Einstein Letter on God

[TimG]

What evidence, aside from "the Bible tells me so", do you have that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus?  Or, do you believe this is one of those Bible facts that should not be taken literally?

You've criticized Richard for referring to Christian beliefs as myth, but you did not address the quoted question. It seems to me that you are not applying the same objectivity to Christian legend that you are to other religious (or world view) legends.

[jtfanclub]

2) Most if not all Christians concede if they are untrue, lilterally, then, their religion is a total fake, worse a cruel fake.

Most if not all of the Christians I know disagree strongly with this. Most if not all christian theologists whose comments and essays I have read seem to disagree with this.

 

I sometimes get the impression that the word "Christian" means completely different things in different parts of the World.

Actually, that's one of my favorite questions of Christian priests and Jesuits (used to live near Cincinnati, lots of Jesuits to ask). If we found conclusive evidence that Jesus lived, and all thing said about him were true, except that he did not rise from the dead, would this make you question your faith? And so far, it's been a unanimous yes. I don't claim to understand why this is so, and yet, it seems to be the case.

[luke warm]

You've criticized Richard for referring to Christian beliefs as myth, but you did not address the quoted question. It seems to me that you are not applying the same objectivity to Christian legend that you are to other religious (or world view) legends.

tim i'll try again... i didn't criticize richard for referring to my beliefs as myths, i simply stated that his presupposition is that they *are* myths... the same goes for what you, he, i believe about zeus or anyone else... the only criticism occurs when the person making the claim denies these presuppositions

2) Most if not all Christians concede if they are untrue, lilterally, then, their religion is a total fake, worse a cruel fake.

Most if not all of the Christians I know disagree strongly with this. Most if not all christian theologists whose comments and essays I have read seem to disagree with this.

 

I sometimes get the impression that the word "Christian" means completely different things in different parts of the World.

Actually, that's one of my favorite questions of Christian priests and Jesuits (used to live near Cincinnati, lots of Jesuits to ask). If we found conclusive evidence that Jesus lived, and all thing said about him were true, except that he did not rise from the dead, would this make you question your faith? And so far, it's been a unanimous yes. I don't claim to understand why this is so, and yet, it seems to be the case.

paul said, "if he is not raised your faith is in vain" ... so yes, that would destroy christianity

[jtfanclub]

paul said, "if he is not raised your faith is in vain" ... so yes, that would destroy christianity

In the same chapter he says...

 

42This is how it will be at the resurrection of the dead. What is planted is decaying, what is raised cannot decay. 43The body[z] is planted in a state of dishonor but is raised in a state of splendor. It is planted in weakness but is raised in power. 44It is planted a physical body but is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

 

That implies to me that resurrection is of spiritual body, not of the physical body. To say that his body died but Jesus lived on in spirit...that to me is a very different thing than saying his body rose from the dead as Lazarus' was said to.

[TimG]

You've criticized Richard for referring to Christian beliefs as myth, but you did not address the quoted question. It seems to me that you are not applying the same objectivity to Christian legend that you are to other religious (or world view) legends.

tim i'll try again... i didn't criticize richard for referring to my beliefs as myths, i simply stated that his presupposition is that they *are* myths... the same goes for what you, he, i believe about zeus or anyone else... the only criticism occurs when the person making the claim denies these presuppositions

I still don't quite understand. It seems to me that Richard has not dismissed the Christian legend out of hand but rather he has some (perhaps considerable) knowledge regarding who wrote the legend, how it was translated and accepted by the Church, and which parts of the story are corroborated by other histories. Based upon this, he has concluded that the story of Jesus is at least part myth. Not unlike the process by which he has concluded that the stories of Zeus and Odin are myth.

 

Is the complaint that Richard (and others) have a predisposition not to believe in the super-natural? Or, that we have a predisposition not to believe specifically in the Christian super-natural?

 

As a child I attended church and Sunday school. I was taught that the stories of Jesus as told in the Bible were true. At some point, my presupposition was that of the Christian perspective. I now consider myself an atheist. I came to atheism despite teaching to the contrary.

