1 edit
Originally posted by aspviper666Wait just a second, you have a Christmas tree but claim to be an atheist? I think the real question is whether or not atheists should have Christmas trees. If an atheist has a Christmas tree, does that mean they are revering it as a god as well and forsaking their vow of atheism? By the way, it does suck not having one, does'nt it? There, we agree on something!!!!!!!! See, religion does have its perks, no? Where would you be without us crazy religious folk?
You may jest at the idea,(and your joke is lol funny),but doesn't having presents under the tree almost symbolise offerings to it??We sing songs around it and also to it.It reeks of idolity at some level.
But I agree it smells nice ,and I have had but one Christmas in my life with no tree(last year),and it sucked totally,and I am not really a Christian. ...[text shortened]... eoples wants and their desires to make others happy.And the corporations are making bank on it.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseSure, it would be reasonable to think God might have a purpose for us. But maybe you missed this key point: I don't give a shit about God's 'purpose'. If it happened to be the case that His purpose coincided with true normative claims concerning how I ought to live, then in striving to live how I ought to live, I would also be striving to follow God's directives. But His directives do not coincide with true normative claims, as I already pointed out.
[b]So, God thrusts existence on a bunch of unwitting minds. Then he stipulates that these minds love and glorify Him; else they will be tossed in a lake of fire.
Firstly, do you (this question one can only truly answer for oneself) think your existence is worse than your non-existence? If you (for argument's sake) admit that your existence is own incredible persona or remarkable genius, but rather as a loan.[/b]
Secondly, what happens when anything violates its purpose? Should there not be consequences?
You're confused. (Compare to: Hitler's purpose for the "Final Solution" was complete termination of the Jewish population. Shouldn't there be consequences if anyone violates this purpose?) Your confusion, of course, stems entirely from your stunted moral development. You still cling to the altogether infantile notion that something is morally right just in case God wills it. And no, my problem is not just with the concept of hell. It is also that the directives of God are arbitrary.
Thirdly, how did God intend for us to derive meaning in life?
Through one arbitrary means: by loving/glorifying Him. And it's clear to anyone with half a brain that there are better ways to imbue my life with meaning.
Further, if your concept of hell is merely separation from God, then I'm not sure why there would be any problems there. In particular, if I strive to live how I ought to live; and if that does not coincide with God's directives (which it doesn't); then God will naturally grant me separation from Him. Sounds great to me!
6 edits
Originally posted by whodeyExactly where do I claim to be an atheist??
Wait just a second, you have a Christmas tree but claim to be an atheist? I think the real question is whether or not atheists should have Christmas trees. If an atheist has a Christmas tree, does that mean they are revering it as a god as well and forsaking their vow of atheism? By the way, it does suck not having one, does'nt it? There, we agree on some ...[text shortened]... !! See, religion does have its perks, no? Where would you be without us crazy religious folk?
I am a Kabbalist. 🙂
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's "Guy Fawkes", not Guy Forks.
Is this another example of a Biblical prophesy being proved? I always thought Christmas postdated the old testament by thousands of years.
I do know a few Christians who do not think that Christmas is a Christian holiday but nevertheless do the whole present giving etc more as a tradition than anything else.
Are Thanksgiving and Guy Forks in the Bib ...[text shortened]... gious in nature?
[edit]
Why dont most Christians celebrate Jewish holidays such as passover?
Fella who tried to blow up the UK houses of parliment.... Come to think of it, do Americans celebrate "bonfire night" and if so, why? After all they take great pleasure in telling us about the ousting of the Brits from the US. Why'd they want to go celebrate an essentially british tradition?
Originally posted by aspviper666Lol, I remember discussing this with a Jehovahs Hoohah once. This is what I told them.
http://www.sovereigngrace.net/should.htm
I came across this as I was trying to find a biblical reference to the Christmas tree.I am not sure if this was discussed here before and I am interested to hear the comments from Christains here and non Christians also.
I think the author makes a good arguement for not celebrating Christmas for Christians.
...[text shortened]... y are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities"
(Jer. 10:2-4, 8).
The significance of a day, and it's meaning, is entirely up to the person. Iconography, tradition, it all only means what you choose for it to mean to you. This is true of any day, not just a 'holiday'. So, if I choose to have a regular event of observing and appreciating certian aspects of my beliefs or existence, it is an individual experience for me, no matter how common place the tradition may be.
Naturally, the Jehovas Hoohah was all to happy to tell me that God hated me for doing this and that I was going to hell, my response to that is for another topic another day. Probably a day that the ToS changes and colorful metaphors are permitted. 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloOkay, I'm back.
So, God thrusts existence on a bunch of unwitting minds. Then he stipulates that these minds love and glorify Him; else they will be tossed in a lake of fire. And you don't see any problems here? First, playing by such a set of arbitrarily determined rules may be fine if the players involved give assent; I don't know about you, but I never agreed to be othing[/i] to do with God or any sort of relationship with God) will have to suffice.
