Umm, respectfully, no. Without the Kierkegaardian leap, without the faith, there is no religion. As you admit, the reason can't get you there alone; thus, Christianity is not a reasonable faith. The leap is irrational. If your faith isn't blind, it certainly has glaucoma. Genetic complexity, as seen in many species' DNA, does not lead to the idea of a Creator, but the opposite. And even if it did, why does it have to be your Creator; why not Allah, or Ahura Mazda, or my typewriter who was the prime mover? You're going to have great problems sticking to the historical accuracy of Biblical pronouncements. This is just one person's perspective, Rashomon. Absolutely, agreed. But many people, especially the Christian offshoots in the bible belt buckle in which I was reared, insist, essentially, that God, not fallible if divinely inspired men, wrote the Bible. This is what I imprecisely termed the poetic versus literal reading. The literal, every word must be true, is with what I pick my bone of contention. I think the difference, and it might be a small one, is that science provides a system for correcting itself, that science relies upon reproducible experimentation, whereas religion mostly must be set in stone. But yeah, I can point to some fascinating astronomy that supports a Bang, based upon the theories of physics that can be supported in the lab, or point to the sedimentary layers and radioactive dating to make some pretty good guesses, but the universe's creation isn't reproducible by us. Good eye. I meant beneficent (as in, What kind of God would let Vernon Maxwell contract herpes?), although I see that I misspelled that twice. I am little w/o a spellcheck. Absolutely. I've read ClutchCity intermittently ever since 2000 or so. I'm no longer in the Houston area, and can't afford league pass, so I use the site to keep up with my childhood team. (Speaking of irrationality.) My Rockets views are thus largely uninformed (hence the post count), and I find the political/religious discussions fascinating for a sports site, but usually I prefer the entertainment of reading rather than participation (I though the hypothetical game in this thread might be fun). But yeah, when I jab I jab with kid gloves, and even when I connect I mean no harm. But hopefully I won't degenerate into a site Tra(ito)r too quickly. I agree completely with the second part of this last statement, just not the first. And I think that practitioners of other religions are able to provide ideals that are at least on par with this philosophy. Lot of Hail Marys in that game? I'm holding out for the rational explanation. You're right, I'll die before I get it. I have a hard time grabbing onto the first religion to come by that offers an explanation on faith to the things that are still unknown, especially when the track record of its past explanations is spotty in comparison to scientific discovery, moral reason. But yeah, in that most religions offer an explanation of life after death, and (I think) this is their major appeal, this is something inarguable. Why must my inspiration be divined from a religious source? Why not from literature, or science, or experience?
1. Lack of geological / anthropological_ evidence 2. I understand what a myth is, and their importance
MEOWGI, I am not going to lose any sleep tonight on whether the flood really happened or not. It is like I said earlier, when I read the Bible, I take out of it the message or moral that the story is telling me. I think it is silly to get wrapped up about stuff like that, but it all boils down to your personal beliefs. If you require definitive proof of things that happened so long ago, I think you are going to be waiting for a long time. The best that can be done is archaeological digs such as the one that Max talked about with Babylon. However, I respect your opinion as it is not the first time I have heard this as my dad has said very similar things to me about the flood. Jeff, That is the one thing that really frustrates me about Christianity in that there are so many "overzealous" members who can't wait to tell those who are not Christians why they are such evil people. I really think the Christians that do that are ones who have just become a Christian or they just have never grown in their faith. A friend of mine goes to a Church of Christ and we were talking about how her old Church of Christ church made them or forbid them from doing things like having a softball team or a basketball team to play against other church teams or cannot wear skirts (or they have to be very long) or hair has to be a certain length, etc. I think that it is ridiculous but if they really believe that, good for them, but the problem is that they come off as not being tolerant of others' religious beliefs and even other Christians and that is something I do have a problem with as I see that as the main reason why so many people don't want to become a Christian or learn about Christianity. It is like they feel that Christians are this big social club. I honestly think that Christ would be very embarrassed and ashamed how these Christians act. I hope that the posts that I have had in this thread have not been construed to be offensive to those who are not Christians; if they are, then I am sorry. The intent was not to ridicule those who are not Christians, but explain my beliefs and try to shed some light to those who do not believe like I do why I believe this. And I will say this - I really have no idea what to expect once I die. I do believe in an afterlife and that you are rewarded by the Creator if you lived a life pleasing to Him, but I have seen too many and know too many good people that aren't Christians such as yourself, your wife, my father, etc, that I never tell people who aren't Christians, "Too bad you are going to hell when you die." I try not to think about it, to tell you the truth, but it is the only thing that really bothers me about Christianity.
