Posted by Jim Henderson on: 03.15.2006 /
From Comment # 17 Athieist Comforted by Non Belief
Along with a ticket to heaven and a pass on hell, popular Evangelicalism has sold the “personal comfort” experience (aka personal assurance) as the primary attraction to becoming a Christian. This Christian doesn’t find that approach very comforting and would rather have a little more heaven on earth. Say hello to the future…
“I guess there is comfort in knowing that God is present with us, that God loves us? But on the other side of that coin is us looking at the world, everything going on around us, making it abundantly clear that we are so unable to return the affection.
im not interested in a christianity whose sole purpose is to comfort- that feels everything like cheap grace and nothing like passion for heaven on earth.”
Comment by: Nutrideath
1Should we serve God for “what we can get out of it?” Or rather, serve him out of love for him & our fellow man?
If you notice, in the first few chapters of Job this was the assertion of Satan - that Job only served God because of what he got out of the deal - a little heaven on earth, so to speak. Job proved Satan’s accusation to be false.
There’s nothing wrong with a little “heaven on earth,” but it has to be kept in balance. “Living the good life” can easily become the most important thing in our lives.
(btw, I wholeheartedly agree that Christianity’s sole purpose should not be to comfort.)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
2She was not meaning “living the good life” from what I can see - the focus was on experiencing something real
Comment by: April
3Thank you Jim, I absolutley did not mean heaven as “living the good life.” and btw, if that’s all heaven is- you can have it!
heaven on earth- justice and compassion for all… god’s will being made _real_- not just some abstract theory. heaven on earth- not a place where God decides to finally fulfill all of our desires to be comfortable, wealthy and beautiful- but where our desires themselves are completely transformed into the desires God would put on our hearts.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
4Nutrideath (cool screen name by the way… I’m not that creative) writes “Should we serve God for “what we can get out of it?” Or rather, serve him out of love for him & our fellow man?”
Absolutely the latter. In the Bible, both Moses and Paul are recorded as offering to trade their own “eternal salvation” for that of the people, That’s the kind of love Christians should have and be known for. It’s the proof of our faith we should want to have and show to the world.
Comment by: Nutrideath
5Sorry April, I misunderstood.
Your description reminds me of a part of the Lord’s Prayer: “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”
Obviously God’s will is not being done in earth now. But since Jesus taught us to pray for it, it will come about — and that is comforting.
But as you said, we look around & see how far our society is from the one you described. That passion for “justice & compassion for all” is a desire many have, but no one seems to have the power to bring it about.
We have to recognize that we as individuals do not have that power in ourselves. Neither does any human political entity, or humanity as a whole.
Instead, we have to look to the first part of Jesus’ prayer — God’s Kingdom. That is the only source that has the power to bring your description to the earth. His Kingdom is not “a way of life,” or “something in your heart.” His kingdom is an actual government that will soon exercise authority over the earth — just the way Jesus taught us to pray. (see Daniel 2:44)
Recognizing that, we can realize that we don’t have to get involved in various political movements, doing this or that, trying to effect the change you describe. We know that ultimately all those human efforts will fail. We have 6,000 years of human history to look back on — no human has figured it out up until now, and they wont anytime soon either.
But remember — as individuals we can return God’s affection.
Comment by: Nutrideath
6Thanks Peter. The screen name doesn’t reflect any religious significance. I used to drink a ton of soft drinks with Nutrisweet in them. When something came out about that stuff being bad for you, a friend gave me the nickname. :)
Comment by: TXatheist
7God’s Kingdom. That is the only source that has the power to bring your description to the earth. His Kingdom is not “a way of life,” or “something in your heart.” His kingdom is an actual government that will soon exercise authority over the earth
We know that ultimately all those human efforts will fail. We have 6,000 years of human history to look back on
These two comments by Nutrideath are the problem imo. Throw our hands up in the air and wait for god is not going work. We also have a lot more than 6000 years of human history. Once again I ask you not speak for what god wants as he has never told you what he wants. You interpreting the bible is one thing but saying you speak for god is something completely different.
Comment by: Ir
8I might not agree with everything you post, Nutrideath, but I do like your screen name!
I was wondering if it was some sort of profound metaphor about how what we take in, thinking it’s good (nutritious) actually brings death to us. Oh well - so much for that idea ;)
Comment by: Ir
9April, I like how you think.
Comment by: Nutrideath
10TXatheist,
First off, I thought you were an atheist?!? Yet, you defend God. That’s progress! :O
Second, I personally believe that God has told me what he wants - thru the pages of the Bible.
And third: I know this is probably lost on you because you’ve mentioned before that you don’t believe Jesus ever existed, but here goes anyway:
The gospels describe a time when the Jews came to Jesus to make him King. He was without sin, intelligent, loving to fellowman, etc. etc. With all the wonderful attributes we know Jesus had, he would’ve made one really great ruler. With his wisdom, maybe he would have been able to bring about some real change. Still , he refused that kingship.
At another time, Satan showed to Jesus all the kingdoms of the world & offered them to him. Again, Jesus refused.
Jesus knew that God had a plan for the rulership of the earth. He knew that eventually God’s Kingdom would be brought into being, and that that Kingdom was the way to bring about the good things April described, plus a whole lot more.
He didn’t try a shortcut. He didn’t have so much faith in himself that it overshadowed his faith in God. He refused those immediate political solutions because he recognized those would eventually fail, and any efforts he put into them would be useless in the end.
So, when we say we should “Follow the example of Jesus” - do we put our money where our mouth is?
Its not fatalistic, its realistic. TX, can you even imagine any plausible scenario where a human organization brings world peace? an end to injustice? an end to poverty? an end to hunger?
No human organization has ever done it, nor can we even imagine one that ever will.
Comment by: Nutrideath
11Sorry to disappoint Ir! rofl. No deep meaning.
I thought yours might have something to do with the spanish word: ir = going…
Am I close?
Comment by: April
12Nutrideath, to be honest, your comments seem to be after a comfort of a different kind. This is the comfort that Christians often seek- the comfort that “we can’t do anything about it”- so no use trying, no use even _feeling_ the agony of our fellow humans. The comfort of not taking responsibility for our world.
I guess my experience is different than yours, but the Jesus I have read about was a man deeply involved with those around him. Not one who said “The Kingdom of God is coming… so… don’t worry about taking responsibility for anything. Don’t try to change anything- it’s not worth it. Just be my friend.”
I don’t think love is just an emotion- I think love is something we do by how we live.
Comment by: TXatheist
13I am not defending god at all. I’m telling you to stop speaking for him as if you think you are him. I from this point when speaking you and only you believe that God has told me your not his mouthpiece. God told me you are deceiving people. The bible clearly says there will be false prophets/messengers.
Jesus not existing isn’t lost on me, it’s you that can’t grasp the zero evidence idea. From that point on in your story it’s simply mythology and not history or even remotely true. Sorry, if you think that someday some guy will float down here and turn everything into utopian heaven. I ain’t waiting for the impossible, I’ll do what I can as someone who actually exists. I can imagine world peace much more probable than I can your scenario. One is plausible as humans have the ability.
Comment by: Ir
14Nutrideath - nah, not close, because I don’t know Spanish!
If I ever go un-anonymous, I’ll explain it.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
15TX and NutriDeath go at it!
Hey how about working/struggling/clarifying Aprils thought instead of the same old circular ahteist/christian match -
Maybe you guys should take it offline - share your hotmail email addresses and let us know how it turns out
Comment by: Nutrideath
16April,
I didn’t mean we shouldn’t take responsibility for anything. Or that we shouldn’t work hard for good. I don’t subscribe to the comfort of “We can’t make a difference, so let’s just sit on the sidelines & watch how things play out.”
Imagine this: You’re in a terrible accident, and hurt badly. At the hospital they tell you that you require immediate surgery, but it will be a few minutes until the surgeon is ready. You are in terrible agony, and besides that you’re dying.
Along comes an orderly. He sees your pain, and feels compassion. He wants to help. So, he picks up a scalpel and says “Hold still, I think I can do this…”
The point is, no matter how much the orderly wants to help, he doesn’t have the ability to perform the operation. His compassion and desire are not enough. But that doesn’t mean he can do nothing. His efforts would be better spent preparing you to meet the surgeon.
We are like that orderly. We see the wreck of humanity, the trouble it’s in, and we want to help. And we can, but we have to recognize our limitations. We will never complete the operation. Only God has the power to bring about real and lasting change.
We can pour all our energies into the wrong thing, so we should be careful what direction we go. If we know right off from the scriptures that human politics isn’t where the solution lies, then we can concentrate on more important things. We can work on the side of that coming government of God, rather than with the governments on their way out.
And yes, we have to work hard and take up that responsibility to promote God’s Kingdom.
Comment by: Ir
17Nutrideath, I question the validity of your analogy.
A lot of people need food and water and it doesn’t take skill to provide those, just money.
When people do need skilled help - money can provide that too by paying for skilled workers to help.
Comment by: Nutrideath
18Absolutely Ir. But only on a local level. And on a temporary basis. Human limitations are what they are.
God’s Kingdom will fix those problems permanently, and on a global scale.
Comment by: Ir
19I’m not sure what you mean by God’s Kingdom, Nutrideath. Could you explain briefly? Do we have any control over the timing of it? Is it an entirely future thing?
Comment by: Nutrideath
20God’s Kingdom is an actual government, with Christ as its King, which will exercise authority over the earth. It is part of what Jesus taught us to pray for in his model prayer.
The fulfillment of that prayer is in the future, and the timetable is completely in God’s hands. We have no control over when these things will occur.
But in many places the Bible promises these things will occur. One you could check would be in Isaiah 9:6,7.
Comment by: Ir
21Thanks for explaining that. I think I’m familiar with that theology, but I wanted to be sure what you meant.
Why does the future coming of God’s Kingdom, which we have no control over (but Jesus taught us to pray for) mean that it’s not worth doing what we can to help meet the basic needs of impoverished people?
Or isn’t that what you were saying?
Comment by: Ron
22As I read I think that I am having a panic attack! Someone said Ir is a girl, TX and Nutrideath are fighting and I don’t have a screen name! AHAHAHAH!
Comment by: Ir
23Ron, take deep breaths and pretend that Ron isn’t your real name ;)
Comment by: Ron
24Do I need a screen name? Anyone have some good ideas as to what it could be?
Comment by: Rick L in TX
25How about “Ron”?
Comment by: Nutrideath
26Ir,
Its sort of like that old saying “Give a man a fish & feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish & feed him for life.”
If we teach people Godly principles to live their lives by, it 1) makes their lives happier now, and 2) prepares them to live in that Kingdom when it arrives.
Take for instance, racism. I posted about that topic the other day, but in a nutshell lots of churches promote a particular race, or push for political change to benefit a particular race.
If you teach a person that preaching from the pulpit to push members into voting a certain way is the answer, the problem continues indefinitely. But if you teach a person that God is not partial (Acts 5:34), and as his followers we also should not be partial, racism is overcome - at least for that one person. The concept takes root because it is from a higher source - no man, white, black, or otherwise is the one it came from.
So, the work of teaching that point is worthwhile. It has benefits both now and for the future. Each person who learns that point & accepts it and applies it in their life not only benefits now, but also brings themselves in line with God’s Kingdom for the future.
How long has the problem of racism plagued humankind? As far back as history goes, there is a record of it. A fix is never going to be found in the human political arena, so it is a waste of time for any one of us to work for it there. Granted, great strides have been made in the US between whites & blacks, but racism still remains with us. And that’s just one tiny section of all humanity - whites & blacks in the United States. What about the global scene?
The solution to racism is just one example of how teaching the principles of God’s Word change lives. God’s Kingdom will bring about a time when racism is only a bad memory. The fact that we have no control over when that Kingdom arrives does not diminish the worth of the work of promoting it.
Comment by: Rick L in TX
27I thought it was “Give a man a fire and keep him warm for a night; set him on fire and keep him warm for the rest of his life.”
Comment by: Nutrideath
28How about “Ronnie” - the extra ending makes you sound young! Of course, for all I know you are young…
How about just “R” - that sounds kindof cool. Like the spies in Men in Black. Whaddayathink?
Comment by: TXatheist
29Sorry Jim,
Just a pet-peeve when someone says they speak for god. Quoting the bible is not speaking for god, it’s regurgitating the bible.
April,
If you put your faith in something that doesn’t exist you are wasting time and effort. When you actually do something to make the world better and not hope some fictional idea will eventually intervene then you should feel good about your effort. If you promote things that are not true but actually make heaven on earth it will be a better place for the next generation. If you think it’s going to be better after this life someone is feeding you a false prophecy.
Comment by: TXatheist
30Jim,
My email address is on my blog but I appreciate you suggesting it as a means of resolution.
Comment by: Ir
31Nutrideath, I’m still confused about whether you think we should be working to make this world a better place now.
Comment by: Nutrideath
32I guess what I was trying to say is that promoting God’s Kingdom & teaching it’s principles does make this world a better place now. So that’s where we should concentrate our efforts, instead of on any human political agenda.
Comment by: Ron
33Brad Pitt. I was thinking that my screen name could be Brad Pitt (I’m not gay because I am married to Texan but he is not a wuss that is for sure.) Maybe I could be…The Man From Snowy River.
Comment by: Nutrideath
34Well Ron, your ideas are much cooler than mine.
Comment by: Nutrideath
35Er, I mean, Brad. Pitt. um, Mr. Pitt., or um, Mr. River.
Comment by: Nutrideath
36how about Brad River?
Comment by: Ron
37Nutrideath,
Do you think that there could be different beliefs inside the Christian Church for the simple reason of having different members of one body of Christ? A leg does not perform the task of an arm yet both are functional. An arm does not perform the same task as a mind but both serve the person.
Comment by: Ir
38Nutrideath, ok, so - should we, for example,
1) Send aid to Tsunami and Hurricane victims?
2) Picket outside abortion clinics?
And how can Christians teach God’s principles to all the people who disagree that the Bible is the Word of God?
Comment by: Ir
39Ron, how about Pitt Rivers?
Comment by: Ron
40Sorry to side track, the more I read the more I like Ron. I really just wanted to bring levity to the dialouge. Then it occured to me that I am not funny.
Comment by: TXatheist
41Ir,
If we all put our mindset into believing a story as literal we’d still be in the dark ages. The morality we know enjoy is because our Founding Fathers, less Pat Henry, knew how bad morality could be when the church was allowed to be a guide. The Inquisition and Crusades were fresh in the minds of the FF. Look at the countries today that are less religious, Canada, Japan and Australia are much more moral than the USA overall and much less religious. It’s completely reasonable to look at how countries that instill religion in gov’t are more corrupt because it makes citizens gullible and obedient out of irrational fear and ignorance. Iran and the USA are having moral problems because they infuse way too much mythological nonsense in their legal system. As far as teaching educated industrialized countries about the bible, it’s not going to happen, education works and there is where the bible fails.
Comment by: skikid
42Ron~ You made me smile… gave my little head a sec to stop spinning!
OK so maybe this is my own interpretation but I always took the Sermon on the Mount as a charge towards social justice… and maybe that’s not what you are challenging here Nutrideath but that’s how I am reading your posts. Any clarification would be super.
Comment by: Nutrideath
43I don’t know Ron - Pitt Rivers is pretty cool.
Also, Ron, all members of the body work together, for a common goal in unity. As fractioned as “Christianity” is today, that’s not the case. Besides, to really be Christian is to follow Christ. So few “Christian” organizations today really do.
Ir, charity and aid are wonderful expressions of love. Christ taught us to have that love. The self-sacrificing spirit of those who give money or even travel to offer personal aid does not go unnoticed by God. That work is important, and does great good for those receiving the aid.
But doing that work should not be our number one priority. We have to give that position to working for the cure, not the band-aid. Its not a question of doing one or the other, its a question of priority.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
44Gee, I feel so left out. No one asks me about my screen name. ;-)
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Rick L in TX
45We got ‘em fooled, bro. They think your real name is Tom and you’re in Sacramento.
Comment by: Ir
46Ron, I enjoyed your panic attack post - please don’t have another panic attack over whether your first panic attack was funny or not!
TXatheist, I figured you knew by now that I have issues with the Bible. But I want to talk to Nutrideath on Nutrideath’s own terms.
