HelenM

I think Christians would say it's more like: you are holding a gun to your own head, about to shoot yourself.

If someone cries out "Don't shoot or you'll die!" is that inappropriate? Should they not point that out to you? Should they not attempt to get you not to shoot yourself?

That's probably more how Christians think of it...

The point is that from a Christian point of view you're 'dying' and they are trying to rescue you.

Well I suppose perhaps you knew that.

love
Helen

Mad Kally

Which Christians? Are you the one who knows the real TRUTH!?! Helen, stop fooling around and admit you don't believe that load of shit anymore.

HelenM

I don't know exactly what I believe...

love
Helen

HumanisTim

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ex-preacher:
[QB]

The threat of heaven is indeed horrible. Imagine a place where all desire is ended. Where you can do nothing to improve yourself or your environment. Where no growth of any kind is possible since that would imply a lack of perfection. Imagine a place of ultimate boredom. Imagine a place where your memory is wiped clean of most of your life on earth (which had lots of sadness) and the remembrance of loved ones who are burning in hell. Imagine a place with no free will.>>>>

I agree completely about the idea of a heaven being horrible as well. I say the only thing worse then burning in a hell for eternity is serving a god who would make such a place for eternity. I would much rather accept death as being final. The only thing that bothers me. Is the fact that when I die I won't be able to comfort those who I love.

The Other Michael

Hi Helen,

Christians see their religion as being similar to holding a gun to their head?

At least there are a few concerned atheists willing to cry out "Don't shoot or you'll die".

cheers,
Michael

ManM

MadKally,
I do not plan on getting any 'Christmas presents' from God. I simply choose to believe. My claim to "the Truth" and the theology I believe in is not a creation of my own, but is what I have learned through my studies of the historical Church fathers. I have seen you many times say that God is Santa for adults. Unfortunately, the majority of the Christians I know believe in a God that perfectly fits your description. I do not believe in this 'Santa' who gives cookies to those who suck up and baps those who don't. We all know how petty such a God would be.

ex-preacher,
Like Socrates, I feel that the primary condition of sin is ignorance. The other condition I see is physical necessity.

Next, you bring in an interesting point. Yes, it is very possible to experience "heaven" during this life. And if we find the joys of heaven in this life, just imagine how much more joy there will be for us in the next. Life is what we make of it, right?

Finally, you rehash the argument from confusion. Yes, I am aware that every Christian thinks their personal interpretation is right, and that's why I don't trust my interpretation. All I'm writing here is simply a paraphrase from stuff I've read or been taught by various priests. Still in the midst of all the confusion between denominations, I understand your complaint. As such, all I have to offer is a different perspective. Do with it as you will.

mac_philo

But we weren't talking about free will in the popular sense, we were talking about free will in the christian, metaphysical sense.

Our ability to make long term changes, or the alleged role of the unconscious, does not insert the causal gap required for a metaphysical notion of freedom. At least as I understand it, Christian free-will is the old, metaphysical, 'could have done otherwise at time t' freedom. What you've said, and the fact that we are an entirely physical organism, is incompatible with 'could have done otherwise at time t.' The laplacian demon knows all, even when it comes to human behavior. Does this mean we aren't free? Certainly not; there are numerous ways to maximize and minimize our 'popular' freedom olitical,educational,ideological. But there isn't any withdrawing-oneself-from-nature and choosing freely, where one 'could have done otherwise.' And if this is wrong, and the laplacian demon can't do what i've said, at this point the only answer why would be some quantum indeterminacy in the brain, but that's not free will, that's merely indeterminism.

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: mac_philo ]</p>

ex-preacher

Belief is not a choice. Even assuming the existence of free will (which I do), one can choose behavior, but not beliefs. You simply cannot make yourself believe something which you really think is false, nor can you make yourself disbelieve something which you really think is true. Just as you cannot force yourself to believe in the IPU, I cannot choose to believe in your God.

<strong> I don't understand the physical necessity part - please elaborate.


<strong> There is no good evidence for a "next life." Imagine that.

<strong> Yes, and I'll keep re-hashing it until you can answer it (or give in to the dark side, whichever comes first).

<strong> So, instead of going to the Bible itself, you rely on men in dresses to do it for you? And this makes your interpretation better how? Are you aware that other men in robes have radically different interpretations than your men in robes? How do you know you picked the right priests?

<strong> It doesn't sound as though your theology is built on a solid rock. More like shifting sand. Why should anyone accept your viewpoint? We (most of us) deal here with finding the truth, nor merely offering up baseless opinions and "different perspectives." Do you have no answer to the argument from confusion? Is your God the author of confusion? Or a cruel trickster? Or just incompetent?

ManM

ex-preacher,
Every system of belief begins with a foundation. That foundation is what you use to interpret the world around you. If your foundation is naturalism, you will interpret the world as naturalistic. If your foundation is God, you will interpret the world in that light. Given the entire set of consistent world views I've come across, I choose God. The only time you cannot rationally choose is when one system is incoherent. Hence, I do not have the option to believe in double predestination by a 'good' God. But given a choice between multiple consistent systems, the only criteria is value, and this is something we are free to assign. Most naturalists value simplicity, and hence champion Ockhams razor. I value humanity over simplicity, and so I am willing to allow more complexity if it offers healing to the strife of mankind. But a discussion along those lines is probably better suited for the philosophy forum.

Moving on, imagine what happens when physical necessity goes away. Why fight over food? Why worry about our future? It seems to me than things like greed lose all possible justification. Given our needs, we save for a time when someone in our family might get sick. But looking out for the interests of our loved ones can conflict with the interests of others. This can lead to fighting, injustice, and all sorts of troubles. Removing physical necessity removes the preconditions for such a problem.

Now what sort of evidence would a naturalist accept for a next life? Haven't you noticed that all demands for evidence lead nowhere, precisely because we interpret from a different starting point? My evidence is the resurrection of Christ, as passed down by the Church.

Also, I have no problem with the argument from confusion. What exactly are you trying to prove by it? God must not care, or else he would make sure that there would be no confusion? But if we are free, we would be able to confuse anything he gave us, right? God does not desire confusion, but He is powerless in the face of our freedom.

I have two options for historical churches, the Catholic and Orthodox. The Catholic doctrine leads to inconsistencies, and so that leaves me with the Orthodox. And so I have a source of doctrine strongly grounded in history (unlike the protestants), and the doctrine avoids many of the problems that can be found in the Catholic/protestant tradition. It is one that asserts the freedom of man and places God as a fellow worker with us. Hence, I believe the Orthodox "men in dresses" have the historical sanction and the theology which best represents Christianity as it was taught in the past.

Finally, I am not trying to directly impose my Christianity on you. Instead, I only wish to present a consistent viewpoint. Christianity is a method of healing a humankind that is tired of strife. The theology and way of life are geared for this purpose, and I've seen it change people time and time again. It is the unyielding struggle for goodness in the face of all the evils of this world. On the other hand, in naturalism I see a quiet resignation to death. You implied earlier that you do not fear death. Why not? Isn't life worth living? Then again, in naturalism, the whole question of 'why?' is silly. Things are the way they have been and always will be, right? There is no purpose except that which we can invent or latch on to in our short spark of a life span. This is not affirming life, but quite the opposite. Still, Christianity is not a live option for you because you find it inconsistent. Given that, there is no choice to make. If I succeed in showing you that it is in fact consistent, I will have given you the option to choose. That is all I can do.

ex-preacher

As you say, this does probably belong in the philosophy forum. However, it is significant to note that I started life and continued it for the next 35 years with a solid Christian foundation. I saw God as the ultimate meaning and driving force. The incoherence and inconsistency of that view led me out. I would suggest that you too are a naturalist except when it conflicts with your religious doctrines. Everyone is a naturalist except when it comes to examining their own religious beliefs.

<strong> Are you suggesting that the IPU is rationally incoherent? Please prove. Is every religion but yours incoherent? Does that mean you have no choice? Or is yours just the "most" coherent?

<strong> And I do not have the option to believe in a "good" God who also created AIDS, Alzheimer's, polio, malaria, cholera, killed all but 8 in a flood, ordered the murder of babies, and stood by and watched during the Holocaust.

<strong> If you assume that all the systems are equally coherent, maybe so. Are you conceding that naturalism is at least as coherent as theism? I find theism incoherent so I find no choice to make.

<strong> I value truth over simplicity. I also value humanity which is why I find unpalatable the God of the Bible and/or any god who is supposedly in control of this world.

<strong> In other words, God rigged everything so there would have to be conflict and thus sin. What a swell god.

<strong> Any evidence would be a start. Have you got any?

<strong> No. Maybe I'm foolishly optimistic, but I happen to think that intelligent, sincere people can eventually come to agreement if they look honestly at the same evidence. Our entire judicial system is built on this concept. Sometimes it doesn't work. Sometimes the evidence is weak. In the case of a god existing, it seems to me he/she/it has left very little evidence.

<strong> Why start here? What evidence?

<strong> So, it's all the fault of ignorant and/or deceitful people? I reject this. I contend that honest, intelligent Christians disagree over the meaning of the Bible because it is self-contradictory and vague on key doctrines. If it is inspired by a god, he/she/it is either incompetent or evil.

<strong> Don't forget the Ebionites, Gnostics, Marcionites, Manicheans, Nestorians, Coptics, etc. Most Protestants believe that they are restoring the "original church" described in the New Testament, not a sixteenth century movement. They consider both the Catholic and Orthodox churches to be apostate. Why do you differ?

<strong> Ha! Well, that sure was easy. I wonder so many other honest, intelligent Christians would disagree so completely with both of your statements.

<strong> Isn't this your interpretation?

<strong> Same here.

<strong> You're kidding, right? Have you studied history? Didn't Jesus come to bring a sword? Do you know anything about Christianity in the last 2000 years?

<strong> Poppycock. Every religion and/or philosophy makes the same claim.

<strong> More poppycock. I love life and do not wish to see death. I know it is a reality, thus I cherish life all the more. On the other hand, many Christians believe that this life is only a painful test. They put up with injustice (like slavery) while naturalists fight to improve this world. I do not resign quietly in the face of death. Who are you talking about?

<strong> No, we can change things.

<strong> Ah, here's the rub. You cannot deal with cold reality. This is like a child who keeps believing in Santa because the alternative is too painful to contemplate. It's time to grow up and face the truth. I too feared that the godless life would be sad and futile. Boy was I wrong. I love life more than ever and find great satisfaction in finding and fulfilling purpose(s) in life. You'll have to trust me on this one since I've been on both sides.

<strong> What will you do if you find that Christianity is inconsistent? Will you deny it because that's too difficult? Would you rather know the painful truth or live in a comfortable delusion?