The God Fuse

[rusmeister]

I really want to add that I've been flipping through my C.S. Lewis collection, and he really provides superior answers to a lot of the questions/doubts about Christianity posed here.
His article "Dogma and the Universe" from "God in the Dock" deals directly with most of what you've been saying, for example.
ccthomasville.com/study_aides_files/boo ... e/text.htm (the 2nd article)

Another good comment on seeing the universe as fallen - and how this is ultimately optimistic:

Christ said it was difficult for "the rich" to enter "riches" in the ordinary sense. But I think it really covers riches in every sense - good fortune, health, popularity and just as money tends - to make you fell independent of God, because if you have them you are happy already and contented in this life. You don't want to turn away to anything more, and so you try to rest in shadowy happiness as it if could last for ever.

But God wants to give you a real and eternal happiness. Consequently He may have to take all these "riches" away from you: if He doesn't, you will go on relying on them. It sounds cruel doesn't it? But I am beginning to find out that what people call the cruel doctrines are really the kindest ones in the long run. I used to think it was a "cruel" doctrine to say that troubles and sorrows were "punishments." But I find in practice that when you are in trouble, the moment you regard it as a "punishment," it becomes easier to bear. If you think of this world as a place intended simply for our happiness, you will find it quite intolerable: think of it as a place of training and correction and it's not so bad.

Imagine a set of people all living in the same building. Half of them think it is a hotel, the other half think it is a prison. Those who think it a hotel might regard it quite intolerable, and those who thought it was a prison might decide that it was really surprisingly comfortable. So that what seems the ugly doctrine is one that comforts and strengthens you in the end. The people who try to hold an optimistic view of this world would become pessimists: the people who hold a pretty stern view of it become optimistic.

(Answers to Questions on Christianity)

[The Dreaming]

Hrmm, that's one of the places I disagree most strongly with classical religion. If you were refering to the eye of a needle quote (As I think you were) I have heard that that was actually a euphamism for the smaller, person sized entrance into a city in the time of christ. Caravans and vehicles had to go in through a gate. Now a person *could* get a Camel through this entrance, it just took some doing. So perhaps Christ meant that it usually takes some sweat (which the rich in the ancient world never needed to do) for a rich man to get into heaven. It was hardly impossible.

And to regard misfortune as punishment? The one, singular lesson of Job is that bad things happen to good people. I think it is *much* healthier not to think of God as having an hand in every little thing that happens. (Whatever the destinators believe). I used to have constant debates with my high school religion teachers (You can probably tell I was a parochial school kid) over whether God can have knowledge of the future, and still have free will. If God has a hand in every stewpot on the planet, do we have free will? Is it our fault that we are bad? Is it God's fault that we are misfortunate? Is it our own?

I tend to believe that a man cannot be truly happy unless he is also virtuous. The *rich* man you describe seems to be rich in spirit. I certainly wouldn't be happy if I obtained my fortune through the misery of others. (there is another question for debate). Whether or not miracles *do* happen, I think the safer bet is on the Clockmaker God. We cannot hold anyone but ourselves responsible for saving or damning the Earth. We are saved and damned always by our own choices, not by fate, or the will of God, or the temptation of the Devil. I'm not saying god *is* dead or impotent, but I think it's healthier for humanity to treat him as such.

[rusmeister]

Hrmm, that's one of the places I disagree most strongly with classical religion. If you were refering to the eye of a needle quote (As I think you were) I have heard that that was actually a euphamism for the smaller, person sized entrance into a city in the time of christ. Caravans and vehicles had to go in through a gate. Now a person *could* get a Camel through this entrance, it just took some doing. So perhaps Christ meant that it usually takes some sweat (which the rich in the ancient world never needed to do) for a rich man to get into heaven. It was hardly impossible.

And to regard misfortune as punishment? The one, singular lesson of Job is that bad things happen to good people. I think it is *much* healthier not to think of God as having an hand in every little thing that happens. (Whatever the destinators believe). I used to have constant debates with my high school religion teachers (You can probably tell I was a parochial school kid) over whether God can have knowledge of the future, and still have free will. If God has a hand in every stewpot on the planet, do we have free will? Is it our fault that we are bad? Is it God's fault that we are misfortunate? Is it our own?

