Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Jesus for President, a Review for Atheists -- Part 2: God's Story
Last week, I introduced the co-author of Jesus for President, Shane Claiborne, who is a phenomenon with no equivalent outside of the born-again Christian subculture. He openly and unambiguously opposes capitalism and "empire," and because the source of his politics is the Bible, he has an exploding audience in the American evangelical church -- especially the white, upper-middle class church.
Shane's first book, Irresistible Revolution, is being read at this moment by probably thousands of little Bible study groups around the country. Jesus for President, written with Chris Haw, is already a best seller. Both books are part of a greater mass audience theological trickle-down of 2,000-year-old themes that have been making a come back among Christian intellectuals for sometime.
Jesus for President, is a walk through the Bible using an approach that some call Narrative Theology. From Genesis to Revelation, they apply "God's story" to present-day life under capitalism and the American empire. Today, I want to give you some samples of how they actually do it (page scans below!). My goal is not to convert you, but to show how, if you use your imagination, you might see some sense, beauty and power in this story as they see it.
One of my biggest surprises in getting to know Bible believin' Christians is that they are able to keep their eyes wide open while diving into the ancient texts of the Bible head first. They are asking the hard questions and finding poetic answers though serious scholarly study. Jesus for President is one of the most accessible examples available for non-believers to see how they do it.
In the Bible, God gets angry. He wipes out cities, nations and even the entire human race once. He steps in to save his favorites sometimes, and other times tempts or tortures them just to see what they'll do. And even if you were to write off all the smiting, giants and 900-year-old men as "Old Testament myths" (as a lot of liberal Christians do), the fundamental plot line still seems crazy. As Julia Sweeney says:
Why would a god create people so imperfect then blame them for their own imperfections? Then send his son to be murdered by those imperfect people to make up for how imperfect those people were --- and how imperfect they were inevitably going to be. I mean what a crazy idea!
How in the world do modern Christians who believe in a "kind, unchanging and all-powerful god" think they can answer that?
The answer -- sort of -- is that they don't. "It's a mystery!" they say. Their starting point is a leap of faith that God is up to something in the world that is beyond our comprehension. Even though God could fix humanity with the snap of a finger, he doesn't want that kind of relationship with us. And that's what makes it potentially beautiful: God desires a relationship with humanity -- and desires that it should be interesting. Isn't that wild? I've even heard some preachers say that God created us to be a companion to him. It doesn't mean God never interacts with or intervenes in humanity. On the contrary -- what kind of relationship would that be? The Bible, as read by Claiborne and Haw, is the story of a God who never gives up on humanity, no matter how bad we screw things up down here. Yet it is the story of a God who gives us our independence and expects a lot of us.
That is why, in my experience, many Christians are more "humanist" than people who call themselves "secular humanists." Secular humanists do not believe that humans have special place in the grand scheme of the universe; Christians do.
Here's one place, from the first few pages, where Shane & Chris sum it up:
[Note: the markings (except for a couple check marks in the margins and one scribble further below) are part of the original text. The book is designed like this on every page throughout!]
Many of you will be thinking (and commenting below), "What kind of idiots believe these old stories are actually true!?" There are a couple of things to say about that. I don't know what Shane & Chris personally believe regarding the absolute historical accuracy of the whole Bible. But, for many, deep study of the Bible has caused them to let go of the idea that everything in the Bible accurately represents real history. At the same time, they continue to commit to the Bible as a text that is held communally to be "true" and the sole source of authority.
Is it crazy to do that with a 5,000 year old book of cobbled-together stories and poems? Yes. But, is it any less crazy to believe that the law of supply and demand actually regulates the economy, that anti-depressants actually work, or that human history has been a steady march in the direction of progress? Sure, we can supply all kinds of stories and examples to back up that kind of a worldview. But few will have much grounding in anything that can truly be called fact. More importantly though: those mainstream truths are handed down authoritatively to us by economist priests, doctor priests and academic priests. It is very difficult for a lay person to confidently question a psychiatrists' diagnosis, isn't it?
