From today I can call myself an atheist

philologos

DeBunny wrote: »

I know it's about free will but why is god so cryptic and elusive? If he really wanted us to have free will, he would present himself in an obvious manner and then let us make our minds up. Wouldn't an all powerful being use something even slightly more persuasive than a book? Why does he leave all those cultures, tribes and nations behind? Why doesn't the bible impress other people in other cultures as much as it did you?

I know this is going to sound absurd to you, but if you want God to be less cryptic and less obscure wouldn't the first port of call be to ask Him (if He is indeed there) to make Himself apparent in His word before you read the Bible, or indeed just in your general life. I tried to read Genesis before a became a Christian, thought it was dead boring initially. As a child I went to church with my parents, found it boring and irrelevant. I couldn't wait to get out of church most Sundays. Now things are completely and utterly different, because I gave it a chance rather than rubbishing it prematurely as so many people do.

As for leaving tribes, cultures and nations aside. I don't see how. God is sending people to them right now. There are people groups who have never heard about Jesus Christ who will be hearing about Him for the first time today. There are a huge number of ministries out there trying to reach people in their own language. Indeed Wycliffe Bible Translators do a huge deal of work to bring the Bible to unreached people groups.

DeBunny

You seem to assume that I haven't read the bible. I read it in my early twenties while I was still unsure what to believe in.
It was one of the main reasons I turned away from god and christianity. God didn't send me a missionary either. I picked it up of my own free will, and of own my own free will I have come to reject it completely.

Sure, jesus says some nice things here and there, but overall it is an utterly abhorrent book. Why would an all powerful, all loving being create something that many people find repulsive? Let alone the fact that most believers find it slightly bewildering.

As for the missionaries, it can be all to easy to blackmail primitive tribes into believing in jesus by offering them heaven or hell. It can also be very difficult, as many missionaries find out. Why don't missionaries have a 100% success rate? Do they even have a 50% success rate?

I get it that god reached you through the bible but, If he really loves me and all those other tribes, nations and cultures, and doesn't want us to go to hell, then why did he send us a contradictory, hard to understand, 2,000 year old book that he didn't even write? And why did I find it so repulsive?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

As for leaving tribes, cultures and nations aside. I don't see how. God is sending people to them right now. There are people groups who have never heard about Jesus Christ who will be hearing about Him for the first time today. There are a huge number of ministries out there trying to reach people in their own language. Indeed Wycliffe Bible Translators do a huge deal of work to bring the Bible to unreached people groups.

I mean no insult, but I find the above incredibly sad, especially because it's true.

It's horrible to imagine that Christianity is being shoved down the throats of remote tribes, cultures and groups of people, replacing their own brilliant and unique culture with banal Christianity. If the missionaries are of the Catholic variety their efforts will no doubt lead to yet more misery among the people they're trying to help. It'd be great if Christianity, and, well, all other religions could keep to themselves. Stop trying to save others when they don't need saving, and if you must help them don't systemically wipe out their own beliefs in the process (look at South America of half a century ago for an extreme example).

DeBunny

Don't the UN have an initiative aimed at preserving cultures which are on the brink of becoming extinct or homogenised? I wonder if it takes any measures to prevent religious conversion.

philologos

DeBunny wrote: »

You seem to assume that I haven't read the bible. I read it in my early twenties while I was still unsure what to believe in.
It was one of the main reasons I turned away from god and christianity. God didn't send me a missionary either. I picked it up of my own free will, and of own my own free will I have come to reject it completely.

Read it, but read it and give it a chance to speak to you. As for not sending you a missionary, I'm sure God has placed Christians in your life. I would personally consider myself to be a missionary, perhaps not in the traditional sense, but in the sense that I'm trying to bear witness to Jesus wherever I go.

DeBunny wrote: »

Sure, jesus says some nice things here and there, but overall it is an utterly abhorrent book. Why would an all powerful, all loving being create something that many people find repulsive? Let alone the fact that most believers find it slightly bewildering.

I guess I can only disagree with you. It's not about how nice or how not nice the book comes across, and by the by Jesus is much more than just nice, He's absolutely amazing in how he breaks down barriers, to the extent of breaking down the biggest barrier of all on the cross. Our sin before a righteous God. It was in becoming weak that he conquered death. People taunted him to get off the cross, but it was by staying on it that He achieved freedom from sin for all.

