Zone1 A christian-atheist compromise?

[shockedcanadian]

I agree the lies that created religion should have died out centuries ago. It's a crime that they didn't.

If God is a lie, please express what the truth is.

 

[ding]

Again, belief in a God who is there with you holding your hand, perhaps frowning when you do bad, patting your head or nodding when you do good, could be training wheels for kids to learn to start practicing virtue, just like with Santa and his naughty list.

That hasn't been my experience at all. Was that your experience?

 

[ding]

Like how cars will look like funny-faced creatures to some kids, you can misinterpret the universe as being like some creature, and it may make you feel less alone, like someone else is watching over things, and like if you warm up enough to that person he'll reward you. But then you lose the chance to feel secure in your aloneness, to do your part to work towards good in a world whose destiny is now in the hands of us humans, and to progress beyond the need to kiss up to others and to gain a deeper self-reliance.

Nope. Not that either. It's more like facing reality and being honest about ourselves and others. Instead of seeing things like we want them to be which is what you are doing now. It's not easy to be a Christian. It's hard.

Do you know what normalization of deviance is? Do you know what an external locus of control is? Do you know what critical theory is? Because you are displaying all three right now.

 

[ding]

I agree the lies that created religion should have died out centuries ago. It's a crime that they didn't.

Religion continues to exist because it offers functional advantages that atheism doesn't provide. It's very Darwinian in that regard.

 

[john54]

That hasn't been my experience at all. Was that your experience?

Before I stopped believing in her around age 6 or 7, I saw God as this motherly figure who looked after me from above, was sad but understanding when I did bad things, sad when I would get mad at her...it was extremely similar in hindsight to how I saw Santa, who also had his eye on me, cared about me, and noted my good or bad behavior. How do you see God?

Nope. Not that either. It's more like facing reality and being honest about ourselves and others. Instead of seeing things like we want them to be which is what you are doing now. It's not easy to be a Christian. It's hard.

Do you know what normalization of deviance is? Do you know what an external locus of control is? Do you know what critical theory is? Because you are displaying all three right now.

Which deviant behaviors have I normalized, in your view?

My view is opposite to external locus of control, since I believe my experience is largely a consequence of my own actions (though not entirely). Wouldn't you as a believer be exhibiting external locus control?

Critical theory "aims to critique and change society as a whole" - sure, I'll take it.

I don't doubt being a Christian is hard, but so is method acting. Neither involves being honest about reality.

 

[ding]

How do you see God?

As the creator of existence who leaves it up to man to decide how he lives his life. Which is exactly what the data shows.

 

[ding]

Which deviant behaviors have I normalized, in your view?

My view is opposite to external locus of control, since I believe my experience is largely a consequence of my own actions (though not entirely). Wouldn't you as a believer be exhibiting external locus control?

Critical theory "aims to critique and change society as a whole" - sure, I'll take it.

I don't doubt being a Christian is hard, but so is method acting. Neither involves being honest about reality.

Normalization of deviance isn't about deviant behaviors it's about normalizing the difference from a higher standard to a lower standard.

You demonstrate an external locus of control by blaming God and or religion for failures of men.

Critical theory is the practice of criticizing what you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe. People often confuse critical theory for critical thinking which is what you seemed to do. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something people who practice critical theory never do.

I doubt you have ever given much consideration to what is required to be objective. You display way too much bias for that.

 

[ding]

Before I stopped believing in her around age 6 or 7, I saw God as this motherly figure

So your view of God is a child's view of God. And your basis for not believing in the existence of a Creator is a child's argument. And that doesn't give you pause for concern?

 

[ding]

Wouldn't you as a believer be exhibiting external locus control?

How so?

 

[ding]

I don't doubt being a Christian is hard, but so is method acting.

I disagree. It's easy to pretend you are virtuous when you aren't. That's acting. Its hard to be virtuous when you don't want to be virtuous. That's Christianity.

 

[ding]

Neither involves being honest about reality.

I disagree. Method acting is used to make specific points about reality. Usually by showing people aren't being objective.

Being honest and seeing reality requires one to die to self and have no preference for an outcome.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well in all fairness it would be Jesus, and not me, who's asking the little children to come to him and telling adults to not get in the way. In many ways this verse reminded me of the "Come Little Children, I'll take thee Away" the flying witch sang to hypnotize and enchant children in 1993's children's classic, Hocus Pocus, so I wouldn't jump to this being nefarious, just again, geared toward children.

I've wondered to what extent Christianity is a misinterpretation of stories that were meant for kids, and to what extent people of Jesus's time would have been disturbed by how adults in times since have indulged in and become somewhat addicted to these stories that were, as you said, meant to spur the imaginations of young kids. Just some food for thought, though it sounds like your mind's a bit made up from what you've said...

In my opinion there are myths in the Bible, i.e. allegorical stories intended to teach, illustrate God's power, impress the law upon the people and such, but there is also history and teachings that we can trust. No part of the Bible was written for the benefit or instruction of children but for the instruction of adults who had responsibility and accountability. And even for the allegorical tales, it does not bother me at all if some believe them literally. I believe God honors the faithful heart and isn't that bothered by our theology that we sometimes interpret differently.

The Bible verse from Matthew is "14 but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The adults are to instruct the children, raise them to love and obey the Lord, but in this case adults were objecting to those who had brought their children to Jesus for laying on of hands and blessing. He rebuked them with that verse.

Also in Matthew:
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble!

I don't think we should tell people to teach their children that Jesus/God is a myth made up for children.

 

[john54]

As the creator of existence who leaves it up to man to decide how he lives his life. Which is exactly what the data shows.

But which data? This data?

Or this?

This?

This is not data, but did you mean this? As Gandalf only lives in the Lord of the Rings books and their offshoots, (and now in the excellent TV series based on the Silmarrion which I'd recommend anyone watch if not just for the spectacular cgi), so does the God I think you're speaking of only exist in these mythic pages:

 

[Meriweather]

Before I stopped believing in her around age 6 or 7, I saw God as this motherly figure who looked after me from above, was sad but understanding when I did bad things, sad when I would get mad at her...it was extremely similar in hindsight to how I saw Santa, who also had his eye on me, cared about me, and noted my good or bad behavior. How do you see God?

How odd. Without ever meeting God, you decided not only who He was, but His emotions as well. You decided the relationship.

When I was a toddler, I decided I wanted to meet God just as Abraham and Moses had. At age seven I was still on my quest. I didn't know who He was, but was still determined to meet up with Him. Seek and you shall find. (Hint, it will not be a sad, motherly figure.)

 

[john54]

I disagree. Method acting is used to make specific points about reality. Usually by showing people aren't being objective.

Being honest and seeing reality requires one to die to self and have no preference for an outcome.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Well slow down. I don't generally disagree with many of the points you've made on bias, on there being universally or mostly-universally understood moral standards, on people naturally having concepts of right and wrong, and on truth winning through in the end....but can't you let go of the idea that there needs to be a God for there to be morals? Other primates and even birds, elephants and dolphins have shown virtuous capacities such as empathy, compassion, senses of fairness and other facets of right and wrong. It sounds like maybe you're a cs Lewis reader? He spends about a sentence declaring without evidence that morality can't evolve but the evidence is pretty sufficient that it did evolve, as part of nurturing behavior between mother and child. You don't need a God really for any of the things you're talking about. If you're attached to the God part, again, why not save it in your traditions in the form of Christianity's mythical and fun elements, but look at morals in a more mature light? I don't mean any offense, it just seems like you have an interest in self-betterment and you're having to work around Christianity a lot just in order to work on yourself.

 

[Meriweather]

but can't you let go of the idea that there needs to be a God

I look forward to Ding's response.

As for me, what I can't let go of is the knowledge (not the idea) God is. You seem to be under the mistaken conclusion that since you made up a God everyone else did as well.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

lol narcissism means one gets to pull all kinds of imaginary autobiographies out of their asses.

Ok, so that explains YOU.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Which lies were those?

Read the bible..........the biggest work of fiction there has ever been.
Its full of lies.

 

[john54]

In my opinion there are myths in the Bible, i.e. allegorical stories intended to teach, illustrate God's power, impress the law upon the people and such, but there is also history and teachings that we can trust. No part of the Bible was written for the benefit or instruction of children but for the instruction of adults who had responsibility and accountability. And even for the allegorical tales, it does not bother me at all if some believe them literally. I believe God honors the faithful heart and isn't that bothered by our theology that we sometimes interpret differently.

The Bible verse from Matthew is "14 but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The adults are to instruct the children, raise them to love and obey the Lord, but in this case adults were objecting to those who had brought their children to Jesus for laying on of hands and blessing. He rebuked them with that verse.

Also in Matthew:
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble!

I don't think we should tell people to teach their children that Jesus/God is a myth made up for children.

To the contrary, I'm not disagreeing really with Jesus's underlying message, that to be Christian is to remain a child. That is quite literally what he just said. It's an offer that says, "Halt your critical thought, stem your more mature questions and be content to live within the confines of this story book, as a child would." It's offering you a way to basically stay a child.

But at some point we have to grow up. The 'Peter Pan' pain that comes with letting go of childhood is hard, but that's why we're always welcome to cherish the Santa's and jesus's and sandmans of our youth, for the magic they gave us as children, while moving forward as adults and growing. It doesn't mean you have to get rid of Christianity or anything like that, just think of it like Christmas decorations that you keep in the attic for occasions when you celebrate on nostalgic holidays and delight the kids with the magic of your own youth.

 

[ding]

Read the bible..........the biggest work of fiction there has ever been.
Its full of lies.

Or you don't understand the context. For example, the first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were allegedly written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to have allegedly recorded them.

Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 800 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning. Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong. Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom. Shame on us.