For Christians like Shane and Chris, on the other hand, truth in the Bible is a communal act, not a set of facts. Every individual in their own community, as in the whole body of the church, is understood to have equal right and inherent ability to wrestle with scripture to produce truth. That doesn't mean everyone can come up with their own truth; that's individualism, not communalism. Scary? Uncomfortable? Yes. But it's communitarian, not authoritarian.
I hope I've brought at least a few skeptical readers to the point where they might consider paying at least an ounce of respect to this Christian biblical idea of communal truth. So let's keep moving: Shane and Chris see the Christian community as bound to this story of the bible; let's see where that story goes after humans' disastrous debut on the stage of history.
You've heard of all those crazy rules in biblical books like Leviticus or Deuteronomy, right? That stuff gets pulled out a lot when someone wants to prove that Christians follow the Bible only selectively. "God hates shrimp!" etc.... But Christians believe that the Mosaic law was intended by God only for humanity at a particular time in our history---and only for a subset of humanity at that.
Ever have a really troubled friend, and every time you tried to help, it just made things worse? In the Bible, that's kind of what God has going with humanity. First, he throws us out of the garden for disobeying him once (maybe an overreaction in hindsight?). After that, God keeps trying to help us get back on track in various ways, but we just fall further and further into a downward spiral of murder and greed. So God decides to hit the reset button (the flood), but that doesn't fix anything either.
What's so interesting to me is how, in the Bible, God's methods with us become more and more subtle. For example, he follows the flood by picking out one particular people -- an enslaved people! -- and chooses them to be an example for the rest of the world, set apart from the world and yet living among the world. He will raise them up out of the pitiful mess that humanity has become, and through them redeem all of humanity.
In that context, all the crazy rules can almost make sense: "the law" was designed by God to counter the particular, historical ways in which they were living that were messed up and broken: as slave and slave owner, as land owner and tenant, as murderer and victim, as king and subject. (Yeah, we're still living in those messed up ways, but just wait: God has a different intervention for our time later in his story.)
Ten thousand tenured economists say its OK if 99% of the means of making a living (means of production) fall into the hands of 1% of the people. God says the means of making a living belongs to all the people. Which story do you want to sign on to?
Actually, anthropologists know that periodic redistribution of the means of making a living is in the DNA of our species. Virtually all pre-empire/pre-state agricultural societies did it. Pre-agriculture societies didn't need to do it because your means of making a living were your legs.
What I'm saying is: There is a lot in the Bible that affirms certain truths (like Jubilee) that have been wiped out in many places over the past several thousand years by feudalism, capitalism and modern empire. Do you really think that people all around the world are tenaciously hanging on to religions that are thousands of years old because they're stupid? They are our only surviving link back to values and standards of fairness that go back to the beginning of time. A Bible-based world view isn't about rolling society back to the year 3000, but it is about re-applying, through community, some of those ancient values to the complexity of the present day.
OK, in this installment, I tried to give a quick introduction to how Chris and Shane are interpreting the Bible's Hebrew scripture for their generation. Again, this is part of a much wider movement: Shane and Chris are popularizing serious theological work that has been trickling down from scholars into mainstream Christianity for decades, and they are in the company of many other popular writers and perhaps millions of other ordinary pastors and students of the Bible who are coming to the same conclusions. This is all part of what some have called the Fourth Great Awakening in American Christianity.
In the next installment, I'll get into how Chris and Shane interpret the Greek scripture of the Bible (a.k.a. the "New Testament").
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Muse, I guess I need to use more smiley's :-). I never ill humored through any of this. Sorry! :-) :-))
I was TEASING and trying to be a-MUSING.........................:-)
Muse, When I watched this on PBS I thought of you, I though you may want to look into the artist, and look on your local PBS station for is broadcast, it's really special a moving portrit, Albert Alcalay is an abstract expressionist.
