for it, but there it is.

Couldn't tell you. Don't know Brahma.

Where did that come from? The hate and judgment in the time of Christ was on the part of the pharisees, not Christ.

Let's put it on a less theoretical level. If someone points out a flaw in your character without being judgmental or hypocritical, will you hate them? If not, then you wouldn't hate Jesus either.

How does this explain compulsive behavior? Sure, attachment to people, places and things is negative, but how do people get attached in the first place? And, once attached, how does one get free?

Again, I don't see how resentment got into this. Christ never taught hate.

Yes. Why are you telling me again?

No.

I thought we had already agreed on that.

No doubt there are enless theoretical possibilities. I've yet to run into any that I find compelling.

Just offhand, the Passover is highly suggestive of the Atonement. I'm not thumper enough to give you a thorough response.

Not at all. Generally speaking, they think obeying the law makes them good people. If we were good people, we wouldn't need any laws whatsoever.

Why don't you ask someone who believes it must be?

Have I said what YOU should believe? Don't think so. You asked what I believe, and I've told you.

yguy

What do YOU think?

Not exactly, as it is advantageous to your children that they not have a slave for a parent. Also, a slave mentality doesn't contribute anything to a free society.

Seeing the wisdom of it for yourself would be a good one. If not, then forget it.

No. Otherwise, the founding fathers would have had no incentive to try to create a society the fruits of which they would never see.

Of course.

philechat

Sorry. To be more precise, what characteristics does God have?
There you go. Your opinion on Voltaire could count as my opinion on the most part of the Bible. An aesthetic judgment, after all .

Come on. The entire thing about the final judgment that was supposed to happen at the end of the world, throwing the unbelievers into everlasting fire. How can I forget what was written in the sweet Bible?
Why will I hate the person? It is the flaw that makes the character. Who say we must be perfect in all aspects? When I write poetry I completely welcome constructive criticism from everyone else's part.

The Buddha said our passions, our emotional nature is what causes us to be irrationally attached to things and people. Quite a sensible teaching if you want to say. He offered the eight-fold path as a solution from all the destructive passions we suffer from. Who say it is any bit inferior to the Bible, this teaching of the Buddha.
Well. Read the OT for the amount of hate the God of the Israelites spilled on the idol-worshipping tribes, and the hate Paul shouted to the unbelievers about them being evil, dark, etc. The Biblegod also emphatically punished people who got involved in interfaith marriages, showing his hate to anyone who belonged to another religion.
A question of aesthetics, perhaps? The way I found Greek tragedies more compelling than the Bible?

No. It is some sort of thanksgiving to God, who led them out of Egypt (Note the Exodus was not historically confirmed. Passover was probably a priestly rework on an original, Pagan Hebrew festival celebrated 14 days after the equinox)
Surprise surprise. Another Chinese text predating the NT, the Tao Te Jing, stated the exact same thing. Wow.
Well, then I guess you are a liberal Xian. So far I find you decent from your argument...much better then a great number of Xians in my life I guess.

yguy

I can't answer that. Even if I could, I wouldn't, as it would tend to reduce Him to a set of characteristics.

Possibly. I was younger and more arrogant when I read it, so I may have missed some of the good stuff.

There are unbelievers and there are unbelievers...

You can only be condemned if you heard the truth and rejected it - and you can't justly be said to have heard it if it was filtered through the mouth of a Torquemada type.

Which reminds me of the atheist woman who, during the inquisition, refused to "repent", saying she'd rather burn in Hell forever than be anything like her inquisitors, who then did the predictable thing. That woman is NOT burning in Hell. I'm sure of it.

No, the flaw BECOMES the character. If you're a drug addict, you may get to the point where you'd rather die than look at the stupidity of your habit.

I would rather say that we should be better today than we were yesterday. For instance, let's say some hypoChristian condemns you to hell. If you react to that person with hatred, you become a little bit like them. A person who had such a propensity for overreaction to injustice would do well to overcome it.

How did we get that emotional nature?

Those tribes weren't just idol worshippers - they were also into child sacrifice, I believe. I suspect you judge the pagans of that day by those you know to be good people in most respects. I think you have little grounds for such a presumption of innocence.

In this case, I think such a characterization would be unjustifiable trivialization.

There is more to it than that. The blood of the sacrificial lamb applied to the doorposts protected the Israelites from the plague that ravaged Egypt. An obvious parallel to the Atonement.

Liberal? I think not. Christian? No. Such a title shouldn't be lightly assumed, as there is great responsibility associated with it - which I am not up to.