ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete

[PureX]

The whole argument, here, seems to be based on Christianity as an absolute truth claim. But is Christianity really an absolute truth claim? Or is it a faith-based claim?

I realize that for a lot of the people here on TOL, Christianity is an absolute truth claim - so much so that many of the folks here would reject Christianity all together if they somehow realized that it was not the 'absolute truth'. But I think the Christians on TOL are not reflective of most Christians in the world, and are creating a distorted view of Christianity, here. I think most Christians don't consider Christianity to be an absolute truth claim at all, but instead understand it to be a faith based claim. That is that the salvation of Christ is based on faith, and not on a claim of the "absolute truth" of it's religious dogma.

If this is true, the whole argument of this thread falls apart, I think. The positive effects of faith in action can easily be shown to be real and therefor the faith based claims of salvation that Christianity makes can be substantiated.

If Christianity is as these absolutist/fundamentalists try to portay it, it is as irrational and dishonest as this thread claims. But if Christianity is a faith based claim, rather then an absolute truth claim, then prodigal's argument against it (so far) falls moot.

 

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by granite1010

"The resurrection of Christ is all you get. That and no more."

Uh-huuuuh. An unverifiable act taken from the pages of mankind's mythology is what we've got to go on. Big whoop.

"God-haters are the most fanatical, frenzied religionists on earth."

Rolf, here's a revelation: non-Christians are not, by default, "God-haters." Sorry if you can't comprehend this, but that's the way it is. I certainly don't "hate" God, neither does wickwoman, and I don't get that vibe from prodigal (well...most of the time I don't). Not subscribing to Christianity's cut-and-paste concept of deity does not mean you "hate" God, it means you disagree.

"It is atheists who attack others. Their virulent hatred of the truth will not let them rest."

Oh, I see. And Christians NEVER disagree and NEVER attack one another. Gimme a break.

"REAL fanaticism is given one's devotion to a cause unworthy of the time they give it."

I agree. And this description fits you people perfectly.

"See the difference between the child of God and wild-eyed fanatics..."

Rolf, you're the one going off half-cocked. Who's the wild one here?

I wanted to say all that! Shoot.

Methinks Rolf has quite a high opinion of himself. He's mistaken the mistrust we harbor for those such as himself as mistrust of God. Clue: YOU'RE NOT GOD.

 

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by PureX

The whole argument, here, seems to be based on Christianity as an absolute truth claim. But is Christianity really an absolute truth claim? Or is it a faith-based claim?

To summarize, Prodigal asked for someone to provide him with proof. Clete, Hilston, maybe others said they had some, but first they attempted to discredit Prodigal by accusing him of being a hypocrite which was a complete red herring. Then Hilston attempted to impress us with his "skill" in apologetics, which I totally fell for, and got sucked into a completely useless argument - that's how many hours of my life I'll never get back. Dave stepped in and brought me to my senses.

Originally posted by PureX
But I think the Christians on TOL are not reflective of most Christians in the world, and are creating a distorted view of Christianity, here. I think most Christians don't consider Christianity to be an absolute truth claim at all, but instead understand it to be a faith based claim. That is that the salvation of Christ is based on faith, and not on a claim of the "absolute truth" of it's religious dogma.

Good God I hope you're right!

Originally posted by PureX
If this is true, the whole argument of this thread falls apart, I think. The positive effects of faith in action can easily be shown to be real and therefor the faith based claims of salvation that Christianity makes can be substantiated.

Hmmmm. Not what I was expecting from you. Please elaborate.

Originally posted by PureX
If Christianity is as these absolutist/fundamentalists try to portay it, it is as irrational and dishonest as this thread claims. But if Christianity is a faith based claim, rather then an absolute truth claim, then prodigal's argument against it (so far) falls moot.

So, in other words, Prodigal's argument has been proven to be true by the fundi's posting here, but not Christians as a whole?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by wickwoman

I wanted to say all that! Shoot.

Methinks Rolf has quite a high opinion of himself. He's mistaken the mistrust we harbor for those such as himself as mistrust of God. Clue: YOU'RE NOT GOD.

Sorry I beat ya to it, wick. It's all right. You've managed to steal a thought or two of mine before...I suppose my mother's right: great minds think alike.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Wickwoman and others--I wasn't speaking of myself, but of God and His Christ. Nor was I praising myself. Not in the least. I was only reporting what scripture teaches. The resurrection is ALL anyone who is against Christ gets. The message of His resurrection is what you are up against.

