Why your faith?

[bling]

Obviously.

Again, why would I want to have that faith?

To accept God's charity (gifts).

I am not seeing a strong sales pitch here. What charity would I be receiving?

If you are not in need of charity you will not accept charity.

What does it mean to release my potential inner child to go to the kingdom?

All people have the potential to be humble, accepting, sincere and selfishly desire a better life.

 

[doubtingmerle]

To accept God's charity (gifts).

If you are not in need of charity you will not accept charity.

All you can say is charity, but don't care to explain it?

I could use a million dollars. Is that what you are talking about?

All people have the potential to be humble, accepting,sincere

Ok, so we all can set out to be humble, accepting, sincere?

Sounds good to me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Silmarien,

OK, I guess we can chat a little about philosophy, but that really was not the intent of this thread.

I'm deeply troubled by the resurgence of fascism throughout the West and less than impressed by the coherence of secular answers to it. If I believe people should adopt a particular belief system, it's because I think that the further we get from a Christian worldview, the shakier a foundation modern human rights are going to have.

I don't understand how one can see Christianity as a necessary foundation for human rights and resistance to authoritarianism. Christians controlled much of western government from later Rome through the middle ages on into the age of monarchies, ages dominated by authoritarianism and repression. In many ways I would describe the Trump presidency as authoritarian, and there is strong evangelical support for it. So I don't see how we can suggest that we need a Christian worldview to fight fascism.

I also find theism rationally compelling, so I think that anyone who doesn't has overlooked something and would be better off reconsidering the issue. But of course that is going to be another very difficult conversation.

I'm not sure how you find theism rationally compelling. So far your argument seems to be that it is practical in that it keeps fascists at bay, but even if it did this, that would not mean it is true. It could just mean that it might be good to fool people into believing it so we can control their behavior.

Whether we can say anything about the eternal is the underlying question. Theists would say that we can, and if you find theism a particularly problematic description of the eternal, then you are also saying that we can, at least in relation to one specific possibility.

If we accept a Big Bang, and some incomprehensible "eternity" beyond it, it seems it is difficult to make any definitive statements about that eternity. At a minimum it could just be that "nothing" really is impossible so there are various somethings out there, and one of those somethings is an eternally expanding "space-time" with quantum effects that creates universes. One could also postulate that another something that exists is some sort of sentient god, but I see no way of knowing that.

And their moral principles were to a large extent based in Christianity. You see this with things like Jefferson's Bible--discard all the talk about miracles, but retain the moral message of the Gospel.

Enlightenment thinkers may have quoted the Bible, but remember, they worked in an environment with strong biblical acceptance, so if they wanted to make their point, it would be to their advantage to show where the Bible agrees with them. This does not prove Christianity was their sole source, or even their main source.

Christian thought was largely based on Jewish, Greek, and Persian thought, which was largely based on Babylonian, Egyptian, and tribal thought, which was strongly based on ancient traditions. That really doesn't prove any of that is right. It just shows that ideas tend to grow from previous ideas.

Is it reasonable to uncritically preserve the moral aspect of a supposed divine revelation while rejecting everything else?

Where we think the ancient Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, tribal religions, etc. got it right in terms of morality, then it is fine to say we agree with certain moral statements they made. That is different from saying that, if those ancients said something about morality, then we need to assume they were correct.

 

[doubtingmerle]

"I don't suppose I will go to church on Sunday," I explain to my dog. "Everyone here seems to think it is the greatest thing, but I don't understand why."

Champion seems to agree.

"Take the guy in that house over there that seems to think it will somehow help prevent God from sending me to hell. What would a world be like if we had to worry about eternal torment in fire?"

"Rough, rough" replies The Champ.

"I agree. And then there is that guy who says I should follow a faith to receive charity, but it is not quite clear what he means. Perhaps at his church they pass the offering plate backwards, and everybody gets to take money out."

"Ar, Ar, Arf" chuckles Champion.

"Or how about the guy that suggests if I go to church I will get a string of lucky coincidences?"

Champion doesn't have much to say about that. We round the corner and he jumps to attention, pulling on the leach to chase a rabbit.

"That was a lucky break", I explain to Champ. "If its all about getting good luck, maybe we are doing just fine."

 

[Silmarien]

I don't understand how one can see Christianity as a necessary foundation for human rights and resistance to authoritarianism. Christians controlled much of western government from later Rome through the middle ages on into the age of monarchies, ages dominated by authoritarianism and repression. In many ways I would describe the Trump presidency as authoritarian, and there is strong evangelical support for it. So I don't see how we can suggest that we need a Christian worldview to fight fascism.

I actually converted to Christianity in the wake of the Trump election, so my perspective on it relates directly to this issue. I read the Gospel without the trappings of any particular denominational interpretation, and it was abundantly clear to me how deeply problematic what had happened was specifically in the context of the Christian revelation. I'm one of those people who is very convinced that the harsh warnings in the Gospel are not actually directed at non-believers at all, and this is part of the reason why. When Christianity becomes political, we end up with false prophets and hypocrites.

I think you have a very reductionistic view on Christian history, however. You skip the first couple hundred years entirely, where we see how it reshaped pagan society, focusing instead on the authoritarianism of established Catholicism. I think this is a bit problematic, since Christianity really does challenge us to reconsider how we view stately power in the context of Christ overthrowing the powers and principalities. When considering the influence of Christianity, should we be looking primarily at variations of the religion that seek secular power, or countercultural forces that challenge society to be true to itself?

As for how Christianity can be a necessary foundation for human rights, the problem is that values like equality and universal human dignity are not actually self-evident outside of a framework that insists that humankind is created in the image of God and that salvation is available to all equally. This is not a very common idea outside of a culture that already takes it as axiomatic--much of Greek philosophy took it as self-evident that people were not equal (an idea that worked its way into medieval Catholicism with its obsession with Aristotle), Hinduism provides theological support for a caste system, and even the modern secular world rises up and challenges this assumption from time to time: look at 19th century social Darwinism.

And I think we're seeing the same thing again now with the alt-right. This is an interesting article if you want to see a Christian take on the danger that the alt-right represents, and my own concern is that secular value systems are founded upon shifting sand and will not be able to withstand a genuine assault from an atheistic movement that can and likely will challenge the religious assumptions underpining modern humanism.

I'm not sure how you find theism rationally compelling. So far your argument seems to be that it is practical in that it keeps fascists at bay, but even if it did this, that would not mean it is true. It could just mean that it might be good to fool people into believing it so we can control their behavior.

Your question was whether there was any reason that you should accept my faith. I practice Christianity despite actually being agnostic towards it, so in this context my faith is Christianity. I think this religion is a particularly powerful vehicle of social reform (think the Quakers, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., or even Mahatma Gandhi's flirtation with Christianity), so any humanist would be better off if they accepted it than if they did not. You are a humanist, and therefore this reasoning applies to you as well.

Theism is a metaphysical position, not a faith, and there's really no reason that you should accept it unless you think it's actually true. Anyone would benefit from an indepth and unprejudiced examination of the subject, but I wouldn't encourage anyone to just dogmatically adopt someone else's position.

If we accept a Big Bang, and some incomprehensible "eternity" beyond it, it seems it is difficult to make any definitive statements about that eternity. At a minimum it could just be that "nothing" really is impossible so there are various somethings out there, and one of those somethings is an eternally expanding "space-time" with quantum effects that creates universes. One could also postulate that another something that exists is some sort of sentient god, but I see no way of knowing that.

You would need to explain why an eternally expanding space-time with quantum effects had to have always existed, why these quantum effects seem to be ordered so that some outcomes have higher probabilities than others, and other related questions. As long as you're positing that the nature of reality is ultimately material, you're left with the question of why reality appears to follow certain rules (unless you toss out the laws of physics and say that substances by their nature act in a certain manner, but then you need to contend with Aquinas's Fifth Way).

I think viewing ultimate reality as mathematical or informational is more promising, but then you're left wondering how mathematical truths can cause universes. Either way, I am not optimistic about non-theistic explanations.

Enlightenment thinkers may have quoted the Bible, but remember, they worked in an environment with strong biblical acceptance, so if they wanted to make their point, it would be to their advantage to show where the Bible agrees with them. This does not prove Christianity was their sole source, or even their main source.

Christian thought was largely based on Jewish, Greek, and Persian thought, which was largely based on Babylonian, Egyptian, and tribal thought, which was strongly based on ancient traditions. That really doesn't prove any of that is right. It just shows that ideas tend to grow from previous ideas.

Except that the radical equality that Christianity demands really doesn't show up in these other traditions (with the possible exception of Judaism). I actually draw very heavily upon Greek philosophy, which means that I know where Christianity is drawing from it and where it is transforming it. Greek philosophy was highly elitist.

Where we think the ancient Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, tribal religions, etc. got it right in terms of morality, then it is fine to say we agree with certain moral statements they made. That is different from saying that, if those ancients said something about morality, then we need to assume they were correct.

The problem is that we agree with the moral statements that they made because we have been socially conditioned by living in a culture that accepts Christian values as true. We are not viewing this from a neutral perspective--if Christianity is in fact incorrect in what it says about equality, then our intuitions concerning equality are the result of indoctrination and ought to be reconsidered.

 

[Ken Rank]

Your God is fine with atheism, hinduism, mormonism, islam, tribal witchcraft, satanism, or whatever? If not, how do I know which ones your God likes and which he doesnt?

I didn't say that... you are proving to be quite gifted in the art of putting words in the mouths of others. I simply said that if you sincerely reach out to Him, He will respond. And that He won't force you to do anything, you have free choice. That's it... please don't add to my words. I think I am about done here, this is becoming circular and thus a waste of our time... or at least, certainly mine.

Be well.
Ken

 

[doubtingmerle]

I didn't say that... you are proving to be quite gifted in the art of putting words in the mouths of others. I simply said that if you sincerely reach out to Him, He will respond. And that He won't force you to do anything, you have free choice. That's it... please don't add to my words. I think I am about done here, this is becoming circular and thus a waste of our time... or at least, certainly mine.

Be well.
Ken

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am asking a question. Again:

Is your God fine with atheism, hinduism, mormonism, islam, tribal witchcraft, satanism, or whatever? If not, how do I know which ones your God likes and which he doesnt?
​

I note that you did not answer.

 

[Ken Rank]

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am asking a question. Again:

Is your God fine with atheism, hinduism, mormonism, islam, tribal witchcraft, satanism, or whatever? If not, how do I know which ones your God likes and which he doesnt?
​

I note that you did not answer.

I don't know where you are going but I will answer this one question. The God I believe in is the God of Israel. So no, satanism and witchcraft are things He is not OK with as they stand in contrast to His character. Atheism means believing He does not exist, Probably not ok with that either, right? I can go through your list completely and add a bunch of things you didn't list but instead it's easier and more accurate to say this.... God has defined His expectations for man. He has listed what He considers righteous and what He consider unrighteous. What He considers light and what He considers darkness. And so any other "whatever" (your term) that you want to list can simply be compared to what He says is good and holy and what He says is not. If it stands in harmony with His will and character He is ok with it, if it stand on contrast to His character, He isn't ok with it.

 

[Uber Genius]

Oh good, I like to ask questions.

If I should find no reason to believe in God, is your God ok with that?

If you said, "The universe and all matter and energy just popped into existence uncaused magically out of nothing," would anyone be okay with that? You physics teacher and philosophy professors would certainly not be okay with that.

Why?

Because it is obvious to a child that anything that begins to exist has a cause.

Why ask why? On naturalism and evolution there is no reason that you have rationality at all. Evolution is not driven by survival of the most rational. Holding true beliefs doesn't allow one to outcompete my fellow competitors in survival of the fittest.

The chess club members are more likely to be the first to die if we played the survival game in at any high school.

So your search for a rationale is incoherent with naturalism.

Further if you claimed that morals such as: it is wrong always and everywhere to torture babies for fun, was false, or only true for some cultures you would be seen as a madman.

So what do these have to do with God being angry that you choose to not believe.

Because you have many arguments that are compelling.

Cosmological arguments.
Teleological arguments.
Arguments from the existence of objective moral values and duties.
Transcendent arguments such as the existence of beauty that are universal across culture.

There are things that are obvious to all across culture.

When you deny these things and God knows you believe them and further that you have the cognitive ability to reason and yet choose to reject God's offer because as Julian Huxley said, you don't want there to be a god which would demote you from being the author of morality. Then God says, not my will but your will be done!

But this is in regards to The Thinkers... They are without excuse.

People exploring these concepts can take decades to grapple with the data, evidence, arguments and not be in God's bad graces. Just the ones who are intent on misrepresenting the evidence in order to never need to bow the knee to God.

C.S. Lewis once said:

"A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.”

 

[Hawkins]

The first question is, do you know your own future?

Religion is more about an advocate about a future lying ahead but not accessible by humans. So if you don't know your own future, then it could be good or it could be bad. How can humans approach which is which, in the case that humans themselves have no ability to confirm a future.

The second question is do humans know the past? The problem here is that humans have the wrong perception that they can know the past which we call history. However and as a matter of fact, humans have no direct access to both the past and the future.

We can however know the past by believing in human accounts of testimonies (what have been written down by historians). It's yet another wrong impression that we can examine the evidence of history. What we can do is actually extremely limited in terms of evidence. You can actually read through any history books then count by yourself which page is supported by evidence and which is not. For an example, the Chinese believe that Nanjing massacre occurred (with 300,000 killed), however denied by the Japanese. Nothing can be evidenced even with such a huge event.

History are basically human accounts of testimonies for you to believe or not.

Now the third the question is, how can we approach a future as a human. Humans can't access a future event directly. However and similarly to how we approached history, if there's a super-being who knows what are lying ahead and tells a small group of humans as eyewitnesses and for them to spread their testimonies, then future is knowable to humans. This is the only way.

Now what left is the question that why the deity won't show up to confront the whole world instead of using human accounts of testimonies? Unless the god has a good reason to hide behind, a super-being should show up to guide humans directly. In Christianity, God has a covenant between God and man saying that humans have to rely on faith to be saved. So if He shows up, humans can't be saved.

In terms of testimonies, what humans examining is usually not evidence but the credibility of the information sources. You get daily news (they are daily occurrence of this world) from credible media instead of digging up evidence in order to consider a piece of news a fact. Similarly you trust an authority below you swallow the so-called history of your own nation.

So if you want to weigh between Christianity and other religions, you may examine how valid their accounts of testimonies are. Christianity is founded on the basis of multiple accounts of claimed eyewitnesses who are willing to martyr themselves for what is said/witnessed.

Witnesses, witnessing are all explicit terms in Christianity. To me Christianity is the only religion which put much emphasis on witnessing and testimonies. It is because the Christianity God knows what faith in testimonies is, it is the fundamental way how a truth can convey among humans!

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't know where you are going but I will answer this one question. The God I believe in is the God of Israel. So no, satanism and witchcraft are things He is not OK with as they stand in contrast to His character. Atheism means believing He does not exist, Probably not ok with that either, right?...

And so any other "whatever" (your term) that you want to list can simply be compared to what He says is good and holy and what He says is not. If it stands in harmony with His will and character He is ok with it, if it stand on contrast to His character, He isn't ok with it.

Wow. Just wow. Let me quote back what you said earlier:

Because God is not bound to a religion or a denomination... and anyone who reaches out to Him in a pure heart He hears... or He is a liar. This isn't about adopting a faith, a denomination, or a religion... it is about a relationship.

Those are your words, not mine. Now you are tripping over yourself denying what you said. What is going on here?

Is God bound to a religion or not? Is this about adopting a particular faith or isn't it?

Please argue for one position or the other, not both.

 

[Uber Genius]

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am asking a question. Again:

Is your God fine with atheism, hinduism, mormonism, islam, tribal witchcraft, satanism, or whatever? If not, how do I know which ones your God likes and which he doesnt?
​

I note that you did not answer.

Funny. You appear to be the master of recasting everyone's ideas out here. Sometime reductionistic, other times creating strawmen ex nihilo. It appears to be some type of word game. Rather than an epistemic venture.

This is the very reason we doubt your doubt. True skeptics have a way of examining the data sincerely. And they can grapple with it as say, Antony Flew did, for 4 or 5 decades only to find the cumulative evidence to inspire a reversal of verdicts.

But for the insincere, there is no hope. Belief does not make one a Christian. The demons believe but they are not Christians. Your question DM seemed to be focused on "How can I avoid engaging the evidence so I can maintain my current belief."

Maintaining false beliefs at all costs is why we have psychologists.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If you said, "The universe and all matter and energy just popped into existence uncaused magically out of nothing," would anyone be okay with that? You physics teacher and philosophy professors would certainly not be okay with that.

Could you please address what I actually said? Because I have stated what I think is behind the Big Bang, and it is not""The universe and all matter and energy just popped into existence uncaused magically out of nothing." Why not deal with what I said rather than this straw man?

Why ask why? On naturalism and evolution there is no reason that you have rationality at all. Evolution is not driven by survival of the most rational. Holding true beliefs doesn't allow one to outcompete my fellow competitors in survival of the fittest.

There absolutely is a reason for holding true beliefs. A creature that believes it is better to chase rabbits then to chase lions is more likely to survive than one that believes the opposite.

So what do these have to do with God being angry that you choose to not believe.

It is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of looking at the evidence and being convinced.

Because you have many arguments that are compelling.

Cosmological arguments.
Teleological arguments.
Arguments from the existence of objective moral values and duties.
Transcendent arguments such as the existence of beauty that are universal across culture.

I disagree with those arguments. Do you care to discuss one of those arguments for the existence of God? Pick your favorite, and we can discuss it.

When you deny these things and God knows you believe them and further that you have the cognitive ability to reason and yet choose to reject God's offer because as Julian Huxley said, you don't want there to be a god which would demote you from being the author of morality.

Wrong.

I do not believe these arguments for God. This statement is false.
I do not choose to reject God's offer. This statement is false.
I have no want for there to be no god. This statement is false.
I make no attempt to be the author of morality. This statement is false.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There are many reasons I believe, but one compelling historical reason is that because of Jesus, many thousands of Orthodox Jews suddenly stopped practicing their religion in favor of following Jesus; or rather - they all understood Jesus to be the fulfillment of their Scriptures. This may seem like a strange place to look for evidence, but my point is this: Why would any Orthodox religious Jew of the day abandon their practice for absolutely no gain, but only to suffer exile, torture or death on account of Jesus? It’s only a life changing experience that can explain their genuine conviction. I think if we look at how important the Law was to the religious of the day and consider how significant it is that they abandoned it is a strong indicator that something real and profound took place. I believe the followers of Christ documented these things, which is what formed what we now know as the New Testament.

Thanks for responding. Sure, if we found good evidence that someone in the past had risen from the dead, we might do well to believe the evidence. But as I have explained in other threads, I don't find the evidence credible. Think about it. If you were to find several old books that said someone in China had risen from the dead 3000 years ago, would you believe it? If you read that some of his followers died for this belief, would you join them? Would you worship this man as God? I think you would be open to other views: that this was just legend; or that they were mistaken when they thought the man was dead; or that they were mistaken that the body was missing; or that they were mistaken when they thought they saw the person; or that they were simply talking about some sort of spirit life after death. I think you would find all these more likely than that this man was the risen Son of God, and deserved to be worshipped.

But suppose I did believe these things were history. What benefit would there be to practicing your faith?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I actually converted to Christianity in the wake of the Trump election, so my perspective on it relates directly to this issue. I read the Gospel without the trappings of any particular denominational interpretation, and it was abundantly clear to me how deeply problematic what had happened was specifically in the context of the Christian revelation. I'm one of those people who is very convinced that the harsh warnings in the Gospel are not actually directed at non-believers at all, and this is part of the reason why. When Christianity becomes political, we end up with false prophets and hypocrites.

I think you have a very reductionistic view on Christian history, however. You skip the first couple hundred years entirely, where we see how it reshaped pagan society, focusing instead on the authoritarianism of established Catholicism. I think this is a bit problematic, since Christianity really does challenge us to reconsider how we view stately power in the context of Christ overthrowing the powers and principalities. When considering the influence of Christianity, should we be looking primarily at variations of the religion that seek secular power, or countercultural forces that challenge society to be true to itself?

As for how Christianity can be a necessary foundation for human rights, the problem is that values like equality and universal human dignity are not actually self-evident outside of a framework that insists that humankind is created in the image of God and that salvation is available to all equally. This is not a very common idea outside of a culture that already takes it as axiomatic--much of Greek philosophy took it as self-evident that people were not equal (an idea that worked its way into medieval Catholicism with its obsession with Aristotle), Hinduism provides theological support for a caste system, and even the modern secular world rises up and challenges this assumption from time to time: look at 19th century social Darwinism.

And I think we're seeing the same thing again now with the alt-right. This is an interesting article if you want to see a Christian take on the danger that the alt-right represents, and my own concern is that secular value systems are founded upon shifting sand and will not be able to withstand a genuine assault from an atheistic movement that can and likely will challenge the religious assumptions underpining modern humanism.



Your question was whether there was any reason that you should accept my faith. I practice Christianity despite actually being agnostic towards it, so in this context my faith is Christianity. I think this religion is a particularly powerful vehicle of social reform (think the Quakers, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., or even Mahatma Gandhi's flirtation with Christianity), so any humanist would be better off if they accepted it than if they did not. You are a humanist, and therefore this reasoning applies to you as well.

Theism is a metaphysical position, not a faith, and there's really no reason that you should accept it unless you think it's actually true. Anyone would benefit from an indepth and unprejudiced examination of the subject, but I wouldn't encourage anyone to just dogmatically adopt someone else's position.



You would need to explain why an eternally expanding space-time with quantum effects had to have always existed, why these quantum effects seem to be ordered so that some outcomes have higher probabilities than others, and other related questions. As long as you're positing that the nature of reality is ultimately material, you're left with the question of why reality appears to follow certain rules (unless you toss out the laws of physics and say that substances by their nature act in a certain manner, but then you need to contend with Aquinas's Fifth Way).

I think viewing ultimate reality as mathematical or informational is more promising, but then you're left wondering how mathematical truths can cause universes. Either way, I am not optimistic about non-theistic explanations.



Except that the radical equality that Christianity demands really doesn't show up in these other traditions (with the possible exception of Judaism). I actually draw very heavily upon Greek philosophy, which means that I know where Christianity is drawing from it and where it is transforming it. Greek philosophy was highly elitist.



The problem is that we agree with the moral statements that they made because we have been socially conditioned by living in a culture that accepts Christian values as true. We are not viewing this from a neutral perspective--if Christianity is in fact incorrect in what it says about equality, then our intuitions concerning equality are the result of indoctrination and ought to be reconsidered.

I think you are making far too big a case for the early Christian advancement in equal rights.

For one thing equal acceptance of all, slave and free, male and female was a hallmark of the Hellenistic mystery cults that were common at the time. So the Christians were not first.

But even if Christians had been first, so what? Somebody had to be first.

And equality can certainly be based on something other than the fact that ancients taught it. The signers of the declaration of independence said it was self-evident. As humanists we teach equality because it is self-evident, not because somebody said so long ago.

 

[Silmarien]

For one thing equal acceptance of all, slave and free, male and female was a hallmark of the Hellenistic mystery cults that were common at the time. So the Christians were not first.

You would need to back this assertion up. As far as I'm aware, very little is known about Hellenistic mystery cults at all, and it is not true that male and female equality was a hallmark of pagan religion. Some deities had only priests and others had only priestesses, but this was hardly a matter of gender equality.

And equality can certainly be based on something other than the fact that ancients taught it. The signers of the declaration of independence said it was self-evident. As humanists we teach equality because it is self-evident, not because somebody said so long ago.

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

This is a fairly explicit Christian deism, and the truth of it is not actually self-evident outside of that context. If you are going to deny that a Creator has endowed people with certain unalienable rights, you are going to have to find some other basis for your mystical doctrine of unalienable rights. It is not actually self-evident at all.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ah, so we are more interested in discussing philosophy rather than discussing the reasons that we should adopt the Christian faith.

You would need to back this assertion up. As far as I'm aware, very little is known about Hellenistic mystery cults at all, and it is not true that male and female equality was a hallmark of pagan religion. Some deities had only priests and others had only priestesses, but this was hardly a matter of gender equality.

Ok, lets discuss who was the first to promote the idea of equality. You claim it was Christians, and use this as a basis to support the Christian faith. Suppose you find somebody else was first. Would you change from Christianity to whoever was first, and use this as evidence that your new faith is correct? I think not. So it seems that the argument from "first to teach equality" is more like special pleading to me than a sincere argument.

For the record, I read about the mystery cult trend toward cosmopolitanism and inclusion in "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier. His footnote gives his source as Pakkanen, Interpreting Early Hellenisitic Relgion, pp. 121-128, 130, 137. Study up on it. They appear to be teaching equality and inclusion. If they were indeed first, you may need to adopt a new faith.

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

This is a fairly explicit Christian deism, and the truth of it is not actually self-evident outside of that context. If you are going to deny that a Creator has endowed people with certain unalienable rights, you are going to have to find some other basis for your mystical doctrine of unalienable rights. It is not actually self-evident at all.

Christian deism? Isn't than an oxymoron? Deism believes in some sort of source behind the universe, but does not believe he/it is involved in revelation or miracles.

The founding fathers refer to the source of humanity only as "Their Creator" with no attempt to define or limit what this could mean. True, Deists in that day were more likely to see this source as a "he" rather than an "it" (or "she), but it is also true that they did not have evolution or astro-physics. Perhaps with more understanding, they would have seen the creator as an it.

And regardless, they did not say we know we are equal because the Creator says so, but rather they said we know it because it is self-evident.

Is treating all as equals the best way to run society? If you understand that it is, why couldn't we also understand that without needing God to tell us the obvious?

 

[doubtingmerle]

If you see space-time as emergent, and I think it's correct to do so, then concepts like "always" and "before" aren't merely not well defined. They're out of place entirely. We've entered the realm of the eternal in the theological sense.

Whether we can say anything about the eternal is the underlying question. Theists would say that we can,

Theists can know things about the "eternal" state that is beyond the Big Bang? What is it that they know about this state?

 

[Silmarien]

Ah, so we are more interested in discussing philosophy rather than discussing the reasons that we should adopt the Christian faith.

I don't differentiate between the two things.

Ok, lets discuss who was the first to promote the idea of equality. You claim it was Christians, and use this as a basis to support the Christian faith. Suppose you find somebody else was first. Would you change from Christianity to whoever was first, and use this as evidence that your new faith is correct? I think not. So it seems that the argument from "first to teach equality" is more like special pleading to me than a sincere argument.

My, oh my. You're anti-theism is showing if you're going to move to ad hominems, accuse me of insincerity, and tell me that I would not abandon Christianity if my understanding of it is proven false. Especially since I have multiple times claimed to be agnostic towards Christianity--I actually could drop it altogether for Neoplatonism without much trouble. But I am unconvinced that the latter provides a strong enough grounding for specifically humanist values.

My point was not that Christianity was the first to promote equality, but that our cultural understanding of it comes directly out of 2000 years of Christian dominance in Europe. It doesn't really matter the degree to which these ideas preceded Christianity if they just represent one option out of many. Christianity turns human dignity and equality into an absolute. With something like Stoicism, which is a pre-Christian philosophy that promoted equality, we have an interesting idea, but we certainly don't need to accept it as a self-evident imperative.

For the record, I read about the mystery cult trend toward cosmopolitanism and inclusion in "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier. His footnote gives his source as Pakkanen, Interpreting Early Hellenisitic Relgion, pp. 121-128, 130, 137. Study up on it. They appear to be teaching equality and inclusion. If they were indeed first, you may need to adopt a new faith.

I would sooner trust Michael Behe on evolution than I would trust Richard Carrier on history.

The fact that things like the Cults of Isis and Cybele showed up in Rome doesn't mean that we know a lot about mystery religion in general. We don't. And of course, it doesn't really matter of they taught equality and inclusion if there was nothing of substance behind their beliefs either.

Christian deism? Isn't than an oxymoron? Deism believes in some sort of source behind the universe, but does not believe he/it is involved in revelation or miracles.

No, it's not an oxymoron. The 18th century deists were very influenced by the Christian worldview and believed in the moral teachings of Jesus. They are therefore properly categorized as Christian deists.

Is treating all as equals the best way to run society? If you understand that it is, why couldn't we also understand that without needing God to tell us the obvious?

There are many people who would disagree that treating all as equal is the best way to run society. Your only response to them so far has been that your beliefs are self-evidently true.

Theists can know things about the "eternal" state that is beyond the Big Bang? What is it that they know about this state?

Theists would attribute intellect and will to it, at the very least.

 

[doubtingmerle]

My, oh my. You're anti-theism is showing if you're going to move to ad hominems and tell me that I would not abandon Christianity if my understanding of it is proven false.

Sorry, read it again, please. I simply did not tell you that you would "not abandon Christianity if [your] understanding of it is proven false" as you claim I said.

Again, what I said was, if you found another religion taught about equality before Christianity did, you would not change to another religion for that reason. And your latest post agrees. You might abandon Christianity for some reasons, but not for that one. So you agree with me that you would not switch religion for that reason. So if you agree with what I said, and what I said was a compliment, that was no ad hominem.

My point was not that Christianity was the first to promote equality, but that our cultural understanding of it comes directly out of 2000 years of Christian dominance in Europe.

Western culture was influenced by Christianity and other sources. Christianity was not the only influence.

It doesn't really matter the degree to which these ideas preceded Christianity if they just represent one option out of many. Christianity turns human dignity and equality into an absolute.

Wow. There are verses in the Bible that are insulting to women. The Bible has long been used in support of slavery and racism. If human dignity and absolutes are absolutes in Christianity, a lot of people have missed it.

I would sooner trust Michael Behe on evolution than I would trust Richard Carrier on history.

Thats a shame. Carrier is a great historian.

But regardless, I quoted Carriers source that Christians weren't the first to teach inclusion. You could go by Carrier's source.

And besides, you even seem to agree with me that Christians were not first. So why are we even discussing this?

The fact that things like the Cults of Isis and Cybele showed up in Rome doesn't mean that we know a lot about mystery religion in general. We don't. And of course, it doesn't really matter of they taught equality and inclusion if there was nothing of substance behind their beliefs either.

Correct. If the Cult of Isis, Cybele, or Christ taught equality or inclusion, that does not prove there was substance behind the rest of their beliefs.

There are many people who would disagree that treating all as equal is the best way to run society. Your only response to them so far has been that your beliefs are self-evidently true.

I didn't know you were looking for a sermon on why I think people should be treated equally.

I believe that we should treat all as equal because societies are made up of many people. If some in the society are not treated equally, they will be disenfranchised and that will cause trouble. If some are not treated equally, then that is not fair, and people will know that they are not treating others fairly. They will then expect others to treat them unfairly also, and that will lead only to distrust and discord. So treating people with equality, respect, and fairness is best for society.

Your turn. Why do you think we should treat people equally?

Theists would attribute intellect and will to it, at the very least.

I didn't ask you what Theists attribute to the source behind the Big Bang. I asked you what they know about that source. I note that you did not state one thing that they know about that source.