Religion?

[figmentPez]

Gnosticism has historically referred to...

Exactly.[/QUOTE]

I was just pointing out an area of possible confusion. I'm not saying "gnosticism" can't be used that way, I'm just saying it hasn't been used that way enough to even make it into the dictionary as an alternate definition. People who may not know about it's existing usage could be misunderstood if they, for instance, describe themselves as a "gnostic whatever" to someone who has never seen that chart.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

This discussion is too complex for my primitive monkey brain to comprehend. Therefore I'm now converting to the Norse mythos.








ALL HAIL ODIN!

 

[North_Ranger]

This discussion is too complex for my primitive monkey brain to comprehend. Therefore I'm now converting to the Norse mythos.








ALL HAIL ODIN!

I'm sorry, but as the descendant of Finnish pagan god worshippers I must now kill your heathen ass.

Nothing personal.

 

[HCGLNS]

This discussion is too complex for my primitive monkey brain to comprehend. Therefore I'm now converting to the Norse mythos.


ALL HAIL ODIN!

Welcome to the faith, brother. Though we have one hundred and sixty three commandments to follow instead of just ten, so I don't know why you think it would be easier.

 

[ZenMonkey]

People who may not know about it's existing usage could be misunderstood if they, for instance, describe themselves as a "gnostic whatever" to someone who has never seen that chart.

I never like this line of reasoning. You shouldn't have to misrepresent or dumb down your position in case your audience is ignorant. If you fear being misunderstood, then you can either include an explanation or be nice and helpful about it if people say "Huh?" But "well, other people might not get it" is not a good reason not to use applicable terminology or ideas.

I don't only mean this in terms of religion, by the way. I had a similar situation where a fellow CFS expressed dismay about some very interesting recent medical news because "my family is going to interpret it wrong." I wanted to smack him because first he bitched and moaned that his family didn't think he was sick and now they were going to think that this news meant he would get better. Fuck, how about explaining to them instead of categorizing the news as bad because your relatives are morons? (As you can see I was a lot more annoyed about this incidence than about FP's comment.)

 

[North_Ranger]

This discussion is too complex for my primitive monkey brain to comprehend. Therefore I'm now converting to the Norse mythos.


ALL HAIL ODIN!

Welcome to the faith, brother. Though we have one hundred and sixty three commandments to follow instead of just ten, so I don't know why you think it would be easier.[/QUOTE]

Oh, HCGLNS, why did it have to be you as well...?

*sets up another altar to sacrifice unbelievers on*

 

[Gill Kaiser]

I believe in God,...I am agnostic

You directly contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. Do you know what "agnostic" means at all?[/QUOTE]

I'm sure someone's already mentioned this, but it's perfectly possible to be an agnostic theist. Knowing and believing are entirely different things.

The only thing it isn't really logical to be is a gnostic atheist, since one can never truly know of the nonexistance of something.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

And yet gnostic atheist is where I fall on the chart. But I agree it looks like that corner on the chart exists only to make a nice looking 8-pointed star.

 

[ZenMonkey]

The only thing it isn't really logical to be is a gnostic atheist, since one can never truly know of the nonexistance of something.

Your syntax is needlessly complicated. Gnostic atheists know that there are no gods. You may not think that's possible, but it's not an illogical position to take. Just one a lot of people disagree with, or feel more comfortable with agnostic atheism.

A gnostic atheist would say that the burden of proof is on the believer, and there is simply no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence. (See Russell's teapot.) That is not illogical at all from a point of view where gods do not exist.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

I'm watching Zen edit her most recent post several times. It's weird.

Also, I just don't think gnosticism can include "knowing god doesn't exist" or it feels weird to me that it should, and I think this is Gill's contention too. Not that my position is illogical, just that the semantic description of it feels off.

 

[figmentPez]

I never like this line of reasoning. You shouldn't have to misrepresent or dumb down your position in case your audience is ignorant. If you fear being misunderstood, then you can either include an explanation or be nice and helpful about it if people say "Huh?" But "well, other people might not get it" is not a good reason not to use applicable terminology or ideas.

You're still not getting my point. I'm trying to alert people that it's possible to be misunderstood. I'm saying "don't say this because you'll be misundestood", I'm just pointing out it's an unusual way to use the word. By all means, use the word, just be aware that it has more than one meaning, and the dictionary definition of the word is not the one used by the chart. Yes, confusion happens and that shouldn't keep us from trying to communicate, but sometimes first impressions count, and it really helps to be clear with your original statment, rather than having to explain yourself to someone who just wants to rant on a pet peeve.

 

[ZenMonkey]

I'm watching Zen edit her most recent post several times. It's weird.

Yeah, I was lying on my side, literally falling asleep as I was typing it, so it took me a few tries to get it right.

Also, I just don't think gnosticism can include "knowing god doesn't exist" or it feels weird to me that it should, and I think this is Gill's contention too. Not that my position is illogical, just that the semantic description of it feels off.

I see some atheists say "I know god doesn't exist" and it doesn't seem odd to me. I'd say your discomfort comes from a theocentric viewpoint. And I would wink but that smiley creeps me right the fuck out, so please accept "winky smiley" to show that I'm not trying to be a bitch. (I may be succeeding though...)

If it makes you feel better, that chart does say "Thinks he knows" for both gnostic views, the theist and the atheist. So you can hedge it that way if it's more palatable. I myself don't see why it seems normal for people to say "I know god exists" but not to say "I know god doesn't exist."

 

[Gill Kaiser]

The only thing it isn't really logical to be is a gnostic atheist, since one can never truly know of the nonexistance of something.

Your syntax is needlessly complicated. Gnostic atheists know that there are no gods. You may not think that's possible, but it's not an illogical position to take. Just one a lot of people disagree with, or feel more comfortable with agnostic atheism.

A gnostic atheist would say that the burden of proof is on the believer, and there is simply no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence. (See Russell's teapot.) That is not illogical at all from a point of view where gods do not exist.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Yes, the burden of proof is on the believer of a theory, but even if the believer can't prove its correctness, it doesn't PROVE the theory wrong, it just makes it more likely that it is wrong. We're talking about knowledge here, not belief. Knowledge is binary, it can only exist or not exist, and for it to exist, the information supporting it must also exist. To truly know something, it must be proven. It is impossible to prove the nonexistance of something. Therefore, it is impossible to 100% know that something doesn't exist, QED.

If the so-called gnostic atheist said that there is no reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence, I would agree, then remind him or her that the dispute is over knowledge, not belief. As an atheist myself, I firmly believe that there is no god, and nothing I've seen of the world has made me seriously question that belief... but to claim knowledge of the nonexistance of god? That's just illogical arrogance.

Maybe in the future, when/if we have discovered how the universe came into being, and proven beyond doubt that no gods were involved, and if the accepted concept of "god" is defined enough for it to be disproven, we could finally become gnostic atheists. Until then, we just don't have enough information.

EDIT: It's impossible for a gnostic theist to exist either, by empirical/scientific/logical standards, but of course theists' standards are different from my own, and most claim to "know" of their god's existance. The reason why I usually let the idea of gnostic theism stand and take issue with the idea of gnostic atheism more is that one expects atheists to be more empirical and scientific, and, according to my own beliefs, the theists are wrong anyway, so the fact that some of them think they know that they're correct in their theism doesn't really make much difference to me.

 

[Rob King]

God is my Axiom. It is pretty much literally the only thing in the world that I take for granted, and from which my worldview grows.

That doesn't mean I haven't examined the idea of God, or the universe, or anything like that. Just that every time, I come back to the same point: there must be something beyond all of this.

My natural inclination is to see it as some function of Deism, mostly inspired by philosophical Daoism, specifically. I conceive of God as the Dao, absolute and unrelenting. The very principle on which the foundations of reality have been lain. The collected forces of the universe and world. Essentially, very much like Einstein and Spinoza's God.

But there is more than just a hint of Theism in there, which is why I can't just call myself a Daoist. I take a very skeptical stance on things like miracles and direct intervention by God, and I find it difficult to imagine so great a thing as God taking an interest in the humdrum of our everyday lives. I mean, who cares how many sparrows draw breath at any given moment? But if God is the creative, and guiding force ... if he is the genesis of the universe, the mathematical truths, and the evolutionary principle that shapes the entirety of existence ... if he is those things and a million possibilities beyond ... I cannot convince myself that he has no good reason to be interested in our lives. I mean, If he is unlimited, then he has no attention span to worry about. He does take an interest. He does care. Or ... at least, that's what it translates to when you ratchet the concept down to a size that human beings can even conceive.

As for the functions of the church, and organized religion they are necessary evils. I draw the analog to politics: If human beings were capable of perfection, we would need no governments, no laws, and no borders. But we can't do without those things, so we deal with the problems that they cause, rather than the bigger problems we'd have without them. Very similar to organized religion. In the most absolute sense, organized religion is a compromise, and a downright abomination compared to what could be.

The contents of the scriptures are difficult for me. I can approach the Old Testament easily enough, and call it a deeply significant historical text. It's certainly written in that style, and depicts events that seem to have happened. I mean, the details might be questionable, but the wider contents are reasonable. The New Testament isn't so easy. Or rather, the gospels aren't. It's clear something happened in Israel at the beginning of the first milenium. It's clearly significant. Whether it was God himself who stepped into the scene is difficult. I want to say no. It seems so unbelievable. Which is where you make your leap of faith, I guess.

But even if Jesus wasn't the son of God. If he was a con, or a madman, or anything else, he struck some sort of chord which has been ringing down through the centuries until today. It is significant, and for all the evils the church has committed through the years, I believe there is still good in that wave, and I've committed to riding it until it becomes clear that there is no more good possible in it's message.

That's where I am when it comes to religion. I've stated it, but I won't argue it, so don't worry. But as long as anyone's wondering, that's the picture of the universe from where I stand.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Until then, we just don't have enough information.

And so a critical thinker might say "and since we don't, there is no reason to believe, until we do."

You're completely conflating your personal belief as to whether this type of viewpoint is possible or logical, with whether or not it is possible or logical to the person who holds the viewpoint. Which obviously it is and that's the relevant part. You can't argue "That person doesn't know there isn't any god" because that person DOES know there isn't any god. Disagree with them all you like, but they do.

I say "There is no god." I don't say "Espy's beliefs are too illogical to possibly exist." I might personally find them illogical and not in keeping with my own belief system, but I don't go around negating his experience just because I can't conceive of it.

 

[Krisken]

Until then, we just don't have enough information.

And so a critical thinker might say "and since we don't, there is no reason to believe, until we do."

You're completely conflating your personal belief as to whether this type of viewpoint is possible or logical, with whether or not it is possible or logical to the person who holds the viewpoint. Which obviously it is and that's the relevant part. You can't argue "That person doesn't know there isn't any god" because that person DOES know there isn't any god. Disagree with them all you like, but they do.

I say "There is no god." I don't say "Espy's beliefs are too illogical to possibly exist." I might personally find them illogical and not in keeping with my own belief system, but I don't go around negating his experience just because I can't conceive of it.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for putting into words what I could not.

 

[Gill Kaiser]

Until then, we just don't have enough information.

And so a critical thinker might say "and since we don't, there is no reason to believe, until we do."

Again, that's belief, not gnosticism. I'm not contending that there's no reason to believe, as I myself do not.

You're completely conflating your personal belief as to whether this type of viewpoint is possible or logical, with whether or not it is possible or logical to the person who holds the viewpoint. Which obviously it is and that's the relevant part. You can't argue "That person doesn't know there isn't any god" because that person DOES know there isn't any god. Disagree with them all you like, but they do.

I do see your point, but unless you believe that knowledge is relative, and that existance is not fixed but is given form by the individual's interpretation of it, I still must disagree. The person may think themselves a gnostic atheist. They may be so sure of their belief that they say they know it is correct. They may truly believe that they do know. Logically, however, they cannot know, so they're deluding themselves, or, as is more likely, hyperbolising. I sometimes say that I know that god doesn't exist, but I don't literally mean it, and I wouldn't say it in the presence of a philosopher.

I say "There is no god." I don't say "Espy's beliefs are too illogical to possibly exist." I might personally find them illogical and not in keeping with my own belief system, but I don't go around negating his experience just because I can't conceive of it.

Again, this would only make sense if you think that people can "just know" things "in their hearts", as it were. The definition of knowledge shouldn't change from person to person - knowedge isn't an experience that a person can have. That kind of "knowledge" is the staple of theists, but I expect more objectivity from non-believers. Knowledge isn't a feeling you have within yourself, it's a response to an external, universal and cosmic truth that is unchangeable and eternal. Not a religious truth, but one of reason, and that which science was designed to seek.

 

[ZenMonkey]

I understand your point, Gill, I just don't agree.

EDIT: *sigh* and I certainly didn't mean to ERASE it but my mouse is fucking malfunctioning and I clicked wrong. Sorry about that.

 

[Gill Kaiser]

Ah well, fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree. It's a fairly minor point in the grand scheme, anyway... whether a person believes or not is far more important.

 

[@Li3n]

And yet gnostic atheist is where I fall on the chart. But I agree it looks like that corner on the chart exists only to make a nice looking 8-pointed star...

... OF CHAOS... BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

I understand your point, Gill, I just don't agree.

And if you're talking about the agnostic atheist bit you'd be wrong from a logical PoV... if you can't prove something you simply can't objectively know it.

Of course the same thing applies to the religious people that say they know God exists... unless a burning bush actually talked to them or something they can't objectively know that (and even then one could debate it, even using stuff from the Bible).

---------- Post added at 06:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 AM ----------

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?[/QUOTE]

As a whole, of course not... and as i said before, you guys take stuff way to literally. I meant punishment as consequence.

Eat the fruit, know good and evil, get kicked out of Eden, life becomes hard etc...

 

[@Li3n]

That's why u use super glue on them...


But sure, lets have a philosophical discussion without any subtlety and theology without any spirituality.

Also, the argument was "read Genesis" with the second part being a a short description of what one should look for...

 

[tegid]

On the subject of the gnostic and agnostic, you are discussing a matter of definitions. One side takes 'knowing' as having knowledge of an undisputable truth and the other as THINKING you know something. Which, actually, could be discussed about any and every kind of knowledge, I think.

Also, an atheist can say they know god doesn't exist because it's illogical, unnecessary or whatever, even if they acknowledge the tiiiiniest bit of possibility that there may be a god. You know, I say I know that the Sun will raise tomorrow but eh, something may happen. Or that my name is David, even though, I don't know, someone may have put that thought in may head and I may actually be named Daniel. Those things don't make sense? Yeah, maybe like God to some people.

(I'm not saying that's a position atheists hold, only that it's a reasonable justification for 'knowing')

---------- Post added at 09:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 AM ----------

You could also use examples like saying you 'know' ghost don't exist, or that conspiranoics are wrong, or whatever you haven't checked personally!

 

[Silver Jelly]

Or that my name is David, even though, I don't know, someone may have put that thought in may head and I may actually be named Daniel.

Isn't your name "Mother Shabubu"?

 

[tegid]

See? That's what I meant! I don't even know my name

 

[ZenMonkey]

Here, I'll just muddy the waters for you with a couple of diagrams illustrating the same ideas, only worded differently. And I'll point out again that the first one I posted did use the words "Thinks they know." And then I'll leave and you can say nasty things about me.

 

[Silver Jelly]

Here, I'll just muddy the waters for you with a couple of diagrams illustrating the same ideas, only worded differently. And I'll point out again that the first one I posted did use the words "Thinks they know." And then I'll leave and you can say nasty things about me.

Yes, agnostic theist all the way...

 

[@Li3n]

"Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

I meant punishment as consequence."

You flip flop worse then a politician caught doing... something... he shouldn't be doing that involves flip floping.

"
Dude, they've been arguing about the meaning of the Bible
forever, even when it's the same version and the words are the same...

that wasn't the point, the point was that the words used don't
actually prevent the interpretation from being the same "

words same = disagreement about interpretation

words different = same interpretation

Yes, why the fact that you can't wrap your head around those concepts is exactly what i was talking about...

maybe your world is more exact, but in the one i've been living one can interpret the same word in different ways (i believe there are books called dictionaries that even have more then 1 definition for a word) and two different words in the same way (there's even a word for them, synonyms i believe).

And as all the interpretations exist i would expect someone to take them all into account, or at least the ones that can easily be accessed, when use a shorthand argument like the Genesis one... maybe i just expect too much of people.

/rant

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

I see some atheists say "I know god doesn't exist" and it doesn't seem odd to me.

I am one of those atheists.

All that's odd to me is using the word "gnosticism" to describe that corner of the chart. But as I said, the only reason they seem to use it is because it makes the chart a nice little 8 pointed star. This is stuff that just doesn't seem like it belongs on a pair of perpendicular axes, but they've squished it on to that setup anyway.

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:37 PM ----------

Oh but let me add - the chart works decently enough anyway since I'm able to place myself on it easily. I'm just gonna keep calling myself an "Atheist" though. I don't feel any need to go into any great or small detail about my lack of beliefs.

 

[Espy]

[/COLOR]

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?

As a whole, of course not... and as i said before, you guys take stuff way to literally. I meant punishment as consequence.

Eat the fruit, know good and evil, get kicked out of Eden, life becomes hard etc...[/QUOTE]
Ok, so you are just saying that *a point* made in the creation story is that if you sin there are consequences? That is true. It's only a very minor point in Genesis but it is one yes.

 

[Hailey Knight]

[/COLOR]

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?

As a whole, of course not... and as i said before, you guys take stuff way to literally. I meant punishment as consequence.

Eat the fruit, know good and evil, get kicked out of Eden, life becomes hard etc...[/QUOTE]
Ok, so you are just saying that *a point* made in the creation story is that if you sin there are consequences? That is true. It's only a very minor point in Genesis but it is one yes.[/QUOTE]

Punishment for what exactly?

Make sure to be dumb? Obey for no reason?

Or God was afraid people would become as him by eating from the tree of life? It's like fucking Xenogears!

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

[/COLOR]

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?

As a whole, of course not... and as i said before, you guys take stuff way to literally. I meant punishment as consequence.

Eat the fruit, know good and evil, get kicked out of Eden, life becomes hard etc...[/QUOTE]
Ok, so you are just saying that *a point* made in the creation story is that if you sin there are consequences? That is true. It's only a very minor point in Genesis but it is one yes.[/QUOTE]

It's like fucking Xenogears![/QUOTE]

I'm wishing it was right now, so very, very hard.

 

[Espy]

[/COLOR]

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?

As a whole, of course not... and as i said before, you guys take stuff way to literally. I meant punishment as consequence.

Eat the fruit, know good and evil, get kicked out of Eden, life becomes hard etc...[/QUOTE]
Ok, so you are just saying that *a point* made in the creation story is that if you sin there are consequences? That is true. It's only a very minor point in Genesis but it is one yes.[/QUOTE]

Punishment for what exactly?[/QUOTE]

It says, extremely in the text, for disobeying God. Now, that might not sit well with you, which is fine, but look at it from this perspective (let us also remember it's not meant to be taken literally, it's a theological myth meant to explain how and why our relationship with God is the way it is): Perfect God (now if you refuse to accept that as the starting point then we can't really have a discussion) creates the universe for humankind. He hangs with humankind. They have a wonderful relationship. Humans, unlike in other creation myths in the Ancient Near East, are not created to serve the gods, but in this case they are created to be in a loving relationship with a perfect God.
They rebel. In the text it's the tree, the serpent, yada, yada. Let's just focus on the fact that they did rebel. They did what was forbidden. Now God doesn't punish them so much as a Father who looks at his kid who touched a burning hot stove and he knows, this kid is in for a world of pain now that his hand is burned.
The "kids" in this scenario have done the thing that changes the rules. They have, and this is important here, spiritually damaged their relationship with God. They essentially broke the bridge that linked them relationally with God.
God had nothing to do with it. In fact, he warned them not to.
Now, they bring a "punishment" down on their heads. Let's not say punishment though, I don't think that's right or in the text. Instead they have to deal with the natural consequences of their actions, namely a damaged relationship with God and dealing with sin from now on, which causes pain. Sin causes pain, not God.
Does that make sense?

 

[Hailey Knight]

[/COLOR]

Or one could just read Genesis... life is punishment.

You know, I've tried to stay out of this, but... what? Do you really think that is the message of Genesis?

As a whole, of course not... and as i said before, you guys take stuff way to literally. I meant punishment as consequence.

Eat the fruit, know good and evil, get kicked out of Eden, life becomes hard etc...[/QUOTE]
Ok, so you are just saying that *a point* made in the creation story is that if you sin there are consequences? That is true. It's only a very minor point in Genesis but it is one yes.[/QUOTE]

Punishment for what exactly?[/QUOTE]

It says, extremely in the text, for disobeying God. Now, that might not sit well with you, which is fine, but look at it from this perspective (let us also remember it's not meant to be taken literally, it's a theological myth meant to explain how and why our relationship with God is the way it is): Perfect God (now if you refuse to accept that as the starting point then we can't really have a discussion) creates the universe for humankind. He hangs with humankind. They have a wonderful relationship. Humans, unlike in other creation myths in the Ancient Near East, are not created to serve the gods, but in this case they are created to be in a loving relationship with a perfect God.
They rebel. In the text it's the tree, the serpent, yada, yada. Let's just focus on the fact that they did rebel. They did what was forbidden. Now God doesn't punish them so much as a Father who looks at his kid who touched a burning hot stove and he knows, this kid is in for a world of pain now that his hand is burned.
The "kids" in this scenario have done the thing that changes the rules. They have, and this is important here, spiritually damaged their relationship with God. They essentially broke the bridge that linked them relationally with God.
God had nothing to do with it. In fact, he warned them not to.
Now, they bring a "punishment" down on their heads. Let's not say punishment though, I don't think that's right or in the text. Instead they have to deal with the natural consequences of their actions, namely a damaged relationship with God and dealing with sin from now on, which causes pain. Sin causes pain, not God.
Does that make sense?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you didn't need to explain that far; I knew the arguments behind each option I listed (the third is most fun though). I appreciate the run-down though.

That said, the perspective perpetuates my view of most Christianity as being restrained from spiritual adulthood because "daddy" is always watching, and will punish you. But I also understand that many people need that, and threats from God are the only thing stopping them from going apeshit.

I know you're saying not to use the word punishment for it, but moreof natural consequence, but actually you can do quite a lot of "sinning" without a natural consequence, and it factors in only if you believe in Christianity and black/white afterlife--which then becomes God punishing, because unless I have my Christian doctrine wrong, he set all that up and is in control of it. So long as God is an entity, rather than a force, he is making a choice for that to be the situation.

 

[Espy]

Well, we should probably define "natural" consequence and I would say consequences come in a variety of ways, often in ways that aren't totally obvious to us, and that spiritual consequences are natural to us, since we are spiritual and physical beings. So I would disagree that you can "sin" a lot and not have any consequences, especially when you factor in that each sin isn't a sin against yourself but against the Perfect and Loving God who created you with the intent of you NOT having to deal with the pain (both spiritual and physical) that comes from sin intruding on our lives. And example of that would be, I can do things that to me, might not hurt me or cause me pain, but they very well might hurt and pain my wife should I do them. I can have sex with some random girl, and it wouldn't hurt me (although if she had the HIV then it might have it's own nasty consequences for me), but my wife would be deeply hurt. Should I not have sex with Ms. March so that I don't run the risk of STD's? Or should I not do it so my wife isn't hurt deeply and our relationship destroyed? I wouldn't avoid it out of fear, although fear wouldn't be a bad motive, but because I LOVE my wife and don't to cause her pain. It's very similar to our relationship with God. Or course, if you don't believe in the same God I do you wouldn't understand why you would worry about hurting Him or your relationship with Him. (The "you" I use is generic, just an FYI)

So I completely disagree with the assertion that it's about people obeying so that God doesn't punish them. Oh sure, there are religious groups that assert that, I would argue that is amazingly wrong and in NO way scriptural. It is not what I believe, nor what most of Christians I know believe.

As far as "God setting it all up", that's a big one. The idea there is that He simply set up a universe where there is law. You let go of an apple and it falls. You sin and you have to deal with consequences. A+B=C. A scientists dream if you will. WE choose to sin. Those around us CHOOSE to sin. In both cases we all have to deal with each other's choices. The good and the bad. We can choose, that even in the bad or the good to continue to have a relationship with Him, knowing that this life is only a small part of eternity and that His love will sustain us as He promises it will, or we can reject that. There are, and this is important, consequences to all of the above choices. Good and bad depending on your point of view.

In the end we have to remember it wasn't supposed to be this way. The "myth" of the Garden of Eden was, in a sense, supposed to be our lives (not living in a garden, society and history would have progressed similarly). We were supposed to live lives untouched by sin or pain or death or suffering and instead live lives in loving relationship with each other and with our Creator. But choices were made and now He has spent all of history working to redeem us so we can have a restored relationship.

One of the cool things about the Bible is that we tend to look at it as how things work for OUR lives. Like it's OUR story. It's not. It's God's story. He's the main character and his desperate attempts to recapture our hearts with His love.
Good discussion, not that I'm surprised, I feel like you and I have always had good discussion without lowering ourselves to petty comments or anything. I like that we can respect each other's beliefs.
Thanks man.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Well, we should probably define "natural" consequence and I would say consequences come in a variety of ways, often in ways that aren't totally obvious to us, and that spiritual consequences are natural to us, since we are spiritual and physical beings. So I would disagree that you can "sin" a lot and not have any consequences, especially when you factor in that each sin isn't a sin against yourself but against the Perfect and Loving God who created you with the intent of you NOT having to deal with the pain (both spiritual and physical) that comes from sin intruding on our lives. And example of that would be, I can do things that to me, might not hurt me or cause me pain, but they very well might hurt and pain my wife should I do them. I can have sex with some random girl, and it wouldn't hurt me (although if she had the HIV then it might have it's own nasty consequences for me), but my wife would be deeply hurt. Should I not have sex with Ms. March so that I don't run the risk of STD's? Or should I not do it so my wife isn't hurt deeply and our relationship destroyed? I wouldn't avoid it out of fear, although fear wouldn't be a bad motive, but because I LOVE my wife and don't to cause her pain. It's very similar to our relationship with God. Or course, if you don't believe in the same God I do you wouldn't understand why you would worry about hurting Him or your relationship with Him. (The "you" I use is generic, just an FYI)

So I completely disagree with the assertion that it's about people obeying so that God doesn't punish them. Oh sure, there are religious groups that assert that, I would argue that is amazingly wrong and in NO way scriptural. It is not what I believe, nor what most of Christians I know believe.

As far as "God setting it all up", that's a big one. The idea there is that He simply set up a universe where there is law. You let go of an apple and it falls. You sin and you have to deal with consequences. A+B=C. A scientists dream if you will. WE choose to sin. Those around us CHOOSE to sin. In both cases we all have to deal with each other's choices. The good and the bad. We can choose, that even in the bad or the good to continue to have a relationship with Him, knowing that this life is only a small part of eternity and that His love will sustain us as He promises it will, or we can reject that. There are, and this is important, consequences to all of the above choices. Good and bad depending on your point of view.

In the end we have to remember it wasn't supposed to be this way. The "myth" of the Garden of Eden was, in a sense, supposed to be our lives (not living in a garden, society and history would have progressed similarly). We were supposed to live lives untouched by sin or pain or death or suffering and instead live lives in loving relationship with each other and with our Creator. But choices were made and now He has spent all of history working to redeem us so we can have a restored relationship.

One of the cool things about the Bible is that we tend to look at it as how things work for OUR lives. Like it's OUR story. It's not. It's God's story. He's the main character and his desperate attempts to recapture our hearts with His love.
Good discussion, not that I'm surprised, I feel like you and I have always had good discussion without lowering ourselves to petty comments or anything. I like that we can respect each other's beliefs.
Thanks man.

I guess a big one I'd center to that argument, separating natural as physical or worldly, and then purely spiritual as something else. Using your example, I would call having sex with whoever to have natural consequences--possibility of disease, and hurting loved ones. But there's others that I'd see as purely spiritual, such as taking God's name in vain, or idolatry. Those don't seem to have what I'd see as a natural consequences, but more spiritual ones. God sets up the spiritual repercussions, which would be in his power to change if he chose to do so. Lots of people doing the "in vain" one, and I can idolize the fuck out of shit.

Probably I see it that way because I see the physical universe as one, and then spiritual as the next, when I view the Christian theological system. The whole "heaven is the real home" model that a lot of evangelicals have taken up in which Earth is some failed experiment, and people are just supposed to get through it.

Even ignoring that, I still have to look at it from an outside POV and see that some things (like my examples) have no consequence outside of reward/punishment chosen by God. I don't see them as set like gravity.

That said, that may be because I'm not part of it. In my faith, things are more immediate, less permanent. You do wrong, it WILL come back, not by any deity's decision, but because that's the way the universe works. Same for good. And a physical bad can reflux in an emotional bad.

That may seem hypocritical, that I view it as natural in mine but not in yours, but it's not because I'm not in yours. It's because in Christianity, God has a bigger role. He's the creator, he shapes it all--like you said, he's the main character of the Bible, so I see it as more his decision to have a heaven/hell dynamic.

And I like our discussions too. I know what you're saying with the "some Christians" and I know they're a vocal minority. It's hard not to see them, which is why I phrase some aspects of my arguments the way I do.