Question to Atheists

[candle glow]

In any form of philosophy or debate, it's always the burden of the person making a claim to prove that the claim is true.

I don't have a problem with this understanding. I think that's why Jesus' teachings about love are the real trump card, not for Christians, but for God himself.

People who want to know if the kind of love Jesus taught is real need only to try it. If they tried it and still insist that it does not work, I would question that conclusion but still respect it and move on if it became an irreconcilable issue.

In fact, it is counter productive to talk someone into faith in Jesus, because it's only a matter of time before that person is talked out.

Christianity is only genuine when it comes from a deep conviction within, based on examining, internalizing and acting on the teachings of Jesus about showing love to one another (not necessarily in that order ).

I believe part of the genuious of Jesus' teachings is that it is not even required to understand or acknowledge with our minds/words that we are acting on behalf of his spirit of love in order to do so.

In other words, if Jesus said to love one another, and an atheist shows love towards another person, that atheist is acting in accordance with what Jesus is recorded as teaching.

I see no reason for Christians to gloat about this as though atheists somehow have no control over their actions, or for atheists to deny it as though they are somehow compromising on their beliefs if they act in a way which is in agreement with what Jesus taught.

Jesus himself seemed to have not much problem with people rejecting him personally, but it was his teachings where he drew the line, because those teachings represent the values of the kingdom of Heaven. Included in those teachings are issues like self examination, genuine remorse for the wrongs that we do, and genuine change as a result of that remorse

.

Anyway, almost dinner time here!

 

[Mling]

I don't have a problem with this understanding. I think that's why Jesus' teachings about love are the real trump card, not for Christians, but for God himself.

People who want to know if the kind of love Jesus taught is real need only to try it. If they tried it and still insist that it does not work, I would question that conclusion but still respect it and move on if it became an irreconcilable issue.

In fact, it is counter productive to talk someone into faith in Jesus, because it's only a matter of time before that person is talked out.

Christianity is only genuine when it comes from a deep conviction within, based on examining, internalizing and acting on the teachings of Jesus about showing love to one another (not necessarily in that order ).

I believe part of the genuious of Jesus' teachings is that it is not even required to understand or acknowledge with our minds/words that we are acting on behalf of his spirit of love in order to do so.

In other words, if Jesus said to love one another, and an atheist shows love towards another person, that atheist is acting in accordance with what Jesus is recorded as teaching.

I see no reason for Christians to gloat about this as though atheists somehow have no control over their actions, or for atheists to deny it as though they are somehow compromising on their beliefs if they act in a way which is in agreement with what Jesus taught.

No atheist considers it a compromise to be loving, on the reasoning that they're in agreement with what Jesus taught. It's that they see no reason to associate their kindness or love with Jesus, more than with anybody else in the world who advises people to be kind and loving.

The thing is, regardless of whether you gloat or not, you're still teaching that anytime somebody is good, they are not really good in and of themselves--they're just reflecting the goodness of your deity.

Atheists often find it insulting and somewhat exploitative to make their own decisions about why they ought to be good, based on their own motivations and reasons, only to have people come along and claim, "You're just doing this because my god is encouraging you to. Isn't my god awesome?" Knowing that you think this, but don't rub our faces in it doesn't make it all that much better.

The fact is, that a ton of people in the history of the world have independently come to the idea that it's good to be kind and loving, even to people who want to harm you. A lot of Eastern philosophy is based on the idea that people who are malicious or harmful aren't bad, they're sick, and the proper response to them isn't anger, but compassion for their spiritual illness. It's disingenuous to point to one of the myriad people who've advocated for compassion and love, and claim that all love is a reflection of him.

And it's obnoxious to go to the effort of developing your own philosophical system, of making a point to restrain yourself, develop yourself, build strength, admit your mistakes and learn from them...and then find out that people just see you being good and take home the message, "Isn't my god awesome? Look at what he does even through people who reject him? I'm so right, to believe in him!"

