Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Stop thinking? (Was: Why I am an atheist)
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:19:12 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <adams.716048092@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>> Pardon me while I butt in here...<<oomph, nudge, push, oomph>>
>Hey! Who let this guy in here??  
I have the keys to the hall...;-)

>(Note: I'm referring to the North American ex-Christian atheist, here)
Can I find this sub-species in a biology text?

>People who accuse atheists of being cowards, moral weaklings, etc. might
>benefit from considering that to be an atheist in North America is sort of
>like being a Christian in (what used to be) the Soviet Union.
I think the parallel is good, though it might actually be worse for an
atheist here.

>You are
>officially tolerated, but the foundation of the state, of societal
>morality, etc. is all based on a doctrine that considers you the enemy.
Along with anyone else who disagrees with whatever the 'standard' docrtine
and dogma is.  NRA members and pro-lifers to the left, and ACLU members and
pro-choicers to the right.  (Massive generalization alert!)  

Atheists get it from all sides.

>>>If God created the universe, who created God?
>>God is eternal, uncreated.  The unmoved mover, if you will.  The first cause.

>Uh huh. God's existence is a mystery, then. Inexplicable. The universe remains
>a mystery, God or no God.

True enough.

>> Everything depends on how we define evil:
>> 
>> 1. The opposite of 'good'
>> 2. The antithesis of God's desires
>> 3. That which causes suffering.
>> 
>> If we chose option 2, we can never know exactly what evil is...and some 
>> suffering is God ordained for His purposes.  Sort of 'ends justify the
>> means'...This is strict monism...something that is becoming very attractive 
>> at the moment...much like pre-rabbinnic Judaism.

>Kind of a "might makes right" approach to the universe. Understandable for
>iron-age nomads to find this attractive - but I thought that somehow
>we had moved beyond that....maybe not...

Calling me an iron-age nomad?  Should I be insulted? ;-)  I don't see why
strict monism is a bad thing.  Of course, it contradicts St. Paul, so that
causes problems in itself.

>>If we chose option 1, then we build a scale and either give evil it's own
>>personality and existence (dualism), something like Mazdaism or Zorastrianism,  or build a system where it is the lack of good, and slide along the 
>>monistic-dualistic scale, much as Christianity does today.

>Still haven't come to any conclusion as to what "good" or "evil" is, though,
>except for circular definitions ("Evil is what Ahriman does. Good is the
>opposite of that, what Ahura Mazda does...")
Exactly...perhaps Zarathustra will come back and explain it all to us....
accompanied by the theme to 2001 A Space Odysy (Also Sprach Zarathustra)!
;-)  The definition of evil here would appear to be suffering, if I have my
ancient Persian theology correct.

[Option 3]
>implies that God created creatures that could suffer so that they would
>suffer and then freely reject suffering. Reaction: Eh???? Could you explain
>that again, Daddy???
Confusing...suffering is a learning process...moral education, etc.  Of
course, this doesn't explain natural 'evil', per se, without lots of leaps.

>>>Explain in detail the mechanism by which my sin was assumed by J.C., 
>>>considering that I hadn't even started sinning when he got nailed up? 
>>Since God is eternal, time means nothing to God.  Any action of God is
>>independant of measurable time (from our perspective).  God selected the
>>apropriate time in human history, though that particular 'time' was no
>>different than any other time to God.

>How can one "assume" someone else's sin? 

'Assume' is perhaps a poor word.  How about the fact that noone here can
pay the price to God for their sin, only God can pay the price, but He has
no sin.  Thus, by creating a man who had the full humanity as Jesus did,
with the coexistence of God, there was a way to pay the price...

>>    1. Human nature is sanctified, dignified, transformed and saved by the
>>       very act of Christ's becomming a man;

>This implies that "human nature" is some kind of "thing" which one can
>"sanctify."  Is it just me, or is this silly?  "Human-ness" is an 
>abstract concept, a generalization from observation of humans. To speak of it
>as a thing which one can "dignify" in some objective sense is to become
>a radical Plationist! "Yeeks! How'd that ideal-form get in here? Martha,
>get my shotgun..."

Not surprising, eh?  Since platonism (or at least neo-platonism) greatly
influenced Christianity.  This answer is more metaphysical, so the fact
that it addresses a 'form' (Greek Metaphysics) is not suprising.

>>    2. The above mentioned sacrifice theory, where Jesus offers Himself (as
>>       God and man) as a sacrifice to the Father on behlaf of humanity;

>Strikes me as a bit kooky. Since Jesus and the Father are One, con-substantial,
>etc. etc., that means God is sacrificing himself to himself to appease 
>himself.  "I'm feeling kind of schizophrenic today. And so am I!"

Basically, since only God can pay the price, but has no sin, the
incarnation allows a man (Jesus, who was fully human) to pay the price.
But Jesus was also God, or at least the divine presence was in Jesus.  The
Creeds 'of one being with the father' statement talks about the Logos, not
Jesus as man.  The first chapter of John's Gospel pretty much sums this up.

>>    3. The Passion was a act of pure love, God's choice to share human 
>>       suffering and to take all the pain of the world onto himself;

>He missed some pain - I did two hard workouts in the past two days and
>I think the only part of my carnal form that doesn't hurt is my hair...

