The World's history according to Christianity

[AnAtheist]

BibleReader:

That “punishment” may be ironic – the awayness from God which we sought in our lives of sin.

I tried not to go into detail. As there are lots of Christian who see Hell as outright punishment, I mentioned that. But ok.

***Because ***Christ died for us, grace is available.

I fail to see the logical connection.

 

[AnAtheist]

germys9:

Can you derive logical or at least a plausible explanation of why there are incorruptible bodies of saints several hundred years old? Science couldn’t figure that one out.

You mean the well preserved corpses of Buddhist monks?
I’m no biologist, but I have heard that certain diets practiced by ascetics before and the right climate of the surroundings after death, produce such well preserved bodies.

What about all of the proven eucharistic miracles. Proven miracle by the fact that science had no explanation.

Highly doubtful. Sources?

As Chesterton once wrote, “There would be no athiests if there were no God.”

There would be no deserters, if there was no war.

 

[AnAtheist]

trogiah:

An interesting question to try and answer. I have a different question to ask. I am interested in your answer. Once I have it and understand it, I will try to answer your question.

Question: Is the world (reality, the Universe, creation) fundamentally good or fundamentally bad? Is it acceptable or unacceptable?

Fair enough, I’ll give it a try:

Good and bad are classifications of human behaviour, so the world is neither. The world is what it is, with or without humans. Those terms simply do not apply. That is like asking, what colour a sound is made of. And that is very much acceptable.

I guess, the *real *question is, whether humans are fundamentally good or fundamentally bad. As any living creature, humans try to survive. Survival is only possible in groups, a single human usually cannot survive on his own. For groups to function certain rules are necessary (and some of those are quite obvious, like not killing other members of that group), following those rules is called good, breaking them is called bad. Keeping that in mind, humans are both good *and *bad, but not fundamentally.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Well there is evidence that religion has a strong survival feature to it in that it helps groups work together.

Personally though, I know that given enough time hydrogen atoms will turn into planets, and flowers, and used car salesmen…but that by itself leaves me a little cold.

I can’t prove it, but I chose to believe that there is something more.

AnAtheist may require logical rigor in his world view but for me there is room in a healthy mind for the uncanny.

shrug

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

There would be no deserters, if there was no war.

right. so if there are deserters, then there is war.

and if there are atheists…

 

[john_doran]

there are a number of errors in this account, but i’m not sure i have either the time or the inclination to provide exhaustive correctives…

AnAtheist:

At that point He gives a soul to those creatures, transforming them real humans. ***Each ***soul has the following properties:

apart from the first property (i.e. eternity), all of the properties you list are properties of persons, which are understood as the union of body and soul.

to be sure, the soul is understood as the seat of the rational and volitional faculties of the person, but still - people have obligations, not souls.

AnAtheist:

It is eternal and leaves the body after death.

yes. and will be rejoined with the body thereafter.

AnAtheist:

It is expected to follow a certain code of conduct set by Him.

this isn’t exactly right: moral norms aren’t effective because god says to follow them - god says to follow them because they’re effective.

divine command morality (the view that something is wrong or right because god says so) seems to me to be self-referentially invalidating: to say “one ought to do x because god says so” assumes “one ought to follow god’s commands”. but why should one do that?

so. god sets the code of conduct in a similar fashion to the way he sets up other laws, like gravity, or, perhaps more to the point, biophysical laws regarding nutrition and health: human nature is such that it is inclined toward a fulfillment of its rational animality that can only be achieved in a certain way - namely by doing what’s good for it. and what’s good for it is a function of the way it and the world work together. just like nutrition is a function of the way our bodies work together with their environment.

which means that we’re “expected” to follow the code of conduct in the same way that we’re “expected” to be healthy: if what you want is to be healthy, then you are going to have to eat the right foods in the right proportion; in a similar way, if what you want is to be a good person, then you are going to have make the right choices for the right reasons.

what god is doing when he tells us what to do, so to speak, is telling us what’s (morally) good for us, since - like most good parents - he knows what’s best for us better than we do.

AnAtheist:

Every single soul has already broken the code, because the first two souls did so.

no. humanity pays for the original sin of adam and eve in the same way that, for example, a child might pay for its parents’ dissolute lifestyle choices by inheriting a genetic defect. only this, of course, is a spiritual defect.

AnAtheist:

It is necessary for every soul to recognise that, to repent, and to ask God for forgiveness for breaking the code, so that it may be saved from the punishment.

no. one does not ask for forgiveness for original sin, since it is not a sin one has committed. if you’re asking for baptism at all, then you are presumably of an age, however, to be asking for other sins that you have committed.

at any rate, to ask for baptism is to ask god to heal the spiritual damage inherited from our first parents.

this is, of course, a more or less gross oversimplification. but still - it’s closer to the truth than you’re original synopsis.

as for the rest of the summary, it seems to have been formulated in such a manner as to suggest that the christian story is more or less inherently implausible. and i’m not sure how to address something as vague as that other than to point out that it doesn’t seem that way to me at all - it seems like precisely the way an infinite being would have arranged things…

 

[buffalo]

It is so difficult for anatheist to accept things beyond his own intellect. This is pride. ** There is an arrogance that demands God be accountable to his thinking and awareness.** If it doesn’t make sense to me (the created) then I can’t believe in the creator. This thinking continues - If I were God I would have done it differently.

 

[CatholicHoser]

Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but I don’t understand why AnAtheist insists on wasting so much of his time posting on a Catholic message board. What is his point? What is he trying to accomplish? In a word: :banghead: .

If he is so certain that God does not exist, then why doesn’t he just go his merry way and leave others in peace to believe what they want to believe? From my observation, (observation being something AnAtheist seems to value above all else), he has not even come close to “de-converting” anyone, attempt after attempt after attempt.

It seems that by wasting so much of his time on these boards, he is, deep down, very unsure of his beliefs and seeking, by these boards, to talk himself into them. He is desperate for some sort of independent verification. Too bad.

I think he should go outside or take up a hobby or something. Crossword puzzles or gardening, maybe? But man I gotta admit, this is getting embarassing to read. Honest.

Props to all those with the patience to continue arguing, I have learned something about that virtue from you. You’re an inspiration to me.

That’s all I got to say.

 

[john_doran]

guys, seriously, don’t posts like that strike you as just a little on the uncharitable side? i mean, what are you hoping to accomplish by calling someone arrogant or desperate or a time-waster?

he has always been courteous and polite in the exchanges i have had with him…

shouldn’t that be enough?

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

this isn’t exactly right: moral norms aren’t effective because god says to follow them - god says to follow them because they’re effective.

I don’t understand. What is the difference, when God is the one installing them?

so. god sets the code of conduct in a similar fashion to the way he sets up other laws, like gravity, or, perhaps more to the point, biophysical laws regarding nutrition and health:

Well, you can’t defy the laws of gravity, but what you say about nutrition makes sense.

no. humanity pays for the original sin of adam and eve in the same way that, for example, a child might pay for its parents’ dissolute lifestyle choices by inheriting a genetic defect. only this, of course, is a spiritual defect.

Ok, but you agree, that there is at least some kind of defect? That one has to get rid of somehow?

as for the rest of the summary, it seems to have been formulated in such a manner as to suggest that the christian story is more or less inherently implausible.

It certainly is. If it would be plausible to me, I’d be AChristian, right?

and i’m not sure how to address something as vague as that other than to point out that it doesn’t seem that way to me at all - it seems like precisely the way an infinite being would have arranged things…

Interesting… I could think of a bazillion other, more plausible ways to arrange things.

 

[eptatorata]

Sigh. Try this one:

Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but I don’t understand why A_Theist insists on wasting so much of his time posting on an atheist message board. What is his point? What is he trying to accomplish? In a word: :banghead: .

If he is so certain that God does exist, then why doesn’t he just go his merry way and leave others in peace to believe what they want to believe? From my observation, (observation not being something A_Theist seems to value above all else), he has not even come close to “converting” anyone, attempt after attempt after attempt.

It seems that by wasting so much of his time on these boards, he is, deep down, very unsure of his beliefs and seeking, by these boards, to talk himself out of them. He is desperate for some sort of independent verification. Too bad.

I think he should go outside or take up a hobby or something. Crossword puzzles or gardening, maybe? But man I gotta admit, this is getting embarassing to read. Honest.

Props to all those with the patience to continue arguing, I have learned something about that virtue from you. You’re an inspiration to me.

That’s all I got to say.

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

Ok, but you agree, that there is at least some kind of defect? That one has to get rid of somehow?

[377](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/377.htm’) The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

**405 **Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

 

[AnAtheist]

That makes sense

buffalo:

**405 **Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".

up to here.

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God,

Why should a sepreme being, capable of creating a universe out of nothing, care for specific rituals?

but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

I don’t understand. What is the difference, when God is the one installing them?

i am just pointing out that god didn’t create us and then institute moral norms - the moral norms follow from the way he created us. in much the same way that god idn’t have to do anything extra, once he made the physical universe, to get material objects to be gravitationally attracted to one another.

AnAtheist:

Ok, but you agree, that there is at least some kind of defect? That one has to get rid of somehow?

sure. if you want to get rid of it.

AnAtheist:

It certainly is. If it would be plausible to me, I’d be AChristian, right?

well, i wasn’t just saying that it’s implausible to you - the point you were making is that the facts as you described them were intrinsically implausible - like “waiting for billions of years” to create life is somehow deseriving of skepticism in and of itself. which makes no sense to me.

AnAtheist:

Interesting… I could think of a bazillion other, more plausible ways to arrange things.

that doesn’t make sense: there’s no such thing as a “plausible” way for god to create a world - god will create whatever world he wants in whatever way he wants.

to be sure, there are an infinite number of worlds god could have created, but it’s meaningless to say that any of them are more “plausible” candidates than any other.

i mean, what does it mean to say, for example, that it would have been “more plausible” for god to have created the universe that would now have been 5 billion years old? or 35 billion?

i can make as much sense of that as i could saying something like “it would have been more plausible if you liked chocolate ice cream rather than vanilla”.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Why should a sepreme being, capable of creating a universe out of nothing, care for specific rituals?

because he cares about us, and we are the kind of beings that care about ritual - beings to whom ceremony and symbol are critical components of our psycho-social constitution.

why would a supreme being create people like that? why not?

 

[trogiah]

AnAtheist:

Fair enough, I’ll give it a try:

I appreciate it.

AnAtheist:

Good and bad are classifications of human behaviour, so the world is neither. The world is what it is, with or without humans. Those terms simply do not apply. That is like asking, what colour a sound is made of. And that is very much acceptable.

I would suggest that, irrespective of religious affiliation, not everyone would see things as you do. Some people, usually because of some personal experience, (perhaps a tsunami that swept away one’s children, or a lifetime of living with an abusive parent) would feel very strongly that the world, reality, is outright evil, completely unacceptable. Such people generally have to reach some level of acceptance of reality or give up their sanity.

The meaning of your last sentence is not perfectly clear but I think you are saying that the world is acceptable.

AnAtheist:

I guess, the *real *question is, whether humans are fundamentally good or fundamentally bad. As any living creature, humans try to survive. Survival is only possible in groups, a single human usually cannot survive on his own. For groups to function certain rules are necessary (and some of those are quite obvious, like not killing other members of that group), following those rules is called good, breaking them is called bad. Keeping that in mind, humans are both good *and *bad, but not fundamentally.

That all sounds reasonable to me. But I don’t believe it tells the whole story.