 

I do not doubt that you believe in the tenants of Christianity. But, I do not believe there is evidence to support your beliefs; I deny the Christian God. I don't deny your beliefs, I just think you are wrong!

 

I do not claim to be able to prove there is no God, and I am disposed to think that it may be something that is impossible to prove. But, I have not heard any convincing argument for the existence of God, either. I believe the onus of proof is on those who believe in the existence of God rather than on those who do not believe. Just as I would say that the onus of proof is on those who believe there is (or once was) life on Mars, rather than those who do not believe. I would suppose nothingness until provided with evidence to the contrary.

 

You are still avoiding the question regarding the virgin birth.

[matmat]

i've not heard atheists give the same respect to theist thinkers,

perhaps they don't deserve it?

[helene_t]

i've not heard atheists give the same respect to theist thinkers,

perhaps they don't deserve it?

Some do IMHO. Kirkegaard is one of my favorite philosofers.

 

But theology is not one of my hobbies so I cannot mention any others. OK, Newton and Bayes were theologists too and we just read Han quoting Euler for mentioning God, but I don't know anything about the theological ideas of those guys. So there is not much to respect or disrespect AFAIAC.

[han]

as for mikeh's criticisms of the false literacy found in my posts, i accept that we all here are merely posters on a bulletin board forum, none are what i would call great or objective or original thinkers... the difference i see, and i might be wrong, is that i can acknowledge the towering and superior intellect of past and present atheist thinkers while disagreeing with their conclusions.. i've not heard atheists give the same respect to theist thinkers, some whose works are barely discernible to even the brightest amongst us - such as mikeh

You are quite a clown, writing an insult like that and then complain about a lack of respect in the same paragraph.

[barmar]

I think people do take many ancient accounts, and modern accounts for that matter,  with more than a few grains of salt. The adage is that the history books are written by the winners, suggesting that you do well by not taking everything they say at face value.

Yes. Also, when the original texts are not available, copying errors and translation errors (if not downright fraud) are huge problems. Something that is easy to underestimate in these days of high-fidelity copying and professional translation.

 

So to trust an ancient historical document at the very least you need agreement between independent sources. Fortunately, the bigger issues can be addressed by a combination of history, archeology, physical anthropology, linguistics, genetics etc.

what you and ken say is true, but has nothing to do with what matmat said... he said, " My point is that religion expects you to believe things with virtually NO evidence."

 

what he, and i suppose you and ken, are lending credence to is the "... virtually NO..." part of his sentence... there is every bit as much, if not more than, historical evidence regarding the new testament as there is regarding other things we accept as true about the ancient world...

Just to set the record straight, I think I was the one who said "there's virtually NO evidence".

 

I admit that I'm not a history scholar, and perhaps I've been reading biased accounts because I mostly read pro-atheism books. From what I've read, there isn't much concensus among historians on whether Jesus actually existed. But if he did, there's strong evidence that the Bible's accounts of his birth and life are in error.

 

For instance, the story of Joseph and Mary refers to a Roman census. The Romans actually kept good records of these things, and historians can find no evidence that such a census happened at the time the Bible claims.

 

If someone could actually heal lepers, walk on water, feed lots of people with a single loaf of bread, or perform any of the other miracles attributed to Jesus, don't you think it would have been in all the papers at the time, or in lots of witness's diaries? And surely some of them would have been discovered by archeologists by now, wouldn't they? Yet the only reports we have of these magnificent events are the gospels; they're attributed to his disciples, who could hardly be considered unbiased, and many historians believe that they were actually written hundreds of years later, so they aren't even the 1st-hand reports that they claim.

 

And even if the New Testament is true, what about all the stuff in the Old Testament? God creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days, Noah and the flood, the exodus from Egypt. Despite the fact that I attend seder every year and recount the story of God rescuing us from bondage, I now understand that there's no historical evidence that the Jews ever lived there, let alone as slaves.

 

Is everything in the Bible made up? No, I don't think so, it's "based on true events", like Oliver Stone's "JFK" movie. But is there any independent evidence for any of the miraculous stuff? That's the stuff we're asked to believe that make this a religion, not just a history.

[barmar]

And one last point: Religion "demands major lifestyle changes". That is new to me.

