'Celebrating 100 years of free-thinking Christians'

Will, good call. The Westminster confession of faith is a repulsive document and I, like many others, find a Unitarian freethinking position much more tenable than bog standard trinitarianism. Although I'm an atheist :-) The NSPCI are interesting, though, and Chris Hudson, minister of All Souls, is a very nice chap.

Agree, It is nice to see that free thinking seems to result in a non judgemental interaction with the wider community, refreshing stuff and yes Chris Hudson is a very nice chap.

The NSPCI (and CAI) have achieved more both in terms of support and even the odd convert by engaging positively with parts of the community shunned by most of the rest of organised religion.

Engaging and taking part in Foyle and Belfast Prides achieved much more than standing on the sidelines shouting Leviticus.

Not all Christians feel obliged to 'subscribe' to the Westminster Confession, but every true Christian willingly assents to the divinely inspired teaching of the Bible. Any 'freethinking' outside of Scripture is not real Christianity.

I believe it was Luther who said: "My conscience is captive to the Word of God."

He had it right.

pastorphillip

So in effect, are you saying that a Christian cannot be a freethinker? If they're bound to follow a specific dogma, then any thought outside of that is wrong?

The Bible and the Word of God are not synonymous. One is a collection of writings and books written by people over a period of four thousands, the other is a supposed divinely inspired message given to mankind.

To restrict people to the specific translation and/or version of the bible you find most appealling is flawed.

pastorphilip,

Was there any free thinking involved in how the version of bible you use evolved through time, translation and interpretation?

Do you even truthfully know the answer to that question?

Are you saying that NSPCI are not true christians?

Who exactly are the true christians? are they only the modern bible literalists which would mean heaven is bereft of anyone until Luther (or even later)? Are they only the ones who go to your church?

First of all apologies for the change of name (again). Regulars will know who I am.

Second, I’ll record my respect for freedom of thought inside the church and outside of it and, as a member of PCI rather than a the Non-Subscribing PCI, I’ll also say that, while what we might call ‘Confessing’ documents can be useful, there should be no requirement for Christians to affirm them; pointers they may be, authoritative, they are not. In this sense I find myself in agreement with those described in William’s first paragraph, “..others because they opposed any creed taking the place of the Holy Bible.”

However having said that I must also take issue with Natman’s comments in post 4 to pastorphillip.

Natman, your first two sentences simply lack clarity. The point about some Christians is that they choose to identify themselves with the bible as the record of the activity of God. How you get from that to, “cannot be a freethinker”, I have no idea.

Second, “The Bible and the Word of God are not synonymous.” Again, quite simply, the historical position of many Christians is that they are. Disagree if you wish, but let’s be clear what you are disagreeing with.

Third, “One is a collection of writings and books written by people over a period of four thousands, the other is a supposed divinely inspired message given to mankind.” Again, no. There are so many questions which arise from that statement that I don’t know where to begin, but the point is that many Christians take the view that the writings “by people over a period of four thousands” were divinely inspired. And again, disagree if you wish, but, like it or not, that is the position some of us take. Perhaps you’re offering a Gnostic view, I don’t know.

Fourth, you missed something important. The point about the bible is that it directs our thinking ultimately to ‘Jesus’, the final ‘Word of God’. Yes, I know you might disagree, that’s OK, but there are those of us whose position is that Jesus is the central character of the biblical narrative.

Lastly, your last sentence is a change of argument; specific translations and/or versions have nothing to do with anything already said.

Dave

“Was there any free thinking involved in how the version of bible you use evolved through time, translation and interpretation?”

Interesting question. Current evangelical debate. I’d say it depends on your assumptions related to things like “free thinking” or “divine inspiration”. Some Reformed Evangelicals like Peter Enns have interesting things to say.

To Peter,
If Jesus is the central character of the biblical narrative,why do many Christians also read the Old Testament? If only Jesus is the true word of god then why read what any other person in the Bible writes unless it refers to Christ? Sorry for the questions I'm just curious. Are there any Christian sects that follow that sort of tradition?

Confessionalism is something I am generally supportive of and, just for the record, The Westminster Standards are a sublime manifestation of such.

Whatever else one might say about the Westminster Standards they fall broadly within the ecumenical creeds, an example of which is a shared Trinitarianism. Whereas a denial of Trinitarianism is a denial of the Christian faith.

Unitarian churches are not Christian in this historic sense of the word because they reject what the churches have confessed that Scripture teaches. They could have recourse to the Bible, as a Protestant I'm far from opposed to this kind of debate.

Yet why Christians would wish to join in celebrations for the founding of a Unitarian church is beyond me.

Peter,

Enns is interesting but his credentials as a Reformed theologian have taken a bit of beating following his removal from WTS for his views on inspiration and more recently his hooking up with Biologos to deny the historicity of Adam, I think the bodies of the covenants will lie close by.

Peterm2,

PastorPhillip said "Any 'freethinking' outside of Scripture is not real Christianity". If you apply strictures to the thinking, then it isn't free. How can you claim freethinking when it's not allowed to think outside of the scriptures? At best it's slightly-more-free-than-pure-dogma thinking.

"...the historical position of many Christians..."

So that won't be every christian then, so therefore, not synonymous. Every christian says Jesus was the son of god, that is synonymous.

"...many Christians take the view that the writings “by people over a period of four thousands” were divinely inspired..."

Again, that won't be every christian then, so therefore, not synonymous. A lot of christians believe some, if not most, of the bible is just that; historical writings.

"The point about the bible is that it directs our thinking ultimately to ‘Jesus’, the final ‘Word of God’."

So is the bible the word of god or not? Or is it Jesus? The last time I checked, Jesus wasn't a book. Or is there more than one word of god? If so, how do you know that you've got them all? Or that the ones you have are the only ones?

Now, I suspect the reply to all of this is that christians who don't believe the entire bible is the 'word of god', or that the bible and the word of god are not synonymous are not 'real' christians.

But that's purely subjective. No True Scotsman indeed.

I see that words aren't allowed to have meanings anymore, otherwise people might disagree over the meaning, showing that the meaning is meaningless.

Is that what you meant, Natman? Not that I'll understand what you're saying of course, because that would require your words to have definitions and... meaning.

@Ryan_ (7)

I'm not sure when Peter will have a chance to reply, so I hope neither of you mind me interjecting.

'If Jesus is the central character of the biblical narrative,why do many Christians also read the Old Testament?'

'The answer many Christians would give here is that Jesus (or at least YHWH, in whom Jesus is one person), is the central character of the OT. Certainly he is the character anticipated by the OT.

'If only Jesus is the true word of god then why read what any other person in the Bible writes unless it refers to Christ?'

There's a difference between being the final word of God and being the only true word of God. For instance, what God said to Moses was true, but the final word. God's revelation in the NT for instance is underpinned by what has already been revealed in the OT. Understanding prior revelation helps understand later revelation better. And in a sense, all revelation of God in some way relates to Christ.

'Sorry for the questions I'm just curious.'

Questions are generally the best way to get answers - keep on asking!

'Are there any Christian sects that follow that sort of tradition?'

There have been all manner of sects which have followed all manner of beliefs. For instance, there have been people who removed anything from the Bible that didn't explicitly mention Christ. They've never had much a lasting following, although the ideas do arise again from time to time.

@Andrew (8)

While I agree with much of what you've said, it's not entirely accurate to call it a unitarian denomination. Many congregations and ministers would be unitarians, but not all. I can think of at least one minister in the denomination who would pretty much agree with the WCF, but doesn't think that Christians should have to sign a creed, therefore he won't sign up. Doesn't make him a theological liberal.

Ryan (no need to apologise)


“why do many Christians also read the Old Testament?”

All sorts of reasons, here are a few:

Jesus quoted it and interpreted it
Jesus lived in the context of the ‘Old Testament’ community.
The New Testament, generally, quotes it.
Jesus is recorded as saying, “You (Old Testament teachers) diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me...” The ‘Scriptures’ in question were what we refer to as the Old Testament.
Luke records, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he (Jesus) explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
The book of Hebrews is set in the context of Jesus being the point of the Old Testament.


“If only Jesus is the true word of god then why read what any other person in the Bible writes unless it refers to Christ?”

The points above more or less deal with this question too.


“Are there any Christian sects that follow that sort of tradition?”

Yes! The Presbyterian sect, the Church of England sect the Church of Ireland sect and many other such sects all over the world claim to follow this tradition of Jesus being the central character of the biblical narrative!! :-)

Andrew, thanks for your comments. I imagine that we might be in broad agreement about many things.

Couple of responses though.

From my experience, while the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church is popularly called ‘Unitarian’, not all members are such. And, of course, they don’t have a ‘Confession’ stating such! I’m just saying we need to be careful.


Likewise on Enns, I’m not up to date or familiar with the whole affair, but (warning, cheeky thought coming up!) I wouldn’t be so sure that removal from WTS on it’s own would call his credentials into question!! Perhaps he is on a journey away from historical Christian statements but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from him; nor does it mean that we should continue to ‘remove’ such people from our colleges and/or our ‘fellowship.’ There are lots of other basic, practical, pastoral and community issues that our churches need to sort out. If I might refer to an historic statement, we’re not saved by ‘doctrine alone’!

Hi Jonathan

I wasn't aware of that. I think the other side holds up though; confessionally Trinitarian denominations celebrating a denomination where unitarianism is accepted as legitimate exegesis is really very badly inconsistent. That goes for individuals' as well, given the importance of the doctrine of God for both biblical and systematic theology.

Thanks Peter
I guess I meant do any Christian sects only follow the New Testament and trim down the New Testament to only those elements that directly relate to Jesus? But I guess as you say, alot of the other stuff like the Book of Hebrews, is in the context of Jesus being the prophet the Old Testament alludes to.

Hi Peter

I take your point on the denomination; see my response to Jonathan for some further thoughts on this.

To be honest I don't have much time for Enns, I will read him and I might learn from him but he is not a priority at the moment.

Do remember, though, WTS is a confessional seminary; so if a professor denies a confessional doctrine then it is appropriate to remove him if they refuse to recant. And this must reflect on that professor's commitment to the Reformed confession.

This is to say nothing of Enns personally, his faith in Christ, or anything like that. The question is whether his work is faithful to the Reformed confession and given his developing views on scripture I suspect, as you suggest, he will move further from it. His work with Biologos is just further evidence.

There are some good works from within the Reformed Tradition on Scripture recently published which I would point people to before I would point them to Enns. For instance, Greg Beale’s recent work ‘The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism’ is essentially a response to Enns. It is no accident that Beale has moved from Wheaton College to WTS in Enns place either.

Anyhow I’ll stop droning on.

Jonathan/Peter

Is the bible inerrant?
Is it literally true?
Which version?
Who decides?

Andrew
Thanks for the Biologos pointer

Natman

First of all pastorphillip put the word 'freethinking' in quotes; he basically means that we learn about Jesus from the bible. Even the most liberal Christians refer to the Jesus of the bible. So maybe we have to define what you mean by 'freethinking'/'freethinker'. You will notice William's use of the hyphenated 'free-thinking' in "free-thinking Christians" which makes 'free-thinking' an adjective and may bring a different meaning than the one you have in mind. Perhaps it was a play on words. (A useful device!) As I said, there's a lack of clarity here.

Then,

I said

"...the historical position of many Christians..."

You reply:

“Again, that won't be every christian then,”

Correct, that’s why I said ‘many’.

“so therefore, not synonymous” (Remember you first said, “The *Bible* and the *Word of God* are not *synonymous*.” and then made a contrast - post 4)

No. It simply means that the are different people calling themselves Christians who have different views. Perhaps I’m the one who is wrong about the bible being the word of God, but disagreement says nothing about the bible being or not being synonymous with the word of God.

“A lot of christians believe some, if not most, of the bible is just that; historical writings.”

Correct.

I said (you quote me)

"The point about the bible is that it directs our thinking ultimately to ‘Jesus’, the final ‘Word of God’.

And you respond:

“So is the bible the word of god or not? Or is it Jesus?”

Those questions do not follow my comment.

“The last time I checked, Jesus wasn't a book."

Correct.

“Or is there more than one word of god?”

No

Then you say:

“Now, I suspect the reply to all of this is that christians who don't believe the entire bible is the 'word of god', or that the bible and the word of god are not synonymous are not 'real' christians.

Nope.


One more thing,

“If you apply strictures to the thinking, then it isn't free.”

I usually apply the strictures of language to my thinking.

Jonathan/Peter

If your thinking is restricted by religion, then it's not free.

End of.

You cannot have a free-thinking religious adherant. Unless you're prepared to accept that your god can be wrong.

OK, Natman, if you say so. Sounds very authoritative though.


BTW, that was a quick read!! :-)




Paul


Is the bible inerrant?

I'll say yes. It speaks truly about God and people. (but I'm not sure how you are defining inerrant. I can only assume you mean something different to 'literal'. Or maybe you're weighting the question, don't know)


Is it literally true?

Not all of it. A lot of that boils down to genre.


Which version?

I read pretty much any version that comes my way.


Who decides?

The church (the Old Testament Church and the New Testament Church) And yes, there are some disagreements.

Peterm2,

You disagree? You believe that it's possible to be classed as a free-thinker and yet hold to the rigid beliefs of a religion?

That's a cunning paradox. Please explain it!

I read a bit about Rev. Chris Hudson. He seems to embody all the best elements of Religion setting a good example. It amazes me that Pastorphilip doesn't even regard the NSPCI as true Christians. The Rev Hudson seems to be a perfect role model for the christian faith

@Natman (20)

'If your thinking is restricted by religion, then it's not free.

End of.

You cannot have a free-thinking religious adherant. Unless you're prepared to accept that your god can be wrong.'

Isn't that a rather restrictive way to think about it?

@paul james (18)

'Is the bible inerrant?'

Yes. It is the authoritative, truthful revelation of God to man concerning the way of salvation and life with God.

'Is it literally true?'

It's true according to the genre in which it is written i.e. there is a recognised difference between the kind of truth intended by historical narrative and poetry.

'Which version?'

The autographs definitely. Due to the complexities of translation, there are going to be limitations to every version we have access to - to a certain extent you have to sacrifice some degree of meaning when you cross languages and a bit more in order to be readable. There's always going to be a degree of interpretation involved in individual passages, but in responsible translations, the overall effect, particularly on the major doctrines which draw on many parts of the Bible, should be minimal. also take it on faith that God will ensure that his people have access to a sufficiently good source of revelation.

Most modern translations are good enough for most practical purposes and we have access to great Hebrew and Greek Bibles for those who are inclined to learn the languages and dig a little deeper.

'Who decides?'

God. A bit of a flippant answer, but that's what it boils down to. On a practical level, it's the Holy Spirit working through church councils to make decisions, along with applying the clear testimony of the Bible about itself, understood in the light of Christ's resurrection. Basically, there's a lot of church history in there. As Peter said, there has been some disagreement, but generally on peripheral matters that don't compromise the central doctrines of Christianity.

Natman

It would help if you'd just define what you mean by the word, something I tried to draw out in post 6.

If what you mean is 'not religious' then no, someone can't be 'not religious' and 'hold to the beliefs of a religion', but that's obvious and I wouldn't have though it needed to be stated.

I've a feeling though that that is not what you meant to imply. Hence the comment about lack of clarity. Maybe you mean something related to the philosophical viewpoint called Freethought, maybe you mean 'religious people don't think', maybe you mean, 'not accepting of authority', maybe you just mean 'independent minded', maybe you mean something else. At this stage I just don't know.

I wonder if Natman thinks that scientists can be free thinkers - after all, their thinking is bound by the scientific method.

The book of Hebrews, addressed to early Jewish converts to Christianity, begins with an astonishing claim:
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."

If this claim is true then there can be no real Christianity that does not fully endorse this. All that is written, from Matthew to Revelation, is in full accord with these words from Hebrews. How can anyone be so arrogant as to claim he is a Christian and yet reject the plain, contextual sense of these words. How so many, who would call themselves Christians, can suggest that they know better than the New Testament writers simply astonishes me.

"Thomas Andrews the noted Belfast shipbuilder of the Titanic"

The boat sank on its maiden vovage because of dodgy rivets to save a few bob Some example

Thanks for taking the time to post on the correct interpretation of the bible. I guess it doesn't leave much allegorical wiggle room then.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Hi Paul,If that's your opinion of the God of the Old Testament then I wonder what you think of mankind in the Old Testament.
It would be good to think about that first maybe!

A christian, who's also a freethinker?

Okay then;

The bible is not true. Discuss.

The non-christian - "Possible, there's factual errors within it and several of the passages contain contradictory information."

The christian - "Impossible, the bible is true. Any possible evidence to the contrary is wrong."

A theist/religous adherant/believer is bound by their beliefs, anything else must be weighed against that, and if found to contradict it, must be discarded.

Scientists are not limited by the scientific method, but it's a method that works and no better alternative has been found.

Theists are not always bound by a sense of blind faith.
How can you prove the Bible is not true?

Sorry, I would be pleased for you to list the contradictions.

How can I prove the bible is not true? Simple, no one has proven that it is.

I'm not the one claiming something here, people who claim the bible is true are.

It is impossible to prove a negative. Once the evidence is in for bible truth, -then- I can (attempt) to disprove it.

Newthornley,

There's this amazing invention called the 'internet'. Use a good search engine, such as Google, and have a look for a list of contradictions. There's a lot of them.

Natman

As you say, contradictions are a useful way to tell if something is 'true'.

On the one hand you say...

"How can I prove the bible is not true? Simple, no one has proven that it is."

On the other...

"I'm not the one claiming something here, people who claim the bible is true are."

In the first sentence you are claiming the Bible is not 'true' and in the next you say you are not making any claims about the Bible or otherwise. This seems to me to be a contradiction.

You go on to say, and I do love this, "It is impossible to prove a negative." Since that statement is itself a negative can you or can you not prove it to be 'true'?

This is nearly as bad as a Proverbs 26 v 4-5;

'Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.'

Perhaps when you’re done caricaturing what Christians' believe and failing to knock down even strawmen you might engage more seriously with conservative Christian scholarship on the doctrine of inspiration. As it is, given the contradictions, I just can't believe a word you say.

Natman

Boyz-a-dear.



Andrew

Meant to say last night, you're not 'droning on'.

Newthornley
"If that's your opinion of the God of the Old Testament then I wonder what you think of mankind in the Old Testament"

Mankind before being obliterated in the flood? The inhabitants of the cities of the plain before incineration? the Egyptian first-born children? The Canaanites or Amalekites?
Nice.

Natman,I would ask you what the contradictions are. Let me know what, you personally, have a problem with.

Paul,I'm glad you gave me some references but now I would like you to go back and take a look at why these things happened to these people. The reason is very important Paul.

Post# 38, I agree ,as an outsider to organised religion, the Old Testament seems to be a pretty brutal book. It shows a people trying to come to terms with natural disasters and warring tribes and ascribing it to God. Whether they were pleasing God or enraging him.

How exactly does this play into the modern world. Are you going to ascribe the Irish Potato famine & the blight that affected the Potato to God?, or the disaster in Haiti? And how exactly would the *knowledge* in the Old Testament filter down to explain World War 2? Where Jewish people were being exterminated, cities & innocent people were being bombed all over Europe and the Roman Catholic Church was complicit with the Nazi's. Not to mention the holocaust in Yugoslavia & helping Nazi's to escape to South America after the war. This was supposedly a more religious age but conservative Christians in Germany, Austria & Italy had no difficulty in embracing the Nazis, or Mussolini's fascists as an active political ideology furthering their christian beliefs.
So in the lifetime of many peoples parents- Christians,Roman Catholics in particular, have not only disrespected the Old Testament but trodden all over it and could be regarded as no better than the Amelekites if you take the Old Testament literally.
To quote wiki

"Of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) followed by Orthodox Jews, three refer to the Amalek: to remember what the Amalekites did to Jews, to not forget what the Amalekites did to Jews, and to destroy the Amalekites utterly. The rabbis derived these from Deuteronomy 25:17-18, Exodus 17:14 and 1 Sam. 15:3".

Secular Humanismism is a much stronger safeguard as a structure to all members of society against these kind of atrocities. It is an Intellectual(thinking) and logical response borne out of the dangers conservative religion has bestowed on countless people and countries who are more recepetive to their religious predjudices and fears being exploited

The Old Testament really has nothing to do with Christianity. It's a Jewish book. If Christians believe the Old Testament should be taken litereally and not just as backgroud reading- regarding it infact as a Holy Book- they should be referred to as Judeo-Christians. Not Christians. It's insulting that Jews therefore have been so badly treated by Christians through the ages, when Christians revere & pray to a Jewish book.

Humans clearly don't deserve Religion, They have no place using it to disciminate or use it to further their own aims. It's insulting to see people here quote the Bible.

A couple of points.

First, when it comes to wrath the New Testament outstrips the Old by a country mile; the doctrine of endless punishment is ramped up significantly in the New Testament and the only reason people think the Old Testament is worse is because they don't believe in hell.

Second, and this has more to do with a point Ryan made, the Old Testament has lots to do with Christianity; Marcionism, the view that the New is opposed to the Old Testament, was condemned as heresy way back when. Just the relationship between the Old and New Testament is a point for debate; as a Presbyterian of sorts, I hold to Covenant Theology, which, if anyone can remember the OP, is a prominent feature of the Westminster Standards.

Ryan

Earlier on in this thread you asked (among other things) why Christians might read the Old Testament, and stated, “Sorry for the questions I'm just curious.” #7

Now you seem to have quite (and I quite understand why) strong views about the Old Testament, the God of the Old Testament, Christianity and its links to the Old Testament. To be honest, I find that curious.

However, I’ll offer something of a response. For all sorts of reasons it cannot be exhaustive: partly time, partly the fact that you have made a number of assumptions which might need to be discussed all on their own, partly because I agree with some of what you have said, partly because on an emotional level I empathise with some of what you have said and partly because I am unclear about some of your comments, for example, the reference to the Amalekite and Christians and the mitzvot - I’m not sure what your point is.

But a few comments anyway.

None of this actually matters if there is no God. Period. A bigger problem, however, is, if there is a God, why on earth (quite literally) is there any suffering at all. On this point we don’t even need to get specific; if there is a God, *any* kind of suffering is a problem. The above quote (from Richard Dawkins incidentally), one I have heard quoted in church (!), is wonderful rhetoric, but lets face it, why should God allow even a scratched finger? And, don’t all of us face death? Isn’t this objectionable?

And that brings me to my next thought, even if we do away with God and religion, we still have suffering, all kinds of suffering. Do away with God and the problem of suffering remains. Do away with God and people still die because of money, power and greed. There are all kinds of suffering and not all of them are caused by religion. And, and this is important, people have already suffered and died in the most terrible of circumstances without seeing any improvement in their lives.

And so when you say that “Secular Humanismism is a much stronger safeguard as a structure to all members of society against these kind of atrocities,” I might respond this way. First of all, as a Christian, I’ll say that there is alot about secular humanism which is good. Secular humanism values human beings, that is good. It demonstrates compassion, kindness, and seeks people’s good. In being secular it is concerned with the here and now, again good; indeed I’ll also say that too many Christians are not concerned enough with here and now. So I hope you understand that I’m not out to bash Secular Humanism. However we still have a problem; whatever good humanism can do today and tomorrow, it is already too late for some. Some have already died without fairness and some will continue to suffer and die without fairness; perhaps those people might be known to us; perhaps they might be you or me. And worse still, some might miss out on what is fair because of my actions: those who stitch my clothes, those who pick my coffee, those who make the charcoal for my barbeque. What then? What is our ‘philosophy’ then? That they drew a short straw? What do we do about the centuries old human cry for fairness? And, if there is no God, if ‘we’ are all there is, if the past is gone, any reference to the ‘Amalekites’ looses it potency. At best all we can say is, look at the terrible deeds committed by our fellow human beings in the name of a misguided human idea. What we cannot do is bring justice to the many victims throughout history.

I do hope you understand that in no way do I seek to avoid the problem of suffering or, God caused suffering, but blaming God won’t make it go away.

And then, as Andrew alludes to, the God of the Old Testament is the God some call Jesus.

Hello natman,

I think post 34 is a bit sloppy and you do leave room for some criticisms in it. Most of it could probably all be fixed by clarifying a little what is formally correct language and what is everyday speak.

"How can I prove the bible is not true? Simple, no one has proven that it is."

No one has presented convincing evidence that the bible is true, but that doesn't make it false. Half a millennium ago no one had presented evidence for many of the things we know today. That didn't make them false. We just didn't know yet.

So formally your line is wrong. Although in everyday speak we often don't make these reservations for ideas that are silly but not proven wrong for sure. People will happily say that Bertrand Russells teapot is not circling the sun. Even when it hasn't been shown that it isn't.
So keeping the two ways of speaking apart is all that is needed to fix it.

"I'm not the one claiming something here, people who claim the bible is true are."

Your claim that it is false is indeed a claim. For some parts of the bible that claim can be easily substantiated (dependent on if it as read as being literally true etc). For others it is much harder or even impossible. Rather close to your position would be a statement saying you have not seen anything convincing presented to make you think all of it is true. That would be an easily defended position.

"It is impossible to prove a negative. Once the evidence is in for bible truth, -then- I can (attempt) to disprove it."

Sometimes proving a negative is possible. For other cases it isn't.

Overall, I think your post did contain a few problems, but none that could not be fixed through minor adjustments.

Peter, you misconstrued that original question to you. That's why I had to redefine it a second time, but you didn't respond. Which is fair enough.We all have to manage our use of time. It's up to me to research things i want to know more about, rather than just ask.

The Amalekites & mitzvot point shows the Old Testament is dealing with Jewish history and Jewish answers to difficult Jewish events. By taking ownership of the book as holy, you take responsability for respecting and worshiping the Jewish Faith side of pre-Christianity. The Mitzvot point is relevant as some Rabbi's attach not only metaphorical association of Hitler and the Nazi's as Amalekites but some also infer a lineage.

Quote "A prominent 19th and early 20th century rabbi, Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, claimed upon Kaiser Wilhelm's visit to Palestine in 1898, three decades before Hitler's rise to power, he had a tradition from his teachers that the Germans are descended from the ancient Amalekites."

As the Pope was a Nazi, as well as German , does that not make him at odds with the literal & metaphorical word of those relevant parts of the Old Testament. It would make him an enemy of one of the holy books he represents.

When I say ,Secular Humanism has a place in the structures that make a society work. I think it has a better chance of offering greater fairness to more people. I don't claim to be a secularist.I don't blame God or rationalise things that happen in the world in relation to God having an active hand in things. I do believe in good and evil and think evil sometimes can be dressed up like a wolf in sheeps clothing. I think religion is a personal & private matter and should be kept out of public bodies, like education, health , social & family planning.

I would class myself as being spiritual/religious & believe in God. I see the need and understand why religion has a place in peoples lives. I don't agree in representatives of organised religions bringing their beliefs into the public realm. Points are often made, backed up with religious dogma that is often very offensive and predjudiced to those outside of their religious attachment.

@Ryan_ (44)

Do you mind me asking a couple of questions to better understand where you're coming from?

1) Why do you think religion is purely a personal/private matter?
2) What do you believe about God and how he relates to people?
3) Do you think it's wrong for people to share information with others that could help them, if the others find it offensive? I would assume so from what you've said, but just want to check. If so, does there come a point where the vale of the help exceeds the offence of speaking, or is it universally wrong?

Ryan - you seem to oppose Christianity and Judaism as if they were different and wholly incompatible religions. There is no need to do so. Christianity originated in one of a number of first century Jewish sects: it began as a movement within Judaism and grew as simply a continuation and development of Hebrew monotheism. Christianity can then be seen a just a particular from of Judaism and Christians as entitled to lay claim to the Hebrew Bible as any Jew.

It is possible to see the Bible as an entirely human construction of dubious historicity yet immense value as a record of man's quest to connect with something capable of giving meaning to problematical existence. When one has such a view the mistakes of our ancestors (some of mine were probably Jewish) can be just as instructive as their insights.

This Christian finds just about as much of interest and value in what we call the Old Testament as there is in the New.

Here's a thing then.

From a neutral point of view, the bible is simply a book. Nothing more. No supernatural claims of authorship, no claims of inerrancy, no claims of complete literary truthfulness. That is a default position, to claim otherwise is folly, as it implies a point of view that is definately -not- neutral.

The Christians claim it is the Word of God, a divinely inspired manuscript beyond reproach.

It is their job to prove their case before I can refute any claims they make.

You cannot accuse me of having a claim when my 'claim' is simply stating that the god-inspired 'truth' of the bible hasn't been proven yet.

All the question dodging in the world cannot hide the fact that the bible is nothing more than a book, written by men.

Parrhasios

"...something capable of giving meaning to problematical existence."

I really can't resist!

Do I detect just a smidgen of a shift?!

Or have I misread you, previously?



Ryan

Later

Natman

Let's say I can *prove* the bible is the Word of God (I have never suggested I can), but if so *proved*, can you explain to me how you will go about *refuting* this.

Please go back and read what PeterK has said. He is an atheist and though I am a Christian it is important to acknowledge that what he has said is helpful.

Peter is not convinced by the bible, I am (I am not always comfortable with what I read but I have come to the point where I take it seriously); this gives us a basis for communication, for agreement or disagreement, for banter, for argument and counter argument, and I'd be happy to travel that road with you too.

Natman

'You cannot accuse me of having a claim when my 'claim' is simply stating that the god-inspired 'truth' of the bible hasn't been proven yet.'

Actually that's not what you said in 34. I'll repeat it to save you scrolling: 'How can I prove the bible is not true? Simple, no one has proven that it is.'

Here you seem to be saying that 'the Bible is not true' because it has not been 'proven' to be true. Apart from the fact the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, you made the claim that 'the Bible is not true'.

It is your right, of course, to alter your position but do admit you have changed it or you misspoke or whatever. This would be a better strategy than trying to cover your blunders with sleight of hand.

Several of your latest claims are also demonstrably false but we will get to that when you clarify your position re the points above.

Peter - possibly neither!

Through the ages and to this day mankind has sought to find something which can give some degree of meaning to our experience of existence. The Bible, I was saying, is an account of one particular development of that search. I acknowledged, in the post above, the quest - not the meaning!

I owe you and Eunice an explication of what I mean by meaning but this is not going to be it! I do, however, believe that meaning does not inhere in existence, it is something we bring to it. I consider existence essentially meaningless but, personally, I find in Christ what I can see as a solid ground, a base, a cornerstone on which to build. I can say (or sing) that "in the death of Christ I live" and hear meaning after meaning resonate in the words.

Andrew,

I sense you are playing with words.

In order to have facts and truth you need proof or evidence. It is not necessary to have proof if there is no assertion of truth, in fact truth fails where there is no proof to support it.

Therefore truth is always the assertion or claim and when it cannot be supported by proof it fails and becomes false.

Its a bit like innocent until proven guilty, if you assert guilt you must provide proof, if you have no proof then innocence is what you are left with it requires no assertion of innocence nor proof of innocence.

Your way of looking at it would have everything as true until it could be proved false, all hail Pastafaria.

@Peter M 42

It seems to me you are close to saying that believing in god is necessary because to face the consequence of unbelief is simply too much to bear. That in the absence of compelling evidence either way it is better to believe because at least then we can console ourselves that the terrible suffering of innocents is ameliorated in the afterlife.

I look at it differently. As you rightly say, do away with god and religion and suffering remains. But the dismissive, mealy mouthed cop outs I've heard over the years in the face of the suffering of others are swept away: It is god's will. He moves in mysterious ways. It is just his luck. They will go somewhere better. They will receive reward in the next life...

I know this is all opium of the people stuff, but it seems to me that although there might be some cute babies thrown out with the bathwater of religion if everyone finally come to their senses, this isn't one of them.

Newthorneley
but now I would like you to go back and take a look at why these things happened to these people. The reason is very important

Every living thing on the earth shall die, (except for Noah and his zoo obviously) because the human imagination is evil. Luckily for us he promises never to lose his cool again because you guessed it, human imagination is evil. Don't mess with this psychokiller guys!

Right, to be clear, my views on religion come from having an interest in them. Parrhasios, my views are pretty much how you write post #46. However my words are interpreted- they should be seen only in the context of those who take the entire Bible , Old Testament and New Testament as being completely literal in their entirety.

Jonathan Boyd,
1- Religion is a private matter in the spiritual sense. Religious beliefs are able to transcend logic and are many peoples soft underbelly,giving those who wish , easy access to manipulate and distort reason in the name of religion.Time and again you see those in religious authority act recklessly with their responsability. However, there are good examples of the public face of religious sects, such as the Salvation Army and Quakers, and there are good people in all religions who represent a godly example, not just one religion or one sect of one religion!


2.I believe God created everything around us and that people are inherantly good if given the right support and motivation. I believe God sets the world as a task for us,and every creature- to evolve through time into something better than what we are. That God speaks to us through positive rolemodels and acts of kindness, love,support and acceptance of others.Many religions promote themselves as the only way to salvation/eternal life. The by-product of this encourages a contempt for another human being of different faith. This is a human failing and shouldn't be part of any religious message

3. I think any message that promotes co-operation, respect for yourself and others, harmony, passivism, love, empathy should be shared.It doesn't need to be in the context of doom , gloom, instilling fear or wrath. Religion should allow everyone to operate to the best of their ability while being aware of their responsability to the environment & impact on it & others .To be inclusive enough to allow any human acceptance who only wishes to do good and act with love , dignity and care- whether they are white, black, pink, orange, gay, straight or transgender.

Orientation, nationality or race should never be a reason to discriminate, hate or reject, yet religion often acts as the acceptable face of this

Parrhasios #46- To re-iterate my feelings on Judaism and Christianity. I would happily view myself as Judeo-Christian in a cultural sense, but will never take the word of the Bible as literal.

It should be seen in the context it was written - humans who feel helpless in their environment. Trying their best to please God and ingratiate themselves in order to feel they'd some leverage in controlling their environment by performing actions that would be deemed favourable by God.

As you say in post# 51 "I find in Christ what I can see as a solid ground, a base, a cornerstone on which to build."
I relate to that, Jesus is a rolemodel whose essense (I feel) is somehow corrupted by the fear, helplessness and resulting cruelty that permeate through other elements of the holy books. The holy books are written by humans for humans and, to me, therefore are riddled with human failings

Ryan,

If all believers held to some of the things you said in post 44 then I think most outspoken atheists would lose their interest in being outspoken atheists. Hear, hear.

natman, post 47,

I think Andrew has it right (I disagree with Dave that he is playing with words), the line he quotes from you in post 50 does seem impossible to support. An adjustment of it by you would seem to be in order.

PeterKlaver,

If all believers held to some of the things you said in post 44 then I think most outspoken atheists would lose their interest in being outspoken atheists.

I pretty much agree with you here, I have continually said that I don't care what people believe and it is everyone's right to believe and to be free to live within that belief as long as that does not impact or attempt to interfere with other people rights to do the same.

On the claim stuff, I look at it very simply, nothing exists without proof. That is not a claim it is a recognition of the baseline from which we operate. As soon as you deviate from nothing exists then you need to provide proof or evidence. If you cannot provide proof or evidence then your claim fails and we revert to the does not exist baseline. At the moment, without proof, religion falls into that category.

However, if paragraph one was the way everyone behaved, It would have no concern to me.

Hello Dave,

Sorry, but it's a firm 'no' on your paragraph starting 'On the claim stuff,....'. Without evidence there is no basis for claims. There is no reason to assume there is something. But that is not the same as saying with certainty that it isn't there.

A counter example is probably the easiest way to demonstrate why that is so.

Imagine the ancient Chinese looking at the sky at night. They did that a lot, they have accurate records dating back for literally ages. They saw loads and loads of stars with the naked eye. Even some planets and the occasional meteor passing by. But what they saw was an almost infinitely small portion of the stars and planets out there. We just needed the Hubble and James Webb space based telescopes to see more.
According to your reasoning, the ancient Chinese could have rightfully claimed there were only the stars they could see with the naked eye and more didn't exist. That is just not so. Just because there is no evidence for something yet, is no proof that it doesn't exist.

Or more shortly, as the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

How can I prove the bible is not true? Simple, no one has proven that it is.
How can I prove the bible is not true? Simple, no one has proven that it is.

I can repeat that ad nauseum.

"Here you seem to be saying that 'the Bible is not true' because it has not been 'proven' to be true. Apart from the fact the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, you made the claim that 'the Bible is not true'.

Something cannot be viewed as 'truth' (whatever meaning you want to attach to that) until it has been proven so. My claim might not be true, fair enough. However, the bible is either true, or it isn't, there's no middle ground. So for my claim to fail all you have to do is prove the 'truth' of the bible.

Did I miss something? Has someone proven the validity and integrity of the bible since I last looked?

Stop evading the issue. Whilst christians maintain that the bible is 100% true and a clear guide as to how they live (and think!) then they cannot claim to be free thinkers.

"Just because there is no evidence for something yet, is no proof that it doesn't exist."

Faires, Santa Claus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible pink unicorns, Russell's teapot, etc, etc.

Natman,

"How can I prove the bible is not true? Simple, no one has proven that it is.
How can I prove the bible is not true? Simple, no one has proven that it is.

I can repeat that ad nauseum."

I'll bet you could repeat that ad nauseum, your impersonation of a christian fundie is indeed worryingly good, dimhead. Well done on the bold font, points earned. Though you missed out on the overly heavy use of capitals. You're going to get anywhere if you don't spell lots of words with capitals to try to give them that extra gravitas. Could have done with a few exclamation marks as well, so you do still have some way to go.

Everybody, this could be terrific fun. I don't recall having an atheist fundie on W&T before who is scared out his pants to concede even a small mistake he made, in the same way that a christian fundie can not handle the fact that the bible contains errors if read for what it says.

I'm drooling over the idea what this could lead to. We've never had atheists go at each other anything close to the way christians have done (remember that terrific time we had during the Whitewell threads!). I see awesome potential here.

No games here just holding Natman to his words.

Natman

So far my aim has been quite modest, and I hope it will remain modest; in other words, I'll try again.

In post 34 you have made the claims that the Bible is not true. Yet In the same post you insisted you were not making any 'claims' about the Bible and you repeated that again in post 47. What I have said, and I do believe this to be modest, is that you should correct the contradictions I have noted - lets not forget the other clanger, 'it is impossible to prove a negative'. In refusing to do this you are showing yourself to be either an inept or dishonest interlocutor.

Instead you repeat yourself, for what feels like ad nauseam. And now you tell me that you haven't yet begun to go on ad nauseam I'm disappointed, I thought I'd been through the first wheel of eternity! John Newton has not yet completed 300 years of singing God's praise and I already feel like I've surpassed him in both time and words.

Some other points are also needed.

I'm not evading the 'free thinking' issue simply because I said nothing about 'free thinking' one way or the other. But for the record, I don't find it to be a useful category. At any rate, it's probably better to try 'thinking' first. If you don't like thinking then try 'free thinking'.

Second, you keep demanding 'proof' that the 'Bible is true', again I didn't make this claim, but for some odd reason you feel exempt from the requirement yourself. Why should I believe anything you say? I have already pointed out two separate contradictions in your previous posts, contradictions according to you invalidate testimony and don't forget there's no middle way! Further, you throw the word proof about as if we should all know what you're talking about; we don't. Do you mean logical proof, empirical proof or what? What counts as knowledge, do you demand epistemic certainty? Maybe you spent some time huddled up with Descartes in his shack, no wonder you find 'free thought' so appealing; I'm not claustrophobic but I could imagine you would like out after a while.

One final thing, I agree with PeterK; you need to distinguish between believing a proposition to be true and the proposition itself. Truth is not contingent on our proving it - until a few days ago I knew nothing of 'natman' but now I'm not so sure, maybe he does exist after all.

I'm impressed that Andrew and PeterK seems to feel the need to evade the questions and instead drop down to ad hominem attacks, well played you two.

I didn't make a 'mistake', I addressed that in my previous post, my claim can stand for as long as the bible remains unproven.

As this is a free thinking thread, I'll keep raising it, as it was my original post. I made the statement that you cannot be a free thinker if you hold the bible to be a divine truth that cannot be held false.

It was Andrew who then claimed "how do you know the bible isn't true?" to which I simply attempted to point out that until it's proven true, it cannot be assumed true, and as the bible is black and white, if it's not true, it's false.

I'd like PeterK to point out my 'mistake', and I'd like Andrew to admit that the bible hasn't been proven to be true. It's not upto me to try and prove the invalidity of the bible when in 2000 years it's validity in the first place hasn't even been established!

"He's guilty your honour."
"How do you know?"
"Because it hasn't been shown that he isn't."
"So be it. Guilty! Until it can be proven that he's innocent!

Or to put in other words
"The bible is true."
"How do you know?"
"Because it hasn't been shown that it isn't."
"Then we must accept it as being true! Free thinking for all!"

Natman

As I was the one who, in post 6, originally queried your use of the word, ‘freethinker’ and, in other later posts, sought to clarify your use of the word, perhaps I should respond on that point.

In passing, however, I’ll also say that we seem to be having something of a problem with words on this thread, and I don’t mean the ‘words of God’, I just mean the squiggles appearing on our screen. But, problems with ‘proof’ and the rest aside, let’s go back to that freethinker thing.

Back in post 6 I suggested, “your first two sentences simply lack clarity.” in response to your, “So in effect, are you saying that a Christian cannot be a freethinker?” post 4. (Which I read as a rhetorical question)

In response to this you then stated, in post 9, “If you apply strictures to the thinking, then it isn't free." and you linked this directly to ‘freethinking’.

There then followed, in posts 19 and 25, an attempt by me to discuss the possible ways in which the word freethinker might be used and seek clarity from you as to how you were using it. And, as the conversation progressed, your comments about religion and freethinking seemed to become more assertive: ”If your thinking is restricted by religion, then it's not free.”, “You cannot have a free-thinking religious adherant.” (post 20) And, in post 22, ”That's a cunning paradox. Please explain it!”

Then, in my post 25, I said, “If what you mean (by freethinker) is 'not religious' then no, someone can't be 'not religious' and 'hold to the beliefs of a religion'...”, which I though was pretty clear and wasn’t avoiding the issue. There then followed a number of exchanges between various people about proof, premises, negatives, and all the rest. These latter I will leave PeterK and Andrew to deal with; just bear in mind that one is a Christian and one is and Atheist and on this point they are, with good reason, in agreement.

Now surely you will recognise that I’m more than willing to deal with your issue, the latest version of which appears in post 60, ”Whilst Christians maintain that the bible is 100% true and a clear guide as to how they live (and think!) then they cannot claim to be free thinkers.” However having recapped all of our conversation to date I still find myself in the position where I have to ask, what do you mean by ‘freethinker’? I’ve given a number of options in post 25 and a related answer, but if you’re looking for something more, or different, then you are going to have to explain where I’m going wrong in understanding you.

If we are going to converse about ‘freethinking’ and ‘freethinkers’ then each of us is going to have to know what we mean by the word, because, at the moment, as Andrew has said, it is not a 'useful category'.

And please remember my answer in post 25.

And I finish with a question. Can you envisage any set of circumstances in which 'clear guides', or 'strictures' or 'being bound' by something might provide the context for freedom? A context in which a lack of guidance hinders freedom?

grokesx #53

I have seen and read your comments and your reasonable questions; I will get back, maybe tomorrow.



Ryan #44

I guess I’m still misunderstanding your original question, still thinking that the curiosity referred to the initial 3 questions and my misunderstanding was related to the last regarding ‘sects’.


By taking ownership of the OT, yes, we respect the Jewish side of pre-Christianity; perhaps I could say the Jewishness of Christianity, how could I not, Jesus is a Jew. What we can’t be responsible for is the ongoing interpretation of that book by others. And yes, there are many people who act in a way which is contrary to stated beliefs, but I’m still missing the relevance of your comments to an understanding of continuity between Old and New Testaments. What some of us are saying is that the continuity is Jesus and I’d expect the Rabbis to reject that.

Natman

"It was Andrew who then claimed "how do you know the bible isn't true?" to which I simply attempted to point out that until it's proven true"

I'd be interested to know where I said that. I haven't actually addressed the issue of whether the 'Bible is true'.

I'm addressing contradictions in your own argument. At present I'm not interested in what the words refer to, just that you have contradicted yourself. You could replace the word 'the Bible' with nearly any other, really; if imagination fails try 'P1'.

Peterm2,

A free thinker, or at least what I always envisaged a free thinker to be, is someone who is prepared to alter their views and concepts with changing circumstances or evidences.

If you hold to a religion, you are bound to the dogma and rituals that that religion demands. The concept that your religion or its theology might be wrong cannot be be broached as it is a sacrosant ideal. A ring fenced ideal. If you break from the dogma and ritual, then you cannot claim to be a part of that religion but at least your mind is then free to ponder concepts that beforehand were considered taboo.

A good example of this is the age of the universe. Once considered to be in the thousands of years, it's now almost definitively proven that it's in the order of many billions. A sizable section of religious adherants still cling to the dogma that the universe cannot be any older than what their religious texts tell them (or at least what they interpret their texts tell them). No one in that category can be considered to be a free thinker as they've refused to alter their ideas in the light of conclusive evidence.

Another example is that of some scientists who cling to old and out-dated scientific theories, despite the concensus of their peers that it's not that way anymore. This mindset is not limited to theological matters at all.

Some might see this as indecisive, or perhaps chaotic and random, that if you cannot hold fast to your ideals then you're lacking in some form of integrity, you'll simply chop and change what you believe easily. However, I've always held to the opinion that if you can argue your ideas well but are then prepared to alter them when it's shown you're wrong, that's more deserved of respect than those who cling to dogma regardless.

Andrew, you are right, you didn't say that and I've no idea why I thought you did, my apologies. I think I'm getting my threads crossed. I'm also beginning to think that this entire debate is semantical, unless I get irked again I'll not spam the comments anymore lest I get into swings and roundabouts.

Concerning freethinking...

I consider myself a 'freethinker', and the result of my 'freethinking' is that I am convinced by Christianity. That does not mean that I understand absolutely everything about my world view, just in the same way that an atheist cannot understand everything about reality in order to subscribe to his point of view. The fact that I acknowledge that there are difficulties with certain aspects of the Christian faith does not disqualify me from accepting this view of reality. The question is: how foundational are those difficulties?

There may be certain apparent contradictions in the Bible, but it is absurd to suggest that one should have to explain absolutely everything in order to epistemologically 'qualify' to be a Christian. Such a burden is never placed on the adherent of any other world view, and therefore it should not be placed on Christians.

I notice on this thread that the adjective 'rigid' has been used to describe religious beliefs. That's a rather loaded word. I think the number '4' is extremely 'rigid' as the sole and exclusive answer to the sum 2+2!! Could we not be a bit 'freer' in our understanding of 2+2? Why can't we loosen up a bit and sometimes give 5 or 6 as the answer to 2+2? I think I've made my point.

Any belief about reality is 'rigid'. Atheism is 'rigid'. Materialistic reductionism is 'rigid'. The word 'rigid' in this sense simply means 'exclusive' - i.e. that which excludes concepts which contradict it.

Am I prepared to believe that God could be wrong?

Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that I am prepared to question my world view, if evidence were forthcoming and convincing. I have yet to see such evidence.

No, in the sense that it is impossible to believe in a God who created my mind, and then use that mind to contradict its creator. As C.S. Lewis wrote concerning a line of the poet A.E. Housman ("Whatever brute and blackguard made the world"):

"If a brute and blackguard made the world, then he also made our minds. If he made our minds, he also made that very standard in them whereby we judge him to be a brute and a blackguard. And how can we trust a standard which comes from such a brutal and blackguardly source? If we reject him, we ought also to reject all his works. But one of his works is this very moral standard by which we reject him. If we accept this standard then we are really implying that he is not a brute and blackguard. If we reject him, then we have thrown away the only instrument by which we can condemn him. Heroic anti-theism thus has a contradiction in its centre. You must trust the universe in one respect even in order to condemn it in every other."

Therefore it is not possible to believe in God and judge him to be wrong. If I were to believe that God is wrong, then I would have to become an atheist. However, then I would have to subscribe to a materialistic world view, which tells me that my reason is merely the product of a mindless universe, and therefore is nothing more than a human characteristic. I cannot possibly trust such a concept of reason, since it has no objective basis, and the sense that we have that reason possesses objective validity is evidence that it cannot be merely human. I could say the same about our moral sense. I certainly couldn't be an agnostic, since I would still harbour the suspicion that the God I think was wrong could exist, and that idea is self-contradictory, as I have argued.

So, as a genuine freethinker I have to follow where logic leads me, and it leads me inexorably to God, who, being God, therefore cannot be wrong.

This has nothing to do with 'rigidity' or 'blind faith', but straightforward logic.

Helio (@ 1) -

"The Westminster confession of faith is a repulsive document..."

As a freethinker I totally reject the idea of predestination set out in the Westminster Confession. The idea that God has created some people for no other reason than to condemn them (whether deliberately or permissively) is one of the most repugnant and evil notions ever to enter the human mind.

At least Helio and I can find something to agree on!

I think that if you think you are free, and that makes me free too. But when we purchase our thoughts from Penguin, then we are not thinking but consuming.

Guys, it is simple. The bible is categorically not the word of god, but is the word of humans. Jesus is dead; the resurrection did not happen. Christianity is a human cultural invention.

These are all facts.

What in tarnation is so difficult about THAT?

#70 -

Thus speaketh ex cathedra the great, the sublime, the lofty, the highly exalted, (...come on, drum roll please...), his most incontrovertible haughtiness, the 'Apostle of the Great Omission' - a.k.a. conqueror of space pixies extraordinaire, emperor of the great land of mindlessness, omniscient metaphysician of the great nothingness.

I truly tremble when this mighty being deigns to reveal to us poor, wretched, confused underlings the great mysteries of the Realm of Oblivion, that blessed nirvana of nullifidianism, which we, confuddled as we are, blinded by our own weakness and wishful thinking, fail to espy. Oh, the self-imposed indigence of hope, purpose and a belief in an intelligent universe! Who will rescue us from our pitiful state? Of course! Our mighty hero - the hitch-hiker from Heliopolis!

(/sarcasm, satire, persiflage, tongue stuck firmly in buccal region)

"These are all facts."

Ha ha! I love the subtlety. Of course, I know that when you use the word 'facts' it's just an acronym for your own point of view, isn't it?

Fallacious
Aberrant
Confused
Tendentious
Spurious

I think Helio has a point. To say the Bible is man-made doesn't detract from believing in Jesus/Christianity. In fact it makes it easier. Things written that were used to scare people into believing can be seen as the writers attempt to imbue more meaning- make the message more powerful. But we don't need to interact in that way anymore. We have evolved ,especially in the past 200 yrs - precipitated by the Industrial Revolution, which grew out of a certain way of viewing the world- with a certain set of Christian values.If elements in Christianity brought us to this point in terms of technology, insulated from the elements with access to food then maybe another set of Christian values would create a less divisive dialogue spiritually to allow us to get along better as a species.