ALBERT ALCALAY: SELF PORTRAITS reflects upon the extraordinary life and engaging personality of former Harvard faculty member Albert Alcalay through a candid first-person look at his development as an artist. Forced into a life of hiding as a Serbian Jew while hunted by Nazis in Fascist Italy during World War II, Alcalay was eventually captured and sent to a concentration camp, where he was inspired by a fellow prisoner to study painting. After the war, he immigrated to the United States, where he has lived and worked in Boston ever since. The documentary examines the ways in which Alcalay's artistic language has been shaped by the American landscape, by memory and by loss. Although well into his 80s and dealing with the effects of macular degeneration (loss of eyesight), the inspirational Alcalay no longer teaches, but he continues to paint vibrant landscapes in which "lament... is transfigured into praise of life."
Just some examples of his work:
http://kantarfinearts.com/gallery/aa-1.asp
Enjoy. Agape.
Karen Armstrong's presentation at the 2008 TED Conference, is well worth the 21minutes.
If you don't know of her, keep in mind she describes herself as agnostic.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/234
Yes it is, I've been thinking how I could be of help to making her dream come true, I was thinking that maybe Rev. Byron Williams should be recomend for the pannel, if he has the time.
Excellent looking out Brother HeevenSteven.
Do I have to stop teasing the agnostics now? LOL!
Agape.
We don't have to stop picking on them, as long as they make it about logic. She uses it , I think, in the sense that she accepts that humans have spiritual needs but can satisfy them without literal theism. I guess one need to look no further than Buddhism to see that's true. She says some prominent monotheists have told her that god doesn't exist in any real sense, but is the most important reality in the world....(Sounds like Zanti, huh?). I've heard and read her say that "belief" and literalism is modern phenomena
I have to read her some more. I've read 2 (History of God, and Great Transformation). I have "The Battle for God" and "A Short History of Myth" in my pile. The "Battle for God" is about the rise of fundamentalism. That should be interesting. As soon as I finish Dennet's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (500+ pages) I'll start on her stuff.
Personally, I rest my case. Zack thanks for the blog and the thread it just worked out perfectly. Bean me up Scotty.
Come back Shane!
Predestination has no room for ego.All are sinners,and none are deserving of salvation ( no matter how good they seem to be).This leaves us to rest on God's righteousness,and judgement and mercy,not ours.It leaves us with the understanding we are all equal in our sinfulness.None is better than any other,only God is perfect.but intellectually understanding that is not enough,God must save you.
As for an eternal God existing..to me that's a no brainer.There must be a God.Nothingness exploding from nowhere and then evolving..that's impossible.
We need to stop trying to make God what we want him to be and accept him for who he is and who we are.Then we can apply his gospel to life in modern times and in the future...instead of worshipping that Golden calf so many of us have.Exo 32:22 And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief.
Exo 32:23 For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
Exo 32:24 And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.
"t has often and confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." --Charles Darwin.
I agree, let's stop trying to make god what we want him to be; but Predestination is a complete abdication of responsibility and reason, as well as being a wholly human philosophical construct. It is the antithesis of seeing things as they are, the true nature of anything.
A philosophical human construct ?
When you didn't yet exist,did you choose to exist ? Somehow I think no.Out of the millions of little sperm and eggs that have existed in time and place ,in billions of people throughout history.One sperm and one egg,from 2 people out of all that have ever existed,came together at just the right second,in time and place in history..to contribute to who you were to be,and the same goes for any of us.Then all the other circumstance that led you to think like you do,and at some point read what I wrote,and respond in the way you did,so that I would read and respond the way I am,so that some unknown purpose is accomplished. That's reason.
It is not an abdication of responsibilty and reason.In fact,it's the opposite.We are our brothers keeper.We are all to obey as best we can ( though we always fall short)of the gospel.
That command is not only for those who believe,but for all mankind whether they deny there is a God or not.The difference being that those who know God exist obey because God tells them to.Others obey the laws not giving respect to the lawmaker.Whether we obey or disobey though,we are always still sinners.
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
There you go again.
And, what's wrong with human constructs? I thought that was your particular ballywick. Human constructs.
Anyway, I just drop by to say hello. And to say that other artist's work doesn't come close. The Muse is not "moving over." I'm not a Fundie either.
(Hell hath no fury like a Muse who's pissed off.)
By the way, at the recommendation of a friend, I've interrupted other reading to read "The Life of Pi." Thought of you, HS.
Agape, of course,
Muse
Religions are a great excuse to exclude, mock, kill, torture, maim, lie, fight and generally be complete dickheads to one another.
jfor
I think you're confusing religion with second grade.
Me thinks, you are confusing sophomoric attacks with wit. Second graders don't seem to be having much of a problem with life, at least not until Adults start laying all their antiquated emotional baggage on them.
Like we need another excuse? We've killed each other since we stood upright, and for what? Rights to the watering-hole, a pasture, or a trade route...you name it. Wars have been fought (ostensibly) over soccer games, a bucket, and in at least one case, a glass of water thrown in someone's face. Wars have dragged on because no one could face the "dishonor" of losing...tell me, what the hell is "honor," that so many have died for it?
Like much else of our popular wisdom, the idea that mankind would live in paradise if we just stopped believing in gods is a big, fat lie.
1 of 2
"Like much else of our popular wisdom, the idea that mankind would live in paradise if we just stopped believing in gods is a big, fat lie."
Well done RumiSouth, you've framed questions that dichotomize into a paradox, and a claim to a simple truth for all to see. Which, in fact, is a false conclusion.
Whether by intent to rationalize, or because you are parroting a commonly accepted logic fallacy does not really matter, it is without merit, and has no standing with regard to the truth or a proper conclusion by critical reasoning.
The emotional part of your argument with regard to honor, has no real weight, it is a self serving statement that is in fact true and has standing alone, but no place within this argument, in other words, it is misleading, as are most of the questions you pose. And please not to take this personally, because, this is an old argument, you are far from the first to bring it to the table with regard to the God model.
In the Bible, God gets angry. He wipes out cities, nations and even the entire human race once. He steps in to save his favorites sometimes, and other times tempts or tortures them just to see what they'll do. And even if you were to write off all the smiting, giants and 900-year-old men as "Old Testament myths" (as a lot of liberal Christians do), the fundamental plot line still seems crazy. As Julia Sweeney says:
Let me point out a problem as I see it here. The fact that God allowed Job to be tortured..is not to see what he would do,as if he didn't know .He already knew..but Job and satan did not.
Hebrews chapter 12 1-14 offers a clue as well.
another point ..Gold tried in the fire raises up impurities.
"Do you really think that people all around the world are tenaciously hanging on to religions that are thousands of years old because they're stupid?"
No Zack. Not stupid, but ignorant and fearful. Some through no fault of their own, some deliberate. It's difficult to overcome childhood indoctrination, and it's difficult to go against your family and community. Skillful persuasion and coercion are hallmarks of many successful religions.
"Have you ever heard of the "Many Worlds" theory of Quantum Mechanics?"
and "Today, Many Worlds is seen as a viable mainstream theory"- JacobSinger Posted 08:28 AM on 04/04/2008
FACT "IS" it is not even a viable hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory.
Quantum Mechanics, is very strange, especially when much of it is not even possible in the natural universe, because the only place the temperatures needed to create such phenomena can only be produced outside of nature as we know it in a lab, making it a very remote possibility to be or become a part of a theory of everything.
You Jacob are correct about one thing, you don't know, and are far from having a remote clue to what's going on in this field. Yet you attempt to use it in argument, please give it a rest.