 

Praying towards Mecca 5 times a day. Attending Mass on Sunday or Synagogue on Saturday.

 

Dietary restrictions (kosher, fish on Friday, sacred cows).

 

Clothing requirements.

 

Language (not taking God's name in vain) and art (no graven images, no depictions of Mohammed).

 

Lent.

 

Gender-specific rules.

 

and so on.

 

Individually most of these are mere inconveniences (although the sexist rules go beyond that), but taken as a whole they pretty significant requirements on how you live your life if you're going to follow all the tenets of a religion.

Pinker explains the utility of these rules brilliantly: he is summarizing the work of others, to whom he gives full credit. Simply put, these rules are not due to reasons of hygiene (I was taught, as a child, that the Semitic prohibition against pork was for health reasons) but are instead crafted to create a social identity and to build a barrier between 'us' and 'them'. If we had no such arbitrary rules, people would mingle, and groups would dissolve and the leaders would lose their power of control. The creation of special rules served to perpetuate power.... which has long been a major purpose of organized religion.

 

The literal inability of some religious people (as evidenced by posts here) to recognize these human drives is a large part of why they are so successful. LW and others appear to truly be blind to the arguments made against their faith. If it were not for the pernicious effect of fundamental religion, such blindness should be pitied rather than debated. Telling a blind man how to see is futile, after all.

Yes, I understand why the rules exist. In fact, organized religion mainly exists, IMHO, as a way for leaders to control the masses and maintain a stable society. Most ancient societies didn't have democracy and the rule of law as a means to accomplish this.

 

My point is that most of the adherents to the rules actually believe that a God commands them to do so, they're not just going with them to be part of the crowd. If they didn't have this belief, I doubt that they would go along with so many requirements just because of peer pressure.

 

That's what keeps religion going, I think. It's pressure that comes from all angles, starting when you're a young child, not just your intimate peer group. Religious indoctrination comes from relatives, friends, authority figures, popular culture, and in many places schools. Most other forms of peer pressure come just from one direction, and it's easily recognized for what it is. Considering how it's taught, I guess I can understand why it gets past the usual skepticism people have for fantastic claims. The only other thing in life that's comparable is patriotism (hmm, does anyone know if there are more people who change their religion or change their citizenship?).

 

One thing I often find curious: Many explanations for why religion propagates so well include the fact that children are predisposed to believe what authority figures, especially their parents, tell them -- it's how they learn to survive in the world. And when we're young, they're told stories about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and believe them, yet all children figure out that they're lies when they reach a certain level of maturity (despite the evidence that they actually did receive presents and find colored eggs). But somehow they don't outgrow the God stories. I guess people have a more deep-seated need to find meaning in life than just to "get stuff", so they maintain this theory. I suppose that's a positive thing -- spirituality is better than greed.

 

Then again, they also may notice that they don't stop receiving Christmas presents just because they stopped believing in Santa. I wonder why they don't figure out the analogy, that they can live a full and meaningful life without believing in a supernatural being.

[TimG]

what he, and i suppose you and ken, are lending credence to is the "... virtually NO..." part of his sentence... there is every bit as much, if not more than, historical evidence regarding the new testament as there is regarding other things we accept as true about the ancient world... for him to say what he did is to admit to arbitrarily accepting some more than others, with nothing but presupposition as the reason... now i know we all have those presuppositions, but the intellectually honest amongst us at least acknowledge that

Where is the non-Bible historical evidence that Jesus was born to a virgin mother or walked the earth after his death?

 

What other ancient-world, super-natural events do we accept as true?

[blackshoe]

I was born about ten thousand years ago,

There ain't nuthin' in this world that I don't know,

I saw Peter Paul and Moses playin' ring-around-the-roses,

And I'll whup the guy what says it isn't so!

 

Well, I'm just a lonesome traveler, a great historical bum,

Highly educated, through history I have come,

I built the Rock of Ages, it was in the year oh one,

And that's about the biggest thing that Man has ever done!

 

I saw Adam and Eve driven from the door,

I'm the guy that picked the figleaves that they wore,

And from behind the bushes peepin' saw the apple they was eatin',

And I swear that I'm the one that et the core!

