Thoughts on Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris

[mulimulix]

How did God lie?

Also...Christianity doesn't stand or fall on a literal/non literal reading of Genesis, which wasn't how it was meant to be read at all. Original sin as you define it isn't even a Biblical concept - original guilt is what I imagine you're thinking of, and original guilt is not something I believe to be Biblical. Original sin as the majority of the western world understands it (original guilt) was a concept developed by Augustine to combat the Pelagians. Original sin (not original guilt) doesn't even exist in Judaism, and the Eastern Orthodox don't hold to original guilt at all. The Catholics believe there was a literal man named Adam, who was the first being God gave a soul. None of the early church fathers believed in a literal Genesis...so honestly, it's not a big deal.

*edited

Two things:

1. The majority of Christians pre-1800s believed in a literal creation. That is why many scientists who disputed the claim were killed, exiled etc.

2. The big problem I have with not taking it literally is that if creation is not taken literally, how the hell do you know for certain that Jesus' resurrection is to be taken literally? Genesis says "The Earth was created in seven days", the NT says, "Jesus was resurrected." Yet, you say one is literal and one isn't...

 

[humblehumility]

Like what the original audience would have understood it to mean, for example. Have you ever considered that?

I really don't mean to jump in the middle of a debate here, just read my thoughts on the matter and feel no need to respond.

If you are a Christian, you believe that the Bible is the sole piece of collective evidence you have for Jesus Christ and his resurrection. Under that logic, this sole piece of evidence should last from 0AD-INFINITYAD. The "original audience" would span at most 0.001% of what the world's population actually is. Why would the Bible only cover such a small percentage of human existence (audience), but be meant for almost everybody else?

 

[razeontherock]

Two things:

1. The majority of Christians pre-1800s believed in a literal creation.

FALSE. Read what the early Church taught about that! Actually the literalist interpretation is a modern invention.

 

[razeontherock]

If you are a Christian, you believe that the Bible is the sole piece of collective evidence you have for Jesus Christ and his resurrection.

This is most certainly false! These words are truly spoken like someone who would fall away. If that were all I had, I know for sure I would've fallen away, and long ago. The question then becomes, what other evidence do we have for the resurrection?

Under that logic, this sole piece of evidence should last from 0AD-INFINITYAD. The "original audience" would span at most 0.001% of what the world's population actually is. Why would the Bible only cover such a small percentage of human existence (audience), but be meant for almost everybody else?

Hermeneutics 101: any given story had an original audience. While exactly what they would have heard may not be something we can be privy to, we can get a lot closer than just a surface reading, if we learn of their culture, customs, language, etc. In this way, the Truths spoken of can be timeless.

 

[Varicose Brains]

The question then becomes, what other evidence do we have for the resurrection?

It does indeed. And there is none that I know of outside of the Bible. If you do, please share because I would love to read about it.

 

[mulimulix]

It does indeed. And there is none that I know of outside of the Bible. If you do, please share because I would love to read about it.

Lol, are you sure you're a Christian Seeker? Because you sure don't sound like it. (Not that I am complaining).

 

[Varicose Brains]

Lol, are you sure you're a Christian Seeker? Because you sure don't sound like it. (Not that I am complaining).

Long story short, I was a Christian up until a few months ago; I became born again Christian when I was 9 and I'm 34 now. Even as a kid I was often disturbed by God's violence in the Old Testament but I swallowed it down and kept plodding along. Over the years, the more I studied the Bible the more I noticed contradictions here and there, but again, I swallowed it down believing that God knew best and it didn't matter at the end of the day anyway.

But... lots of things have gone wrong for me and family these last 18 months and I took it upon myself to re-examine my faith. I've been on a science/evolution reading spree for the last 6 months and eventually had to admit that either science is right or Christianity is right. I chose science because Christianity just can't stand up to scientific method and investigation. I still class myself as a Christian seeker because I'm not really ready to call myself an outright atheist just yet. However, I feel that's where I'm eventually headed.

 

[mulimulix]

Long story short, I was a Christian up until a few months ago; I became born again Christian when I was 9 and I'm 34 now. Even as a kid I was often disturbed by God's violence in the Old Testament but I swallowed it down and kept plodding along. Over the years, the more I studied the Bible the more I noticed contradictions here and there, but again, I swallowed it down believing that God knew best and it didn't matter at the end of the day anyway.

But... lots of things have gone wrong for me and family these last 18 months and I took it upon myself to re-examine my faith. I've been on a science/evolution reading spree for the last 6 months and eventually had to admit that either science is right or Christianity is right. I chose science because Christianity just can't stand up to scientific method and investigation. I still class myself as a Christian seeker because I'm not really ready to call myself an outright atheist just yet. However, I feel that's where I'm eventually headed.

Cool!

