The claims are familiar: humanity could not control nature, did not understand conception or birth, and feared death, and so we invented a God that brought order to chaos, purpose to life and comfort in death. Next, we developed religion to placate the God we invented to assuage our fears of what we could not understand or control. Then, we wrote the Bible to sanction the religion that placated the God that we invented. Next came clergy, to interpret the Bible. And today, we have academics to challenge the clergy who interpret the Bible that explains the religion that placates the God that we invented.
Such debates over the existence of God are not only tedious, they are also pointless. Those who believe, believe; those who don't, don't. Belief is like love: it cannot be compelled; it does not function on logical parameters. As some religions would put it, faith is a matter of "grace." For these traditions, we do not summon faith; it summons us.
Equally tiresome, perhaps especially to those of us who have invested our lives in seeking to understand what the Bible meant to its original audiences and how it has been received over time, is the frequent claim: "Don't take a biblical studies course; it will destroy your faith." For the most part, if one lecture undermines a religious view, then that view requires deeper interrogation.
The simplistic assertion, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it," does a disservice to both the Bible and to the God the text proclaims. Whether a Creator endowed us with the capacity to think, or whether we are lucky enough to be the heirs of millions of years of evolution -- the two points are not mutually exclusive -- it would be a sin not to use the brains we have.
And it would be a waste not to take advantage of what academic study of the Bible reveals about life, about the world and about God. For the Bible, the existence of the divine is not a question. But the Bible does pose questions about this existence: If God is all-powerful and benevolent, why is there evil in the world? If God is just, why do the wicked prosper? What is the relationship between divine omniscience and free will? Where is God in the presence of suffering? These are not questions designed to challenge belief in God; rather, they challenge whatever our beliefs might be. The very fact that the Bible raises these questions is an invitation to those who read the text to do the same.
The Bible also refuses a singular picture of the Deity, which means that no individual rabbi or priest or pastor can claim complete theological knowledge. The biblical text is an anthology, with different perspectives given of the Deity and with different names, each having different nuances: YHWH, Elohim, El Shaddai, El Elyon, El Roi, El Berit, El Olam and so on. In the Book of Exodus, God speaks from a burning bush that is not consumed (already a mystery) to Moses, a murderer who has fled Egypt (already a surprising choice), and announces the divine name as ehyeh asher ehyeh, usually translated "I will be what I will be." The name is a first-person singular irregular verb, open to the future.
That the biblical God is unconstrained also means that this God is beyond gender. Hebrew is a gendered language -- with masculine and feminine nouns, and the verbs predicated of the deity are in the masculine. However, the biblical God is no more a "man" than other masculine Hebrew nouns, such as "breast" or "heart." Moses' vision of God is sexually indeterminate: "you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen" (Exodus 33:23). Ezekiel sees "downward from what looked like the loins ... something that looked like fire..." (1:26-27). Genesis insists that both "male" and "female" are in the divine image and likeness (1:27).
Finally, the Hebrew text allows its readers to demand that this Deity respond with compassion and righteousness. Thus it provides guidance on how to approach the divine: with honesty, emotion and demand. Abraham challenges God to spare Sodom should 10 righteous people be found within its walls; Job is only patient for two chapters, and then cries out against his unjust suffering. At the end, God sanctions Job and condemns his friends for their simplistic theologies.
Rather than repeat either the tired positivistic arguments for atheism or the equally tired apologetic pronouncements that study is dangerous to faith, perhaps we'd all do well to have another look at what the Bible actually says and so allow ourselves once again both to pose the right questions and recognize our answers will always be open to more question.
Amy-Jill Levine: Reassessing Jewish-Christian Relations - YouTube
True. Among other reasons, because the "familiar claims" you list in your first paragraph are indeed so familiar, and so eminently sensible, and proven in such ever-greater detail, their truth so obvious, that anyone not already convinced by them has already been proven to be resistant to argument. One would just get all dirty and the pig would have all the fun, if one failed to respect oneself sufficiently in such a case. I do so fail from time to time, but for the most part I'm talking to the other atheists and, among other things, trying to persuade them not to get all muddy in a futile effort. Not that there's nothing to discuss with believers. Often they know their medieval and ancient history and prehistory a tad better than those who are going from calling the OT bronze-age to calling it neolithic or older, or denying that it has any originality at all, or pointing out triumphantly that a Harry Potter novel mentioning London doesn't make it nonfictional, or another of their many very tired memes.
"Rather than repeat either the tired positivistic arguments for atheism or the equally tired apologetic pronouncements that study is dangerous to faith"
-- instead let's repeat this no less tired assertion that there is some sort of equivalency between atheism and the most simplistic apologetics. In short, between everyone who disagrees with us moderate types.
"Such debates over the existence of God are not only tedious, they are also pointless. Those who believe, believe; those who don't, don't. Belief is like love: it cannot be compelled; it does not function on logical parameters. As some religions would put it, faith is a matter of "grace." For these traditions, we do not summon faith; it summons us."
At some point, however, usually through study, logical thought, and observation we freed ourselves from religion. In many cases, including mine, it was the study of religion, the attempt to be a better believer, that freed us. And all the believers are welcome to think about their religion. You'll eventually (probably quickly) get to a point where an intellecually honest person will admit it doesn't make sense. And the more you dig, the less sense it makes. The conclusion that religion is man made is easy. Divorcing yourself from the emotional baggage and programming that religion forces on you is hard.
Belief can't be compelled? Of course it can. It takes a while, and that's why we program our children with it, make them pray nightly, and subject them to endless ceremonies. It doesn't function on logical parameters? If course not. Logic and religion are incompatible. But since belief is conditioned programming, deprogramming is very difficult. We do not summon faith; it summons us? I guess thats the same as "Faith is a sign that the programming worked".
"The conclusion that religion is man made is easy." That's exactly why I distrust you. Because nothing of this magnitude is or should be easy, or else you're attributing yourself too much faith. Which atheists always seem to do, considering the hubris it demands to paint people across the ages as deluded and making up lies in order to cope with their lives. I'm sorry, but you don't get to undermine the experience of millions of others you have never met and haven't bothered to meet.
It basically comes back to the claim the authors originally made about being a believer or a non-believer. You say logic only belongs on one side. I say it's a sin against logic to take your own personal experience as being from either side and attempt to universalize by applying it to a all diverse human beings across time.
Geez, the stubbornness, condescension and pride that you find in radical atheists is eerily similar to the kind you find in Christian fundamentalists.
Speaking as someone who went to study for the ministry at the age of 46, and to get "closer to god" but instead became an atheist, I agree with those who say studying the bible and/or religion in depth will destroy your faith. I encourage Christians everywhere to take up bible study. (Muslims should no doubt take up the study of the Koran and the history of their religion as well.) I read somewhere that about 25% of Anglican clergy are agnostic or atheist, and I would think this probably is constant across religions.
I am truly sorry for your apostasy. The revelation of the Lord in my life is overwhelming, so much so that the continued study of His word over many years has only deepened my understanding, my faith, and my love for Him.
He still loves you.
A revelation in one's life does overwhelm, and create the need to be closer to God and Christ.
The scriptures contain enough ambiguity and outright contradictions that those determined to find any particular orthodox "TRUTH" can find it. It took over 350 years of Christian infighting (from the apostles to the imperial imposition of the creeds) to determine the "TRUTH" of the Trinity and the nature of Christ.
The scriptures tell the truth the way an inspired work of fiction tells the truth about the world and human nature. Those who read the scriptures as a history book end up either believing things which are demonstrably untrue, or abandoning the texts as totally worthless.
"You don't understand" -- the trusty refrain of the religious/spiritual (po-TAY-to/po-TAH-to) con man. The flock can continue to be sheared as long as they don't catch on that you never actually get around to explaining all this wonderful deep beautiful cosmic wise stuff you allegedly understand and they don't. The Bible's got nothing on Campbell.
The first direction is in Genesis 1:14, use the "seasons, days & years" as "signs" to understand life & existence, therefore we're to get out of the lineal mentality and into a cyclic one. Another expressing the same is Ecclesiastes 1:9 saying what has been shall return and what is will come back again, paraphrased. A New Testament one suggest we forsake all attachments to people, places and things in Matthew 19:29. Daniel 4:33 shows us what happens to us once we follow those simple instructions after going through a New Birth, we loose all concepts of god, return to eating fresh from the growing and grow hair all over, but that state only lasts for 7000 year before believing in god reenter man's thoughts.
My findings suggest the Bible talks about god because man doesn't listen to our own hearts and inward parts, per Jeremiah 31:33 & Hebrews 8:10.
That's nonsense, as the growing numbers of atheists demonstrate. Rational thinking and some serious reading can - of course - serve as an antidote to superstitious poison.
By all means,study religion as much as any other cultural phenomenon, but there is no reason to accord it any special status.
However, if this god, or any other, resides in a supernatural domain, He can only communicate essentially, if not strictly, through supernatural means.
And, you cannot have it both ways. Either one can access god by natural means, and therefore can in theory prove it, or one can access Him only through supernatural means, in which case one has to admit to possess supernatural powers oneself.
The principle of Inaccessism stipulates that Man cannot access (and never has) any divine entity and that such an entity cannot access Man, reciprocally.
Moreover, if there is no communication, it is as if there were no entity.
The first coming, materialization and manifestation is when God outside of creation made or actually became creation, (the body, the God), since creation, the body, the reflection and offspring of God is of the same spirit (but in a different state of vibration) it contains the original consciousness of God, i.e., the God that is IN and AS creation that is unmanifested and prior to creation. The God outside and prior to creation is called the source or Father and the same God in and as creation is called the only begotten Son, the reflection of the Father, the offspring, the Son, the Christ-consciousness. This is the first stage or phase of God to bring itself forth. The second phase of manifestation, materialization or coming, is when God, now in creation, and now called the Holy Spirit when it is in a human being, manifests and materializes through that human being. ALL human beings contain the Holy Spirit of God, (the inner SELF), and ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE DIVINELY CREATED for the PURPOSE of the second coming, or second manifestation into creation. The second manifestation or is the final phase, as God becomes a living being.
The second coming of God, is through ALL of humanity one by one in order to experience ITS own creation and to know ITSELF through the divinely created human race.
The second coming of God manifesting and materializing from INSIDE of creation is called Spiritual-enlightenment, Satori, Nirvana, Samadhi, "Resurrection
Religion is by excellence irrational and even the domain of the irrational. Just how much reasoning is necessary?
Credo quia absurdum is a Latin phrase of uncertain origin. It means "I believe because it is absurd" It is derived from a poorly remembered or misquoted passage in Tertillian's De Carne Christi defending the tenets of orthodox Christianity.
The phrase is sometimes associated with the doctrine of fideism, that is, "a system of philosophy or an attitude of mind, which, denying the power of unaided human reason to reach certitude, affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith, and the supreme criterion of certitude is authority." (Catholic Encyclopedia).
In The Future of an Illusion, Freud refers to this phrase as a tactic to evade the need to support one's factual beliefs with reasons. In Freud's Moses and Monotheism, Freud argues that those whose sense of spirituality is developed enough to provide for non-rational belief take great pride in this achievement and consider it an accomplishment that makes them superior to others who have mere sensory beliefs.
The phrase inspired a celebrated bon mot by H.L. Mencken: "Tertullian is credited with the motto 'Credo quia absurdum' -- 'I believe because it is impossible'. (Wikipedia)
Society or the environment did not make him gay, God did.
So you call yourself a Christian?
Good I love challenging people that falsely think they are a good Christian.
And from looking at your comments, I can tell that you are not a good one.
First...
I want you to show me where in the 10 Commandments, the 7 Deadly Sins, or anything Jesus said that pertains to Homosexuality.
After that...
I would like for you to prove without taking out of context, or bastardizing, where the new and or old Testaments say that same sex relationships like they are today is wrong.
God Speed.
Genesis 2:24-25 is a good place to start for the creative order of a male-female relationship
Romans 1:26-27 is the next best place to go
Then 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Try those out for starters and let me know what you think.
I think its funny that people that do not know or understand the Bible like to condemn Christians for holding fast to what it says. God bless.
"we'd all do well to have another look at what the Bible actually says..."
[[Faith and Reason—Are They Compatible?
"There are too many 'religious' people who become religious precisely to avoid having to think," writes the dean of a theological seminary in the United States. "They simply want to accept everything 'on faith,'" he adds.
THE implication is that most people who profess religious faith give little thought to why they believe what they do or to whether there is a reasonable basis for their faith. It is no wonder that religion has become a topic that many are reluctant to talk about.]]
[[Search for God With Your Heart and Mind
True Christianity encourages the use of both the heart and the mind in building faith that pleases God.
IN FACT, Christianity's founder, Jesus Christ, taught that we must love God with our "whole mind," or intellect, in addition to our "whole heart" and "whole soul." (Matthew 22:37) Yes, our mental faculties must play a key role in our worship.
Jesus often said: "What do you think?" (Matthew 17:25; 18:12; 21:28; 22:42) Peter wrote to fellow believers in order to 'arouse their clear thinking faculties.' (2 Peter 3:1) Paul, exhorted Christians to use their "power of reason" and to "prove to [themselves] the good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (Romans 12:1, 2) ]]
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20020401/article_01.htm
Please reconsider :
(Matthew 7:13-14)
Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.
The TRUTH is only subjective/arbitrary in each individuals heart and mind...
But in reality the TRUTH does not care about personal opinion and it does not bow down to popular demand or current trends.
So in brief "one size fits all" is the consequence of reality and truth...
Subjective beliefs where "everyone is right" is not logically possible and doomed...
Watchtower 1997 7/1 p. 31
[[We humans cannot, and we should not, say, ‘This person is a sheep; that one a goat,’ in the sense conveyed in Matthew chapter 25. Still, our exposing people to the good news allows them to show where they stand—what they are and how they react to Jesus’ brothers. Hence, like mounting evidence for a court case, the division between those who support Jesus’ brothers and those who refuse to support them is becoming evident. (Malachi 3:18) As The Watchtower showed, Jesus will soon sit on his throne and pronounce sentence, people being judicially separated in a final sense to life or to cutting-off.]]
Maslow called "deficiency needs" or "d-needs": esteem, friendship and love, security, and physical needs. With the exception of the most fundamental (physiological) needs, if these "deficiency needs" are not met, the body gives no physical indication but the individual feels anxious and tense. Maslow's theory suggests that the most basic level of needs must be met before the individual will strongly desire (or focus motivation upon) the secondary or higher level needs. Maslow also coined the term Metamotivation to describe the motivation of people who go beyond the scope of the basic needs and strive for constant betterment.[7] Metamotivated people are driven by B-needs (Being Needs), instead of deficiency needs (D-Needs).
The being-values of self-actualization and transcendence are the higher, more beautiful aspects of human consciousness. They include unconditional love, altruism, inner joy, a love of nature, the development of intuition (in males as well as females), idealism, and a sense of wisdom that springs from within. These skills develop the right-brain functions of creativity and intuition.
Belief is like love: it cannot be compelled; it does not function on logical parameters. As some religions would put it, faith is a matter of "grace." For these traditions, we do not summon faith; it summons us.
"BLIND FAITH"?
OR
"ASSURED EXPECTATION" & "EVIDENT DEMONSTRATION"?
What Is Faith?
[[HOW would you define faith? Some equate it with blind belief. Influential American essayist and journalist H. L. Mencken once called faith “an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.”
The Bible, in contrast, describes faith as being neither blind nor illogical. God’s Word says: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” — Hebrews 11:1.
Given the different opinions about faith, let us consider the answers to the following questions:
-How is the Bible’s definition different from what many refer to when they talk about faith?
-Why is it vital that we develop the kind of faith that the Bible describes?
-How can you build strong faith?]]
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20090501/article_01.htm
Then again just answering the same prayer, in a consistent and unequivocal way, without mischief, would be a good start; prayer such as, which is the right religion, the true religion?
Those who believe, believe; those who don't, don't. - Wrong, or else we would never see people "lose" faith.
Belief is like love: it cannot be compelled; it does not function on logical parameters. - Religious belief is delusion and it functions on very well known, repeatable, predictable, and logical parameters. Get a child to believe something that is untrue and wrap the child's identity around that belief and watch how hard it is to get the person to surrender the untrue belief.