Comment by: Ir
47Nutrideath - so what does it look like in practice to prioritize teaching over meeting basic physical needs? Do you say to starving people: “After you come to my Bible study I’ll give you some water to drink and food to eat?” Maybe that sounds silly but I really don’t understand what prioritizing teaching over meeting needs looks like in practice.
Comment by: Nutrideath
48skikid,
I’m not sure what you mean by a “charge toward social justice,” but in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus did refer to one aspect of God’s Kingdom.
He said that “the meek shall inherit the earth.” So, there he was pointing to the future time when all the things April mentioned at the outset would take place, not in heaven but right here on earth.
But he didn’t say that the meek would “conquer” or “take” the earth. They would “inherit” - it would be given to them. God does the fighting at his War of Armageddon.
Rather than leading any “charge”, his followers on earth will get no blood on their hands. They will be bystanders, with his protection thru that war.
Comment by: Lisa W.
49Ron, for the record: I think you’re a breath of fresh air. And I vote for “BradRiver” which could be reworked as Bra Driver.
Just a thought.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
50Serious comment on the April/Nutrideath discussion: A verse that has become very intresting to me is this one, “…Jesus,… who for the joy set before Him, endured the cross, scorning its shame…”
This tells me several things. But in this context it says that our mindset needs to be long-term rather than short-term. Everything in our society encourages us to focus on the short-term. But if Jesus had focussed on the short-term He might well have simply taken the short-cut that Satan offered Him in the desert.
And note that if we do have a long-term view — in spiritual things, to be sure, but also in everything else from relationships to investing to raising kids to building a business — it provides us with the resources to endure in the short-term, and to scorn the false, short-term focus and values that will prevent us from accomplishing the things we really seek.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: skikid
51Charge might have been a poor choice in words on my part. I dont mean it in a militaristic way.
Comment by: TXatheist
52Sorry Ir, I respect you and your request. It’s the “I” know what Jesus and God really want mentality that bothers me.
Comment by: April
53TX, not sure what you’re saying, but I think you’ve radically misunderstood me here.
Comment by: April
54Christians have so much to learn from atheists (like Hemant) on this point.
When I saw the interview on fox, and Hemant said something like “I’d like to hear less about abstract ideas, and more about how to make heaven on earth”, i thought, well how about that, he wants to hear the message of jesus. (i dont mean that in any sort of disrespectful or converting way- just found irony in the fact that an atheist seemed to have such a good grasp on a concept that is often lost in contemporary american christianity.)
I’m just really tired of Christians acting like this world isn’t “real”, isn’t worth fighting for, isn’t worth improving, isn’t worth loving because it’s not some escape-hatch heaven, because it’s a stopoff before the “real” kingdom of god. kingdom of god is at hand, you know?
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
55Ir, #36, “And how can Christians teach God’s principles to all the people who disagree that the Bible is the Word of God?”
Don’t tell them where they come from. If “All truth is God’s truth,” then you should be able to find other sources for your principles.
And if you do so, you may find that you are following in God’s footsteps. Galatians 3:23-24 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
The idea here is that the Law served the role of a schoolmaster or tutor. It told people, in this case, what God expected. But it left them frustrated because no one could live up to the demands of the Law. So “grace through faith” opened the door.
If you simply teach people true principles for living you will be doing the same thing: giving them the instructions and letting them discover for themselves that it is harder than it looks. Just knowing the truth doesn’t help. You’ve got to do the truth.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Nutrideath
56Ir, I don’t know where you live. I’m in NC.
Here we don’t have large-scale famines (like Ethiopia a few years back), daily war in the streets (like Iraq), or tsunamis. I doubt you do either, unless you live in New Orleans.
New Orleans is not close enough for me to personally help rebuild homes there every day.
I can’t stop the wars in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.
I can’t stop the famines of the world.
So, what can I do?
-I could send every dime I have to help the tsunami victims, or quit my job & move to New Orleans to devote all my time to rebuilding. But realistically, how much of that can I really do? Maybe just send some of my money? Go for a week to help out? If that’s all I do, then no doubt I have helped things. But I could and should do more:
-I could run for political office, hoping that I win so I could make some changes. But, in the end that wont work. Either I never get elected, or when I do my hands are tied by the political machine.
Or,
-I could teach people from the Bible why a loving God allows these terrible things to continue. This might help some by bringing some peace to their minds.
-I could teach people from the Bible how to live by its principles. This will help those who accept those principles & begin living by them. Their lives & those of their families would improve.
Those are things I can do every day, every week, every month. If I use myself up all in a single shot, its not as effective as using my life to not just help people with their physical needs, but also to help them with their spiritual ones.
Comment by: TXatheist
57April,
What did you radically mis-explain:)
Comment by: Ir
58April, believe me, I do know. Oh so well.
Tom, with all due respect, that doesn’t really make sense to me in a world where Christians aren’t in authority over people. People don’t have to take instruction from Christians. And why should they believe the instructions Christians give have any value?
And if Christians back up their instructions with a source that is not the Bible, as you say, how do they defend against the charge “the Bible borrowed that principle from conventional wisdom”? How do Christians prove it’s the other way round - if indeed it is?
Comment by: Ron
59Ir,
Because conventional wisdom and Biblical wisdom don’t always agree.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
60Should we:
1) Send aid to Tsunami and Hurricane victims?
2) Picket outside abortion clinics?
And how can Christians teach God’s principles to all the people who disagree that the Bible is the Word of God?”
Actually, I think this goes back to the question of what the kingdom of God is? Which Christ said was here now! I like to tell my youth group kids that, like Christ said, the WHOLE of God’s law is simple: “Love God, Love each other.” You can’t love God unless you also love your neighbor. So do what it takes to do that, and the kingdom of Heaven is here now. I’m not waiting for heaven for it. I’m trying to build it now.
Although, I think I’d much rather have a cool screen name. I was thinking maybe this… “Ron”… Whaddya all think?
;-)
Comment by: Nutrideath
61April,
None of us like the world we live in. We all see how awful it is.
But we’re not going to fix it with some grand sweeping political movement. People have tried many different tactics that were far from “abstract.” Hemant asks for solid answers - just like everybody else. Just because he asks too, does that mean his ideas are better? (Actually, I haven’t heard any of his ideas…) Atheists haven’t done any better at fixing the world than anybody else, have they?
We have to face it: Its not going to get fixed until God fixes it.
In the meantime we do all we can. That’s not shirking responsibility - because God has said that fixing all the ills of the world is his responsibility, not mine or yours. Lord help us all if he did lay that at any of our feet.
Comment by: Siamang
62Oops, I accidentally read a francis post. The first sentence was good, but then he got on his high-horse in his second sentence.
Comment by: TXatheist
63April,
Yes, we have it good, most scientists are atheists and the next time we have improvements in cancer, healthcare, global warming, medicine and a long list of actual problems it’s man that fixes. Nature magazine reports 93% of the most prominent scientists are atheists. It’s getting better thanks to your contributions and mine. Waiting and hoping for the invisible to intervene is why we keep smashing innocent Iraqi’s. They pray to god and it’s waste of time and does nothing but keep them centuries behind intellectually.
Comment by: Ir
64But Ron, my comment was a response to Tom saying Christians should teach Biblical principles from other sources so people won’t reject them just because they reject the Bible. So my comment was referring to wisdom in the Bible and other sources - it was referring to where they do agree.
Comment by: Ir
65Nutrideath, I live in a part of the US not close to New Orleans.
Ok, so you teach the Bible. Do you do anything for other people as well as teach the Bible? I’m just trying to get a picture of how you live out your faith.
Comment by: David S
66As atheists don’t believe in any gods, they believe any attempts to better the world must occur via man rather than via the supernatural. When theists state it’s impossible for man to better the world atheists see that as defeatist (at best).
As an atheist I don’t see any evidence for gods–either god is hiding or we are on our own (or both). We appear to be our only hope. Even if there was a god it makes the most sense to try ourselves. The defeatists can sit on the sidelines and dream of their castle in the sky. Actually we can only wish they’d sit on the sidelines–you could argue there’s been a lot of active hindering from some theists through history.
Comment by: April
67im not advocating waiting for intervention. im advocating the opposite; for me, this is inspired by my faith.
Comment by: Ir
68Peter, it’s not what I think but what God thinks:
Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour’s , including his cool screen name.
;)
Comment by: April
69wow- i totally cant keep up with comments on this blog.
what’s with the division between god and humans? since when has God not used humans in bringing about God’s will? why is it an either/or?
i mean, even Jesus was fully…. right??
Comment by: Ir
70I agree it’s defeatist, but not all theists think that. Some are actively working to try to make the world better.
Comment by: TXatheist
71April,
Since the beginning of time, that’s when:)
Comment by: Ron
72I have an idea. We should all change our screen name to Ron and then try to figure out who is who.
Comment by: Nutrideath
73A (partial) list of human ideas tried in the past to bring about “heaven on earth”:
~Patriarchy - follow the guy with the most kids (he must know something!)
~Monarchy — follow the King (he’s born into it!)
~Plutocracy — follow all those rich guys (with all that money, they can’t be wrong!)
~Fascism — follow this party (they’re the right race!)
~Totalitarianism — follow him. (Or else.)
~Communism — follow this party (they’ll provide for us all!)
~Democracy — follow these guys (we voted for them!)
Plus, I’m pretty sure that Anarchy is in there somewhere.
None of it works. Some work better than others, but none to the extent humankind needs. And so God will soon bring about a Theocracy. I advocate that government. And I feel that it brings social benefits even now.
The Jews were short-sighted. They were looking for a Messiah to become their King & lead them out of the oppressive yoke of Rome. When the true Messiah appeared, they rejected him because he wasn’t the sort of Messiah they wanted. He didn’t fit their ideals.
Now, in our day & age, how about God’s Kingdom headed by that same Messiah? Its not democratic, and its not feeding the hungry right now this second. Is that reason to reject it?
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
74Ir,
Thanks, I didn’t realize I was violating the 10th Commandment.
April, you’re so right. The Bible clearly teaches that we are to love our brother, clothe him, feed him, et cetera, because of and as an outgrowth of our love for God. And clearly, many believers do this. Look how many churches (including mine) continue to send teams to Mississipi and Louisiana to help them rebuild (a process that will take YEARS, btw, and one which churches should continue to make long-term commitments to). Look at the organizations World Vision and Compassion, both of which have a VERY high rate of efficiency in spending their money wisely to feed hungry children all over the world (at least in the countries they’re allowed into).
So I think a lot of us are building that Kingdom of Heaven in many cases…
Comment by: Nutrideath
75Thanks Ir, for keeping Peter’s coveting in check. :)
Comment by: Nutrideath
76Great idea Ron!
Comment by Ron - March 15, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
Comment by: Siamang
77That’s a good question. I assume that you mean “haven’t totally fixed all of the problems of the world.” That’s an absolute. Until there are no problems anywhere, then atheism hasn’t fixed them all. You propose that a day will come, in the future, when Christianity will do all the fixing. I can propose a similar future where atheism has fixed it all. But I lack the hubris.
Can I ask a different question? (I’ll ask it whether you agree or not.)
In the absense of an absolute fixing of the whole world, which works better to solve the world’s problems, a focus on faith, or a focus on empiricity?
I see those forces as fundamentally opposed. Having faith that the world is broken and unfixable doesn’t cure cholera. It doesn’t cure polio. It doesn’t cure malaria. It doesn’t cure smallpox.
“Atheism” doesn’t DO anything. It’s just a lack of a belief in God. But PEOPLE DO things. While people were kneeling in prayer for untold millenia begging God to save their child from smallpox, it was eventually MEN who saved them. All the prayers in the world, for thousands upon thousands of years did not stop children from dying from smallpox. A man named Edward Jenner did. A man unforseen by prophets and unforetold by generations of religious leaders saved mankind.
Nutrideath, if you are truely absolutist in your philosophy. If you really believe that until the entire world is “fixed” then none of it is… it’s a stark belief you hold. Can we instead try and fix one thing at a time, and see how far we get?
Comment by: TXatheist
78Siamang,
Bravo on your point. Sorry, but the defeatist, throw your hands up and pray mentality bugs me to no end.
Comment by: Siamang
79Nutrideath wrote:
Yeah, because we don’t have any theocracies in the world now….
Oh, I get it, because your God is real, and those other theocracies, well, they’re following the laws of false gods, right?
I’m sorry to resort to sarcasm. I just can’t figure out a better way to respond to your post and get my point across.
Can I just have your word of honor that you won’t try to build a theocracy here in the United States in advance of Jesus’ arrival? That way, in the VERY VERY VERY small chance that you’re wrong, you won’t, you know, institute an inquisition?
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
80Ir, RE: #55 on Christian principles from other sources. You’re making an assumption that I would care whether people know the source, my source. I don’t.
My understanding of how Jesus wants me to make the world a better place is to help them come to understand how the world works so that they can make their own lives better and experience greater material blessing than they otherwise might. I don’t think God has an ego stake in seeing His creatures enjoy the world He made for them as much as they can.
Of course, as most people soon discover, material blessings, while enjoyable, don’t lead to real peace or joy in living (”…a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”) So, if I have lived my life in such a way as to help those around me enjoy their lives more, and if I appear to them to have a lifestyle worth emulating, they may become curious. And if they do they I may have the opportunity to tell them where my principles come from. I may even be able to explain the concept of a God who loves them and desires to have a relationship with them.
But, me, worry about others knowing that God is the source of the principles I live by? Sorry. You’ve got the wrong guy. Evangelism is God’s job, not mine. My job is just to be able to give an answer to everyone who asks the reason for the hope that is within me.
(And I don’t mean some ethereal sense of the “hope of heaven”. I mean that in the sense of the quote, “Man can live three weeks without food, three days without water, three minutes without air, but not three seconds without hope.)
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Ron
81Siamang or Nutrideath,
Who is to say that God doesn’t use people to accomplish his work? I believe that God invented science we just discovered it. He can use it at His disposal for what ever reason. If we can too then are we just using Him in us to make the world a better place?
Comment by: TXatheist
82Siamang,
Sorry to keep patting you on the back but I find it well deserved. I know Ir is being patient but this is not getting us to understand one another, it’s nutrideath rambling on about mythology from his perspective as if he has some insight on what is right and wrong.
Comment by: TXatheist
83Ron,
I agree with your first two sentences. After that it becomes your religious belief. I understand you grant god powers but that’s the difference between theists and atheists. We did agree on the first part so I’m happy about that.
Comment by: Siamang
84Good point, Ron. I’m just saying that the world IS fixable, if we just take it problem by problem.
Comment by: Nutrideath
85Siamang,
A few clarifications:
1) I don’t propose a day when Christianity will do all the fixing. I propose a day when God will do all the fixing. Big difference - one is brought about by men (impossible) and one is brought about by God.
2) I don’t believe I ever said “Atheism” does anything. I was referring to the fact that there have been quite a few atheists around for all these centuries right in there among the believers, and yet we still find the world in the mess it’s in today. They don’t have any better answers.
Also yes, one of the great things about the effects of that Kingdom is that its healing effects will be absolute.
Further, you obviously labor under the assumption that if I believe in God then I of course can not believe in science. In actuality I believe that science is the study of God’s creation. You might say he is the Great Scientist, because he invented & created all that we study.
Men have accomplished some amazing things. I’m not saying they haven’t. But you have the human element in everything mankind does:
-One man invents a cure for smallpox (yay!); another invents the bioweapon (ack!);
-One man invents clean, efficient power (yay!), another invents the nuke (double ack!).
Science is great. I owe my life to it. But its not the end-all, be-all.
And I don’t believe that “until the entire world is fixed hten none of it is” - read my previous posts.
Comment by: Ir
86Which specific principles of God’s are you thinking of that bring people greater material blessing than they otherwise would have?
Comment by: Ir
87Nutrideath, is God’s future Kingdom even relevant to how we can make the earth a better place now? I’m not convinced it is.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
88Siamang, I think your point is a false one. I do not think that faith and empiricism are logical opposites. According to Webster’s Thesaurus, the antonym of “faith” is “atheist” or “godless”. The antonym of “empirical” is “theoretical” with near antonyms including “hypothetical”, “speculative”, “unproven”, and so on.
So, applying this to the fixing of the world’s problems, it appears to me that faith and empiricism are partners, not antagonists. (Indeed, most of the early founders of science were men of faith who sought to think God’s thoughts after Him.) The empiricist figures out how to manufacture a cheap pump so that wells can be dug to provide clean water to poor people. The person of faith — in this case, faith in God or faith in the ultimate goodness of mankind — takes that pump and associated pipe to the wilds of Africa to actually dig the wells.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Ron
89Nutrideath,
I am still trying to figure you out so bear with me. Do you think that when we get to Heaven God will God will remove our ability to respond to Him? I don’t think that it is an accident that God has given us the ability to respond to Him here. You will respond differently than Siamang because you live different lives and Siamang different than me, that makes this world more beautiful in my mind.
Comment by: April
90I see it as integral to my faith to live as though the Kingdom of God is here and now. That means, as much as I am able, live selflessly, love my fellow humans (in actions, not just in feelings), not be caught up in desiring more and more “stuff”, money, whatever. (I screw up a lot- but this is what I’m trying for, anyhow.)
For all those living this same dream- whether they believe this dream is from God or from the best part of the human psyche, I pretty much consider myself on the same team. I like the idea of atheists and theists (of all stripes) being able to unite on this point- love for the world.
Comment by: Nutrideath
91Ir,
How does the world become a better place for a battered wife or child? An alcoholic or heroine junkie? You can name any number of social ills that Bible principles cure, every day, for many many people.
Those people benefit from an educational work. They learn, change their lives, and they and their families benefit. Society as a whole benefits.
Those educators already recognize Jesus - not as some abstract group of teachings bound up in the name - but as their King.
Their King has commanded them to teach (Matt. 28:19).
(That’s all for me today… I gotta go.)
Comment by: Stephan
92Hey gang, let’s cool the rhetoric a bit. No one is saying we should sit on the sidelines and wait for the world to end. No one is saying that the other side doesn’t do any good. I think we can all agree that, at times, the church has been an obstacle to scientific progress. We can all agree that it is people, using their minds, that make scientific discoveries that make the world better. I think we can also agree that some scientific discoveries make the world a little less wonderful.
Now let’s stop all the bickering, or, so help me, I’ll turn this car around and we’ll go right home.
Comment by: everett
93gentleman and ladies i have enjoyed these blogs tremendously. being a follower of Christ it is hard some times to sit back and not give my two cents worth.from reading and following these excerpts has made my faith stronger in Christ because it has gotten me back to reading the bible.thanks one and all.
Comment by: TXatheist
94Nutrideath,
You don’t think secular institutions help as well? Why can’t you find the good in atheism and secular groups? Why is your theological idea the only positive way?
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
95Ir, #84, thank you. Obvious question. I should have given examples.
This is an observation that has grown out of several experiences. In part they are directly Biblical. There are principles in the Bible, of course, about taking care of widows and orphans and the poor. For reasons that I hope will become clear, I take this to mean people who are unable to provide certain necessary things for themselves. But there are also injuntions such as, “Let him who will not work, not eat.” And, in 1Tim.5, the limits on charity. So I take it that God has designed His universe in such a way that the only effective way to prosper materially is to work for what you get. And, if you’ll pardon a political observation, the 40 years of social welfare programs that are based on handouts, often to those who could work, have been a failure on several levels. But that’s a different subject.
Another fruitful line of contemplation of the topic — indirect Biblical principles — came to me during a month-long trip to India a few years ago. What a beautiful and naturally rich country, full of hard-working people. And yet they are abysmally poor. Why? It occured to me that India is the product of 3,000 years of Hinduism, where people live their lives knowing that they have no hope of personal improvement; karma and caste mean that they will never be more than they are. The US, by contrast, is the product of hundreds of years of Christianity, where people, most of them, believe there is a God and that He rewards good and punishes evil. The implication: if I work hard I can be rewarded for the effort.
There’s more to it that simply this. Huge topic for an awkward medium. But perhaps that will start you down the path that I was thinking of.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: TXatheist
96Stephan,
Would you say that we could unite and work toward a better tomorrow? Atheists and theist? I think the difference is you/I want to work together and Nutrideath wants us all to agree with him and his idea of when it will get better, through god.
Comment by: TXatheist
97Tom,
Capitalism vs a caste system. Do you think that the depression was good and the industrial revolution had a huge effect on our turn around economically? Nothing to do with xianity btw.
Comment by: Stephan
98TX, I would glady unite with you to make the world a better place.
I think Nutrideath’s point is that we are only going to be able to get so far without help from God. We will never, under our own power, be able to fix everything. As Christians, we believe that someday God will fix everything. We look forward to that day, but we are not going to just sit on our hands and wait for it to happen.
I don’t expect you to agree with this, and I doubt that Nutrideath expects you will agree. But you need to understand that this is what we believe, and we will have to agree to disagree while we try to work together to make the world better.
Comment by: Lisa W.
99Stephan has defiantly pulled over the car at a local 7-11 for a slurpy and left us locked in the car…
Comment by: Stephan
100Darn kids…
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
101TX, #95, (man this thing is flying so fast that by the time I hit send there are ten more posts! ;-) )
I don’t follow your first question. I don’t think economic depressions or expansions have any moral content. They just are. There are certainly good and bad things that are the fall out of economic cycles, but those are effects where the cycles themselves are a cause. (And an effect if you want to analyze it to a deeper level.)
But I disagree with your last statement…in at least this respect. For me, Christianity is more than simply the creedal beliefs of an organized religion. (The beliefs I appreciate, the organized religion I’m less enthusiastic about…but it’s all we’ve got for now.) More than that, Christianity has become an “organizing principle”, and in that sense it has to do with every observable phenomenon; social, economic, political, etc.
It is, in large measure, for precisely this reason that I accept the Bible, and the God and Christ it reveals. If it is true, then everything I see in life makes sense. If it is not true then nothing I see in life makes sense. If it is true, then social, political, or economic policies need to be consistent with its principles or else they simply will not work to achieve their desired ends. (Ala the welfare example cited above.) If it is not true, then you should be able to do whatever you can get by the people.
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Ron
102Okay people it is 3:35 Texas time and it is too windy to go fishing today. I have time to kill and I am at ya’lls service so if you have any question for Ron now is the time to ask. Be careful thouh, I’m in rare form today.
Comment by: aggy
103why does the church say that anyone who divorces or marries a divorced person will go to hell? does this mean that if a father is an alcoholic, beats his wife, and treats his kids horribly that the wife should stay with him? or if a man/woman falls in love with a divorced person, who really is a great person but simply divorced for their own reasons, can’t get married or else they’ll burn in hell? i don’t get it.
Comment by: Ron
104aggy,
Which church has told you that? Some churches have their members play with rattlesnakes and drink striknine too but that is not Godly.
Comment by: Rick L in TX
105aggy, I’ll go on record as a Christ follower who disagrees that the church says that, although you will find here and there individuals who might say that and self-identify as Christ followers. A central message of Christian faith as revealed in the Bible is that grace is available for any sin and no given sin send anyone to hell.
Comment by: Siamang
106I would agree, Stephan, but as long as you and I are trying to fix the same problems.
I’d guess that some of the things that many Christians see as problems, are the direct opposite from things I see as problems.
Let me take it to an uncontroversial area, for a for-instance.
There is a passage in I think Leviticus where the bible strictly forbids the mingling of different crops. Let’s say, for example, that contemporary Christianity still forbade this practice, and saw it as specifically outlawing the scientific hybridization of wheat.
So on one hand, we have a Biblical law, handed down by God, against such a practice.
And on the other hand, hybrid grains could stop a lot of famine in the world.
(I’m actually thinking of other things in the bible which seem to a non-believer to be arbitrary “victimless” sins. But we’ll save those hot-button issues for talk radio.)
Given these two polar opposite postions on hybrid wheat, how do we reconcile the dual positions between a tangible good and a spiritual sin?
We could go down the list of culture war items here, from condom distribution in AIDS-ridden Africa to the right to die movement. Saving lives and reducing tangible suffering on one side, vs. religious beliefs that says that doing those things to help causes Soul Damage.
Again, I don’t mean to make the conversation spiral out of control by bringing up those hot-button items. But only to bring up a broader issue, that some of the solutions religion would like to impose PRESUMES that the religion is right. Not all of it is stuff that we can all agree on, like food, clothing, shelter and medicine.
How do you reconcile the idea that religion has rules, some of which require you to believe the religion before you agree there is a benefit? And that the short term harm during life has long term gain in Heaven?
Comment by: Rick L in TX
107Ad hominem argument.
Comment by: Rick L in TX
108Siamang, re 107. People may and do disagree where the line is to be drawn, but virtually all who study the Bible agree that there are portions that were intended to be specific to particular historical contexts and other portions that are intended to be relevent to all times. I know no one who argues that the levitical concept you mention is intended to or ought to be practiced today as a matter of Christ following.
Comment by: KSG
109Wow! You get busy at work for a few days and everyone starts thinking they are theologians and philosophers. And then they start wanting to change screen names too :0
So I’m thinking that maybe Xians & Atheists should do more walking (the walk) and less talking (the talk).
And maybe I’ll be FKG instead of just KSG. Or maybe I’ll be the FKG KGB. HAHA.
Comment by: Stephan
110Siamang, #103 - good questions. There will be areas where some Christians find the cure worse than the disease. If those solutions were the only ones available I think we would have a problem. But there are almost always (I say almost to cover myself here) other options that we can agree on. I prefer to focus on that rather than our differences.
Comment by: Ron
111Siamang,
In the Old Testament, certain strange laws were placed to protect the people. For instance, the Jews were not allowed to wear wool with certain types of other clothing. It wasn’t until modern research that we discovered that friction between wool and other types of clothing on a hot day could cause a person to catch fire. God had the best interest of his people in mind when he wrote those laws and they didn’t know it at the time.
On your blog are you making reference to pro-life or stem cell research? In my limited experience, whenever we have an issue, we have two sides to that issue and neither side has fully thought about every possible variable. The problems we as people have are more complex then we give credit to the other side. And so to answer your question if you were asking me, I would say err to the side of grace.
Comment by: Siamang
112Absolutely, there is a lot of good common ground. There’s a tremendous amount of it here at this site.
But specifically I’m wondering about what the standard can be to figure out even what problems exist in society. Say “gayness,” for instance.
There’s broad difference of opinion on this, even among Christians. Some say they should be priests and bishops, some say they should be drummed out of seminary. Some say they should be reformed, some say they should be shunned, and some say they should be welcomed.
Again, don’t want this to turn into a gay rights debate. Let’s let the individual views on the merits for each view pass for now, if we can.
But lets say one group of people see the rise in open homosexuality in America as a big problem, and works to counter it. Another group thinks that the work countering it is a big problem.
“Live and let live” as a creedo automatically sides one way.
I mean, is there any common ground there? Any solution that we can agree on if we can’t even agree on what the problems in society are?
Comment by: Stephan
113Obviously there will be some differences on what the problems are. As a Christian I think low church attendance is a problem. I will try to get more people to go to church. Some Atheists see church attendance as a problem. My solution creates a problem for them. There will be some areas where we will not find common ground.
We Christians will continue to work for causes that you don’t agree with, we just won’t expect your cooperation. There may be times where we are actually working against each other. I suggest we put more energy into finding the areas where there is already agreement and work together on those.
Comment by: Siamang
114Ron,
I know a lot of people defend the Kosher laws, saying that pork was a diseased meat and stuff. (I guess God knew about trichinosis but not tuberculosis and salmonella..) The laws go deeper than that. What about the forbidding of drinking dairy products with a meal that contained beef? Why was it okay to drink a glass of milk with breakfast, and have a bologna sandwich at lunch, but not together? What possible health purpose could that serve?
People follow that law today. TODAY, in the year 2006 I can’t get a glass of milk with my baloney sandwich at Abe’s Deli.
I know that you believe that God once told someone that they couldn’t do that.
I’m not specifically talking about stem cells, because that’s a thorny topic in a lot of ways. I’m speaking more generally, how do we establish a criteria for judging right and wrong between people of differing faiths and beliefs?
My problem is, people of faith put some of their reasons for their outlawing of certain practices beyond the realm of discussion. Beyond the veil, they say, on the other side of the river Styx, is the reason why you can’t do X here, even though no tangible harm is detectable. Like the baloney sandwich rule.
Comment by: Lisa W.
115S-
Establishing criteria for judging right and wrong between people of differing faiths and beliefs is futile! and sounds weirdly ‘religious’.
If you want to drink milk with your baloney sandwich then get the milk somewhere else. sometimes you guys get so….unnecessarily complicated.
Comment by: Ron
116Siamang,
I never have understood the laws of Kosher completely. After a meal in Israel the restraunt had to break all of the plates we ate on because I had butter with my bread a lunch instead of margarine and they served beef.
I Corinthians 9:13 Paul says, “If food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, that I might not cause my brother to stumble.”
Likewise Romans 14:14 says, “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself but to anyone who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”
again Romans 14:23 “…and whatever is not from faith is sin.”
Am I understanding your question?
Comment by: Lisa W.
117ron,
thank you.
~L
Comment by: Siamang
118Ron,
I’m using the Kosher laws as an example of an arbitrary law from the Bible.
I recognize that they are not currently adhered to by Christians. Just trying to use a non-hot-button issue to illustrate my point.
Or maybe belabor it! I apologize if I’ve pushed this past the point of enlightening conversation and into the realm of tedium.
Comment by: Ron
119Siamang,
I wasn’t bothered I just wanted to make sure that I understood what you were asking so that I could give you the best answer I had. I just read your comments on Story Matters and I liked them. Thanks for your apology but you haven’t bothered me.
Comment by: Lisa W.
120Often, ‘people of faith’ will conduct certain practices because it honors their faith traditions and in doing so they are making decisions from a heart posture rather than an intellectual posture. Sometimes it’s helpful to have understanding about practices (like when I learned that praying the rosary for catholics was a form of meditation when I had being thinking it was kind of weird but did it anyway)
Comment by: Ir
121Hey KSG, I was wondering where you were - it’s good to see you back again!
Comment by: Lisa W.
122Are there any female atheists on this diablog?
Does anyone know if there are more male practicing Atheists than female? I’m really curious.
Comment by: Rick L in TX
123Another consideration in the issue of OT law and specifically in the kosher thing about milk and meat is a value issue concerning life. The reason lying behind not mixing flesh and milk or chicken and egg is that milk and egg bespeak life. Biblical values do not forbid the eating of meat, which speaks of death (some will disagree on morality/ethics of meat eating; I am not addressing that here) but there was a sensibility that to consume milk or egg, which speaks of life, with animal flesh which speaks of death, was inappropriate. That’s what was behind the command. It has less to do with some as-yet-undiscovered scientific reason why it would not be good to eat those items together, and more to do with making a value statement.
Comment by: Siamang
124I’ll hit the idea one different way, then stop. If you have the patience, read on!
Remember when you were a kid and you asked your mom for a cookie? And when mom said no, you asked why and she said “Because I said so.”
That stopped all conversation. You couldn’t reason with mom at that point.
So let’s take gay adoption. If I ask religious people who are trying to stop upstanding, settled, very loving and nurturing members of my family from adopting children, why they are doing that… Well, their basic answer is “because God said so, that’s why.”
Then we’re “off the map” of rational discussion. They’ve trumped anything I can ever say, because God agrees with them (so they say) and not me. We can never agree to look at statistical evidence of the ability for families of different make-ups to raise well-adjusted children. Because God knows best, they win every argument.
To me, it’s a way of shutting down debate and declaring victory.
Okay, done. Dead horse fully tenderized.
Comment by: Lisa W.
125Siamang,
You are absolutely spot on. It does close down conversation when people do that. I really wish they wouldn’t. It would be better if they just said, “I just don’t like the idea”. Some topics/discussions aren’t meant to be “won” either way. You just cannot talk people out of decisions that they base on their heart beliefs.
Comment by: Ron
126Siamang,
I did read it. Whatever Christians you are referring to in your example probably know that you are a very inteligent person are are affraid that they are not going to have a better rebuttal than that, because you are not smarter than God.
If that is why you are not a Christian is because of the actions of believers, that breaks my heart.
Comment by: Siamang
127No, that’s not why. At least, I don’t THINK it’s why! I know plenty of Christians who don’t do that, and I would be welcome and feel at home among them. No worries! :-)
Comment by: Lisa W.
128Sensing that the playground was empty, Lisa dropped her jumprope to the ground, spun on her heels and walked off in search of females to talk with….Bye for now
Comment by: Texan
129Lisa,
There are many girls who blog here. I’m one of them. I didn’t answer because I’m not an atheist, but I’d still love to talk to you and hear your point of view on things.
If you want, hang around, we’ll show these boys up! :)
Comment by: Lisa W.
130Hi Texan,
I’m not atheist either but I want to hear the female atheists voice. I just hear men and they seem to be ignoring me for the most part.
Comment by: Ron
131Lisa,
I am a man and I am not an atheist but have I been ignoring you? If so I am terribly sorry. I don’t mean to.
Comment by: Siamang
132Oops!
Didn’t mean to ignore your question. Just thought a female atheist would post.
I don’t think that there’s a big difference in the numbers. My personal favorite writer on atheism is a woman, Julia Sweeney.
On message boards a lot of people are anonymous, so unless they identify, you can’t tell. I don’t have numbers, but it doesn’t seem rare, especially once you adjust for the differential in internet users.
Comment by: Ron
133Lisa,
Now I feel bad, I really did like your Bra Driver idea. It made me laugh for five minutes.
Comment by: TXatheist
134Stephan,
Notice the difference when you say xians perceive the better results will come when god steps in and when nutrideath tells us the only hope is through god. You post your view as a religious view. He tells us what god wants. Two different levels of arrogance/humility if you will. Nutrideath no more knows what god wants than I do. He doesn’t even preface it with the bible says just goes off on what we need to do as god says. I respect your view Stephan.
Comment by: Texan
135Yeah, we had a conversation maybe a week ago about the low numbers of girl atheists out there. It would be interesting to hear from them too.
Comment by: Lisa W.
136Lisa picks up her rope….
thank you Ron and Siamang. I really was quite proud of the ‘bra driver’ idea..
Julia Sweeney the actress comedian??? wow.
I wonder if women atheists in general tend to position their beliefs a bit differently then men. I mean.. there seems to be so much head talk about atheism vs. theism. so much about being rational and so little about the heart.
I would like to hear more xtian men for instance, talk about the practical-ness of their faith… what it looks like in their lives, how they rely on it, why and the results of doing so.
Comment by: TXatheist
137Tom,
The success of the USA has nothing to do with xianity. The depression was a bad time and we were religious. We rebounded as a country with the industrial revolution, not xianity.
Comment by: TXatheist
138Lisa,
Wouldn’t that be Mars vs Venus in general. Women supposedly talk 3 times as much as men. I’ve become less touchy feely as I’ve gotten older.
Comment by: Lisa W.
139It doesn’t surprise me that there are fewer female atheists out there if that’s true.. They certainly aren’t blogging here much I don’t think.
Comment by: Texan
140TX,
The industrial revolution happened before the great depression.
Comment by: TXatheist
141What year did the industrial revolution happen please?
Comment by: Lisa W.
142Tx-
Yes. but that would mean they would be here chatting it up 3x as much as you guys. But as atheist females would they be talking about rationalizations adnauseum or about how their life looks and how they relate to others?
It seems men Xian and non-Xian get real stuck in their heads and debate stuff to death. Faith is about heart-matters, real life in the trenches stuff. Not philisophical dissections. I know it’s important to do but MY GOD!
Comment by: TXatheist
143Lisa,
Sorry, it’s my passion. I like this stuff:)
Comment by: Siamang
144Lisa W.
Yep, that Julia. She was a devout catholic, but has over the past few years made quite a spiritual journey. She’s chronicled it in a new play called “Letting Go of God? My Beautiful Loss of Faith Story.”
She fills it with warmth, understanding and an optimistic sense of humor. She’s also writing a book about it. She’s a frequent lecturer on the freethough circuit. (we have a circuit?!)
If you fast-forward 38 minutes into this real audio link:
http://www.thislife.org/ra/290.ram
you can hear a 29 minute experpt from “Letting Go of God?” The link is an episode of WBEZ’s This American Life.
Comment by: Lisa W.
145Tx - I know, I know..
Lisa beats her head gently against the stone wall then heads home to her child..
I’ll be back later!
Comment by: Lisa W.
146oh yes! I’ve heard of her this piece she does.
Fascinating.
Comment by: TXatheist
147Texan,
What was the time period right after the depression when we started industrializing and using assembly lines? Please:)
Comment by: Siamang
148I just listened to the excerpt I posted.
A mixed bag. The full show gives a better picture of her humanity, her charity and her emotional journey.
Some of the material in this clip, out of context, sounds too harsh. I apologize if it is hard to take. The excerpt, in my mind, doesn’t do justice to the warm, understanding, optimistic writing I described above.
Comment by: Ir
149Lisa, I was enjoying watching people make assumptions about my gender but I guess I’ll ‘fess up and tell you that I’m female: Florence got it right! I don’t think anyone else who assigned me a gender has. I don’t know why they assumed I was male but it sure was interesting to observe.
At this time I don’t think of myself as a Christian.
I’m fairly analytical but I do have a heart too :)
Comment by: Siamang
150TxAtheist,
1799 Eli Witney invents the American system of manufacturing, using semi-skilled laborers, machine tools and a division of labor.
1760-1830 rapid developments in steam power usher in a new era of machine-driven factories. There is a mass exodus from rural farm life as millions begin jobs in factories. The steam-ship and the steam locomotive bring materials to factories, and send manufactured goods throughout the world.
1901 Ransom Eli Olds creates the first automobile assembly line.
1913 Henry Ford and Ford engineers perfect the first entire factory based on the assembly line.
1929 Stock Market crashes. Depression lasts until the late 1930’s.
Comment by: Rick L in TX
151Tx,
Industrial revolution was around 1880 - development of steam engines etc. The recovery you are thinking of doesn’t have a specific name that I know of other than the simple necessary gearing up of the American economy to fight Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan.
Comment by: Texan
152TX, I didn’t want to go there, but here it is.
Check it out:
I’ll even get the link if you want it. The Industrial Revolution began in the 1700s. That’s why Ford could apply it to the Model T.
Roosevelt tried to get us out of the Depression with public works programs. It helped but was not enough, what got us out of the Depression was WWII.
In any event, it doesn’t matter here on this blog. Right?
Comment by: Eliza
153Ir, I thought you were male - it’s the short name, I think. I thought Siamang was female (I think now that’s wrong - ?).
I’m a specimen of that very rare breed, the female atheist. No clue why we seem rare - better things to do? Sorry, I don’t do any interesting tricks, but autographs are free…
Comment by: Siamang
154Hi Eliza. I’m male. Good to have you here.
Comment by: Ir
155Hi Eliza,
Yes, maybe that’s it - the short screen name. When I chose it it didn’t occur to me that it would look ‘male’. When I realized people thought I was male I thought it was funny and didn’t bother to correct them.
Anyway, nice to meet you - as it were.
Comment by: Lisa W.
156Fabulous!
Ir, thanks for the big reveal! And Eliza welcome.
So, Eliza… why have you chosen Atheism? Briefly, what is your background that has lead you here?
Comment by: Ir
157Ir is disappointed that Lisa asked Eliza why she chosen Atheism but didn’t ask Ir any questions about how/why she came not to consider herself a Christian.
Ir hopes it’s because Lisa has read what Ir has written on the topic already, not because Eliza is more interesting than Ir.
Comment by: Nutrideath
158Nutrideath, picking over Siamang’s well-tenderized horse of #124…
Siamang, it seems that you have a blind spot when it comes to faith. There’s the old argument of “faith vs. science” of course, but I’m not talking about that. I’m saying that faith & science are not mutually exclusive. The faithful should recognize the value of science, & vice versa.
It seems to me that if you can’t see it proven scientifically, then you wont believe it. Well, that’s fine for you. And lots of people have the same attitude, and especially atheists (that’s probably why they’re atheists in the first place). But I get the impression (at least with you) that with that as your worldview you cannot understand that others do have faith. It seems so ridiculous to you, so foreign & so obviously wrong, that you cannot relate at all with the believer.
From a scientific viewpoint, you absolutely can get statistics that show that people do have faith - whatever that faith is. You talk of solutions to the world’s problems, but they all seem to involve a population of totally science-only non-believers. That population does not exist. In every culture there is religion, in one form or another. If you ignore that - well, its just not good science.
I agree with you that many believers shut down conversations the way you describe. But as someone (I think it was Stephen?) pointed out, not all of the Bible’s instructions have an “underlying scientific reason.” Maybe some are simply to test a person’s faith. Or enhance an build it.
So the reason for some directions in the Bible is very hard to see from a “scientific” standpoint, but at the same time very obvious from a faith based one. Those are very hard for a person who believes in them to articulate for a person with zero faith in anything (except of course, in the god of science).
That’s no excuse. We should try.
Comment by: Lisa W.
159Lisa is interested in both Eliza and Ir but has read more of Ir and was giving Eliza center stage for a moment.
Comment by: TXatheist
160Texan,
I like to be corrected. I thought we pulled out of the depression when we made the assembly line much more efficient. I won’t state that incorrect prior statement again. Thanks to you and Siamang.
Comment by: Ir
161Ir anxiously checks back to see if Lisa has posted anything to her. Yes, Lisa has!
Ir reads what Lisa wrote and feels much better! Ir gives Lisa a big smile :)
Comment by: Ir
162Nutrideath, I’m disappointed that you haven’t answered my question about what else you do for other people apart from teaching the Bible and discussing the Bible. Is the question too personal?
Comment by: Lisa W.
163FOLKS - LETS CLOSE THIS LINE OF COMMENTS AND MOVE ON TO OTHER POSTS.
162 IS TOO VOLUMINOUS.
Comment by: Ir
164But I still want to hear back from Nutrideath. :(
Comment by: TXatheist
165Lisa W,
Why? Are we making progress? Then keep it going or is your system getting bogged? Mine is not.
Comment by: Ir
166Lisa, is it hard to load a page this long on your computer?
Comment by: Nutrideath
167Sorry Ir, I didn’t get to it yesterday partly because I was posting about other stuff & trying to get some work done too… whew!
But you’re right - it is a bit personal. Plus when someone begins listing “what else they do for other people” it can’t help but come off sounding either boastful (if you even believe their list), or made up (if you don’t). So I guess for right now I’ll decline.
Maybe we should talk instead about what I (actually, what we all) should be doing. What work does God expect us to do? Is it just to have some fuzzy feeling we call spirituality? Is it just to explain our faith when someone asks us about it? Or is it more proactive?
But I agree with Lisa - this thread has gotten very long…
Comment by: Ir
168Nutrideath, thanks for the response. I understand if 1) it was too personal 2) you were too busy with work, etc. to get to it.
But I quit church and Bible study so I wouldn’t have to talk about that stuff any more.
Is there something else we can talk about?
Comment by: Siamang
169Nutrideath wrote:
I don’t think it’s that at all. I tried not to phrase my writing in a “this should be this way” manner. I tried to phrase it as a question.
I do, of course, understand that people have faith. Most of my friends and family are people of faith.
Let’s lay it out plainly: 85% of Americans self-identify as Christians. Is it fair for them to legislate tenants of their faith to the people who do not share their faith? I’m talking right to die, gay marriage, blue laws, etc etc. In some counties in America, I can’t buy a beer on Sunday. Now that’s downright unAmerican! ;-)
I’m GLAD that you have a faith that informs you that those things are sins. You go ahead and follow your religion and choose not to do those things. Don’t drink beer on Sunday. More for me! ;-)
But seriously, how do we, as members of the family of man, agree on a method for solving problems, even when we have different beliefs?
I’m not talking science vs faith, I’m talking common ground. I’m saying there is a subset of beliefs that the atheist and the faithful share. They both have in common the physical world. Of course, since that’s ALL the atheist believes in, the common ground is 100% athiest-okay, and not 100% faithful-okay.
So how do we find common ground?
That’s my question.
Comment by: Lisa W.
170re: closing the comments on this post..
I have no loading problems I just think it may be hard for a new viewer to jump in when they’d have to catch up on 150+ comments so as not to repeat a line of thinking. But, Jim just made a comment for people to go to a post that has 179+ comments so whatever!! :)
Comment by: Stephan
171Siamang, I think you are starting to tread into politics. Dangerous ground.
It has often been said, and you all but said it in your post, that you cannot legislate morality. I would ask, then, what can you legislate. Most of our laws have some basis in religion. It is immoral to steal. It is immoral to kill. Most religions share there rules. Most laws are based on morality at some level.
Once we agree that you can, and must, legislate morality the question changes to, “Whose morality do we legislate?” Do we go with the lowest common denominator? That’s a pretty low bar. I think our consitutional democracy/republic has it nailed pretty well. Majority rules, but not at the expense of the minority. Legislators may try to push the limits, but the courts are usually there to rein them in.
If you say that it has been getting worse lately, I would ask you to look at public schools 100 years ago, or even 50. Prayer was not only allowed, it was encouraged or even required. The Bible was taught in schools. This was fine with our founding fathers, and was only changed by the courts in the last 50 years.
I think there will always be pressure from both sides to create new limits or tear down old ones, but in the long run I don’t think we have a better option than the one we are using now.
Comment by: TXatheist
172Stephan,
Would you agree that the line is crossing over to someone else? You can’t steal from someone else, you can’t kill someone else. That’s where the line of morality is drawn concerning morality laws, imo. A counter morality law is you can’t say G-d damn it when actually you can and that runs counter to the 10C. Now, I know free speech has limits like yelling “fire” in a movie theater.
Comment by: TXatheist
173Stephan,
It’s still fine today to teach about the bible in school and pray. The difference now is forced versus voluntary.
Comment by: Stephan
174TX, there are still “victimless crimes” laws on the books, and very little push to remove them. There is still morality involved. Drug use and prostitution are two examples given, although a victim could be inferred in both cases. I’m sure there are others I am not thinking of right now.
The difference between Bible teaching in school now as opposed to historically is that it used to be taught as fact. Now you can only teach it as literature. Prayer used to be the standard way to start the day and to start various ceremonies. Now it is illegal (unless you live in TX). I am not saying we should go back to that, but it does give some historical perspective.
Comment by: Siamang
175Stephan wrote:
Are you really saying that pre-Moses it wasn’t illegal or immoral to steal?
The ancient babylonians would have something to say about that. Also the ancient Sumerians, 2100 years before Christ.
In ancient times, many kings believed themselves related to Gods, so most kingly laws were the laws of their Gods. Hammurabi, however, didn’t consider himself a God, or related to a god. He wrote the code of Hammurabi, with the hope that it would please His gods.
I take it you don’t subscribe to a belief in Hammurabi’s gods. Why is the story of Moses any different? Especially since the admonitions against theft and murder were not handed down for the first time to Moses, but were cribbed from a human law written for false Gods, the Code of Hammurabi.
So does morality really come from Gods, or men? How did the ancient babalonians and sumerians come to understand that murder and theft were sins a thousand years before Moses heard it from God?
Isn’t it more likely that Moses did what Hammurabi did, wrote down the common wisdom in the culture at the time of what right and wrong were, and believed that these were moral values that God agreed with as well?
Comment by: Nutrideath
176Siamang, that is the crux of the question. And not just common ground for atheists & theists. Its cg for whites vs. blacks; rich vs. poor; Americans vs. Iraqis; etc. etc. The list goes on forever.
The answer is that common ground for all those disparate interests will never be found by humans. There has to be a higher power. That was the crux of my rant yesterday about God’s Kingdom.
Comment by: TXatheist
177Stephan,
What do you mean? Prayer is legal in Texas??? Prostitution is a very vague concept. Pay a girl to go to a movie and dinner and sleep with her is fine. Give her the cash and sleep with her and possibly go to jail. I’m all for legalizing drugs for medicinal purposes. If me and my doctor think a drug helps it has nothing to do with morality. You may see prostitution and drug use as moral issues, I don’t.
Comment by: TXatheist
178Stephan,
Prayer is legal in Texas??? Prostitution is a very vague concept. Pay a girl to go to a movie and dinner and sleep with her is fine. Give her the cash and sleep with her and possibly go to jail. I’m all for legalizing drugs for medicinal purposes. If me and my doctor think a drug helps it has nothing to do with morality. You may see prostitution and drug use as moral issues, I don’t.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
179Siamang, #169, you said:
You are treading dangerously close to conversion. I believe it was Martin Luther who said, “Beer is the proof that God loves us and wants us to enjoy life.” ;-)
Tom in Sacramento
Comment by: Siamang
180It was Benjamin Franklin, Tom. But hoist one for me, will you, I’m at work!