A question for atheists

[eternalsummer]

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.

[Tanaqui]

Um, liberals value truth, beauty, and working towards the common good.

[fraidycat]

Um, liberals value truth, beauty, and working towards the common good.

Right! Especially the bolded. It's pretty much the basis of liberalism. Liberty and Equality.

[eternalsummer]

Sorry, I meant leftists rather than liberals in a more traditional sense.  At any rate, I should have not mentioned politics, it was just the first thing I thought of in relation to the experience of having the followers of a religion or methodology or ideology being rather different than you might expect given the actual tenets of the religion/ideology itself.

 

I just had no idea, from reading the curriculum on the website and doing some background (though not enough) research about Waldorf, that it would be so heavily dominated by people on the left side of the political spectrum.  Similarly, there are many churches you could go in and then be quite befuddled at reading parts of their actual source text.

[Joules]

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.

 

Yes

[Joules]

Yes I certainly understand that. But it would be really difficult to determine where to draw that line. I mean there are certainly multiple accounts about Jesus' life/resurrection, so are all of those false? If historically we know he really did exist, and there are multiple accounts in the Bible, what things do we choose to believe or not?

 

Like any other historical record, those corroborated by other independent evidence: archaeological, scientific, or records from other cultures. There are some names in Egyptian records, so some of the people likely existed.  Some of the cultural/food traditions seem to be accurate.  

 

To step outside, think of the Iliad or Odyssey.  Many of the battles might have been real, some of the characters might have been real (though exaggerated), but I don't believe any of the supernatural stuff.  Storms are weather events, not Poseidon's anger.  I don't see the Christian bible as different from the Odyssey.  There is no, "But this one is special!" for me.  I think that "special" for some people comes from tradition and culture.  The belief itself provides a certain peace for people.

[LucyStoner]

Trying to convert me is an awesome way to lose access to me.

 

I don't have much contact with the branch of the family tree that's into "saving" people while living total trainwreck lives themselves.

 

My friends? No.

 

I have ties with many religious people, including priests, ministers, deacons and rabbis. Given that I grew up heavily involved in my church and even at one point seriously thought I'd enter religious life myself, it's not that I don't know religious people. It's that the religious people in my life are not the ones who are trying to sell me on their church like it's an Amway product or a Pampered Chef meat thermometer.

[Carrie12345]

 

I think the saddest thing out of this entire thread is seeing how the extreme behavior of some Christians drives people away, and makes them think terribly of Christianity. I'm pretty sure that is exactly the opposite of what Jesus would've wanted.

 

I was raised in a very loving church with a very loving family.  There is no person, Christian or otherwise, who drove me away.  The idea that some Bad Christian must have gotten to me is insulting and upsetting.

[Laura Corin]

I was raised in a very loving church with a very loving family.  There is no person, Christian or otherwise, who drove me away. 

 

I was raised by two atheists who had drifted away from their parents' conventional and low-key beliefs.  There's no trauma involved.  I went to vaguely Christian schools and live in a country with an established Church, but none of that really impinged.

 

I later did have a hard time living in a 'missionary town' in China, but that didn't have any effect on my basic atheism.

[Guest]

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.

 

This was part of what lead to my loss of belief. I reject the idea of Original Sin. I reject the whole story of how people came to be screwed up. So, that natural leads to a breakdown in why we need a Savior. I also ought, "Well, how does Atonement even work?" How do we say, because Jesus took on all sin, some people can have that "payment" credited to their account, but only if they have heard about this, understand and believe it? The whole construct began to fail for me.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Sorry, I meant leftists rather than liberals in a more traditional sense.  At any rate, I should have not mentioned politics, it was just the first thing I thought of in relation to the experience of having the followers of a religion or methodology or ideology being rather different than you might expect given the actual tenets of the religion/ideology itself.

 

I just had no idea, from reading the curriculum on the website and doing some background (though not enough) research about Waldorf, that it would be so heavily dominated by people on the left side of the political spectrum.  Similarly, there are many churches you could go in and then be quite befuddled at reading parts of their actual source text.

 

Really?!  I dunno.  I always saw Waldorf as some sort of weird cult in its own category.