Jesus himself seemed to have not much problem with people rejecting him personally, but it was his teachings where he drew the line, because those teachings represent the values of the kingdom of Heaven. Included in those teachings are issues like self examination, genuine remorse for the wrongs that we do, and genuine change as a result of that remorse

That's the major difference between Jesus and Christians.

I mean, I'm glad to meet the few Christians who see "using your life in a way that benefits the world around you," as a more important indicator of a person's morality and worth, than "Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead and saved you from hell? Yes. No. Circle one."

It's just that few do, and a fair number of the ones who do think like that still twist it into, "You're good, therefore my god exists and is awesome," the way you're doing above.

 

[AtheistVet]

Something Jesus is recorded as saying, which I feel somewhat addresses this issue comes from John 7:


I think it may be unreasonable to ask people to put their faith in something which does not work, so the test is to try it and see. I feel this is also consistent with the scientific method of trying something to test it.

There are something like 240 commands of Jesus spread throughout the 4 gospels, some of which are implied commands, but most of which are grammatical commands.

A HUGE portion of them relate specifically to HOW we show love towards others, and a huge portion of those commands relate specifically to greed and materialism as a fundamental hindrance to showing love.

Only the most sincere, desperate, and genuine seekers will apply these teachings in the way they are meant to be applied by the one who gave the commands, but that is part of the standards of the Kingdom of Heaven, too. God is looking for quality, not quantity.

People who choose not to test it have very little ground to stand on when it comes to arguing against the validity of those teachings. For a comprehensive list of the commands of Jesus you can visit my website and click on the link for the commands of Jesus (about halfway down the page on the left side). the link is in my profile.

But why would I want to do that? You're basically saying only the truly wishful thinkers out there will be able to believe without the required evidence, which is exactly what I find wrong with it.

 

[LostWarrior]

Thanks for being specific about some of these issues, lost. I understand what you mean about enemy loving (though I disagree with your conclusion).

However, I am unclear what you mean by the "right context".

I think I know what you mean about romantic choices (though I am only assuming) but I am unclear what you mean by "supernatural powers".

Please elaborate.

"Right context" being the context of what the people have done to you and wether they are actually someone you should love or not. If it was a minor issue, you probably close your eyes and let it pass by without feeling any anger towards the other person. For example, if I was walking on the street and someone spilled coffee in me, I would still have nothing against that person and would still love* them. Now, if I got coffee spilled on me and the person started escalating towards a phisical comfort and screaming, I'd no longer care about them. Basically, I don't love anyone who puts in danger my security or the security of those I like.

"Supernatural powers" and "romantic choices" come from bad interpretations from the Bible. I saw a few formal debates on youtube and About between a theist who was against gays and witches and another theist who had nothing against them. Both read the same passages but both got a different interpretation about them (which supports what I said before). As William Blacke once said: "We both read the Bible day and Night, but you read white where I read black". And we are back to the same problem


*"love" is a bad word to use, because it doesn't appeal to your senses and you are going to search in past experiences for a personal meaning - and as those experiences differ from mines, the meaning also differs. For me, "love" in the context of a stranger, is simply caring about them. On a context of family members and more close relationships, "love" is a deep, powerful emotion that increases the ammount of caring about someone.

 

[razeontherock]

In any form of philosophy or debate, it's always the burden of the person making a claim to prove that the claim is true.

Christianity is neither philosophy nor debate. I don't see why people have trouble understanding this?

You can't just make an assertion (such as, "there are faeries in my garage,") and insist that everybody accept it as true unless they can prove it false.

No part of the Gospel insists that anyone accepts it.

 

[razeontherock]

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

I think it may be unreasonable to ask people to put their faith in something which does not work, so the test is to try it and see. I feel this is also consistent with the scientific method of trying something to test it.

I had seriously pondered including this, but mistakenly did not go there. Thanks for being here and having my back!