Humans are still too driven by control, dominance and retribution and unless a spiritual connection can be made that doesn't play into those human qualities then we are going to continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.

The weight of humanity isn't carried by Religious Leaders .It's carried by a tiny percentage of Scientists and Inventors on which we rely to further our civilisation.If by natural disaster or war it was taken away, how many here could create anything that we rely on from scratch,without our cars, washing machines, cookers, historical records we would be back to the stone age worshipping the sun.

If humans were more sensible and co-operative we could avoid war. Perhaps, along the same lines, we could advance civilisation to learn how to avert natural disasters

Early societies unlocked agriculture to feed and support the first cities in Eygpt & the Middle East through farming. The Industrial Revolution unlocked mechanical power to manufacture goods,so that Industry became the new agriculture. If a pre-christian belief system fed into Christianity, and Christianity built the modern world that pollinated other cultures to advance, then a free thinking world religion taking the best elements of all religions & human societies within a Christian framework might be the logical next step.

Guys, it is simple. The bible is categorically the word of god and the word of humans. Jesus is alive; the resurrection did happen. Christianity is of divine origin.

These are all facts.

What in tarnation is so difficult about THAT?

@Ryan_ (72)

'I think Helio has a point. To say the Bible is man-made doesn't detract from believing in Jesus/Christianity. In fact it makes it easier.'

Let's take two possibilities here:
1) The witness of the New Testament regarding Jesus is accurate. If this is the case, then Jesus claims to be God and authenticates the Bible as God's word, not merely man's.
2) The witness of the New Testament regarding Jesus is not accurate. Who then is there to believe in? You may as well say that you believe in King Arthur and take your values from Camelot.

Andrew,

Guys, it is simple. The bible is categorically the word of god and the word of humans. Jesus is alive; the resurrection did happen. Christianity is of divine origin.

These are all facts.

I'm sorry? Where's the proof of that? I'm fairly sure 4 billion adherants of the other religions and a sizable number of atheists might disagree with you.

Jonathan has it right on the head:
1) The witness of the New Testament regarding Jesus is accurate. If this is the case, then Jesus claims to be God and authenticates the Bible as God's word, not merely man's.
2) The witness of the New Testament regarding Jesus is not accurate. Who then is there to believe in? You may as well say that you believe in King Arthur and take your values from Camelot.

Option 1 here is a matter of faith, and if you don't believe it, then 2 is your only option.

Hi Natman

I thought you would find it compelling, no?

See post 70.

fact (n) (From Collins English Dictionary)
1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed,
2. a truth that can be proved from experience or observation,
3. a piece of information

Andrew,

According to the above definition, your statement in post #73 fits only definition number 3.

If you can better that, then you're profoundly more capable than all the theologians of the past 1500 years or so.

Natman

What do you think I was doing in #73?

If only the church had Collins English Dictionary on hand 1500 years ago theologians may have been able to defend the factuality of Scripture to your satisfaction by now. As it is, we must wait with bated breath.

To Jonathan Boyd
2) The witness of the New Testament regarding Jesus is not accurate. Who then is there to believe in? You may as well say that you believe in King Arthur and take your values from Camelot.

No. You look at the mindset that spurred the greatest technological/social leap of mankind. You notice that the reformation and Protestant work ethic changed peoples attitudes to how they lived their daily lives- how religion became less of a top down,Hierarchical relationship & people were taking responsability for their own beliefs, rather than what they were fed. You realise it's the flourishing of personal interpretations of Christianity along with religious tolerance that has been the biggest catalyst for our evolution to date

Philip Kitcher covered this. Many Christians are not belief-based but orientation-based. Religion is a human cultural artefact which we can use as we find appropriate.

LSV, that was quite good. Well done. But why do you think that I have this almighty authority, yet the crazed meanderings of credulous mutters a couple of millennia ago do not? Surely they deserve more credit than that?

grokesx #53

My initial reaction is that your first sentence limits the reasons I think it worthwhile to consider that God exists; that, and I wasn’t setting out to build a case for God’s existence so much as respond to previous comments.

Perhaps though we could take this further. I could be misunderstanding you here, so please feel free to correct me, but you seem to be suggesting that some promote a position which says that God, real or not, is a useful comfort in a world of pain and perplexity, so if it does some good, why not.

However, you react against this, citing what seems to be your concern that the ‘answers’ you have heard (and you list some) in face of suffering are not only weak, but fail to engage in any kind of honest way with what life on planet earth entails. And so we have a kind of double whammy here, God is presented as little more than a comfort blanket (which isn’t much of a God) but worse still, the ‘God idea’ fails to confront the circumstances of the reality of suffering.

Now, if that is what you are saying, if the ‘God idea’ is or has become little or no more than some kind of ‘happily ever after’ story, then I’m inclined to agree with you. There is much too much sentimentally in the Christian church, and I’m tired of it too. The ‘answers’ you list, are not really answers; at best they are cliches, at worst, spoken to a person in despair, they are an insult. And the reason they are an insult is that they fail to recognize the importance of what it means to be human. The Jesus story speaks of hope for the future, yes; but it is also grounded here and now and we (Christians) should not and dare not sweep the troubles of life under a rug called ‘heaven’ (a rather pagan idea!). And they are an insult also because once spoken they allow the speaker to hide behind a cloak of bringing ‘comfort’ without having to do anything of any practical good. For me, the real insult in the ‘answer’, “He moves in mysterious ways” is that I can kid myself that I do not have to love.

You are right, this is an ‘opiate’. In fact this ‘philosophy’ of life doesn’t actually need God to be real, it only needs a story inspiring enough to give us a ‘warm fuzzy’ which will help us through another day.


And so to the round table!!

Ryan #79

In other words... Camelot! :-)

It seems to me that Jonathan’s point is that if the NT story of Jesus is not true then it doesn’t matter what narrative we build our lives on. That it has been Christendom (at least in the West) is neither here nor there, the point is that it could be King Arthur if we wanted. Why not visit Helio’s ‘Church of Jesus Christ Atheist’ website... I quote, “it is we who confer the honour "Christ" on Jesus the Nazarene, and use his story, acknowledging its shortcomings, as both a parable and a paradigm for our lives and our self-examination.... as a scaffold upon which to tell our own stories, and to build a better world for all - theist and atheist alike.”

See what H says? We tell the story. What I’m saying and what I suspect Jonathan is saying is that Jesus tells the story, and Jesus is the story.



Natman #75

”Option 1 here is a matter of faith, and if you don't believe it, then 2 is your only option.”

Of course, 2, also depends on faith.

No?

You'd better believe it!!

:-)

Well said Peter!

Absolutely. That is what fairy tales are *for*! :-)

However, out of the mouths of babes & infants etc - not that I'm calling Peter a babe, mind. A babe *magnet* perhaps, but I digress. Yes, it actually doesn't matter what narrative you use. Christianity has the infrastructure and a lot of the best myths, so I like using that as my framework, and weave in other stories, such as the Parable of the Rubik's Cube, or the Parable of the Maiden and the Three Bears as mentioned previously. I'm afraid the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist as yet has very very few "likers" on Facebook, and the blog isn't exactly scampering up the ratings, but I do try.

Peter, you pretend that Jesus tells the story and Jesus is the story, however, you do of course know that Jesus is the excuse. Whatever story Jesus may have told has been buried and morphed in the guano of the centuries, as Christians squabble and squawk like gannets and guillemots, depositing ever more droppings on a rock of ages, until the wretched edifice gleams as a whitewashed sepulchre, and looks great from a distance - just don't get too close. Our best (and only) hope is to construct a proper humanistic appreciation of ethics, and graft the Christ concept on as an accessory. You know it makes sense!

Exactly!

Stories, the warp and woof of human meaning making, from Pandora to Hansel and Gretel to Hollywood. From WB Yeats to Shakespeare to Harry Potter.

Every single one of them searching for and telling us something about who we are and what we do. Every single one of them a demonstration of our struggle to understand ourselves.

Every piece of great art and every crayoned page stuck to a fridge door switches on a light for us, one by which we see more of who we and others are.

This is the point of culture and art: to reveal some kind of truth to us.

Should it come as any surprise then that somewhere along the line one of these stories would turn out to be true?

Aw nuts!

"Exactly" was meant to refer to post 84!!