 

(I don't mean everyone who follows Waldorfish stuff is in a weird cult.  But the true original Waldorf was basically a weird cult.)

[lisabees]

This thread also makes me curious, and I hate to start yet another s/o thread, but I can if needed, whether atheists would be open to children growing up and choosing to seek out a faith to follow.

 

 

One out of our six kids went down the fundamentalist Christian route for over a year when she was around 14.  We drove her to church and youth group, although it did absolutely bother us.  She knew how we felt about religion, but she also felt supported in her quest  She was obsessed and she tried to evangelize whoever she could.  But, at the same time, she had sticky notes all over her bible, filled with question after question.  She repeatedly asked the youth paster her many questions, but he wouldn't answer with anything other than a "We just have to believe; The bible says; If it's God's will..."

 

More than anything, intolerance to gays pushed her over the edge.  Intolerance to anyone absolutely destroys her.  

 

One day, as I was pumping gas at the station, she suddenly appeared and said, "I am questioning my faith."  

 

She explained to us that she felt that if religion supresses the asking of questions by giving illogical answers, she wants nothing to do with it.  She finally felt free.

 

She wrote her best narrative essay based on her experience.  It was absolutely lovely.

[regentrude]

The moral question is interesting - historically some groups, like the Romans, gave quite a lot of moral freedom, though it was by no means absolute.  But philosophers it seems to me pretty generally were much more likely to tie morality closely to the nature of god.  To me, that makes sense, unless we think there is no such thing as morality or meaningful ethics.  If there are things we do think are objectively right and wrong in some sense - and few people when pushed don't - what would they derive their reality from other than the nature of the universe?    How should we behave, other than according to the laws of the universe, whatever they are?  Why would we want or need to add constructed and imaginary realities, and where would we possibly get the capacity to do so if not from our own nature which is determined by the nature of the universe? ...

 

I think living in a universe where morality wasn't part of its nature would be pretty horrible, and there is good reason almost no one actually tries to live as if it were true.

 

Some moral issues may be tied to nature. Killing threatens the species. Most cultures prohibit killing, except in certain exceptional circumstances.

 

Other moral issues are completely cultural constructs, like many of the rules regulating sexuality, for example, or the relative status and rights of the genders. There is no basis in nature for much of this; it is a patriarchical culture that requires closer regulation of female sexuality that of male - nature would just require babies to be born and cared for. 

 

ETA: Also, morality changes with time and culture. Just think about attitudes towards slavery or rape. I am quite glad that what is accepted as moral nowadays is not what the Old Testament spells out.

Edited January 3, 2017 by regentrude

[chiguirre]

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?

 

 

Yes I certainly understand that. But it would be really difficult to determine where to draw that line. I mean there are certainly multiple accounts about Jesus' life/resurrection, so are all of those false? If historically we know he really did exist, and there are multiple accounts in the Bible, what things do we choose to believe or not?

 

Ohh, this is a topic I totally geek out about, so bear with my enthusiasm. In the 19th century many scholars dedicated their lives to textually analyzing the Bible, comparing language, word usage, frequently used expressions (particularly the name of the divinity) and grammar constructions in the Hebrew and Biblical Greek texts that make up the Bible. What they discovered is truly fascinating! And, before I go on, I'd like to point out that this is widely accepted knowledge that is taught in seminaries and divinity schools, this is not a bunch of atheists taking potshots.

 

The main theory of authorship of the Old Testament is the Documentary Hypothesis or JEPD model. Basically, many scholars believe that there are four main authors of the OT: the Yahwist (spelled with J in German), Elohist, Priestly and Deuterocanonical writers. Here's a link to a Patheos article that discusses the JEPD model's dominance for more than a 100 years and current discussion and modifications of it:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/01/the-death-of-the-documentary-hypothesis/

 

The New Testament has similar authorship scholarship. In this case, the "source" texts are the Gospel of Mark and "Q" for Quelle (German for source). Those texts can clearly be traced in both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Gospel of John is an outlier and comes from a different source. That's why you'll get substantially different accounts of things like the birth of Jesus in the different gospels.