It seems to me that your assuming that these are independent accounts of the flood -- that they come from individual sources rather than from one source. In my opinion, the fact that a great flood is mentioned by people with significantly different backgrounds is an indication that there is at least some truth in the flood story. Of course, that doesn't tell you which account is true, or whether any of them are completely accurate. All it says is that there was likely some real event that gave rise to these stories. Did these stories arise independently? That's one way of looking at it. But I don't think it's the only possible explanation. Why couldn't it be that there was originally one account of the flood (the one given by the survivors) and that the other accounts, while still holding to the basic story (that there was a flood), have been changed here and there by revisionists. I realize there's nothing in this that demands that the biblical account is the accurate account -- that is, nothing in the statements I've made alone. Some people would argue that the biblical account is a revision of the original as well. I personally believe that it's the original account, and that the others contain significant revisions. In my opinion, the other accounts aren't so much independent accounts as they are tainted accounts that still lend credence to the basic premise -- a flood occured. I realize that this can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Nor can it be disproven. A person's view of these things will ultimately depend upon what they think about the reliability of the work in which the story is found. Since I believe the Bible is reliable, I accept the biblical account. I understand that this isn't going to be a sufficient explanation for some people. The fact that I believe it because it's in the Bible doesn't mean that my belief is completely unfounded (as some might charge). It just means that I believe the case for the reliability of the Bible as a whole is strong. In those areas where iron-clad proof can't be given -- no one has a video of Noah and his family getting on the ark -- my conviction that the Bible is reliable causes me to accept its account. This isn't unique to Christianity, or even to religion in general. We all believe that certain things are historical fact even though we'd be hard pressed to prove they are beyond a shadow of a doubt. We believe that the people who recorded the events are reliable.
Jeff -- I find the emphasis on "you better get it right before you die" to be lacking, as well. and as a Christian, it frustrates the tar out of me. One of my biggest complaints is how so many churches have made Christianity a religion for the dead, that has zero implications in the here and now besides reciting some words that you believe. While I give full faith to the grace of God, I don't think that's what Jesus meant when he talked about the Kingdom of God in the here and now...in the present tense instead of in a future tense. My faith is the source of my strength in the here and now...and were it that eternal life were an impossibility through Christ, I would still seek to live my life for Christ. He is my lord, after all. So assuming that I'm wrong about Jesus (instead of assuming the rest of the world is wrong) I still would choose to live my life no differently than but in service to him...because I see how much richer my life is when it's lived that way...and that, in turn, seems to be another form of support for Jesus' teachings. I think this religion for the dead approach is why we see the problems in the church we see...it's why non-believers see the church as hypocritical because it doesn't do enough in the here and now to be the true "body" of God in carrying out His work. I think it's why you see divorce rates in the church that mirror those in the rest of society. Because, in the end, the thought is that "I'm just saved." So my life is an after-thought, because it's my death that Jesus prepares me for. But that's really only half the story. I don't share my faith with non-believers without earning the right to be heard, first...in the context of a friendship...and when I do share it, I don't typically dwell on hellfire and brimstone, but rather the difference in my life when I seek God and when I don't....here and now stuff. Meowgi -- I may be way off ...but it seems that I've seen specials on the discovery channel and others that indicate there was a great flood that covered that part of the world way back when.
As someone who preaches for a church of Christ, I find this interesting. I believe that we often get only a partial picture in our conversations with people (not just about religous beliefs), and this sometimes leads to misunderstanding. For example, I can understand why the softball team/basketball team thing would sound strange to you. I'm not sure if my beliefs are exactly the same as those in the church of your friend, but let me explain what I think about it. I'm not doing it so that you'll agree with me, but just to give you some context in which to judge what your friend said. I would also have a problem with church softball and basketball teams, at least under certain circumstances. For example, I would have a problem with it if the church was providing the funding for the team -- uniforms, equipment, entrance fees, etc. Again, I'm not trying to tell you what to believe, but here's my reason for it: I believe the work of the church is primarily spiritual in nature. In those areas where the work of the church pertains to physical things, I believe it's limited to meeting physical needs. I just think it's a misuse of money to spend the churches money on entertainment -- even when the entertainment is wholesome. In my opinion, it would by like someone going to the American Heart Association and asking them to fund a golf tournament or something like that. They're not in the business of funding sporting events. They're in the heart business. And I think people would be critical of them if they were to misuse their funds that way. I have no problem with people from a church getting together to play on softball or basketball teams, even if it's a "church league." Several guys from the church I attended when I lived in Houston did this very thing. There's a golf tournament in East Texas every year for preachers in churches of Christ. If I played golf, I would have no problem being part of it; but I don't think the church should fund the trip for me. I think many people would see it as an abuse if the funding is for the preacher. But I think it's equally an abuse if the funding is for anyone else. I think entertainment is a personal matter (or a family matter). Unfortunately, I don't believe churches are funding these kinds of things only when there are no spiritual needs or physical needs that require attention. They sometimes do so to the neglect of more important concerns. In my opinion, they often spend a significant amount of money on entertainment that could be put to better use. You may not agree with me about everything (and that's okay), but doesn't that sound a little different than someone saying, "My church wouldn't let us have a softball or basketball team"? My point is that we don't always get the whole picture. Sometimes the issue is more complex than it first appears. When put in the terms above, it sounds unreasonable. But when someone says, "We only have so much money, and we'd rather help people with real needs than fund a sports team," who can argue with that?
I don't practice a single religion. I am probably somewhere in between Buddhist/Taoist and Unitarian/Quaker (Christian), but I really haven't found one religion that fits my spiritual beliefs.
Manny, Max, et al... You all made good points with which I agree. I think that what can be so difficult about those beliefs coming from Christians is the sort of lack of respect for other traditions. I mean, most religions are older than Christianity and some pre-date it by a thousand years or more. Part of that zeal comes from Jesus, who himself was as important a political and social leader at that time as he is a religious figure today. I think it is one of the main reasons why Christianity has been so overwhelmingly accepted in the US. We are decendants of activists who came to this country seeking a better way of life. That is in sharp contrast to Eastern practitioners who often believe that the best activism is often found simply in reflecting on oneself. The idea that the only way you make the world better in the macro sense is to make yourself better in the micro sense. Rather than preaching, you have simple example. I think that sometimes being a non-Christian (or at least a non-evangelical) is like being a quiet, reserved person in a room full of loud, boisterous people. It isn't that the outgoing people mean to make the more reserved uncomfortable. It's just that some like crowds and noise and some like alone time and quiet. It is just tough when you really enjoy peace and quiet and you have neighbors that like to party all the time. They don't see anything wrong with it, but it can be a real pain in the butt if you are their neighbor.
One interesting theory that is gaining ground: The theory: As the Ice Age ended and glaciers melted, a wall of seawater surged from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea. • During the Ice Age, Ryan and Pitman argue, the Black Sea was an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland. • About 12,000 years ago, toward the end of the Ice Age, Earth began growing warmer. Vast sheets of ice that sprawled over the Northern Hemisphere began to melt. Oceans and seas grew deeper as a result. • About 7,000 years ago the Mediterranean Sea swelled. Seawater pushed northward, slicing through what is now Turkey. • Funneled through the narrow Bosporus, the water hit the Black Sea with 200 times the force of Niagara Falls. Each day the Black Sea rose about six inches (15 centimeters), and coastal farms were flooded. • Seared into the memories of terrified survivors, the tale of the flood was passed down through the generations and eventually became the Noah story. Lots more: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html
Does anyone really think this way anymore? That if someone doesn't believe in their faith, that person's going to hell? I think it's really rare, people are way past that and too civilized to think in such primitive ways.
Oh yes. I knew a guy in high school that was a certain Protestant denomination tell his sophomore English teacher (who was also a Christian but a different Protestant denomination) that she was going to hell because she didn't go to his church. Jeff is spot on - that is why so many non-Christians are skeptical of us, and who can blame them? I mean when Christians can't get along with themselves, what message is that sending??
I'm sure there are some cases, I've definitely seen a couple of 'em, but generally, people are past that, aren't they? Does anyone here think that if a person puts forth the appropriate effort to "find God" and they find something OTHER than what you found, that they'll go to hell? I mean, that's not even fair, because not everyone has the same capabilities, so wouldn't that mean God gave some people an advantage over others? I believe that if a person really wants to find an answer and they truly pursue it, they will go to heaven. For example, I'm not a Christian. Let's say that Islam is just a big hoax (AstaghfurAllah), and that I should've been a Christian throughout my whole life, and I was wrong about everything that I found. Now, God knows that I put all my effort/resources into finding the answers, and with my given capabilities, those were the set of answers I found. Do I go to hell for not having enough brain cells? At least that's the way I look at it.
Sane -- There are actually some scripture verses in the Book of Revelation that indicate that while those who placed faith in Christ are not judged, that the rest are still judged based on their works and can enter the kingdom of heaven based on that. I don't pretend to be a Revelation scholar, though. I think you will get from God in eternity exactly what you put into a relationship with Him in the here and now, frankly. God is not a cosmic rapist who will force himself on you for eternity...He truly wishes it to be a relationship and a response of love. That's what I believe, anyway. Again...I try to focus less on the death stuff. I believe in Christ's promises...but my focus is on trying to be his disciple right now. I fall drastically short. But I keep trying.
I hope that the posts that I have had in this thread have not been construed to be offensive to those who are Christians; if they are, then I am sorry. The intent was not to ridicule those who are not Christians, but explain my beliefs and try to shed some light to those who do not believe like I do why I believe this. I agree; excellently said. I walk by St. Patrick's cathedral all the time, and occasionally go in. It's stunning, architectually breathtaking. Inside, even moreso: everything ornate, sculpture, stained glass. There are many tableaus that as you walk portray the last steps of Jesus. It's particularly moving. The church has come a long way since the catacombs. But then I get to the gift shop, inside the church, and that hits a nerve. And then I take a look around, and see all the homeless perched awkwardly on the pews, trying to find a place to sleep. And the disparity between what looks to be millions of dollars of attention and detail and upkeep on what is in the end only a building, and the suffering of the people inside that (partially) could be relieved financially strikes me even more powerfully. (And of course, until recently, as you leave there's a picture of a cardinal opposite of the pope who purportedly aided in the coverup of molesters.) I haven't heard it expressed that way before, but I think that's an accurate distinction. Any system of thought in which practitioners choose self-immolation to protest injustice is one I have to respect, if not completely agree with. Umm...Governor Bush (but not President Bush). My grandmother. The churchgoers I grew up with. Mohammed Atta. Whole lot of people. And, in a certain way, isn't that kind of necessary? I dig Greek mythology, and I like what I read of Buddhist thought, and I can find beauty in much of Biblical mythology. But to really believe, and not just take inspiration from the parables contained within, don't you kind of have to choose just one, and think that everybody else is wrong? I mean, the President changed his public views just to appear more likable; to be polite. But at what point does civility end and belief begin?
I'm not sure which Christian denominations you've been talking to, but the most of them believe... Believe Jesus was the Son of God and came to earth to save the souls of humanity, go to heaven. Don't believe in that, go to hell. That is one of the central tenants to traditional Christian beliefs.
I don't really know about the Christian denominations I was speaking to, but what you said sounds like what they said. I'm not too familiar with the Bush stories, were there any quotes or anything? Mohammed Atta does not believe in that though. Horrible horrible man with problems that even psychiatrists woud fear, but he definitely doesn't believe that.
