Religion

[cheddamash]

3. Why do some Christians think that atheists are inherently bitter, immoral and incapable of love, forgiveness and compassion?

If I were to boil down the values of all of the Atheists and Christians I know they would be nearly identical. I think THIS is the problem that some Christians have (consciously or not) with Atheists... coming to the same conclusions as people who haven't devoted their entire life to God. I think they see it as almost cutting in line. "Shit. Did I not have to do all that bullshit?" It discredits their beliefs. Instead, some ignorant Christians (by no means all) rather deny this outright and make ridiculous accusations about Atheists.

[littlemonkey613]

For the past year I have become consumed with gender roles in Evangelical Christianity in America. (mainly complementarianism). Actually its rather become an intense obsession. I'm even flying to the biggest conference for Women regarding this in the country this summer. All my top tabs are links to my favorite pastors, and I follow more of them on twitter than actual friends. It's been a real experience having such a focus of study on my own time. I even give mock sermons to my family whenever I go home. I'm really just wondering if this is a subject of interest for anyone else? I had no idea this was such a pervasive and organized ideology and it really makes me grateful for my sane and tolerant Christian upbringing.

[Harry Seaward]

For the past year I have become consumed with gender roles in Evangelical Christianity in America. (mainly complementarianism). Actually its rather become an intense obsession. I'm even flying to the biggest conference for Women regarding this in the country this summer. All my top tabs are links to my favorite pastors, and I follow more of them on twitter than actual friends. It's been a real experience having such a focus of study on my own time. I even give mock sermons to my family whenever I go home. I'm really just wondering if this is a subject of interest for anyone else? I had no idea this was such a pervasive and organized ideology and it really makes me grateful for my sane and tolerant Christian upbringing.

I can't say it's an intense interest of mine, but I find it hilarious to see women trying to defend religions in which their gender is treated like property. A woman being a Christian is like a black joining the KKK. Pure comedy gold.

[leo3375]

Keep in mind that the sex laws in the Old Testament were skewed against women because they are the ones that get pregnant and give birth, so it's easier to tell when they've been sleeping around, or if they weren't a virgin when they got married. And with the high infant and childhood mortality rates, men had to be sure that they were the biological fathers of the children their wives had. These days, such laws are antiquated and completely unnecessary. Many denominations of Christianity have survived because they were able to adapt to changes in culture and technology. If a man isn't sure he's the father of his wife's child, he can always ask for a paternity test. And whether a woman is a virgin or not on her wedding day is now considered a personal matter in mainstream society. I feel that the denominations of Christianity that take the Bible literally word-for-word will not survive because they simply cannot and will not make the necessary adaptations as our society as a whole continues to evolve.

[Harry Seaward]

Oh, sorry I forget the word of an omniscient being varies depending on the culture changes of the interpreters of His word. Silly me.

[Elke]

@ littlemonkey613: It's not my area of expertise (although really it should be, given that I head the gender team at my school) BUT I've always been fascinated by the Dutch Bible belt. The Netherlands are not quite as secularized as Belgium or France, and protestantism is still the inofficial Dutch religion, but this is a region where in some villages people even dress almost Amish-like. Recently there were elections, and they went to some of those villages to ask if the women there would vote for a woman, and they were outraged by the question: A man makes decisions! A woman's just not smart enough to do that!
It's always surprising to me that one of the most ethically liberal countries in Europe would have at its heart such a relatively large, incredibly conservative community - but then again, I guess that makes even more sense: the more things change, the more they stay the same, right?
But I am always amazed by things like that. We associate women embracing their lower status with low-income households, poor education, third world countries... not with one of the richest and most educated countries in the world. Incredibly weird.

Oh, sorry I forget the word of an omniscient being varies depending on the culture changes of the interpreters of His word. Silly me.

Actually, it does. Just check out how God changed his mind between St Paul's letter to the Corinthians and Muhammed taking down Jibra'il's notes that turned into the Quran: from woman being property to women being equal partners in almost every respect. A muslim woman is a lot more sensible than a black member of the KKK or indeed, a gay catholic.

Then again, God seems to have changed his mind about a lot of things even during the writing of the TeNaK: all animals went from vegetarians to being allowed to eat meat; first it was monolatry, then monotheism; Sodom was destroyed without warning while Nineve was warned and given time to repent; first there was no life after death then suddenly *pop* there's things like the Messiah and the Resurrection and Heaven.

[YKWYA]

God is a kid with an ant farm by the sounds of things.

Anyway, Timinator put it best conceptually. But I would also add that I have difficulty with why subscribers to religious text have a hard time understanding how Atheists/Agnostics construct a moral and ethical code? Many species on this planet create social structures and understanding without reference to religious texts such as the Bible. The structures are inherent to a species evolutionary survival or not. OK, some animals appear to be brutal towards ech other, but animals can be different characters much in the same way as Humans. We too, do some horrible things to each other, and often, it appears to me, driven by, and apparently sanctioned, by whatever dogma that human being subscribes to. A lot of the time, its only the law that keeps us back from doing what religion, or any other impulse, would 'allow' us to do. Witness the views of a lot of religious people towards other religions, homosexuals etc etc. Crusades against others since time imemmorial. Therefore, I dont think that either side has any easier time constructing a view of whats right and what is wrong. Those concepts chnage over thousands of years. Religious dogma has been reigned in by other world views. There are millions of people living peaceful (call it moral, or ethical) lives without religion.

Im simply saying that, again, who we are is defined by factors inside (genetic) and outside of us. 'Religion' is in the mix like any other factor as to how a Human Being behaves. It is not essential, and does not have some upper-hand.

[Elke]

That's not why I asked. I'm familiar with a couple of philosophies that are formulated in a non-teleological universe, like epicurism, stoicism or even Nietzsche's attempts at a constructive pretense. But just as my christianity isn't everyone's, I was just curious how an individual would phrase it. You mentioned the law, but laws are also based on value systems and philosophies - whether a government leans towards socialism or liberalism, for instance, is visible in the laws they pass. So that's what I was looking for.
It could help me give examples in class of non-religious life stances that are not humanism, materialism or my own former concepts (which was, looking back on it, already a lot like Nietzsche's alternative).

Still, thank you both for answering.

[littlemonkey613]

Keep in mind that the sex laws in the Old Testament were skewed against women because they are the ones that get pregnant and give birth, so it's easier to tell when they've been sleeping around, or if they weren't a virgin when they got married. And with the high infant and childhood mortality rates, men had to be sure that they were the biological fathers of the children their wives had. These days, such laws are antiquated and completely unnecessary.

I must say this kind of reasoning has always bothered me. For one, this context can be true for a lot of places today so trying to justify those laws and calling them necessary in a different time means that you would have to be calling them necessary in today's setting as well, as the only difference is what year this kind of thinking is taking place. I always hear people use this kind of reasoning for the slave laws in the Old Testament. They'll say something along the lines of "but slavery back then was different than how we understand it today, you are taking it out of context." Except that kind of slavery DOES exist in some places today so defending the practice in any context becomes very morally problematic.

"men had to be sure that they were the biological fathers of the children their wives had".
That's really making it sound sweet and sensible. Don't forget that women weren't even considered proper people, but were property and they basically had no rights because of it. Of course I understand that you are more or less just saying how they would justify their own laws but the wording does imply an acceptance that makes me frustrated. Maybe I am just too emotionally involved and can't think objectively about it.

@Elke Yes! The most interesting thing about this is that I've basically been following people who are middle to upper middle class. Actually this was all brought on because a friend very close to me got taken in by a church who preaches this, and now we are no longer friends because he said that "he wouldn't expect me to live up to those standards and submit to my husband" because I'm not Christian. It was all pretty insane. From what I've gathered a lot of the momentum from this movement comes from a direct backlash of the feminist movement here, which can be expected I guess. Still what disturbs me the most is that its so prevalent and yet barely anyone I know is aware of it. People are always surprised to find for instance that the pastor who did the opening prayer at Obama's inauguration is one of the biggest advocates of complemantiarianism. Now that I am aware of it, I see it everywhere.

[Elke]

I once had a very interesting discussion about this with a coworker, and she argued that it's actually privilige, not submission.
In the fifties and sixties when the economy in the west boomed women were suddenly allowed to stay at home. They didn't have to work. We think of these patterns as somehow really old, but the truth is that only wealthy women were ever able to not work - women had to work on the land, had to be maids, had to become prostitutes... in order to feed their families. The female teachers who all had to be single often lived with their parents until they died, taking on the burden of care for the elder relatives because she had fewer costs for herself.
If women now choose to submit to their husbands, she argued, it might be in part because it provides them with the luxury of not having to work. They will refer to the Bible to justify their behaviour, which is actually very self-interested. But to cover up the self-interest, they'll often do volunteer work (as noble women have done since the rise of chivalry in the 900s: the new money powerhouses of the 19th century took it upon themselves to do charity work to reflect their social status).
She also pointed out, and I quite agree with her here, that women with lesser educational background or social status will usually submit to their husbands out of fear rather than religious reasons.
I thought that was a very interesting way of looking at it.
Of course, because what happens in the social stratosphere is always copied by us lesser humans, that means upper middleclass and even middleclass women will start doing the same but not being able to actually stay at home exchange their autonomy for absolutely nothing, because they can't enjoy the priviliges that come with a submissive role for an upper class woman.

I was reminded of this discussion in a completely different respect a while back, when I saw Leymah Gbowie on The Daily Show. She was talking about the sex strike, and how the urban women were very militant (We're not having sex! We're rebelling!) but the rural women couldn't afford that, so they said they were going to fast and pray for peace, and that meant they couldn't have sex, and their husbands fasted and prayed with them. It struck me that if you're really submissive, such a ruse would never work. So these women have an autonomy all of their own that is respected by their husbands, one that we often don't have.

And I agree about the laws concerning sexuality and gender in the Old Testament (and St. Paul's letters, Paul sucks): knowing where they came from doesn't make them right. I think we can safely say that with what we know now and our current understanding of humanity and sexuality and the likes, we can look back on those rules and say Okay, I get why you thought that was a good idea, but you know what? No. Bad ideas.
That said, Aristotle is still one of the most important and influential philosophers (especially for anyone dealing with exact sciences, oddly enough) and he argued that women never quite matured as men did, because they didn't have an intellectual soul, they only had an animal-like soul. I'm not simply throwing away Aristotle because of his skewed views on women (and sex, God, the man was clueless), but I'm not going to take his views seriously either. They're significant if you're studying his ideas, but I don't know any scolars of Aristotle who would go 'And now I will beat my wife, because you have to train them as you would your donkey'. That'd be totally weird.
People who take those rules and run with them are just intellectually lazy.

[Halo Infinity]

@Elke: Now the following questions are about Christianity in general, so I hope you can bear with me here. And of course, you can also choose to answer these questions to your knowledge and understanding if you'd like, and I'm mostly basing these questions on my experiences with Adventism again. I wonder what Catholics think of these issues.

1. So am I to understand that Christians are also not supposed to dislike other people even if they're intentionally being offensive and cruel? (In other words, is disliking somebody just as bad as hating somebody?)

I'm not talking about full-blown animosity, revenge and resentment here either. I'm just talking more along the lines of, "I really can't stand this guy. I just want to stay away from him." I've been told that's actually wrong because it contradicts the love of God. Is that simply so in general?

(And yes, I could see how thoughts and actions of dislike can lead to hatred as well, so I could see why they'd want to avoid that risk. But yes, I've basically been told that I'm not supposed to really feel that way towards people that treat my horribly.)

2. Are Christians really supposed to love, forgive and help everybody and not give up on them because God didn't give up on humanity to start with?

I know this is up for theological debates here, and while that's not my intention, I could see how it would be inevitable, but most Adventists have told me that's why I should be always willing to forgive and to help others even if we think they might not deserve it because despite how undeserving humans were for receiving eternal and unconditional forgiveness, support and love, God just didn't decide to give up on us. - Along with how God's love and forgiveness and is supposed to be unconditional and eternal. I can't argue with that being a core belief pertaining to God. (And that Christians are commanded to love like God, etc, etc.)

3. Is forgiveness mandatory or optional?

All Adventists told me that forgiveness is a must. As for me, I always thought that forgiveness is only sincere and authentic if it was done on your own volition. I don't think apologies could be sincere if they're forced, so I can't see why forgiveness would be either.

(I'm all for forgiveness by the way. However, it's just hard for me to think that it can be eternal and unconditional.)

And to the atheists, I've always been curious as to how you'd perceive the following.

1. What do you think about loving your enemies? Is it impossible? (I still can't see myself doing that. If I'm not feeling hatred towards them, they'd just scare me, or merely disgust me.)

2. What do you think about unconditional love? Does it exist? (I'm skeptical about this concept too.)

3. What are your view on forgiveness? (Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that you can forgive without being a Christian.)

[sheepdean]

Am I the only one who finds discussions on religion, online anyway, are actually just discussions on Atheism v Christianity?

[Halo Infinity]

That usually seems to happen, and I'd agree with you too, so I suppose you're not alone there.

-Edit-

Sorry about that, I forgot to mention that you'd also come across moments where it's also "Beliefs versus Beliefs" or "Religion versus Religion" as well.

[NIN64]

[Elke]

So am I to understand that Christians are also not supposed to dislike other people even if they're intentionally being offensive and cruel?

Are Christians really supposed to love, forgive and help everybody and not give up on them because God didn't give up on humanity to start with?
Is forgiveness mandatory or optional?

I can’t really answer these questions conclusively. I can’t even really find any Church doctrine about it, for now. (It must be out there, I just simply don’t know where it would be written down.)

I do think that it depends on whether a church or community attaches a great value to the Sermon on the Mount, or not. Jesus gives a speech there that deals with intention or attitude rather than outward action. It also contains the counsel to not pray on street corners like hypocrites, for instance. Here the idea that you shouldn’t think evil about your brother is posited, and the demand to forgive 7 times 70 times.
There are a great number of ways to interpret the Sermon on the Mount, but one validated by St. Augstine is that the Sermon urges us to take on a certain attitude, to cultivate a certain type of purity of heart. This was picked up again by people like Wilhelm Hermann, and there’s echoes of the idea in some of Luther’s writings that while we must act a certain way on the mortal plain, our hearts and minds must already be as if we were with God. Something to that effect.

That said, there’s also the Golden Rule that says love your neighbour as you do yourself. How is it showing self respect to let other people walk all over you or hurt you, if you’re not allowed to do this yourself? That’s not taking care of God’s creation either, because one might argue you’re not actually taking care of yourself. (Some more radical thinkers, like St. Franciscus of Assisi, are radicalists in this respect: they don’t see a difference between what is within our possibilities on earth and what is a given in heaven; and will argue that in order to make God’s Kingdom happen on earth, christians have to act as if they are in heaven already).

Forgiveness is mandatory, and it’s not. We must strive towards forgiveness, but it can’t be hollow. A professor of mine made it a point to always remind us that forgiveness can only be given when it is requested, and I think that’s a very interesting idea. In the Old Testament we see this in the discrepancy between the fates of Sodom and Nineve. Sodom is wiped out, while Nineve is spared. God deemed Nineves grief over what they had done, their request for forgiveness, to be sincere, so they were spared. That again begs the question, though: are we to jugde about whether remorse is real, or is that up to God.

One aspect of our duty to forgive, aside from the concept of God’s love that you already cited, is the idea that we can’t judge – only God can judge. We have to give second and third chances to people, because until death comes knocking, there can be no final judgement. It’s an idea that’s even more pronounced in islam, where any form of judgement over a person is blasphemy, because you’re playing God.

That said, very few christians practice this aspect of their faith. It’s crucial to understanding how a person interprets christianity. I would personally say, and with me Catholic doctrine, that we should aspire to be as perfect as the Sermon of the Mount orders us to be, but that being human and earthbound and mortal and all that rot, we’re also doomed to fail at perfection. We should strive for it, without destroying ourselves.

It’s also interesting to note that the concept of complete altruism and complete compassion are also very important in Buddhism. It’s an aspect of metta and a means of avoiding negative emotion: in letting go of anger or resentment, you free yourself of any desires for revenge or any negative attachments. And the reverse is also true: if you have no attachments, either to yourself or others or objects around you, then nothing that is done to you cannot be forgiven.
In as far as I understand Buddhism, it seems to be a lot more demanding than christianity in this respect.
It also reminds me of the Greek stoa, which was also all about apatheia.

I hope that answers your question somewhat.

I have to say that one of the few things I did struggle with as an atheist was the idea of forgiveness. I wasn’t a typical good child, and I was constantly worried that I would drag all my mistakes with me. As geeks do, I found solace in fantasy: when I read The Lord of the Rings I really liked the character of Boromir and the idea that his honesty and his ability to accept his own failings ultimately redeemed him. I’m still upset with Tolkien for describing him as a traitor. I’m very serious when I say that in my personal, moral development The Lord of the Rings might have been more significant than any philosophy book or any religious text that came after.
I think everyone find things they relate to everywhere around them.

[nin5in]

I follow LaVey's philosophy, even though I know he borrowed ideas and concepts from Ayn Rand and other philosophers.

[Elke]

I follow LaVey's philosophy, even though I know he borrowed ideas and concepts from Ayn Rand and other philosophers.

Oooh, if you could find the time, could you try and explain what that means to you? It's different reading about something and seeing how someone puts it into practice, or adepts aspects of it. I would really appreciate that!

[nin5in]

Oooh, if you could find the time, could you try and explain what that means to you? It's different reading about something and seeing how someone puts it into practice, or adepts aspects of it. I would really appreciate that!

No problem. What Laveyan philosophy means to me is that instead of trying to deny your carnal (base) nature, you spend your life praising and satisfying it, as long as you don't harm yourself or nobody else. How I put it into practice is that I do what I want as long as it doesn't cause any harm to myself or anyone else. I respect those who respect me, I don't waste my love on those who hate me. Instead of squelching my pride, I exalt it, because pride is considered the best of all the virtues, because it keeps all the other desires in check (according to LaVey). Instead of curbing my lust, I give it to the man who deserves it (which is my husband, as long as he doesn't give his lust to anybody else). The biggest thing for me is to do unto others as they have done unto you. If someone shows me kindness, I show them kindness. If some spites me, I spite them right back. You have to be a bit of a hedonist to pratice this philosophy. You also have to be a free thinker, a rebel. I have been happier ever since I decided to practice it. Now that being said I don't pratice all of it blindly, I just pratice what I agree with. I also have an interest in magick. I haven't started praticing it yet, but I'm educating myself about it.

[littlemonkey613]

And to the atheists, I've always been curious as to how you'd perceive the following.

1. What do you think about loving your enemies? Is it impossible? (I still can't see myself doing that. If I'm not feeling hatred towards them, they'd just scare me, or merely disgust me.)

2. What do you think about unconditional love? Does it exist? (I'm skeptical about this concept too.)

3. What are your view on forgiveness? (Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that you can forgive without being a Christian.)

1. It depends on what kind of enemies? The people in my life that I "hate" most? I'd never want anything bad to happen to them and I'd feel genuine sadness if anything did, but that's partly because I know they have family and friends so its really easy to empathize with other people that know them and would hurt as well. I can't think of any other people that I would consider enemies. It would never make sense for me to ever use the word love with their names though, unless miraculously they all said sorry for hurting people I love and turned into different people. To be honest I'd be uncomfortable because love is quite clearly defined in my mind and it would feel cheapened if I just said I loved everyone.

2. I think it exists. In fact its not hard for me to think of a few examples. It's not always a good thing I don't think....

3. It's really easy for me to forgive people who apologize to me. I have what my friends call "selective memory". They always have to re-tell me shitty things because I have a pretty awesome filter. I'm actually waiting on a few people to apologize but I know they are just scared. That's too bad, we could be really good friends again if they packed up the courage. That being said I could forgive people who don't apologize but I will always pity them for not being able to do the right thing. Also, I'm really young so who knows what kind of great things these people could end up doing.

I think all these ideas are ambiguous in nature, I don't think anyone can be right or wrong in answering them. Really my answer would change depending on my mood so this might have been pointless. Haha.

[Goldfoot]

Actually, it does. Just check out how God changed his mind between St Paul's letter to the Corinthians and Muhammed taking down Jibra'il's notes that turned into the Quran: from woman being property to women being equal partners in almost every respect. A muslim woman is a lot more sensible than a black member of the KKK or indeed, a gay catholic.

Then again, God seems to have changed his mind about a lot of things even during the writing of the TeNaK: all animals went from vegetarians to being allowed to eat meat; first it was monolatry, then monotheism; Sodom was destroyed without warning while Nineve was warned and given time to repent; first there was no life after death then suddenly *pop* there's things like the Messiah and the Resurrection and Heaven.

See, now I have a serious issue with this and I don't understand how you can reconcile a subjective definition of omniscient. Isn't the idea that God is all knowing one of the main things we are supposed to know about God? It seems to me that changing how you perceive this notion in order to fit what is simply a way to ignore the inconsistencies within an "infallible" text. However, ff you do accept that the Bible (or any such other text) has errors and contradictions in it, then how can you know what is "true" in order to know what you believe? In this instance it would all come down to personal interpretation, and that is fine, but members of church usually all believe the same interpretation, right? Even though I don't agree with a theistic world-view, I can appreciate someone determining their own beliefs. I'm getting side-tracked here, but I don't see how it is acceptable to say that God can change his/her/its mind under the omniscient pretense. If you know everything that is ever going to happen, then you should know how to react to those things at all times. Are we to believe that God has mood swings? If this is the case, considering only one book has been written explaining the will of God, how is anyone to know how their deity of choice is feeling on any particular day? What if he's feeling particularly sadistic one day and wants to see a bunch of people kill each other. On that day, everyone who killed someone else would be carrying out this divine will, and should be rewarded for it, no? It just seems to me that introducing the idea that God can change his/her/its mind is a way to gloss over weakness in your faith.

And to the atheists, I've always been curious as to how you'd perceive the following.

1. What do you think about loving your enemies? Is it impossible? (I still can't see myself doing that. If I'm not feeling hatred towards them, they'd just scare me, or merely disgust me.)

I don't think it's impossible, but I'm of the same mind as littlemonkey and I think to love everyone, including your enemies, would be to cheapen the emotion. I think the same could be said about any emotion. I feel empathy for someone who loses their life partner to some sort of fatal accident, but I don't really feel empathy for someone who drops their Rolex in a puddle while taking if off so it doesn't get wet in the rain. Sure there are levels to the emotions we feel, but certain emotions are too important to waste on people that don't deserve it. Since I don't believe in God's perfect and unconditional love, there's no reason for me to even like someone that isn't deserving of it. One of my great-grandma's daughters died within the last couple years and I didn't feel any sort of sadness about it. I felt sad for my great-grandma and the people in my family who were affected by her death, but she was never nice to my grandpa and felt that everyone in his line of family shouldn't exist. He had a different father than the rest of the kids so she was very spiteful toward him and his family. So even though she was part of my extended family, I had no positive feelings for her and felt nothing when she died. Now I didn't hate her, but if I didn't have any sort of love for someone like that in my own family, I'm sure not going to feel any kind of love toward someone I'd call an enemy.

2. What do you think about unconditional love? Does it exist? (I'm skeptical about this concept too.)

I think it exists, but in limited situations. I think the best example would be parents and their child(ren). Granted, this may not be applicable to every parent, but from what I've experienced, even when their children do some awful things, the parents still love the child(ren) anyway. A second cousin of mine was involved in the murder of someone a couple years ago. She was always hanging out with sketchy people and it ended up leading to her being involved in murdering someone. Her mom still loves her and calls and writes to her in prison. One of my great-grandma's sons was addicted to heroin for years and was constantly in jail or prison for stealing to pay for the habit and she always loved him. My uncle can be a real asshole to my grandma, but she always loves him. It's hard for parents to go through things like that when it comes to their child(ren) but, at least from what I've seen, they endure it and the love never goes away.

3. What are your view on forgiveness? (Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that you can forgive without being a Christian.)

While I haven't had every possible betrayal done to me, my current stance is that if the other person apologizes for it (and means it), then I would forgive them. I think there would be a limit to how many times I would accept the same thing happening before I would require a really solid assurance against future indiscretions, but I try to look at things through the lens of the Golden Rule. If I wronged someone and I was truly sorry for it, I'd want them to forgive me. How could I ask for forgiveness if I wasn't willing to give someone else the same courtesy?

[Elke]

Thanks nin5nin, that was interesting!

Isn't the idea that God is all knowing one of the main things we are supposed to know about God?

That sort of depends heavily on who you’re talking to.

First of all, the abrahamic God is often described as transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent and eternal. However, we can’t actually think any of those concepts. That is: we have theoretical notions of those concepts, but it’s impossible to actually think them, imagine them. Which is precisely the point.

JHWH was at first a god amongst many tribal gods, and the earliest jews distinguished him from the others by serving and worshipping only him (hence the first commandmend). From there, he was placed in a hierarchical position over all the other gods, ultimately becoming their creator (Genesis 1 is in part a satire on the Babylonian deities who were, amongst others, the Sun and the Moon) and the sole actual God.
In that journey, JHWH went from a fairly random tribal deity associated with fertility to completely transcendent.
He is in all respects the complete other. That also means that if we are mortal, he is immortal; if we are limited in space and time, he is eternal and universal; if we are sinners, he is just and good; if we are uneducated and fearful, he is omniscient and omnipotent; if we are hateful, he is love.
God was removed so far from the anthropomorfic template of the surrounding cultures, that it became impossible to actually say anything about him apart from the things he did, the way he intervened (or was percieved to intervene) in the history of the jewish people. Godhead is a concept that expresses this.

God’s omniscience is just another attribute (like his transcendence) to show us how God is the complete other of everything on earth. It’s not actually meant to be understood, it’s meant to set him apart.

In all three monotheistic traditions there are mystic sects that refuse to describe God of attribute any aspects to him, because God is the great unknowable. To pretend to know God, know anything about God, is pretentious. God has to be experienced, felt even, not described and analyzed. God’s supposed omniscience means absolutely nothing to them, because we are humans and so we cannot imagine the knowledge of an omniscient being.

There’s also the problem of theological fatalism$: how do we understand omniscience in relation to free will. Some philosopher and theologeans argue that they are inherently contradictory, others say that God’s omniscience is about what currently is not what will be, yet another solution is to see God’s knowledge as a knowledge of all possible outcomes in any given scenario (like a great chess player) without actually knowing what the eventual outcome will be.

And that’s just the theology of the three monotheistic traditions. I’m not well acquainted with Pramānavāda and Hetuvidya, but given the importance of logic especially in Buddhism, I’m sure the concept of omniscience is also discussed there.
In Hinduism especially it should be an interesting subject to study, because of the all-inclusive idea of God as Brahman.

So: No, it isn’t.

It seems to me that changing how you perceive this notion in order to fit what is simply a way to ignore the inconsistencies within an "infallible" text.

Again, no.
Theologically speaking, very few sects of christianity and judeaism post the infallibility and/or inerrancy of the TeNaK or Bible. In fact, very few sects even cultivate biblical literalism.

However, ff you do accept that the Bible (or any such other text) has errors and contradictions in it, then how can you know what is "true" in order to know what you believe?

As a catholic, I’m very familiar with this problem. The answer is: you never know. But then again, you were never supposed to. The Jewish method of PRDS to read the Torah and, slightly better known, the midrash, emphasize that reading the holy texts is an interpretative and constructive work, where the reader and the text work together to reveal that which is to be revealed about God or his work in our world.
Similarly, the mediaeval catholic method of lectio divina seeks interpretation and communion with the texts, through interpretation and forming a relationship with every single idea in the text.
In Islam, even the very rational and borderline literalist text-analysis exegesis of tafsir relies on interpretation; while the much more mystic practice of Ta’wil is rooted in the mysticism of sufism.

Holy texts aren’t meant to be taken literally. They try to speak of something that escapes human understanding. So in order to speak of God (and death, and life, and wonder, and horror – the entirety of the human experience is described in holy texts), people take to poetry and myth, symbolism and story.
Literalism is a rather recent invention.

You never know what’s true, but you read the words, try to understand what they mean – what they meant to those who wrote them down or heard them first, what they mean to you here and know, how they relate to other portions of the text.
Some elements are easily dismissed – bats aren’t birds of prey. Does that knowledge make eating kosher food stupid? Maybe.
Human beings can’t walk on water. But Peter did. Does that mean people actually thought Peter was hip like Jesus? Did Jesus make Peter walk on the water? Did God make Peter walk on the water? But no: Peter was walking himself, until he looked down and noticed what he was doing. And so on, and so forth…

Are we to believe that God has mood swings? If this is the case, considering only one book has been written explaining the will of God, how is anyone to know how their deity of choice is feeling on any particular day?

Again: not really. We consider the Bible as ‘one book’, but it’s actually two books written over a period of hundreds of years. That aside, there are a shitload of secondary texts about God. There’s mediaeval poetry that tought me more about God than some of the Psalms… why not look there?
And the reason why jews starting worshipping JHWH above all others was because he was steadfast, he was loyal to them, he was just… Those attributes of God didn’t come out of nothing. The historical experience of God in the monotheistic traditions is that he’s not all that fickle. Of course, my individual experience of God is that really sometimes he’s a son of a bitch.

I hope this makes you feel a little less like I was ‘glossing over’ anything – even though I admit the post itself was rather tongue-in-cheek.

[Space Suicide]

I'm agnostic with atheistic tendencies.

I might have to jump into discussion in this thread when I have more time.

[theruiner]

I'm agnostic with atheistic tendencies.

Heh...I describe myself as 'agnostic leaning toward atheist.'

[Space Suicide]

Heh...I describe myself as 'agnostic leaning toward atheist.'

I meant the same thing, just in a flashier title.

[littlemonkey613]

I once had a very interesting discussion about this with a coworker, and she argued that it's actually privilige, not submission.
In the fifties and sixties when the economy in the west boomed women were suddenly allowed to stay at home. They didn't have to work. We think of these patterns as somehow really old, but the truth is that only wealthy women were ever able to not work - women had to work on the land, had to be maids, had to become prostitutes... in order to feed their families. The female teachers who all had to be single often lived with their parents until they died, taking on the burden of care for the elder relatives because she had fewer costs for herself.
If women now choose to submit to their husbands, she argued, it might be in part because it provides them with the luxury of not having to work. They will refer to the Bible to justify their behaviour, which is actually very self-interested. But to cover up the self-interest, they'll often do volunteer work (as noble women have done since the rise of chivalry in the 900s: the new money powerhouses of the 19th century took it upon themselves to do charity work to reflect their social status).
She also pointed out, and I quite agree with her here, that women with lesser educational background or social status will usually submit to their husbands out of fear rather than religious reasons.
I thought that was a very interesting way of looking at it.
Of course, because what happens in the social stratosphere is always copied by us lesser humans, that means upper middleclass and even middleclass women will start doing the same but not being able to actually stay at home exchange their autonomy for absolutely nothing, because they can't enjoy the priviliges that come with a submissive role for an upper class woman.

I was reminded of this discussion in a completely different respect a while back, when I saw Leymah Gbowie on The Daily Show. She was talking about the sex strike, and how the urban women were very militant (We're not having sex! We're rebelling!) but the rural women couldn't afford that, so they said they were going to fast and pray for peace, and that meant they couldn't have sex, and their husbands fasted and prayed with them. It struck me that if you're really submissive, such a ruse would never work. So these women have an autonomy all of their own that is respected by their husbands, one that we often don't have.

That's a very interesting take on it. I see a lot of truth in that. It's also a cultural bubble of madness. Still, there is an aspect of pure victimization and brainwashing (because it is such a clearly defined and organized dogma) so I'm afraid to refer to it as privilege myself. The movement's strength I bet is partly a result of financial privilege but on a personal level I see it as blatant oppression by the more powerful group. This kind is so interesting, horrible and complicated because people are quite litearlly sleeping with and loving their oppressor. I also feel terrible for any man that grows up into this and does not fit their definition of what a man should be.

Then there's more ambiguity because who am I to criticize people if they so choose to live that way? Am I dehumanizing them by saying that their choice is irrelevant and its still just horrible?

The way that I've come to terms with that is I have the attitude that I don't care what someone personally chooses because its none of my business. I do however, think its evil to ever try and limit someone in such a fashion because of their gender, teach this to children and preach this to other women saying it is God's will. This works out great since, without fail everyone I have been following does in fact do this. There is a whole lot of difference between being a submissive woman and preaching that women should be submissive because they are women.



This guy is kind of the head honcho as of late. His popularity is so scary.

[Goldfoot]

Elke, I will properly respond to your post, but I haven't had time yet. I'm listening to God Is Not Great and I want to share this with the class. I found it impeccibly worded and, ultimately, hilarious.

There are many disputes between evolutionists as to how the complex process occurred, and indeed as to how it began. Francis Crick even allowed himself to flirt with the theory that life was "inseminated" on earth by bacteria spread from a passing comet. However, all these disputes, when or if they are resolved, will be resolved by using the scientific and experimental methods that have proven themselves so far. By contrast, creationism, or "intelligent design" (its only cleverness being found in this underhanded rebranding of itself) is

not even a theory.

In all its well-financed propaganda, it has never even attempted to show how one single piece of the natural world is explained better by "design" than by evolutionary competition. Instead, it dissolves into puerile tautology. One of the creationists' "questionnaires" purports to be a "yes/no" interrogation of the following:
Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?
Do you know of any fainting that didn't have a painter?
Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?
If you answered YES for any of the above, give details.

We know the answer in all cases: these were painstaking inventions (also by trial and error) of mankind, and were the work of many hands, and are still "evolving." This is what makes piffle out of the ignorant creationist sneer, which compares evolution to a whirlwind blowing through a junkyard of parts and coming up with a jumbo jet. For a start, there are no "parts" lying around waiting to be assembled. For another thing, the process of acquisition and discarding of "parts" (most especially wings) is as far from a whirlwind as could conceivably be. The time involved is more like that of a glacier than a storm. For still another thing, jumbo jets are not riddled with nonworking or superfluous "parts" lamely inherited from less successful aircraft. Why have we agreed so easily to call this exploded old nontheory by its cunningly chosen new disguise of "intelligent design"? There is nothing at all "intelligent" about it. It is the same old mumbo-jumbo (or in this instance, jumbo-mumbo).

[Elke]

Ugh, God, I hate God Is Not Great with the burning fire of a thousand suns, and I mean it. It's as unphilosophical AND as unscientific as any religious text, proving absolutely nothing but that those who can read books can make lists of stupid shit people think and do. The book is not so much an argument for either the general harmfulness of religion or even one specific religion, because facts can never be arguments. Hitchens argues throughout the book (like in the segment you quoted, one of the very few where I actually agree with him) that the main reason why religion 'poisons everything' is a combination or irrationality disguised as reason, and forced ignorance. However, it's exactly what he does in his book: for almost every example of a poisonous practice or idea one can easily dig up a positive counterexample, sometimes even based on the same practice or idea. Instead of presenting both sides of the story, it presents one side, not allowing his readers to make up their own mind and knowing full well that the argument he does make is so persuasive that a lot of his readers won't bother to look for more information on certain topics he deals with, because religion is not reasonable, so no sense can be made of it. At the same time almost all his examples appeal to the readers sense of justice or repulsion, neither very rational in nature. For his argument to take hold (and it does this very well) he needs very irrational sentiments to attach themselves to those examples he gives.
Moreover, some of his examples are blatantly false, whether it's just that his sources already fed him biased information or he simply knowingly misrepresented facts. When he attributes the apparant lack of explanation for the inconsistencies in the New Testament to the Church's history of censorship, he completely dismisses the fact that those inconsistencies were the topic of discussion and even heated debates at the earliest universities, and the topic of writings by people like St. Augustinus and Thomas Aquinas. Dei Verbum, a very recent Catholic document on the inerrancy of the Bible for instance, also talks about those inconsistencies, and the relationship between factual truth and divine truth. A lot of efforts have been made, since the very origins of the texts themselves, to explain those differences - which actually requires at least an acknowledgement of those inconsistencies, and a liberty to theorize about them.
Hitchens views especially the abrahamic religions through contemporary glasses, reducing them to the worst examples he can find, and dismissing the mystical traditions for instance (the things I talked about in my earlier reply to Goldfoot's post).

It's excellent polemic writing, but it's as hypocritical as its long, and its most fundamental idea (that I don't disagree with, on the contrary) is that ideology is dangerous, and provides a mechanism for imbalance of power through use of apparently reasonable irrationality and forced ignorance. But other people have made those points in much more substational, rational and general ways.
And in a way I feel it does a great disservice to atheism as an actual, valid, philosophical concept.

Sorry for the rant.

[Goldfoot]

facts can never be arguments.

And in a way I feel it does a great disservice to atheism as an actual, valid, philosophical concept.

The first part I quoted really surprised me. How can facts not be an argument for something? It seems to me that facts should be the basis for ALL arguments. As for the bulk of your post, I cannot really comment as I'm only 1/3 of the way through right now. It wouldn't be fair to respond without having finished. As for that last part, I see the book as more anti-theist than atheist. There is a distinction and even if what you say about the book is true, I don't see it as being a disservice to atheism as a whole. The only unifying idea behind atheism is that it is a rejection of theism. Not all atheist believe religion is as harmful as Hitchens is presenting it. I even said "amen" after grace at my grandpa's the other night out of respect. I think the level of devotion to the church they have is crazy (and potentially harmful to their personal relationships), but I still conduct myself in a respectful manner. There is no set belief structure that atheists follow, and as I said, I think this book falls into the anti-theist category, which has structure and definite purpose.

[Elke]

Well, the thing is that it doesn't present itself as anti-theist, and entire chapters are devoted to disproving the notion of a deity (or, in Hitchens' very narrow view of religion, the monotheistic God). But that's a very personal idea of mine, which is why I didn't elaborate on it.

However, as you said: facts are the basis of an argument, but you still have to make the argument. Which he just doesn't do.

[Elke]

Golden States of Grace
Gorgeous pictures that tell a rather interesting story of inclusion.