DeBunny wrote: »

As for the missionaries, it can be all to easy to blackmail primitive tribes into believing in jesus by offering them heaven or hell. It can also be very difficult, as many missionaries find out. Why don't missionaries have a 100% success rate? Do they even have a 50% success rate?

What makes you think that it is that simple? What makes you think that people are for the most part that heartless?

Most Christians who go out on mission teams do so because they care about the world. They want to see the world know the truth about Jesus.

As for not having 100% success rate, this is ambiguous. Not every person will accept the Gospel on the first time of hearing it. Some people need time to warm up to the idea. Of everyone who I have seen gradually come closer and closer to faith in Christianity it has been a gradual process of a few months to even a few years. Sometimes people need to mull it over and that's understandable. Becoming a Christian is the most important decision in life.

DeBunny wrote: »

I get it that god reached you through the bible but, If he really loves me and all those other tribes, nations and cultures, and doesn't want us to go to hell, then why did he send us a contradictory, hard to understand, 2,000 year old book that he didn't even write? And why did I find it so repulsive?

He sends people out to those tribes. In fact there are 1.6 billion people roughly who have never heard of the Gospel. Mostly in a region called the 10:40 window. God is sending Christian missionaries out there precisely because God does love the world and He did give His only Son so that they mightn't perish but have eternal life.

I think you find the Bible repulsive because you mightn't be seeing the full picture in respect to some passages and as a result may be skewing what it is saying.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

It's horrible to imagine that Christianity is being shoved down the throats of remote tribes, cultures and groups of people, replacing their own brilliant and unique culture with banal Christianity. If the missionaries are of the Catholic variety their efforts will no doubt lead to yet more misery among the people they're trying to help. It'd be great if Christianity, and, well, all other religions could keep to themselves. Stop trying to save others when they don't need saving, and if you must help them don't systemically wipe out their own beliefs in the process (look at South America of half a century ago for an extreme example).

I personally don't agree that Christianity should be forced on anyone. I do believe that it should be presented to people though. If it is really the means to save people from eternal condemnation then this the morally right thing to do as Christians. It is only in your opinion that Christianity is banal, and by the way I used to think the same thing.

The thing is you say "stop saving others when they don't need saving", but Christians believe all mankind needs to be saved. Therefore it is crucially important to us to go out and tell people about it here, and elsewhere.

DeBunny wrote: »

Don't the UN have an initiative aimed at preserving cultures which are on the brink of becoming extinct or homogenised? I wonder if it takes any measures to prevent religious conversion.

I don't know why it should given that both freedom of religion and expression are human rights, therefore the freedom of religious expression is a human right.

pH

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I mean no insult, but I find the above incredibly sad, especially because it's true.

It's horrible to imagine that Christianity is being shoved down the throats of remote tribes, cultures and groups of people, replacing their own brilliant and unique culture with banal Christianity.

One of the words thrown around here a lot is respect, normally against atheists, by those demanding "respect" for their beliefs and traditions, or haranguing atheists/secularists for their lack of respect.

respect
- to hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat.
- to show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights.
- to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy.

And yet when, even today, we look at Christianity (and indeed other religions) we find it incredibly disrespectful of the beliefs of these people, they cannot even manage the "refrain from intruding upon".

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

As for leaving tribes, cultures and nations aside. I don't see how. God is sending people to them right now. There are people groups who have never heard about Jesus Christ who will be hearing about Him for the first time today. There are a huge number of ministries out there trying to reach people in their own language. Indeed Wycliffe Bible Translators do a huge deal of work to bring the Bible to unreached people groups.

I'm just curious Jakkass. How do you reconcile this penchant for evangelism with Matthew 10:5-7. I would have thought that Jesus' prohibition on preaching in "pagan territory" was pretty clear and unambiguous. I always thought that Jesus was instructing his disciples to preach only to Jews and apostates. I'm interested in your interpretation of this passage.

yawha

Jakkass wrote: »

I guess I can only disagree with you. It's not about how nice or how not nice the book comes across, and by the by Jesus is much more than just nice, He's absolutely amazing in how he breaks down barriers, to the extent of breaking down the biggest barrier of all on the cross. Our sin before a righteous God. It was in becoming weak that he conquered death. People taunted him to get off the cross, but it was by staying on it that He achieved freedom from sin for all.

You know, I've contemplated the resurrection story again and again, and its significance has never become clear.

God had to make himself human and engineer his own death to save people from sins, a concept he created in the first place? Wat?

Also, being God, could he not just have flipped off his pain switch and acted like he was suffering?

professore

Zillah wrote: »

Not to mention that Judaism is considered a race and cultural demographic as much as it is a religion, and hence many of those identifying as Jewish are not necessarily stating their position in regard to theological claims.

We're all too aware of how many "Catholics" identify as such because of their background regardless of their stated position that the beliefs of the religion are nonsense, I'd imagine being part of a group with such a powerful identity as Judaism is even more influential again.

The real Irish catholics are the ones when they lived in Germany paid the catholic church tax. We should have the same system here and use that as the benchmark for how many people in Ireland are actually catholic. Many families nowadays do communion / confirmation for 3 reasons : the money the dress (if they are a girl) and because of family pressures to conform.

philologos

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm just curious Jakkass. How do you reconcile this penchant for evangelism with Matthew 10:5-7. I would have thought that Jesus' prohibition on preaching in "pagan territory" was pretty clear and unambiguous. I always thought that Jesus was instructing his disciples to preach only to Jews and apostates. I'm interested in your interpretation of this passage.

Initially that was the case. If you read Matthew 28 and Acts 10 you will see the mandate was to go to all nations on the face of the earth. A fine example of why we need to see the Bible in its totality, and to read particular instances in context.

Although Jesus Himself did communicate with Gentiles, particularly the centurion in Matthew 8, and Caananite woman in Matthew 15.

CerebralCortex

yawha wrote: »

You know, I've contemplated the resurrection story again and again, and its significance has never become clear.

God had to make himself human and engineer his own death to save people from sins, a concept he created in the first place? Wat?

Also, being God, could he not just have flipped off his pain switch and acted like he was suffering?

You could be waiting for answer to those questions for a long time. Also I'll never understand why these questions are always ignored in these forums.
Jakkass care to enlighten us?

philologos

CerebralCortex: Let me quote you Alister McGrath who also contributes an article on the CIS site -

The limits of science
So what of other questions? What about the question of God? Or of whether
there is purpose within the universe? As if pre-empting Dawkins’ brash and
simplistic take on the sciences, Medawar suggests that scientists need to be
cautious about their pronouncements on these matters, lest they lose the trust
of the public by confident and dogmatic overstatements.
Though a self-confessed rationalist, Medawar is clear on this matter: “That
there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of
questions that science cannot answer, and that no conceivable advance of
science would empower it to answer.... I have in mind such questions as: How
did everything begin? What are we all here for? What is the point of living?
“Doctrinaire positivism – now something of a period piece – dismissed all such
questions as nonquestions or pseudoquestions such as only simpletons ask
and only charlatans profess to be able to answer.”
Perhaps The God Delusion might have taken Sir Peter by surprise, on account
of its late flowering of precisely that doctrinaire positivism which he had
happily, yet apparently prematurely, believed to be dead.
The point is obvious and important: Science cannot tell us whether there is a
God. It cannot tell us why we are here (although it may have some very
interesting insights in how that happened). When it comes to questions of
meaning, purpose and value, science is blind. And that is no criticism of
science – it is simply about recognizing and respecting its limits.
Dawkins is not typical of science at this point, as most scientists are aware of
the limits of their discipline, and see no problems in seeking answers
elsewhere when it comes to the really big issues of life.

DeBunny

Jakkass wrote: »

I guess I can only disagree with you. It's not about how nice or how not nice the book comes across, and by the by Jesus is much more than just nice, He's absolutely amazing in how he breaks down barriers, to the extent of breaking down the biggest barrier of all on the cross. Our sin before a righteous God. It was in becoming weak that he conquered death. People taunted him to get off the cross, but it was by staying on it that He achieved freedom from sin for all.

This is what I'm talking about. It just goes straight over my head and doesn't make any sense to me in the slightest. Whatever about getting humans to write a book for him, why didn't this all powerful being, at the very least, get them to write a book that myself, and many like me, could relate to?

Ok, you said that "His word is written so that it can speak clearly to people of every culture, tribe and nation about Him and what He has done for mankind". If this was the case then why do I find the bible more and more ridiculous and repulsive the more I read it? I've given it a chance, believe me. If I'm not getting it then that's god's fault. And I'm not talking about people who haven't heard of the bible. I'm talking about people who've read the bible and had a similar reaction to me. As a method of communicating omnipotence and love, the bible is a complete failure.

Is jesus absolutely amazing when he calls for you to bring non-believers like me before him and murder us? For all the profound things he allegedly said there are a few things that he says and does that completely negates the 'message of love and peace'.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

CerebralCortex: Let me quote you Alister McGrath who also contributes an article on the CIS site -

I must say this is extremely frustrating. You haven't answered the question I actually asked and provided an argument from ignorance fallacy answer for a question I didn't ask. Will you please, if it isn't too much trouble answer the question asked here?

philologos

I will, but that one is going to take a while, so I'll do it later. T'is exam time for me.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I will, but that one is going to take a while, so I'll do it later. T'is exam time for me.

Best of luck on both counts.

DeBunny

Jakkass wrote: »

When it comes to questions of
meaning, purpose and value, science is blind

This is a challenge that science, or to be more precise people who use the scientific method, are tackling head on. In the last couple of decades they have discovered more answers to those questions than religion has discovered in the last number millennia.

And if there is one discipline that doesn't recognise limits, it is science. As much as religious people would like it to.

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

Initially that was the case. If you read Matthew 28 and Acts 10 you will see the mandate was to go to all nations on the face of the earth. A fine example of why we need to see the Bible in its totality, and to read particular instances in context.

Although Jesus Himself did communicate with Gentiles, particularly the centurion in Matthew 8, and Caananite woman in Matthew 15.

Thanks for the response Jakkass. Let's leave Jesus' actions out of it, however, since the question I asked had to do with Jesus' instructions to his disciples. I think Acts 10 is a rather tenuous claim for a mandate because it relies on Peter's interpretation of a vision/dream/acid trip that he had. The mandate in Matthew 28 is just as clear and unambiguous as that in Matthew 10. The thing is though, why is the instruction in Matthew 28 seen as the authoritative one and the one in Chapter 10 not. Surely this is just Christians being selective about which parts they're going to listen to and which parts they're not.

robindch

Alistair McGrath wrote:

Dawkins is not typical of science at this point, as most scientists are aware of the limits of their discipline, and see no problems in seeking answers elsewhere when it comes to the really big issues of life.

A typically inaccurate comment from McGrath who appears to nurture a sizable personal dislike of Dawkins.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

A typically inaccurate comment from McGrath who appears to nurture a sizable personal dislike of Dawkins.

Ah, right, found it.

Here's a long review of four books which claim to rebut Dawkins' The God Delusion, one of which is McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2285-fleabytes

The (quite funny) review of the McGrath book is here:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2285-fleabytes#mcgrath

liamw

robindch wrote: »

The (quite funny) review of the McGrath book is here:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2285-fleabytes#mcgrath

Brilliant review. :pac:
McGrath does love to shout about how he used to be atheist!

Despite McGrath's claim in the introduction that his aim is "a critical engagement with the arguments set out in The God Delusion, its 65 pages (72 if you include the introduction) contain not a single positive argument in defence of Christianity. Not one.

For this reason, I cannot review it as such - there is, after all, no argument whatsoever to engage with. I will simply quote some of his comments, so you can see for yourself just how low he is prepared to stoop.

Before embarking on this necessarily ugly and unpleasant journey, however, I must share with you the one bit of pleasure and amusement I did get from this otherwise desperately tedious book: by the time we reach the foot of page 2, McGrath has already informed us no fewer than SIX times that he used to be an atheist!

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I will, but that one is going to take a while, so I'll do it later. T'is exam time for me.

Still waiting. What's the craic?

DeBunny

He changed his name and moved to a different thread. :pac:

CerebralCortex

DeBunny wrote: »

He changed his name and moved to a different thread. :pac:

I wonder what that says about him?