 

This is a very short explanation with some extra links:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/hypothetical.html

 

If this geeks you out as much as me, I'd suggest these Great Courses:

 

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/story-of-the-bible.html

 

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/history-of-the-bible-the-making-of-the-new-testament-canon.html

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

Honestly, I am so good with calling First Cause/s unknowable and leaving it at that. How anyone makes a logical leap between a First Cause and the Christian God of the Bible, I neither know, nor wish to have explained to me. 

 

I'm fine with that and I'm also fine with we don't know yet but scientists are working on figuring it out. Maybe we'll know someday (not in my lifetime); maybe we'll never know. Not knowing does not automatically equal any specific god.

 

I was raised in a very loving church with a very loving family.  There is no person, Christian or otherwise, who drove me away.  The idea that some Bad Christian must have gotten to me is insulting and upsetting.

 

I was raised in mainstream Christianity. First social justice Catholic, then later very similar United Methodist. It was all lovely. As a Methodist I started doing something that was actively discouraged to a Catholic growing up in the sixties - I started reading the Bible. Yep. I went to the source. And the more I read, the more I questioned. No one drove me away. I did meet creationists for the first time when we started homeschooling, and I learned that the Christian God didn't belong to my political belief system, but it was actually reading the Bible that opened my eyes.

[mamaraby]

And, before I go on, I'd like to point out that this is widely accepted knowledge that is taught in seminaries and divinity schools, this is not a bunch of atheists taking potshots.

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.

[Onceuponatime]

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.

Growing up in a fundamentalist sect, I was very irritated to learn about this stuff after the age of 30. Not because I didn't accept it, but because I realized that if you didn't go to seminary, you missed out on pertinent information which was clearly being withheld from the lay members of the congregation. That was one of the motivating factors for me to branch out and study on my own without consulting "authorities" in the church I attended.

[Pam in CT]

Ohh, this is a topic I totally geek out about, so bear with my enthusiasm. In the 19th century many scholars dedicated their lives to textually analyzing the Bible, comparing language, word usage, frequently used expressions (particularly the name of the divinity) and grammar constructions in the Hebrew and Biblical Greek texts that make up the Bible. What they discovered is truly fascinating! And, before I go on, I'd like to point out that this is widely accepted knowledge that is taught in seminaries and divinity schools, this is not a bunch of atheists taking potshots.

 

The main theory of authorship of the Old Testament is the Documentary Hypothesis or JEPD model. Basically, many scholars believe that there are four main authors of the OT: the Yahwist (spelled with J in German), Elohist, Priestly and Deuterocanonical writers. Here's a link to a Patheos article that discusses the JEPD model's dominance for more than a 100 years and current discussion and modifications of it:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2014/01/the-death-of-the-documentary-hypothesis/

 

The New Testament has similar authorship scholarship. In this case, the "source" texts are the Gospel of Mark and "Q" for Quelle (German for source). Those texts can clearly be traced in both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Gospel of John is an outlier and comes from a different source. That's why you'll get substantially different accounts of things like the birth of Jesus in the different gospels.

 

...

 

 

Linguistic and historical scholars coming from the Jewish tradition work with the JEPD model as well; this is a good example.  

 

As in Christianity, there are plenty of Jews on the more traditional end of the spectrum who attribute single (and divine) origins to the Torah (Pentateuch).  Other parts are attributed to multiple authors even within the tradition (i.e. Psalms to David, Prophets to the respective prophets etc).

 

While belief in the divinity of the Torah is definitely among the differentiators between the strands / denominations within Judaism and how people self-sort between them, it is not among the criteria of the ever-raging "Who Is a Jew" debates -- that's mostly around lineage and to a lesser extent observance.  

 

Within the progressive strands there are plenty of deeply and happily attached, strongly-identified Jews who either explicitly accept the scholarly basis of the JEPD model or who don't worry unduly about biblical origins -- something along the lines of "whether or not it's sanctified because it's God's, it's sanctified because it's ours" -- after millennia of serving as the center of Jewish peoplehood, it is a gift beyond measure, whether we think of the gift as coming from God or from our forebears.  The Reconstructionist movement was explicitly founded on this basis.

[Charlie]

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.

[Greta]

As well, not all religions 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.

 

 

 

 

eta typo

 

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.

 

 

 

More than anything, intolerance to gays pushed her over the edge.  Intolerance to anyone absolutely destroys her.  

