Figuring Out Religion

[Greg]

When I am born:

1.) I don't choose to be hungry, or thirsty, or tired, or having to go to the bathroom. These are just byproducts of being human and I have to deal with them my entire life. I can try to ignore them but eventually they'll win and I'll have to give in or I'll die. This is as far as I know considered as undebatable.

2.) I don't choose to go to hell/be separated from God due to my innate sin, this is just a byproduct of being human and I have to deal with it my entire life. I can try to ignore it but eventually I'll have to give in and repent/ask for salvation or I'll "die". This is our debatable point.

How do you know this, though? Would you know it at all if you hadn't been raised a Christian? Hunger, thirst, fatigue, and a full bladder are all biological in nature and easily personally verifiable dozens of times a day by all humans who have ever lived. By contrast, how is "separation from God" verifiable? If it's such a universal condition, how is it that a strong majority of humans (Only about 32% of humans are Christian) apparently don't feel this?

I was originally stating this to show that God believes in justice and that we're all sinful and deserving of hell. God gives us mercy to avoid hell even though we deserve it for the select he wants to go to heaven.

See chapter 9 of Romans. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209
Snippet of Romans 9:14-21 below (emphasis mine):

"14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”
20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”
21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?"

Other good stuff about potter and clay: http://www.gotquestions.org/potter-and-clay.html

To your point about how do I know this and God being verifiable, I have this which may help a bit: http://www.gotquestions.org/God-shaped-hole.html. As for if I was not brought up Christian, I can't attest to that. From all of my reading thus far, Christianity makes sense to me thus far, even if I always have questions about it. I don't expect to have all the answers to my satisfaction by the time I die, I don't think I can.

And here's more about the meaning of life which I liked: http://www.gotquestions.org/meaning-of-life.html

[Mountaineer]

And then the the question becomes, WHY are they megalomaniacal ideological zealots?  We old-fart engineers are trained to get to the root cause ... usually requires asking "why" up to five or more times. 

... M

Probably a combination of bad environment and bad genes that made them susceptible to the lures of violence and ideology.

…Oh I know where this is going; you'll say that eventually it all leads to sin, and everything is created by God and all that. But then, "Why is there God?"

Why not?

You are sounding a bit Aristotelian. 

... M

[Mountaineer]

Yep, it's your resident populist/socialist/statist/cop-hater celebrating this commie holiday.

Happy Labor Day Weekend, folks. Here's a succinct but perfectly-stated Teddy quote to get the weekend started.

It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize.

- Teddy Roosevelt

Yep, it's your resident (you all can fill in the blank however you wish) celebrating this wonderful holiday.  My day began with a nice message from my Pastor. 

Cheers to you all.  ... M

For those of you working throughout this Labor Day weekend, may Jesus bless you with fruitful and meaningful work today and always.  For those who do not have to work this weekend, let us thank Jesus for the respite and for those who are working throughout the weekend to keep us safe and are ready to help!

Of course, the holiday is born out of conflict between laborers and management - still, obviously, an ongoing issue.  If only Jesus's command to " ... love your neighbor as yourself ..." were the motivation for both groups, then we likely would not have a 3-day weekend.

Alas, this isn't the case but the holiday provides an opportunity for you and me to consider what shapes our thinking about others.  As baptized children of our Heavenly Father, we heed Jesus's words to love others as ourselves.  If we are in management positions, we thank Jesus for laborers who are willing and able to do work that is perhaps mundane, difficult, or some combination between the two.  If we are in labor positions, we thank Jesus for people who manage and lead and can see the bigger picture of where an organization is headed. 

This is difficult to practice.  I've worked enough outside the church to hear management folk complain about laborers and vice versa.  Both groups are gifts to the other.  It's all about vocation ("calling") and being comfortable with what The LORD has given you or me to do.

See you tomorrow!

In Christ,
Pastor Dave 

edit - moved to religion thread  "l82start"

[l82start]

Mountaineer,
I really wish you would stop trying to proselytize us constantly and keep the religious stuff to the religion thread.  Thanks.

it is the nature of deep discussions to tend to merge into overlapping areas, so some mention of god in other threads by members is justifiable and expected..

text walls made up of quotes "of some other persons religious thoughts on some topic" belong in here.. 

thanks

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,
I really wish you would stop trying to proselytize us constantly and keep the religious stuff to the religion thread.  Thanks.

Why?  Why not just ignore it if it bothers you - that is what I do for TV shows I don't care for?  Is that not what tolerant people do?  Why do you feel the need to speak for those who have not voiced an opinion for whatever reason - it is possible they enjoyed the note from my Pastor.  It was very uplifting from my perspective, perhaps to others as well; I'm willing to let them make their own choice, are you?  Regardless, I sincerely hope you have a great Labor Day weekend and enjoy some peace and quiet. 

... M

[Pointedstick]

Greg, I hope this isn't too offensive, but the part about "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" makes it really hard for me to avoid seeing God as a really psychopathic fucked up son-of-a-bitch. If God harden's someone such that he never achieves salvation, that amounts to condemning that person to everlasting torment, or death, or whatever.

Where's the love here? How is it possible to believe in a loving God in the face of such passages?

[Mountaineer]

Greg, I hope this isn't too offensive, but the part about "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" makes it really hard for me to avoid seeing God as a really psychopathic fucked up son-of-a-bitch. If God harden's someone such that he never achieves salvation, that amounts to condemning that person to everlasting torment, or death, or whatever.

Where's the love here? How is it possible to believe in a loving God in the face of such passages?

We, every last person who ever was, is or will be, are deserving of the eternal wrath of God.  It is completely impossible for anyone to do everything at every moment that God requires to be righteous.  The only thing that saves us is Jesus on the cross taking on all our sin from everyone from all time.  It is because of what Jesus did that God no longer sees us at beings deserving of wrath.  Jesus satisfied the punishment that we all deserve.  All those who believe that are saved.  We come to belief by hearing the Word proclaimed.  So simple.  So hard to understand that we have to do nothing other than hear the Word.  We are given the gift of faith and the Holy Spirit at baptism.  The work of the Holy Spirit is to make Jesus known to us.  Hear the Word proclaimed faithfully and accurately and faith is strengthened.  Don't bother to hear the Word and faith slips away.  Why some and not others is trying to understand the hidden side of God (i.e. be like God).  That is the original sin.  Doubt God's Word and really bad things happen.  Love?  A matter of perspective.  Yes if you believe in the promises of Jesus.  No if you refuse to go to where He said He would be (in the Word and Sacraments).  In other words, salvation because of what Jesus did for us if you believe, eternal damnation if you think you know more than God.  At least that is what He tells us in the most published book ever and one that has lasted for thousands of years back to when Moses first recorded God's Words.  It's pretty hard to pass a calculus test if you refuse to learn addition and subtraction - calculus will make no sense whatever unless you go to where it is taught.

My two cents.  I hope Greg gives his perspective.  He is much clearer than I.

... M 

Edit to add:

Think of it this way.  The governmental authorities say premeditated first degree murder is punishable by death regardless of the circumstances.  You find out your next door neighbor is a terrorist who has blown up several homes in the area and your home is perhaps next on the list because you have refused to make friends and love your neighbor and you have not received any response that you can perceive from the authorities when you told them about it.  You decide to take matters into your own hands and snuff your neighbor.  You do so.  The governmental authorities arrest you, bring you to trial, you are convicted, sentensed to death.  You die.  Where is the love in that?  You just believed you knew what was best vs. the governmental authorities who had not always acted the way in which you thought they should.  Unfair?  A loving government?  You knew the rules and the consequences of breaking them.  I know this is not perfect as all metaphors break down, but you can probably get the drift.

On a second note, God is love.  For those who believe His promises and know that he loves us enough to sacrafice His own Son to take punishment that we deserve.  Those who think that God is only love and not just, that happy hippie Jesus we see pictures of, are seriously smoking something that is not revealed in Scripture.  You had best turn the channel and get real.

... M

[Pointedstick]

God gave me intellect and curiosity, but trying to use them to understand him is original sin and condemning me to hell?

God created the cosmology such that I am a flawed being whose eternal soul hangs in the balance unless I do a very specific set of things laid out only 2,000 years ago, therefore condemning to hell all humans who lived before then?

God may, for some inscrutable reason, harden my heart and turn me against the things that he says I need to do to be saved?

I guess all this stuff could be true, but… I dunno, the more I learn about it, the sillier and sillier it sounds. Maybe God is hardening my heart to the message so I'll go to hell… out of love, of course.

[Greg]

God gave me intellect and curiosity, but trying to use them to understand him is original sin and condemning me to hell?

God created the cosmology such that I am a flawed being whose eternal soul hangs in the balance unless I do a very specific set of things laid out only 2,000 years ago, therefore condemning to hell all humans who lived before then?

God may, for some inscrutable reason, harden my heart and turn me against the things that he says I need to do to be saved?

I guess all this stuff could be true, but… I dunno, the more I learn about it, the sillier and sillier it sounds. Maybe God is hardening my heart to the message so I'll go to hell… out of love, of course.

You're asking great questions, and thanks Mountaineer for chiming in. I appreciate your biblical thoughts on this matter.

To PointedStick, based on your questions,

1.) Do you believe that being smarter (Higher IQ, etc.) is always better? Do you believe it could hamper any experiences that a normal intelligence person might have?
2.) Do you think that God would not offer those that came before Jesus a means to save themselves? If not, why not?
3.) Do you think God wants to harden your heart, or do you think he wants to open it with humility and to say you need him?
4.) Why do you think this is silly?

And to everyone posting and to everyone reading this, I thank you. This has been a very rewarding thread to me and I'm grateful to be in a community that I can learn from and express myself in a civil manner in.

[Pointedstick]

You're asking great questions, and thanks Mountaineer for chiming in. I appreciate your biblical thoughts on this matter.

To PointedStick, based on your questions,

1.) Do you believe that being smarter (Higher IQ, etc.) is always better? Do you believe it could hamper any experiences that a normal intelligence person might have?

No, I do not believe that always being smarter is better, and I absolutely think that being smarter can hamper the ability for a person of above-average intelligence to appreciate simple pleasures and manufactured experiences that are aimed at people of average or below-average intelligence, but this cuts both ways. People of average or below average intelligence may be able to derive more pleasure from simpler pleasures, but they are also more easily fooled and manipulated by pleasurable experiences that have been deliberately fabricated to push some ulterior motive. I think most religions qualify, but I'm not just talking about that; I think TV news, advertising, propaganda, and really most media in general would be some other examples. It is easy for smart people to underestimate the manipulative power of media, and it is truly enormous for those without powerful, analytical minds.

2.) Do you think that God would not offer those that came before Jesus a means to save themselves? If not, why not?

I don't, for a couple of reasons:

1. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that he did (right?).

2. It would be fitting with his character not to, because he is portrayed in the bible as a fickle and psychopathic alien monster who doesn't actually care about most individual humans at all; he uses them practically for sport and kills them and sanctions their killing by others without a second thought on numerous occasions.

3. If God offered people before Jesus a chance to save themselves, that opens up a whole can of worms that dilutes the proposed message of, "you must believe in Jesus and that's all that matters." Would God likewise offer this opportunity to people living after Jesus's death who had never heard of him? What about people living today on remote islands who have never heard of Christianity? How about people who were raised in religious traditions other than Christianity who experience shows us will probably not convert? Etc. For that matter, why not offer everyone a chance post-death to atone and accept Jesus? I think this is what Mormons believe, actually, but I have never heart of any other flavors of Christianity endorsing this viewpoint. If there is a school of evangelical Christianity that holds these views, I would like to hear of it, but most of them seem to be based on simplistic literalistic biblical inerrancy, with all the attendant contradictions and logical problems simply ignored.

3.) Do you think God wants to harden your heart, or do you think he wants to open it with humility and to say you need him?

I don't know, but the idea that God even does "harden people's hearts"--therefore willingly and knowingly condemning them to eternal damnation--is pretty chilling IMHO. It leads me to the conclusion that either Judeo-Christian religion is just typical old-fashioned mythology (where this kind of thing is common), or that if it's true, the creator is unimaginably foreign and alien, and we are fooling ourselves if we try to ascribe human motivations and emotions to him, such as "God loves us." This is one of my biggest objections because I hear this claim all the time, but have yet to encounter a single, solitary example of how God supposedly loves either individual humans  or humanity in general that does not present severe logical contradictions in the face of God's supposed omnipotence, or prior or subsequent actions. I see nothing but abuse and manipulation, not love.

4.) Why do you think this is silly?

Because it reads like a bad story that was never revised and published after the first draft. Major characters' motivations don't make sense and their personalities change from chapter to chapter. One passage contradicts the next. The logical consequences of previously-introduced concepts are subsequently ignored whenever it is convenient for the story. Large parts of it are simply boring (A begat B, B begat C, C begat D… snore). I could go on.

[Fred]

We, every last person who ever was, is or will be, are deserving of the eternal wrath of God. 

Speak for yourself.

In my opinion the only people who might really be deserving of the eternal wrath of God are the people who actually believe what you are saying.

[Greg]

PS,

Here are my responses below. I hope they answer some of your questions and look forward to if you have any more.

No, I do not believe that always being smarter is better, and I absolutely think that being smarter can hamper the ability for a person of above-average intelligence to appreciate simple pleasures and manufactured experiences that are aimed at people of average or below-average intelligence, but this cuts both ways. People of average or below average intelligence may be able to derive more pleasure from simpler pleasures, but they are also more easily fooled and manipulated by pleasurable experiences that have been deliberately fabricated to push some ulterior motive.

1.) Do you believe that intelligence can make someone too prideful and arrogant and to think they know the best way of how things should work/exist versus how things are? Do you believe that too much intelligence can cause you to just rely on yourself and be skeptical of everything to a fault, even if it is true? http://www.gotquestions.org/pride-of-life.html

It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that he did (right?).

2.) http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testame ... evers.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/before-Jesus.html

It would be fitting with his character not to, because he is portrayed in the bible as a fickle and psychopathic alien monster who doesn't actually care about most individual humans at all; he uses them practically for sport and kills them and sanctions their killing by others without a second thought on numerous occasions.

3.) In law, we look for a motive as to why people do what they do. Do you believe that if you could understand God's true motive for why he does what he does, your opinion might change? "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9 http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-violence.html

If God offered people before Jesus a chance to save themselves, that opens up a whole can of worms that dilutes the proposed message of, "you must believe in Jesus and that's all that matters."

4.) See progressive revelation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressi ... istianity) shown in the second hyperlink of #2 above.

Would God likewise offer this opportunity to people living after Jesus's death who had never heard of him? What about people living today on remote islands who have never heard of Christianity?

5.) http://www.gotquestions.org/never-heard.html
http://www.gqkidz.org/never-heard.html

How about people who were raised in religious traditions other than Christianity who experience shows us will probably not convert? Etc.

6.) http://www.gotquestions.org/God-judge-religions.html

For that matter, why not offer everyone a chance post-death to atone and accept Jesus? I think this is what Mormons believe, actually, but I have never heart of any other flavors of Christianity endorsing this viewpoint. If there is a school of evangelical Christianity that holds these views, I would like to hear of it, but most of them seem to be based on simplistic literalistic biblical inerrancy, with all the attendant contradictions and logical problems simply ignored.

7.) Luke 16: 27 - 31 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... e+16:19-31
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,
28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
They have had their entire lives to come to God and Jesus. After they die, they have made their decisions and they are sticking with it regardless of what has been shown to them. http://www.gotquestions.org/second-chan ... ation.html

I don't know, but the idea that God even does "harden people's hearts"--therefore willingly and knowingly condemning them to eternal damnation--is pretty chilling IMHO. It leads me to the conclusion that either Judeo-Christian religion is just typical old-fashioned mythology (where this kind of thing is common), or that if it's true, the creator is unimaginably foreign and alien, and we are fooling ourselves if we try to ascribe human motivations and emotions to him, such as "God loves us." This is one of my biggest objections because I hear this claim all the time, but have yet to encounter a single, solitary example of how God supposedly loves either individual humans  or humanity in general that does not present severe logical contradictions in the face of God's supposed omnipotence, or prior or subsequent actions. I see nothing but abuse and manipulation, not love.

8.) I believe God to be a just God before he is a loving God. He has made the rules, we broke them. He took pity on us and gave us a way out of the consequences of us breaking the rules due to love
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-of-justice.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-is-love.html.

Because it reads like a bad story that was never revised and published after the first draft. Major characters' motivations don't make sense and their personalities change from chapter to chapter. One passage contradicts the next. The logical consequences of previously-introduced concepts are subsequently ignored whenever it is convenient for the story. Large parts of it are simply boring (A begat B, B begat C, C begat D… snore). I could go on.

9.) http://www.gotquestions.org/which-book.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/who-wrote-the-Bible.html
These were still books that were written by humans with their particulars styles and such. It was just God-inspired message in there. It was also a time-based piece, in that it would make sense to the people of that day, but perhaps not as much to those of today (such as slavery, etc.). The big question shouldn't be whether you believe it was poorly written or not, but rather, are what the people speaking about during these books true?

I hope this helps a bit. I'm still as always, in my search to provide better answers to myself and to others. Through earnest searching, I hope I'll find everything I'm looking for and fulfill why I'm here on Earth in the first place.

[MediumTex]

This may sound like the most heretical thing you've ever heard, but IMHO an honest reading of the entire Bible makes it seem like the "Old Cruel Curmudgeon God" from the Old Testament thought he had knocked up Mary with Jesus, when in fact Mary was knocked up by another god (that chick got around) in the form of the "Greek God of Love and Kindness", so all of the New Testament is really just a case of mistaken identity, and the only one who is in on the joke is Paul, and that's why he seems to have little interest in explaining Christianity and "The King of the Jews" to a bunch of backwater Jewish bumpkins, but he is passionate about explaining it to people who were never Jewish to start with.  That interpretation of the Bible makes way more sense to me than the conventional interpretation, and it would also explain why the Jewish religious leaders were willing to sign Jesus's death warrant--i.e., they knew he wasn't a child of their God and they were enraged at his claims that he was.

Everything I've read from history books, for example Dimont's Jews, God, and History suggests that the Jews were pretty sophisticated for an occupied people in that place and time. Blasphemy (claiming to be God in this case) was already potentially punishable by death. The fact that the Jews even had a trial and Sanhedrin, handing him over to Pilate for judgment instead of stringing him up, doesn't sound very bumpkiny to me. Not that I really care. I just don't accept the Gospel version of it. Or of anything.

I was referring to Jesus's disciples when I said backwater Jewish bumpkins, since they were basically a group of rural laborers and fishermen.  Apparently, Paul and the 12 didn't see eye to eye on much, and that's probably not surprising, given Paul's background as a member of the religious elite.  Country people rarely get much respect from people like that.

[MediumTex]

The thing about Jesus, though, is that I think you can easily separate Jesus from Christianity, and when you just focus on the ministry of Jesus it contains a message that is very powerful and, I think, essentially true...right up through when he was killed.

When people speak in terms of Jesus being "just a prophet", I would say that being a prophet is actually quite a distinguished title.

The basic trouble I think that some of us are having with a dogmatic form of Christianity is that it leaves no room for discussion and it leaves no room for anyone else to be right about anything.  The kind of dogmatic Christianity being discussed here essentially involves the belief that all of the other world religions are not just wrong, but they are actually offensive enough to God that ALL of their followers will suffer for eternity, in many cases simply because they adopted the religion that saturated their culture, and even though not joining it would be provocative and anti-social.  I just can't get past that one.

It does appear to be true, though, that once the cracks start to appear in the mental edifice of religion, it's hard to keep it from all falling down.  Interestingly, in my case when the edifice collapsed, Jesus was still there and I found that encouraging, not because it argued in favor of the existence of God, but just because I find Jesus to be someone whose teachings could improve the lives of almost anyone who follows them, and he seems to have not fallen prey to the temptations of power that reveal the inner pettiness of so many charismatic leaders.

[MediumTex]

Mountaineer,
I really wish you would stop trying to proselytize us constantly and keep the religious stuff to the religion thread.  Thanks.

Why?  Why not just ignore it if it bothers you - that is what I do for TV shows I don't care for?  Is that not what tolerant people do?  Why do you feel the need to speak for those who have not voiced an opinion for whatever reason - it is possible they enjoyed the note from my Pastor.  It was very uplifting from my perspective, perhaps to others as well; I'm willing to let them make their own choice, are you?  Regardless, I sincerely hope you have a great Labor Day weekend and enjoy some peace and quiet. 

... M

Because this isn't a forum on religion,  and if I want to constantly hear about Jesus etc,  I will go to church or peruse a website or forum devoted to the topic.  I find it hard to enjoy the flow of conversation with the constant interjection of long religious quotes from wherever that are off topic at best and offensive to the non believers at worst.

That's a reasonable request.

Could we rein in the proselytizing a bit and try to keep it in this thread as much as possible?

Thanks.

[Pointedstick]

The basic trouble I think that some of us are having with a dogmatic form of Christianity is that it leaves no room for discussion and it leaves no room for anyone else to be right about anything.  The kind of dogmatic Christianity being discussed here essentially involves the belief that all of the other world religions are not just wrong, but they are actually offensive enough to God that ALL of their followers will suffer for eternity, in many cases simply because they adopted the religion that saturated their culture, and even though not joining it would be provocative and anti-social.  I just can't get past that one.

This is exactly true for me, especially the no room for discussion part. The basic tenet of these flavors of evangelical Christianity seems to be that first you need to accept absolutely everything they say as true, and only then can you really have a discussion. This seems really creepy and cult-like to me, but it's a by-product of the belief that not believing absolutely everything they say leads to an eternity of torment, which is really messed up to me. As MT says, the logical consequence of this is that most currently living humans are going to hell to face an eternity of torture, including many Christians. And Greg's links show that this doctrine does indeed point to most humans before Christ being in Hell, too.

I really appreciate Greg's efforts to answer my questions, but I admit that none of the links he provided are all that satisfying. They're neat and tidy, with concrete answers, and don't dance around the question, which is a welcome change, but the actual answers themselves are all self-referential and many are downright offensive to modern morality, such as the explanation for why God-ordered mass murder was appropriate: Those sinful Canaanites didn't listen to God and they were all guilty at least a little bit, even the children! Another one, about the fairness of condemning to Hell people who never heard about evangelical Christianity: Wrong! They did hear about it because it was in their hearts all along, so the fact that 99.999% of them failed to convert to evangelical Christianity is their own fault! And the explanation for how a loving God can repeatedly commit and urge his followers to commit mass murder (Because he let his Son be sacrificed! Because wants us to turn away from sin!) is so unsatisfying and so impossible to square with his violence that I had to laugh out loud. It's like claiming that an abusive father loves his kids because in between violent rages, he buys them ice cream. I'm just gonna say it--all of this seems to me like some really messed up shit to believe. It answers my questions by showcasing the craziness of this form of Christianity and making me want to be associated with it even less. I appreciate everything being put so bluntly, but it's pretty brutal stuff and I do not understand how this flavor of evangelical Christianity is emotionally appealing to anyone without a sadistic or masochistic side. The more about it I learn, the more it seems like a mythologically-informed cult.

Can any of the believers here explain where the emotional appeal of evangelical Christianity comes from?

[MediumTex]

Can any of the believers here explain where the emotional appeal of evangelical Christianity comes from?

I think that for many it starts with simply growing up in a certain religious tradition and that being the thing that you know.

The presence of charismatic leaders also creates gravitational pull toward religions that celebrate big personalities leading the church.  Can you imagine Jerry Falwell as a Catholic priest?  How about Joel Osteen as a rabbi?

I understand the story that Greg and Mountaineer are trying to tell, and I am sure they are sincere in their beliefs and that those beliefs provide them with a sense of meaning and wholeness in their lives.

Here's the problem IMHO: I assume most of you are familiar with the movie Shallow Hal, which involved a guy who fell in love with an ugly fat chick because all he saw when he looked at her was her inner beauty, and he couldn't conceptualize the idea that others weren't seeing what he saw when he looked at her.  I think that religion is like that for many people--they grow up in or otherwise adopt a system of beliefs that is based on intolerance, hatred and violence, and yet they somehow can't see these ugly traits in their belief system because they are so charmed by one or more of the promises the belief system makes, typically involving some type of promise of immortality for the devout.

The problem with failing to see the reality of your own belief system is that it doesn't allow the belief system to evolve and/or coexist with other belief systems.  It also doesn't allow for the questioning of the belief system, even when common sense would suggest that certain practices should be questioned such as human sacrifice and/or using violence against non-believers.

I have spent my whole life immersed in a religious tradition that talks endlessly about selflessness and humility, and yet many of its promises are based upon very self-centered thinking masquerading as righteousness, the most obvious example of which is the belief in immortality based upon adopting the proper beliefs.  The smugness this belief structure creates is not necessarily intentional, but it's impossible to miss if you are looking in from the outside.  This isn't confined to my own religious tradition, but it's the tradition that I understand the best.

[dualstow]

I think that Shallow Hal analogy is an excellent one, even though I'm on the outside looking in. That is, I can only see the fat chick, but I appreciate the beholder who sees beyond. I have friends just like Greg.

[MediumTex]

Here is the Jesus-centric Christianity that I have been able to distill from my own religious background, and which I would offer to people who asked me for guidance regarding their spiritual lives:

1. The test of the truth behind what a prophet teaches must lie in the effect the teachings have when applied, NOT simply because the teachings came from the prophet.  This is sort of a scientific approach to validating claims made by a prophet--take the hypothesis and test it continually to see if it continues to work as advertised--keeps a belief system grounded and prevents aberrant beliefs from growing on an otherwise solid foundation like bone spurs on an otherwise healthy bone.

2. Based on 1., above, the only relevant information from Jesus's ministry is the content of his teachings.  All supernatural accoutrements are just religious bling.

3. A sound religion should be about action, not belief.  It provides you with a framework for how to spend your time, effort and resources in each moment.  The real benefits of good religion come from the person it helps you to become, not from the way it validates the things that you wanted to do in the first place like be right about everything and live forever.

4. I apply the teachings of Jesus by approaching others with kindness, understanding and an open mind.  I am happy to honestly entertain any belief that differs from my own because I am not afraid of what I might find if I open my mind in this way.  I do not secretly believe that people who disagree with me are wrong--I just believe that spiritual and intellectual humility promote understanding better than anything else, but I am always interested in others' thoughts on why this may not be true.

5. I do not need supernatural validation of anything.  If a belief system is sound, it shouldn't need supernatural validation--the truth of its claims should be observable from simply practicing them in reality.

6. The only person I am ultimately responsible for is me, and thus what others believe is not of great importance, though I am curious about others' beliefs because I am always on the lookout for new ideas and new expressions of truth.

7. I think that the best solution to unrealistic desire is to eliminate the desire, not engage in mental gymnastics that allow the desire to seemingly be satisfied.  It is childlike self- absorption to expect to find presents under the Christmas tree every morning.

Those are some of the guiding principles that make up my own belief system.

[MediumTex]

I think that Shallow Hal analogy is an excellent one, even though I'm on the outside looking in. That is, I can only see the fat chick, but I appreciate the beholder who sees beyond. I have friends just like Greg.

Understanding that the adherent is not seeing the fat chick helps you communicate with him more effectively.

If you lead with "Wow, that's cool that you're into fat chicks because someone needs to love them", it's not going to start the discussion in a good place if the person you are talking to doesn't even realize he's with a fat chick.

[dualstow]

Of course. They see beyond. I hope you don't think that I meant any different.

I mean it's your analogy, so I assume you've actually seen the movie. If you have, you know that there is an obese woman. To admit that that's what I can see, is only to be honest.

[MediumTex]

Of course. They see beyond. I hope you don't think that I meant any different.

I mean it's your analogy, so I assume you've actually seen the movie. If you have, you know that there is an obese woman. To admit that that's what I can see, is only to be honest.

The thing is, though, Hal didn't see beyond her outward ugliness, he didn't see her outward ugliness at all. 

I think that religion can sometimes charm people in a way that they truly don't see the internal contradictions and other warts that outsiders see because they are so enchanted with something about the way the belief system makes them feel.

I don't think that many Christians see the nationalist bully serial killer God in the Old Testament and say "I will look beyond those ugly qualities because the New Testament is such an inspiring second act"; rather, I think that many Christians somehow don't see the true nature of God in the Old Testament at all because they have been conditioned not to. 

The same is true for the complete absence of Heaven and Hell in the Old Testament.  How is that glaring omission not troubling to people who believe that every word in the Bible is true?  Were Heaven and Hell just created a few thousand years ago as post-death destinations for humans, even though they are supposed to be eternal?  If Hell existed in the Old Testament, why didn't anyone mention it?  If Hell did exist in the Old Testament, who went there?  All of the non-Jewish people in the world?  Why did God even create non-Jewish people if they were only going to live a meaningless life and then go to Hell?  When Solomon says in Ecclesiastes that man and beast go to the same place when they die (i.e., the dirt), how do we reconcile that with the popular interpretation of the term "everlasting life" in the New Testament?  I think that the answer is that the latter was obviously allegorical, and was referring to the way we experience life in this plane of existence moment by moment, NOT the way we experience some supernatural post-death existence.

On a related note, if Jesus and God were the same entity, why would Jesus ask on the cross why God had forsaken him?  How can you forsake yourself?  Even taking a cynical view and still assuming that Jesus knew the nature of God, it still seems odd that he would ask why he had been forsaken because the obvious answer would have been: "Because I'm a sadistic MFer and I enjoy watching people suffer to show their devotion to me.  Didn't you read Job?"

[Greg]

PS and MT,

Hoping the responses below help to shed more light on these most difficult of topics to speak about and think of.

The basic trouble I think that some of us are having with a dogmatic form of Christianity is that it leaves no room for discussion and it leaves no room for anyone else to be right about anything.  The kind of dogmatic Christianity being discussed here essentially involves the belief that all of the other world religions are not just wrong, but they are actually offensive enough to God that ALL of their followers will suffer for eternity, in many cases simply because they adopted the religion that saturated their culture, and even though not joining it would be provocative and anti-social.  I just can't get past that one.

This is exactly true for me, especially the no room for discussion part. The basic tenet of these flavors of evangelical Christianity seems to be that first you need to accept absolutely everything they say as true, and only then can you really have a discussion.

First, to dispel the stereotypes as to what an evangelical Christian is, they break down the words in this link. At its core, it is just people who follow Christ and  that care to share the good news with others.
http://www.gotquestions.org/evangelical-Christian.html

This seems really creepy and cult-like to me, but it's a by-product of the belief that not believing absolutely everything they say leads to an eternity of torment, which is really messed up to me. As MT says, the logical consequence of this is that most currently living humans are going to hell to face an eternity of torture, including many Christians.

I’d like to bring up this parable that has probably been brought up before in this thread. This is of the blind men and the elephants. http://www.str.org/articles/the-trouble ... e20bUb2U-M.

Here, I’d like to say that every religion can be useful towards figuring things out. I’d even say that learning about other religions can help to understand something better in your own religion. Ultimately however, the idea that all religions can be in balance with one another doesn’t make sense due to conflicting beliefs (Jesus is the messiah, he isn’t the messiah, etc.) Therefore they are either all wrong, or one of them is correct. Also this http://www.gotquestions.org/Hindu-Christian.html and this http://www.gotquestions.org/skepticism-of-religion.html regarding choices in religions or no religion at all http://www.gotquestions.org/religion-opium-masses.html

And again, just because you don’t like the story, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. When a human murders someone else, we are “playing God”. Based on this, God can do whatever he wants because he is God. This is one of the reasons we should fear God because he is so powerful to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. God is justified based on his rules that we broke to send us all to Hell for eternal torment.

While it wouldn’t have been the story I would want for people, his ways/thoughts are far above mine and he knows best. I don’t mean this to be a cop-out, just that I understand my own limits of knowledge and that through complete knowledge, I would better understand his reasonings.

And Greg's links show that this doctrine does indeed point to most humans before Christ being in Hell, too.

I believe this to be incorrect based on the link I posted originally (http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testame ... evers.html). It states that everyone goes to Hades, both the good and the bad. But there are good locations and bad locations in it with a wide chasm in between. After judgment day, everyone on the good side would be going to the new heaven, and all those on the bad side would be cast into the lake of fire. Also this http://www.gotquestions.org/sheol-hades-hell.html

I really appreciate Greg's efforts to answer my questions, but I admit that none of the links he provided are all that satisfying. They're neat and tidy, with concrete answers, and don't dance around the question, which is a welcome change, but the actual answers themselves are all self-referential and many are downright offensive to modern morality, such as the explanation for why God-ordered mass murder was appropriate: Those sinful Canaanites didn't listen to God and they were all guilty at least a little bit, even the children! Another one, about the fairness of condemning to Hell people who never heard about evangelical Christianity: Wrong! They did hear about it because it was in their hearts all along, so the fact that 99.999% of them failed to convert to evangelical Christianity is their own fault! And the explanation for how a loving God can repeatedly commit and urge his followers to commit mass murder (Because he let his Son be sacrificed! Because wants us to turn away from sin!) is so unsatisfying and so impossible to square with his violence that I had to laugh out loud. It's like claiming that an abusive father loves his kids because in between violent rages, he buys them ice cream.

Now we're getting into questioning authenticity of the Bible, which is something I'm looking for more outside evidence to support. I don't like things that are just self-referential. That's why I started liking this which Insurance Guy pointed me to back in June. Here's a couple of the posts that I like that try to look towards outside sources to support the Bible. http://robertcliftonrobinson.com/2014/0 ... testament/; http://robertcliftonrobinson.com/2015/0 ... -evidence/; http://robertcliftonrobinson.com/2014/0 ... ce-of-god/

I'm just gonna say it--all of this seems to me like some really messed up shit to believe. It answers my questions by showcasing the craziness of this form of Christianity and making me want to be associated with it even less. I appreciate everything being put so bluntly, but it's pretty brutal stuff and I do not understand how this flavor of evangelical Christianity is emotionally appealing to anyone without a sadistic or masochistic side. The more about it I learn, the more it seems like a mythologically-informed cult.

Brutal, totally. But sin is also brutal to God. The wages of sin is death. It is only sadistic if you desire people to go to Hell. That's where the evangelical side comes in. For us, we are hoping to provide as much information as others desire so that they can make informed decisions about where they want to go after they die. I don't want anyone to go to Hell, but people will. I can only do my part and try to help others to not go to there.

Can any of the believers here explain where the emotional appeal of evangelical Christianity comes from?

For me, the emotional appeal is to reduce suffering. Humans do all manners of things to themselves that in the short run are great, but end of hurting them later. Having a burger, or drugs, or any type of thing could be great in the beginning of damning later. I want to help people to keep long suffering from happening to them, even though based on their actions, that is what everyone deserves. God wants to have a relationship with us but based on his divineness, can't handle sin at all in his presence. And while I might not feel good in the moment, I feel good later for being good and looking to God. Fills me with peace and makes me not worry about where I'm going when I die but wanting to help others in their own journeys. And I feel good when I am in fellowship with others that love God and that we're all trying to be better people and more like Jesus everyday.

lastly,

On a related note, if Jesus and God were the same entity, why would Jesus ask on the cross why God had forsaken him?  How can you forsake yourself?  Even taking a cynical view and still assuming that Jesus knew the nature of God, it still seems odd that he would ask why he had been forsaken because the obvious answer would have been: "Because I'm a sadistic MFer and I enjoy watching people suffer to show their devotion to me.  Didn't you read Job?

https://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/ ... orsaken-me
http://www.gotquestions.org/forsaken-me.html

I hope these help to answer your questions. I spend the time to write all of this out carefully because while I may be wrong, I want to make sure you have the correct impressions of what Christianity is and who God truly is. That way, you can make your own choice and feel confident in your decision.

- Greg

[MediumTex]

Now we're getting into questioning authenticity of the Bible, which is something I'm looking for more outside evidence to support. I don't like things that are just self-referential. That's why I started liking this which Insurance Guy pointed me to back in June. Here's a couple of the posts that I like that try to look towards outside sources to support the Bible.

http://robertcliftonrobinson.com/2014/0 ... testament/; http://robertcliftonrobinson.com/2015/0 ... -evidence/; http://robertcliftonrobinson.com/2014/0 ... ce-of-god/

I went to the link and read it.

Ugh.

All of his "proof" consists of other references within the Bible.  If the question is whether the story in the Bible is real, you can't cite other sections of the Bible to support that proposition.

He also says things like: "The men who wrote the New Testament were honest, diligent men who recorded the words of Jesus and the beginning of the Christian church because they were convinced by facts that these things were true."  How could he possibly know whether the men who wrote the New Testament were honest and diligent?  That's absurd, especially when the original question is basically whether those writers were honestly describing events that had actually occurred.

Another thing that he does is shift the burden of proof to those who claim the resurrection didn't happen.  What kind of logic is that?  If someone tells me that a guy was crucified and after sitting in a tomb for three days he came back to life and after appearing to many people in the form of an apparition he ascended into the sky, it's not my responsibility to prove that it didn't happen, it's the job of the person making the claim to prove that it did happen.

I think that adopting a fundamentalist approach to Christianity is like joining a "Cognitive Dissonance Club" where you get a new package of cognitive dissonance every time you look at your beliefs from a slightly different angle (plus you get 10 free packages when you initially sign up).

The Christian apologist writers often imply that people who are skeptical of fundamentalist Christian theology are hate-filled atheists with blackened hearts, and what they need is to be taught about Jesus-style love.  I always find this to be a vastly inaccurate way of framing the discussion.  The frame of mind I bring to the discussion is completely driven by love and a desire for understanding, and it's part of what makes me want to show to adherents of fundamentalist Christianity that what they are calling love is often more like rigid intolerance, and what they are calling compassion is often the worst kind of self-righteous judgment.

I don't think that you can fully respect another person if you secretly believe that their religious views are completely wrong, and that they will burn in Hell for eternity because of it.  I also don't think you can fully respect a person if you expect them to listen to your religious beliefs with an open mind, but you are not willing to do the same for them.  Since a true fundamentalist can't listen to other views with an open mind (if he could he wouldn't be a fundamentalist), it basically means that being a fundamentalist makes it almost impossible to truly respect people who don't believe the same things you do.  If someone said "I respect them, I'm just concerned about their eternal salvation", I would say that's not respect because it still presupposes that their entire worldview and belief structure is wrong, which is sort of an arrogant thing to do, especially when you may not even know that much about what they believe other than it comes from a different religious tradition than yours.

[Pointedstick]

I again thank you for the extremely detailed responses, Greg. I really appreciate your willingness to engage with damned heathens like us.

Here, I’d like to say that every religion can be useful towards figuring things out. I’d even say that learning about other religions can help to understand something better in your own religion. Ultimately however, the idea that all religions can be in balance with one another doesn’t make sense due to conflicting beliefs (Jesus is the messiah, he isn’t the messiah, etc.) Therefore they are either all wrong, or one of them is correct. Also this http://www.gotquestions.org/Hindu-Christian.html and this http://www.gotquestions.org/skepticism-of-religion.html regarding choices in religions or no religion at all http://www.gotquestions.org/religion-opium-masses.html

I agree; all religions cannot possibly simultaneously be correct about everything. I think it is far more likely that they're all largely wrong, especially when it comes to their doctrines, but that each contains wisdom that is true and applicable, and that people were attracted to this wisdom and formed religions around them. This is kind of what MT gets to with his "Jesusism" religion that throws out all the Christian doctrine but focuses on Jesus's message of love and humility, which is personally applicable. It would be like throwing out the reincarnation part of Buddhism but adopting zen and meditation.

And again, just because you don’t like the story, doesn’t mean it isn’t true. When a human murders someone else, we are “playing God”. Based on this, God can do whatever he wants because he is God. This is one of the reasons we should fear God because he is so powerful to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. God is justified based on his rules that we broke to send us all to Hell for eternal torment.

You're just parroting evangelical Christian doctrine. I haven't heard or seen anything to make me believe that it is true. If it is true, it should be easy to prove. If it is unprovable because it is based on faith, then my lack of belief shouldn't seem so weird.

And Greg's links show that this doctrine does indeed point to most humans before Christ being in Hell, too.

I believe this to be incorrect based on the link I posted originally (http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testame ... evers.html). It states that everyone goes to Hades, both the good and the bad. But there are good locations and bad locations in it with a wide chasm in between. After judgment day, everyone on the good side would be going to the new heaven, and all those on the bad side would be cast into the lake of fire. Also this http://www.gotquestions.org/sheol-hades-hell.html

Given that the major theme of the Old Testament is that of a cursed, fallen, sin-filled humanity, it seems pretty clear that almost everyone back then went to the bad part of Hades. Certainly everyone killed in the Flood did. Ditto for everyone God commanded his favored people to commit genocide against. Etc.

I'm just gonna say it--all of this seems to me like some really messed up shit to believe. It answers my questions by showcasing the craziness of this form of Christianity and making me want to be associated with it even less. I appreciate everything being put so bluntly, but it's pretty brutal stuff and I do not understand how this flavor of evangelical Christianity is emotionally appealing to anyone without a sadistic or masochistic side. The more about it I learn, the more it seems like a mythologically-informed cult.

Brutal, totally. But sin is also brutal to God. The wages of sin is death. It is only sadistic if you desire people to go to Hell. That's where the evangelical side comes in. For us, we are hoping to provide as much information as others desire so that they can make informed decisions about where they want to go after they die. I don't want anyone to go to Hell, but people will. I can only do my part and try to help others to not go to there.

Again, you're just parroting evangelical Christian doctrine. If the doctrine is nothing more than blood-soaked mythology, then all you're doing by sharing these disturbing and judgmental pronouncements is scaring people and making them feel bad.

Can any of the believers here explain where the emotional appeal of evangelical Christianity comes from?

For me, the emotional appeal is to reduce suffering. Humans do all manners of things to themselves that in the short run are great, but end of hurting them later. Having a burger, or drugs, or any type of thing could be great in the beginning of damning later. I want to help people to keep long suffering from happening to them, even though based on their actions, that is what everyone deserves. God wants to have a relationship with us but based on his divineness, can't handle sin at all in his presence. And while I might not feel good in the moment, I feel good later for being good and looking to God. Fills me with peace and makes me not worry about where I'm going when I die but wanting to help others in their own journeys. And I feel good when I am in fellowship with others that love God and that we're all trying to be better people and more like Jesus everyday.

If you were not a Christian, would you exult in short-term pleasure at the expense of your future? Would you ignore people who were suffering? Would you feel unsettled to not know what was going to happen to you after death? Do you believe that the positive psychological states you point to are unique to practitioners of evangelical Christianity?