First of all, let's deal with having existence thrust upon us and having rules imposed we never assented to. Problematic? Sure, if you regard yourself and God as equal players. So we come back to the question about who has authority (and why) and whether god is just an arrogant (insert expletive here).
What I'm really wondering though, is at what point in your life you had this conversation with your parents. You didn't consent to being born. You didn't consent to whatever rules you had in your house as a child - when meals were, when bedtime was, putting away your toys, having to go to school. What stage of development did you reach before your parents actually paid serious attention to your objections?
My point being, you had to grow up first. It's not axiomatic that all participants in a relationship consent to the 'rules'. I would have thought that being the creator puts God in a pretty strong starting position to be in charge.
In fact the whole of society had a bunch of rules you didn't consent to before they came into force. Some of them are called 'laws', others are more customary.
Your second point returns us to that dilemma (Eurythro?) you were talking about. I'm still not sure I understand why the second 'horn' of the dilemma is actually a problem, but I'll leave that by for now. I do on some level understand part of your point, at least theoretically. Murder wouldn't become morally permissible just because I did it while 'loving God' - although then we get into complicated questions about what that actually means.
What I still haven't grasped is how DO you assess what is morally permissible. You seem to be saying that it's a purely internal question - each person assesses the morality of their own actions. Does this mean we can't ever morally condemn others?
You've hit upon, as I thought you would, the fact that God could not be 'overthrown'. I agree, so the best that a rebel can achieve is to be, on a personal level, a rebellious subject.
I find the Braveheart analogy to be imperfect pretty much for the reason that you cannot compare an ultimate authority (God) with a subordinate authority (King Edward). For a start, if there's any conflict between two levels of authority, you have to go with the higher one. Lesser laws are struck down for being inconsistent with the constitution of a country. I don't know nearly enough about the facts to know whether Wallace's actions were morally appropriate, but the point is that it is at least theoretically possible that it was correct for him to defy a lower authority in order to obey a higher one.
Your last paragraph is key, as well a few other comments around the place about loving God. I can understand why you speak of the difficulty of loving a God who simply issues an edict from on high that says "LOVE ME". My belief is that it's all about relationship. In my view, God is not simply sitting on a throne somewhere being a megalomaniac. He's been making the effort to become known by us.
The biggest part of that effort is Jesus Christ. As a Christian, I believe that God came and lived among us. That's vitally important. God understands what it's like to be a human being, and he also wanted to give us a better understanding of his own character.
I also believe that the third person of God, the Holy Spirit, comes and dwells with us a Christians. That's a pretty intimate relationship.
I find your theoretical meeting with 'God' a touch unrealistic. I would have thought that, if some creator exists, you wouldn't simply exchange pleasant thanks with that creator and then get on with your life. If you had the chance, you WOULD want to get know that creator, if only to figure out what the heck had inspired them in the first place.
It's perfectly possible of course that you wouldn't like this creator once you got to know them. I think George Michael's a pretty good musician, but I don't like him as a person much.
My own experience/opinion of God is that he is, despite all the incredible power and incredibly demanding laws, primarily about love. The one overriding thing I hear from him, is love. God so loved us, he sent his son to die in our place. "We love, because God first loved us".
I try to obey God partly because he commanded me to, but as I said to you in the beginning I am not an Old Testament Jew bound by rules. I mostly try to obey God because he asked me to, and he's already done so much for me that it would be pretty horrible of me to not pay some attention to his request. I can only imagine what people would think of me around here if I never returned any of their favours.
I don't love God because he commanded me to. I love him because he would do anything for me, because he never gives up on me, because he heals deep wounds, because he offers such joy, because he believes in me as a person, because he listens to me.
To know all that, I had to get to know him, and develop a relationship. There were four years between the time I believed God existed and the time I really became a Christian. That time was spent moving from "God exists" to "What is God like"?
If you ever decide God exists, I sincerely hope that you get the chance to get to know him. And I hope that he charms the socks off you.
Originally posted by LemonJelloHave you ever come across CS Lewis' book "The Great Divorce"? As a story, it's lousy writing (certainly not as good as most of his work that I've read), but as a repository of ideas about heaven and hell it's very interesting.
Further, if your concept of hell is merely separation from God, then I'm not sure why there would be any problems there. In particular, if I strive to live how I ought to live; and if that does not coincide with God's directives (which it doesn't); then God will naturally grant me separation from Him. Sounds great to me!
It seems he agrees with you. Hell is full of people who are quite satisfied with being there. In fact, a number of characters in the book refuse point blank to move to heaven.
The tenor of the book is that these people are not just separated from God. They are increasingly separated from each other. Each lives in their own, self-created reality that can't be penetrated by anyone else.
To me, a big part of Christianity is a belief that we were created for relationship - not only with God but with each other. This is one reason why a Trinitarian God is important, as God himself embodies the principle of relationship. And isn't love all about relationship?
In a lot of our discussion, you've been bringing up the theme of independence. As telerion said, it's all about FREEEEEEEEEEDOM.
Maybe hell is the ultimate independence. Think very hard before you say again that that's a good thing - and maybe watch the movie 'Three Colours: Blue' for an illustration of how empty and soulless complete freedom might be.
