Figuring Out Religion

[Pointedstick]

I hope you can understand how disappointing and unsatisfying an answer that is. If God hates sin, but deliberately created the opportunity for it to exist via free will, then evidently he likes the features of human free will more than he hates sin, which kind of makes him seem like a big sadist given the cosmic consequences he set up for unsaved sinners--that is to say, the vast majority of humans who have ever lived.

[Pointedstick]

Forgetting about God for just a second, would you prefer to have been born a more robotic human, incapable of doing moral wrong?  Or would you rather be yourself, with your free will, with the capability of both great good and horrific evil?

I am very happy with the status quo. What offends me is being told that I was created this way on purpose by an entity that so hates and despises what he knows I'm going to do with my free will (everyone is a sinner, right?) that he plans to torture me forever unless I do one very very specific thing that is steeped in a mythology that is full of glaring internal contradictions and has no emotional resonance for me.

[MediumTex]

The God of wrath is the person most prominent in the OT, even though the preincarnate Jesus and the Holy Spirit are present too.  The God of wrath cannot stand to have sin in his presence.

Then why did he create the universe that way? Seems awful weird to create something that you cannot stand.

How could he have created it that way?

If God can't even look at sin, how could he have possibly created it?  What mold would he have poured it into?

[MediumTex]

The God of wrath is the person most prominent in the OT, even though the preincarnate Jesus and the Holy Spirit are present too.  The God of wrath cannot stand to have sin in his presence.

Then why did he create the universe that way? Seems awful weird to create something that you cannot stand.

Indeed!  Why sin? is one of those big questions that likely has no exact answer on this side of heaven.  Here is one attempt to address it; I'm not sure I totally buy it, but it is a start and has some Scripture references.  From my Lutheran perspective, this is getting mighty close to the "hidden side of God" that He, for whatever reason, has chosen not to reveal to us.  He just revealed enough that we could be saved, and that is what is most important.  The stuff He did not reveal tends to be the things we desperately pursue ....... wrongly.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-God-create-sin.html

... M

I think it's easy to explain.

One ancient monotheistic culture came up with a mythology pursuant to which---surprise!!!---when things went wrong for them it was God's will and when things went right for them it was God's will.

Later on, an enterprising young Roman citizen named Paul who enjoyed hunting Christians for sport realized that Jesus's teachings could be used as the basis for a modified form of Judaism for the Greek world.  He stopped hunting Christians, shoehorned Jesus's teachings into a "Judaism for Gentiles" model and got to work selling it all around the Mediterranean.  That's how we got what we now think of as Christianity.

As far as sin goes, all people have good and bad urges within them.  Most of the time, people follow their good urges, but sometimes they follow their bad urges.  Christianity provides a carrot and stick approach when it comes to sin.  If you resist sin as much as you can and ask God to give you a bath in Jesus's blood to address the areas where you can't resist sin, you get to live forever in paradise after you die, and you get to feel good about things during your life on this earth.  If you embrace sin and decline the bath in Jesus's blood, you get to suffer forever in a pit of fire after you die, and ideally you are also haunted by this ugly destiny during your time on this earth.

Humans have strong tendencies toward delusion as well as self-loathing.  To build both of these tendencies into a single comprehensive religious structure, we have a God who thought so much of us that he made us in his own image (i.e., people are godlike = delusion), but we also have a God who is eternally disappointed with us and the fact that we wallow in sin like evil pigs (i.e., people are sinful = self-loathing).

Overall, it's a blunt instrument built on relatively cynical assumptions, but overall it seems to be a relatively effective way to get people to act right most of the time, or at least to get people to act as right as they are able to.

I think that Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses."  I don't know if it provides that clean of a high.  I might describe it more like "the cheap ass wine of the masses" because although it will give you a buzz, if you're not careful it can just leave you feeling hung over most of the time.

[Pointedstick]

I'm reading one of Scott Adams' books right now and he has a whole chapter on the value of useful delusions. All the religions I've ever encountered see like they fit pretty well into this paradigm. Of course, being able to see it this way and not shatter the usefulness of the delusion is another feat entirely.

[MediumTex]

Then why did he create the universe that way? Seems awful weird to create something that you cannot stand.

How could he have created it that way?

If God can't even look at sin, how could he have possibly created it?  What mold would he have poured it into?

But you do see the difference between creating sin and creating a world in which sin is permitted to arise, right?  We're all of a libertarian bent here, so I think we understand and appreciate free will.  And we also know that every eventuality isn't positive.

Well, we know that God created sin.  How else would it have come into existence if God is the one who created everything?

So God created sin, but the question is why.

And it's not just that God created sin, he also created the desire in us to enjoy sinning, but to also feel bad about it some of the time.  Why?