I can't find the exact picture, but whenever/if you have doubts about life without religion/Christianity, refer to this picture and keep in mind that Pat Robertson, the wealthiest evangelist in the world donated nothing to charity:

 

[Isambard]

Aside from Hitchen's making for an amusing debater, the majority of the New Atheist movement seems like a flop to me. Sure on occation you'll have an interesting point or argument come out of one them, but I think for the most part the movement itself is undone by its black and white definitions and conceptualizations.

Perhaps the only exception is Matt Dilahunty (sp?) of the Atheist Experience but then I'm not even sure if he would qualify as being part of the New Atheist movement.

Personally, I think money is far better spent on Nietzsche's Daybreak than on Dawkin's The God Delusion.

 

[Varicose Brains]

Cool!

I can't find the exact picture, but whenever/if you have doubts about life without religion/Christianity, refer to this picture and keep in mind that Pat Robertson, the wealthiest evangelist in the world donated nothing to charity:

I've seen these on Reddit. I like how you cut out the Pat Robertson part (maybe so as not to offend the Christians here?); but yeah, he's a vile man.

Anyway, I have no worries about living a moral life. Just because I am no longer a Christian does not mean I am going to out and kill, rape or steal. I was a bit of a jerk as a kid, but when I became a Christian I developed a good set of morals, often in spite of all the bickering, fights, affairs and hypocrisies I saw at the churches I went to, and I have still kept those morals to this day. Some would say (and I've seen the argument on these forums) that you can't have morals without being a Christian, but I can honestly say, from my own experience in churches, that I have met nicer atheists than I have Christians. I have seen Christians lie, cheat, have affairs, and I even know of a case of child abuse in one of the churches I used to go to, and there was this one time when one of my Sunday School teachers threatened to punch me because I said something during his class (just some silly joke that I can't remember now, but the guy, who was also an elder, scared the hell out of me that day). He grabbed me by the hair, flipped my head back and put his fist right below my nose and told me to "shut it". What really freaked me out was that he was grinning while he did this.

Christians, and I myself when I've spoken to atheists, like to harp on about non-believers' lack of accountability. But, from what I've seen, it's the Christians who lack accountability because they can just pray for forgiveness before they go to bed and wake up with a disturbingly clear conscience.

I'm nowhere near perfect, morally speaking, but I go to bed at night with a clear conscience not because I've prayed to Jesus after I sinned, but because I listened to my conscience before I sinned.

 

[razeontherock]

Long story short, I was a Christian up until a few months ago; I became born again Christian when I was 9 and I'm 34 now. Even as a kid I was often disturbed by God's violence in the Old Testament but I swallowed it down and kept plodding along. Over the years, the more I studied the Bible the more I noticed contradictions here and there, but again, I swallowed it down believing that God knew best and it didn't matter at the end of the day anyway.

But... lots of things have gone wrong for me and family these last 18 months and I took it upon myself to re-examine my faith. I've been on a science/evolution reading spree for the last 6 months and eventually had to admit that either science is right or Christianity is right. I chose science because Christianity just can't stand up to scientific method and investigation. I still class myself as a Christian seeker because I'm not really ready to call myself an outright atheist just yet. However, I feel that's where I'm eventually headed.

Ok, thanks for the honesty. Allow me to offer this perspective:

the study of these sciences, coupled with the hard economic times we're ALL facing lately, should be a process of growth. Painful, but beneficial in the long run.

1) You need to re-examine the claim that "either science or Christianity is right." The early Church never looked at it that way, and the overwhelming majority of Christians don't either. We've participated in enough threads with poster humble humility that I feel I can point out it is not very humble for you to take this stance, calling so many others wrong, about what many of them must know more about than any of us here.

2) There is nothing about the Bible that was written to be a science textbook. For any of the sciences. There are some statements here and there that directly prompt a desire to learn, and this is in line with "the spirit" of the whole Bible; but there are many other better prepared people to discuss such things with you. My convictions are settled, and I have gone through the process you are now enduring. There is a light at the end of the tunnel ... You could start with recognizing how the original audience would have understood the first few chapters of Genesis, which is as simple as God proclaiming Himself to be above the gods of the surrounding peoples. In order of their importance. Couple that with what the concept of "god" meant in that day and age, and the new insight will do you a world of good!

3) I am in favor of re-evaluating our own beliefs. This is very Scriptural, and G-d can stand up to scrutiny. Quite well!

4) I can't and won't say that your lifetime "issues" w/ the hard passages of the OT mean you were never really saved, or that it makes any statement at all about your present condition. I WILL say that this is one way G-d Himself draws us closer to Him, and I urge you to answer that call with integrity. I hesitate to offer specific understandings the Lord has shown me, because they are, you know, for me. We all see through a glass darkly, and the unique perspective G-d will show you that ultimately establishes your Faith deserves the chance to flourish, not be squashed out by me or anyone else.

5) ALL the apparent contradictions in the Bible can be harmonized so that they peacefully co-exist as Truth, and likewise those passages that are "hard" can be understood in ways that are consistent with who Jesus is. I'm not saying this is easy, but I AM saying that until we go through that process, we shouldn't feel we really know what ANY of it means. Please don't underestimate the gravity of what I just said. Along those lines, have you ever considered fasting?

 

[razeontherock]

I challenge the notion of "without God" wrt these individuals.

 

[razeontherock]

when I became a Christian I developed a good set of morals,

Hmmm. Jus' sayin'

Some would say that you can't have morals without being a Christian

Yah, obviously untrue. And reeks of myopia.

there was this one time when one of my Sunday School teachers threatened to punch me because I said something during his class (just some silly joke that I can't remember now, but the guy, who was also an elder, scared the hell out of me that day). He grabbed me by the hair, flipped my head back and put his fist right below my nose and told me to "shut it". What really freaked me out was that he was grinning while he did this.

I almost had a run in with a guy like this once. I seriously considered making a scene in front of 4 - 5 people, humiliating him and freaking him out. I declined, and still am not sure if I made the right decision. Something needed to be done, but I was involved with that Church only a short while afterwards. A Pastor that can't or won't take care of business doesn't keep my support for long.

I go to bed at night with a clear conscience not because I've prayed to Jesus after I sinned, but because I listened to my conscience before I sinned.

I thought you just said you're no longer Christian? Methinks you need to re-define that term, or do as so many others have done: divorce yourself from it in favor of Truth. I don't shirk from the label "Christian" because I don't want to shun Christ, not because I agree with what it has all too often come to mean or be associated with.

 

[AlexBP]

Two things:1. The majority of Christians pre-1800s believed in a literal creation. That is why many scientists who disputed the claim were killed, exiled etc.

Really? Can you name these scientists?

(As far as I know, the first scientist to be executed for political reasons was the great French chemist Antoine Lavoisier, a devout Catholic who was guillotined by the violently anti-Catholic French government during the Reign of Terror.)

 

[EphesiaNZ]

Cool!

I can't find the exact picture, but whenever/if you have doubts about life without religion/Christianity, refer to this picture and keep in mind that Pat Robertson, the wealthiest evangelist in the world donated nothing to charity:

LOL Bill Gates - check his story, he has obtained his wealth by some very dodgy business practices and has basically forced a monopoly on computer users worldwide.

Good, I think not.

 

[EphesiaNZ]

Oh and BTW, Pat Robertson founded Operation Blessing - a charity which helps those at need in times of crisis, like those at the center of the current tornado hit regions of the US.

You should really do more research before posting...

 

[humblehumility]

and has basically forced a monopoly on computer users worldwide.

Good, I think not.

LOL

The guy donates $26 billion dollars and you're complaining about being "forced" to use his computers and calling him "not good". Ever hear of Apple? It's only regarded as the most innovative computer company in the world. Or you could build your own computer? Yeah, really sounds like you're forced into it.

 

[mulimulix]

Really? Can you name these scientists?

(As far as I know, the first scientist to be executed for political reasons was the great French chemist Antoine Lavoisier, a devout Catholic who was guillotined by the violently anti-Catholic French government during the Reign of Terror.)

Just off the top of my head, the only one I can name is Gallileo. But he wasn't right, was he...?

LOL Bill Gates - check his story, he has obtained his wealth by some very dodgy business practices and has basically forced a monopoly on computer users worldwide.

Good, I think not.

When you donate $26 billion to charity, let me know.

Oh and BTW, Pat Robertson founded Operation Blessing - a charity which helps those at need in times of crisis, like those at the center of the current tornado hit regions of the US.

You should really do more research before posting...

And how much has HE donated to this charity? Remember, this is the same Pat Robertson who blamed homosexuals for 9/11.

 

[razeontherock]

Just off the top of my head, the only one I can name is Gallileo.

Galileo was executed now? What date? What method of execution?

When you donate $26 billion to charity, let me know.

And how much has HE donated to this charity? Remember, this is the same Pat Robertson who blamed homosexuals for 9/11.

Have you stopped to consider the time and effort Pat Robertson committed to found Operation Blessing, or how much good it has done? Did you put as much effort into that as you did to form your opinion about Galileo and "other scientists executed by the Church?"

 

[EphesiaNZ]

LOL

The guy donates $26 billion dollars and you're complaining about being "forced" to use his computers and calling him "not good". Ever hear of Apple? It's only regarded as the most innovative computer company in the world. Or you could build your own computer? Yeah, really sounds like you're forced into it.

Well actually, I'm not complaining about his donation (of course remembering that he will claim a percentage back on tax), it's the morals and ethics behind how he has earned that wealth. Even today they chase smaller fry through the court system to either extort money via IP claims or close them down if they pose a threat - again, good?

Hmm, Apple - ah yes I've heard of them vaguely. I've been in IT since 1980 and avoid them too like the plague.

Actually I build my own computers and operating systems too using Linux which out of three is probably the best moral solution for any Christian as Linux is free, you can share code without fear of being prosecuted and with the money you have saved can then choose who will benefit from it.