Yeah, plausible and viable or not the same thing. As far as string theory goes, see Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics."
Wait until ya see what else I found, if they put the post up HS.
LOOKY HERE WHAT I FOUND
Philosophy of Religion web-site:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/manyworldshypothesis.html
1) Arguments for the existence of God.
[what did I find there] 1a) "The Many Worlds Hypothesis"
Look what else I've found: MWI (Many-Worlds Interpretation) Proponents argue that MWI reconciles how we can perceive non-deterministic events *(such as the random decay of a radioactive atom)* with the deterministic equations of quantum physics.
Imagine that, People that would be trying to undue carbon 14 data, trying to spin science Hummmmmmm? Now who would be trying to make that argument? Intelligent Design freaks maybe?
The decay of the carbon 14 atom (the parent nuclide) is well establish, this science deals with the "daughter nuclide" (which is a nitrogen 14 atom) break down which is non-deterministic, it has nothing to due with carbon 14 dating being a proper technique. This is an attempt to use sophistry in the science to create doubt, don't fall for it.
Someone around here has been quite a Pinocchio.
Good catch!
Jeez, you are so incredibly obnoxious. If you would get your self-congratulatory head out of your ass you just might realize that I was referring to current theoretical trends in astrophysics and cosmology.
You should try to understand the concept that the science that you happen to be aware of or can dredge up in 15 second google search doesn"t set the confining boundaries for what is taken seriously, or considered to be a reasonable hypothesis simply because a better option hasn"t yet made itself available [and for all anyone knows, we"ll always be left with variables outside of what we can observe or test, i.e. the "unknowable"].
I you weren"t so simple-mindedly set on defining me and what I believe and understand as being inferior, you just might be able to comprehend my intentions with bringing up the fact that MWI is indeed very popular in astrophysics and cosmology [and you might have noticed my disclaimer].
To take any portion of QM from a micro level and apply it to the macro level of astrophysics and cosmology flies in the face of the traditional interpretation of wave function collapse [Copenhagen]. But had the observation/collapse concept been nice and neat, then I suspect Everett"s MWI wouldn"t have been put forth as an alternative solution.
And your statement about QM functioning in the real world is patently absurd.
Your arrogance and half-baked attempts at one-upmanship confirms my original pronouncement of you as a FOOL.
Hey Dap, I see ya ya got your hands full with another one of those fundamentalist christians trying to pass himself off, so he can spew vitriol. Fun how clueless they are, and don't understand the difference between a scientific "hypothesis" and "theory" or when to use the term theoretical.
Then he speaks to QM and does not understand what Bose - Einstein condensate is, or that the deepest recesses of space are quite warm at 3 degrees above absolute zero, not even cold enough to turn helium atoms into a superfluid.
Well, good luck with that. Keep up the the good work weeding'em out.
Must be all those Intelligent Design classes lol.
"That is why, in my experience, many Christians are more "humanist" than people who call themselves "secular humanists." Secular humanists do not believe that humans have special place in the grand scheme of the universe; Christians do."
I finally got some time to read the main post. The two sentences above are meaningless. So what if some Christians are more humanist than some humanists. What does that mean? I know many, many, Christians that are too selfish to give a crap about anything but their OWN salvation. That fact means no more than yours.
What does it mean that Christians think they have a special place in the universe?? That makes them more Humanist? Respectfully, that's ridiculous. That kind of thinking leads to terrible hubris IMO.
I know the democrats need people of faith to vote for them, and to that end I guess that's what your up to. But Sophistry is sophistry.
As a wannabe christian myself..I believe the bible teaches predestination and that none are saved by their works..but that the good works are a result of them having been saved.(that's no to say everyone that has done good works is saved) Ezek 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.
Bible also say's that all have sinned..(so then none can be saved by their own righteousness)
Churches have been teaching the idea that we somehow have a say in it all,that we are co-saviors in our salvation,encouraging that ego,encouraging self righteousness...the idea that we are holier than thou because...
We can look through history and at the present time and see the fruits of that. But it is not only the misunderstanding of the gospel that has led to evils done in the name of "good".There are self righteous athiest as well.There are political philosophys and other religions that seem good on thier face,and do have some good in them,but when mixed with, twisted or hijacked by the ego..great evils come about. seems I went on a rant,too many words..so this is part 1
Soooo, not true. I pray for you atheists every day! Okay, almost everyday. Well, really often. ALOT. And when I pray for HeevenSteven, God says, "Oi vey! Now, there's a stubborn one! Reminds me of that other tough nut ... what was his name?.... Saul/Paul .... yeah, had to knock that sucker right off his horse before I got his attention!
I'm still steamed about the art thing, by the way. "Move over Muse....new kid in town, blah, blah, blah."
I'm not judging, or saying his stuff's better; it's just that he does those cool devil thingys; and hey well c'mon, I'm a satanist eh. lol.
I hope folks are still reading these comments.
JacobSinger writes:
"I won't dignify your absurd question about santa clause with an answer, as it's beneath intelligent discourse."
No, it's the whole point. Try making the case that god is in any way different from Santa Claus. Go ahead. Until you can - Mr. "Agnostic" - you're just blowing smoke.
Agnosticism is an intellectual cop-out. Lacking empirical evidence, god is an invention of the human mind. Agnostics are people who recognize the insanity of religion, but who are too afraid to let it go.
And I notice you never responded to this comment (maybe you missed it):
"Morality predates religion.
In order for any religion to develop, human beings had to be already organized into self-sustaining communities with established rules of conduct. Isolated savages attacking each other with clubs are not going to stumble upon anything so advanced as a communal belief system."
The case can be made for morality predating religion in at least two ways : First, humans would have to have been assembled into communities (and thus interacting with each other in moral ways) long before they could discuss religion. Second, unless you believe that god wrote down the Bible in his own hand (a truly odd position for a self-described agnostic to take), the contents within were the product of human minds. Religions are nothing more than the codification of pre-existing beliefs.
wondering, what would you call someone who doesn't give a **** whether a god exists or not. Since it is impossible to prove the hypothesis either way, why bother to take a rigid stand? Maybe some agnostics are too afraid to let religion go, but probably many more just don't care. Why argue?
Your statement: "Since it is impossible to prove the hypothesis either way." IS in fact a antiquated philosophical concept that is held as a "Truism" that is a fallacy born of sophism.
It is illogical, in the formal sense of the term logic, the science of reason. The statement is without any evidence, with the exception of it was claimed to be a statement of truth and supported by wordsmiths through the philosophical art of sophistry.
"Why argue?"
Why the comment then?
The main argument, and the whole point of the popular atheist best sellers is not whether there is or is not a prime mover, or what the nature of the origin of the universe is; but that's where the defense takes their argument very quickly because it's the most unknowable.
The point is that there is NO evidence, not a shred, to support the religious constructs humans have built around the unknowable. It is absurd to think that a being with the skill set to create a universe cares whether you use condoms, eat pork, have impure thoughts, do stem cell research, or will consign you to hell for eternity for your sins etc. There is no supportable reason to believe there is an intelligent or conscious creator who gives a crap about human affairs. We are well capable of destroying ourselves, and there is no sky hook to save us.
Humans are well past the time where we have the capacity to see what these mythical constructs actually are. The only reason we can't outgrow them is the fact that there are very powerful special interests, religious, economic and political, that use them all for mind control.
I accidentally hit post before I finished; so, to wrap that blurb up:
A very wise man named Eric Hoffer once wrote: "The inability or unwillingness to see things as they are promotes both gullibility and charlatanism.
Umm ... an atheist?
But seriously, to claim the label of agnostic is to admit that you have thought about the issue at least long enough to choose a position. And I don't think you're being honest with yourself.