I tend to believe that a man cannot be truly happy unless he is also virtuous. The *rich* man you describe seems to be rich in spirit. I certainly wouldn't be happy if I obtained my fortune through the misery of others. (there is another question for debate). Whether or not miracles *do* happen, I think the safer bet is on the Clockmaker God. We cannot hold anyone but ourselves responsible for saving or damning the Earth. We are saved and damned always by our own choices, not by fate, or the will of God, or the temptation of the Devil. I'm not saying god *is* dead or impotent, but I think it's healthier for humanity to treat him as such.

The caveat here is to not take Lewis too literally (FTR, he was speaking to a blue-collar audience of factory workers, and so simplified his speech from its usual Oxford don style) and so miss his point.

Note that he immediately modifies the word 'punishment' with the words 'training and correction'.

In any event, if our destiny IS eternity, then it is hard to see this world as anything else but a preparatory period, in which case training and correction makes perfect sense.

The point I was making is that materialists, while seeing Christianity as pessimistic, are themselves the true pessimists. Seeing a beauty that must be ripped from us in a few short years - one can hardly praise that deprivation.
Anyone who has lost a close loved one will hardly say that it is better that they are eternally dead than that we should have the opportunity to spend more time together.

BTW, I was NOT referring to the eye of a needle. Christ's own reference does not say that it is impossible, only that it is very difficult. Lewis's point is about not needing God, because life is going well enough for us without Him. Most people turn to God only when they realize that a reality without Him IS truly intolerable. Most people who say otherwise haven't come up against real loss yet.

(Edit - adding additional thought) Your comments on free will and God's role have answers, of course. The first thing is to realize that God is related to this universe (in our view) more as an author to a play than as one object in the universe to another. To an author, a later point in the play is not 'the future' for him - all times are equally present. He is outside the timeline altogether, seeing and contemplating the beginning and the end from an equal 'distance'. The exciting difference from the author analogy is that He has given us free will. So while He knows what "is going to happen" (purely from OUR point of view) it in no way negates our freedom of choice, any more than Marty McFly from 'Back to the Future' negated the free will of the people of 1955 to choose to love him, hate him, or anything at all for that matter. He simply knew what would result from the choices (yes I know the analogy is poor - just trying to make a point about freedom).

So here we have a God, who far from controlling others, has voluntarily bound His own hands, so to speak, by refusing to negate free will - by not stepping in to stop suffering caused by our own selfishness and free will - by letting us have the consequences of our freedom.

We cannot hold anyone but ourselves responsible for saving or damning the Earth. We are saved and damned always by our own choices, not by fate, or the will of God, or the temptation of the Devil.

Obviously, this is entirely compatible with what I have been saying.

Really, you should read "Miracles" or "The Problem of Pain" by Lewis. He says it much better than I do.

[The Dreaming]

I'ts to easy to fall into the fallacy of thinking of God in human terms. As a thinking being, I cannot imagine free will when I "was" authored by a god who knew my own destiny when he authored me, and the destiny of all mankind. If the future *can* be known, how does free will exist?

From the perspective of a man, I don't see it as possible. But we are talking about an *omnipotent* being, the creator of the universe.

[CovenantJr]

Most people turn to God only when they realize that a reality without Him IS truly intolerable. Most people who say otherwise haven't come up against real loss yet.

This is exactly the kind of condescending attitude I find really irritating in these debates. "The only reason you don't believe is because you haven't had it hard enough yet" - as though it's some simple lack that causes atheists to disbelieve. That alone is enough reason to fight God's existence, even were I to feel his presence - I don't want to become a dick.

[rusmeister]

I'ts to easy to fall into the fallacy of thinking of God in human terms. As a thinking being, I cannot imagine free will when I "was" authored by a god who knew my own destiny when he authored me, and the destiny of all mankind. If the future *can* be known, how does free will exist?

From the perspective of a man, I don't see it as possible. But we are talking about an *omnipotent* being, the creator of the universe.

Your meaning of 'thinking of God in human terms' is unclear. If by this you mean that I think of God as limited the way humans are, then I can say that I don't. If you mean it as understanding something about God in terms that a human can understand - well, there is no other way to talk about or understand anything about God except through our own terms and experience. it also explains why Revelation (in the sense of God coming down and saying it) as the only way we could know anything that is super-natural (beyond the confines of our limited existence and understanding). This, for example, is why the Epiphany (the baptism of Christ) is such a big deal. It was a moment when God said loud and clear "This is My Son."

As to free will, there is a huge difference between knowing something and causing it. If there is a Being outside of our temporal reality, able to see all points at once, just like we can cheerfully breeze back and forth through a play, why could He not know what was going to happen? If He limited His part to creating us, and then letting us go on our way, which, it seems indeed He has done, then we would indeed be free to choose at each moment without affecting His knowledge of our choices - He's outside the 'before' and 'after', after all.

[Cybrweez]

Most people turn to God only when they realize that a reality without Him IS truly intolerable. Most people who say otherwise haven't come up against real loss yet.

This is exactly the kind of condescending attitude I find really irritating in these debates. "The only reason you don't believe is because you haven't had it hard enough yet" - as though it's some simple lack that causes atheists to disbelieve. That alone is enough reason to fight God's existence, even were I to feel his presence - I don't want to become a dick.

Yea, gotta agree with Covenant Jr. In fact, I've never come across this scenario, certainly not true for me. And as Job was already mentioned, he didn't come to God b/c he had reached "real loss", that came after. I would think most people turn to God b/c 1. they realize He exists, 2. they realize He really does love them

[CovenantJr]

Though I stand by the sentiment of my previous post, I should probably apologise for implying that rusmeister is a dick. I'm sure you aren't - you just sounded like one when you made that remark. I should have been less...blunt. I've been having an angry couple of days.

[rusmeister]

Most people turn to God only when they realize that a reality without Him IS truly intolerable. Most people who say otherwise haven't come up against real loss yet.

This is exactly the kind of condescending attitude I find really irritating in these debates. "The only reason you don't believe is because you haven't had it hard enough yet" - as though it's some simple lack that causes atheists to disbelieve. That alone is enough reason to fight God's existence, even were I to feel his presence - I don't want to become a dick.

Yea, gotta agree with Covenant Jr. In fact, I've never come across this scenario, certainly not true for me. And as Job was already mentioned, he didn't come to God b/c he had reached "real loss", that came after. I would think most people turn to God b/c 1. they realize He exists, 2. they realize He really does love them

I certainly don't mean to be offensive, and didn't wish to say this is true of everyone. Most people I know turned to God in the face of a crisis - and I am pretty much the only one I know pushed primarily by reason (and I had a few crises of my own at the time).

I should have added "in my experience".

[The Dreaming]

I'ts to easy to fall into the fallacy of thinking of God in human terms. As a thinking being, I cannot imagine free will when I "was" authored by a god who knew my own destiny when he authored me, and the destiny of all mankind. If the future *can* be known, how does free will exist?

From the perspective of a man, I don't see it as possible. But we are talking about an *omnipotent* being, the creator of the universe.

Your meaning of 'thinking of God in human terms' is unclear. If by this you mean that I think of God as limited the way humans are, then I can say that I don't. If you mean it as understanding something about God in terms that a human can understand - well, there is no other way to talk about or understand anything about God except through our own terms and experience. it also explains why Revelation (in the sense of God coming down and saying it) as the only way we could know anything that is super-natural (beyond the confines of our limited existence and understanding). This, for example, is why the Epiphany (the baptism of Christ) is such a big deal. It was a moment when God said loud and clear "This is My Son."

As to free will, there is a huge difference between knowing something and causing it. If there is a Being outside of our temporal reality, able to see all points at once, just like we can cheerfully breeze back and forth through a play, why could He not know what was going to happen? If He limited His part to creating us, and then letting us go on our way, which, it seems indeed He has done, then we would indeed be free to choose at each moment without affecting His knowledge of our choices - He's outside the 'before' and 'after', after all.

I was talking about my own failings, not yours!

[iQuestor]

Malik, I believe that you have a very jaundiced and misinformed opinion/view of Christianity. In no way, shape, or form is this life a punishment for anything.

Put simply, by your logic, nothing we do matters anyway because we came from void and we return to void after 80 years or so. That's pretty pointless and hopeless.

perhaps Life is not a punishment for anything like the Clave alledged for the Land in the Second Chrons, but he is correct that most brands of Christianity say we are are born guilty, all inheriters of the original sin, and we have to accept the tenants of the religion in question or, despite living a good life , we burn in Hell. And to me, that kind of sucks.

[rusmeister]

Malik, I believe that you have a very jaundiced and misinformed opinion/view of Christianity. In no way, shape, or form is this life a punishment for anything.

Put simply, by your logic, nothing we do matters anyway because we came from void and we return to void after 80 years or so. That's pretty pointless and hopeless.

perhaps Life is not a punishment for anything like the Clave alledged for the Land in the Second Chrons, but he is correct that most brands of Christianity say we are are born guilty, all inheriters of the original sin, and we have to accept the tenants of the religion in question or, despite living a good life , we burn in Hell. And to me, that kind of sucks.

Hi, iQuestor!
Did you read my posts in this thread? These particular concerns were all answered, if not to Malik's satisfaction. Maybe you should try asking where all these 'brands' came from, as well as the doctrines you mention.

Unless you've defeated the best of your opponent's arguments, instead of the mediocre or the worst, you're just beating straw men. You have to risk being yourself 'defeated' if you are honestly looking to discover truth.

[Zarathustra]

There's no need for either iQuestor or I to beat any argument. What he said was a fact. Most Christians view humanity as guilty from birth, and the world itself as something which is (at the very least) tragically flawed due to Adam's sin. I don't care if your particular brand of Christianity or your particular interpretation can "explain away" this situation. Just because we're not addressing the specific brand you're talking about doesn't mean that we're creating a straw man. Our depiction of Christianity is true for millions of Christians. That's not a straw man.

[iQuestor]

Malik, I believe that you have a very jaundiced and misinformed opinion/view of Christianity. In no way, shape, or form is this life a punishment for anything.

Put simply, by your logic, nothing we do matters anyway because we came from void and we return to void after 80 years or so. That's pretty pointless and hopeless.

perhaps Life is not a punishment for anything like the Clave alledged for the Land in the Second Chrons, but he is correct that most brands of Christianity say we are are born guilty, all inheriters of the original sin, and we have to accept the tenants of the religion in question or, despite living a good life , we burn in Hell. And to me, that kind of sucks.

Hi, iQuestor!
Did you read my posts in this thread? These particular concerns were all answered, if not to Malik's satisfaction. Maybe you should try asking where all these 'brands' came from, as well as the doctrines you mention.

Unless you've defeated the best of your opponent's arguments, instead of the mediocre or the worst, you're just beating straw men. You have to risk being yourself 'defeated' if you are honestly looking to discover truth.

Rus, I was just responding to Zapp's reply to Malik's post. I do not know of any brand of Christianity where people are not automatically guilty, either at birth or at the age of maturation, and must accept Jesus as their personal savior and repent their sins in order to assure themselves they are going to Heaven. If they dont repent and accept, they burn forever in a lake of fire. Perhaps there are brands out there that dont assume this, but here in the US, it seems to be extremely common.

As Malik says, I am not trying to win anything, or even convince anyone of anything. I am not trying to find ultimate truths. I am just commenting on a post.

[rusmeister]

For what it's worth, outside of the US and Western Europe, Protestant numbers go way down, and the predominating Christian faiths tend to be Catholic or Orthodox. It is true that Catholic doctrine includes original sin, but Orthodoxy doesn't - it holds that we are all inclined towards self and selfishness (and therefore sin) but that we are guilty of only our own sins.


Malik, logically speaking, you can't write off ALL of Christianity just because a majority of Christians believe things that you believe to be patently wrong. Counterfeits, however many, don't exist without an original. If there IS a version that proves to be the original, or correct one, AND it doesn't contain the elements you have proven wrong, then it stands a possibility of actually being right.

But if you aren't looking for truth, you aren't likely to find it!

[Zarathustra]

But if you aren't looking for truth, you aren't likely to find it!

And if you've found a comfortable "truth," you aren't likely to question it.

I have written off all Christianity because I cannot believe in the Christian god--any version of him. I don't base my lack of belief on doctrine differences, but the concept of God itself. Since I reject that concept, no version of Christianity can make up for this deficit.

[Lord Mhoram]

Just because you don't accept the Christian God (neither do I) doesn't mean you can make baseless generalizations about Christianity in your effort to justify that unbelief. It's intellectually dishonest, utterly, and frankly gives other atheists and agnostics a bad name.

[Zarathustra]

Lord Mhoram, this is not a baseless generalization: "Most Christians view humanity as guilty from birth, and the world itself as something which is (at the very least) tragically flawed due to Adam's sin."

Nor is iQuestor's claim: "most brands of Christianity say we are are born guilty, all inheriters of the original sin, and we have to accept the tenants of the religion in question or, despite living a good life"

We're talking about the core of this religion.

I'm sure the Mormons have some beliefs which don't fit with the rest of Christianity, either. But that doesn't mean I can't talk about Christianity in general just because Mormons have some beliefs that the rest don't share. Many Christians don't even consider Mormons part of their religion.

Let me be clear: if you don't think we have inherited Original Sin from Adam, and that the Fall of Man (and thus the need to be saved by Christ's sacrifice--hence "Christianity"), then I'm not talking about you, and I'm not even sure why you call yourself a Christian. Without the need to be saved, why would we even become a Christian? And if we do need to be saved, then from what?

When my generalizations come from the BIBLE they aren't baseless. You know, that book they read at church? It has this little chapter called "Genesis." You might have heard about it. In that chapter, they tell this story about this dude called Adam. You may have heard of him, too. My "baseless generalizations" are BASED ON THIS STORY IN THE BIBLE. So, unless you can tell me how my interpretation contradicts the Bible, then maybe you can stop making baseless accusations yourself.

I'm not making this stuff up. I was raised as a Christian for 18 years. I'm perfectly qualified, as a former Christian and student of the Bible, to make accusations of this inauthentic religion.

[Zarathustra]

I'm not sure how this got started, and I'm not reading through 6 pages to find out . . . but let's settle this once and for all.

Christianity--all of Christianity--has within it the idea that we need *salvation.* That's why Christ sacrificed himself, for "our sins." Am I still on safe ground? Have I made all atheists and agnostics look bad yet? No? Good. Let's continue.

If we need salvation, why? If we live a good life, as iQuestor said, then what's the point of being "saved"? If it's not due to Adam's sin, then why?

Rusmeister, are you really saying that Adam's sin has no effect whatsoever on our need to be saved? It has no effect on the world in general as some place which has been "degraded" or "fallen" due to his sin? Please explain.

Finally, this "need to be saved" is all I need to make the Clave comparison. It doesn't matter if Adam was the cause or not. If you believe that every human is "damned" (i.e. needs salvation), then you believe something similar to the Clave's teachings. This need to be saved implies that we are fundamentally, metaphysically flawed or damned. And that is an interpretation I reject. Since I reject this metaphysical verdict of guilt, I see no need to be saved.

Is that general enough? Or is there some brand of Christianity which doesn't think we need to be saved?

[Ki]

Just because you don't accept the Christian God (neither do I) doesn't mean you can make baseless generalizations about Christianity in your effort to justify that unbelief. It's intellectually dishonest, utterly, and frankly gives other atheists and agnostics a bad name.

are you just speaking to malik here b/c there are others who are saying the same thing as malik. and we are supposed to accept rus's view of christianity as the truth, even though all the other sects of christianity hold the view of original sin.

malik and i grew up in the heart of the bible belt and still live in it. when we drive down the interstate, there are signs that say, 'hell is real.' no lie. when i went to church growing up, it was drilled into our little heads that we all are born with adam's sin. and even when debating with christians online, they extrapolate this sin to be universal, in the event that there is life beyond earth. ignoring this basic belief of christianity based on this one sect is intellectually dishonest.