Did you ever try to analyze the core beliefs of Christianity as if you had never heard of it before, as if you just arrived on this planet, just learned the language, and someone explained it to you from the bottom up? Strip it of its pomp and circumstance, its ritual and bombast, and what is left?
It begins with a principle: An individual person can be held responsible for acts that were committed by other persons before he was born, even thousands of years before he was born, and he can and should be punished for those prior acts that constitute offenses.
It continues with a premise that is based on that principle: Man committed a murder and thereby redeemed his descendants for two of man's ancestors having committed an offense by eating fruit.
It ends with a doctrine that is based on that premise: Everyone will live on after death, but those who do not agree with the premise and accept the principle will be condemned, by the one who was murdered, to barbaric physical torture that never ends.
That, I submit, is bizarre in the extreme.
The principle is fundamentally immoral because it is both illogical and irrational. No person can possibly be responsible for an event that happened before he was born, and it is both illogical and irrational to hold him so. Further, it is both illogical and irrational to punish a person for an act that someone else committed before he was born. Indeed, is there a four year old child anywhere on this planet who does not understand how fundamentally wrong it is to be blamed and punished for an act that someone else committed?
The premise is preposterous on its face. It begins with the notion that we know who the first two humans were, that we know what they did, and that we know each committed a specific act which was an offense against the rules. Now, were these first two ancestors homo sapiens, or homo erectus, or pan troglodytes? Did they live six thousand years ago, or six hundred thousand years ago, or six million years ago? And just who found this out? It is a story, nothing more, and its credibility is zero.
The doctrine is utterly immoral on its face, as it holds that I am guilty of "sin", of an offense against the rules, because of an act that was committed by someone else long before I was born. Further, it holds that I must be "punished" for this "sin" unless I am redeemed by some mechanism. Finally, in my unhumble opinion, this doctrine is despicable, or better yet, damnable. Consider: What offense is so awful, so heinous, that a fitting punishment therefore is barbaric, horrific physical torture that never, ever ends? Christian doctrine holds that I commit such an offense simply by not accepting the principle and not believing the premise on which Christianity is based, and that by not doing so, I am therefore more deserving of such punishment than is Joseph Stalin, Adolph Eichmann, or Jack the Ripper.
We are told that this principle, premise, and doctrine are explicitly the work of the omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent creator and ruler of the universe, that it is literally the word of god. No, applying Occam's Razor reveals the doctrine for what it is, the work of centuries of shamans du jour as they developed the doctrine, disseminated it as dogma, imprisoned, tortured, and killed outright those who opposed them, and thereby kept the rabble in line, the faithful in thrall, and the shekels incoming. They used the carrot-and-stick approach of promising a wonderful future for those who agreed, and never-ending horrific torture, now and forever, for those who didn't. It worked because burning others at the stake is a marvelously effective deterrent, and because there is no possible way to disprove their assertions, as the truth is revealed only to the dead, who cannot file complaints.
The whole foundation of Christianity simply crumbles away if one rejects the immoral principle on which it is founded, as any objective person should, or if one treats the story of Adam, Eve, the apple, and the snake as just a story and not as historically accurate, as any objective person should. Personally, I can't think of any reason why I should want Christian doctrine to be true, and I don't.
There was a time when I'd go on a tear much the way DJ did up @ comment #1.
I stopped when I realized that people in matters of faith, believe the things they believe because they need to, and yanking the rug out from under them implies some responsibility in helping them achieve a deeper understanding of divinity, as handing them a full blown existential crisis of faith and then just leaving them standing there in a state of shock wasn't cool.
Later on, I came to realize that people tenaciously won't let go of their understandings of articles of faith until they're good and done with them, which gave lie to the conciet that somehow *I* had the power of taking people's faith from them without their consent.
Long ago I concluded that attempting to disabuse others of their faith was an exercise in futility, and a way of simply pissing people off, so since then I simply limit myself to explaining my position and debating specifics rather than wide generalities.
" An individual person can be held responsible for acts that were committed by other persons before he was born, even thousands of years before he was born, and he can and should be punished for those prior acts that constitute offenses."
Is this essentially different from genetics, heredity and cultural traditions?
Does not the inbred pay the price for his parents' poor choice of a mate?
Does not the alcoholic's child suffer for his parent's addiction to the bottle?
Is not the African girl subjected to FGM a victim of the culture that she was born into?
"No person can possibly be responsible for an event that happened before he was born, and it is both illogical and irrational to hold him so."
If that be the case, then Existence itself is illogical and irrational.
Or could it just possibly be that it is our subjective perception that is skewed?
"It begins with the notion that we know who the first two humans were, that we know what they did, and that we know each committed a specific act which was an offense against the rules."
If you reread it carefully, you will see that it is a story of misperception.
The serpent said that they would be as Gods themselves.
He lied...they did not.
They ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
But that fruit was not for them. Why do we persist in thinking that we absolutely KNOW the difference between the two?
I suspect that it has to do with Pride.
We just really don't want to let go of the idea that we are somehow Godlike.
" Further, it holds that I must be "punished" for this "sin" unless I am redeemed by some mechanism."
Will you be punished for standing on YOUR perception of Good and Evil and using it to Judge the World Entire?
Probably. All the millions of us, Gods to a Man/Woman, don't take kindly to being judged, y'know.
"What offense is so awful, so heinous, that a fitting punishment therefore is barbaric, horrific physical torture that never, ever ends?"
I think that you will provide yourself with that answer.
It has been my observation that in the temporal world, people generally torment themselves, I suspect that in any hereafter, you will be the one who constructs, staffs, and draws up the itinerary for the Hell that you will occupy.
"as any objective person should"
When you find this person, ask for his Mercy, okay?
It can't hurt...and one of the little fables that I hold quite dearly, (Luke 17), relates that it just might work.
I have a strict rule about not engaging on the topic of religion on the internet, but I do think it's worth mentioning that I find my own faith considerably more consistent and rational than the posted characterization. I believe in neither Original Sin, per se, nor in extremely light conditions for redemption, nor in the idea that geographic or linguistic a-proximity is a barrier to salvation, so I come out feeling pretty good about my beliefs. Not, I repeat NOT, that I have any intention of addressing them here in any detail.
Re: linguistic and proximity barriers to salvation.
Well, for starters, I've never conceded that redemption/salvation was actually necessary, or even a meaningful description of a real state of a human soul. It's said that the key to managing a profitable casino is the creation and management of debt. The teaching that humans are in need of salvation has always struck me as the "debt creation" element of the scam.
Leaving that aside, and stipulating, soley for the sake of this argument, the necessity and propriety of redemption/salvation, it seems that there is also a chronological element, to the Jesus Event, which in conjunction with the space and linguistic elements actually turns the whole thing into a light cone. Anyone outside of the light cone, or anyone in the past light cone, finds themselves outside of the strict possibility of redemption/salvation. The virtuous guy who died in Zanzibar in 1 BCE is SOL.
Of course, astute theologians have recognized this incompatibility with omnibenevolence, and have gone through great gesticulations, inventing all sorts of epicycles to patch that up.
"Damn, DJ! (No pun intended.) Who peed in your Wheaties?"
Nobody did, Kevin. It's not intended to be an attack on anyone, rather it's just the most straightforward and simple way I can explain my own point of view.
"I suspect that it has to do with Pride. We just really don't want to let go of the idea that we are somehow Godlike."
Bilgerman, this is one of the primary reasons I became an atheist at a young age. I have NEVER understood the notion that it was a "sin" to want to acquire knowledge, to simply "know things". When the explanation was that I should not WANT to know things, that everything I should ever need or want to know was in the Bible and even thinking that I could know more was an offense against the rules, I went over the edge.
No, we are not "Godlike". My thinking takes me in precisely the opposite direction. We are just another species of animal, albeit an animal with a significant ability to use language and tools.
"Does not the inbred pay the price for his parents' poor choice of a mate?
Does not the alcoholic's child suffer for his parent's addiction to the bottle?
Is not the African girl subjected to FGM a victim of the culture that she was born into?"
All are true, and all are irrelevant to my observation that people should not be held responsible for acts committed by others before they were born.
"Responsible" has a number of uses, and the parts of its definition that are relevant here (from The Free Dictionary) are:
responsible: adj. 1. Liable to be required to give account as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust. 3. Being a source or a cause. 8. Required to render account; answerable.
The meaning is quite simple. No one can be responsible for acts that someone else committed before he was born. He can be the victim of those acts, and he can suffer from the effects of those acts, and he might have no real choice but to clean up the mess, but he cannot be responsible for those acts.
" I have NEVER understood the notion that it was a "sin" to want to acquire knowledge, to simply "know things". "
Sure...being in the dark sucks, but y'know, I'd point out that my 8 year old really wants to "know" about my handguns.
Would it be "fair" of me to leave him alone with access to them so that he can sate his hunger for that knowledge?
It's not time for him to learn about things that go "BANG!" yet.
And I will determine when he may or may not be ready for that...not he, and not anyone else.
"When the explanation was that I should not WANT to know things, that everything I should ever need or want to know was in the Bible and even thinking that I could know more was an offense against the rules, I went over the edge."
Quite. And it seems that in recoiling from the limitations placed upon you, you have ended up alone claiming an absolute revelation, and proselityzing that what you think you escaped from is false and untrue:
("as any objective person should").
Kinda backed away full circle and are now entangled in a dogma of your own making, from where I sit.
"We are just another species of animal, albeit an animal with a significant ability to use language and tools."
What a sad and self-limiting statement. If that is all that you believe you are, then it's likely that that's all you'll ever be.
For my part, I believe that while you are indeed an overly-clever and dexterous flavor of chimpanzee, there's a wee spark of the Divine within you. And that gives you a potential so vastly greater than any can imagine as to be stupefying.
"All are true, and all are irrelevant to my observation that people should not be held responsible for acts committed by others before they were born."
"Should", huh?
So, you refuse to believe in the existence of God because the existence He created is unfair, illogical, and irrational.
Yes, I happen to agree that life is all of those things.
But I don't blame the Creator for it.
And I appreciate the calmer and less haranguing tone of your response to me.
Humility and Goodwill are great leaps toward the Justice and Mercy that seem to lie at the bottom of a lot of folks' doubts.
It's not like I havent struggled with exactly the same questions that you are voicing here.
It begins with a principle: An individual person can be held responsible for acts that were committed by other persons before he was born, even thousands of years before he was born, and he can and should be punished for those prior acts that constitute offenses.
DJ, this is false. It is non-biblical. Original Sin is non-biblical as well. While some Christian sects might support this view, it does not come from the Bible.
To Labrat, the Bible says two things:
20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? Rom 9:20-21
Secondly, it says that those who are without the law are not judged according to that standard, but to the standard written on their hearts. The guy stranded his entire life on a desert island is judged by a different standard than those who have heard the word of God.
I'm not arguing the fundamental truth of these points, btw, only that this is what the Bible says.
Ben: so, are then the Christians that say salvation comes only through the acceptance of Christ ("faith, not works"), and that this is the inevitable conclusion of the Bible wrong?
I'm aware there's a lot of people teaching a lot of doctrine that isn't actually in the Bible- it's a subject of great interest to me.
Like I've said before, I believe it is thoroughly possible to reconcile the Bible enough for faith to be rational. What I object to is people who make out that the text of the Bible makes accepting its truth the only obvious choice to any rational/good person. It doesn't.
Ben: so, are then the Christians that say salvation comes only through the acceptance of Christ ("faith, not works"), and that this is the inevitable conclusion of the Bible wrong?"
No, salvation only comes though Christ. Tough it's only relevant if you need to be saved.
What I object to is people who make out that the text of the Bible makes accepting its truth the only obvious choice to any rational/good person. It doesn't.
If it's not obvious, then what to make of it when even a very large and well-trafficked apologetics site, which purports to solve these kinds of questions with references, is of the opinion that salvation means the difference between heaven and hell rather than just redemption if you need it, and backs that up with extensive references, which were why I got the impression that's the way it works?
If John 3:18 is correct- "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.", then lack of faith in Christ is a hellworthy offense. The Bible makes explicitly clear that the only way to know the Father is through Christ, and that those who do not know him do not enter the kingdom. If "condemned" does not mean Hell, but rather judgement, why isn't it clearer? It's an important point.
"Sure...being in the dark sucks, but y'know, I'd point out that my 8 year old really wants to "know" about my handguns.
Would it be "fair" of me to leave him alone with access to them so that he can sate his hunger for that knowledge?
It's not time for him to learn about things that go "BANG!" yet.
And I will determine when he may or may not be ready for that...not he, and not anyone else."
That sounds like a sensible approach, and it parallels the approach my father took with me, regarding guns.
But, I doubt that you will tell him, "You don't need to go go school other than to learn to read because everything you will ever need to know you can learn by reading the Bible. It's all there. In fact, you'll break the rules is you try to learn more than is there, and you'll break the rules if you even think you can."
That was St. Augustine's approach. That was the driving force that led to the Dark Ages.
"And it seems that in recoiling from the limitations placed upon you, you have ended up alone claiming an absolute revelation, and proselityzing that what you think you escaped from is false and untrue"
I am not claiming any revelation. This is old stuff that I happen to agree with. And, as I've stated before elsewhere, I'm not an evangelist. I've simply joined into a discussion.
"What a sad and self-limiting statement. If that is all that you believe you are, then it's likely that that's all you'll ever be."
Yup. And I'm quite happy to be nothing more. I'll never be an angel, a devil, or a demon. I won't ever sit on a cloud playing a harp (ever read Letters From the Earth, by Mark Twain?) and I won't ever roast in hell. That's all fine with me.
"For my part, I believe that while you are indeed an overly-clever and dexterous flavor of chimpanzee, there's a wee spark of the Divine within you. And that gives you a potential so vastly greater than any can imagine as to be stupefying."
Yup, I'm an over-evolved ape, but I can't even imagine the devine spark that you think is within me.
"So, you refuse to believe in the existence of God because the existence He created is unfair, illogical, and irrational."
No, I refuse to believe in the existence of god because I don't see any need for it and I don't see any physical evidence of it. It is the religious doctrines that are commonly described as being the "word of god" that I find to be unfair, illogical, irrational, and bizarre.
"And I appreciate the calmer and less haranguing tone of your response to me."
My apologies if I was otherwise, as I truly didn't mean to be. The reaction to the apparent "tone" of my first comment above actually surprised me, as I hadn't intended it to come across as confrontational. It was simply my thoughts, deeply held, and strongly worded.
I'll try to keep that in mind in the future. I hate surprises.
"It's not like I havent struggled with exactly the same questions that you are voicing here."
That's obvious. I've spent about 45 years at it, on and off.
"DJ, this is false. It is non-biblical. Original Sin is non-biblical as well. While some Christian sects might support this view, it does not come from the Bible."
They are, however, doctrinal. Interestingly, the concept of "original sin" is part and parcel of Christianity, but not of Judaism. If you are not filled with original sin, then you don't need saving from it.
Come to the South and listen to a Baptist preacher as he brings down thunder and brimstone on full (ahem) afterburner. You'll see that he appears to believe firmly that you are FILLED with SIN from the day you were BORN, an' if you don't 'xcept JAYZUZ as yer LORD an' SAVYER, then yore goin' STRAIGHT ta HAYULL!" Been there, seen and heard that, many times.
" It is the religious doctrines that are commonly described as being the "word of god" that I find to be unfair, illogical, irrational, and bizarre."
Ah...now THAT'S a sensible approach, and a darned good start.
I wouldn't get so hung up on the bathwater as to toss the baby out with it, though.
You obviously recognize something of worth therein, or you wouldn't have spent 45 years ruminating on it, right?
"Yup, I'm an over-evolved ape, but I can't even imagine the devine spark that you think is within me."
That's a very lonely path you have chosen to walk, friend.
Needlessly, to my mind.
If you are found to be worthy of it, I wish you luck upon your course.
That's a very lonely path you have chosen to walk, friend.
Needlessly, to my mind.
See, this is one of those differences in viewpoint I find so tough to understand. Why is it lonely? Humans are transparently special, inspired animals; we wouldn't be sitting here typing at each other in a common language from who knows how many miles away from each other if we couldn't. Denying that that spark came from the divine does not equate to denying the general wonder and possibility for good as well as evil inherent in the human ability to reason and empathize.
"They are, however, doctrinal. Interestingly, the concept of "original sin" is part and parcel of Christianity, but not of Judaism. If you are not filled with original sin, then you don't need saving from it."
It is part and parcel of some denominations, but it certainly isn't Biblical, and it is not part of my church's doctrine, as it is ludicrous. Why would Jesus tell us we had to be like children if children were full of sin and going to hell?
Catholics are strange. They have an official "Dogma" that Mary was taken up to heaven in her physical body. Where the heck does that come from?
"Humans are transparently special, inspired animals;"
My cats KNOW that they are even MORE special and inspired than I.
"Why is it lonely?"
Have you ever tried living with Faith?
I HAVE sailed the course of the agnostic, sometimes tacking to atheism
and back again.
Of the three tracks, the course with Faith in the Divine is, if not easier, then certainly comforted by the belief that one is not alone.
As I said on another thread, the belief that what you endure in life somehow, somewhere, and somewhen MEANS something makes all the difference.
"Denying that that spark came from the divine does not equate to denying the general wonder and possibility for good as well as evil inherent in the human ability to reason and empathize."
This all works well enough until you are face to face with something that no human can control or reason with, and where empathy is meaningless.
Perhaps I have the advantage of you all, since I have sailed the winter North Atlantic, and especially in bad weather, that is a good place to glimpse the face of the Almighty, and contemplate your own insignificance.
At the edge, when there is nothing before you in any direction but a vast and indifferent unimaginable power that can snuff out your existence, you realize that whether you live or die is ultimately not your own decision.
You put your trust in the Divine, and with that faith, you carry on.
...and, (so far), it is that carrying on that has always brought me to a safe harbor.
For some, they are crutches to cling to and lean upon.
For others they are things to be kicked out from under those who need them.
And for yet others, they are used as clubs to beat their fellow men and women over the head with.
"Ah...now THAT'S a sensible approach, and a darned good start.
I wouldn't get so hung up on the bathwater as to toss the baby out with it, though."
Thank you. You are among the few who have ever, in my personal experience, distinguished between the two. The difficulty is, how does one get from "it musta been god" to "it's a sin to eat meat during a time period that is labeled 'Friday'"? The former explains nothing and the latter is all bathwater.
"You obviously recognize something of worth therein, or you wouldn't have spent 45 years ruminating on it, right?"
I've spent all those years on it because I am an insatiable reader, my interest is history, and much of the history of western civilization is the history of religion. History is still evolving, as some people are trying to destroy the civilization that I am a part of, all in the name of their religious beliefs. So, I keep reading.
"That's a very lonely path you have chosen to walk, friend. Needlessly, to my mind."
That depends on one's point of view, doesn't it? To you, something appears to be missing from my point of view. To me, there's nothing to miss. I've never been lonely.
"It is part and parcel of some denominations, but it certainly isn't Biblical, and it is not part of my church's doctrine, as it is ludicrous. Why would Jesus tell us we had to be like children if children were full of sin and going to hell?"
That's part of what makes the doctrines and rituals of religion so bizarre. They can't all be right, and yet the practitioners of each are certain, by gum, that everyone else is wrong.
"Catholics are strange. They have an official "Dogma" that Mary was taken up to heaven in her physical body. Where the heck does that come from?"
Someone made it up and convinced others to believe it. Where else does dogma come from?
Did you ever try to analyze the core beliefs of Christianity as if you had never heard of it before, as if you just arrived on this planet, just learned the language, and someone explained it to you from the bottom up?
I'm just joining this discussion, but this strikes me as exactly the wrong way to approach any subject. In fact, this seems to be the way liberals approach the subject of violence and gun control, as though they were aliens just arriving here and with no knowledge of human nature or history.
The Bible mentions that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and mentions the brothers by name. Apparently, Roman Catholics dispute this and claim that these siblings are actually cousins. IIRC an ancient tomb was recently found with names inscribed somewhere that corresponded to the names of Jesus' parents and brothers. Someone made the suggestion that we could test the DNA of the remains, but what exactly that would reveal I'm not sure.
You remind me of a friend of the family who died this last week. He was a lifelong atheist like you, who seemed pretty happy and well-adjusted, as long as you didn't talk to him about religion. Well, his wife died about two years ago, and I have never seen such a nice, robust man take such a bitter, devastating turn. The man literally crumbled and withered away, and having been abandoned by the remainder of his family in the final months -- he apparently taught his children well: live for yourselves -- and unable at the end to overcome his hostility to the idea of an afterlife, died the loneliest most frightening death I can conceive of.
This all works well enough until you are face to face with something that no human can control or reason with, and where empathy is meaningless.
Perhaps I have the advantage of you all, since I have sailed the winter North Atlantic, and especially in bad weather, that is a good place to glimpse the face of the Almighty, and contemplate your own insignificance.
At the edge, when there is nothing before you in any direction but a vast and indifferent unimaginable power that can snuff out your existence, you realize that whether you live or die is ultimately not your own decision.
In other words, you've faced death and asked the question "Why was I spared?" I imagine that was pretty much the first thought of a hominid after seeing another of his or her group eaten by a predator, or struck by lightning.
That is, I believe, the foundation of all deistic religions - "Why am I here?" Because if the answer isn't "Because of God," then it's "Because you are."
Most people, I think, are extremely uncomfortable with not knowing.
"I'm just joining this discussion, but this strikes me as exactly the wrong way to approach any subject. In fact, this seems to be the way liberals approach the subject of violence and gun control, as though they were aliens just arriving here and with no knowledge of human nature or history."
That's fair enough. The point is that such an approach helps one to focus a bit on the fundamentals, and such was my reason for using it.
"Then you are a singular human being."
Well, maybe so. I have no way to know.
Let's expand the whole comment a bit. It was a response to Bilgerman's response to my comment. The whole shebang was:
Bilgerman: "For my part, I believe that while you are indeed an overly-clever and dexterous flavor of chimpanzee, there's a wee spark of the Divine within you. And that gives you a potential so vastly greater than any can imagine as to be stupefying."
me: "Yup, I'm an over-evolved ape, but I can't even imagine the devine spark that you think is within me."
Bilgerman: "That's a very lonely path you have chosen to walk, friend. Needlessly, to my mind."
That puts it in finer focus, doesn't it? My meaning was that I have never felt the loneliness he imagines I should feel as a result of being in this vast universe without the comfort of belief in god. The point is that I don't feel any void for such a belief to fill.
As I stated elsewhere in Kevin's parlor, I'm a hermit by nature. I don't mind being alone, and never have, which is perhaps one reason why I spend a lot of time in the woods with a gun in my hand. But, if my dear wife dies before I do (which I doubt will happen, as her ancestors are long-lived and mine aren't), I expect a fair description of my emotions will be loneliness. Time will tell.
Time indeed will tell, DJ. If such a time comes and you do feel that loneliness, I hope that, unlike our friend, you are able to find some solace.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/11/quote-of-day_08.html (35 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Did you ever try to analyze the core beliefs of Christianity as if you had never heard of it before, as if you just arrived on this planet, just learned the language, and someone explained it to you from the bottom up? Strip it of its pomp and circumstance, its ritual and bombast, and what is left?
It begins with a principle: An individual person can be held responsible for acts that were committed by other persons before he was born, even thousands of years before he was born, and he can and should be punished for those prior acts that constitute offenses.
It continues with a premise that is based on that principle: Man committed a murder and thereby redeemed his descendants for two of man's ancestors having committed an offense by eating fruit.
It ends with a doctrine that is based on that premise: Everyone will live on after death, but those who do not agree with the premise and accept the principle will be condemned, by the one who was murdered, to barbaric physical torture that never ends.
That, I submit, is bizarre in the extreme.
The principle is fundamentally immoral because it is both illogical and irrational. No person can possibly be responsible for an event that happened before he was born, and it is both illogical and irrational to hold him so. Further, it is both illogical and irrational to punish a person for an act that someone else committed before he was born. Indeed, is there a four year old child anywhere on this planet who does not understand how fundamentally wrong it is to be blamed and punished for an act that someone else committed?
The premise is preposterous on its face. It begins with the notion that we know who the first two humans were, that we know what they did, and that we know each committed a specific act which was an offense against the rules. Now, were these first two ancestors homo sapiens, or homo erectus, or pan troglodytes? Did they live six thousand years ago, or six hundred thousand years ago, or six million years ago? And just who found this out? It is a story, nothing more, and its credibility is zero.
The doctrine is utterly immoral on its face, as it holds that I am guilty of "sin", of an offense against the rules, because of an act that was committed by someone else long before I was born. Further, it holds that I must be "punished" for this "sin" unless I am redeemed by some mechanism. Finally, in my unhumble opinion, this doctrine is despicable, or better yet, damnable. Consider: What offense is so awful, so heinous, that a fitting punishment therefore is barbaric, horrific physical torture that never, ever ends? Christian doctrine holds that I commit such an offense simply by not accepting the principle and not believing the premise on which Christianity is based, and that by not doing so, I am therefore more deserving of such punishment than is Joseph Stalin, Adolph Eichmann, or Jack the Ripper.
We are told that this principle, premise, and doctrine are explicitly the work of the omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent creator and ruler of the universe, that it is literally the word of god. No, applying Occam's Razor reveals the doctrine for what it is, the work of centuries of shamans du jour as they developed the doctrine, disseminated it as dogma, imprisoned, tortured, and killed outright those who opposed them, and thereby kept the rabble in line, the faithful in thrall, and the shekels incoming. They used the carrot-and-stick approach of promising a wonderful future for those who agreed, and never-ending horrific torture, now and forever, for those who didn't. It worked because burning others at the stake is a marvelously effective deterrent, and because there is no possible way to disprove their assertions, as the truth is revealed only to the dead, who cannot file complaints.
The whole foundation of Christianity simply crumbles away if one rejects the immoral principle on which it is founded, as any objective person should, or if one treats the story of Adam, Eve, the apple, and the snake as just a story and not as historically accurate, as any objective person should. Personally, I can't think of any reason why I should want Christian doctrine to be true, and I don't.
I wound up going into a less snarky version of that, and the faith-and-values tension, over at my own place.
Two posts and 3,500 words later, I feel much more like having a nap than an argument.
Damn, DJ! (No pun intended.) Who peed in your Wheaties?
There was a time when I'd go on a tear much the way DJ did up @ comment #1.
I stopped when I realized that people in matters of faith, believe the things they believe because they need to, and yanking the rug out from under them implies some responsibility in helping them achieve a deeper understanding of divinity, as handing them a full blown existential crisis of faith and then just leaving them standing there in a state of shock wasn't cool.
Later on, I came to realize that people tenaciously won't let go of their understandings of articles of faith until they're good and done with them, which gave lie to the conciet that somehow *I* had the power of taking people's faith from them without their consent.
Long ago I concluded that attempting to disabuse others of their faith was an exercise in futility, and a way of simply pissing people off, so since then I simply limit myself to explaining my position and debating specifics rather than wide generalities.
This results, generally, in much less invective.
But not always.
DJ:
" An individual person can be held responsible for acts that were committed by other persons before he was born, even thousands of years before he was born, and he can and should be punished for those prior acts that constitute offenses."
Is this essentially different from genetics, heredity and cultural traditions?
Does not the inbred pay the price for his parents' poor choice of a mate?
Does not the alcoholic's child suffer for his parent's addiction to the bottle?
Is not the African girl subjected to FGM a victim of the culture that she was born into?
"No person can possibly be responsible for an event that happened before he was born, and it is both illogical and irrational to hold him so."
If that be the case, then Existence itself is illogical and irrational.
Or could it just possibly be that it is our subjective perception that is skewed?
"It begins with the notion that we know who the first two humans were, that we know what they did, and that we know each committed a specific act which was an offense against the rules."
If you reread it carefully, you will see that it is a story of misperception.
The serpent said that they would be as Gods themselves.
He lied...they did not.
They ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
But that fruit was not for them. Why do we persist in thinking that we absolutely KNOW the difference between the two?
I suspect that it has to do with Pride.
We just really don't want to let go of the idea that we are somehow Godlike.
" Further, it holds that I must be "punished" for this "sin" unless I am redeemed by some mechanism."
Will you be punished for standing on YOUR perception of Good and Evil and using it to Judge the World Entire?
Probably. All the millions of us, Gods to a Man/Woman, don't take kindly to being judged, y'know.
"What offense is so awful, so heinous, that a fitting punishment therefore is barbaric, horrific physical torture that never, ever ends?"
I think that you will provide yourself with that answer.
It has been my observation that in the temporal world, people generally torment themselves, I suspect that in any hereafter, you will be the one who constructs, staffs, and draws up the itinerary for the Hell that you will occupy.
"as any objective person should"
When you find this person, ask for his Mercy, okay?
It can't hurt...and one of the little fables that I hold quite dearly, (Luke 17), relates that it just might work.
Ah, shouldn't quote from memory.
Luke 23; 39-43.
I have a strict rule about not engaging on the topic of religion on the internet, but I do think it's worth mentioning that I find my own faith considerably more consistent and rational than the posted characterization. I believe in neither Original Sin, per se, nor in extremely light conditions for redemption, nor in the idea that geographic or linguistic a-proximity is a barrier to salvation, so I come out feeling pretty good about my beliefs. Not, I repeat NOT, that I have any intention of addressing them here in any detail.
Chicken!!! ;)
Re: linguistic and proximity barriers to salvation.
Well, for starters, I've never conceded that redemption/salvation was actually necessary, or even a meaningful description of a real state of a human soul. It's said that the key to managing a profitable casino is the creation and management of debt. The teaching that humans are in need of salvation has always struck me as the "debt creation" element of the scam.
Leaving that aside, and stipulating, soley for the sake of this argument, the necessity and propriety of redemption/salvation, it seems that there is also a chronological element, to the Jesus Event, which in conjunction with the space and linguistic elements actually turns the whole thing into a light cone. Anyone outside of the light cone, or anyone in the past light cone, finds themselves outside of the strict possibility of redemption/salvation. The virtuous guy who died in Zanzibar in 1 BCE is SOL.
Of course, astute theologians have recognized this incompatibility with omnibenevolence, and have gone through great gesticulations, inventing all sorts of epicycles to patch that up.
"Damn, DJ! (No pun intended.) Who peed in your Wheaties?"
Nobody did, Kevin. It's not intended to be an attack on anyone, rather it's just the most straightforward and simple way I can explain my own point of view.
"I suspect that it has to do with Pride. We just really don't want to let go of the idea that we are somehow Godlike."
Bilgerman, this is one of the primary reasons I became an atheist at a young age. I have NEVER understood the notion that it was a "sin" to want to acquire knowledge, to simply "know things". When the explanation was that I should not WANT to know things, that everything I should ever need or want to know was in the Bible and even thinking that I could know more was an offense against the rules, I went over the edge.
No, we are not "Godlike". My thinking takes me in precisely the opposite direction. We are just another species of animal, albeit an animal with a significant ability to use language and tools.
"Does not the inbred pay the price for his parents' poor choice of a mate?
Does not the alcoholic's child suffer for his parent's addiction to the bottle?
Is not the African girl subjected to FGM a victim of the culture that she was born into?"
All are true, and all are irrelevant to my observation that people should not be held responsible for acts committed by others before they were born.
"Responsible" has a number of uses, and the parts of its definition that are relevant here (from The Free Dictionary) are:
responsible: adj. 1. Liable to be required to give account as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust. 3. Being a source or a cause. 8. Required to render account; answerable.
The meaning is quite simple. No one can be responsible for acts that someone else committed before he was born. He can be the victim of those acts, and he can suffer from the effects of those acts, and he might have no real choice but to clean up the mess, but he cannot be responsible for those acts.
DJ:
" I have NEVER understood the notion that it was a "sin" to want to acquire knowledge, to simply "know things". "
Sure...being in the dark sucks, but y'know, I'd point out that my 8 year old really wants to "know" about my handguns.
Would it be "fair" of me to leave him alone with access to them so that he can sate his hunger for that knowledge?
It's not time for him to learn about things that go "BANG!" yet.
And I will determine when he may or may not be ready for that...not he, and not anyone else.
"When the explanation was that I should not WANT to know things, that everything I should ever need or want to know was in the Bible and even thinking that I could know more was an offense against the rules, I went over the edge."
Quite. And it seems that in recoiling from the limitations placed upon you, you have ended up alone claiming an absolute revelation, and proselityzing that what you think you escaped from is false and untrue:
("as any objective person should").
Kinda backed away full circle and are now entangled in a dogma of your own making, from where I sit.
"We are just another species of animal, albeit an animal with a significant ability to use language and tools."
What a sad and self-limiting statement. If that is all that you believe you are, then it's likely that that's all you'll ever be.
For my part, I believe that while you are indeed an overly-clever and dexterous flavor of chimpanzee, there's a wee spark of the Divine within you. And that gives you a potential so vastly greater than any can imagine as to be stupefying.
"All are true, and all are irrelevant to my observation that people should not be held responsible for acts committed by others before they were born."
"Should", huh?
So, you refuse to believe in the existence of God because the existence He created is unfair, illogical, and irrational.
Yes, I happen to agree that life is all of those things.
But I don't blame the Creator for it.
And I appreciate the calmer and less haranguing tone of your response to me.
Humility and Goodwill are great leaps toward the Justice and Mercy that seem to lie at the bottom of a lot of folks' doubts.
It's not like I havent struggled with exactly the same questions that you are voicing here.
It begins with a principle: An individual person can be held responsible for acts that were committed by other persons before he was born, even thousands of years before he was born, and he can and should be punished for those prior acts that constitute offenses.
DJ, this is false. It is non-biblical. Original Sin is non-biblical as well. While some Christian sects might support this view, it does not come from the Bible.
To Labrat, the Bible says two things:
20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? Rom 9:20-21
Secondly, it says that those who are without the law are not judged according to that standard, but to the standard written on their hearts. The guy stranded his entire life on a desert island is judged by a different standard than those who have heard the word of God.
I'm not arguing the fundamental truth of these points, btw, only that this is what the Bible says.
Ben: so, are then the Christians that say salvation comes only through the acceptance of Christ ("faith, not works"), and that this is the inevitable conclusion of the Bible wrong?
I'm aware there's a lot of people teaching a lot of doctrine that isn't actually in the Bible- it's a subject of great interest to me.
Like I've said before, I believe it is thoroughly possible to reconcile the Bible enough for faith to be rational. What I object to is people who make out that the text of the Bible makes accepting its truth the only obvious choice to any rational/good person. It doesn't.
Ben: so, are then the Christians that say salvation comes only through the acceptance of Christ ("faith, not works"), and that this is the inevitable conclusion of the Bible wrong?"
No, salvation only comes though Christ. Tough it's only relevant if you need to be saved.
What I object to is people who make out that the text of the Bible makes accepting its truth the only obvious choice to any rational/good person. It doesn't.
Oh?
Oh?
If it's not obvious, then what to make of it when even a very large and well-trafficked apologetics site, which purports to solve these kinds of questions with references, is of the opinion that salvation means the difference between heaven and hell rather than just redemption if you need it, and backs that up with extensive references, which were why I got the impression that's the way it works?
If John 3:18 is correct- "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.", then lack of faith in Christ is a hellworthy offense. The Bible makes explicitly clear that the only way to know the Father is through Christ, and that those who do not know him do not enter the kingdom. If "condemned" does not mean Hell, but rather judgement, why isn't it clearer? It's an important point.
"Sure...being in the dark sucks, but y'know, I'd point out that my 8 year old really wants to "know" about my handguns.
Would it be "fair" of me to leave him alone with access to them so that he can sate his hunger for that knowledge?
It's not time for him to learn about things that go "BANG!" yet.
And I will determine when he may or may not be ready for that...not he, and not anyone else."
That sounds like a sensible approach, and it parallels the approach my father took with me, regarding guns.
But, I doubt that you will tell him, "You don't need to go go school other than to learn to read because everything you will ever need to know you can learn by reading the Bible. It's all there. In fact, you'll break the rules is you try to learn more than is there, and you'll break the rules if you even think you can."
That was St. Augustine's approach. That was the driving force that led to the Dark Ages.
"And it seems that in recoiling from the limitations placed upon you, you have ended up alone claiming an absolute revelation, and proselityzing that what you think you escaped from is false and untrue"
I am not claiming any revelation. This is old stuff that I happen to agree with. And, as I've stated before elsewhere, I'm not an evangelist. I've simply joined into a discussion.
"What a sad and self-limiting statement. If that is all that you believe you are, then it's likely that that's all you'll ever be."
Yup. And I'm quite happy to be nothing more. I'll never be an angel, a devil, or a demon. I won't ever sit on a cloud playing a harp (ever read Letters From the Earth, by Mark Twain?) and I won't ever roast in hell. That's all fine with me.
"For my part, I believe that while you are indeed an overly-clever and dexterous flavor of chimpanzee, there's a wee spark of the Divine within you. And that gives you a potential so vastly greater than any can imagine as to be stupefying."
Yup, I'm an over-evolved ape, but I can't even imagine the devine spark that you think is within me.
"So, you refuse to believe in the existence of God because the existence He created is unfair, illogical, and irrational."
No, I refuse to believe in the existence of god because I don't see any need for it and I don't see any physical evidence of it. It is the religious doctrines that are commonly described as being the "word of god" that I find to be unfair, illogical, irrational, and bizarre.
"And I appreciate the calmer and less haranguing tone of your response to me."
My apologies if I was otherwise, as I truly didn't mean to be. The reaction to the apparent "tone" of my first comment above actually surprised me, as I hadn't intended it to come across as confrontational. It was simply my thoughts, deeply held, and strongly worded.
I'll try to keep that in mind in the future. I hate surprises.
"It's not like I havent struggled with exactly the same questions that you are voicing here."
That's obvious. I've spent about 45 years at it, on and off.
"DJ, this is false. It is non-biblical. Original Sin is non-biblical as well. While some Christian sects might support this view, it does not come from the Bible."
They are, however, doctrinal. Interestingly, the concept of "original sin" is part and parcel of Christianity, but not of Judaism. If you are not filled with original sin, then you don't need saving from it.
Come to the South and listen to a Baptist preacher as he brings down thunder and brimstone on full (ahem) afterburner. You'll see that he appears to believe firmly that you are FILLED with SIN from the day you were BORN, an' if you don't 'xcept JAYZUZ as yer LORD an' SAVYER, then yore goin' STRAIGHT ta HAYULL!" Been there, seen and heard that, many times.
DJ:
" It is the religious doctrines that are commonly described as being the "word of god" that I find to be unfair, illogical, irrational, and bizarre."
Ah...now THAT'S a sensible approach, and a darned good start.
I wouldn't get so hung up on the bathwater as to toss the baby out with it, though.
You obviously recognize something of worth therein, or you wouldn't have spent 45 years ruminating on it, right?
"Yup, I'm an over-evolved ape, but I can't even imagine the devine spark that you think is within me."
That's a very lonely path you have chosen to walk, friend.
Needlessly, to my mind.
If you are found to be worthy of it, I wish you luck upon your course.
That's a very lonely path you have chosen to walk, friend.
Needlessly, to my mind.
See, this is one of those differences in viewpoint I find so tough to understand. Why is it lonely? Humans are transparently special, inspired animals; we wouldn't be sitting here typing at each other in a common language from who knows how many miles away from each other if we couldn't. Denying that that spark came from the divine does not equate to denying the general wonder and possibility for good as well as evil inherent in the human ability to reason and empathize.
I echo LabRat's question. This baffles me as well, though I don't think I'd have used the word "inspired."
"They are, however, doctrinal. Interestingly, the concept of "original sin" is part and parcel of Christianity, but not of Judaism. If you are not filled with original sin, then you don't need saving from it."
It is part and parcel of some denominations, but it certainly isn't Biblical, and it is not part of my church's doctrine, as it is ludicrous. Why would Jesus tell us we had to be like children if children were full of sin and going to hell?
Catholics are strange. They have an official "Dogma" that Mary was taken up to heaven in her physical body. Where the heck does that come from?
Catholics are strange. They have an official "Dogma" that Mary was taken up to heaven in her physical body. Where the heck does that come from?
Ask Fran Porretto. But do it nicely.
And just out of curiosity, did Mary and Joseph have any kids of their own?
LabRat:
"Humans are transparently special, inspired animals;"
My cats KNOW that they are even MORE special and inspired than I.
"Why is it lonely?"
Have you ever tried living with Faith?
I HAVE sailed the course of the agnostic, sometimes tacking to atheism
and back again.
Of the three tracks, the course with Faith in the Divine is, if not easier, then certainly comforted by the belief that one is not alone.
As I said on another thread, the belief that what you endure in life somehow, somewhere, and somewhen MEANS something makes all the difference.
"Denying that that spark came from the divine does not equate to denying the general wonder and possibility for good as well as evil inherent in the human ability to reason and empathize."
This all works well enough until you are face to face with something that no human can control or reason with, and where empathy is meaningless.
Perhaps I have the advantage of you all, since I have sailed the winter North Atlantic, and especially in bad weather, that is a good place to glimpse the face of the Almighty, and contemplate your own insignificance.
At the edge, when there is nothing before you in any direction but a vast and indifferent unimaginable power that can snuff out your existence, you realize that whether you live or die is ultimately not your own decision.
You put your trust in the Divine, and with that faith, you carry on.
...and, (so far), it is that carrying on that has always brought me to a safe harbor.
Why this has been, I cannot answer.
Y'know,
Doctrines and Dogmas are peculiar features.
For some, they are crutches to cling to and lean upon.
For others they are things to be kicked out from under those who need them.
And for yet others, they are used as clubs to beat their fellow men and women over the head with.
I try very hard to do none of these.
"Ah...now THAT'S a sensible approach, and a darned good start.
I wouldn't get so hung up on the bathwater as to toss the baby out with it, though."
Thank you. You are among the few who have ever, in my personal experience, distinguished between the two. The difficulty is, how does one get from "it musta been god" to "it's a sin to eat meat during a time period that is labeled 'Friday'"? The former explains nothing and the latter is all bathwater.
"You obviously recognize something of worth therein, or you wouldn't have spent 45 years ruminating on it, right?"
I've spent all those years on it because I am an insatiable reader, my interest is history, and much of the history of western civilization is the history of religion. History is still evolving, as some people are trying to destroy the civilization that I am a part of, all in the name of their religious beliefs. So, I keep reading.
"That's a very lonely path you have chosen to walk, friend. Needlessly, to my mind."
That depends on one's point of view, doesn't it? To you, something appears to be missing from my point of view. To me, there's nothing to miss. I've never been lonely.
"It is part and parcel of some denominations, but it certainly isn't Biblical, and it is not part of my church's doctrine, as it is ludicrous. Why would Jesus tell us we had to be like children if children were full of sin and going to hell?"
That's part of what makes the doctrines and rituals of religion so bizarre. They can't all be right, and yet the practitioners of each are certain, by gum, that everyone else is wrong.
"Catholics are strange. They have an official "Dogma" that Mary was taken up to heaven in her physical body. Where the heck does that come from?"
Someone made it up and convinced others to believe it. Where else does dogma come from?
Did you ever try to analyze the core beliefs of Christianity as if you had never heard of it before, as if you just arrived on this planet, just learned the language, and someone explained it to you from the bottom up?
I'm just joining this discussion, but this strikes me as exactly the wrong way to approach any subject. In fact, this seems to be the way liberals approach the subject of violence and gun control, as though they were aliens just arriving here and with no knowledge of human nature or history.
Kevin,
The Bible mentions that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and mentions the brothers by name. Apparently, Roman Catholics dispute this and claim that these siblings are actually cousins. IIRC an ancient tomb was recently found with names inscribed somewhere that corresponded to the names of Jesus' parents and brothers. Someone made the suggestion that we could test the DNA of the remains, but what exactly that would reveal I'm not sure.
DJ,
I've never been lonely.
Then you are a singular human being.
You remind me of a friend of the family who died this last week. He was a lifelong atheist like you, who seemed pretty happy and well-adjusted, as long as you didn't talk to him about religion. Well, his wife died about two years ago, and I have never seen such a nice, robust man take such a bitter, devastating turn. The man literally crumbled and withered away, and having been abandoned by the remainder of his family in the final months -- he apparently taught his children well: live for yourselves -- and unable at the end to overcome his hostility to the idea of an afterlife, died the loneliest most frightening death I can conceive of.
I wish you a much better end than that.
This all works well enough until you are face to face with something that no human can control or reason with, and where empathy is meaningless.
Perhaps I have the advantage of you all, since I have sailed the winter North Atlantic, and especially in bad weather, that is a good place to glimpse the face of the Almighty, and contemplate your own insignificance.
At the edge, when there is nothing before you in any direction but a vast and indifferent unimaginable power that can snuff out your existence, you realize that whether you live or die is ultimately not your own decision.
In other words, you've faced death and asked the question "Why was I spared?" I imagine that was pretty much the first thought of a hominid after seeing another of his or her group eaten by a predator, or struck by lightning.
That is, I believe, the foundation of all deistic religions - "Why am I here?" Because if the answer isn't "Because of God," then it's "Because you are."
Most people, I think, are extremely uncomfortable with not knowing.
Kevin:
"In other words, you've faced death and asked the question "Why was I spared?""
My answer is:
"I don't know. But I believe..."
"I'm just joining this discussion, but this strikes me as exactly the wrong way to approach any subject. In fact, this seems to be the way liberals approach the subject of violence and gun control, as though they were aliens just arriving here and with no knowledge of human nature or history."
That's fair enough. The point is that such an approach helps one to focus a bit on the fundamentals, and such was my reason for using it.
"Then you are a singular human being."
Well, maybe so. I have no way to know.
Let's expand the whole comment a bit. It was a response to Bilgerman's response to my comment. The whole shebang was:
Bilgerman: "For my part, I believe that while you are indeed an overly-clever and dexterous flavor of chimpanzee, there's a wee spark of the Divine within you. And that gives you a potential so vastly greater than any can imagine as to be stupefying."
me: "Yup, I'm an over-evolved ape, but I can't even imagine the devine spark that you think is within me."
Bilgerman: "That's a very lonely path you have chosen to walk, friend. Needlessly, to my mind."
That puts it in finer focus, doesn't it? My meaning was that I have never felt the loneliness he imagines I should feel as a result of being in this vast universe without the comfort of belief in god. The point is that I don't feel any void for such a belief to fill.
As I stated elsewhere in Kevin's parlor, I'm a hermit by nature. I don't mind being alone, and never have, which is perhaps one reason why I spend a lot of time in the woods with a gun in my hand. But, if my dear wife dies before I do (which I doubt will happen, as her ancestors are long-lived and mine aren't), I expect a fair description of my emotions will be loneliness. Time will tell.
Time indeed will tell, DJ. If such a time comes and you do feel that loneliness, I hope that, unlike our friend, you are able to find some solace.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>