Pain in this case is 'moral suffering'...at least as I see it.  Salvation
from the eternal pain of sin.

>>    4. The entire episode of Christ's death was a ransom to the devil, who
>>       legally and justly held humanity in his grip.  God liberated humanity
>>       by paying a ransom, which the devil accepted.  But the devil
>>       overstepped his bounds by 'imprisoning' a sinless being, and thus
>>       lost his rights and could no longer hold Jesus or humanity.

>Yowza...sounds like Manichaeism. This one's out of style, I'd say.

Yes...since this is pretty dualistic.  This is where Augustine started out.
He was a Manicheist before he became a Christian.  Then he went on to free
will, and finally, predestination.

>>>Especially when he created the whole mess in the first place?  
>>This is the question, eh?  If God created everything, and is omniscient,
>>then He knew what He was doing...;-)  So then, is God 'just' in punishing
>>us?  Since I know that Sean denies free-will, the answer for him must be
>>'no.'  I still maintain free-will exists, and as such, although God is
>>responsible for creating, I am responsible for separating myself from Him.
>        
>Well, maybe you're right and you ARE a miniature "first cause," capable of
>creating decisions _ex nihilo_, but I remain skeptical... :)  I still
>think GOD created everything. Call me a heretic if you wish...:)

Well, if you followed Paul Harvey's and my discussion on Genesis, this
might just be possible...creation continues, and man, in God's image,
assits in it...

>See Ken Bell's post on this very subject. In my finite life, how could I
>possibly do anything worthy of infinite punishment? What is so bad about 
>separating oneself from God? Why is it worthy of infinite punishment?
>Jeez, if God was as great as all that, you'd think that the self-imposed
>separation would be punishment enough...
Ah, but what do you think Hell is?  It is eternal separation from God.
That is the thing which most torments the soul.  "Fire" and "worms that
don't die" are metaphorical ways of describing intense torment.  Hell is
more of a state than a place. (Ack, I'm a heretic again!)

>>>What possible reason could we have for taking Paul's claims to "apostleship"
>>>seriously?  
>>Well, the books are in the canon...and he said so. ;-)  
>That about sums it up, doesn't it?
What did you expect?  ;-)  I do know how this stuff was put together over
the centuries...;-)  You and I just have a different perspective on Paul.

To wit:

>> So why?  Paul was considered truthful and accepted by the church fathers.
>> They (outside of Jerusalem) accepted him at his word, and Paul's letters
>> were circulated.  There is no independant support for what Paul wrote.  So
>> one takes it on 'faith'...;-)

>It sure cheers ME up to think that Paul's nutbar theology has no source
>other than his own happy, fanatical, epileptic little brain. However,
>I have to take this on faith! :)

And unless we find some common understanding of Paul, we're going to be
talking about this from now to the end of the net... (constantly predicted,
just like the end of the world...but noone knows the day or the hour!)

>>>How do you know you aren't a butterfly having a long and most wonderful 
>>>dream?
>>
>>Wait!  I thought this was a Sean-centered solipsism!  Or that your brain
>>was in a jar in Alpha-Centauri!  Make up your mind! ;-)  Oops, you can't do
>>that since it's made up for you by events, knowledge, experience, etc...;-)

>A wise guy, eh?  You better hope I don't wake up! THEN where will you be?
>You're just a sort of thing in my dream! (apologies to Lewis Carroll)

Yeah?  What if you're in MY dream!  Then it's you who's in real trouble.  I
liked you better as Elvis...;-)  [For those who didn't follow Sean's and my
last thread, never mind!]

>Buddhism and Taoism contain no doctrine of any sort of "creator."
>Hindu mythology describes the world as being God's hide-and-seek game
>with himself...this is not exactly analogous to Yahweh conjuring
>a universe out of nothing. Which seems kind of silly, when you think about
>it....it does to me anyway. <shrug>
Well, some modern scholars translate Gen 1:1 as "When God began to create,
the earth was formless and void"...not exactly ex-nihilo...;-)  And the
Genesis story (1:1-2:3) is surely a mask of the Mesopotamian myths of
creation...it was presumably written around 500BC in Babylon by the Priests
who needed to answer the 'how did the world get here' question.

Unlike the Mesopotamian/Babylonian myths, it centered on One God, who
created things and called them good, and made man in His image, instead of
as a slave.

Where does this get us?  Only back to the question of God's nature.  If the
Genesis story is simply allegorical, we can still learn about God's
revealed nature from it...back to the other thread with Paul Harvey on
Genesis 3.

>Seriously, though, this is a big one for Christianity. The easy way is
>of course to call everyone else's religious experiences "Satanic."
Easy but dishonest...for it could be Christians who are deceived...just ask
the average Muslim man on the street. ;-)

>>>Some of these are trickier than others...but they should get you started! :)
>>
>>Of course, then there's me who has the time to do this since everyone else
>>is sleeping or relaxing...and likes the tricky challenge...;-)  But, then,
>>I think I may have raised more issues than answered...

>Thank you for taking the time, Mr. First Cause. :)  I found your
>answers both entertaining and informative. <bow>

You're welcome....anything to add, he asks, knowing Sean won't be able to
resist...;-)

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc