PaulS

I found this a very interesting 14 minute TED Talk. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0--_R6xThs

Welcome Janeaustenfan, It's a strong reassurance to some that they are on God's 'side' when they here stories of demons attacking Christians. When my sister's child would wake at night suffering a night-terror, she and her husband believed demons were attacking the child and would pray feverishly until the child settled and went back to sleep. You are in a bit of a pickle i guess, but im not sure there's much you can do about it. Trying to convince another that their understanding of Christianity might be off track, rarely works in my experience. It really does seem a case of when the listener is ready, then and only then will they hear. I guess you can only be true to yourself and share your thoughts when asked. I wish you well. Paul

Pete, I think part of the issue which your friend probably doesn't even realise, is that he needs to defend this practice because that is what he has been told is part of the whole 'belief' package. To condemn this practice, to him is like condemning God. So I'd suggest he won't even allow himself to genuinely reflect on the issue because of fear he is questioning/challenging his faith.

With a Gallup poll in 2012 indicating that 46% of the US believe in Creationism, added to the previously mentioned poll that reports over 30% of the population there believing in biblical literalism, I'd say you have the pretty good makings for that 30% of the population being Fundamentalists. As I understand, most Fundamentalists take the bible literally. I guess you could have a person who believes the bible literally but is not a fundamentalist, but I don't imagine there'd be too many. So it would be fairly safe to say that 30% of the US population are fundies or close to it, and that an even higher proportion of Christians are fundies. Whichever way you cut it, I would respectfully suggest there is a distinctly high number of Christians in the world who believe that the atrocities committed in the OT are God's work, and that for whatever reason God must have a good reason for behaving so badly because after all, he is God.

With a 2011 Gallup survey reporting that 30% of Americans interpret the bible literally, I don't think a number approximating 95 million as miniscule. And that's just 30% of the entire population - the percentage when only counting Christians would increase dramatically. Certainly my experience in Australia is that the majority of Christians take this line of thought, and see nothing wrong with the thought process, unfortunately.

I read Pete's point Matt as saying it's incredulous that many modern Christians still think that such pre-Jesus actions were justified and were indeed ordained by God.

Pete, I am gobsmacked at how responsible adults can hold such views too, but having been in that very camp from birth to 18 years of age (i.e. a believer who accepted without question that whatever was attributed to God's doing was right, simply because it had to be right as it was God's doing), I can say that there is no sense to thinking like this other than it is part of the conditioning and cultural requirements that go hand in hand with some versions of Christianity and religious belief. Such comments make me cringe too, as does fundamental bigotry against homosexuals. I have trouble respecting such beliefs and letting people hold them without challenging them. Paul

Welcome as well TT, You are able to start your own introduction thread if you go back to the Introduce Yourself heading and click on Start New Topic. That would also provide you with a bit more opportunity to tell everyone about yourself and/or why you're here. Cheers Paul

I wonder what you could say to somebody who accepts what his church tells him to do without question. Seems to me that he chooses his path. You could try to tell him that Christmas has a greater cultural meaning in modern times, but I question whether he'd want to hear that line of argument.

There are a number of theories that science is still trying to work out. Humans are still yet to determine the exact process that started all this some 4 BILLION years ago. Simply because the exact answer is yet to be scientifically determined doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater. As far as I am aware, no religious person has ever provided a credible explanation of how God got started. "He just always was" is apparently a perfectly satisfactory answer.

I didn't actually catch any scientific discoveries, advances or theories that have been formulated because of a belief in God either!

The former, IMO.

1. By your own logic CP, God cannot exist as the creator, because something must have created God as nothing can come from nothing. God couldn't exist without being created, according to this view. 2. Who's logic? I think the logic (and science) is pretty sound and the evidence for a scientific understanding of evolution makes perfect sense. Green slime didn't turn itself into a sophisticated life form just like that, it took millions & billions of years, with changes that wouldn't even be noticeable millions of years apart. The reason you don't see it happening every day is because the evolutionary process is slow and takes billions of years. We do see adaptation and cross breeding today creating new breeds and animals with new behaviours - extrapolate that over millions of years and I don't see it far fetched at all to expect major changes to the animal landscape. 3. This argument is disingenuous because if you credit the cell with not be able to exist unless it was created, then the same must go for your God - how could that God exist if it wasn't created by something else. My guess is you will accept that that God somehow already just existed without explanation/understanding, but you can't extend that thought process to the first cell life. This is a bias and not evidence. 4. The 'Cambrian Explosion' is explained by SOME as punctuated equilibrium, but you shouldn't throw all evolutionists into the same basket. There are other analyses amongst scientists. There are in fact dozens of different factors that may have come into play during this period which scientists debate as to why the fossil record displays a profundity of these more complex life forms, which incidentally contains many that are totally different than any living animal (evolution at work!). 5. Evolution didn't stop during the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. Admittedly, 3/4 of life was obliterated, but that means 1/4 continued - animals such as avian dinosaurs, birds and fish. And I wouldn't call 66 million years a short period of time. As Wikipedia explains "In the wake of the extinction, many groups underwent remarkable adaptive radiations — a sudden and prolific divergence into new forms and species within the disrupted and emptied ecological niches resulting from the event. Mammals in particular diversified in the Paleogene,[16] producing new forms such as horses, whales, bats, and primates. Birds,[17] fish[18] and perhaps lizards[10] also radiated." That seems quite logical to me. The above arguments to me make a lot more sense than a creator God somewhere simply 'popping' advanced life forms out of thin air and making them appear whole on earth. Cheers Paul

More important that arguing 5 individual points that I am certain you will counter with some point or another, I rely upon this premise for supporting evolution: Quote: "It is a historical science confirmed by the fact that so many independent lines of evidence converge to this single conclusion. Independent sets of data from geology, palaeontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life evolved". It's not the missing link, or certain fossils that prove evolution, but the fact that our sciences are based on this supposition and continually come up trumps because they have considered and applied evolutionary theory. Perhaps you could explain to me what science has been used to confirm creationism or indeed, demonstrate any scientific understanding that has been achieved through the belief in a creator God? Cheers Paul

Happy to take your question in the spirit it is intended More important that arguing 5 individual points that I am certain you will counter with some point or another, I rely upon this premise for supporting evolution: Quote: "It is a historical science confirmed by the fact that so many independent lines of evidence converge to this single conclusion. Independent sets of data from geology, palaeontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life evolved". It's not the missing link, or certain fossils that prove evolution, but the fact that our sciences are based on this supposition and continually come up trumps because they have considered and applied evolutionary theory. Perhaps you could explain to me what science has been used to confirm creationism or indeed, demonstrate any scientific understanding that has been achieved through the belief in a creator God? Cheers Paul

To the contrary, Atheism and the independence and responsibility that goes with it can offer these people much, much more than they realise. They can realise the hope that their life is in their hands, that the choices they make and the actions they take deliver a very real result to their life here and now, and that of those they experience it with.

I accept evolution as scientific fact, yet certainly don't see Darwin as God (well, no more as God than either you or I anyway). I also believe Jesus existed and that he was a real person. I don't believe Jesus said much of what he is quoted as saying in our current editions of the Bible. 'Only a god could make this entire universe & it's surreal complexity' is a belief or an opinion, it is not an answer to our non-understanding of everything about this magnificent thing we call the universe. I too have read a lot about evolution, without the prayer to be honest, and I can't shake a thing about its science. Sure, there are some crackpots out there and there are some 'theories' about aspects of evolution that some promote as fact when really there is more information required, but in the main the science of evolution is unquestionable, IMO. I also hold post-graduate university qualifications and have also studied much about the 'evidence' for evolution. I am always curious why 'hope' is such a big deal to some people and it often seems that it enters their decision-making process with bias. Why do you need this 'hope' you think Jesus provides CP? Why can't living a full and happy life be enough without needing eternal reward/existence? It happens to be enough for me that I can live 70 or so years, experience a marriage and raise two children. After that, if it happens to be lights out, I'm fine with that. I read that chapter of your book and I can't see anything their that debunks evolution as fairy tales. To the contrary, I seem some jumps in logic that would never stand up in a court of law. I accept that that is how you see things, but I don't see how it disproves evolution. Very, very intelligent people also hold racist and homophobic views (I am not saying you do), but my point is that intelligence has been studied and shown to not necessarily have any correlation when it comes to religious belief. More often psychological factors such as culture, upbringing and life experience seem to affect that part of our thinking, moreso than academic study anyhow. Can't say I agree with you on evolution vs God, and frankly I don't even agree that the two have to be in conflict, but as long as your beliefs don't hurt anybody else, so be it. Cheers Paul

Personally, I've never really engaged in our nationally football code here in Australia, although for so many it is a passion. I'm not sure to what degree this concern bothers you MOW, but I think it's perfectly normal for people's interests to change, evolve, and even are interest be removed because of certain incidents like the suicides you mention.

I can understand that, Rom (after looking up what the word grok means) and I'm sure the concept would be as foreign to you as trying to explain colour to a blind person. It must seem like such an irrational concept. But having grown up with it, it never seemed anything other than normal. Obviously children are very impressionable, so if you're told from birth that Hell exists and indoctrinated with the surrounding theology, it's very hard not to grow up believing it. There's plenty of theology and apologetics around the concept, and when you are a child who trusts their parents unquestioningly, I think it is pretty normal entering early adulthood with the concept of Hell firmly embedded in your psyche. It may seem strange that an adult new to Christianity (if there is such a thing in our culture as 'new' as Christianity is so embedded in society) would take on Hell belief, but as complex as human psychology is I'm sure there are many latent conditions or reasons why that person's mind accepts that belief. Perhaps it provides them with some security that others will get 'justice', or reaffirms the opposite for them - that there is a Heaven that they will go to one day. I'm sure psychologists could write unendingly on the various reasons different people believe different things. In my case, I believed from ever since I can remember until I was 18/19, then rejected the concept, but I can tell you it is a hard one to shrug when you've been indoctrinated with it from birth. I thought it was all gone until I suffered anxiety at the age of 40 because of financial worries and how they might effect my family (wife and two young sons) and because of a prompt from a Christian friend at that time, the memories of that Hell belief came rushing back. It took me over a year to get over that little episode! (I'm 45 now). During that time, as irrational as it may seem, I couldn't shrug the worry, but I couldn't make myself believe it either. At one point I was very nearly suicidal even (quick plug - this forum helped me through that time immensely). Why my mind works that way? - as I said before, I'm sure psychologists could write volumes. Hell is absurd and I wish we could stop people indoctrinating their children with this fear. The psychological harm it sets so many of them up for in later life is horrendous. It's tempting in these times to say we should just let people believe what they believe, and who are we to say they are wrong, etc. But just like slavery and homophobia were once the norm, I think there comes a point where we should be saying loud and proud "this is wrong, you are hurting people teaching this stuff, there is no Hell so stop this nonsense". Cheers Paul

I read this story somewhere but haven't been able to find it since (I wish I could because I'm sure the original is told much better!). A Christian woman was bathing her three young sons in the bathtub when she was overcome with fear for their eternal existence. She started asking herself these questions - "What if they didn't become 'saved' when they grew up? What if they turned their back on God? What if they led sinful lives? It would be better that I just drown all three of these innocent creatures now in the bathtub to ensure they get to Heaven. Oh God please, please - take my soul instead, punish me with eternal Hell instead of my sons who I so love. Please take your wrath out on me, send me to Hell, and let my children live with you for eternity." And then God spoke to her - "If you love your children this much, that you couldn't bear the thought of them suffering eternally and that you would even rather suffer an eternal Hell in their stead, then as God how much more love must I have for you and your children!" I hope that makes sense. As a father of two young sons myself, it resonates with me and the story gave me reassurance when I needed it that such a place, such a God, could not exist. Cheers Paul

G'day Michael, Welcome to the forum. Hope you enjoy it here! Cheers Paul

My heart tells me that there is no way there could be an all-loving God who is content to see the majority of his children suffer for all eternity. I have two children and would never turn my back on them, ever. A God who would do that is a monster in my book and not worthy of worship. That said, i dont believe a God like that exists and I think any God like that is a fabrication of man's thoughts.

CP, Growing up in a Christian household and giving my life to Jesus at 13, was all normal to me. Hell seemed very nasty but it was God's will, so that ended the matter. Of course that view relied on the validity and particular interpretation of biblical texts. All in all, I was fairly insulated seeing as the Church and church basketball was my entire social life. Then I joined the police force at 18 and had my eyes opened as to how many other people live. Learning law and dealing with crime crime, the concepts of mitigating circumstances and justice were ever-present. This made me question God's so-called justice of sentencing someone to an eternity of Hell because they didn't 'believe' the right doctrine here on earth. Years of anger & frustration followed resulting in my leaving Christianity. It wasn't until decades later that I revisited the matter and learnt that there were different things to consider about how the bible came to be revered as "God's Word" and its interpretation. Cultural context and its impact on the bible's writings also threw new light onto the matter for me. As Joseph points out, I am no orphan here in these experiences. For many, yourself included, we are incapable of believing that there could be a loving God somewhere prepared to allow his beloved children to suffer eternal punishment, within his power to rectify, but with such a God refusing to do so. That to me, sounds very much like a man-made concept. Welcome to the forum and I look forward to your participation and further contributions. Cheers Paul

That's about how I see it, Andy. It helps that community affirm their commitment to the cause and each other. I think where it becomes a doctrinal fighting point is where it loses credibility.

Fair enough - you and I are pretty much in the same boat then. What I didn't understand was your reference to those three authors following your comment "Why should I for example accept what the likes of Borg, Sping, Crossan, Ehrman and others say about what it means to be a Christian on faith?". I gather now it was rhetorical. Just to clarify - I am not calling anyone of any faith delusional and my comments don't reflect that. I think the Creed doesn't have to be believed in, word for word. If people choose to do so, that is their belief - it's just not mine. Are they wrong and I'm right - who knows and who cares. As long as peoples' beliefs don't harm others, I have no objection to what they hold true. To me the term Christian means all sorts of things to all sorts of people. Many fundamentalist wouldn't consider me a Christian as I don't believe I am born unto sin, destined for an eternal Hell unless I believe Jesus is God and seek his forgiveness. But what they think of me doesn't concern me. I too try my hardest to love and accept them for who they are - an individual shaped by the many life experiences and culture surrounding them. Affirming them is one thing, having an open and frank discussion is another. I can't help it if people get offended because I question the validity of their beliefs. But know that it is just a discussion, that's all.