 

Now I built the garden of Eden, it was in the year oh two,

Joined the apple-pickers union and I always paid my dues,

I'm the man that signed the contract to raise the risin' sun,

And that's about the biggest thing that Man has ever done!

 

I taught Samson how to use his mighty hand,

I showed Columbus to this happy land,

And for Pharaoh's little kiddies I built all the pyramiddies,

And to the Sahara carried all the sand!

 

Now I was strawboss on the pyramids and the tower of Babel too,

I opened up the ocean, let the mighty children through,

I fought a million battles and I never lost a one,

And that's about the biggest thing that Man has ever done!

 

I taught Solomon his little ABC's,

I'm the first one to eat Limburger cheese,

And while floating down the bay with Methuseleh one day,

I saw his whiskers floating in the breeze!

 

Now I fought the revolution that set this country free,

It was me and a couple of Indians that dumped the Boston tea,

I won the battle of Valley Forge and the battle of Bully Run,

And that's about the biggest thing that Man has ever done!

 

Now Queen Elizabeth she fell in love with me,

We were married in Milwaukee secretly,

But I got tired of snooker and ran off with General Hooker,

To go shootin' skeeters down in Tennessee!

 

I was born about ten thousand years ago,

There ain't nuthin' in this world that I don't know,

I saw Peter Paul and Moses playin' ring-around-the-roses,

And I'll whup the guy what says it isn't so!

 

Well, I'm just a lonesome traveler, a great historical bum,

Highly educated, through history I have come,

I built the Rock of Ages, it was in the year oh one,

And that's about the biggest thing that Man has ever done!

 

"The Braggin' Song", as sung by the Chad Mitchell Trio.

[luke warm]

as for mikeh's criticisms of the false literacy found in my posts, i accept that we all here are merely posters on a bulletin board forum, none are what i would call great or objective or original thinkers... the difference i see, and i might be wrong, is that i can acknowledge the towering and superior intellect of past and present atheist thinkers while disagreeing with their conclusions.. i've not heard atheists give the same respect to theist thinkers, some whose works are barely discernible to even the brightest amongst us - such as mikeh

You are quite a clown, writing an insult like that and then complain about a lack of respect in the same paragraph.

strange han, you didn't mention mike's insulting post(s) to me... in any case, how did i insult him? in rereading it i'd say i paid him a compliment

i've not heard atheists give the same respect to theist thinkers,

perhaps they don't deserve it?

which of their books have you read?

paul said, "if he is not raised your faith is in vain" ... so yes, that would destroy christianity

In the same chapter he says...

 

42This is how it will be at the resurrection of the dead. What is planted is decaying, what is raised cannot decay. 43The body[z] is planted in a state of dishonor but is raised in a state of splendor. It is planted in weakness but is raised in power. 44It is planted a physical body but is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

 

That implies to me that resurrection is of spiritual body, not of the physical body. To say that his body died but Jesus lived on in spirit...that to me is a very different thing than saying his body rose from the dead as Lazarus' was said to.

christians believe Jesus was raised physically from the dead and took on his spiritual body at the ascension... i don't know what the "resurrection of the saints" entails, but i believe it is to spiritual bodies

[matmat]

i've not heard atheists give the same respect to theist thinkers,

perhaps they don't deserve it?

which of their books have you read?

does it matter? I just asked a question...

[Winstonm]

A queston on human sacrifice, or atonement, which is a staple of Christianity.

If I understand this theory correctly, man cannot stand in the presence of God because of man's imperfections, or sins - as God is Himself perfect - therefore there had to be a perfect sacrifice to eliminate these flaws.

 

It seems not even God can overcome the laws of logic: i.e., He cannot be God, and also not be God; He cannot be perfect, and also be not perfect.

 

But there seems to me some conflict. We are told that Jesus was both man and God - but does that not contradict the Laws of Logic? How could Jesus be God, and also be not God (man)? If Jesus was God (perfect), how could he abide sinners(imperfection) in his presence at the same time? The Laws of Logic state this cannot occur, that you cannot be perfect, and also be not perfect.

 

Unless as God you were all-powerful and could obviate the need to abide by the Laws of Logic.