I think the real problem is that each of us is actually two people--there is a mostly hairless primate with a really nice brain that can do all sorts of interesting things, and there is also a consciousness capable of perceiving utterly transcendent states of being and thinking truly noble thoughts.  God likes the higher consciousness, but he mostly hates the ape in us.  When we act like apes, it mostly displeases God (thought ape-like desires in the area of procreation are okay as long as they are within certain boundaries), and when we act based upon our higher consciousness it is more like to be pleasing to God (though we have to be careful not to get too big for our existential britches, because God doesn't like that at all).

Is that a fairly accurate description?

[MediumTex]

Hey MT, have you ever wondered why the significant biblical characters weren't portrayed more positively?

Who knows, compared to how they really were they might have been portrayed very positively.

Some of them like David just didn't give the writers a lot to work with.

Lots of them were portrayed positively.  Moses, Solomon, Jesus and Paul were portrayed very positively.  Solomon came off looking like an English gentleman scholar, even though he was presumably a member of the Adultery Hall of Fame with his 400 wives and 600 girlfriends.

[Xan]

Jesus's coming wasn't "Plan B"; it was the plan from the beginning.  God created sin because without it we couldn't exist.  Martin Luther said that the devil is "God's devil", who pricks at our consciences and lays traps, tempting us, that we might know the depth and breadth of God's forgiveness and love for us.

[MediumTex]

Jesus's coming wasn't "Plan B"; it was the plan from the beginning.  God created sin because without it we couldn't exist.  Martin Luther said that the devil is "God's devil", who pricks at our consciences and lays traps, tempting us, that we might know the depth and breadth of God's forgiveness and love for us.

I guess it's sort of a chicken/egg thing.

There is clearly a "human nature" with its recognition of the good, but its temptation by the bad.

The question is whether religion is a cultural articulation of a pre-existing human condition, or whether religion is an explanation of how the human condition came to be in the first place.

For me, the existence of Neanderthals and the fact that there was cross-breeding between ancient humans and ancient Neanderthals suggests that human nature came first, and religion came along later to provide a culturally-appropriate explanation for the strengths and weaknesses of human nature.

I'm okay with the Bible leaving the dinosaurs out of the creation story.  I have a harder time with the Bible leaving out other human-like creatures who actually had larger brains than ours and with whom we mixed, mingled and shagged.  Think of all of the wonderful allegories that could have been built around the survival of homo sapiens and the extinction of the Neanderthals.  If the writer of Genesis had known about the Neanderthals I am certain they would have played a large role in the Garden of Eden story.

Think of all of the evil acts that could have been attributed to the Neanderthals before they were finally pitched into the fiery hell of extinction for their misdeeds.

[MediumTex]

The stories go on and on, and the theme is consistent:  God loves those who don't measure up.  And that's good news.

Tell that to the entire population of the world (with the exception of Noah and his family), including countless innocent children who God unceremoniously drowned to make the point that he didn't like how the world he created was unfolding and he wanted to start over.

God treated those people worse than the sadistic owner of unwanted kittens.  It's hard to accept the idea that every child on earth who wasn't part of Noah's family deserved to be killed.

If the Bible says that God is holy, but even according to the standards that God laid down for humanity God would be considered an evil and demonic presence, where does that leave us?

To me, it wouldn't be crazy to say that the Bible is clearly the work of Satan, and he probably took the real Bible and destroyed it and replaced it with the Bible we have, putting himself in the role of God of the Old Testament, while leaving the New Testament mostly intact because he thought it was cool that Jesus got killed and said he would come back within that same generation, but after 2,000 years he still hasn't come back.

Think of all the laughs Satan would have gotten over the generations as people struggled to reconcile the evil, vengeful, petty and brutal God depicted in the Old Testament with their notions of how God ought to be.

If a person said he believed in God, but rejected the Bible as the work of Satan because it clearly didn't depict a fair, righteous or caring God, would that belief be indefensible?  It seems to me that the very first time God didn't follow the rules he laid down for humanity, or when God asked humanity to engage in raping, pillaging, baby killing and genocide, it would be entirely reasonable for a person to pronounce God real, but regard the Bible as an obvious fake, likely written by Satan to confuse us all about God's true nature.

[MediumTex]

Neanderthals were merely a different race of humans.  Recent scholarship suggests they may have been fair skinned with red hair.  Heck, they probably were similar to the Irish.  And I get to say that, 'cause my roots are Irish.  It may have been a race of humans that drank too much and fought a lot.  That's probably why they aren't around anymore. 

Can you imagine digging up an eskimo fossil in the modern day, if that race didn't exist?  It would instantly be categorized as a transitional species.  So would Patrick Ewing, if African Americans were extinct.

To be more precise, doesn't the DNA of homo sapiens and Neanderthals suggest that we were both descended from a common non-human primate ancestor?

But all that is detail:  What I wonder about is the alternative worldview one must have, after one rejects the Christian worldview.

Wait, wait, wait.  It doesn't have to be the worldview after one rejects Christianity.  It could simply be the worldview of someone who grew up in a non-Christian culture and who simply never heard of Christianity.

I know nobody wants to talk about that.  Morality is relative and evolves along with the culture.  I get all that.  But I'd like to hear a bit more unpacking of why that evolved morality is intrinsically useful, and not just a pathetic, accidental result of an amoral universe.

Like all culture, morality is part of what separates us from the rest of the animals.  I think that morality is intrinsically useful because when practiced it makes human societies more harmonious and durable.

In other words, why not nihilism, for the non-religious?  Isn't that the logical end result?

I think that if religion is the umbrella, nihilism is the storm.  It falls on us all and we each protect ourselves from it the best way we can using the tools our culture provides us with.

Why do you insist on borrowing extrinsic moral attributes from religion.  Man up and live by your beliefs.  Of course nobody does that ... and why?  I think none of us really believes in the agnostic worldview.  It sounds good, but we don't really believe it fully.  We don't believe in it enough to live consistently with its full implications.

But we also don't believe in religion enough to live consistently with its full implications either.  That's the problem.  Deep down, I think we are all haunted by the idea that religion is a projection of our own fears, aspirations, delusions and self-loathing, and that's what makes it virtually impossible to fully embrace religion, no matter how strongly one wants to believe.

The happiest religious people I have ever known were the ones who were perfectly content not to look too deeply into their own beliefs.  I have sometimes envied such people because they are able to do something I could never possibly do.  I'm curious about everything.  I want to learn everything I can about everything I can.  The idea of just taking the word of the preacher at the church down the street about the eternal fate of my soul would be like asking a kitten to play it cool around a ball of string with a bird sitting on top of it.

[MediumTex]

Ok, I have two immediate thoughts on this topic:

1.  You'd be fine with a global flood if it was merely nature, right?  In other words, you can't really judge a global flood by any moral principle, since your morals are derived from a naturalistic framework.  So a flood is sorta bad, but also quite good, because it would weed out the weaker swimmers.

I could be philosophical about a giant natural flood and say that there were both good and bad things about it, but there would still be a very strong feeling of sadness and loss that so many people had died.

If, however, I knew that there was this petulant supernatural being who caused the flood because he was unhappy with what the people he himself created were doing with their lives, I would have the same emotion I would have toward someone who killed all of their children because they wouldn't clean up their rooms.

2.  What age defines innocence, in your view?  In other words, were all the kids under age 13 sinless and should be spared from the flood?

I don't know if there is a bright line on age and innocence, but if you're still in diapers it's hard to say you're not still pretty innocent.

Also, it may be worthwhile to think about death a bit more broadly, and also more personally.  Didn't I sentence my innocent, newborn son to death just by procreating?  The only honest answer is "yes."  How could I possibly live with myself, in the presence of that obviously immoral act?

You didn't sentence him to death by having him, you sentenced him to life.  You helped provide him with an opportunity to exist, to live, to love, and to experience this glorious thing called being alive.  Yes, he will die, but hopefully not before he has a chance to live, and that's the point of being alive, right?  To live.

[MediumTex]

Oh man, what a post.  I really enjoyed reading it. 

My favorite bit: 

But we also don't believe in religion enough to live consistently with its full implications either.  That's the problem.  Deep down, I think we are all haunted by the idea that religion is a projection of our own fears, aspirations, delusions and self-loathing, and that's what makes it virtually impossible to fully embrace religion, no matter how strongly one wants to believe.

The happiest religious people I have ever known were the ones who were perfectly content not to look too deeply into their own beliefs.  I have sometimes envied such people because they are able to do something I could never possibly do.  I'm curious about everything.  I want to learn everything I can about everything I can.  The idea of just taking the word of the preacher at the church down the street about the eternal fate of my soul would be like asking a kitten to play it cool around a ball of string with a bird sitting on top of it.

I agree with you here, MT.  Both naturalistic and religious folks are uncomfortable truly embracing their own viewpoints.  I never was able to be satisfied as an an atheist/agnostic just throwing grenades in on the religious viewpoint, because I was constantly convicted of my own hypocrisy.

I really hope it doesn't seem like I'm throwing grenades.  I always try to resist any hint of temptation that I feel to form hard feelings toward someone simply because they believe things that don't make any sense to me.

In kitten-speak, I don't want to destroy the ball of string.  I want to play with it until I understand it better.  I want to commune with the string and experience oneness with it...maybe even throw a little catnip in the hookah and share it with the string, just as the string has shared stringness with me.

I knew that my own views didn't support any particular moralistic framework.

Of course they did.  You almost certainly knew that stealing, killing and hurting others for no reason were wrong without needing religion to tell you that.  Similarly, you came to understand the value of loyalty and commitment without any need for religious support of those positions, right?

In other words, it was much easier to attack the opposing view than it was to defend my own fragile view.

Why did you feel the need to attack it?  Why not approach it with the curiosity and open mind of an anthropologist?  Why did you feel hostile toward it?

And I think that's the major problem in this thread:  We have atheists attacking the Christian worldview, and Christians defending the view.  But we seldom if ever have atheists really describing the full implications of their own worldviews; they never really come to terms with the full implications of their worldviews.

I think part of it is a burden of proof thing.  I think that a lot of rational-minded non-religious people would say that they don't have to defend the position that supernatural beings don't exist.  That is self-evident.  The burden of proof should be on the person claiming that invisible supernatural beings exist.

I think that the full implications of an atheist worldview is that we live and die exactly like every other animal does.  We just do it with more self-awareness and self-torment because of our ability to conceptualize the future in a way that animals apparently can't.  In other words, we need religious beliefs in a way that animals would never be able to understand, but that need doesn't have anything to do with whether the religious beliefs have any objective truth to them.  I believe that is where the suspicion comes from that all religious beliefs are projections of insecurities that originate within us, not within the mind of the supernatural being who created us.

And they even "borrow" principles from a extrinsic Christian worldview to support their criticisms of Christianity.  I'd like, for once, to see an argument presented in this thread from a committed atheist, who can really defend their viewpoint using only naturalistic mechanisms.

Can you explain what you mean by "extrinsic Christian worldview" and "naturalistic mechanisms"?  Thanks.

I'm really growing tired of the attacks on Christianity using logic that is only supported by an extrinsic reality.  I merely want the atheists here to present an argument for their views on the nature of the world.  Stop taking cheap shots at Christianity, and describe YOUR worldview.

I don't think that it is necessary to prove that I have a better worldview or approach to life in order to point out the flaws in a belief system premised on the existence of a supernatural being who looks an awful lot like a power-mad and moody member of our own species.

Believe it or not, I actually aspire to be a typical American Christian.  I want to go to church and try not to think too deeply about my faith.  I want to get the good stuff from the religious messages I receive.  I want to mainline the best opiate of the masses I can get my hands on.  Above all, I would love to be immortal and know that I am headed for eternal paradise when I die.  I just don't know how to get back there once I have seen behind the curtain.

What would it take for you to believe in Santa Claus again, especially if he stopped bringing you presents every Christmas?  Seriously, do you think you would be capable of cultivating that belief at your current stage of life?  If not, why not?  Does that mean you are evil or you have a black heart or you are just a scrooge?  What if you really wanted to believe in Santa Claus?  Could you?  I think that a lot of non-religious people would like to be religious, but they just can't swallow it.  I think that's where Pointedstick is.  He sees how much simpler his life would be if he knew there was a guy in the clouds who was looking out for him, but he can't make something true just because he would like it to be true.  He's just not wired that way.  Leaps of faith driven by emotional experiences seem superficial and even dishonest.  I think that's a valid reaction to any supernatural claim, no matter how good the presents sound.

[MediumTex]

You didn't sentence him to death by having him, you sentenced him to life.  You helped provide him with an opportunity to exist, to live, to love, and to experience this glorious thing called being alive.  Yes, he will die, but hopefully not before he has a chance to live, and that's the point of being alive, right?  To live.

Yes, Yes and yes!!!  And I am a mere human, incapable of designing a single cell, let alone a human.  So yes, God gave the gift of my son's life.

Well, if God gave you the ingredients you and your wife still mixed up the batter and put it in the oven.

My point is that, in having children, we act as miniatures gods.

It's okay to say it: We don't act as miniature gods.  From our children's perspective we act as full-size GODS, and probably more than we realize.  It can be a burden to realize just how perfect our children imagine we are when they are little.

We grant both life and death.  We can take potshots and Christianity for the death part, but you and me, as fathers, we perpetuate the very death that we decry.

Yes, we do, and I think that might be why God bears such a strong resemblance to a firm and wise father.

I would like to agree with you about the parallels between God killing all of the non-Noah clan humans and how we sentence our children to death by choosing to have them, but to me there is a gigantic difference, and it's that after our children are born we don't kill them when they disappoint us, but God apparently does kill certain humans when they disappoint him.  That doesn't strike me a father's love.  I don't think my kids could ever disappoint me so much that I would want to kill them.  At a certain point as they disappointed me I would probably feel even more love for them because I would feel so sorry for them.  Even then, though, my impulse would probably be to want to protect them, rather than to kill them.

[Mountaineer]

Wow!  The last time I posted was about 9pm yesterday.  The thread then got interesting and prolific.  My overall takeaway:

There is an overwhelming desire by many to either say “I could have done this whole creation thing better than God, he did too many things that just don’t make good sense”, or “I like part of how God made me - I do enjoy life and being moral to a degree, but that mean old God of the OT really sucks”.  To me, this line of thought is an almost perfect illustration that original sin is alive and well in all of us.  I think if one stops and reflects on the past several pages of this thread objectively, the conclusion is inescapable:  original sin, that is doubting what God said and thinking “I” know better than God, is being displayed all over the place.  You may choose to discount original sin as not being important, I did for a long time, but there really are enormous consequences for that approach - eternal death, eternal separation from God.  We indeed are indeed programmed to reject God due to original sin, actively be His enemy, and die forever if we remain in that state.  Thanks be to God He provided the solution from the very beginning.

This links discusses original sin and actual sin for those who wish to know more:

http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp? ... N.ORIGINAL

http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=S&word=SIN

... M

[Mountaineer]

I hope you can understand how disappointing and unsatisfying an answer that is. If God hates sin, but deliberately created the opportunity for it to exist via free will, then evidently he likes the features of human free will more than he hates sin, which kind of makes him seem like a big sadist given the cosmic consequences he set up for unsaved sinners--that is to say, the vast majority of humans who have ever lived.

PS,

This seems to be your main issue related to Christianity - a sadistic God that apparently does things you do not approve of and can't understand.  Is that correct?

Believe it or not, I actually aspire to be a typical American Christian.  I want to go to church and try not to think too deeply about my faith.  I want to get the good stuff from the religious messages I receive.  I want to mainline the best opiate of the masses I can get my hands on.  Above all, I would love to be immortal and know that I am headed for eternal paradise when I die.  I just don't know how to get back there once I have seen behind the curtain.

What would it take for you to believe in Santa Claus again, especially if he stopped bringing you presents every Christmas?  Seriously, do you think you would be capable of cultivating that belief at your current stage of life?  If not, why not?  Does that mean you are evil or you have a black heart or you are just a scrooge?  What if you really wanted to believe in Santa Claus?  Could you?  I think that a lot of non-religious people would like to be religious, but they just can't swallow it.  I think that's where Pointedstick is.  He sees how much simpler his life would be if he knew there was a guy in the clouds who was looking out for him, but he can't make something true just because he would like it to be true.  He's just not wired that way.  Leaps of faith driven by emotional experiences seem superficial and even dishonest.  I think that's a valid reaction to any supernatural claim, no matter how good the presents sound.

MT,

This seems to be the essence of your main issue with Christianity - wanting Christianity to be a tool for better living now, and the reluctance to accept that which cannot be proven by human reason?  Is that correct?

Lastly, to all:  I really am interested in your replies to a couple of my earlier questions:

Truth is truth whether one can see it or not.  Can you propose some questions to "break through"?  Seriously.  It all seems so very clear to me, and I'm not sure what is or is not clear to you.  Perhaps we are just stuck on "faith" or absence thereof.  Perhaps we are back to the beginning where I accept revealed knowledge as a source of truth and others do not.  We could go once again down the road of apologetics, first cause, mathematical probability, etc. but that usually gets nowhere.  Perhaps I should ask you, why do you think I see this so clearly?  What do you think my underlying presuppositions are?  How do they differ from yours?

... M

[Mountaineer]

Let’s spend a moment or two thinking about relativity, not the Einstein type, but the "is my God is bigger than your god?" type. 

Assume for a moment these statements are true:
1. God created everything from nothing
2. Man cannot create anything from nothing
3. God knows everything, past, present and future
4. Man is incapable of infinite knowledge
5. God exists outside of time and space
6. God entered our time and space for a while to teach us how to live forever and had his teachings documented

Now, shift gears for a moment to consider this scenario:

Scenario of the day: You have a 14 year old son that you care about deeply.  You are a very well educated adult.  Your child sees a coral snake in your back yard and thinks it is pretty, he has never seen a snake before and has knows nothing about snakes (all the animals he has previously seen are cute and cuddly).  He runs toward it and reaches out to touch the snake.  You understand the hazard of what your teenage son is about to do and say to him: TRUST ME ON THIS - DO NOT TOUCH THE SNAKE, STAY AWAY FROM IT, IT WILL KILL YOU.  You are fortunate that you live next door to a regional hospital that has an emergency room staffed with a doctor who is an expert in snake bites - how to prevent them and how to treat those who are bitten and come at your invitation to the ER where there are large quantities of anti-venom in stock.  You are the ER doctor.

At this point, the scenario becomes frozen in time and you consider:  Why did you decide to procreate and have this wonderful child who will have a relationship with you full well knowing of the dangers in the world he will encounter?  Why have you taught your child to obey you, full well knowing that there will be times he will not?  What is the plan for your child if he disobeys you?  Did you develop that plan before the current scenario of the day?  Can your child understand everything he wants to know about why you do not want him to play with that alluring beautiful snake - after all, he has no proof whatsoever that your warning is true?  Will you forgive your son if he disobeys you and is bitten?  Why?  Who is the wiser of the scenario characters?  You?  Your son?  The snake?  From whose perspective?  How do the 6 assumptions above relate to the "scenario of the day"?

… M

[jafs]

Jesus's coming wasn't "Plan B"; it was the plan from the beginning.  God created sin because without it we couldn't exist.  Martin Luther said that the devil is "God's devil", who pricks at our consciences and lays traps, tempting us, that we might know the depth and breadth of God's forgiveness and love for us.

I guess it's sort of a chicken/egg thing.

There is clearly a "human nature" with its recognition of the good, but its temptation by the bad.

The question is whether religion is a cultural articulation of a pre-existing human condition, or whether religion is an explanation of how the human condition came to be in the first place.

For me, the existence of Neanderthals and the fact that there was cross-breeding between ancient humans and ancient Neanderthals suggests that human nature came first, and religion came along later to provide a culturally-appropriate explanation for the strengths and weaknesses of human nature.

I'm okay with the Bible leaving the dinosaurs out of the creation story.  I have a harder time with the Bible leaving out other human-like creatures who actually had larger brains than ours and with whom we mixed, mingled and shagged.  Think of all of the wonderful allegories that could have been built around the survival of homo sapiens and the extinction of the Neanderthals.  If the writer of Genesis had known about the Neanderthals I am certain they would have played a large role in the Garden of Eden story.

Think of all of the evil acts that could have been attributed to the Neanderthals before they were finally pitched into the fiery hell of extinction for their misdeeds.

Neanderthals were merely a different race of humans.  Recent scholarship suggests they may have been fair skinned with red hair.  Heck, they probably were similar to the Irish.  And I get to say that, 'cause my roots are Irish.  It may have been a race of humans that drank too much and fought a lot.  That's probably why they aren't around anymore. 

Can you imagine digging up an eskimo fossil in the modern day, if that race didn't exist?  It would instantly be categorized as a transitional species.  So would Patrick Ewing, if African Americans were extinct. 

But all that is detail:  What I wonder about is the alternative worldview one must have, after one rejects the Christian worldview.  I know nobody wants to talk about that.  Morality is relative and evolves along with the culture.  I get all that.  But I'd like to hear a bit more unpacking of why that evolved morality is intrinsically useful, and not just a pathetic, accidental result of an amoral universe.  In other words, why not nihilism, for the non-religious?  Isn't that the logical end result?  Why do you insist on borrowing extrinsic moral attributes from religion.  Man up and live by your beliefs.  Of course nobody does that ... and why?  I think none of us really believes in the agnostic worldview.  It sounds good, but we don't really believe it fully.  We don't believe in it enough to live consistently with its full implications.

Morality is in our nature, and doesn't derive from experience, according to Kant.

This seems pretty correct to me - our ingrained ideas of fairness/equality/etc. precede experience and clearly don't come from a world that is fair/equal.

So it's not whether or not morality is "useful", it just is part of how we view the world.  Specific formulations of what is right and wrong are often culturally linked.

[MediumTex]

Wow!  The last time I posted was about 9pm yesterday.  The thread then got interesting and prolific.  My overall takeaway:

There is an overwhelming desire by many to either say “I could have done this whole creation thing better than God, he did too many things that just don’t make good sense”, or “I like part of how God made me - I do enjoy life and being moral to a degree, but that mean old God of the OT really sucks”.

If the question that is being discussed is whether the Hebrew God is the one true God, then you can't cite mankind's desire to rebel against the Hebrew God as evidence that the Hebrew God exists.

Think of the countless other gods in world religions that you are rebelling against by simply being a Christian.  Is the fact that you are a Christian evidence that any of those other gods exist?  Of course not.

I think that you have to first establish that the Hebrew God exists and the Bible is 100% accurate before you can argue that I am only choosing not to follow it because I don't like what it says.  A much simpler explanation for why someone might reject some or all of the Bible is the same reason that modern people don't follow most of ancient folklore and mythology--i.e., it is largely based on false assumptions about the nature of the world and in any case was designed to address the needs of an entirely different culture and time.  There might have been a good reason to murder gay people 3,000 years ago (I don't know, I wasn't there), but whatever reason that might have been present back then clearly has no relevance today because as a society today we have decided that gay people don't need to be murdered, and anyone who said they did today would be considered a sociopath and a criminal.  The fact that we are saying that God also thinks gay people should be killed to me just makes the existence of the Hebrew God seem that much more unlikely.  In other words, presumably any morality laid down by the one true God would be timeless morality (how could it not be?), and thus should be just as good today as it was 3,000 years ago.  The fact that we no longer kill gay people and sacrifice babies, and engage in casual acts of genocide based on what we believe is God's will suggests that none of that Old Testament morality has stood the test of time.  As far as I know, even the most devout Jew isn't in favor of murdering gay people.  I would say why not?  Your religious text says that's what you are supposed to do, so why aren't you doing it?

To me, this line of thought is an almost perfect illustration that original sin is alive and well in all of us.  I think if one stops and reflects on the past several pages of this thread objectively, the conclusion is inescapable:  original sin, that is doubting what God said and thinking “I” know better than God, is being displayed all over the place.

It's impossible to know better than a being that doesn't exist.  If you pit me against something that doesn't exist and tell me that I am obviously just rebelling against it or childishly challenging it, the conversation is going to get bogged down because from my perspective I am obviously not challenging God; rather, I am pointing out reasons that we might want to reconsider our beliefs about God in light of reality and our own experience.  If there is a God out there somewhere, I truly believe he would want us not to get sucked or bullied into blindly following a single ancient interpretation of the nature of God that obviously had all sorts of cultural baggage in the form of racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia and mystical beliefs.

You may choose to discount original sin as not being important, I did for a long time, but there really are enormous consequences for that approach - eternal death, eternal separation from God.

Again, if the question is whether the Hebrew God exists, threats to be separated from him as a consequence of questioning his existence are nonsensical.  How could I be concerned about being separated from something that doesn't exist?

I could just as easily turn that argument on its head and say that you are the one who is actually separate from God because you are choosing to believe a Bible that is obviously a forgery prepared by Satan to deceive us all, and all you need to know to confirm that point is that the God of the Old Testament did the precise things that he said were evil and said that humanity should never do.

We indeed are indeed programmed to reject God due to original sin, actively be His enemy, and die forever if we remain in that state.  Thanks be to God He provided the solution from the very beginning.

We are not programmed to reject God.  We are programmed to be curious and skeptical when presented with ideas that cannot be squared with the nature of the known world.  Whoever made us made us that way, which strengthens my thesis that the Old Testament in particular is a forgery created by Satan to deceive us into thinking that God is a homophobic xenophobic genocidal baby killer when actually he is none of those things.

[jafs]

I think it's important to separate the idea of God from a very particular, narrow Christian framework.

One can believe in God without being a Christian, and there are many different Christian theologies.

The one that Mountaineer presents is one of the hardest to believe, and has many internal conflicts/inconsistencies.  If we're "programmed to reject God", that would be God who programmed us that way, which makes little sense.  If we're curious and want to understand things, then God made us that way as well.  And if there's a Devil, God made him too.

Also, it's crystal clear that none of these little questions will have any effect on his belief, which is probably why many on here are comfortable questioning it - he just repeats it at length every time a new question comes up.

I believe in God (or something that many people would call that), was married in a church, and think Jesus was an enlightened teacher (along with others, like Buddha).  But my beliefs have very little in common with Mountaineer's.  I don't believe in a Devil, or that we're inherently evil, or that belief in Jesus (in a very narrow particular way) is the only path to salvation, or that God stopped communicating with us 2,000 years ago.

I'm also aware that my beliefs aren't knowledge, and that I could be wrong about all of them.  But they come from my experience and make more sense to me than other beliefs.

[MediumTex]

MT,

This seems to be the essence of your main issue with Christianity - wanting Christianity to be a tool for better living now, and the reluctance to accept that which cannot be proven by human reason?  Is that correct?

If Christianity is not at least a tool for better living, why would we be interested in investigating it any further?  If Christianity did nothing but make people's lives worse, how could anyone possibly believe that it was true?  In fact, what better evidence would you need that something came from Satan than to point out that following it did nothing but make people's lives worse?

As far as being reluctant to believe something that defies reason, I'm pretty sure we all do that if we are sane.  We should be reluctant to believe things that defy reason.  Isn't that why we have reason?--i.e., to be able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

Lastly, to all:  I really am interested in your replies to a couple of my earlier questions:

Truth is truth whether one can see it or not.  Can you propose some questions to "break through"?  Seriously.  It all seems so very clear to me, and I'm not sure what is or is not clear to you.  Perhaps we are just stuck on "faith" or absence thereof.  Perhaps we are back to the beginning where I accept revealed knowledge as a source of truth and others do not.  We could go once again down the road of apologetics, first cause, mathematical probability, etc. but that usually gets nowhere.  Perhaps I should ask you, why do you think I see this so clearly?  What do you think my underlying presuppositions are?  How do they differ from yours?

I think that you see it so clearly because you sincerely like the way believing it makes you feel.  If it didn't make you feel joyful and peaceful, I don't think you would believe it as strongly as you do.  If it did nothing but make you feel miserable and uneasy, on what possible basis would you want to continue believing it?

As far as underlying presuppositions go, I think that your starting point is that all ancient religions are false except Judaism and then later Christianity.  My starting point is that all ancient religions are false from a factual perspective, but nevertheless likely contain much wisdom regarding ancient cultures and the development of human ethics and morality.  I don't give Judaism and Christianity a pass just because they happen to be the religious traditions I grew up in.  If God exists, the question is too important for me to be swayed by my own cultural and community biases.

[Fred]

Also, it's crystal clear that none of these little questions will have any effect on his belief, which is probably why many on here are comfortable questioning it - he just repeats it at length every time a new question comes up.

This is very true. I keep wondering when nobody will take the bait any more but his mind is such a target rich environment of logical absurdities that it can be irresistible.

[MediumTex]

Let’s spend a moment or two thinking about relativity, not the Einstein type, but the "is my God is bigger than your god?" type. 

Assume for a moment these statements are true:
1. God created everything from nothing
2. Man cannot create anything from nothing
3. God knows everything, past, present and future
4. Man is incapable of infinite knowledge
5. God exists outside of time and space
6. God entered our time and space for a while to teach us how to live forever and had his teachings documented

Now, shift gears for a moment to consider this scenario:

Scenario of the day: You have a 14 year old son that you care about deeply.  You are a very well educated adult.  Your child sees a coral snake in your back yard and thinks it is pretty, he has never seen a snake before and has knows nothing about snakes (all the animals he has previously seen are cute and cuddly).  He runs toward it and reaches out to touch the snake.  You understand the hazard of what your teenage son is about to do and say to him: TRUST ME ON THIS - DO NOT TOUCH THE SNAKE, STAY AWAY FROM IT, IT WILL KILL YOU.  You are fortunate that you live next door to a regional hospital that has an emergency room staffed with a doctor who is an expert in snake bites - how to prevent them and how to treat those who are bitten and come at your invitation to the ER where there are large quantities of anti-venom in stock.  You are the ER doctor.

At this point, the scenario becomes frozen in time and you consider:  Why did you decide to procreate and have this wonderful child who will have a relationship with you full well knowing of the dangers in the world he will encounter?

Instinct created desire and I slept a little too close to my wife one night and 9 months later the baby popped out.

Why have you taught your child to obey you, full well knowing that there will be times he will not?

Because I would like to keep him safe as much as I can.

What is the plan for your child if he disobeys you?

Try to figure out why he disobeyed me first, then go from there.

Did you develop that plan before the current scenario of the day?

Yes.

Can your child understand everything he wants to know about why you do not want him to play with that alluring beautiful snake - after all, he has no proof whatsoever that your warning is true?

I don't know.  Probably not.

Will you forgive your son if he disobeys you and is bitten?

Forgiveness wouldn't enter into my thinking.

Why?

Because I would be more interested in trying to make sure he didn't die than in deciding how best to judge him.

Who is the wiser of the scenario characters?  You?

I don't know.  Pronouncing oneself wise if often foolish.

Your son?

I don't know.  It's hard to say without knowing what would have happened if he had followed my advice, but in general when a child doesn't do what his parents tell him and bad things happen, it is considered unwise of the child, but only according to the parents' notion of wisdom. 

The snake?

That's hard to say.  Considering that biting a child will normally result in a snake being hunted down and killed, it would appear to be unwise, even though the snake is simply acting according to instincts that in most situations will help keep it alive, which would be wise.

From whose perspective?

My perspective is the only one I have, but I tried to see the situations through the eyes of the three actors as much as I could.

How do the 6 assumptions above relate to the "scenario of the day"?

I don't know.

[MediumTex]

I think it's important to separate the idea of God from a very particular, narrow Christian framework.

One can believe in God without being a Christian, and there are many different Christian theologies.

The one that Mountaineer presents is one of the hardest to believe, and has many internal conflicts/inconsistencies.  If we're "programmed to reject God", that would be God who programmed us that way, which makes little sense.  If we're curious and want to understand things, then God made us that way as well.  And if there's a Devil, God made him too.

Also, it's crystal clear that none of these little questions will have any effect on his belief, which is probably why many on here are comfortable questioning it - he just repeats it at length every time a new question comes up.

I believe in God (or something that many people would call that), was married in a church, and think Jesus was an enlightened teacher (along with others, like Buddha).  But my beliefs have very little in common with Mountaineer's.  I don't believe in a Devil, or that we're inherently evil, or that belief in Jesus (in a very narrow particular way) is the only path to salvation, or that God stopped communicating with us 2,000 years ago.

I'm also aware that my beliefs aren't knowledge, and that I could be wrong about all of them.  But they come from my experience and make more sense to me than other beliefs.

What's odd to consider is that Mountaineer likely views those who disagree with him like a shepherd views lost sheep, while I think many here view people like Mountaineer like a shepherd views lost sheep.

I know that sounds like a judgment, but I don't mean it that way.  I just point it out because it suggests such a profoundly different take on the nature of the world among people who otherwise seem perfectly able to get along with each other and enjoy one another's company.  It's just a strange thing.

[MediumTex]

Also, it's crystal clear that none of these little questions will have any effect on his belief, which is probably why many on here are comfortable questioning it - he just repeats it at length every time a new question comes up.

This is very true. I keep wondering when nobody will take the bait any more but his mind is such a target rich environment of logical absurdities that it can be irresistible.

I'm a sucker for bait.  If I were a fish I'm sure I would be mounted on someone's gameroom wall.