My point in asking the question orginally is that we, (people, human beings, maybe some animals but I really have no way of knowing so lets not go there) have the ability, to look at the world and everything and everyone in it and make judgements about the goodness and badness of it. Whether I call it the soul, or the consciousness or whatever, this seems like a reality of being a person.

So what do we do with this ability. Is there some reason to think that some things or some actions are truly better than others. Is it all just a matter of point of view or is there real objective truth.

So far in my life I have found the latter to be true.

Regarding you summary of Christian history. Perhaps you could consider a different perspective. Instead of looking at it as a record of how God revealed himself to humans, consider it a record of how humans came to see God more clearly.

God speaks. Reality reveals itself. In all times and all places and in every language. The question is, can we hear and understand?

I would say that Moses was a man who, because of a very uniques set of circumstances, was able to make more sense of reality than most people. And the experience and record of the Hebrew people are largely a reflection of his understanding of reality.

Similar things could be said of the Prophets.

I believe Jesus (again because of a very unique set of circumstances) knew the world, reality, the way an only and most beloved son knows his own father.

I believe, even though none of our circumstances are exactly the same, that we can get closer to knowing reality in the same way.

Just like, even though I am not as brilliant as Isaac Newton, I can use his laws to drive a car better or set a ladder on my house so it won’t fall when I climb it.

Regarding the ritual and sacraments that don’t do much for you, They can be helpful things in keeping people making good choices and avoiding bad choices. They also can be distorted and made sources of judgement of one person against another. Jesus tried to make clear that they shouldn’t be used for that.

I better stop for now. You answered my question so I thought I would try to answer yours.

peace

-JIm

 

[Mijoy2]

AnAtheist:

.

I guess, the *real *question is, whether humans are fundamentally good or fundamentally bad. As any living creature, humans try to survive. Survival is only possible in groups, a single human usually cannot survive on his own. For groups to function certain rules are necessary (and some of those are quite obvious, like not killing other members of that group), following those rules is called good, breaking them is called bad. Keeping that in mind, humans are both good *and *bad, but not fundamentally.

This won’t go over well but here goes…

Without an objective truth, good and/or bad can not exist. We need a point of reference, an objective good. Without it we have neither good nor bad.

Is what Hitler did good or bad? How do we measure it? By his own terms his actions were obviously not bad. We all raise or lower the bar depending on where we believe it should be.

What I have great difficulty with is how the Atheist can believe that the random process of nature has progressed to the point it has for absolutly no reason. To combine this random process with the defintion of good/bad, we can dig ourselves into a deep philosophical hole.

(IMO) I’d contend good/bad are totally meaningless terms if the Athiest perspective is true. If everything is temporal and the world came into existence for no reason, then by natural progression everything is meaningless. Life is nothing more then a random process. Our feelings of love and empathy for others are an unfortuate outcome of this meaningless process. This process resulted in a race called humans who all ultimately die and leave loved ones heartbroken. Tragedys happen for no reason other then the natural progression of this process. Love is without meaning beyond the fleeting temporal accidental emotion it provides to us accidental beings.

If I could be conclusively convinced that the Atheist position was truth, I’d personally prefer to expire right now. I say this without emotion. Everything would become as meaningless as the Atheist contends (by my defintion, not necassarily the Atheists. However I maintain that anything temporal is ultimately without meaning. If a tree falls in the woods who cares!).

I saw a movie once, can’t recall the name. It had to do with the after affects of a nuclear war. There were no bombs going of in this film, the bombs were assumed to have gone off a distance away. What ultimately happened was people began dying because of radioactive contamination. All emotion disappeared; towards the end as mothers would carry thier children to the daily gathering pile of the dead without sheding a tear. For me to discover there is no God, I believe I’d come to this emotionless state. Counting down the days to non-existance.

Just my opinion. I know others feel quite differently. Therefore even if the Atheist it correct, it’s faith and hope that keep me alive and well. I’ll die a happily deceived person .

Looks like faith is a win win situation. As Chesterson said (paraphrased probably), “I don’t have enough Faith to be an Atheist”.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

that doesn’t make sense: there’s no such thing as a “plausible” way for god to create a world - god will create whatever world he wants in whatever way he wants.

to be sure, there are an infinite number of worlds god could have created, but it’s meaningless to say that any of them are more “plausible” candidates than any other.

That’s true. But there are other plausible ways to describe the world, and why it is like it is. Consider adding another paragraph to my list:
Then he waits for another 600 years and reveales Himself to a single human in a direct effort, because the first two attempts did not convey exactly what He intended to and people understood Him terrible wrong. He then tells Him what the covenant (code) is REALLY like, and how He REALLY wants to be worshipped.

More or less plausible?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

As C.S. Lewis pointed out in “Mere Christianity”, those like “AnAtheist” cry out against an “absolute” view of anything, yet they don’t abide by their own “rule”, so to speak.

They don’t like the idea that, say, morality can be absolute. They claim that it is because of, oh, societal conditions and the drive for survival that human beings somehow come up with “rules” or codes of conduct, and that those rules constantly change.

Hmmm. OK. Let’s see, then. If that were true, two things:
First: Why DO the majority of humans AGREE on so many more things than they disagree? After all, we’re all individuals, and we’ve had literally hundreds of thousands of “societies” throughout recorded history. There should, logically speaking, be hundreds of thousands (at least) of examples of different rules and codes of conduct. But there aren’t. It is amazing that not only is there overall such remarkable similarity over time over so many “rules”, but that, for the most part, those rules involve not just “tolerance” but actually SELFLESS or altruistic behavior to a degree that doesn’t just involve my own little family or tribe, and in quite a few cases doesn’t preserve my own life or that which one would materially think would be “most important” to me OR society.
Second: Why is it that, in all those times, there haven’t been societies which have been the antithesis to the “golden rule” or what’s been called in the old days “Natural Law”? Why aren’t there societies where it is GOOD to be cowardly, promiscuous, thieving, lying, murderous? After all, isn’t it better to “fight and run away and live to fight another day” if one wants to SURVIVE–yet are people “proud” of doing so? Or don’t they make a huge case that they are really BRAVE?
Nope, instead of proudly boasting about “looking out for #1” there is always an attempt to “excuse” a behavior that isn’t “moral”. There’s an attempt to make it look as though “moral” really isn’t. . .like attempting to show that chastity, by “repressing one’s NATURAL urges”, is really IMMORAL to the body. Of course, one is supposed to repress all sorts of natural urges like punching people in the nose, or passing gas, etc., apparently it’s only sex that can’t be suppressed.

Any answers to explain the questions above?

 

[AnAtheist]

trogiah:

I would suggest that, irrespective of religious affiliation, not everyone would see things as you do. Some people, usually because of some personal experience, (perhaps a tsunami that swept away one’s children, or a lifetime of living with an abusive parent) would feel very strongly that the world, reality, is outright evil, completely unacceptable. Such people generally have to reach some level of acceptance of reality or give up their sanity.

Yep, or treat it as Karma, esp. in the region of the recent tsunami.

The meaning of your last sentence is not perfectly clear but I think you are saying that the world is acceptable.

The world IS. I think, it’s acceptable, that the world is neither good nor bad.

Regarding you summary of Christian history. Perhaps you could consider a different perspective. Instead of looking at it as a record of how God revealed himself to humans, consider it a record of how humans came to see God more clearly.

Interesting perspective. With one obstacle:

God speaks. Reality reveals itself. In all times and all places and in every language. The question is, can we hear and understand?

Shouldn’t God speak in a somewhat self-evident or plausible (for anybody) way, in other words in a way everybody can hear? Christianity is far from self-evident, and not plausible to anyone. I, for my part, think, Deism and Buddhism are far more plausible.