If the Holy Spirit is pleased to use that message to convince you, He will certainly do so. If not, nothing awaits you but judgement. Again, this is not about me. It is about the truth of God as revealed by Jesus Christ. Trying to change the subject to the messenger and what you think of me will accomplish nothing for you. Neither will it alter God's truth in the least.

You can characterize my determination to stress Christ in anyway you wish. Nothing you can say will dissuade me in the least. Even if you killed me, Christ would still be the King of kings and Lord of lords. He, not myself, is the One who will judge; and that is the way I wish it.

 

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by granite1010

Sorry I beat ya to it, wick. It's all right. You've managed to steal a thought or two of mine before...I suppose my mother's right: great minds think alike.

I told you once, I'll tell you again, you should always listen to your momma.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by wickwoman

Originally posted by PureX The positive effects of faith in action can easily be shown to be real and therefor the faith based claims of salvation that Christianity makes can be substantiated.

Hmmmm. Not what I was expecting from you. Please elaborate.

The absolutists claim that Christianity is all about it's own absolute truthfulness. To be a Christian, according to them, one has to accept the religious dogma as absolute truth, and should anyone refuse to do so, that God will send them to hell for it. Everything: salvation and condemnation is based on the claim of the absolute truth of the religious dogma.

But most Christians (in my opinion) do not view Christianity as an absolute truth claim, but rather as a faith-based claim. If we will place our faith (hope in action) in the love and forgiveness of God through Christ, we will be healed and saved from our spiritual suffering in this world, and from eternal damnation in the next. Also, when enough of us make the decision to live out our faith in this promise, we are further promised that "God's kingdom" will be established even here on Earth.

These are reasonable and logical propositions that have observable results. And those results match up with the propositions. Faith (hope in action) in a loving and forgiving God really does heal our troubled phyche and relieve us of a lot of "spiritual suffering" as we live our lives. Trusting that God and existence are "good" and acting on that trust does indeed produce good effects both in us and through us in others and in the world. We all know this to be so from our own experience. When we live as if God and the world are good, we tend to create goodness in ourselves and the world around us as a result. Thus, the first part of the faith-based Christian proposition is true. And so would be the second part if in fact enough of us did choose to live accordingly. "God's kingdom" (of goodness) would become manifest in the world, through us.

Faith based Christianity is perfectly sensible and provable because it's not based on the absolute accuracy of it's religious dogma but on the actions and effects of faith.

Originally posted by wickwoman So, in other words, Prodigal's argument has been proven to be true by the fundi's posting here, but not Christians as a whole?

Yes. Prodigal's assessment of Christianity (as depicted by himself and the other religious absolutists here on TOL is correct. It IS a religion of blind egoism, obsfuscation, and escapism. But I don't think this is Christianity as most people conceive of or experience it. I think (I hope) most Christians see Christianity as a religion based on faith, and not on irrational boasts intended to belittle the beliefs of others while denying responsibility for one's own.

Most Christians are not on line arguing about these things precisely because they are not absolutists who can't tolerate any opposition to their beliefs. They accept their own doubts as natural and reasonable and their concept of Christianity does not "punish" them for this. Therefor, they feel no great need to convince everyone else of their righteousness. Why would they? Their religion isn't based on a need for righteousness, but on a need for hope and the positive course of action that hope gives them in life.

 

[wickwoman]

Dear Purex:

I agree with everything you said. Numerous times in the past and in this thread have I mentioned that the proof is in the life of those who claim to know the truth. And, so it appears that Hilston and Clete have disproved their theologies by their very poor behavior on this thread. They in fact helped Prodigal prove the very thing he was hoping to prove (in my opinion).

But, you would like to be gracious with the caveat that this does not prove the case against Christianity as a whole. And, I do agree with you on this as well. Though, more and more, I see Christians like Hilston and Clete and less of Christians like Dave and you (if you call yourself a Christian).

My mystical side would like to find an explanation for that. Possibly I am attracting the wrong kind of Christian to myself with some type of behavior, or unspoken feeling, a karmaic reaction, if you will. The Buddhist idea is that I have "hungry ghosts." And possibly Prodigal has some hungry ghosts of his own.

For now, however, it appears the ghosts have dissipated for a time. And, I will try to continue seeking the truth as opposed to directing so much energy towards combating what I think is a lie. Or, as the Zen master would say, "cease to cherish opinions."

"Do not seek for truth. Merely cease to cherish opinions."
-3rd Zen Master

"The truth indeed has never been preached by the Buddha, seeing that one has to realize it within oneself."
-Lamkara Sutra

At least that's my story today, or this afternoon, or for the next 30 minutes or so. Check with me in an hour and I'll tell you how I feel then.

