Questioning your faith

Phuckmii

I'm new to this so I don't know if this is allowed or not (?) but basically i'm just wondering why you actually believe in god and religion and all that. I was raised a catholic but it's only my mother that was really religious. I'm now more or less an atheist although I would like to get married in the church with the missus wearing the white dress and the whole thing (more for traditions sake than any spiritual reason). But i'm just wondering why you believe? I mean if it hadn't been drilled into you as a child would you really have come up with such (what I believe to be)a fantasy story?

I can't put my finger on a defining point when I realized what a load of nonsense it all was but up until about 16 or 17 (i'm 23 now) I remember I still prayed if I thought I needed help.

Is it all just brainwashing?

AtomicHorror

Phuckmii wrote: »

I'm new to this so I don't know if this is allowed or not (?) but basically i'm just wondering why you actually believe in god and religion and all that. I was raised a catholic but it's only my mother that was really religious. I'm now more or less an atheist although I would like to get married in the church with the missus wearing the white dress and the whole thing (more for traditions sake than any spiritual reason). But i'm just wondering why you believe? I mean if it hadn't been drilled into you as a child would you really have come up with such (what I believe to be)a fantasy story?

I can't put my finger on a defining point when I realized what a load of nonsense it all was but up until about 16 or 17 (i'm 23 now) I remember I still prayed if I thought I needed help.

Is it all just brainwashing?

Firstly, welcome!

You'll get different answers on this if you ask in different places. This is the Christian's patch of boards, so the majority opinion will be "no, not brainwashing". I'm hesitant to give my own views as that is not why I post on this forum at all. For alternative views (inlcuding my own) there is an Atheism and Agnosticism forum. Both sides will behave equally as sure that they know the truth, though it kinds sounds like you've already made up your own mind on that.

philologos

It's through questioning that faith becomes stronger as you are able to deal with more questions as they come and you find tangible answers to them, as opposed to just not believing when there is a single challenge posed. Perserverence comes through finding explanations.

As the other poster said, did you expect us to say, absolutely Christians never question our faith? You should consult C.S Lewis - Mere Christianity there is a brilliant explanation in that book.

Biblically there is no reason why questioning shouldn't be acceptable. I personally find Thomas to be similar to me at times.

PDN

It wasn't drilled into me as a child. I was raised as an atheist and accepted that belief unquestioningly until I learned to think for myself and weigh up the evidence.

Take the case of Communist China, millions of young intellectuals who were brainwashed into accepting atheism while children are now, in their 20s and 30s, embracing Christianity.

Brainwashing cuts both ways, and people reach different conclusions by thinking for themselves. I find it incredibly arrogant and blinkered when either Christians or atheists try to portray anyone who disagrees with them as being brainwashed into believing nonsense.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

It wasn't drilled into me as a child. I was raised as an atheist and accepted that belief unquestioningly until I learned to think for myself and weigh up the evidence.

Take the case of Communist China, millions of young intellectuals who were brainwashed into accepting atheism while children are now, in their 20s and 30s, embracing Christianity.

Brainwashing cuts both ways, and people reach different conclusions by thinking for themselves. I find it incredibly arrogant and blinkered when either Christians or atheists try to portray anyone who disagrees with them as being brainwashed into believing nonsense.

I think that what we can take from this is that many people will simply accept what they are presented with. I'm not sure it is so much brainwashing as it is simply the way most people are. There are many unquestioning atheists, many unquestioning Christians. And more to the point, they don't care to question.

robindch

Phuckmii wrote: »

I'm new to this so I don't know if this is allowed or not (?) but basically i'm just wondering why you actually believe in god and religion and all that. [...] Is it all just brainwashing?

I'd imagine that almost none of it is brainwashing in the commonly-understood meaning of the word. Religion has evolved to be far, far more subtle than that. It's a large and extravagant collection of belief-inducing carrots and sticks which alternately coax and threaten individuals to accept the belief. And the belief itself, the payload in memetic terms, is is not much more than the instruction to propagate itself -- an example of a real-word Hofstadter-style Strange Loop.

There are a sufficiently broad range of carrots and sticks, and they are well-enough evolved to take root within a sufficient percentage of human minds, each one with their own hookable desires and fears, that the belief system is able to 'stay alive' as an idea. In structural terms, that's what religion is.

None of this has any bearing on whether or not the belief reflects reality, but one should still be naturally suspicious of forwarding messages whose main aims are the acquisition of mindspace and propagation -- the world-view equivalent of one of those emails that asks you to forward to all your friends.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There are many unquestioning atheists, many unquestioning Christians.

Yes, but I'd imagine that in percentage terms, there are more unquestioning christians than unquestioning atheists. Bear in mind that christianity approves of "leaps of faith" and encourages unsubstantiated belief ('happy are those who believe, but have not seen') while disapproving of any testing of the belief ('do not put your god to the test') and permitting evidence to be rejected ('god acts in mysterious ways'). Of the various classes of atheism, few are dogmatic or reject inquiry and none that I'm aware of include anti-rational beliefs as widely-accepted as these.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Yes, but I'd imagine that in percentage terms, there are more unquestioning christians than unquestioning atheists.

Well luckily we would have to deal with real statistics, and not the imagination or speculation to make that factual.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Yes, but I'd imagine that in percentage terms, there are more unquestioning christians than unquestioning atheists. Bear in mind that christianity approves of "leaps of faith" and encourages unsubstantiated belief ('happy are those who believe, but have not seen') while disapproving of any testing of the belief ('do not put your god to the test') and permitting evidence to be rejected ('god acts in mysterious ways'). Of the various classes of atheism, few are dogmatic or reject inquiry and none that I'm aware of include anti-rational beliefs as widely-accepted as these.

I know, just wanted to highlight that there are plenty of passive or unquestioning atheists. Proving that there are fewer in one group than the other might be tricky!

Fanny Cradock

On a number of occasions I've encountered accusations that Christians in this forum have an unquestioning nature. This notion seems to be predicated on the idea that if anybody truly questioned their faith they would reject it, and subsequently join the ranks of right-minded people. Admittedly it cuts both ways, but the reasoning is the same for either side: "I believe am correct in my way of thinking. You don't hold the same beliefs as me. This means you are wrong. The fact that you hold different beliefs to me is probably because you have been brainwashed, suffer from Stockholm Syndrome or (on the other side) selfishly ignore God for your own pleasure etc. etc."

To answer your question, OP. No. I don't believe it is brainwashing. But then again, isn't that is exactly what someone who is brainwashed would say? I think you will find that there are many Christians (like PDN some of these became Christians in their later life) who continually consider and question their faith. That they have not arrived at similar conclusions to your own belief proves nothing about what they have or have not questioned.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On a number of occasions I've encountered accusations that Christians in this forum have an unquestioning nature.

Actually the people here actively discussing their faith tend to be the questioning ones. There are just a few here, a minority, who would rather ignore uncomfortable information. I'd be more inclined to point the finger at the silent and very large body of Christians who have no interest in asking the tricky questions. I've met many of them in person, but very few here.

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Actually the people here actively discussing their faith tend to be the questioning ones. There are just a few here, a minority, who would rather ignore uncomfortable information. I'd be more inclined to point the finger at the silent and very large body of Christians who have no interest in asking the tricky questions. I've met many of them in person, but very few here.

I'm glad to see that you don't necessarily pigeon-hole all Christians as non-questioning believers. With any large body of people who subscribe to a certain belief(s) - whether this is religious, political or whatever - there would, of course, be a proportion who don't bother to scratch beneath the surface. I don't see this being unique to Christianity, not do I see atheism being exempt from it.

PDN

I would say that when any ideology has control of a culture it tends to be blindly accepted by a large number of people.

Atheists tend to be in a minority in most cultures, therefore an atheist may well be more likely to be a questioning person in that setting.

In Iran you will find that a large number of people unquestioningly accept Islam. Those who opt for atheism, or indeed Christianity, would tend to have thought long and deeply about making such a choice.

In China a large proportion of atheists have just unquestioningly swallowed what they were taught very crudely at school. I have a good friend in China and he described to me how he was taught atheism at school. The teacher said, "Everyone feel the base of your spine. Do you feel a bone sticking out? That is your tail bone, which proves we were descended from monkeys. That proves no God made us - so God can't exist!" For the next 15 years he never thought to question this amazing piece of logic - until he started to read the Bible. (I have no doubt that atheists could produce similar examples of fatuous indoctrination from Catholic Ireland's days of the moral monopoly.) In any such setting those who buck the cultural norm are more likely to be the questioning type.

This is one of the reasons why I believe Christianity works better when it is a counter-cultural movement rather than the dominant ideology.

TravelJunkie

Phuckmii wrote: »

I'm new to this so I don't know if this is allowed or not (?) but basically i'm just wondering why you actually believe in god and religion and all that. I was raised a catholic but it's only my mother that was really religious. I'm now more or less an atheist although I would like to get married in the church with the missus wearing the white dress and the whole thing (more for traditions sake than any spiritual reason). But i'm just wondering why you believe? I mean if it hadn't been drilled into you as a child would you really have come up with such (what I believe to be)a fantasy story?

I can't put my finger on a defining point when I realized what a load of nonsense it all was but up until about 16 or 17 (i'm 23 now) I remember I still prayed if I thought I needed help.

Is it all just brainwashing?

Hi P,

I don't want to answer your question from a 'theoretical' point of view as others are doing.

I was also brought up with religion in the background; ie. we went to church every so often (especially when my gran was alive), we went to Easter services, christmas, etc. Not many times in between. It was just one of those things we did. Later I would question 'Is there a god' or does God exist? Or are these just stories from the history books we preserve in tradition and culture?

I didn't have to look far to find God - funny enough, it was the new age belief that made me a christian. A friend said something to me 'You don't have to find God, he is already inside you' And that just triggered something in me, like a realisation of sorts which made me tingle.

So I believed in God. But does that make me a Christian? I thought it did, but not until I heard the gospel for the first time. Because, before that, Jesus dying on the cross was just a story. When I heard the 'why' of the what happened on the cross I finally understood what God wanted for us (all people) to reconcile us to him (be close to him, talk to him, hear him).

So then I surrendered to him (Jesus). It happened in a bible study that I happened to go to by fluke because the person that took me there thought I was a Christian. No one told me to do it. Remember they all thought I was a Christian already. But in prayer I told Jesus that I wanted to know him
and I thanked him for dying for me. That was a breakthrough and then in my heart I finally understood what christ could do.

When I think about how I came to believe in God, I always visualise a picture of Jesus knocking on the door, and waiting for me to open it and let me in. I really believe in 'those who seek shall find'.

So that's how it all happened for me.

lugha

This is interesting TravelJunkie and I imagine other Christians might recount similar experiences. The crucifixion and reason for it are clearly very important to you in terms of why you believe. But how do you reconcile this with non-Christian believers? They cannot or at least do not draw on this to support their faith.

kelly1

Phuckmii wrote: »

I'm new to this so I don't know if this is allowed or not (?) but basically i'm just wondering why you actually believe in god and religion and all that.
.....
But i'm just wondering why you believe? I mean if it hadn't been drilled into you as a child would you really have come up with such (what I believe to be)a fantasy story?

Hello P,

explaining one's faith is difficult at the best of times. It's hard to put spiritual "feelings" into words.

I'm a relatively recent (about 4 years now) convert/revert to the Catholic faith I grew up with. Like many teenage Catholics, I stopped going to Mass and prayed very seldom. I've always believed in God and I remember praying every night as a child even though there was very little religion in our home. I've always been interested in the meaning of life and I read about lots of different religions and philosophies, all except Christianity. I used to think it was nothing more than one of many moral frameworks. I didn't understand the need for salvation and I didn't know why Christ died for us on the cross.

The turning point in my life came after a trip to Lourdes. I was there because my mother died there and my brother paid for a ticket! While there I prayed for faith and my prayer was most definitely answered. As soon as I came back I started seeing the Catholic faith in a different way. So I started reading about Christianity/Catholicism and it's no exaggeration to say that it was like finding a treasure chest.

My faith in Jesus Christ has changed my life in incredible ways. I have very different priorities to the ones I used to have. I now realize that love of God and love of neighbour are the most important things in this life. Everything revolves around God because all good comes from God. God is our source and our ultimate destination if we co-operate with His plan for us. Our happiness is in doing God's will.

As the bible says Jesus is the "Way, the Truth and the Life". I am totally convinced of this. Jesus just oozes divine authority and truth. Having read various new-age and yoga book, I used to think Jesus was just another "advanced master" who had achieved enlightenment. I was so wrong. Jesus is the one and only Lord and Master. There are countless false prophets in our world.

Phuckmii wrote: »

I can't put my finger on a defining point when I realized what a load of nonsense it all was but up until about 16 or 17 (i'm 23 now) I remember I still prayed if I thought I needed help.
Is it all just brainwashing?

Your lack of faith is probably a result of brainwashing. You haven't grown out of religion, you've become cynical and world-weary I would dare suggest. People have become so cynical that they've lost all hope that there is justice and supreme good. It's amazing how many people no longer beleive in life after death. When you stop believing in Heaven and the possibility of life where there is no hate and only love, life loses meaning. We become hard-hearted. This is what the world does to us and only faith in God can restore meaning and hope in life.

It's very easy to see what lack of faith in God does to society. You just have the look at how drugs have destroyed peoples lives and how much violence there is. Look at the number of people committing suicide. Young people who have become disillusioned with the world and have lost hope. They are sheep surrounded by wolves. The sad thing is that people think there is no way out of the mess they often find themselves in. They don't realize that they only need to turn to Jesus with faith and trust and they will discover purpose, dignity and the love of God.

Jesus is our only hope and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

God bless,
Noel.

Tim_Murphy

Your lack of faith is probably a result of brainwashing.

.
.
.

Jesus is our only hope and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

It's very easy to see what lack of faith in God does to society. You just have the look at how drugs have destroyed peoples lives and how much violence there is. Look at the number of people committing suicide.

What evidence have you that a drop in religiosity has an effect on these issues? Or are you just presuming that it does?

Zombrex

There is a lot of claims that people do question their beliefs, but when you actually get down to it you find the questions they ask themselves really aren't that questioning

From the Christian point of view, there is a lot of posters on this forum who recount stories along the lines of experiences where they felt something in side and just knew that God existed and loved them, or that they felt something was missing in their lives and felt that Christianity really filled a hole in their lives, made so much sense, and provided so many answers that helped them lead better lives

Sorry guys, that isn't questioning.

Or at least it is questioning so long as you get an answer you like. One can see this by the lengths the regular Christian posters here go to reject any and apparently all alternative, non religious, explanations for why these things may happen.

Having said that, the "Why atheism is wrong" thread I started a while back lead me to the rather disappointing conclusion that a lot of the regular atheist posters on Boards.ie don't really critically analyse their own beliefs that strongly either.

Of course there is a case to be made that atheism is simply the default position, and that if one isn't convinced by any current religion they will simply stay atheist.

So some would argue that it isn't that necessary to "question atheism", if religions aren't putting forward a strong argument to you that their supernatural religion is real then a person will simply remain atheist until a religion does come along with a convincing argument.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

It's very easy to see what lack of faith in God does to society. You just have the look at how drugs have destroyed peoples lives and how much violence there is.

It's come up before a few times, but you may have missed it when it did. Researchers have looked into whether or not religious belief and problems in society are related and the answer seems to be a pretty unequivocal "yes". The report is here.

Specifically, the researchers correlated for 17 countries, the percentage of people who say they believe in god, versus statistics for various forms of crime within the same countries. In general, high levels of belief in god correlated positively with high levels of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, murder, teen and adult abortion, juvenile and adult mortality. The only indicator which was lower in religious countries was teen suicide.

From this, it's possible to conclude quite safely, that the belief amongst the religious that religion is necessary to prevent societal dysfunction is, at the very least highly questionable, if not actually completely false.

Tim_Murphy

the percentage of people who say they believe in god...

In general, high levels of belief in god correlated positively ...

I think a potential problem of these types of surveys is that it is very difficult (impossible?) to differentiate between a person’s stated belief, and their actual belief. It’s is generally presumed I think by most that these correlate but that is not necessarily the case. This is a little off tangent to what is being discussion but it’s worth thinking about.

robindch

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

it is very difficult (impossible?) to differentiate between a person’s stated belief, and their actual belief.

I accept your point, that people may not be truthful about what they believe, or they may not know what they believe. But I can't think of any way of finding out what people believe which doesn't involve asking them.

The questionnaire that was used in Ireland for this survey is available here, so you can judge for yourself how likely people were to answer truthfully to the questions asked.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

It's come up before a few times, but you may have missed it when it did. Researchers have looked into whether or not religious belief and problems in society are related and the answer seems to be a pretty unequivocal "yes". The report is here.

Specifically, the researchers correlated for 17 countries, the percentage of people who say they believe in god, versus statistics for various forms of crime within the same countries. In general, high levels of belief in god correlated positively with high levels of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, murder, teen and adult abortion, juvenile and adult mortality. The only indicator which was lower in religious countries was teen suicide.

From this, it's possible to conclude quite safely, that the belief amongst the religious that religion is necessary to prevent societal dysfunction is, at the very least highly questionable, if not actually completely false.

Related to this, there was an interesting talk at the TED conference about the myth that things are worse in modern society that in the past.

(will see if I can find the link, probably on the TED website)

I'm not sure what period in time Kelly is harking back to (the 1950s? the 1800s? 1 AD), but there is little evidence that in general society is getting worse, and lots of evidence that it isn't.

TravelJunkie

lugha wrote: »

This is interesting TravelJunkie and I imagine other Christians might recount similar experiences. The crucifixion and reason for it are clearly very important to you in terms of why you believe. But how do you reconcile this with non-Christian believers? They cannot or at least do not draw on this to support their faith.

To Lugha,
I think about this at times because I do have non-Christian friends that believe in God. I can only say that, in my opinion, humans have a built-in desire to have fellowship with God. I think this is why we were created in the first place (All protestors to creationism please refrain yourselves from challenging - I said 'imo') However humans became separated from God through sin (I think all religions will agree on this at some level).
Jesus is the way in my books to be reconciled to God - out of all religions it seems to be the easiest and most simple way. The miracle is in its simplicity though because humans tend to over-analyse everything. In a way, I admire non-Christian believers because they take a very hard road by exercising their faith, sometimes a purer (morally speaking) road trying to do good things and follow rules to please God. I would go as far as say they might be better persons (more obedient, more patient, more dedicated and many other good things) than me. The trick is, there is only one God. Why not accept the teaching that he made it easy for us to be reconciled to Him by putting himself on earth, etc etc. Is it pride? I think we humans also have an inherent need to do things, earn things and justify ourselves in some way... it all goes hand in hand and there are lots of different paths.

Sorry for the long reply, I find it hard to express what I'm thinking. It's like I want to shout out to my friends "come look, you don't have to try so hard anymore, he's made it easy for us, open your eyes, see, this is for you, me, for everybody"

Again, I want to reiterate that I have the deepest respect for people of other faiths that dedicate themselves to be good people in order to gain favour with God. Unfortunately, not even Christians can please God by doing good deeds alone. I love my friends and hopefully the will find the inner peace that comes with Jesus - a true resting place.

And that's all.

Tim_Murphy

I accept your point, that people may not be truthful about what they believe, or they may not know what they believe. But I can't think of any way of finding out what people believe which doesn't involve asking them.

There isn't any obvious solution I'd imagine. I read an article about this topic a while back, I'll see if I can dig it out.

I'm not sure what period in time Kelly is harking back to (the 1950s? the 1800s? 1 AD), but there is little evidence that in general society is getting worse, and lots of evidence that it isn't.

People harking back to various 'good old days', from the comfort of todays standard of living, is incredibly common. As is the idea the todays society has experienced moral decay etc etc. As to when exactly the 'good old days' were, I'd doubt you'll get more than vague ascertains as a response.

PDN

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

There isn't any obvious solution I'd imagine. I read an article about this topic a while back, I'll see if I can dig it out.

People harking back to various 'good old days', from the comfort of todays standard of living, is incredibly common. As is the idea the todays society has experienced moral decay etc etc. As to when exactly the 'good old days' were, I'd doubt you'll get more than vague ascertains as a response.

Society changes all the time, and some changes are for the better rather than for the worse.

Looking at Ireland, we used to have a society where there was less homosexual behaviour and fewer illegitimate children, but there was large scale abuse of children in State-sponsored institutions. On the whole I think what we have today, in moral terms, is an improvement on that.

Tim_Murphy

Looking at Ireland, we used to have a society where there was less homosexual behaviour and fewer illegitimate children, but there was large scale abuse of children in State-sponsored institutions. On the whole I think what we have today, in moral terms, is an improvement on that.

Well yes, considering that there is nothing in the slightest wrong with homosexual behaviour nor is there anything wrong with children born of parents who aren't married, I'd agree.

PDN

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

Well yes, considering that there is nothing in the slightest wrong with homosexual behaviour nor is there anything wrong with children born of parents who aren't married, I'd agree.

Indeed, but you are in the Christianity forum and we are discussing Christian belief.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

there is little evidence that in general society is getting worse, and lots of evidence that it isn't.

Agreed. There was a relevant study that I vaguely recall reading about last year sometime. In it, the researchers ask people to say when in the past they'd like to have lived. Virtually nobody wanted to, even when offered very substantial cash incentives to (ie, you earn the same numeric figure then, as you would now). Seems to show that when the chips are down, people really do know what side their bread is butter on.(*)

(*) <cough>

Tim_Murphy

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, but you are in the Christianity forum and we are discussing Christian belief.

Fair point.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

we used to have a society where there was less homosexual behaviour and fewer illegitimate children, but there was large scale abuse of children in State-sponsored institutions. On the whole I think what we have today, in moral terms, is an improvement on that.

Three things:

Firstly, many of the institutions where abuse took place were owned and run by the church, not the state, and had a peculiarly biblically-inspired attitude to physical punishment.

Secondly, my godfather (yes, I did have one ) was gay and lived in rural Ireland from the forties to his death a few years back. If what I know of his life is true, and I've no reason do doubt it, I can assure you that there was plenty of gay male activity in Ireland back then.

Thirdly, as the father of a child born of unmarried parents, I must say that I find your suggestion that I am in some sense "immoral" really quite offensive.

Tim_Murphy

I suppose it all depends on how you classify morality. I suppose going by some christian teachings certain things are worse than they were (allegedly there is more homosexual behaviour) even if in real terms things are actually better than they were.

If what I know of his life is true, and I've no reason do doubt it, I can assure you that there was plenty of gay male activity in Ireland back then.

That's always been the case, it's just that its a lot more acceptable to talk about it these days than it once was. Another sign of society progressing anyone?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Three things:

Firstly, many of the institutions where abuse took place were owned and run by the church, not the state, and had a peculiarly biblically-inspired attitude to physical punishment.

That is why I said 'State-sponsored'. I hardly think savage physical abuse, and indeed sexual abuse, is 'biblical'. I think your choice of the word is just an attempt to stir things.

Secondly, my godfather (yes, I did have one ) was gay and lived in rural Ireland from the forties to his death a few years back. If what I know of his life is true, and I've no reason do doubt it, I can assure you that there was plenty of gay male activity in Ireland back then.

I'm sure there was. But I doubt if it was at the level of today.

Thirdly, as the father of a child born of unmarried parents, I must say that I find your suggestion that I am in some sense "immoral" really quite offensive.

You obviously get easily offended. You are well aware of Christian standards of morality and you choose to disagree with them - that is your decision, but I can't see why you should get offended because not everyone agrees with your morals.

Other people of different faiths and ideologies may think that some of things I do are immoral. Extreme vegetarians may think my meat eating is immoral. Muslims may find my eating bacon immoral. Seventh Day adventists may find my activities on Saturday to be immoral. I don't agree with them, but I certainly don't find their beliefs to be offensive.

Tim_Murphy

I don't agree with them, but I certainly don't find their beliefs to be offensive.

One can see a belief as offensive without they themselves being offended by it.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

That is why I said 'State-sponsored'. I hardly think savage physical abuse, and indeed sexual abuse, is 'biblical'. I think your choice of the word is just an attempt to stir things.

As is your attempt to rebut my point by introducing a straw-link I never made between sexual abuse and "biblicality". Rather, I was simply pointing out that religious institutions were guilty of physical abuse (and frequently with religious justification), a fact missing from your original post.

PDN wrote: »

You obviously get easily offended. You are well aware of Christian standards of morality and you choose to disagree with them

You would perhaps come across as less offensive if you limited your acquisition of moral territory to what's encompassed by christianity alone. I care little for most christian notions of morality and the strange, but unabashed, interest that many have in the sex lives of other people. But I do object to christians claiming the exclusive rights to declare what is moral for the rest of us.

robindch

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

One can see a belief as offensive without they themselves being offended by it.

Yes, that's certainly true. My irritation is at PDN's general reference to "in moral terms", while not pointing out that he's referring to christian moral terms, not general moral terms as any reasonable reader would assume. It's a small point, but an important one.

Zombrex

This is an issue that keeps popping up (it did on the homosexual discussion)

The issue is the difference between someone viewing an activity as simply being incompatible with leading a Christian life, and some thing actually being bad in a universal sense (ie for everyone, including non-Christians).

Some posters (I think PDN but I am reluctant to speak for specific posters) will say that their feelings towards homosexuality and activity of homosexuals is simply that it is incompatible with Christianity. If you want to be a Christian the teaching is clear, don't do homosexual acts. If you don't go right ahead.

Other posters have put forward a stronger position, that the acts are bad in of themselves, irrespective of Christianity, and that some of them, if they had their way, they would make homosexual acts illegal for all, not just Christians.

Equally with PDN's comment about illegitimate children, it really wasn't clear if PDN was making the comment that they are simply incompatible with Christian values (but fine for anyone who doesn't want to be a Christian) or an actual bad thing that is immoral irrespective of Christianity.

This is often a confusion that gets non-Christians back's up.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

This is an issue that keeps popping up (it did on the homosexual discussion)

The issue is the difference between someone viewing an activity as simply being incompatible with leading a Christian life, and some thing actually being bad in a universal sense (ie for everyone, including non-Christians).

Some posters (I think PDN but I am reluctant to speak for specific posters) will say that their feelings towards homosexuality and activity of homosexuals is simply that it is incompatible with Christianity. If you want to be a Christian the teaching is clear, don't do homosexual acts. If you don't go right ahead.

Other posters have put forward a stronger position, that the acts are bad in of themselves, irrespective of Christianity, and that some of them, if they had their way, they would make homosexual acts illegal for all, not just Christians.

Equally with PDN's comment about illegitimate children, it really wasn't clear if PDN was making the comment that they are simply incompatible with Christian values (but fine for anyone who doesn't want to be a Christian) or an actual bad thing that is immoral irrespective of Christianity.

This is often a confusion that gets non-Christians back's up.

Well, let's see if we can't clear up some of that confusion.

As a Christian I believe that morality is God's standards by which he intends people to live. Adherence to these standards will produce a happier life and, on a more widespread scale, a better society.

However, mankind is tainted by sin and is incapable of substantially following God's standards of morality.

The Church is a community of people who have been born again by faith. This means that they are now spiritually alive and enabled to substantially obey God's standards of morality (although not absolutely perfectly). This means that the Church should attempt to keep its house in order by ensuring that its members strive to observe God's morality. So those who deliberately flout that morality (eg, committing sexual immorality, oppressing the poor, worshipping idols etc) should be disciplined and, if they continue to flout God's morality, expelled from the visible body of the Church. This is why we say that certain behaviour is incompatible with practising Christianity.

It is not the job of the Church to try to make non-Christians to live by God's morality. That would be putting the cart before the horse, since without salvation and regeneration we would be asking unbelievers to do the impossible. That does not mean that we are saying that it is right for unbelievers to ignore God's morality - just that it is not our place to dictate to them or judge them.

Another problem is that when Christians do try to enforce their morality upon others they tend to be very selective as to which sins they judge and which they ignore. (Please don't anyone go getting offended at the word 'sin'. I am using it in its theological sense of a transgression against God's law). One reason for this is that certain sins are easier to identify. It is easier to identify when a child is born out of wedlock than to decide if someone is being covetous.

The only exception I see to the above principle is when non-Christians morality ends up hurting others, particularly the weak and defenceless. I believe that Christians have a command to protect the vulnerable. So, in this case, I believe it is right for Christians to combat immoral behaviour that hurts others (eg the North Atlantic slave trade,, child prostitution, exploitation of workers). Therefore I believe that Wilberforce's abolitionism, and the Salvation Army's successful campaigns to raise the age of consent and to improve conditions and wages in the Victorian match factories, were justified cases where Christians encouraged society to take a particular moral stance.

So, to take issues of sexual morality such as homosexual activities and sexual relationships outside of marriage, we believe that God has indeed given us a morality to live by. We believe that living by this morality helps produce happy and stable marriages. We believe that flouting this morality is wrong (for both the believer and the unbeliever), but that we have no business lecturing unbelievers about it. Our task is to proclaim the Gospel, lead people to Christ, and after that to work with them to improve their morality.

If I try to force my morality onto Robin - then that is wrong and he would be justified in finding my coercion to be offensive.

If I come onto a non-Christian discussion board and start declaring Robin's behaviour to be immoral - then that too could be described as offensive.

However, for me to describe certain kinds of behaviour as immoral, on a Christian discussion board devoted to the discussion of Christian beliefs, is entirely proper. Anyone who finds this offensive, in my opinion, needs to grow up a bit. Good gracious, have we reached the stage where we have to hide our beliefs and pretend that we agree with everything that people do?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Good gracious, have we reached the stage where we have to hide our beliefs and pretend that we agree with everything that people do?

Thanks for the reply.

What I would say is that non-Christians can be defensive about aspects because, unfortunately, not all Christians take the position you do.

Though I think you have been clear in that post about what you consider the standard for Christians and the standard you (as opposed to God) would require from other non-Christians in society (don't harm or hurt each other)

If only more Christians were like you PDN

Tim_Murphy

Thanks for clarify your position PDN, that makes a lot of sense.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Well, let's see if we can't clear up some of that confusion.

As a Christian I believe that morality is God's standards by which he intends people to live. Adherence to these standards will produce a happier life and, on a more widespread scale, a better society.

However, mankind is tainted by sin and is incapable of substantially following God's standards of morality.

The Church is a community of people who have been born again by faith. This means that they are now spiritually alive and enabled to substantially obey God's standards of morality (although not absolutely perfectly). This means that the Church should attempt to keep its house in order by ensuring that its members strive to observe God's morality. So those who deliberately flout that morality (eg, committing sexual immorality, oppressing the poor, worshipping idols etc) should be disciplined and, if they continue to flout God's morality, expelled from the visible body of the Church. This is why we say that certain behaviour is incompatible with practising Christianity.

It is not the job of the Church to try to make non-Christians to live by God's morality. That would be putting the cart before the horse, since without salvation and regeneration we would be asking unbelievers to do the impossible. That does not mean that we are saying that it is right for unbelievers to ignore God's morality - just that it is not our place to dictate to them or judge them.

Another problem is that when Christians do try to enforce their morality upon others they tend to be very selective as to which sins they judge and which they ignore. (Please don't anyone go getting offended at the word 'sin'. I am using it in its theological sense of a transgression against God's law). One reason for this is that certain sins are easier to identify. It is easier to identify when a child is born out of wedlock than to decide if someone is being covetous.

The only exception I see to the above principle is when non-Christians morality ends up hurting others, particularly the weak and defenceless. I believe that Christians have a command to protect the vulnerable. So, in this case, I believe it is right for Christians to combat immoral behaviour that hurts others (eg the North Atlantic slave trade,, child prostitution, exploitation of workers). Therefore I believe that Wilberforce's abolitionism, and the Salvation Army's successful campaigns to raise the age of consent and to improve conditions and wages in the Victorian match factories, were justified cases where Christians encouraged society to take a particular moral stance.

So, to take issues of sexual morality such as homosexual activities and sexual relationships outside of marriage, we believe that God has indeed given us a morality to live by. We believe that living by this morality helps produce happy and stable marriages. We believe that flouting this morality is wrong (for both the believer and the unbeliever), but that we have no business lecturing unbelievers about it. Our task is to proclaim the Gospel, lead people to Christ, and after that to work with them to improve their morality.

If I try to force my morality onto Robin - then that is wrong and he would be justified in finding my coercion to be offensive.

If I come onto a non-Christian discussion board and start declaring Robin's behaviour to be immoral - then that too could be described as offensive.

However, for me to describe certain kinds of behaviour as immoral, on a Christian discussion board devoted to the discussion of Christian beliefs, is entirely proper. Anyone who finds this offensive, in my opinion, needs to grow up a bit. Good gracious, have we reached the stage where we have to hide our beliefs and pretend that we agree with everything that people do?

Great post. To play devils advovate a moment. I think Wolfsbane (correct me if I'm wrong wolfsbane), believes that homosexuality in society harms society. So he would feel justified to act (peacefully) against any legislation against homosexual marriage. Would you agree with this? If not, who decides what is doing harm, and what isn't? I may be opening a can of worms here, but i hope you get what I'm asking.

MooseJam

PDN wrote: »

I was raised as an atheist and accepted that belief unquestioningly until I learned to think for myself and weigh up the evidence.

could I ask about the evidence, most atheists say there is none for the existence of god, have I missed something

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Great post. To play devils advovate a moment. I think Wolfsbane (correct me if I'm wrong wolfsbane), believes that homosexuality in society harms society. So he would feel justified to act (peacefully) against any legislation against homosexual marriage. Would you agree with this? If not, who decides what is doing harm, and what isn't? I may be opening a can of worms here, but i hope you get what I'm asking.

I guess it comes down to how some views "harmful"

If a Christian for example simply viewed homosexual activity as harming a persons chances for salvation in the after life, but viewed it has harmless in other Earthly ways, they may say that at the end of the day it is up to a person themselves to take responsibility for their own salvation, and not for the State to legislate or enact laws that try to outlaw things viewed as causing harm to one's salvation (which would probably be pointless anyway)

On the other hand, if a Christian viewed homosexual activity as actually harmful in the context of Earthly existence, they may well believe that it is necessary for it to be made illegal through the State, to protect people.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

It is not the job of the Church to try to make non-Christians to live by God's morality. [....] it is not our place to dictate to them or judge them.

I'm happy to hear this and like others, I sincerely wish that everybody, religious and irreligious, would be as non-judgmental as you say.

PDN wrote: »

However, for me to describe certain kinds of behaviour as immoral, on a Christian discussion board devoted to the discussion of Christian beliefs, is entirely proper.

It is proper for you to describe whatever you choose as "immoral" while making it clear that this immorality is defined within your own cultural or religious tradition. I have no problem with that, and I expect it and enjoy it on this forum. However, by implying that I am guilty of a general moral dereliction, rather than a specific religious one, you are breaking your honorable commitment not to judge others -- and it's that alone that I object to.

So help me out here: you say that it's not your place to judge others, but then appear to describe my behavior as "immoral" in the general sense; a comment which is a straightforward value judgment. I simply don't get how you can reconcile your two positions, unless your latter quote is a specifically religious judgment (as one reading suggests) in which case we're more less in agreement and there's no problem.

.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Great post. To play devils advovate a moment. I think Wolfsbane (correct me if I'm wrong wolfsbane), believes that homosexuality in society harms society. So he would feel justified to act (peacefully) against any legislation against homosexual marriage. Would you agree with this? If not, who decides what is doing harm, and what isn't? I may be opening a can of worms here, but i hope you get what I'm asking.

I think there are many things that harm society - many of them much more seriously than homosexual marriage. For example, Irish society's love affair with alcohol, racism, our failure to value marriage as a lifelong commitment - all of these are, IMHO, much more damaging. Obviously Wolfsbane sees the homosexual thing as a bigger deal, as is his right. While our Christianity morality may inform us and motivate us on any of these issues, we have the same right as anyone else (no more, no less) to lobby for laws to be passed or not passed. However, if we expect to be listened to by non-Christians then such lobbying must be based on actual evidence of how such things do harm society. Just saying "God says so" is not sufficient once we are dealing with people outside the Church.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

It is proper for you to describe whatever you choose as "immoral" while making it clear that this immorality is defined within your own cultural or religious tradition. I have no problem with that, and I expect it and enjoy it on this forum. However, by implying that I am guilty of a general moral dereliction, rather than a specific religious one, you are breaking your honorable commitment not to judge others -- and it's that alone that I object to.

So help me out here: you say that it's not your place to judge others, but then appear to describe my behavior as "immoral" in the general sense; a comment which is a straightforward value judgment. I simply don't get how you can reconcile your two positions, unless your latter quote is a specifically religious judgment (as one reading suggests) in which case we're more less in agreement and there's no problem..

Now we are getting into the issue of whether morality is absolute or whether it is simply relative to what a given society accepts or rejects.

My own belief is that Christian morality should be absolute and objective. It was given by God and that is that. I also believe that societal standards of morality vary from society to society. Therefore there is no absolute or objective standard of morality in general outside of God.

(I'm putting this paragraph in italics and brackets because it is a bit of a separate issue and I don't want to derail our conversation. If anyone gets really worked up about it then maybe a new thread would be the way to go? My own personal opinion is that the image of God in man, although distorted by sin, still remains to some extent. Therefore some shreds of objective absolute morality are incorporated into society's subjective and relative morality. So, for example, no society would say it is OK for adults to torture babies to death for fun.)

So, Robin, your question implies that there are two objective standards of morality in existence - one that is religious (for those inside the church) and one that is general (for everyone). I do not subscribe to a dual objective morality theory.

Therefore I see sexual intercourse outside of marriage (including the fathering of a child outside of marriage) as 'immoral' in that it is a transgression against God's morality. Such an activity would have been viewed as immoral, in societal terms, 100 years ago in Ireland, but not in 2008.

So, in terms of God's absolute morality (religious morality) I see fornication as immoral. In terms of Ireland relativistic morality of 2008 (general morality) it is not immoral.

I hope that helps clarify things.

lugha

Thanks for your extensive reply TravelJunkie,

Alas I am not a great deal wiser. But as you suggest, I guess it is difficult to convey thoughts and feelings about such matters.

Like many Irish people I was raised a catholic with absolutely no exposure to the concept of atheism unlike today. Religion was essentially propagated by induction, the succeeding generation inherited the beliefs of the preceding one much as they might inherit political, sporting or geographical loyalties. I suppose I am surprised that the more extensive discussion on atheism in the present day hasn’t taken a greater toll on the ranks of the believers (although I might be wrongly assuming it hasn’t). I should think that some and perhaps a great number of believers would be able to offer a reason to belief which rebuts the various arguments presented by atheists, a reason which stands alone and doesn’t appeal to inherited arguments. Put simply, if you encountered a rational individual who had no exposure ever to religion and you wanted to expose him to God, what would you say to him? I would genuinely like to have some understanding of such a viewpoint.

PDN

lugha wrote: »

Put simply, if you encountered a rational individual who had no exposure ever to religion and you wanted to expose him to God, what would you say to him? I would genuinely like to have some understanding of such a viewpoint.

Just preach the Gospel to them - or even just hand them a Bible. It's working pretty well in China where rational individuals who have had no exposure ever to religion are turning to Christ in their millions.

lugha

PDN wrote: »

Just preach the Gospel to them - or even just hand them a Bible. It's working pretty well in China where rational individuals who have had no exposure ever to religion are turning to Christ in their millions.

I can't help thinking that if I were presented with a bible for the first time that my first question would relate to its authenticity. Of all the religions in the present and past what reasons might be offered for arbitrarily embracing Christianity as the true faith? And of course that’s before you get to the big question as to whether there is a true faith.

What I’m seeking here is an account of the thought process (if such can be described) taken by somebody such as one of the Chinese people you referred to. If they were presented with a Holy book of another faith would they have embraced that faith or is there something uniquely credible about the bible / Christianity?

Minder

PDN wrote: »

Just preach the Gospel to them - or even just hand them a Bible. It's working pretty well in China where rational individuals who have had no exposure ever to religion are turning to Christ in their millions.

.....turning to religion in their millions. If anything, the catholic church is lagging behind other religions in that, since 1949, the members of the catholic church have only grown in line with the population.

Interesting article....

philologos

Minder wrote: »

.....turning to religion in their millions. If anything, the catholic church is lagging behind other religions in that, since 1949, the members of the catholic church have only grown in line with the population.

Interesting article....

There are more Christian churches than the Roman Catholic Church you know? I think PDN was saying that Christianity as a faith is growing rather rapidly in regions like China.

PDN

Minder wrote: »

.....turning to religion in their millions. If anything, the catholic church is lagging behind other religions in that, since 1949, the members of the catholic church have only grown in line with the population.

Interesting article....

Turning to Christ in their millions. Some estimates say 100 million Christians in China today.

BTW, as a non-Catholic I'm wondering why you want to bring them into this.