Earlier I mentioned coming to the Lord via cold hard logic, and what you refer to here is definitely a big part of that. This is something non-Christians (NC's) aren't confronted with enough, and i think most could relate to

 

[Mling]

Christianity is neither philosophy nor debate. I don't see why people have trouble understanding this?



No part of the Gospel insists that anyone accepts it.

We're not reading the Bible here. We're exchanging ideas about what is important in the world. That makes it philosophy, and in Christian Forums, philosophical conversations are often edged with debate.

And maybe the Gospel doesn't insist that anybody accept it, but human beings aren't the gospel. We aren't talking about the Gospel--we're talking about the things that people think and say.

 

[razeontherock]

Atheists often find it insulting and somewhat exploitative to make their own decisions about why they ought to be good, based on their own motivations and reasons, only to have people come along and claim, "You're just doing this because my god is encouraging you to. Isn't my god awesome?" Knowing that you think this, but don't rub our faces in it doesn't make it all that much better.

You really don't demonstrate understanding the concept of Divine inspiration when you speak about this. I'm not sure if you might just be rebelling against control freakish-ness you've encountered in Churches or what, but the Divine is not limiting or restricting as you portray, but liberating.

 

[razeontherock]

You're basically saying only the truly wishful thinkers out there will be able to believe without the required evidence

That is not what was said at all; you imposed that onto the post

 

[Mling]

You really don't demonstrate understanding the concept of Divine inspiration when you speak about this. I'm not sure if you might just be rebelling against control freakish-ness you've encountered in Churches or what, but the Divine is not limiting or restricting as you portray, but liberating.

That's because I was writing about divine inspiration--I was writing about how people interact.

You keep reading what I write, and trying to convince me (or other people reading?) that I was actually talking about a particular god, or expression of divinity, or Christianity as a concept. I'm not falling for it, and I doubt anybody else is either.

Here, I'm talking about people. I'm talking about how people behave, what they think.

If you want to hear my thoughts on particular ideas of gods, then read what I write when that's what I'm writing about (or ask me in an appropriate thread or by PM). But here, I am talking about human interactions.

 

[candle glow]

It's that they see no reason to associate their kindness or love with Jesus, more than with anybody else in the world who advises people to be kind and loving.

I think the "more than" part really depends on the quality and content of the teaching. For example, if someone says, "lets all love one another", that is good. But a teaching which goes into specifics about how to show that love is "more than" others which are not specific.

I've never seen teachings from any religious or secular source which deal more specifically with greed and materialism than what Jesus taught. These teachings get very little attention, even from Christians, especially because they are so specific.

The thing is, regardless of whether you gloat or not, you're still teaching that anytime somebody is good, they are not really good in and of themselves--they're just reflecting the goodness of your deity.

The "in and of themselves" part is confusing to me. The connection I am making is the appreciation for a common ground between the values Jesus taught his followers to act on and the the values that people (like atheists or whomever) of any background can appreciate, like love.

In other words, rather than arguing about the divinity of Jesus, what about exploring the teachings of Jesus and acting on them? I would not expect an atheist to follow Jesus the deity, but what about Jesus the teacher?

The fact is, that a ton of people in the history of the world have independently come to the idea that it's good to be kind and loving, even to people who want to harm you. A lot of Eastern philosophy is based on the idea that people who are malicious or harmful aren't bad, they're sick, and the proper response to them isn't anger, but compassion for their spiritual illness. It's disingenuous to point to one of the myriad people who've advocated for compassion and love, and claim that all love is a reflection of him.

But, I am suggesting a disagreement on the source of that love is irrelevant to the practice of that love. My personal understanding of the ultimate source of that love is just that; my personal understanding. I believe my understanding to be correct, but then again so do you when it comes to saying that my understanding of that source is not correct.

Are we both calling one another insincere? Maybe, but I think it is very difficult to say a person is sincere or disingenuous, full stop. It's almost always a thousand shades of gray with each of us moving a bit closer to or further from total white or total black each day.

If there were an atheist handbook (similar to the Bible) detailing instructions on how atheists should show love for others, I would examine those teachings, compare them to what I believe to be the standard (i.e. the teachings of Jesus) and would have no problem declaring my beliefs to be consistent with that of an atheist in areas where those teachings overlap.

My understanding is that such a principle could apply to any religion or group in either direction.

You're basically saying only the truly wishful thinkers out there will be able to believe without the required evidence, which is exactly what I find wrong with it.

No, I am saying that it would be a bad thing to wishfully think one's self into faith without testing the evidence. Or that testing the evidence could lead to genuine faith. Either way, I am not advocating wishful thinking. Am I misunderstanding you?

For me personally, I have tried the teachings of Jesus on showing love in practical ways. When I look at what Jesus taught about showing love and I see how completely different it is from all the systems of man throughout history, I can see that there is something about these teachings which is more than man made.

This is especially true when it comes to his teachings about greed and materialism, but also with issues like respectability, judgment, and compassion.

I've compared one set of values with another and come to the conclusion that one is better than the other for many reasons. Some of those reasons are purely practical and that is where I feel Christians and atheists really can have some genuine common ground while some of those reasons lead me to believe in the divinity of Jesus, which is where the christian and atheist paths will diverge.

 

[razeontherock]

That's because I was writing about divine inspiration--I was writing about how people interact.

You keep reading what I write, and trying to convince me (or other people reading?) that I was actually talking about a particular god, or expression of divinity, or Christianity as a concept. I'm not falling for it, and I doubt anybody else is either.

Here, I'm talking about people. I'm talking about how people behave, what they think.

So I'm not a person, and I'm not interacting? I'm not demonstrating what i think? I see.

 

[candle glow]

"Right context" being the context of what the people have done to you and wether they are actually someone you should love or not. If it was a minor issue, you probably close your eyes and let it pass by without feeling any anger towards the other person. For example, if I was walking on the street and someone spilled coffee in me, I would still have nothing against that person and would still love* them. Now, if I got coffee spilled on me and the person started escalating towards a phisical comfort and screaming, I'd no longer care about them. Basically, I don't love anyone who puts in danger my security or the security of those I like.

Thanks for clarifying this and I think it's a good example of the complications that come up when we talk about what it means to love people.

I would argue, however, that it takes MORE love to be patient about the angry person who not only spills coffee on you, but then gets angry when you say "ouch!!!! hey watch where you are going!"

Also, I feel there is a very definite difference between loving and liking. We can love some people in the sense of caring about them as living beings, but that does not mean we must like them. There are some VERY obnoxious people in the world whom I would feel no problem with avoiding, but if that person genuinely needed some kind of help, I would consider it, too.

"Supernatural powers" and "romantic choices" come from bad interpretations from the Bible. I saw a few formal debates on youtube and About between a theist who was against gays and witches and another theist who had nothing against them. Both read the same passages but both got a different interpretation about them (which supports what I said before). As William Blacke once said: "We both read the Bible day and Night, but you read white where I read black". And we are back to the same problem

There will always be people out there trying to create support for some particular belief where there is no support (or very little). It happens, but it's not reasonable to conclude that there is no meaning in a particular teaching just because people are able to twist it and are caught doing so.

We ALL deal with those little tendencies to shape the evidence around us to suit our biases and it's not just related to issues of religion. Some biases are bigger than others and some are more hateful, greedy, selfish, or just plain narrow minded than others.

It's like the issue of "context". It's a bit of a buzz word, especially when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Everyone claims that people who disagree with their interpretation have misunderstood the context. They can't all be right, and yet that should not stop at least SOME of them from possibly being right even if that rightness is not absolute "in the context".

*"love" is a bad word to use, because it doesn't appeal to your senses and you are going to search in past experiences for a personal meaning - and as those experiences differ from mines, the meaning also differs. For me, "love" in the context of a stranger, is simply caring about them. On a context of family members and more close relationships, "love" is a deep, powerful emotion that increases the ammount of caring about someone.

It's interesting that you mention strangers vs family. Although our family will always have a special bond to us that strangers will not have, Jesus said a fair bit to challenge this special emotional relationship we often have with our families.

I believe this is because so often those emotional attachments stop us from showing the kind of love to others that we'd normally only reserve for "special" people. I don't think it's a black white issue where we must treat everyone exactly the same, but I think most of us can understand that there are limits to how much we are willing to care for people who are not our close family/friends.

Jesus' teachings dare to challenge those limits for the sake of a greater understanding of what it means to love people, not just because of family or emotional connections, but just for the sake of love itself.

 

[LostWarrior]

Thanks for clarifying this and I think it's a good example of the complications that come up when we talk about what it means to love people.

I would argue, however, that it takes MORE love to be patient about the angry person who not only spills coffee on you, but then gets angry when you say "ouch!!!! hey watch where you are going!"

I agree. But then again, I would never love someone who put me or anyone I like in danger. Of course, in this example, that would be the most rational and lovely thing to do

There will always be people out there trying to create support for some particular belief where there is no support (or very little). It happens, but it's not reasonable to conclude that there is no meaning in a particular teaching just because people are able to twist it and are caught doing so.

We ALL deal with those little tendencies to shape the evidence around us to suit our biases and it's not just related to issues of religion. Some biases are bigger than others and some are more hateful, greedy, selfish, or just plain narrow minded than others.

It's like the issue of "context". It's a bit of a buzz word, especially when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Everyone claims that people who disagree with their interpretation have misunderstood the context. They can't all be right, and yet that should not stop at least SOME of them from possibly being right even if that rightness is not absolute "in the context".

Exaclty. This is called "Confirmation Bias". It's one of the reasons I don't trust in debates and religious or anti-religious books for anything other than information and good sources. When you are inclined to accept something (in my case, to accept that it's likely there are no Gods - please don't make assumptions about this), you think that the only books that matter are the ones which fit your claims and the person that wins the debate is always the atheist.
It's to avoid this bias that I don't think I need to read the NT (not only because of this but because it's not needed to disprove your religion, as I said before, but let's move on). I'll simply ask the person for the verse and then there's no way around it: it's right there, black in white. Even tho most of them are open for interpretation, the most literal interpretation always counts.

It's interesting that you mention strangers vs family. Although our family will always have a special bond to us that strangers will not have, Jesus said a fair bit to challenge this special emotional relationship we often have with our families.

I believe this is because so often those emotional attachments stop us from showing the kind of love to others that we'd normally only reserve for "special" people. I don't think it's a black white issue where we must treat everyone exactly the same, but I think most of us can understand that there are limits to how much we are willing to care for people who are not our close family/friends.

Jesus' teachings dare to challenge those limits for the sake of a greater understanding of what it means to love people, not just because of family or emotional connections, but just for the sake of love itself.

I'm not going again to search for contradictions because there is no need to do that now. If that's what you believe he said, and that's the message you're spreading, then I see nothing bad with it and I encourage you

 

[Mling]

I think the "more than" part really depends on the quality and content of the teaching. For example, if someone says, "lets all love one another", that is good. But a teaching which goes into specifics about how to show that love is "more than" others which are not specific.

I've never seen teachings from any religious or secular source which deal more specifically with greed and materialism than what Jesus taught. These teachings get very little attention, even from Christians, especially because they are so specific.



The "in and of themselves" part is confusing to me. The connection I am making is the appreciation for a common ground between the values Jesus taught his followers to act on and the the values that people (like atheists or whomever) of any background can appreciate, like love.

In other words, rather than arguing about the divinity of Jesus, what about exploring the teachings of Jesus and acting on them? I would not expect an atheist to follow Jesus the deity, but what about Jesus the teacher?

What about Plato? Spinoza? Lao Tzu?

Very few people follow them directly and deliberately, either (except for people who actually identify as Taoist, in the case of Lao Tzu, I'm guessing).

It's because their ideas were not unique, have blended with many other similar ideas, and together, have permeated the culture to such a degree that most people just don't care that the particular wording they've chosen for a ubiquitous idea can be traced back to this or that source.

There are almost no original ideas--only ways of repackaging old ideas that make them more relevant to a particular person's life experience and existing beliefs. That means that the vast majority of people are going to be more inspired by a modern teacher than an older one.

Before you say, "Hey, Jesus's teachings have stuck around all this time!" keep in mind that they keep being reinterpreted by modern teachers, who draw out different aspects of them that are relevant for the place and time. Would Jesus suffer a witch to live? Of course not!! Jesus's main purpose was to eradicate the impurities of the religious community and bring the right religion to the world! Would Jesus be an abolitionist? Of course! Jesus's main purpose was to bring freedom to the oppressed!

Most atheists don't go to any particular effort to either avoid or follow the teachings of Jesus, because it's simply irrelevant that Jesus was among the various people who thought up a particular good idea, and modern writers with similar ideas are more likely to have interpreted them with insights that are relevant to modern moral issues.

But, I am suggesting a disagreement on the source of that love is irrelevant to the practice of that love. My personal understanding of the ultimate source of that love is just that; my personal understanding. I believe my understanding to be correct, but then again so do you when it comes to saying that my understanding of that source is not correct.

Are we both calling one another insincere? Maybe, but I think it is very difficult to say a person is sincere or disingenuous, full stop. It's almost always a thousand shades of gray with each of us moving a bit closer to or further from total white or total black each day.

If there were an atheist handbook (similar to the Bible) detailing instructions on how atheists should show love for others, I would examine those teachings, compare them to what I believe to be the standard (i.e. the teachings of Jesus) and would have no problem declaring my beliefs to be consistent with that of an atheist in areas where those teachings overlap.

If I understand you right, you seem to be repeatedly making the point that atheists shouldn't avoid admitting when ideas that they hold overlap with ideas that Jesus taught.

Why do you keep making this point? No atheist I've ever heard of actually does this. Nobody avoids admitting that they agree with Jesus on some things. It's just that if you read enough of the various teachers who are generally considered to be worthwhile, (Jesus, Voltaire, Spinoza, Plato, Dawkins, Shelby Spong, David Saperstein...) there is so much overlap between so many people, that noting where the overlaps fall is just...boring trivia. Yes, Jesus and I and every other person on that list agree that caring for the poor is a good thing. It's just not a point worth making unless what's being discussed is particularly unique or controversial, and little of what is recorded of Jesus is either of those, anymore.

 

[razeontherock]

@ post #133: This is why you should, some day, read the NT for yourself. You will find that this is indeed what Christianity teaches, and your opposition to it is ... puzzling, if not disturbing

 

[razeontherock]

If I understand you right, you seem to be repeatedly making the point that atheists shouldn't avoid admitting when ideas that they hold overlap with ideas that Jesus taught.

Why do you keep making this point? No atheist I've ever heard of actually does this. Nobody avoids admitting that they agree with Jesus on some things.

The topic raised, on your objection, isn't really citing a source of human teaching. It's Spiritual in nature, as in everything good comes from G-d.

Yes, He is that big

 

[LostWarrior]

@ post #133: This is why you should, some day, read the NT for yourself. You will find that this is indeed what Christianity teaches, and your opposition to it is ... puzzling, if not disturbing

Post 133 is from a theist.

 

[razeontherock]

Whoops! I was attempting to direct that towards your very last line, of post #134

 

[LostWarrior]

Whoops! I was attempting to direct that towards your very last line, of post #134

I got no problems against Christ's teaching if they are not twisted around to go against certain groups.
The only thing I have against Christianity is the whole God's part, especially when people suffer and stop enjoying their lives so that they can have a better afterlife that may not even exist.