Yes - but is everything Jesus asks us to do expected of us by society? For example - does society expect us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us?
I would have to say that this was not then, nor is it now, something that God was concerned about. It really wouldn’t matter anyway; one either believes or they don’t and there need not be animosity or hostility attached to this. I do like your title; Atheism doesn’t seem as crazy as it used to. In my own mind, atheists/non-believers are not rejecting God, but only the ideas and notions of God which have welled up through our very limited human faculties to understand. If we of the Christian/Catholic persuasion can state that God is not a being who can be defined, then it follows, at least to me, that one cannot reject what cannot be defined.
The bible is a collection of books of different types. There are several types of literature in the bible.
Do I detect an ontological argument regarding human sexuality and existence in there?
The problem with this argument is that theism is premised on the existence of god(s). Whether you hold to a ‘sophisticated’ or ‘unsophisticated’ view of god(s) is irrelevant to the premise. You begin with the idea that there is a god(s) and proceed to describe the deit(its) as you wish.
Well, yes. Exactly. But what is the point of believing in something when you can’t say what it is? And where is the limit to the number and type of things in which you could believe?
Yeah, lets face it, they don’t want to experience any kind of guilt when they sin.
The existence of God is not premised on the existence of gods. It is premised on existence period.
‘A substance distinct from the cosmos’ is a contradiction in terms. ‘Existence’ does not require explanation. Why would it? The answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing’ is ‘why would there ever be nothing?’
No, you’re right. He didn’t.Freddy:
Yes - but is everything Jesus asks us to do expected of us by society? For example - does society expect us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us?
Said another way - did Jesus say or do anything differently than what was expected from a sociological standpoint?
I don’t see that. But I’d be keen to hear your position on it.Freddy:
Do I detect an ontological argument regarding human sexuality and existence in there?
That should cause a problem for some of your other stances, say on abortion and gender speculations.
If I knew the student I could tell you if his answer was naiive or just plain dumb (notwithstanding that I’ve heard the story in various forms over the years as a gentle put down to belittle non-believers’ idea of what God entails). How can you give a personal description of something in which you don’t believe. It’s like asking me what colour eyes I think Bigfoot has.
A very good point. Many of our own understandings may be said to be no different from the ancients who, wishing to come up with explanations for the world they knew, came up with the elaborate and multitudinous stories we know today. I can only speak for myself here. My foundation as a small child was in what we could call the traditional Christian faith. As I grew that took on more and more diverse slants on what that meant precisely. In my mid 30’s I began to feel that what I was basing my faith on was overly simplistic and I was no longer satisfied with the pat answers. After a few more years of that I started looking well outside the boundaries of accepted Christianity in a search for meaning that went beyond the mere “have faith” rejoinders.
So here we come to another avenue of exploration. When I say I believe in God I know that I am immediately going to be slotted into any number of default files by whomever is listening. I think the very word, god, carries with it so many preconceived notions that we are often going to be further ahead if we use something else. Bishop Barron states that God is not a being, even a supreme being, but is all of being itself. Not everyone cares for that explanation but it works very well for me. Our material existence is one aspect of that “being”. I could say, instead of belief in god, that I believe in a living, conscious universe. Of course, that also immediately puts me into yet another default file by any number of others who will call me any number of other things. But this is what works for me. If a further defining is needed; what some call “nature”, I call God. I just happen to love the Roman Catholic take on that.
Quite an honest post. Thanks for that.FiveLinden:
A very good point. Many of our own understandings…
Aye, laddie, there’s the rub. But if someone says to me ‘I don’t believe in God’, it is perfectly natural for me to ask what they mean by that. Rather than go into a lot of repetition I would invite you to have a look at my reply to FiveLinden above.
I don’t think I would apply that to the story of Wright’s conversation with said student. I interpreted it to be a very sympathetic one and would intend it that way if I were to use it myself. I’m a devout Christian but reject pretty much every explanation I have ever heard about God. In a sense that makes me an unbeliever, if what we’re to believe are the explanations we have been given by those who are just as naive as I am.
My point Fred was that he took it further. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. You first, me second - always. No male, no female - 2000 years ago! You are correct though - much of what he proposed was not novel. A lot of it was though, wouldn’t you agree?
I guess if pushed I’d have to say something catch-all like ‘God is what’s been explained to me over the years in a variety of ways as being the creator and sustainer of the universe and is personally interested in me and everyone else and…and…’Freddy:
Aye, laddie, there’s the rub. But if someone says to me ‘I don’t believe in God’, it is perfectly natural for me to ask what they mean by that.
I probably wouldn’t. But if you have some examples…?Freddy:
My point Fred was that he took it further. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. You first, me second - always. No male, no female - 2000 years ago! You are correct though - much of what he proposed was not novel. A lot of it was though, wouldn’t you agree?
I like what an atheist friend of mine said to me years ago; that despite his rejection of religion, he could not shake the feeling that we are all hard-wired to seek something beyond ourselves and our known world. Perhaps I could have used the word “religion” to better effect in my original response to you. It’s way easier for me to accept that what atheists are rejecting is organized religion, not God. But that could be a whole other topic. Ok, now I must log off. I was headed that way but then got bogged down in 1970’s baseball stats on another favorite site. LOL