...does what it says on the tin. The creed - small group wibblings : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|||
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25 |
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Which is somewhere we fundamentally differ, I believe that if God exists (as I believe He does) then there is truth in religion. I also believe that true religion is based on God's self-revelation rather than being human invention.
I quite agree. Given that theory, however, I find it very interestng that nobody has ever managed to devise a definition of God that all human beings find comprehensible, and from there I conclude that gods are unlikely to be true properties of the universe
I agree that God is not a `true property of the universe'. He is the creator of the universe and therefore outside us. He is not something that we can seek to define. We respond to him and cannot control or limit him.
(no subject)
I believe that the human mind is an astoundingly flexible and creative thing, and that it will go to remarkable lengths to preserve its own fragile perception of reality; I don't disagree for a second that (most) humans need gods, I just don't believe that means they truly exist oustide human perception.
One of the things that convinces me of this is that I had a religious experience myself at the age of about thirteen or fourteen; being a scientific child, I waited to see what happened, and found that after half an hour or so it wore off and life was essentially the same as it had always been. It really wasn't enough to convince me that everything I understood about the universe and had learnt how to deduce about it from first-hand observation was wrong, particularly not coupled with another experience a few years later which made it clear to me that the only time I feel a need for religion is when I'm scared the universe doesn't care whether the average human lives or dies - my brain finds that hard to cope with despite the fact that history and reality tell me it's true, because I'm a creature designed to understand the world in terms of relationships between beings like myself.
No, what I have faith in is the fact that I can't possibly know everything, so I can't possibly assume that there isn't a scientific explanation for religious experiences and the human need for deity; and over the course of my life I've come up with one that explains my responses to my own satisfaction. You have obviously chosen to go along with the dictates of your software, which I grant you is the natural thing to do and probably keeps you rather saner by strictly cultural definitions than I am; I'm very unusual in my ability to cope with high levels of ostracism and cognitive dissonance and to reject social and cultural norms in favour of trusting my own instincts, and you wouldn't believe how much that upsets the normals :)
The other interesting point is that with an attitude like mine the existence or otherwise of God becomes more or less irrelevant. If he does exist then he's always existed, and my life has got the way it is anyway; if he doesn't, then he never has, and my life is just my life and I direct it. As I understand modern Christianity it sees god as a non-human entity which loves all humans and is not subject to human vices such as pettiness, intolerance or spite and which also merely observes rather than taking direct part. So essentially it really doesn't matter whether I choose to believe in this entity or not since it will (a) love me anyway and (b) never have any direct and observable effect on my life other than whatever sense of satisfaction or otherwise the knowledge of my relationship with it creates within my own mind. Given this and the fact that choosing at my stage of development to believe in magic rather than science would create considerable rifts in my worldview which would be likely to do unpleasant things to the integrity of my personality, it seems more sensible not to burden myself with the additional workload of trying to come up with a plausible explanation for having faith in its existence. (I should point out that I consider the effect of becoming a member of a supportive community of like-minded people, which can and does have many beneficial effects for all humans whatever the uniting force is, to be very separate from that of "a relationship with god").
Lastly, of course, if god isn't infinitely loving and forgiving and does reject people who aren't nice to him rather than some other deity (in the traditional "well you'll go to hell then, won't you" model), then that pretty much makes him just as bad as I am, and I don't see any reason why I need to saddle myself with yet another demanding, prejudiced entity to which I need to explain myself - I've got plenty enough of those in my immediate circle of friends..
(no subject)
Of course, in my case, there are a few Minor Technical Difficulties with this, but the principle holds.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Why is your perception of reality more reliable than mine (or indeed that of thousands of faithful believers through history)? This argument says nothing about whether God does exist outside our perception.
You have obviously chosen to go along with the dictates of your software, which I grant you is the natural thing to do and probably keeps you rather saner by strictly cultural definitions than I am; I'm very unusual in my ability to cope with high levels of ostracism and cognitive dissonance and to reject social and cultural norms in favour of trusting my own instincts, and you wouldn't believe how much that upsets the normals :)
I'm trying to read that in a way that is not verging on patronising and arrogant, but I'm having trouble. I'm not quite sure what culture you're living in, but in the one at the school of my youth being a pratising Christian (especially as already being an odd ball loner who preferred reading to pop music) was not culturally sane. These days in this country, rejecting religion as fuzzy and not really really is probably closer to the cultural norm than being a committed member of a faith community. Having said that Chrisitianity is not about sticking to cultural norms (although it has been used to uphold the status quo at times in teh history of Western civilization). You seem to have assumed a fair amount about me without knowing me (and whilst we might have met at a Foundation or Rivendell party or soemthing I'm not sure who you are) and are implying that you are better than me.
As I understand modern Christianity it sees god as a non-human entity which loves all humans and is not subject to human vices such as pettiness, intolerance or spite and which also merely observes rather than taking direct part.
That sounds like Deism (which was common in the 18th century) rather than Christianity (modern or otherwise). I believe in a God who is involved in his Creation not a mere observor. The effects I see, admittedly from within my worldview to which the Nicene Creed (or at least the things to which it testifies) is central, are far wider than just a warm, fuzzy feeling. The story of the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord, Jesus Christ, is so amazing that if it is true, what can I do but respond in wonder, love and praise. I am a sinful human being but God loves me and wants to sort my sinfulness out. Maybe sinful isn't a word that resonates with you, but our being 'demanding, prejudiced entities' is very much a result of our sinfulness. I'm irritable and arrogant and all sorts of other things and I can't change myself, but God through his grace gives me power to change (but he asks my co-operation in this process -- and it's not quick).
Lastly, of course, if god isn't infinitely loving and forgiving and does reject people who aren't nice to him rather than some other deity (in the traditional "well you'll go to hell then, won't you" model), then that pretty much makes him just as bad as I am,
Aah, something on which we agree.
The issue of hell is a complex one, but I believe there comes a point at which we say to God, I prefer my way to yours, and damn ourselves to hell. He is working to redeem his creation (which we've messed up, often by thinking 'I/we know best') but does not coerce us.
(no subject)
I'm not implying anything; what I'm stating is that my worldview suits me better than yours would given the way we've each grown up. Tautological really, given that mine is the one I've personally evolved to suit my needs and yours is the one you've personally evolved for your needs; that was my whole point. I've no particular interest in demolishing Christianity as a credible religion, though I find it easy enough to pick holes and an entertaining subject to discuss for people's reactions; I just prefer to accept that in the modern world religion can only conceivably be a choice, and amusing to encounter Christians given that there are so many aspects of Christianity (God created the world, is all-powerful, &c) that pressure nonbelievers to assume the Christian way of thinking, in spite of the particular Christian's protestations of being assumption-free. Religions are memes, you see, they care about their own survival as a culture, and the best way to ensure that is by giving each individual host a little fillip for being a carrier and something else to strive for in order to keep them distracted from the wider implications of belief. Being a creature of the wider view myself, I see religion as something that causes more wars, inter-community strife, personal anguish and general pain in the world than even America's insatiable oil lust, and the only miracle I can believe in is the fact that so many people carry on believing in spite of that. Religions are like a kind of symbiotic virus that propagates because it has limited abilities to improve the health of the individual host, but can also wipe out entire populations when two different strains of it meet in the surrounding environment. I refuse to catch religion in the same way that I'd want to be immunised against that virus, because I believe it's more responsible to the human race in general not to spread it.
Yes, I am a card-carrying cynic, does it show? :-)
[next comment - I'm rambling]
(no subject)
The story of the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord, Jesus Christ, is so amazing that if it is true, what can I do but respond in wonder, love and praise. I am a sinful human being but God loves me and wants to sort my sinfulness out. Maybe sinful isn't a word that resonates with you, but our being 'demanding, prejudiced entities' is very much a result of our sinfulness. I'm irritable and arrogant and all sorts of other things and I can't change myself, but God through his grace gives me power to change (but he asks my co-operation in this process -- and it's not quick).
The story or the Passion etc. is so amazing that I find it extremely hard to believe it's factually true, given what I know of human nature. I know that people like to use stories, and stories gradually become bent to suit their purpose - look at gossip, which is designed to shock and scandalise and therefore tends to become steadily more lurid and outrageously speculative as it gets passed round. Don't get me wrong, as a fable the Jesus story certainly has merit, but if you look at the way myth and legend function in society it makes far more sense to see it as just one more jigsaw-puzzle piece of a particular culture, something that has been taken from probably perfectly sensible historic roots and gradually subverted more and more until it's become a fictionalised account, if you will; a teaching aid, basically, moulded into the shape that best stimulates the human ability to learn. Legends, fables and heroic stories have similar forms all over the world whether or not they're about Christian figures; there's got to be a reason for that, and there's certainly no reason to consider ourselves as Westerners any different from the rest of humanity, on the fundamental level.
As for the notion of sinfulness and of God asking your co-operation in changing your "sinful" behaviour; why does this require God? Why not just use willpower and a sound knowledge of the standard of behaviour you want to be adhering to? Why can't you love yourself, and want to sort yourself out? How do you tell the difference between God helping you change the bits of your behaviour you don't like and you doing it yourself? I'd say the only thing God provides is the standard you choose (or don't, if you're brought up Christian) to believe you ought to be living up to, which means God actually does more or less the same thing as Buddha, the military or the apartheid system. The internal changes happen, according to you, in the same slow and painstaking way even when God does provide some form of assistance; so how do you know it's god doing it and not you? Are all humans, including me, really incapable of positive action and self-development independently of god? Surely that contradicts the notion of free will, not to mention the fact that I'm quite aware I've achieved a phenomenal amount of positive change in myself without once asking god for help?
(no subject)
Whereas I am convinced it is factually true. It's historicity is too important in the early tellings of it and I doubt it would have had the impact if it was not true. It would have been too easy to disprove. The manuscript witness to it is also powerful evidence. It might not sound much but in comparison to the sort of stuff I work with it's amazing!
As for the notion of sinfulness and of God asking your co-operation in changing your "sinful" behaviour; why does this require God? Why not just use willpower and a sound knowledge of the standard of behaviour you want to be adhering to? Why can't you love yourself, and want to sort yourself out? How do you tell the difference between God helping you change the bits of your behaviour you don't like and you doing it yourself? I'd say the only thing God provides is the standard you choose (or don't, if you're brought up Christian) to believe you ought to be living up to, which means God actually does more or less the same thing as Buddha, the military or the apartheid system. The internal changes happen, according to you, in the same slow and painstaking way even when God does provide some form of assistance; so how do you know it's god doing it and not you? Are all humans, including me, really incapable of positive action and self-development independently of god? Surely that contradicts the notion of free will, not to mention the fact that I'm quite aware I've achieved a phenomenal amount of positive change in myself without once asking god for help?
In many ways that is an impossible position to answer because it provides an internally consist view in itself (as I believe my position does). My instinctive response comes from Scripture and Tradition; many others before me have taught that it is not possible, but I'm aware that won't wash with you. My second response is the fact that Communism failed (and became immensely corrupt) and that Capitalism works. I think the big flaw with communism was its idealism - with better education etc, people would be better people and share more fairly. It didn't work on a grand scale because of our greed. Equally Captilism works because it plays on that Greed. Also, I am capable of deceiving myself lots, I make excuses why X is ok for me when it isn't for others.
I don't think saying we need help does detract from our free will (although there are Christians who don't reckon we are free) because we can choose to accept the help or not. We are constrained to some extent by our creaturliness, in the same way that dogs are only free to be dogs. That doesn't stop us being free within those constraints.
(no subject)
I'm not entirely sure I've followed this sentence because the grammar's wonky because there's no main verb in the second of the co-ordinated clauses (i.e. after the and). However, I do not know Christians who claim that we are assumption-free, indeed personally I'd argue that this is not epistomologically possible. We all have assumptions at the base of our worldviews. These are unprovable from within the system but would cause it all to fall apart (who is it that argues that this is inevitable?). But I believe that reality exists outside my view of it. Thus some worldviews are closer to that reality than others which to me makes it deeper than just being a matter of personal choice.
Religions are memes, you see, they care about their own survival as a culture, and the best way to ensure that is by giving each individual host a little fillip for being a carrier and something else to strive for in order to keep them distracted from the wider implications of belief.
I'm not at all convinced by the concept of memes in this sense I'm afraid. I'm not sure what sense it is possible to say that 'memes care about their own survival' when they do not have independent identity to care.
Being a creature of the wider view myself, I see religion as something that causes more wars, inter-community strife, personal anguish and general pain in the world than even America's insatiable oil lust, and the only miracle I can believe in is the fact that so many people carry on believing in spite of that.
Yes, religion has been implicated in war and strife, but the record of unbelief is not entirely unblemished either. Stalinism was atheistic and look at that's record! I've just been reading a book called 'The knowledge of Angels' by Jill Paton-Walsh and an important strand of that is about the inquisition and I was left thinking `how did people reconcile this approach to heretics with our Lord's teaching?'. It is not the religions themselves which cause wars but our fallibility. It is too our discredit that the Church has not lived up to the Gospel she preaches at all times throughout history. Our Lord was vehement in his criticism of the Pharisees and yet Phariseeism has been (and still is) rife within Christianity.