:-)

Quote Peterm2 "It seems to me that Jonathan’s point is that if the NT story of Jesus is not true then it doesn’t matter what narrative we build our lives on"

Ok , so you didn't read my post#79, or think that what happened to us as a species in the past 200yrs is in anyway spectacular-or in anyway interesting its foundation roots were branches of Christianity.

These events were precipitated by a different way of viewing the world and our time on it. People learning to read & interpreting the Bible created a flurry of new ideas & new branches of Christianity. It was an individuals private dialogue with the Bible & God, away from the vested interests of the Priests and the Church that allowed society to advance in this period.

The big problems start like this-
-Those who interpret it one way, think any other way is wrong.

-They then wish to impose their will and their interpretations on others and use fear & threats with quotes to back them up.

-Then a little bit further down the line when Religious groupings are established, they become tribalised, and the Religion becomes more of a cultural identity and tradition. Rather than spiritual unison with God, it becomes more of a Social unison with your tribe.


Imposition of will on others can make the person imposing themselves a psychological thug. No different from a physical thug. It's the same principal with the same damaging effect.

The religious should have a few common ground rules.Nobody should be killing, fighting, discriminating in the name of God or belief. You should be free to interpret religion how you see fit and be accepted for that by every humanbeing.It's not our place to sift through other people to say who's got a place in Heaven and who hasn't.

Ryan

I most certainly did read your #79, and as I was doing so thought a number of things.

The changes of this last 200 years owe as much to the Enlightenment as Christianity, and yes I note that what we call the Reformation initially sparked a wider degree of freedom, and protest, but there were all sorts of ideas.

Your outline is certainly one way of reading history, but it is only one way. And never mind the West, what about China? India? What about Islam and Maths? We simply cannot speak as if the last 200 years of Western thought is the only thought that counts. And it certainly ain't Biblical Christianity acting as the catalyst for social and ethical change now. Try the internet for starters. That was all going through my mind.

So the point stands, we have been influenced by Christendom, but, if it is not true, we need not be influenced by Christendom.

So, like Helio says, let’s build our own ethic, and let’s pin Jesus on the side to get it going, cos the infrastructure is there and it’ll make people feel more comfortable; but that is different from saying that the Jesus story is true.

If it isn’t true we can make ‘Jesus’ whoever we want him to be. And that starts with trusting ourselves.

Do you see much trust around?

@Ryan_ (88)

'The big problems start like this-
-Those who interpret it one way, think any other way is wrong.'

Isn't that generally the case when you think that something is true? I'm struggling to think of instances where contradictory interpretations can both be true.

'The religious should have a few common ground rules.Nobody should be killing, fighting, discriminating in the name of God or belief. You should be free to interpret religion how you see fit and be accepted for that by every humanbeing.It's not our place to sift through other people to say who's got a place in Heaven and who hasn't.'

I'm all for freedom of religion, but very much against relative truth. By all means, interpret religion as you see fit, but why should people give credence to every interpretation? At the very least, can't be define a good interpretation as one which does not require the rules of grammar or conventions of genre to be broken? Having in principle established that there are such things as good and bad interpretations, can we not also say that it could be right and helpful to tell people that they've got something wrong? Doesn't our participation in this blog show that fundamentally we all agree with that concept? After all, let's face it, we do spend most of our time saying to one-another "You're wrong."

This is a hard medium at times lol, I will try as best I can to explain what I mean. The western world has Greco-Roman & Judeo-Christian roots. One represents the civic side, the other a religious tradition some may have in their lives. The great sea changes in thought, such as the Reformation and the Enlightenment all concern themselves with Social Justice and of society that wasn't part of the royal or ecclesiastical hierachy.
Wonderful and important things have come from all corners of the globe. As you say, Islamic scholars 1000 or so yrs ago were blossoming.And yes, we all build on that. My point was, the world has had many great civilisations. We didn't get close to Roman standards of development until the last 200yrs, but for good or bad- The Protestant Reformation along with Religious tolerance, where people took ownership of religion away from the religious authorities and took responsability for their own spiritual welfare has unleashed the greatest innovation & development of mankind than at any other time in history. It's not like we forgot how to make electricity , cars and had to re-learn etc. We owe alot to science,innovation and free thinking religious tolerance

Jonathan Boyd-" After all, let's face it, we do spend most of our time saying to one-another "You're wrong."

I agree :P

I think as a species we do get caught up in the fine detail & waste alot of valuable time, energy and creativity arguing with each other.

Guys, the best you can do is separate "meaning" from "truth"... Jonathan is right- truth is not relative. Jesus did not rise from the dead. The resurrection is false. You can deal with that by denial, or by acceptance and reorientation of your thinking in an appropriate manner. Since god is likewise a fiction, we need to work out for ourselves how we behave in relation to one another. Arguably the greatest fruit of the Enlightenment.

Helio, don't bother trying, apparently the story of Jesus and the existance of a god is beyond reproach. Try asking for proof of their claims and you just end up with a lot of semantic nonsense about 'what is truth?' or 'you can't prove it's not true'.

Funny how scientific claims only need one little piece of evidence to disprove, but theistic claims need to disproven in their entirety else they must be true.

Peterm2,

"Should it come as any surprise then that somewhere along the line one of these stories would turn out to be true?"

Ah, but which one? And how can you determine the 'true' one from all the rest?

Hi Nat, the issue is that if we *do* take the evidence in the bible, we find out that a resurrection model performs very poorly in addressing the development of the texts and the "appearances" of the risen Christ. We know from Paul and the gospel of "Matthew" that many early Christians did NOT hold to a resurrection model; their objections were stifled by polemic, not evidence, and many items were fabricated or embellished to silence proper analysis of the resurrectionists' claims. Hence the fabrication of the guard at the tomb; the "visions" that over time become concrete, etc. Just going on the bible itself, we can be very confident that no resurrection took place. Apologists have tried to argue otherwise, bless, but their efforts have been pretty pathetic, eg NT Wright or WL Craig.

Natman

Exactly right. As I said on another thread:
'The debates on here can be quite interesting to read and take part in but it's obvious that the vast majority of people posting with one POV or another will not be swayed, and that is concerning. It always seems to come back to disproving a negative, never mind what information is already out there to support evolution, the laws of nature and the contradictory nature of religious text. The onus seems to be on atheists to prove their points. In any other form of debate it would fall on the shoulders of those making unsubstantiated claims to provide the proof.'

There is some great banter on here, some brilliant displays of wit and intelligence on both 'sides' and well thought out argument. In the end the religious will not be swayed, however; proof is irrelevant. If the existence of god could in fact be disproven, the vast majority of the faithful would continue to believe. Sad but true?

Ah, but which one? And how can you determine the 'true' one from all the rest?

and you would have to give atheism and agnosticism equal validity in that lottery.

'Funny how scientific claims only need one little piece of evidence to disprove, but theistic claims need to disproven in their entirety else they must be true.'

Natman, more bald assertion. Where was it suggested that theistic claims are true unless 'proven' otherwise? More to the point, when will you address what I actually drew your attention to last week?

I know you don't like semantics but I would like 'proof' that what I was asking was simply semantical.

***

When it comes to Biblical 'discrepancies' I generally defer to greater knowledge to give an answer but I would say that harmonisation seems to me to be a legitimate and worthwhile exercise.

***

'In the end the religious will not be swayed, however; proof is irrelevant. If the existence of god could in fact be disproven, the vast majority of the faithful would continue to believe. Sad but true'

Hold on Dave I think you might be right, let me just scroll up a bit and check something...

Natman said (34)'How can I prove the bible is not true? Simple, no one has proven that it is.

I'm not the one claiming something here, people who claim the bible is true are.'

Let's see if I can punch in the numbers:

'How can I prove God does not exist? Simple, no one has proven that he/she/it does exist.

I'm not the one claiming something here, people who claim that God exists are.'

You are right! God doesn't exist and I still believe He does. Sad but true.

In my last post Dave should be e-volve, my mistake.

Strictly speaking, according to the rules of empiricism, I have no direct evidence that the person who calls himself (herself) 'e-volve' actually exists. The only evidence I have are the posts which are purportedly written by 'e-volve'. In other words, I believe in e-volve's existence on the basis of his / her effects.

Remind us of anything?

Now suppose I were to actually meet 'e-volve' face to face, how could he / she prove to me that I was not simply hallucinating?

So you see that 'proof' is a little bit more complex than the simple-minded empiricists would have us believe. They obviously haven't really thought through the subject very well. They deride those who believe in something invisible, yet apparently they believe in the existence of their own consciousness and their own thoughts - both things that they know exist, but which cannot be perceived through the senses. They also believe in the truth and validity of empiricism itself - again something which cannot be proven empirically.

They delude themselves into thinking that empiricism holds all the aces. Sad but true.