 

So, if Jesus were God and man at the same time, which is the Christian argument, then it would mean that God's power could overcome the Laws of Logic, which would mean that a logical reason for atonement would not be necessary.

 

If there is no logical need for atonement, then what is its purpose?

[luke warm]

A queston on human sacrifice, or atonement, which is a staple of Christianity.

If I understand this theory correctly, man cannot stand in the presence of God because of man's imperfections, or sins - as God is Himself perfect - therefore there had to be a perfect sacrifice to eliminate these flaws.

 

It seems not even God can overcome the laws of logic: i.e., He cannot be God, and also not be God; He cannot be perfect, and also be not perfect.

 

But there seems to me some conflict. We are told that Jesus was both man and God - but does that not contradict the Laws of Logic? How could Jesus be God, and also be not God (man)? If Jesus was God (perfect), how could he abide sinners(imperfection) in his presence at the same time? The Laws of Logic state this cannot occur, that you cannot be perfect, and also be not perfect.

 

Unless as God your were all-powerful and could obviate the need to abide by the Laws of Logic.

 

So, if Jesus were God and man at the same time, which is the Christian argument, then it would mean that God's power could overcome the Laws of Logic, which would mean that a logical reason for atonement would not be necessary.

 

If there is no logical need for atonement, then what is its purpose?

the doctrine of the trinity is one of the hardest to grasp, and not just for non-christians... i struggle with it myself... the key about atonement is to understand that one of God's attributes is justice... man (in adam) willingly chose to disobey God and obey satan... i have to go for now, so i only have time for a little, but for God to simply undo what was done would have violated his sense of justice... so he had to purchase us from satan... had adam not sinned this would not have been necessary, so Jesus (same God, different person) took the place of adam, much as adam took the place for all mankind... Jesus did what adam didn't do... gotta go, i'm sure you know all of this anyway :)

[Winstonm]

for you to be correct tell me what warrant you can give for truth and evolution to be necessary for survival... he is simply saying, and his proof is compelling, that evolution is an epistemic defeater for naturalism...

 

Jimmy, Did you read the critique that Richard provided? I did. Now, some things about me in order to grasp the significance of my reading the critique: first, I have never studied logic anywhere, not once, not ever; second, the last time I was in a mathematics class was in 1966, Algebra II, and I hated it; third, when an idea is presented as an equation, a film comes over my eyes and I start drooling; fourth, the only thing I know about "R" is that it is used as a movie rating.

 

Now, even with those handicaps, I understood and could readily see the inconsistencies in the Plantinga's arguments. It would seem to me that someone of your philosophically-trained background could easily pick holes in the arguments as easily as did Richard.

[Codo]

I really don`t know where you asll get your view of christians from, maybe tehy are very different from the guys I know.

 

Here where I life, these are facts:

 

1. The bible is no historical book. It is plain silly to take it as a source of truth in the sense of what really happened.

Its is the Holy book and you can take a lot of truth from it for your life. But it is common sense here that this book contains myths.

 

They writers tried to paint a picture. They tried to tell stories to "Produce" believers. They tried to show how a man should be, they tried to describe their view of God. They did not write down real history.

 

This does by no means say that everything is a myth. But it is impossible to take any word and any story for real.

 

2. Of course all churches abused their power to get even more influence. They tried to make their followers as something special. So what is new with this concept? Every given community does the same: They use their vocabulary, their colours, their rules and their commitments to be different.

This is true for all churches, for most companies, for all kindergardens, soccer clubs, etc. etc.

 

3. The fact the human abused religion for real cruel crimes and the fact that their are more then one major religion besides thousands of minor religions does not disprove God.

 

4. That our logic is not suitabnle for HIM is a long known fact. My nicest quesiton was: God should build a stone so big that he is not able to hold it.

If he cannot build it, he is not allmighty. If he can build it but not hold it, he is not almighty.

This is our logic, why should He follow the same rules? Or maybe almighty is not almighty, mabye this word was used to describe a power which goes beyond describtion in our world? Maybe it was just a word used as an advertisment like "World Seires" for a local sports event?

[helene_t]

Roland, this is how I understand Christianity, too. Very well put.

[luke warm]

for you to be correct tell me what warrant you can give for truth and evolution to be necessary for survival... he is simply saying, and his proof is compelling, that evolution is an epistemic defeater for naturalism...

 

Jimmy, Did you read the critique that Richard provided? I did. Now, some things about me in order to grasp the significance of my reading the critique: first, I have never studied logic anywhere, not once, not ever; second, the last time I was in a mathematics class was in 1966, Algebra II, and I hated it; third, when an idea is presented as an equation, a film comes over my eyes and I start drooling; fourth, the only thing I know about "R" is that it is used as a movie rating.

 

Now, even with those handicaps, I understood and could readily see the inconsistencies in the Plantinga's arguments. It would seem to me that someone of your philosophically-trained background could easily pick holes in the arguments as easily as did Richard.

i have to go to work but let me ask this first.. i'll try to find time to answer you more specifically.. in your opinion, does the content of a true belief enter the causal chain leading to behavior, or does it not?

[mikeh]

I really don`t know where you asll get your view of christians from, maybe tehy are very different from the guys I know.

 

Here where I life, these are facts:

 

1. The bible is no historical book. It is plain silly to take it as a source of truth in the sense of what really happened.

Its is the Holy book and you can take a lot of truth from it for your life. But it is common sense here that this book contains myths.

 

They writers tried to paint a picture. They tried to tell stories to "Produce" believers. They tried to show how a man should be, they tried to describe their view of God. They did not write down real history.

 

This does by no means say that everything is a myth. But it is impossible to take any word and any story for real.

 

2.  Of course all churches abused their power to get even more influence. They tried to make their followers as something special. So what is new with this concept? Every given community does the same: They use their vocabulary, their colours, their rules and their commitments to be different.

This is true for all churches, for most companies, for all kindergardens, soccer clubs, etc. etc.

 

3. The fact the human abused religion for real cruel crimes and the fact that their are more then one major religion besides thousands of minor religions does not disprove God.

 

4. That our logic is not suitabnle for HIM is a long known fact. My nicest quesiton was: God should build a stone so big that he is not able to hold it.

If he cannot build it, he is not allmighty. If he can build it but not hold it, he is not almighty.

This is our logic, why should He follow the same rules? Or maybe almighty is not almighty, mabye this word was used to describe a power which goes beyond describtion in our world? Maybe it was just a word used as an advertisment like "World Seires" for a local sports event?

Thank you for your post(s). Your view of christianity seems (to me) to be closer to it being a moral code rather than a religion, and it appears to be a moral code to which 1st world atheists would aspire as strongly as your brand of christian.

 

It is almost certainly my ignorance speaking when I feel forced to ask: why are you a christian at all?

 

Your holy book is a collection of historical facts mixed with and distorted by myth. Its lessons resonate with the innate moral sense that evolution fostered in our species, but so to do the lessons of many other belief structures (hardly surprising when one considers that it is at least a possibility that religion followed the evolution of morality rather than the other way around).

 

You do not take many of the stories as true. But, I have to ask... how does a christian know which stories are literally true and which are partly true and which are complete fabrications?

 

It seems to me (and I may be mistaken, for which I apologize) that you recognize that many parts of the holy book once fervently believed by christians to be literally true are false.

 

Thus Genesis is not literally true. And mankind did not coexist with the dinosaurs, altho there are millions, and I mean millions of so-called educated Americans who truly believe that they did.

 

It seems to me that open-minded, educated christians are compelled to admit that the interpretation of the bible has changed in response to the advance of secular knowledge. Parts of the bible formerly held to be literal truth are now treated as allegorical or mythological... not because the bible has changed but because the theologians involved in the changes recognized that the earlier beliefs were so demonstrably silly, in light of new secular knowledge, that holding to them would soon lead to a mass loss of faith.

 

The problem, for this bending with the wind approach, is that it undermines the certainty that is the strongest foundation of faith. Revealed wisdom looks especially silly (at least to outsiders) when it is subject to reinterpretation or new revelations, conveniently crafted to patch an immediate problem.

 

But to the open-minded believer.. I ask... the doctrines of your church have changed innumerable times over the past 2000 years, and appear destined to change in the future. Much of what you now believe to be valid will be ruled invalid by later generations of believers.

 

And I think that you (perhaps unlike Lukewarm, as an example... and lest LW get further bent out of shape, I concede that he recognizes that some atheists can be moral, but he persistently argues that faith is the basis of morality) can see that atheists are able to hold to moral codes at least as compassionate and merciful as those of most religionists... I know of no atheists who tortured and murdered believers, but believers have routinely butchered heretics and non-believers.

 

So if you don't need faith in order to be moral, and if your faith changes with the wind of secular understanding... why be a christian at all?

 

Is it not possible to suppose that there is some form of 'god' concept that in some manner created the universe... while recognizing that our human religions arose utterly independent of that concept and that the gods of our religions have no identity with that other god concept?

 

Then one may reject all religions without having to abandon the belief that there are mysteries beyond the ability of science (and, perhaps) our species to ever understand.

 

I don't personally see any need to indulge in such a god concept, while still retaining a sense of awe at the mystery of existence. But I recognize that I may be in error on this point B) The good news is that I'll never know the answer.

[PassedOut]

Thank you for your post(s). Your view of christianity seems (to me) to be closer to it being a moral code rather than a religion, and it appears to be a moral code to which 1st world atheists would aspire as strongly as your brand of christian.

I think mikeh has it right.

 

The moral code advocated by Jesus in the beatitudes (which was drawn from earlier sources) -- if actually practiced by most christians --would improve the quality of life in the world. I think the world has been influenced positively by many of the sayings attributed to Jesus and to other religious figures. The bible contains many stories designed to illustrate the principles of good behavior.

 

The problem comes when people insist that those stories must be literally true. Roland clearly sees the bible with a clear perspective, and I gather that the folks he associates with do also. I wish more of the christians in the US had the same common sense.

[helene_t]

Your holy book is a collection of historical facts mixed with and distorted by myth. [....] how does a christian know which stories are literally true and which are partly true and which are complete fabrications?

 

Lol, that's the whole point of Roland's post as I read it: the myths convey a moral lesson. They are not to be treated as history.

 

Couldn't you find a more value-neutral word than "distorted"?

[mike777]

I think one must believe that the core of these stories are literally true or that these guys are deceitful cruel liars or power mongers or insane.

 

As many posters have pointed out there is literally no evidence for almost all of this stuff. Something is going on that 3 religions came out of Abraham waiting for 100 years to have a kid and then when he had the son he took him up on a rock and pulled a knife ready to butcher him all from some Voice of God telling him to.......This is the founding story of 3 major religions.

 

 

In the Old Testament these guys really thought they were prophets of a literal God.

Jesus says he is God, literally the God. Peter, Mathhew, John and others claim to see all kinds of literal miracles and preach that you will literally rise from the dead.

The list goes on and on.

 

This Paul guy says he has vision after vision and voices......talking to him.

 

 

OF course that does not mean that there may be alot of symbolism in the writing but to gloss over the bible and its teachings as only a code of ethics or morality is not logical.

 

Keep in mind these guys are literally promising an eternal life in Heaven and rising literally from the dead with a literal involved Supreme Being.

 

It is logical to say they may be insane or deluded or trying to control the masses through some mass illusion or deceit. In which case everything they write can be dismissed as lies.

 

Otherwise the result you have is for thousands and thousands of years you got people saying......hey these guys are nuts but what the heck lets follow the teachings anyway compared to what we do now.

[mikeh]

Your holy book is a collection of historical facts mixed with and distorted by myth. [....] how does a christian know which stories are literally true and which are partly true and which are complete fabrications?

 

Lol, that's the whole point of Roland's post as I read it: the myths convey a moral lesson. They are not to be treated as history.

 

Couldn't you find a more value-neutral word than "distorted"?

A valid criticism, especially since the language I employed reads as if all of the historical facts contained in the bible have been 'distorted', and I have no reason to suggest that.

 

'historical facts mixed with and sometimes rendered inaccurate or misleading by mythological story-telling' would have been a more temperate and appropriate phrase.