first of all as a Christian, I have no quarrel with Atheists who keep their beliefs private, or talk publicly about their beliefs at every chance they get. I have no problem if someone wants to be an atheist. A very small percentage of Christians believe that the earth is 6,000 old. But it is true that fundamentalist Christians have done horrible things for education recently. And many Christians aren't happy about that either. What I do have a problem with is when atheists make claims about what a Christian believes based on the most fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity, and refuse to accept other Christians' discussion of their actual religious beliefs. I'm not pointing to you specifically. Just trying to give you a view from a slightly different perspective.
I appreciate that you accept the scientific consensus and speak out against those who deny it, but it is factually incorrect that a small percentage hold this view. http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx In 2012, 46% of all Americans believed that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. Amongst weekly churchgoers, that number was 67%. Again, I'm sympathetic to this. I don't want to see the fundamentalists triumph any more than you do. But the Bible is the linchpin of the Christian faith because it's the only objective source that all Christians can agree is representative of God's nature (as opposed to subjective, personal revelations) and the most straightforward reading of the Bible supports the fundamentalists, not the moderates. The scriptures are very straightforward about what God thinks of homosexuals and what should be done with them. Likewise, the stories as written support young earth creationism, not evolution. The blood-soaked conquest of Canaan by the Israelites is another stark example. I've heard arguments of metaphor and context by more sophisticated readers for all of the examples I listed, but in each case they seem to boil down to 'The text may say X, but God actually wants Y instead.' In a world where we have only one agreed-upon guide to the intentions of the Christian deity, and where the consequences of misunderstanding are so dire, I struggle to understand why he wouldn't make his nature as clear and unequivocal as possible. Why not describe the actual origins of life in the scriptures, instead of a fable difficult to grasp that 2/3 of his followers cling to the literal text in the face of overwhelming evidence? It's hard for us non-believers to shake the suspicion that moderates are trying to use subjective interpretations and rhetorical sleight-of-hand to square their desire to believe with the fact that their god as-written is a pretty monstrous character. It's hard for us not to feel that the fundamentalists have the stronger theological case.
aeolus, I appreciate the hell out your last 2 posts. You have no idea who welcome those are. Let me share this perspective on fundamentalism and where guys like me and FranchiseBlade shake out on it.... Jesus, to me, is the revelation of God. Everything else was shadows and shades of grey. So the God I worship is one who tells me: 1. my life isn't my own..that the best life lived is one turned out for other people in love; 2. that love is best shown through action...that words are cheap; 3. that all of humanity is loved by God. without exception. all of it. and I'm called to do the same, seeing no distinction between myself from anyone else. 4. that my task in life is to bring about change through love....not through shame. 5. that following him is a burden. it comes with its own blessings..but its a burden. 6. that i'm not to judge people by the standards of the Church if they have no interest in being part of it or being judged by those standards. 7. that the fundamentalist approach misses the heart... and other good stuff too. It's why I am so frustrated with the Church that you view believers the way you do....because too much of that has been earned. That sucks. The heart of God (as I understand it) is love.
Too many Christians, including myself, are judgmental about what people believe. It is a problem that causes people to perceive us as hateful people, which is not intended and not true. Christians should show the love of Christ in their words and actions. I especially agree with number 5: True Christians will come under fire for what they believe; they will seem different from the rest of the world. People like Billy Graham, Mother Teresa, and Pope John Paul II were (are) huge influences in the times they have lived.
Sounds like you are an agnostic atheist like I am. Unless you are making a definitive claim (i.e. there is/isn't a god) then you don't have to prove anything. Quite a few religious people have been taught that atheism is "hatred of god" or "rejection of god" . Of course the "god" in question is the one they believe in....not any of the countless others. When it comes to conversations like this....I like to get an idea of how much the other person knows about atheism before engaging them.
Thank you for your statements about what the context and interpretations say. But, it actually does say Y to the people it was written for. That's why the context is so important. The people who were reading the bible understood that the Genesis creation story was written as poem, and not literal, because the form was a common form poetry used at the time. The fact is later very few people were aware of the different forms of poetry used by the ancient people who were reading and being told that story. So it makes sense that there would be a huge lack of understanding. That example goes on and on. It's not that the author's of the bible were trying to hide what was meant by the texts, it was that they thought there was no doubt about it given the world in which they lived. That's why context is so important when developing a deeper understanding of the bible. It's also why today people will say that it should have been written to be more clear about the true message. The bible was written to be understood by people thousands of years ago from a completely different culture with different sets of customs, norms, society etc.
I would not. I would disagree with that person and seek to not implement the caste system. I would not treat that person as though they were mentally deficient or lesser than I am because of their religious beliefs. That you would not only advocate that such treatment is appropriate, but that it is the only appropriate treatment for that person, is disturbing.
Max nails it yet again. This is the basic premise upon which I say those who hate in the name of Christianity have entirely missed the point.
Convenient? hardly. I find very little of it to be convenient to me. I also don't really find it to be an argument.
Let me just touch on one more topic. Why is there any discussion about the bible not supporting the evolution, and talking about how old the earth is? Did anyone really expect that the bible that was written multiple thousands of years before the theory of evolution would really have anything that supported a scientific achievement thousands of years ahead of its time? The bible isn't a science book. It was never intended to be a science book. The fact that the bible didn't correctly come up with evolution thousands of years before anyone else hardly negates the bible. Furthermore if science came out tomorrow with proof that something in the bible related to science was wrong, it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't change. The reason is that the bible was never meant to be a science book by the people that wrote it. None of it really affects the message of the bible which is the most important part. It's strange that there are so many discussions about that. I'm sad when Christians try and use the bible as a science book to do battle with science, because it's silly, nor is it the purpose of the bible.
The question I have for Christians is not if they love other people, but if they love other people as Jesus loves other people. The question I have for atheists is what happens after you die.
I'm not so much an atheist but I don't know what really happens when you die. It's fine to say you don't know. That's life.
I am not a Christian but I frequently find it troubling when non-believers claim to know what a particular religion is really about more than the followers of that religion. Frequently in these type of arguments you see the critics of the religion and the fundamentalist argue the same thing that the most extreme and literal interpretations are the correct ones. As someone who doesn't share that faith I don't think it really is for an outsider to be arguing what is correct interpretation of someone else's holy book.
If I can answer that question from my faith perspective. If you have been good in life you will reborn as something better. If you have done evil in life you will be reborn as something worse. So Shane Battier will be reborn onto a higher plane of existence while Karl Malone will be reborn as a sea slug.
