Yeah,that's reasonable---and I would also put it out there that that's an inherent part of Christianity---you won't find too many major characters in the Bible that didn't have doubts about God, and expressed their confusion, doubt, anger and frustration about God. Even on the cross, Jesus wondered "Why did you forsake me?'.

But I hope I didn't communicate the wrong sentiment with my comment---I love a lot of bands that I wouldn't totally (or even partially) agree with in regards to their world view, and I was not trying to imply that Filmmaker (or you) couldn't be pro-U2 and non-Christian---I just thought that the fact that he was arguing against Christianity, and was a major fan of perhaps the most openly Christian mainstream rock band ever was open to a bit of friendly tweaking---I probably should have used this emoticon

Yeah, I was way off with the smug label.

I think we're proving Mr. Harris' point quite nicely!

Merry Christmas, everybody!

Back on the subject of stuff that's actually in these books, does anyone else here consider himself/herself a Pantheist, specifically, a Naturalistic Pantheist? It's what I am, and although Dawkins calls it "sexed up Atheism", I think it's much more than that, with a spiritual reverence to the Universe that's basically religious in essence (what Einstein, also really a Pantheist, called the "Cosmic Religious Experience"). True, it's wholly naturalistic without any supernaturalism to it at all (and why Einstein said his beliefs would be considered atheistic to most people), but it has a spiritual side to it that pure atheism doesn't necessarily have (although it can have it).

.

Good point. Still, I also see plenty of laid-down, unswerving moral doctrine. Look at one of the cornerstones of Christianity, the 10 commandments. There's no "think about this for yourself" mentality there. A lot of time Jesus was a bit better about this - I consider him an excellent philosopher.

I will admit I consider the New Testament leaps and bounds better than a lot of the crap in the Old Testament.

If they have children and tell them "Worship me or suffer eternal hellfire and torment," we sure would.

Convienant snippage.

Well, you're reading that as a threat, whereas a lot of Christians read that more as an explanation of the way things work--of the ultimate truth. When a parent sets out a path for a child to follow, and they tell them to obey the law, and not steal and kill, the parent isn't doing that to glorify his own ego---he's telling the child that because he knows that the child will end up suffering and probably in prison if he does those things. It's a pretty mainstream Christian idea that people willfully choose to reject and separate themselves from God and Love, and they condemn themselves to damnation.

All right, I hate to be weaselly and post and run, but I'm heading home for the holidays and won't be posting for a few days.

A Merry non-specific solstace winter holiday celebration to you all!

Ah, man, come on--answer mine!

I'm always resistant to answer a long, thought-out post with a one-liner, because I fear it will appear I'm being glib, but really, my whole response to this is, if our children do not follow our moral mandates, we don't burn them alive. Furthermore, let's focus on the commonly accepted one, single, solitary get-into-heaven-free card, which has nothing to do with Christian morality--it is to accept that Jesus gave his life to absolve you of your sins. It's even expressly stated that the quality of your moral actions in life are insufficient to grant you entry into heaven (so all the altruistic atheists burn while the pious rapists and murders get their heaven pass). In other words, if you don't glorify your creator, you burn. Morality has nothing to do with this critical issue. Certain sects of Christianity don't believe in this hard line (and good for them, I'd add), but their Bible tells a crueler story.

A fair question, my friend, and one I'm suprised I haven't been confronted with earlier. I disagree very fundamentally with U2's conviction in Christian dogma; however, as a secular humanist myself, I give a full free pass to anyone who actually walks the humanist walk regardless of what "pie in the sky" talk they talk...strip away the Christian trappings and U2's actual actions in this mortal coil are of a deeply, intrinsically humanist nature. If Bono and the gang put improving the quality of human life above all else, as they constantly do at a near unprecendented level, then I'm not gonna sweat what spiritual basis inspired them to do so. In other words, U2 and I are focused on the same goal, we've just taken radically different roads to get there. It isn't their passion for God that inspires my affection, it is their passion for their own fellow man.

If two people debate to a point of mutual understanding (if perhaps not acceptance/agreement) then super-duper, everything's great with the world, but if a debate ends with someone making a compelling point and the other party never responding to it, then it reads like a intellectual victory for the first party and that other respondent party has surrendered his intellectual position as inferior. I would have preferred more debate on the issue than to just be so easily handed the "intellectual trophy", so to speak...

Okay. Sorry, I think I might have gone right over it.

Let me cut it off here, so that I don't get too many things mixed up. The first thought about it being illogical for a non-temporal being to create a temporal existance is something that is probably impossible to answer. You are effectively asking me to know the mind of God. I do agree that a being that created temporality yet would not be bound to it could experience the creation how ever he liked. All in an instance, over "real" time, he could go back and forth, take an "eternity" at any point in time, etc. He wouldn't have to experience it as an instant, but could. Could go back and replay parts, could zip in any direction in time for as long as he likes.

If you imagine a line representing time, at any point in that line, he could go perpendicular, staying at that point as long as he likes, or reverse, etc. Not sure if that illustration helps, but he would not have to experience it as an instant, but could.

But why create a temporal existance? All I can do is speculate, naturally. But if you were to set up a system in which there was free will and choices being made, you would have to be temporal. Without that temporality, there are no consequences to choices, etc. There are no effects from causes. But it makes for some interesting things to think about. The angels have free will and are outside of this universe, but are they bound by temporality? It would seem so if you are just using the Bible as a road map. But you could very well have beings that are bound by 8 dimensions that can experience ours, are bound by some measure of time, but can also be outside of our universe. Or you could even postulate something different. There really isn't a way to tell and it would all be specualtion, naturally, but working out possible models might be interesting, and I hadn't really thought of it before.

But as for the main question, I don't see how it could be considered logical or illogical to create a temporal universe. There are just way too many things that we wouldn't know to be able to even begin to answer that.

If God had the capacity to create dimensions, I don't think it would be logical to conclude that he would not have the faculties to process some part of what he created.

These all have to do with assumptions about what God is, etc. that I don't necessarily know. It also has to do with perspective. You can see it as a being creating people to worship him, but I would see it more as a being creating people to give them a choice. You have the assumption that if you don't "break the code" you end up burning in hell forever, and what kind of a sadistic fellow does that, but there are lots of Christians who believe much more similar to what Judiasm teaches, which is that the after-life for a non-believer is simply an existence without God. That may sound okay, but even most that believe that would describe the idea as torture, not because of what is done to you, but because you know what you chose, etc.

Most of these questions are philosophical in nature, and I don't mind giving you my thoughts, but that is all they are. Just had to pop in and give this caveat.

The afterlife could be non-temporal. Revelations certainly tells about a new creation, and given some other descriptions, the physics are certainly not the same if taken as literal. But that does not mean that it would have to be non-temporal. If you can create dimensions, there is nothing keeping you from creating them with varying degrees in which you could interact. So heaven, being a new creation, could be either.

Same here, could be either.

I don't know that I would ever say that it isn't our place to question God's motives or design, but I also don't think it is possible. If you accept the idea of a Creator for the sake of argument, and by extension that he must be pretty darn powerful and smart compared to us, you are then asking me to know the mind of God. I'm certainly trying to use insightful thinking, but if I were to ask you what Einstein's motives were for including some part of his equation, my guess is that all you could do is speculate and not really have a good answer. If you or I can't look into Einstein's head and give his motives for something, what hope do we have of giving the motives of God?

I enjoy this type of discussion, but I don't find that it leads to much. I understand the science, but I generally dislike philosophy because you never really know the answer and I am too analytical by nature. And for the most part, thes are all philosophical questions that would require one to know the mind of God. I assume you will take that as ducking the questions, even though I have tried to formulate the best answers I could on the spot, but I think the question asks for something that is impossible to give.


Okay, enough writing. Interested in hearing your response, and will respond in kind if you want. Thanks.

Whence comes the belief that God isn't temporal? The Old Testament is chock full of instances where God doesn't know what's about to happen next or what's happened to certain people and he certainly contradicts himself plenty of times (not to mention flooding the Earth, and then regretting his decision). (If one wants to add to the mess and consider the expanded lifespans of people in Genesis, it almast seems to an untrained observer that God was making up the rules as he went; adjusting them as he saw fit)

And, if one is to factor in the war in Heaven where Satan was banished, then suerely there was some form of temporal existence before "in the beginning."

I have seen a broken glass on the floor of the kitchen before and asked my son what he did, even though I already know. The idea of God not being temporal has to do with the idea that we know that time is a dimension of our universe and if God created the universe, and thus created time as a dimension of it, he wouldn't be bound by it.

As I said, angelic creatures could very well be confined to other dimensions imposed by a creator as well. But you also assume that the war in Heaven occured before "in the begining" and I don't think there is consensus on that.

But we are also trying to make most important those parts of the Bible that it seems to consider least important, so it isn't surprising that we don't have all the answers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius

learned something new today

Ahh - the good old, "That's not at threat, it's a promise." Works for gansters, why not God?

Simple truth is that Christianity is pretty cut-and-dried on this one. Accept and worship Jesus and you go to heaven. Don't, and you go to hell. There's not much wiggle room here. So the parent analogy just doesn't cut it. Sorry. It's "worship me or burn in hell for all eternity."

Jumping the fence for a moment. This is a terribly naive point of view. Sometimes, people simply choose to end a thread. Otherwise threads would never end.

Internet debates are virtually never "won" or "lost." They're simply waged. If you're looking for "victory," you're really wasting your own time and everyone else's. Debate for the fun of debate. You're never going to win.

I'm back (and you might have noticed a name change, since I stopped reviewing for the site some time ago...). I was gone so long because my town got socked with over 2 feet of snow, and we've just now dug out.

Anyway, I would argue that Hitler, despite rejecting Christianity later in life, still clung to its basic anti-Semitism, and in fact spoke in terms of a Christian god several times while in power. I believe strongly that once you've been indoctrinated into a certain faith, it's nearly impossible to escape from it, and even if you do, it has still shaped your psychology in core ways.

But I never intended this thread as an attack on just Chrisitianity, and I especially never intended it as an attack on Christians. I intended this thread as a serious criticism of all myth-based, book-based, man-created faiths, of which Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the most widely followed and drilled into kids' brains.

I believe that the biblical notion of sin has shaped the west and specifically this nation in atrocious, disgusting ways, not least of which is our condemnation of victimless crimes such as drugs. Sex, particularly of the same-sex or poop-chute or even oral variety. Prostitution. Naughty books. On and on. Pleasure is frowned upon, especially if that pleasure is considered illicit or sinful. I think sin is one of the most eggregious roadblocks of psychological and cultural evolution that we face.

No, I want to get away from that. My intent is not to attack Christianity or any Christian sect. Or any Christian. My aim is to criticize them all, and especially to point out the horror of childhood indoctrination.

You've given me food for thought, and I bow to your wisdom. You've made several good points here. In shaping my attack against myth-based religion, my first instinct is to go for the jugular, because frankly, I will never stop believing that religion in today's world is doing more harm than good.

In this thread, I have acknowledged the good. Perhaps I should give it more credit. That being said, I do think the bad FAAAAAAR outweighs the good, and although many of the outright illogical horrors of religion would simply disappear in the absence of faith, I believe that much of the good of religion would survive in the absence of faith. Again, I think the Bible and Koran and Torah are sorry, out-of-date foundations for faith and good will. The religious have indeed found ways to live honorable, moral lives in spite of most of the words of those texts.

I think we need to take a look at the three big religions by scrutinizing both their books and their followers. I would propose that the majority of followers of a particular faith have never even read the text on which their religion is based--at least, in its entirety. Their faith is probably more firmly attached to the words and acts of their parents and their spiritual leader, whoever that might be. At a certain point, you've got to ask, At what point does that ancient book become meaningless--just a source for little snippets of "meaning"? How many centuries must pass before we realize that the text--obviously of a long-gone, archaic age--just doesn't connect meaningfully with what we now believe? And once we come to that realization, what meaning is left in what we've taken from those texts?

So, in response to what you've written--and again, I accept your argument--I would argue that religion has always and will always be a source of horror and intolerance, and violence will always erupt from it. On the other side of the equation, to a lesser degree, religion has indeed been a source of good in the world. (Although, even in extreme cases, like Mother Theresa, the good was tainted.) BUT, in a perfect world, if we were to abandon religion, I believe that violence and intolerance would rapidly diminish, and basic human goodness would not. Perhaps I'm too much of a moral optimist.

In my view, although you deny that Catholicism "didn't take," I would say that it most certainly did. For me, this is the very thrust of this thread.

Again, and I mean no disrespect: I would argue that you were forced.

OP here! Once again, it was not my intention when I started this thread to single out Christianity, but it has worked out that way. However, it was defiinitely not my intention to single out Christians themselves. I think we need to ask why the religion itself is above criticism. Why can't we give the faith and its text an honest, critical evaluation without being labeled smug or condescending?

To me, this is child abuse.