Originally posted by orfeoThis catches me at an awkward time since I’m leaving and won’t be back. But as I appreciate your time and effort, let me respond before I go.
Okay, I'm back.
First of all, let's deal with having existence thrust upon us and having rules imposed we never assented to. Problematic? Sure, if you regard yourself and God as equal players. So we come back to the question about who has authority (and why) and whether god is just an arrogant (insert expletive here).
What I'm really wondering though, ...[text shortened]... . And I hope that he charms the socks off you.
First, my parents never have and never will dictate morality, either. I often follow their directives because many of their directives are altogether reasonable and not arbitrary, unlike God’s primary commandment. In fact, my parents have always put my interests first: they just happen to be unselfish persons, unlike your God. Further, my parents have never threatened to throw me in a well-made fire if I, for example, don’t eat all of my asparagus or don’t lavish them with love and attention. They would be wrong to do so, now wouldn’t they?
Absolutely nothing I have said implies the ethical egoism you seem to describe. I am not sure where you got that impression, as my arguments do not hinge on it. My arguments do not hinge on moral relativism either. There are many mainstream secular ethical theories that do not rely in the slightest on these, and I would say that they are all pretty much vastly superior to divine command – and none of them would consider a lack of love for God as a moral abomination deserving of eternal torment.
The Braveheart analogy is perfectly fine in this context. That’s because God does not have any ultimate (or even higher) authority on matters of morality. In fact, that’s the whole point.
You mentioned ‘relationship’. Well, that’s a two-way street, isn’t it? Is it reasonable for me to demand that someone else love me? Usually, when I am interested in fostering a relationship with someone, I try to accommodate such a relationship by opening pathways for communication; by showing an interest in their affairs; by respecting their own wishes. I have found that any sort of meaningful relationship cannot exist if the other person doesn’t willfully desire to engage accordingly. I have never tried the approach ‘Hey there cutie-pie, love me or I’ll set you on fire’, but I have good reasons to doubt its efficacy.
God, if He exists, is just another person. So, sure, I would entertain relations with God as I would any other person. Clearly, though, I do not have any sort of obligation to love Him. He obviously thinks otherwise, and that’s His misconception. Your own experience is different, and that’s perfectly fine. But remember that God treats reverence for Him as a necessary pursuit for the betterment of all persons. So in regards to a debate concerning whether that is true or not, I fail to see how a discussion of your own situation fully entertains the topic. You obviously think you have sufficient reasons for loving God, and I’m not about to argue with that. But that wouldn’t change the fact that I (and lots of other people) don’t have sufficient reasons; and it wouldn’t change the fact that loving God is not a necessary condition for leading a good, meaningful life.
I have never read The Great Divorce or seen Three Colours: Blue, but yes in many ways it is about independence and freedom. It’s about having some proper respect for the autonomy and innocuous wishes of others – something which I think your God, in His selfishness, lacks. He certainly does not act as though He were lording over a kingdom of ends. As far as I can tell, the only end that is necessarily and sufficiently provided for is His own end, which gets kissed by those He persuades/coerces.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloHow you decide whether a directive is 'reasonable' or 'arbitrary' seems to depend pretty much on whether you agree with it or not. If your parents had told you to do something you couldn't see the point of, I bet you would have kicked up a stink.
This catches me at an awkward time since I’m leaving and won’t be back. But as I appreciate your time and effort, let me respond before I go.
First, my parents never have and never will dictate morality, either. I often follow their directives because many of their directives are altogether reasonable and not arbitrary, unlike God’s primary commandme ...[text shortened]... y and sufficiently provided for is His own end, which gets kissed by those He persuades/coerces.
And so much of what you describe as demands, obligations and the like could equally be described as God simply warning you about the consequences of your own actions. Your parents didn't tell you not to jump off the roof of your house because it was morally wrong. They told you because they knew it would hurt if you DID!
6 edits
Originally posted by whodeyYes sir ,you are right ,it is the way of the Jewish Mystic.Kabbala just sounds cooler than Jewish Mystic. 😉 I am not Jewish in that I was raised a Christian ,and studied the Kabbala later in life during College.
Please forgive my ignorance but what is a Kabbalist? Is'nt it related to Jewish mystisism?
Originally posted by LemonJelloMust be another one of those "Secret Decoder Ring" things? 🙂
You obviously do not understand the ways of the true Christian. Through the action of the Holy Spirit, the true Christian knows exactly how to interpret those sections of the Good Book that merely ostensibly present problems for him. For example, when God says in Leviticus that we ought to put gay persons, adulterers, and sassy children to death, you do ...[text shortened]... slated in true-Christianese as 'God loves a cheerful giver and a good strong cup of eggnog'.
Originally posted by aspviper666You're truly lost. You are obviously not filled with the Holy Spirit since your interpretations do not match mine. I pray that you find your way to the ever loving, ever open arms of Jesus Christ -- and right quick too.
Who's quote is that? The Bible speaks out against drinking to excess or drinking strong drink.This quote has God as a lush? LMAO