Charlie
-
Posts
373 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Charlie
-
-
You've suggested that morality comes from evolution, above. The usual explanation people make is along the lines that what we think is moral is what will allow the most survical success as a species, so I assumed that's where you were going with it, and that you thought this was a good reason to act on that morality. If you meant something different than I'd be interested to understand - if you don't think nature can tell us what is right and wrong, where do you think that knowledge can come from? Or do you think there is no such thing as an immoral act - I assumed you didn't take that view from what you said otherwise.
As far as the Bible, all of the societies that used it, including most directly, understood it as condemning rape, though perhaps not, as a culture, seeing it as as seriously as we do. Perhaps if I was more of a protestant I would think that less important, but I don't think the text has ever been intended to hold that weight and be used in that way, without an interpretative framework. Slavery, I think, is a little more complicated, as it comes in many forms and is related to many different social constructions, which even in modern times we haven't been able to escape. The text is clear I think though social class or legal freedoms have nothing to do with a persons intrinsic humanity or relation to God.
Nature tells us what's right and wrong in that nature explains how our species determines what's right and wrong in any given context. It's not like we read clues out of nature, but when we explain why we consider such behavior as covering certain body parts in public, or which sexual behaviors are considered taboo, or which words are swear words, the answer is a natural, not supernatural one.
-
2
-
-
My point is they're totally not appropriate if they came from a deity, regardless of the time and culture. An omnipotent, omniscient god who made rules like, "Don't work on the Sabbath", "Worship me and no other gods", and "Don't boil a baby goat in its mother's milk" could have, should have also made rules like, "Don't own people", and "Don't rape". The fact that the Christian god didn't; that he made rules that are consistent with the time period and location make it clear to me that he, like all gods, was man-made.
The idea that the bible, or by extension the God that inspired the bible, is a valid source of morality intrigues me as well. The fact that moral arguments change in time and according to geography should be a reason for skepticism. It seems instead that believers who accept these as a source of morality consider their personal understanding of morality to be legitimate and supported by these sources, and deviations are simply misunderstandings.
-
1
-
-
I do think it is hard to understand, mainly because I've met quite a lot of people who don't understand it. It really isn't the same, working as a historian, as teaching at even a high school level. There are homeschoolers who teach subjects like biology to their students, but that doesn't mean they are qualified t evaluate evidence as a biologist, or even have a very in depth understanding of how it is done. Typically, when parents teach those kinds of subjects they are very much dependent on the work of the experts in making those kinds of evaluations.
Specifically, what you've said about primary documents doesn't even scratch the surface of what is involved in evaluating information in ancient history.
As far as ancient history - the consensus on this question is overwhelming - I've compared it to global climate change with good reason - if you were to apply to any department of ancient history while claiming that Jesus was not a historical person, unless you had some startling new information, you would not be hired. There is one professor, in New England IIRC, who takes that view, but he is tenured and generally seen as a crackpot. He's pretty unique, because otherwise you don't really find it whether you are talking about people who are Christians or not, or from cultures that are Christian or not. These are not people with an axe to grind on this subject.
It's possible of course that the experts are all blind and self-deceiving, but given that academia loves that kind of controversy, it seems unlikely, and a conspiracy to keep a lid on that kind of view seems back into the global warming conspiracy territory.
A good article on how historians evaluate whether Jesus was a real person, written for laypersons, is here. It gives some interesting insight on historical evidence in ancient history, it's probably the best overview I've seen.
This doesn't answer fraidycat's question about evidence. It's more consolation. It's merely suggesting a person need not be bothered by the lack of evidence.
-
5
-
-
I don't. I only wear makeup if I'm going out somewhere special or have an appointment I want to look my best. If it is a "normal" day, "regular" errands (think grocery store, piano) and homeschool, I just use a moisturizer.
Even when I wear makeup, often it is just lipstick, eyebrow pencil, maybe mascara. Foundation and blush is reserved for "special" things. I never wear eyeshadow.
After looking at some holiday pictures, I'm beginning to rethink that idea. Some concealer everyday would go a long way to make me look less tired. Some foundation every day would even things out a bit. Maybe wearing makeup just for "special" things is not the best idea. Isn't everyday a special day of some sort? Shouldn't one try to look their best for those she cares about?
What says the Hive??
No way! Repeat after me: People who care about me don't care what I LOOK like any more than I care what they look like! People who care about me want me to be genuinely happy, healthy, and enjoy our time together! People who care about me care about ME, and if the package I came in were to be suddenly damaged or parts lost, they would no sooner love me less than I would them!
Whew!
I kind of wanted to get that off my chest, lol!
I will tell you one thing I've learned about appearances in my umpteen years floating on this rock around the giant ball of gas we call the sun. Young people always look good. Dang it, but ain't it the truth! There's a kind beauty in youth. I'm not talking sexy beauty, but just good old fashioned beautiful. Younger skin, thicker hair, brighter eyes, whatever. We're naturally drawn to it. We can't help it. We call it "beauty," but I think there's got to be a better word because here's the other thing I've learned about appearances.
Oops, two things I've learned.
The second one is that every human is beautiful. I mean, whoa. From the sweetest newborn babe to the grizzliest, toothless old lady with a gazillion wrinkles and eye flaps that practically droop to her nostrils. Humans are beautiful. Unique. Fascinating. Each one has a story that no one else could possibly tell. We are all connected in a real and intimate way. We are one family with lots of fascinating branches, and each branch has a gazillion variations that when you start to look at them carefully, you'll realize you're watching a fractle of humanity, and my God you could get lost in the beauty of each section, each individual.
Woops again, three things I've learned.
People invariably look better when they smile. I mean those genuine, eyes light up, you know they don't care what they look like, pure enjoyment-in-the-moment smile. Laughter is the ultimate beauty mark and it doesn't matter what else you've got on your face when you're laughing with people.
So here's what I've come to conclude as I get older.
Had I known then what I was going to end up looking like, I would have been a hell of a lot more bold with how I looked.
We're always getting older. There's no reason to not express yourself as you want right now.
When the person you love is at their most vulnerable and you realize you might lose them, you'll find you don't care what they look like. You'll realize their value is soooo much deeper than skin deep. You'll realize their beauty is in the shared experiences and hopeful future you both dream of.
*Others feel this way about you already.*
If you enjoy make-up, have fun! Be bold, keep in natural, be sloppy if you want. Do what YOU want because you don't owe anyone to look a certain way.
And wash your face at night because pimples suck no matter what age.
(edit for spelling)
-
12
-
-
For the first, I'm talking about eyewitness testimony as relayed in the oral tradition.
Regarding the others, it's true they are secondary sources. Given that the majority of ancient writings have perished, we have to rely on a multitude of other things such as the general authenticity of the authors of secondary sources, and the accuracy of the oral traditions on which a lot of writings are based.
If you are interested in reading a book that goes into a lot more depth, I'd recommend The Jesus Legend by Greg Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy.
As a side note, I don't question at all why you would want to dig into proven facts/sources. I am still doing that myself.
Not all ancient writings and artifacts are lost, though. We do know quite a bit about ancient times, including political and religious leaders, and their lives. But the life and events surrounding Jesus of the bible are completely missing. Not a single reference to the events surrounding the birth, life, or crucifixion of this person has ever been found. No reference to the slaughter of babes. There was no Roman census that required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors. No letters home about a weekend where thousands of people were fed on the fish and bread that came out of a single child's basket. No clay pots dedicated to no-longer-dead Grandpa who came back on Easter day. Not even a "screw Yeshua" chiselled into a rock commemorating the loss of an entire village's source of food when a herd of pigs jumped over a cliff at the command of this religious leader. It seems to me all this does is explain why Christians aren't bothered by the fact there is no evidence that supports the existence of Jesus.
-
7
-
-
That sounds absolutely lovely. The "belief" part of my personal faith is very weak, and it seems that every attempt I make at strengthening it ends up having the opposite effect. But I want to live like a person of faith, if that makes sense, to be part of a community that says, "here's what we're going to do, and we're all in this together." But since I am part of a community whose raison d'être is belief, I struggle with feeling like a fraud, like I don't really belong, like I'm just going through the motions, while everyone else is all-in, heart, mind, and soul. And since no one else in my immediate family is interested in religion at all, that leaves me going alone, without the people I love the most, to a different, separate community. It just . . . I don't know, it's not working out so great.
The way that so many Christians reacted to Obergefell v. Hodges basically put an end to my daughter's Christian faith. :crying: It didn't exactly do wonders for mine, either.
Perhaps you can find local charitable organizations that apply some of these qualities you think of as a living "like a person of faith." If you mean things like living with integrity, intent, compassion, cooperation, helpfulness, and so on, you don't need faith in any religion to live like that. If there are no charitable organizations near you, perhaps you could start one, or learn how to advocate for what you think is important online or off.
-
4
-
-
I can attest that this is true. Both JEPD and the Gospel of Q were included in our study at Moody. JEPD was covered in the OT Survey that all students were required to take. I would imagine that it was also covered in classes that focused more specifically on those sections of the Bible, but I took a class on some of the prophets instead.
Q came up in some of my NT classes. We also discussed authoriship of the so-called Pauline epistles. Some of which, while attributed to Paul, were not written by him.
As an aside, I went to Bible college around the height of the Open Theism debate. We lost a number of really good professors in the fall out of the requirement for faculty to sign doctrinal statements. It was an illustrative experience.
What was the Open Theism debate?
-
You know what's funny? (from this thread and the salvation spin-off one) I think religion has been helpful overall for human development. I like religious people in the abstract. I am generally quite conservative of behavior and belief, though I am not religious. I really like many of the abstract ideas of Christianity especially, and the stories and etc.
But every time I talk to religious people online, I have a crisis of faith in my respect for religious people. It just seems like the more they say, the more incredible (as in un-credible) I find their belief, and that undermines my good feelings toward their faith. None of it makes any sense! And every defense of it I have seen seems sort of fundamentally illogical in one way or another.
The same thing happened, funnily enough, with our Waldorf charter. The curriculum for the school is actually pretty traditional - they study the saints, and classical cultures and languages, and etc. Their values are truth and beauty and working towards the common good.
But for some reason hippies have taken over the Waldorf movement in the US, and the school is hilariously, disastrously liberal. Steiner, save me from your followers.
To the bold, I fall on the exact opposite side of the fence, lol! A friend once gave me a copy of Christopher Hitchens' God's Not Good and it was an eye opener to say the least. It's hard to see religion as a beneficial, or even benign influence on society for me anymore. Religious people I enjoy not in the abstract, but personally. I'm guessing religion offers an efficient, cooperative way to apply that natural empathy and compassion (I'm talking about the empathetic and compassionate believers, not the people who leave scathing lectures instead of tips kind of believers - those people can go step on a lego).
Reading religious conversations online intrigues me. I learn new things (like not boiling a young goat in its mother's milk was important enough to Yahweh to have Moses include it in the commandments chiseled in stone, more than ten by the way, huh). But also I read reasons given for questions that really don't have answers. The few salvation threads are a good example of that. People are trying to reconcile a loving God with an evil act, and it's fascinating for me to see how they bridge this gap. Actually, in contrast to the idea that "bad" Christians make people leave the faith, I think it's more a matter of finding out what the faith really is that does it, and I think online conversations is doing more to expose otherwise unknown, or glossed over things.
I remember looking into Waldorf when my oldest was much younger. The ideas are so great, so inspiring! Friends told me what it was like, much like what you discovered. Lots of weird woo and incomprehensible beliefs tied into the learning structure. I though it was just my community, but it sounds like it's a Waldorf cultural thing. What a shame.
-
6
-
-
That sounds rough. I just read somewhere that when you stop letting a controller control you, they start to control how others think about you. Just supporting your niece as she discovers how to stand her ground probably helps a lot. Sorry about the declining mental health. That's scary to watch.
-
3
-
-
It may not make a difference to an atheist, but it would certainly make a difference to a Christian. It's the foundation of their belief. If there was no historical Jesus, there was no God/Man Jesus, and everything collapses. It's necessary to the Christian, but not sufficient for the non-Christian.
I know Christians who don't believe the story of Adam and Eve as being literal. That would mean there was no "first sin," that would change the nature of humanity, and yet the idea of Jesus saving them from the consequence of sin is still accepted. I imagine if it turned out that historical Jesus was no more likely than historical E.T., the idea of forgiveness, reconciliation, and a kind of fantastic, eternal homecoming would not be lost.
-
1
-
-
Please do not argue with me. I did not say that I believed this. I stated what the few I know personally who have rejected hell but not christianity have expressed to me. I made that clear in my post. I cannot answer these questions you have directed at me since I do not know what their reponses would be.
I have been on these forums a lot of years, enough to know how these discussions go down, usually in epic flames with much stone throwing so I choose not to express any more personal philosophy on the subject beyond this point.
FaithManor, please accept my apology. I didn't mean to argue with you. I was confused and thought an illustration would explain why. I didn't mean to put you on the spot to defend anything. I appreciated your answer, by the way, so thank you for that.
-
1
-
-
I've never really considered this in terms of the word "consent" which to me is an almost legal conceptualization. It doesn't really seem to mesh well for me, it seems a bit like saying I should need to consent to gravity before I feel its effects. Reality is what it is, we can't escape gravity because we would prefer a different sort of universe.
Is that the perspective you're coming from? - I haven't really considered how that might work before. Maybe in that scenario beings ought to have been asked about things like that how the laws that shape the universe will operate? From a theological perspective that could be tricky in the sense that a set of laws that contradicted god's nature, the primary reality, simply couldn't exist - it would violate the law of non-contradiction. A universe like that - say, without gravity - might not even be viable. Also, we would then be setting up the laws that determine our own nature, and our answer to the question of how we would shape the universe, which also seems like a logical problem, some sort of Dr Who feedback loop. And what if different people wanted different things - would each of us live in a different reality?
The question of full knowledge is interesting - I think it relates in part at least to the idea of the Fall, though that gives a literary sort of answer. It would see that situation, of lack of full knowledge and will, as a problem that wasn't version A of the plan. In that story, we do in fact know precisely what to do and not do, though not necessarily why, and are able to do what we want (aren't subject to weakness of will, like when we go off a diet and then are mad at our inability to do what we want.) A traditional interpretation of that story is that humans were too immature for the knowledge from the tree - they did not yet have the wisdom and experience to understand and use it, and that is why it was temporarily forbidden. So - we become creatures with dangerous knowledge and dangerous wills, and are blocked from the Tree of life to protect us from becoming fixed in that state.
In the Christian understanding, the Incarnation is seen as the medicine that heals that wound, so in the end people do have the knowledge to make a real choice, and the will to do so as well. The limits that dogged them will be overcome, but there choices will really form who they are.
I think that making of choices on a daily basis would be seen as our contribution to reality, while we don't always have full knowledge, we do very often have enough, and it isn't like we are always making the positive ones even then. Often we do a lot of damage, to ourselves, other people, and the natural world.
The question about consent came in response to bolt.'s post (#22). With regard to the bold, I'm not sure I understand where you're going with it. Why would people be consulted about the laws of physics? They are what we are, and we exist within them.
-
1
-
-
I do not presume to know the conclusion that all people who reject hell but remain Christian believe. But of the ones I know it is not a matter of being saved from per se but saved for something. Relationship with God, better relationship with fellow man by trying to live a more Jesus like life (Red Letter Christians comes to mind), for the afterlife and not extinction of the soul.
But I have not discussed this with a significant number of people who have rejected the traditional concept of hell and how that plays out in salvation theology for them so definitely not an expert.
Oh no, you lost me! I mean, I think I can understand why you would say that, but it doesn't change the reality in this scenario. Let me put it this way, without what I would consider the sugarcoat on the explanation. Let's say I give my child a birthday gift, and it's the gift they've been talking about all year. I mean, this gift is the thing that everybody wants, it's super popular because it's really fun, you'd never tire of it, and everyone you've ever wanted could join in. The fun would be epic. Everyone's been talking about it for the whole year, making arrangements to get together, getting excited in anticipation of all the great things to come. No way any kid is going to say no under those conditions, right? I mean, he'd have to be a fool, or more likely, he'd have to be making a judgement that's so far removed from his character that I might worry something serious is going on.
But let's say, for the sake of argument, he chooses not to keep it for some reason. In making that choice, he knows that now his father is going to take his hand and hold it over an open flame for 45 min. The child can scream and kick and plead all he wants, but his father is stronger and his father warned him all through the year that this would happen. Is the child's acceptance of the gift really separated from his knowing he would otherwise have avoided the flame? Let's say his father doesn't hold his hand over the flame but instead kills him peacefully in his sleep. No more child. He never knows. He simply... ceases to exist. Would you still say he only failed to make the choice for something? Would it not be the reality that he also failed to avoid a very bad something? Would you describe that as a relationship free from coercion?
-
3
-
-
In my experience, the "hard" kids are the ones who are least likely to just take XYZ for an answer. As frustrating as this can be when you've got a house to run and kids to care for and your own responsibilities to meet, I've found this particular personality trait makes for some pretty creative and fantastic habits in young adults. Just let him know you love him for who he is and enjoy his company in between the sparring as much as you can. This will go a long way in the long run. Hang in there, mamma. Your love for him will be the glue that holds him together in the years to come.
-
And to speak to Charlie's issue of consent, this is one reason many question the theology of hell. If God's plan is "follow me or torment for eternity" then following is not consent but coercion. Many have followed dictators in fear for their lives or their family's lives which is a relationship of captor/victim, warden/prisoner, torturer/tortured. It is not by any meausure of the definitions of love or grace, a gentle, loving, merciful relationship. It really isn't a relationship in and of itself but simply fear based oppression.
So if hell is real, if people go there for eternity, then the "relationship" is not consentual.
That's how it looks to me, yeah. But your post makes me wonder, if there's no concept of hell what is a Christians "saved" from?
-
3
-
-
As well, not all religious put nearly the emphasis on "belief" as Christianity does. Many non-western traditions are much more oriented to practice. Judaism is at least as much about communal identity and observance / action as it is about "belief."
There are many reasons other than "evidence" to attach to a religious framework. Or to detach, for that matter.
Out of curiosity, what is the conversion rate to Judaism like? I don't mean hard numbers, but do people regularly convert to Judaism? And if so, which form is most popular (I don't know what you call the difference between Reform and Orthodox, sorry!)? What are some of the reasons given for conversion?
ETA: I forgot to ask, is there any essence of proselytizing in Judaism? I've never heard of an outreach for conversion, certainly not door to door, but I've never ever heard a Jewish friend share their faith in such a way as to present it as an invitation for others to find out more like I do with Christians.
-
1
-
-
Well if you accept that the Bible is legitimate, do you/others not believe it contains some evidence of God? Certainly it contains multiple accounts of Jesus' life/death/resurrection. How do you choose what in the Bible is factual and what is fiction?
Legitimate in what way? Historically it's got a pretty poor track record. Natural history explanations are off the mark. The claims made are unrealistic and contradict with other claims made. I would think of it as a legitimate source of the beliefs of an evolving religion, but that's probably not what you're talking about. Circular reasoning isn't reasoning, it's defense of a belief.
It's not a matter of "choosing" what parts of the bible are factual, it's a matter of fact. Factually, the earth was not created in six days. Factually, organic bodies do not cease decay, come back together, cells reform, bacteria and mildew disappear, and personalities present themselves intact as if there was no period of death. Factually, the reference to a virgin birth was mistranslated. Without faith, there's no reason to accept certain claims as true regardless of what the evidence may say.
-
8
-
-
Do you really believe there is zero proof? Do you believe that every bit of evidence people have produced pointing to God/Jesus is totally false/made-up? Not being snarky - legitimate questions.
I'm asking because obviously there are millions and millions of people who believe there is proof.
I do, too. There are millions and millions of people who believe there's proof that Jesus never died on the cross and Islam is the appropriate explanation for life and reality. There are millions and millions of people who believe there's proof of reincarnation. There are more eye witnesses to claim to have seen Bigfoot than Jesus. Belief isn't evidence.
-
10
-
-
I don't know - I kind of think "as likely" is accurate. Some people wish others had the same worldview as themselves, others don't care, and some are pushy about it. It doesn't seem to matter much whether they call themselves religious or not.
In my family, I have a Catholic great-aunt who is pushy, and an atheist cousin who is really pushy. Ironically, the great-aunt is the godmother of that cousin and neither of them really know a darn thing about what they are talking about. It's like a sort of weird generational mirror.
Looks can be deceiving. According to Pew Research (ten facts about atheists):
In the 2014 Religious Landscape Study, self-identified atheists were asked how often they share their views on God and religion with religious people. Only about one-in-ten atheists (9%) say they do at least weekly, while roughly two-thirds (65%) say they seldom or never discuss their views on religion with religious people. By comparison, 26% of those who have a religious affiliation share their views at least once a week with those who have other beliefs; 43% say they seldom or never do.
(bolding theirs)
-
10
-
-
Thank you for the replies. I don't know how to respond without sounding like I'm arguing, but I feel like those didn't address the consent issue. Instead, they justified this non-consensual deal. The first one made it sound like God is nice and wants to invite everyone to the party, so he'll make the deal easy to take. The second one sounds like God is giving us the opportunity for a once-in-a-lifetime spiritually metamorphic experience if we want it. In essence, God is making humanity "an offer he can't refuse." I know it's not arbitrary, but consent requires the full knowledge and willing participation of both parties, in this case, God and people. Only, people weren't given full knowledge or consent of this plan, or given any opportunity to contribute to the plan. We're just given the opportunity to accept or reject it after it's been put in place.
-
1
-
-
@OP, if it helps any, I've known many people to enjoy marijuana recreationally and still lead very fulfilling lives, succeeding in their goals without sacrificing careers or relationships. I've never seen a train wreck from pot. I understand it doesn't make you comfortable, but I hope this helps alleviate some of your worry.
-
2
-
-
As a deity 'you' kinda limit your own choices if ( a ) you actually are the only source of life for all beings, and ( b ) you are interested in having a relationship that is based on informed consent.
It makes it optional for your creations to choose 'no relationship thanks' but, clearly, such a choice would kill them. Then you have to deal with their mortality issues in a way that still doesn't violate consent issues... At least, you would want to make it possible for them to be restored, should they want to be.
By dying and rising, Jesus deals with the death issue through incarnation and indwelling.
Your perception is that such actions would have a sense of triviality (bring brief) in the scheme of God-life. My perception is that the 'brief' aspect isn't really relevant to a timeless deity -- but would be significant is the totally different type of being he was becoming, and the dark paradox of the author of life being killed (by the people created by him, who live by his mercy) experiencing death, and overcoming it... Which changes both the nature of humanity and its potemtial. This is a reality-shaking change. However brief, it's intense and meaningful for a deity to choose such experiences for our sake. The idea that it was only a short phase do it shouldn't be a big deal to him is s very human time-centric perspective.
I'm unclear on the idea of consent. The act of death and resurrection, and the consequences that affect us, were made without prior knowledge or consent of the second party (humanity). For example, I didn't give any consent for someone to die for me, even if the death was temporary, immortality was never really sacrificed, or the finished product is really fantastic. So it makes me wonder, why should I be held to these standards, namely, eternal punishment / loss of reward, if this deal was made on my behalf without my consent or the consent of an agent working on my behalf?
-
3
-
-
I hadn't heard of the Lewis Trilemma before today. I had to google it. But it seems kind of narrow. What about:
4. He thought his message of love could help people but was afraid no one would listen to some barefoot homeless dude so he pretended to be the son of God to get people to pay attention.
I mean, surely there are options other than God, crazy, or evil.
Doesn't work for me. Love that includes punishment for failure to reciprocate isn't love. And that's just for starters.
-
5
-
-
Because langauge is a handy in-group/out-group identifier. Taboos against or use of performs a social function and contributes to group cohesiveness. The justifications will differ, but that's generally why.
The justifications are the most interesting part, lol! Already in this thread, less than a dozen posts in, and swearing is equated with being dirty, uneducated, vulgar, and trying unsuccessfully to appear cool.
@OP, there's no rhyme or reason to many taboos. It's just the social behavior flip-side of cooperation. Humans are social animals and so we naturally gravitate towards conformity with a certain amount of "wiggle room." Then outside that wiggle room, you find your taboo behaviors. I think of wear words in that wiggle room. In some micro cultures it's considered uncooperative, in others it's not a problem. Same with slurping soup or finishing all the food on your plate. Depending where you are, these can be associated with being dirty, uneducated, vulgar, or perfectly fine.
-
7
-
A question for atheists
in The Chat Board
Posted
Like what?