 

 

 

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.  

[kubiac]

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.

 

Jewish conversion fascinates me, especially as an American, which is a country with I think an unusually strong tradition of Christian/evangelical/Pentacostal/JW/Mormon evangelizing and relatively easy "conversion."

 

Basically, the Jews are like "Nah, please don't." To become a Jew, you have to go through a rigorous study process. The "intro to casual Judaism" (not real class name) at my local synagogue meets three hours a week for a full year. And it's not even a proper conversion class. It's the, "So you'd maybe like to learn more about us" general survey course at a Reform synagogue that they want you to take before you even decide to ask to start studying for the conversion process.

 

If you are a Gentile woman who wants to convert so your children can be considered Jew by birth (this is what Ivanka Trump did when she married Jared Kushner), you are making a major commitment of study and introspection, one that I admire very much.

[Charlie]

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?

[Charlie]

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.

[J-rap]

Regarding the question about primary sources...

 

It was an orally dominant culture, so you won't find a wealth of written sources.  However, it is becoming more evident that keeping the most important facts was a crucial element in their retellings.  Also, my understanding is that the Jewish tradition put a strong emphasis on eye-witness testimony.

 

The Gospels themselves were mostly intended to be performed orally.  However, although they may differ due to some allowed flexibility in the oral tradition, they will retain the essence of the oral traditions they were based on.

 

Unfortunately, the majority of all written work from ancient times has perished, but it is not completely non-existent.  There are bits and pieces of (non-Christian) sources that do support events as told in the Gospels, the existence of a Christian movement and Jesus.

 

Some names:  Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata, Celcus, Suetonius, Pliny, Mara bar Serapion, Thallus.

 

There is also archaeological evidence that supports events stated in the Gospels.

 

 

[Lady Florida.]

In my small sample size, the only people I know who converted to Judaism were married to a Jewish person and chose to convert. Most of the converts weren't strongly religious to begin with, but one that I know was (or thought he was) a devout Christian.

[Pam in CT]

((Greta))

 

I don't know where you live.  Around here, there are many Christian churches that emphasize community and care over belief.  You can find them by looking at who's supporting refugee services, running ESL classes, hosting food pantries, engaging in interfaith dialogue and joint projects, etc.  ("Social justice" here is a positive term; only recently did I learn that it's a term of derision in other circles / geographies!!)

 

You might try the Methodists, they seem ubiquitous... 

[kubiac]

I agree with some of what you're saying, and I am skeptical about some things. I just don't really have any doubts about my core beliefs.

 

What I also don't understand is how you'd explain people who have been atheists for years becoming Christians when trying to prove God doesn't exist. I mean these are people who want to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no God, but they wind up Christians. That has to mean there is some pretty convincing evidence somewhere.

 

People decide to believe in things for a lot of reasons besides "convincing evidence." I would argue that atheist>>religious converts may have discovered something they find compelling about being in a faith community that is not necessarily a realization like "Oh yes, this story is true!"

 

The act of faith is very powerful in alleviating a lot of bad feelings through the thought process: "If I trust in a God, I can relieve myself of responsibility, guilt and anxiety all at once, because so much is out of my hands. If I practice the tenets of this religion, I am taking righteous steps toward a good life and good feelings. Etc."

[Ravin]

No, through a combination of 1. My family members by and large all have good manners, and 2. Those inclined to try it gave up on my heathen soul years ago. They might still pray for me. They don't waste breath telling me about it.

[fraidycat]

Regarding the question about primary sources...

 

It was an orally dominant culture, so you won't find a wealth of written sources. However, it is becoming more evident that keeping the most important facts was a crucial element in their retellings. Also, my understanding is that the Jewish tradition put a strong emphasis on eye-witness testimony.

 

The Gospels themselves were mostly intended to be performed orally. However, although they may differ due to some allowed flexibility in the oral tradition, they will retain the essence of the oral traditions they were based on.

 

Unfortunately, the majority of all written work from ancient times has perished, but it is not completely non-existent. There are bits and pieces of (non-Christian) sources that do support events as told in the Gospels, the existence of a Christian movement and Jesus.

 

Some names: Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata, Celcus, Suetonius, Pliny, Mara bar Serapion, Thallus.

 

There is also archaeological evidence that supports events stated in the Gospels.

I don't doubt some of the events. Even modern day fiction is written using actual events, but it doesn't make the characters real.

 

Pertaining to the first bolded - I looked. I read about Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus. But, from what I could ascertain, it was still just hearsay. We have exactly zero evidence of "eyewitness testimony". That they 'heard the story' (which started the Christian movement - surely no one doubts the existence of the movement!) and happened to mention it in their writing doesn't make the story any more factual than the aliens in Scientology. None of these writers actually met Jesus of Nazareth. They didn't even meet someone who met him. They heard stories.

 

ETA: I will look at the other names and see if there is something I missed.

 

ETA2: I just did quick searches, but I'm still not impressed with the "evidence". Especially Lucian the satirist.

Edited January 3, 2017 by fraidycat

[J-rap]

What was the Open Theism debate?

 

Here are some explanations of Open Theism by a pastor/theologian well-known for supporting it:

 

 

http://reknew.org/2015/10/5-ways-the-bible-supports-open-theism/

 

http://reknew.org/2015/07/how-people-misunderstand-open-theism/

[mamaraby]

What was the Open Theism debate?

It's likely still ongoing, but late 90s/early 2000s

[Greta]

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.

 

Thank you, I appreciate the reply.  It is that (the bolded), but it's also more than that.  One big part of it is the sense of being part of a community, a member of a "tribe" so to speak.  Interacting closely with people who share similar perspectives, being there for those people when they need you, knowing they'll be there for you if you ever need them, that sort of thing.  I grew up with that sort of close-knit community, but in many ways it was an unhealthy one, so I ultimately left.  But, I don't know, maybe it "imprinted" on me a need for that sort of community.  I haven't felt that strong sense of community in the charitable work that I've done, but I'm open to the possibility it would be there if I were to dive into it more deeply.

 

The other thing is, I am a person of faith.  I've been an atheist before (most of my adult life, actually), and I know that just isn't my reality anymore.  I believe there is more to this universe than just what is physical and tangible (no, I can't logically prove it and won't even try, I just feel it) but the more I try to pin down exactly what that something is, the more elusive it becomes.  I realize that makes no sense.  I'm trying to think of an analogy, but I'm not very creative, so this will probably suck.  But here goes.  Imagine a sign on the highway.  You can see the sign, you know it's there.  But the harder you try to read what it says, the fuzzier the words become.  Meanwhile, one passenger in the car with you is saying there is no sign, and the other is saying that the sign is perfectly clear and he can tell you exactly what it says.   :willy_nilly:

[J-rap]

I don't doubt some of the events. Even modern day fiction is written using actual events, but it doesn't make the characters real.

 

Pertaining to the first bolded - I looked. I read about Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus. But, from what I could ascertain, it was still just heresay. We have exactly zero evidence of "eyewitness testimony". That they 'heard the story' (which started the Christian movement) and hapoened to mention it in their writing doesn't make the story any more factual than the aliens in Scientology. None of these writers actually met Jesus of Nazareth. They didn't even meet someone who met him. They heard stories.

 

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.  

[Greta]

((Greta))

 

I don't know where you live.  Around here, there are many Christian churches that emphasize community and care over belief.  You can find them by looking at who's supporting refugee services, running ESL classes, hosting food pantries, engaging in interfaith dialogue and joint projects, etc.  ("Social justice" here is a positive term; only recently did I learn that it's a term of derision in other circles / geographies!!)

 

You might try the Methodists, they seem ubiquitous... 

 

 

Thank you, Pam!   :001_smile:  And I will say that my church (I still think of it as my church even though I've hardly attended at all in the last year) really does care about community and charity.  I certainly don't mean to imply those things are ignored.  But they are secondary to the core beliefs.  So when you struggle with belief...   it's hard not to feel out of place a bit.

[fraidycat]

From earlychristianwritings.com

 

Lucian satirized the Christians in his Passing of Peregrinus, a story of a philosopher sage who at one point becomes a leader of the Christians to take advantage of their gullibility. Here is a quote:

 

"These deluded creatures, you see, have persuaded themselves that they are immortal and will live forever, which explains the contempt of death and willing self-sacrifice so common among them. It was impressed on them too by their lawgiver that from the moment they are converted, deny the gods of Greece, worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws, they are all brothers. They take his instructions completely on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods and hold them in common ownership. So any adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who knows the world, has only to get among these simple souls and his fortune is quickly made; he plays with them."

This is supposed to convince someone Jesus existed?

 

Because ot basically sums up my feelings, but he thought it almost 2000 years before me.

Edited January 3, 2017 by fraidycat

[Spryte]

Thank you, Pam! :001_smile: And I will say that my church (I still think of it as my church even though I've hardly attended at all in the last year) really does care about community and charity. I certainly don't mean to imply those things are ignored. But they are secondary to the core beliefs. So when you struggle with belief... it's hard not to feel out of place a bit.

I don't know where you fall on faith or social justice, but what about a UU? I have dear friends who are atheist but love the sense of community of church. They founded the local UU. UU welcomes all faiths, or even those with no faith. My friends' church has a minister, pastor (can't remember what they call it) who leans Christian so there are some Sundays that have more of that flavor, but there are a variety of faiths there. There will be an emphasis on community and social justice, volunteer work, etc. it might be worth a shot if you haven't been to one.

 

Just a thought.

[kubiac]

OK, I can contribute a crabby atheist statement to the discussion:

 

If all the human energy devoted to theology and deciphering/proving/analyzing religious texts was redirected to either "doing good works" or literally any other human project or field of study, the world would be a better place.

 

[Greta]

I don't know where you fall on faith or social justice, but what about a UU? I have dear friends who are atheist but love the sense of community of church. They founded the local UU. UU welcomes all faiths, or even those with no faith. My friends' church has a minister, pastor (can't remember what they call it) who leans Christian so there are some Sundays that have more of that flavor, but there are a variety of faiths there. There will be an emphasis on community and social justice, volunteer work, etc. it might be worth a shot if you haven't been to one.

 

Just a thought.

 

That is a thought.  Something I had not considered.  I lean heavily Christian, my daughter leans Buddhist, my husband leans pantheist, social justice is profoundly important to all of us, so maybe that's a place we could all be happy.

[KarenNC]

That is a thought.  Something I had not considered.  I lean heavily Christian, my daughter leans Buddhist, my husband leans pantheist, social justice is profoundly important to all of us, so maybe that's a place we could all be happy.

 

Having been UU for close to 20 years (and having finally left Christianity over simply not being able to subscribe to certain core beliefs even in their most liberal form despite 30 years of trying), I would say that it could, and that much will depend on the character of the particular congregation/fellowship, as they are quite individual in the day to day workings. Honestly, you would be the family member I would be most concerned about potentially feeling out of place at times as some will be more explicitly inclusive of Christianity than others. There are some congregations that lean heavily humanist/atheist, others that lean more toward actively incorporating spiritual language and expression of various kinds. Overall, it's been the best place for community my husband and I have found, with our very diverse spiritual backgrounds. ;) One of our recent congregational presidents is very decidedly and vocally atheist, one of the ministers we've had was Buddhist, and our particular church tends to a varied calendar, including weekly Buddhist meditations, Christmas services, Neopagan wheel of the year celebrations, a humanist discussion group, etc.

 

I will also suggest that you look into the Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, and into the American Baptists. I was Episcopalian for close to 10 years and it is very liberal theologically. That was where I encountered the documentary hypothesis, in their "Education For Ministry" lay ministry classes (a four year sequence, of which I did three). The standing joke about UCC is that it stands for "Unitarians Considering Christ," :)  so you may find a fit there. American Baptists also tend to be very liberal theologically. All of them are very heavily involved in social justice issues. Much will depend on how comfortable the rest of your family is with the Christian framework.

Edited January 3, 2017 by KarenNC

[Greta]

Having been UU for close to 20 years (and having finally left Christianity over simply not being able to subscribe to certain core beliefs even in their most liberal form despite 30 years of trying), I would say that it could, and that much will depend on the character of the particular congregation/fellowship, as they are quite individual in the day to day workings. Honestly, you would be the family member I would be most concerned about potentially feeling out of place at times as some will be more explicitly inclusive of Christianity than others. There are some congregations that lean heavily humanist/atheist, others that lean more toward actively incorporating spiritual language and expression of various kinds. Overall, it's been the best place for community my husband and I have found, with our very diverse spiritual backgrounds. ;) One of our recent congregational presidents is very decidedly and vocally atheist, one of the ministers we've had was Buddhist, and our particular church tends to a varied calendar, including weekly Buddhist meditations, Christmas services, Neopagan wheel of the year celebrations, a humanist discussion group, etc.

 

I will also suggest that you look into the Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, and into the American Baptists. I was Episcopalian for close to 10 years and it is very liberal theologically. That was where I encountered the documentary hypothesis, in their "Education For Ministry" lay ministry classes (a four year sequence, of which I did three). The standing joke about UCC is that it stands for "Unitarians Considering Christ," :)  so you may find a fit there. American Baptists also tend to be very liberal theologically. All of them are very heavily involved in social justice issues. Much will depend on how comfortable the rest of your family is with the Christian framework.

 

 

Thank you so much for this, Karen.  This is very helpful.  :grouphug:

[Charlie]

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.

[Lady Florida.]

 

  ("Social justice" here is a positive term; only recently did I learn that it's a term of derision in other circles / geographies!!)

 

You might try the Methodists, they seem ubiquitous... 

 

I didn't realize that social justice is used as a term of derision, though I live in an area where it could be used as such. I'm going to keep my ears open and see what I can learn. 

 

We were Methodists until we let go of belief. While there is a set of core beliefs within the United Methodist Church (UMC), some are more conservative or liberal than others. We belonged to a liberal church and I think if we were still believers we'd still be happy there. Social justice is an important part of both the conservative and liberal congregations. If UU doesn't work for you (speaking to Greta), UMC might. 

[Spryte]

Wow. I never knew social justice could be used derisively either. The things we learn here...

[Greta]

 If UU doesn't work for you (speaking to Greta), UMC might. 

 

 

Thanks!  My sister-in-law is UMC.  I'll ask her more about it.

[justasque]

I didn't realize that social justice is used as a term of derision, though I live in an area where it could be used as such. I'm going to keep my ears open and see what I can learn. 

...

 

"SJW", meaning Social Justice Warrior, is regularly used as a dismissive insult by white supremacists, misogynists, and the alt right in general, especially on Twitter.

[SparklyUnicorn]

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.

 

This is fascinating. 

[fraidycat]

This is fascinating.

In my search yesterday, I read a very long article on the smithsonianmag website about a massive archaeological dig on a site that is believed to be where Jesus spent a lot of his time, if the stories are to be believed. Even there, the final summary line of the article says they still have found no evidence of Jesus being there, but they're still hoping they will some day.

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/unearthing-world-jesus-180957515/

 

e didn’t find any evidence yet that says for sure Jesus was here,†Solana acknowledges, taking a break from the heat on a bench inside the synagogue. But the sight of archaeologists fills him with hope now, where once there was only dread.

 

“To have scientific, archaeological evidence of Jesus’s presence is not a small thing for a Christian,†he tells me, looking up and thrusting his palms toward the sky. “We will keep digging.â€

Edited January 3, 2017 by fraidycat

[Mergath]

"SJW", meaning Social Justice Warrior, is regularly used as a dismissive insult by white supremacists, misogynists, and the alt right in general, especially on Twitter.

 

I see it come up in FB homeschool groups quite a bit, sadly. Social justice gets blamed for pretty much anything certain HSing subsets don't like about the world. Annoyed that you have to send in an Intent to Homeschool? Must be the fault of the SJWs! It's ridiculous.

[Onceuponatime]

Wow. I never knew social justice could be used derisively either. The things we learn here...

Apparently there are anti social justice atheists too. They occasionally show up on some of the atheist blogs I read.

[mamaraby]

What was the Open Theism debate?

Heh, my brain read when, not what.

 

It attempted to answer the question of free will - if god knows everything that will happen, are humans really free. It's one of the many things that arose along with the emerging church to be sort of post-evangelical world.

 

The Wikipedia page has a helpful comparison chart that contrasts Open Theism and Calvinism - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism