Tuesday, 08 July 2008
-
What I Learned Through Atheists and Agnostics
During college, I struggled a lot with faith and God and the purpose of it all. I'll admit, I slipped a few times, got selfish and did things to please myself, and not God. Thankfully, I eventually snapped back; however, when conversing with atheists, agnostics, and other people who just didn't care to hear about Jesus, I realized how important it is to really be rooted in the Word and to know the historical context of the Bible. People will try to blast the credibility without knowing the truth behind it and when I didn't know the truth either. I didn't know what to say to them when they tried to discredit the Bible. It was tough.Another thing I learned is that Christians have received a bad reputation because people expect them to be perfect and to live holy lives because of what they preach. The problem is that we never claimed to be perfect and above everyone else (at least I hope we didn't.) I firmly believe that as a Christian, I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior, nothing less. Though Christ, I'm saved from an eternity without Him. People just don't understand that and think that I believe in Jesus because it's a crutch for a reality that i can't handle. That couldn't be further from the truth. It takes so much more faith to believe in something bigger than ourselves rather than to think we are the center of the universe. I don't understand how people can be comfortable with living this life, dying, and that being the end. I think humans are too precious to end up decaying bodies in the ground. then there's the whole thing with our souls.
More about the afterlife - I've concluded that God does not send people to hell for not believing in Him or for any other reason. God doesn't send people to hell at all. Rather, people go one of either two ways - heaven or hell. Hell is simply the place that is absent of God, void of God and all His goodness. I don't believe that God desires anyone to be there or punishes anyone for not believing in Him. I believe that we are given free will to choose our path and the path that leads to hell is the life that we've chosen to walk away from Him, to be void of Him in our lives.
I think about law school a lot because time seems to be going a lot quicker than I had anticipated and before I know it, it'll be the first day of school. there aren't many Christian lawyers, and I know that God has called me to this field for a purpose. Whatever that purpose is, I'm waiting and I've realized that I will only make it out of law school with God walking me through it day by day
Have you ever gotten into a debate about Christianity with an atheist or an agnostic? Did you feel prepared to back your case or did you think you needed to brush up on your knowledge?
-
recommend
- recs 7
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (141)
@la_faerie_joyeuse@xanga -
The rest of the stuff you posted is so senseless, and either anger motivated, or purely assumption. you constantly use words of hypothesis rather than fact, so I really feel no need to respond anymore.
but
"It didn't pain me at all to type that."
wait for it.
"man shall give an account of every idle word." (paraphrased)
wait for it...
( I honestly hope you repent. truly. so I am ending this conversation. have the last word. Make a fool of me. Tell them how ignorant I am. Make sure they see your wisdom, and my foolish piety. Go ahead. But when you are done, take some time and really consider what you are saying, and what you believe. [ "The times of ignorance, God overlooked. But now commands all men everywhere to repent, for He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man He has ordained; whereof He has given assurance unto all men, in that He has raised Him from the dead."
And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said , We will hear thee again of this matter.]
@JoeLondon@xanga - just a reminder, or an informing in case you are unaware. Christianity is not about " becoming a successful religion," or " selling it's product"
I am not so much commenting on your responses, or the issues you are addressing with the person you replied to as much as I am saying that the small population of chinese christians is in fact proof of biblical position. Clearly, not many will come. Clearly, not many will repent. No where does scripture say that the whole world will come to Christ. It says actually the opposite. Such as "many will be fooled." and "narrow is the path" etc.
Just check it out.Earnestly. Put the Bible to the test, by READING IT! please!
@James3_1@xanga - Wow. You totally didn't help me at all (or answer anything I posed).
It's not about winning, to me. It's about the joy of developing my ideas and learning about those of others. You've just rather ruined that, at least in this little conversation.
Way to go.
@la_faerie_joyeuse@xanga - Hi. Well I did not meant to suggest that "religion is almost entirely cultural" or perhaps you did not read my post carefully. I meant to suggest that religion IS ENTIRELY cultural.
Evidence? How could religion (or art, or language, or any other human production) NOT be cultural, that is the result of human cultural activity? Does religion exist outside of a given culture? And consider how religions, anthropologically, have features immediately derived from the environment too (the Ape God, of course, exists where monkeys are found etc. or Christianity has derived much of its content from prior visions and philosophies, including Aristotelism and Platonism).
As for a possible "transcendental" origin, or a possible "link" between a supernatural realm and humans, I DON'T HAVE to prove that it does NOT exist, exactly like I don't need to prove that unicorns do not exist. The burden of proof is the responsibility of those who maintain that a "transcendental" world (or unicorns, or fairies or Spiderman) exist.
@James3_1@xanga - For centuries, and even today, Christianity has been about trying to successfully overcome other religions with their visions and claims of absolute truth (of course Christianity has not got the prerogative of being the only ones doing it). About "selling their product" and putting down those "who don't buy it".
As recently as March 1997, Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has defined Buddhism an "autoerotic spirituality".
In a Vatican document, "Dominus Jesus"the Pope has called for a new envangelism and has defined other faiths as "lesser searches for the truth".
Isn't that trying to sell their products, even using the weapons of disrespect?
Mind you, centuries ago "evangelism" used the sword.
Shall I remind you of the Crusades?
"Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, though campaigns were also directed against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, and political enemies of the popes.[1] Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins" [from Wikipedia]
It would be naive to interpret the presence of a number of Christians, in China, or elsewhere as a supernatural sign of truth of some sort, or like a proof of the Bible. It's all about the political and cultural force (and effectiveness) of some nations and organisations, who are able to spread their vision. They did that with violence in the past (Emperors had titles of "Holy Roman Emperors" even), while now they do it with the support of international help and the charm of the affluent West.
Muslims are also quite effective in spreading their religion: probably in a world of great economical gaps between nations, they are able to touch some chords in the heart of people more than the theatrical and wealthy Vatican. But that's another story.
I consider primitive a type of thinking that is prepared to interpret in a magic, supernatural way, something that simply has to do with human power.
@la_faerie_joyeuse@xanga - It's just become understood to me that I owe you an apology, regarding my statement that the person I was replying to did what you could not. let me explain. I received a response to my comment to you, and like the fool that I can sometimes be, didn't pay attention to whom it came from. I supposed it was from you, when in fact it was from someone else. Ergo, my statement that you had ducked the issue was from a false conclusion. This means that I wrongly accused you, and for that I am truly sorry. I do hope, our differences aside you can take this as exactly what it is. Me humbly asking your forgiveness for my grievous error. I really thought it was you who had posted the response.
sorry.
"It takes so much more faith to believe in something bigger than ourselves rather than to think we are the center of the universe. "
I agree whole heartedly. But I would caution you to think logically about this statement, rather than flip and obscure the true meaning of the phrase to the irrational manner you have just used the phrase from a Christian perspective. It takes much more to KNOW where we are in the universe as homo sapiens (a young species, and expendable) and that life is chaotic and that we are not the center of the universe, than it takes to have faith that god cares about the human race primarily and that it (god) listens to us.
Without religion, humans find their correct perspective, that their life will end and that this is the only shot we have. What's bigger than the human race? This comment box is not big enough to list the things bigger than our less than humble species that has managed to fabricate religions and all knowing and all caring gods who wants to usher us into an afterlife because we are afraid of death. If religious belief in an afterlife is not self-centered, what is?
I do agree with many, that I like to have discussions on the matter, but more often than not, the logic does not prevail. Thank you for your interesting post. Good Luck in Law school.
@James3_1@xanga - Thanks for your extremely overstated apology. Something simpler would have sufficed, but, regardless:
Thank you. I accept your apology, and hope we may continue on with less animosity or failed communication in the future
There is never enough people, and even Christians, in my experience, out there, who are willing to discuss the scholarly approach to the Christian religion. As the first poster says -- people are too busy idolizing God, and developing him out to be a faultless, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient figure when in regard, his existence is more than just that. I am not religious at all to begin with, but having taken courses introducing me to Catholicism gives me an idea of what is and isn't.
What I never hear people speak about on the basis of religion is faith, and even the scientifics behind such faith: the behavior of the brain. Its God-this, God-that, God is good, all the time sort of thing. People ramble on about how they now have a free ticket to heaven because they attend church, read the Bible. I'm not even Christian myself, but I've gone so far to read the book of Revelations, Genesis, Luke, Mark, John, etc... just to see what the thought process is.
And besides, I've never gotten the whole thing that Jesus is the father, son and the holy spirit. Jesus is God, and created himself...?
as a catholic who wasn't raised as one, I formed my own reason for loving God. most of the people i know love Him because they don't want to go to hell. I love Him because I can't imagine life without Him. He's the only father I have who has been there for me every day of my life. I'm so afraid of not being with Him and disappointing Him. It doesn't matter if He deems me to go to hell afterwards... as long as He knows I tried.
I really like your view that hell is the absence of God in the afterlife. it's really cool. With my background, I've taken to reading the bible. It helps me fight for Him. It is my sword and my armor in my battles. I've been in discussions with some atheists and agnostics. The bible really helps. I might not memorize it... but in the bible it says that He will guide those who speak in his behalf (the apostles). I do the same. It feels wonderful to support your claims with the bible during conversations. It feels like such a blessing to be able to answer the questions of not only other religion but those who are part of your own and do not know it as well. =)
@JoeLondon@xanga - To me, your post did seem to imply that specific religious beliefs are entirely cultural - that is, that someone raised in a muslim community will be much more likely to be muslim than christian. I understand and agree. I think where we disagree is that there is a genetic component to religion. I'm assuming you're an atheist evolutionist here, so if you're not, please do correct me. I'm going to show that most people have an instinctive, genetic tendency towards religious behavior. The particular things that religious people believe will of course be influenced by their environment. However, the fact that they are religious is generally an inherent predisposition. I'll be examining things from a psychological perspective, hopefully touching on personal, social, and instinctual "needs."
People, in general, need reassurance. They need coping mechanisms. They need to believe that they're right (even when they're not). These things, in ideal situations, create a healthy world view and self esteem. When over (or under) proportioned, they can basically destroy a person. Religion, generally, satisfies these personal needs. It usually overshoots and leaves people denying reality on the basis of what they want to be true, but it's still an explanation for why someone might choose to be religious.
Socially, there are conformity needs, hierarchical needs, and belongingness needs. Conformity is applicable only in a cultural sense, but the other two apply regardless of specific cultural values. Again, religion can satisfy this. If other members of your group believe in one religion, you feel compelled to conform. Religious leaders or mythical figures can serve as levels of hierarchical structure. God can make someone feel loved, even if there is no physical human to do that loving.
Instinctually, we're set up to believe fanciful things. It's safer to believe that the shadow in the corner is a predator than to believe that it's a fern - in the slight chance that it is a predator, you'll survive. In the case that it's a fern, then you've just got yourself worked up over something - not much wasted, in evolutionary terms. Children, particularly, are susceptible to fantasy, because they have not yet learned the rules of reality, and how ubiquitously they apply.
I'm not going to comment whatsoever on proving religions to be true. I know just as well as you that fanciful imaginations or desperate followers will claim outlandish things with no basis in reality (often, even claiming that their beliefs cannot be understood by reality - that rational thought is limited in that it evaluates everything we know and see. Wrap your mind around THAT bullshit.) I'm simply concerned with the social, psychological, instinctual, and anthropological causes and results of religious belief (at least today).
@la_faerie_joyeuse@xanga - One point I raised in my previous comments was, indeed, that of the cultural origin of religion, as opposed to a derivation from a fanciful transcendent sphere that some people claim exists.
OF COURSE, there is a whole 'phenomenology' that contributes to the reinforcement and maintenance of religion. A phenomenology which includes psychological, emotional, sociological factors. Any culturally-determined behaviour / belief / mindset surely has a correspondence with a human psychological 'substrate'. My comments above, though, did not need to become an exhaustive encyclopedia of all that is involved in religions.
However, I would be more cautious in using terms such as "genetic component" which could be intended as if there were a "religious seed" in human beings. There is not a "religious genetic component", rather there are psychological and social needs (as you have more aptly written) that, in some human beings, and in some cultures/historical times, can find some satisfaction in religions, although not necessarily religions only.
Many of the needs you mentioned are satisfied (to different extents) by a whole variety of experiences: political activism, art, contemplation of nature, sex, dancing, sports, military...etc. etc.
We could also add that religion (or art, astrology, beliefs in magic, orgiastic activities etc.) satisfies - whether primitively or rationally or not - a general need of having a symbolically unified perception of reality, as opposed to a situation of disgregation and scattering.
In this sense, the "Inherent predisposition" which you mention would not be that to religion per se, rather a need of a 'comprehensive picture of reality', something that in some societies and in some individuals, and - lets not forget that - in some historical periods, might, or might not, find a path to religions. Or to other symbolic realms, activities etc.
I can see the utility of approaching religion phenomenologically (which was a bit much for the extent involved in the above comments), but I think other aspects should deserve even more stress:
- the political and educational impact of attempts to dismantle sound and rational thinking, replacing it with 'magical thinking' (in Freudian sense) and religious superstition, in complete denial of the spirit of the Enlightenment
- the spread out confusion between the statements of religion and the statements of science
- the spread out, wrong, mental habit of accepting something based on authority only, and not on proof
- the claim that religious statements have an intrinsic value, irrespectively of their reasonability (madness à la San Paul), and should even directly inspire the legislation of a country
@JoeLondon@xanga - I absolutely agree on the all detriments of religion. I in no way think that our predisposition to religious belief justifies the imposition of religion upon those who choose not to follow it (as in public policy). I'm just trying to clarify that religion is not solely cultural - evolutionary advantages caused religious individuals cultures to survive over non-religious individuals and cultures.
@la_faerie_joyeuse@xanga - Over time, for thousands of years, needs of symbolic reconciliation with an unknown, mysterious, frightening, overpowering, and scattered reality have been satisfied by a variety of activities, often mixed one another: art, superstition, magic, voodoo, Bacchanalia and Dionysiac orgies, para-religious ideologies, and even - in our times - unconditional faith in the myths of "techné" and consumeristic, dull-making, reassuring, capitalistic, heavens.
I suspect that superstition and religious faith has always been a secret - or not so secret - ally, of "technè" and the worst power-driven, materialistic, behaviours: an "anti-anxiety pill" of some sort to support absurd, hectic activity leading to destruction.
But in the long run, we will look at black-gowned men and pastors much with the same amusement with which the Western man looks at the witch-doctor in the forest.
Religion decays from within, victim of its own irrationality, ungrounded claims, grotesque rituals. Inesorably attacked by its own ridicule.
The time will come when the whole human race will have to face reality with no illusion and with no delusion while standing on an increasingly dying and depauperated planet, rife with conflicts. Clearer will appear the indirect responsibilities of religion and superstition in bringing about destruction and conflicts, if only by dimming rationality and obscuring a sound, disillusioned and realistic outlook on the world.
The next 'evolutionary' step for human survival, will be a full acceptance of the silence of the universe, of the unredeemable finitude of all, and of the hapless absurdity of some human credences.
@JoeLondon@xanga - I'm exceedingly glad you put "evolutionary" in quotes there, because we are most certainly not going to "evolve" in that direction. Have you seen how much the religious extremists are breeding? *shudder*
@la_faerie_joyeuse@xanga - Anybody concerned with true and meaningful advance in humanity cannot but fight obscurantism, ignorance, superstition, mental passivity, oppression of individuality and critical faculties. In short all the barriers that thwart the sound growth of individuals and the unfurling of their potential.
One of these barriers is, indeed, religion with its privileging assertions based on mere authority and dogmas over open inquiry, with its inculcation over free research, with its indoctrination of young minds which equals to abuse.
Now and then one reads of some initiatives that give some hope that different ways can be found. See for instance what Michel Onfray is doing:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/15/europe/riepop.php