What does it mean to be "someone who doesn't give a **** whether a god exists or not"? What do you do when you encounter a strong True Believer who wants to engage you in religious conversation? How do you feel about fundamentalists who want to impose their beliefs on political decisions like abortion, gay rights, etc? Cover your ears and run?
You do raise an interesting question though : if someone were raised entirely free from the notion of god, would they technically be an atheist?
"Agnosticism is an intellectual cop-out. Lacking empirical evidence, god is an invention of the human mind."
You can no more invent God than you can give birth to your mother.
but as I said before...we do tend to try and make false Gods in our own image.Ones that we can rule over while pretending to obey them.
Ah, but you can IMAGINE giving birth to your mother, so why can you not conjure the concept of god just as easily?
Your position is without any value. I can imagine all manner of impossible things, and until you provide evidence that the god concept is somehow different from Santa, or dragons, or being your own grandpa, it's just another chimera with no special meaning.
In fact, it is not difficult to lay out a perfectly plausible reason for humans to invent god. We attach meaning to things. We are a highly social species born with the innate need to assign intent to the actions of others around us. Is it so difficult to see that a primitive people, beset by calamaties and the unknown, would naturally anthropomorphize the universe?
Without realizing it, YOU also have invented god. Your conception of god is unique to you - even though you may believe that you get the idea of god from others, you must interpret that idea to suit your particular needs. You can no more share your image of god with another than you can share your dreams.
There is an atheist on the front page of the Living section having an argument with God.
Can you keep your membership in the Atheists union while arguing with god?
That sounds like a slippery slope to me...!
We always bump into language problems in these blogs. A-theists are not necessarily Anti-theist, and agnostics aren't necessarily hoping to find god. Both are non-believers. Both accept that MAN made gods. Humans are myth makers. Myths carried knowledge, explanations for existence, and morality lessons before written language and scientific investigations. We haven't outgrown them yet.
I am as certain as I can be of my Atheist position and I accept it as fact. I argue in these blogs because it's fun and it make me think and read and learn; I couldn't give a shit if someone thinks their "essence" may be eternal; just don't pass laws that make others live by YOUR code. Stay out of my bedroom, hospital, and pharmacy. And don't send kids off to YOUR holy war. We can all live by the golden rule without scripture. Morality necessarily predated religions, and all faiths today are rooted in the golden rule.
Claiming agnosticism because you can't disprove a creator is ridiculous IMO. A deist position is equivalent to atheist IMO. Nothing as compared to something which we can know nothing of is equivalent to nothing. I'm not concerned with what happens to me when I die nobody else should be either. Our concerns should be focused on what happens to those still here and those to come, that's my "Platinum Rule".
"Our concerns should be focused on what happens to those still here and those to come, that's my "Platinum Rule".
Sounds like a good rule to me.
"Claiming agnosticism because you can't disprove a creator is ridiculous IMO."
I don't think my position is quite that simplistic, but it's really not that big a deal to me--unless someone is determined to make it so [by insisting on telling me what I really mean or believe], and then I stand my ground and argue my points as I see them, in relation to what I know and what I can prove; it's the mental exercise that's the most important aspect, IMNSHO.
Can you prove to me that you exist ?Maybe you are the figment of our collective imaginations or maybe just mine,maybe I'm responding to a computer program.
Hear! Hear! Brother HeevenSteven, I had to jump in to say that was quite eloquent indeed, you could speak for me any day. Platinum Rule without question, I like it!
Yet it will remain that we are a very small minority, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Agape.
Hellooo Brother Dapper?
Fine, I'd rather be an oppressed minority than an oppressive majority. Must have something to do with left-handedness and those violent nuns.
Agape as well
Nicely done, HS!
Never mind that, aren't you suppose to be out cutting the grass or something? :)
I would invite any atheist posting these diatribes to direct me or anyone else who is curious to information that confirms your status in the sciences that allows you to cast about such statements with any definable weight of authority.
I can back up every single word I"ve posted with a reputable source"anyone care to assert the same?
Intellectual -- a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, esp. on an abstract and general level.
Emmanuel Kant & Søren Kierkegaard are highly regarded and influential Christian Existential philosophers, thus they are rightfully regarded as Christian Intellectuals.
So, put up your credentials that justify your authority in making these absurd proclamations, or just agree to disagree.
Kant was certainly an intellectual; but this is the first time I've ever seen him referred to an Existentialist. I'd sure like that source.
If your interested in what I've read, some selected books here. If that's in anything here, let me know..
http://heevensteven.blogspot.com/2007/04/selected-books-ive-read.html
I'll check out your books; in the meantime, here's a wiki-source for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism
My website:
http://www.artandfiction.com
Nothing special there, just my site that hasn't been updated in WWWAAAYYY too long....
My mistake; Kierkegaard is consider the father of Existentialism, and Kant was a influence--a few years back I read a collection of essays on Existentialism [Six Existentialist Thinkers] that included Kant in the mix, so I've thought of him as such ever since.
Part one of two
Truth in fact remains, the God paradigm is more trouble than it "IS" or has been worth.
For anyone, true believer or mental midgets that cannot make up their minds to argue for the need for a higher power to guide us in our lives is a ludicrous concept to have as a position.
The only way a God paradigm could ever make any sense is if it had some type of weight attached to it, any weight at all.
The fact remains throughout all of human history, even onto this very day no such weight has been produced, and the empirical fact is that no such evidence will be forthcoming at any time, even into the infinite depths of space-time itself.
We hold this truth to be self evident, that all life has been formed of random natural processes that allow for life as we know it to take root, these abstruse process are so abstract it is hard for the finite human mind to comprehend, especially after the establishment of mythology as a way to fill in the blanks because of our ignorance for Humanity's existence.
Part two of two
The psychological harm that the "God paradigm" can leave on the human psyche and the forming schemata in the human brain, (especially of young Children) is without question very problematic and borders on being mentally abusive, creating confusion and improper understanding that can last a lifetime. Brain washing, regardless of having the intent of being well meaning, is dangerous and cannot be condoned as sound conduct or behavior, and does not, nor, should it be considered as a better paradigm or way forward for the creation of a better society and culture, no matter how good it emotionally feels to do so. The empirical fact actually is, that removing the "God paradigm" has *NO* downside, it will not change any person's life by removing something that was never there in the first place.
Why? Because every good that any person has had the pleasure to witness or know within their live, has been the product of a fellow human being, not a God. It's really that simple. Believe it or don't.
P.S.
Please excuse me for having the hubris for stating facts, all of which are supported by clear weighted evidence.
"...and the empirical fact is that no such evidence will be forthcoming at any time, even into the infinite depths of space-time itself."
And then
"Please excuse me for having the hubris for stating facts, all of which are supported by clear weighted evidence."
You sir, eithe don't have a clue on how to make a logical case, or are just a careless LIAR.
You state that you are "stating facts, all of which are supported by clear weighted evidence," but clearly you cannot prove that "the empirical fact is that no such evidence will be forthcoming at any time, even into the infinite depths of space-time itself."
That is beyond any human's scope of knowledge, and it clearly shows you to be an arrogant FOOL.
Well writ, good Dap!
You lost me once you used the words "Christian Intellectuals" as this is an oxymoron.
So let me make sure I understand you, to you Christian Existential philosophers don't qualify as "intellectuals"?
Or was that the most "enlightened" comment you could offer in context?
Duh!, One is not much of an intellectual if, for the most part, all they produced was mistaken, and wasted everyone's time and for the most part setback science and culture. That's smart to you?
Whoops, I forgot to whom I was speaking, never-mind. Forget I mentioned it.
Isn't Christian Existentialist an oxymoron? I guess I'm not sure how Christian is defined here.
You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in or