 

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst
If the Holy Spirit is pleased to use that message to convince you, He will certainly do so. If not, nothing awaits you but judgement. Again, this is not about me. It is about the truth of God as revealed by Jesus Christ. Trying to change the subject to the messenger and what you think of me will accomplish nothing for you. Neither will it alter God's truth in the least.

Rolf, the Holy Spirit hasn't told me anything about this judgment of which you speak, you have. I don't know you. And, I don't know any of the authors of the Bible. So, since it doesn't agree with what I hold to be true, I will have to continue on with what I know in my own heart.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

Actually, crythvn (I think that's how you spell it), an anti-semite, bought it for me. She thought I was trying to hide my "true" self, or something, when she found out I was half-Jewish.

Brandon, I've said repeatedly that our definitions of what a "Christian" are don't line up. That's all. It's impossible to have a "personal relationship" with Jesus, in my opinion. There's more to being a "Christian" than that.

You can't even cencede that according to my definition of Christian you never were one. You can't even concede that you wouldn't say anyone was a Christian, occording to my definition.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by lighthouse

You can't even cencede that according to my definition of Christian you never were one. You can't even concede that you wouldn't say anyone was a Christian, occording to my definition.

Mostly because, as I've said repeatedly, your definition makes no sense. Based on how you would define a Christian, no, I never was--though like any relationship, if someone did or does have a "personal relationship" with Jesus, it is possible to enter it and to leave it. Even if your definition WAS true, there is the possibility that I was a Christian (had a personal relationship) and then was not (left said personal relationship).

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by prodigal

Okay, Ima try this again, I think I've got it right this time....

Lighthouse,



So, you have no parents, god physically breathed the “breath of life” into your inanimate body and you were born of no woman? Wow, I guess I never was a Christian, my parents had to have sex before I was created. So you have no parents? Wow! I think my little mind snapped, god actually breathed life into your body and you came into being! Wow, I don’t think there’s any way for me to relate to you just how out of this world that is! There’s the proof I’ve been asking for!

In case you couldn’t tell I was being sarcastic.

So? You know I was born to parents, a man and a woman. God formed me in my mother's womb, using the egg therein and the sperm from my father. He then breathed life into me.

Sure, if you can’t prove it than in order to preserve it’s validity than you must jump to the conclusion that I can’t see it. Very convenient.

You're the one who said you don't see it. I'm only agreeing with you. I never said that you can't see it, btw. I only agreed with you that you don't see it.

Would it really be that hard, LH? Would it be that hard for an all powerful sovereign god to just do a quick parlor trick for me?

I never said it would be hard. But God isn't a child, and He doesn't play games, or respond to selfish, prideful, arrogant little snits.

If that’s being disrespectful, than my question is, how sensitive is your god?

It's not about respect, or sensitivity. Your arrogant, and God will not cater to your selfishness.

Not only will he not just make my pen spin around once to satisfy my curiosity and secure himself a new member of his kingdom, he’s willing to send me to hell for sin that he either allowed or ordained me to commit. What’s your god so darned angry about, LH?

Don't attempt to make me out to be a Calvinist. And what's wrong with God allowing you to make choices, and act on those choices? Does it bother you that you have free will? And your pen spinning around would do nothing. It would only serve to make you doubt your senses, and hate the idea of God even more.

Didn’t you already tell me that you’ve never seen him or heard him? Just how does this god of yours communicate with you?

I said that I have never physically heard Him. I never said that I haven't heard Him.

I’m sure you do most of the talking, what does he do for you?

He speaks to my soul.

Does he show you things that I’m blind to?

Yes.

Little clues in nature that I’m looking at but can’t see because I’ve rejected a personal relationship with a zombie messiah whose father in “heaven” won’t even do a parlor trick to satisfy my curiosity and win me over?

This god of yours is kinda lame, LH.

The "clues" aren't little. And for one to be a zombie they would have to be soulless. Christ is spirit. As for your desire to see a parlor trick, Rolf is right. And you are a selfish, arrogant little child.

 

[Granite]

:nono:

If Christianity was anything else--namely, a source of hope for millions afraid of hell--it would have been written off a long time ago.

Let's see...a system of control based on subjective emotion, fantasy, incredible literature, all founded on a fear of eternal pain.

 

[Lighthouse]

PureX-
Yes, my beliefs are faith based. But I know certain aspects of what I believe to be absolute truth. Because I have come to know the One whose truth it is.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by granite1010

Mostly because, as I've said repeatedly, your definition makes no sense. Based on how you would define a Christian, no, I never was--though like any relationship, if someone did or does have a "personal relationship" with Jesus, it is possible to enter it and to leave it. Even if your definition WAS true, there is the possibility that I was a Christian (had a personal relationship) and then was not (left said personal relationship).

No. Wrong again. You deny His existence. Therefore you have shown that you never even knew Him. If you had, you would not deny His existence. And you would not deny Him as Lord.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Wickwoman and others--I wasn't speaking of myself, but of God and His Christ. Nor was I praising myself. Not in the least. I was only reporting what scripture teaches. The resurrection is ALL anyone who is against Christ gets. The message of His resurrection is what you are up against.

If the Holy Spirit is pleased to use that message to convince you, He will certainly do so. If not, nothing awaits you but judgement. Again, this is not about me. It is about the truth of God as revealed by Jesus Christ. Trying to change the subject to the messenger and what you think of me will accomplish nothing for you. Neither will it alter God's truth in the least.

You can characterize my determination to stress Christ in anyway you wish. Nothing you can say will dissuade me in the least. Even if you killed me, Christ would still be the King of kings and Lord of lords. He, not myself, is the One who will judge; and that is the way I wish it.

And Amen!

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by lighthouse PureX-
Yes, my beliefs are faith based. But I know certain aspects of what I believe to be absolute truth. Because I have come to know the One whose truth it is.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that you even know what the word "absolute" means.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by lighthouse

No. Wrong again. You deny His existence. Therefore you have shown that you never even knew Him. If you had, you would not deny His existence. And you would not deny Him as Lord.

I don't deny his existence completely--that is, it is possible that SOMEONE named Jesus is the basis for the Jesus myth. As Lord, yes. That much I deny.

 

[Soulman]

Raise your hand if you were raised in a sensory deprivation tank and came to a "knowledge" of Jesus independent of sensory input. You either read the Word or heard the Word, or both. Maybe you were hit over the head with a Bible, or had it crammed down your throat, but everything the Christian “knows” about Jesus depends on the “unreliable” sensory-dependent “witness” of someone else. The human authors of Scripture. Priests. Copyists. Editors and compilers of Scripture, theologians, street-corner evangelists, pastors and preachers, and finally the lowly individual, left to grope in a fog of uncertainty.

If our “eyes” and “ears” can’t be trusted, the Word can’t be trusted. If our senses can’t be trusted, what of the senses of the author of, say, the Gospel According to Mark? Not picking on Mark, but if we can’t trust our own senses, why should we trust Mark’s? If our eyes and ears couldn’t be trusted, it would require the extra-sensory revelation of “divine intervention,” or the “Holy Spirit,” to make sense of the world. Since non-Christians as well as Christians see the same sky as “blue” and not red, divine intervention, or special revelation, or “faith in the unseen” has nothing to do with it. Christians have eyes, too. They don’t need the Holy Spirit to tell them the sky is blue, do they?

“Sensory input” is all we have. If sensory input is not reliable, nothing is knowable. If nothing is knowable, all that’s left is faith, but that’s the point. If all that’s left is “faith,” facts are meaningless and no amount of “hard evidence” could prove or disprove anything. If we can’t trust our senses, faith in the “unseen” becomes just as legitimate as faith in “hard facts.” Faith = evidence, or evidence = faith is an attempt to “dumb down” the argument and shift the burden of proof to the skeptic, whose only claim to knowing anything is based on hard facts. “Faith in the unseen” is not equal to an observable fact. Mental patients “believe” in their delusions, but only someone desperate to defend an otherwise untenable position would seriously argue that the subjective interior “knowledge” of a paranoid schizophrenic is equal to the hard reality of an objective, observable fact. Can you imagine introducing this concept into a court of law? Your honor, we reject the state’s case against my client because the smoking gun found in his hand may not be real?

If our senses are unreliable, then “faith” – dependent as it is on the sensory input of God’s written and spoken Word – is unreliable. Discrediting the reliability of knowledge gained through our eyes, ears and first-hand experience discredits ALL systems and theories of knowledge, including Christianity. If we can’t trust our senses, every first-person experience and every “eye witness” account found in Scripture is worthless.

Soulman

 

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by Soulman
If our senses are unreliable, then “faith” – dependent as it is on the sensory input of God’s written and spoken Word – is unreliable. Discrediting the reliability of knowledge gained through our eyes, ears and first-hand experience discredits ALL systems and theories of knowledge, including Christianity. If we can’t trust our senses, every first-person experience and every “eye witness” account found in Scripture is worthless.

I wish I had said a bunch of that too. Actually, I did but I wasn't as clear.

Allrighty then. Hilston, Clete . . . WHERE ARE YOU?

They went bye bye. I'll give them the benefit and guess they're headed out of town for Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving!