In light of the religious debates

[pikatore]

It is generally common for atheists to consider that the arguments against religion boil down to science, the facts, debate, etc. It puzzles many why someone when faced with all the evidence for evolution for example would still choose to ignore it. I think that many atheists are ignoring the REAL issue, the true reason why it is hard for someone to reject their religion.

I was raised Christian all my life, in a VERY fundamentalist home. I was taught the earth was 6,000 years old created out of nothing, heaven, hell - the whole thing. I was taught how important it was to witness and attempt to "convert" others. I was taught that even bad things, really bad things, had some sort of divine reason and plan attached to them. I believed this into my early teens.

When I was finally faced with the irrefutable facts, and raw science behind them, I let go - very reluctantly - of my cherished beliefs. It was not easy, It was like wrestling a priceless gem from someone who would just not let go of it.

When you reject religion, its not like - rejecting the earth is not flat for example. With something like this you can say "Oh ok, now I know" - but religion has a much darker and deep rooted hold on a person, and a much more profound effect.

There were times I was actually in tears thinking about the fact that there was no "afterlife" - and that those I had loved who had died - were really dead. They weren't watching me, or having some hand in guiding me. They didn't still "love me". That was pretty depressing.

It is strange how religion gives you a way to reject the reality of death - which I guess does help to 'ease your suffering', that you "know they went to a better place" - but it also prevents proper mourning. When someone you love dies, and they tell you on their death bed that they will see you one day in heaven, you are more prepared for them to "die" because you know they aren't really "dead".

To reject heaven and accept atheism - is not merely about science, facts, beliefs, etc - it is about accepting the reality of all those who have died - being really dead. It is accepting the same reality about everyone you love NOW one day being - really dead. It is accepting the same reality about YOU one day.

The older you are, the more dear loved ones have passed away, the harder it will be to reject the notions of religion. To reject religion requires the re-mourning of everyone who you love who has died.

Death is just one piece of a very complex puzzle. If you have spent your whole life "living by faith" - and you have made decisions "by faith" that have resulted in really bad situations in your life, you now have to own up to the fact that these situations came about because of YOUR choices. You do not have God to take the burden of this. You can no longer say "This happened because God has some plan for my life"

By rejecting religion, you must also reject the notion that you can avoid responsibility for poor life situations. That too is a hard pill to swallow.
Next, you must reject the idea that your path is somehow guided, that God is walking with you, that you are not truly alone as you walk through life. Imagine a man walking through a room on planks of wood suspended over spikes with large holes to fall in if you take a wrong step. He always manages to take the right next step, but he is never afraid because he "knows" that this is a solid wood floor he is walking on. Now turn on the lights.
To reject religion means to accept the idea that you CAN fall - and fall HARD. It means you have to recognize that up until now you have been fortunate - but now you have to force yourself to think about your next steps.

If you have been spending your life "following Christ", or witnessing to people, to the extent of even studying this in college, or spending hundreds and hundreds of hours reading and studying the Bible, praying, etc - only to find out that ALL of it was utterly and totally useless, then you have another hard pill to swallow. Imagine swallowing that pill as an older person.
To accept this means to accept that you have lived a large part of your life in vain, while thinking it was purposeful. Talking to such a person about atheism is similar to telling them that their whole life is without purpose, misguided, and that they have missed out on the only opportunity they will ever have to live life.

Surely one can then see why the concept of atheism is offensive and infuriating to so many people.

Then there is the concept of a personal relationship with God. The idea that God and you are "friends". That you are somehow "above the world". That you are living in a bubble safe and protected by God himself.

To reject religion, means accepting that you are just like everyone else - and in fact, worse off than most and behind the race because of your past religious belief. To someone who has spent a lifetime believing they are special in this regard, a piece of them is gone, never to return.

Worse than this, such a person values their imaginary relationship with God more than any aspect of their REAL personality. Who you really are takes second stage to your supposed relationship with the almighty.
Rejecting this is surely very difficult, as it entails rejecting a large part of the perceived value someone has in themselves.

I know I have not covered it all, but I hope I have helped to show that there is more to the picture of "religion vs atheism" than merely science, and facts.
The emotional side of religion is by far a larger and darker obstacle than any other that would stand in the way between someone's freedom from delusion and accepting reality.

[Itsdarts]

Good post Pik, I have to spread some more love around before I can rep you for this. Maybe you could follow up with some of the more positive aspects of losing religion?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[disinterested]

By rejecting religion, you must also reject the notion that you can avoid responsibility for poor life situations. That too is a hard pill to swallow.

I, too, was brought up in a Christian home. At the age of 15 I flatly rejected Christianity. Between the ages of 15 and 25 I made some very poor, life-affecting choices. I always found a way to blame circumstances or others for the poor outcomes I experienced UNTIL I became a Christian at the age of 25. It was only then that I took responsibility for my choices and realised that they had nothing to do with circumstances and everything to do with my rebellion against God and my parents. Thirty or so years on, I am still living with the consequences of some of those choices and although they are not comfortable, I am able to cope with them with the Lord's help and grace. Had I not been a Christian I know for certain that I would long ago have rid myself of these consequences and "poor life situations" and no doubt piled up a load more to run away from.

So my experience is the exact opposite of what you claim.

Edited to add: although I was brought up in a Christian home and gave mental assent to Christianity up until the age of fifteen when I rejected the whole lot, I am able with hindsight to realise that I had not been born again of the Spirit of God at that time. And the Bible is quite clear that "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" (Rom. 8:9). And what a difference it made when I was born again and God by His Spirit came into my very being! The experience was totally supernatural with real physical effects. My knees literally trembled; I actually jumped for sheer joy. And when I looked at people walking past me on the street it was as though I had Jesus-tinted glasses on - I just felt this overwhelming love for total strangers. I had to hold myself back from physically giving everyone a big hug - I thought it could be a bit overwhelming for a complete stranger to accost them in the street! And I couldn't stop telling everyone about this amazing experience - how real it was, how super-natural and amazing. Then I had this thirst for Bible study - I read chapters and chapters of the Bible - I simply couldn't put it down. It was like having been lost in a desert without food or water and suddenly coming across this great feast. I listened to sermons and Bible studies every spare minute I had. I just couldn't get enough of God and His word and His revelation of Himself to man. I can honestly say that it was the most intensely real experience I have ever had in my whole life. It was more intense than falling in love. More intense than the joy that follows childbirth. It was as though before I had only seen the world in black and white and now I was seeing it in all its glorious colour. It was a very real experience.

Next, you must reject the idea that your path is somehow guided, that God is walking with you, that you are not truly alone as you walk through life. Imagine a man walking through a room on planks of wood suspended over spikes with large holes to fall in if you take a wrong step. He always manages to take the right next step, but he is never afraid because he "knows" that this is a solid wood floor he is walking on. Now turn on the lights.
To reject religion means to accept the idea that you CAN fall - and fall HARD. It means you have to recognize that up until now you have been fortunate - but now you have to force yourself to think about your next steps.

If you have been spending your life "following Christ", or witnessing to people, to the extent of even studying this in college, or spending hundreds and hundreds of hours reading and studying the Bible, praying, etc - only to find out that ALL of it was utterly and totally useless, then you have another hard pill to swallow. Imagine swallowing that pill as an older person.
To accept this means to accept that you have lived a large part of your life in vain, while thinking it was purposeful. Talking to such a person about atheism is similar to telling them that their whole life is without purpose, misguided, and that they have missed out on the only opportunity they will ever have to live life.

Surely one can then see why the concept of atheism is offensive and infuriating to so many people.

Then there is the concept of a personal relationship with God. The idea that God and you are "friends". That you are somehow "above the world". That you are living in a bubble safe and protected by God himself.

To reject religion, means accepting that you are just like everyone else - and in fact, worse off than most and behind the race because of your past religious belief. To someone who has spent a lifetime believing they are special in this regard, a piece of them is gone, never to return.

The only way in which one feels "special" is that one knows one is forgiven for past, present and future sin. To be free of the burden of guilt that always comes with having made bad choices and harmed others in the process, is a great freedom. It allows one to seek forgiveness of those one has harmed and to pick onself up and start again....and again...and again since falling into old habits is a constant trial for the Christian and it takes a lifetime to be formed into the likeness of Christ. I fully identfiy with Charles Wesley when he was moved to write the hymn: And can it be that I should gain, especially this verse:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
fast bound in sin and nature's night;
thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
my chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.

Worse than this, such a person values their imaginary relationship with God more than any aspect of their REAL personality. Who you really are takes second stage to your supposed relationship with the almighty.

Except that my relationship with God is NOT imaginary. He walks with me and talks with me and DOES guide me. It's like having a whole new set of choices. When I was in rebellion against God and my parents I just did what came naturally without giving anything much thought beyond that this or that was what I wanted to do and therefore I got on and did it.

When I became a Christian, this verse from Isaiah 30 became very real for me:


21 Your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying,

“ This is the way, walk in it,”
Whenever you turn to the right hand
Or whenever you turn to the left.

I can only testify to my experience which is that now, when I am tempted to, for instance, give back as good as I got, I hear Jesus saying: do no repay evil with evil but repay evil with good. I then have a choice as to whether to do what comes naturally - give back a bigger dose of whetever evil it was that I received, or to do as Jesus said and give back good. It was a difficult choice to make in my early days of being a Christian as I had become accustomed to giving back a whole lot more than was meted out to me. If someone swore at me, for instance, they'd get a mouthful back that turned the room blue. But now I find it comes more naturally to do it Jesus' way and I'm rarely tempted to go back to my old ways. I'm not claiming that I never do - but it is a rare occurrence now. Formerly it was my standard behaviour.

Rejecting this is surely very difficult, as it entails rejecting a large part of the perceived value someone has in themselves.

I know I have not covered it all, but I hope I have helped to show that there is more to the picture of "religion vs atheism" than merely science, and facts.
The emotional side of religion is by far a larger and darker obstacle than any other that would stand in the way between someone's freedom from delusion and accepting reality.

After I became a Christian I learned that my feelings and emotions could be very deceptive and that being led by them got me into all sorts of trouble. So I began to elevate what God says above what I felt. Thus, I do not recognise this emotional attachment to religion of which you speak. Mine is a mental assent to the Spirit of God who is in me.

[Sigfried]

After I became a Christian I learned that my feelings and emotions could be very deceptive and that being led by them got me into all sorts of trouble. So I began to elevate what God says above what I felt. Thus, I do not recognise this emotional attachment to religion of which you speak. Mine is a mental assent to the Spirit of God who is in me.

Keep in mind I'm not arguing with your experience or trying to deny it, but when I read your story I see something different.

I knew some folks with a similar story when I was a kid who started out in very religious families, then in highschool lost that faith and went pretty wild, parties, drugs, lots of sex etc... One guy knowing I was atheist came to me to say how great it was etc...

Far from being happy for him I was worried. His problem was religion was all he knew. Without that faith he had no way to make moral decisions and manage his life. While one can be happy without religion, one can not be happy without a moral compass or sense of right and wrong. Not surprisingly things went very badly for him.

Kids who drop god for hedonism are going to suffer terribly. Finding a moral center and going back to a life where there is meaning and purpose is going to be a huge improvement and will likely turn your life back around again especially when it comes with the loving support of a church community.

[Talthas]

While one can be happy without religion, one can not be happy without a moral compass or sense of right and wrong.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but without a divine edict to define morals, is "morality" even possible? Would you define what a "moral" is for purposes of this discussion, and contrast it with what you believe ethics are... and why one should not rely on an ethical compass rather than a moral compass if one is atheist?

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but it seemed a distinction worth making.

[disinterested]

Keep in mind I'm not arguing with your experience or trying to deny it, but when I read your story I see something different.

I knew some folks with a similar story when I was a kid who started out in very religious families, then in highschool lost that faith and went pretty wild, parties, drugs, lots of sex etc... One guy knowing I was atheist came to me to say how great it was etc...

Far from being happy for him I was worried. His problem was religion was all he knew. Without that faith he had no way to make moral decisions and manage his life. While one can be happy without religion, one can not be happy without a moral compass or sense of right and wrong. Not surprisingly things went very badly for him.

Kids who drop god for hedonism are going to suffer terribly. Finding a moral center and going back to a life where there is meaning and purpose is going to be a huge improvement and will likely turn your life back around again especially when it comes with the loving support of a church community.

I can fully understand what you are saying.

However, my experience differs inasmuch as I never became hedonistic in terms of drugs etc., just downright rebellious.

I saw no reason to listen to, let alone follow any parental advice or instruction. I firmly believed that I was perfectly capable of making my own decisions and quite often made them because they were opposite to my parents' advice. And I made some very poor choices, the consequences of which are still with me.

I didn't even give my parents credit for being older and wiser and more experienced, never mind accord them the honour due to parents as per God's commandment. I was your typical sixties teenager - throwing over the traces. It wasn't that I was rebelling against their Christianity, per se, only that I wanted to do things MY way. I didn't want the restriction that I felt, at that time, was inherent in being a submissive daughter and a Christian.

It wasn't until I was born again of the Spirit of God that I was able to understand that far from being restrictive, becoming a Christian was a glorious liberation.

[Sigfried]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but without a divine edict to define morals, is "morality" even possible?
Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but it seemed a distinction worth making.

The two words have pretty intermingled definitions. Some say Ethics is a field of study or the difference between outside morality and natural morality etc... I don't make much of a disntinction myself.

Persnolay I tend to use morality when it comes to self or issues of life death love etc... and I tend to use ethics for business, government etc... But that's just me.

I did a bit of reading and the uses are all over the map.

[disinterested]

The two words have pretty intermingled definitions. Some say Ethics is a field of study or the difference between outside morality and natural morality etc... I don't make much of a disntinction myself.

Persnolay I tend to use morality when it comes to self or issues of life death love etc... and I tend to use ethics for business, government etc... But that's just me.

I did a bit of reading and the uses are all over the map.

The truth is that morality is antithetical to Christianity. It is man's way of trying to attain God's standards and as such always fails abysmally and keeps men in constant thrall to some kind of religious observance - must do this, got to do that - yeuch!

Priase God that we are no longer under the Law, we are under grace. The Law was given to show sin and make it more abundant! It didn't solve the problem of lawlessnes - it just made it more obvious.

But in and through Christ we are released from the law so that we can function as God intended us to - through God-in-us. It is only Christ-in-me - that is, Christianity - that can ever accomplish that which God purposed for us. Neither the Law, nor morals, nor ethics can make a man good - they can only show how a man fails. Only the indwelling spirit of God in man can make a man good.

[Sigfried]

The truth is that morality is antithetical to Christianity. It is man's way of trying to attain God's standards and as such always fails abysmally and keeps men in constant thrall to some kind of religious observance - must do this, got to do that - yeuch!

So you feel that with grace you need not make decisions? A great number of professed holy spirit filled Christians have fallen into very serious sin and failings of moral choice. And the way you use the whole notion of morality seems very narrow. And a great many Christians would probably take issue with what you claim.

Priase God that we are no longer under the Law, we are under grace. The Law was given to show sin and make it more abundant! It didn't solve the problem of lawlessnes - it just made it more obvious.

The law was given to make sin more abundant? That rather flies in the face of what the bible itself claims. It would be curious to pose for you a set of moral dilemmas and see what your grace guides you to respond with.

But in and through Christ we are released from the law so that we can function as God intended us to - through God-in-us. It is only Christ-in-me - that is, Christianity - that can ever accomplish that which God purposed for us. Neither the Law, nor morals, nor ethics can make a man good - they can only show how a man fails. Only the indwelling spirit of God in man can make a man good.

I'm a good man disinterested, and I do not have a Christ in me etc... I follow only my own moral code and that of the culture in which I live. I've never made any choices I have regrets about nor do I live in a state of guilt and anxiousness. Not every moment is chock full of joy, but if you told me you never feel any sorrow or irritation I'd not really believe you without first hand evidence as I've simply never known anyone who felt that way.

[JohnLocke]

As one of a (relatively) new generation, I come to find that the situation originally described by pikatore seems to happen considerably less often in my generation than in previous generations. What I seem to see is that the children of other families (mine being totally atheist from my birth, so this does not apply to me) seem to already BE atheist. When I tell my friends that I am, they say things like "I just go to church because my parents make me" or "I'm just going to get confirmed and then never go again".

It seems that somehow, in my generation, atheism seems simply implanted into our brains. (By the way, I'm only 15.)

[Talthas]

The truth is that morality is antithetical to Christianity. It is man's way of trying to attain God's standards and as such always fails abysmally and keeps men in constant thrall to some kind of religious observance - must do this, got to do that - yeuch!

...Neither the Law, nor morals, nor ethics can make a man good - they can only show how a man fails. Only the indwelling spirit of God in man can make a man good.

And the way you use the whole notion of morality seems very narrow. And a great many Christians would probably take issue with what you claim.

I'm one of them. Sorry, but I just don't buy the "Doctrine of Holiness," as that doctrine is stated in the Methodist church. I do believe that a strong, healthy relationship with God will incline us to do good things and to shun evil, but it must always be a choice we make. Otherwise, our participation in the mystery of the Resurrection means absolutely nothing. We are solely responsible for *choosing* to live according to God's commandments, and we must always make the conscious, active *choice* to love God above all things. It is when we fail to do this.. when we *choose* some lesser good or some evil thing over God that we fall into sin. We don't just magically stop wanting to do sinful things, though we do have Grace to help us in the fight.

I'm a Christian who wrestles with habitual sin daily. Sometimes I win, and sometimes I lose... but I always realize that at the end of the day, it is me who is responsible for the choices I have made... not God, and not the Devil. I cannot truly repent for sins I don't believe I'm responsible for, and acts of moral goodness are utterly meaningless if they are not the product of the active choice to love and serve the Lord. Trying to foist responsibility for our choices off onto someone else seems to me to be a form of escapism, and I believe it hinders genuine spiritual growth. I do understand and agree with the idea that none of us is "righteous enough" by the measure of the Law, and this is where the Grace of Jesus comes in. But to rely on a sola gratia position for Salvation is to totally abdicate any personal responsibility for one's spiritual life. That to me, seems irresponsible at best and may even be destructive to a good spiritual life.

"Religious observance," as was derisively mentioned, exists as a discipline precisely because it helps provide a framework in which we can structure our lives and actions to help us continue to choose the right and to shun the wrong. Morals and ethics are not a "substitute" for righteousness. They are the framework by which we understand what it means to be a good person. Morals especially come to us directly from the Bible, and ethical principles can easily be derived from the actions of Jesus, the Prophets, and the Apostles. I think that what you have said stems from an ignorance of what the terms "ethical" and "moral" really mean.

I think that the primary reason I take umbrage to this argument is that it does no service to the Christian position. I don't feel that this accurately represents any commonly accepted theological viewpoint in the larger Christian community, and I think that it clouds the issue of how Christians view not only sin, but also Grace, the Holy Spirit, free will, and morality.

[pikatore]

Talthas, I see one moral absolutist versus another. How on earth are you two able to reconcile your ideas, when you both have such a strong faith in your own particular strains of Christianity?

[Sigfried]

It seems that somehow, in my generation, atheism seems simply implanted into our brains. (By the way, I'm only 15.)

I think it depends some on where you live. I believe last I saw that Atheists were declining slightly in the US or maintaining numbers. In Europe its been generally up, not sure elsewhere.

I happen to live in pretty much the Atheist capital of the US, Seattle Washington.

A lot more people ID as non-religious/secular than Atheist or Agnostic.

[Talthas]

Talthas, I see one moral absolutist versus another.

Then you are not looking closely enough, or you have blinders on. It is both inaccurate and closed-minded to reduce someone simply to a label such as "moral absolutist." There is a lot more to my argument than that.

How on earth are you two able to reconcile your ideas, when you both have such a strong faith in your own particular strains of Christianity?

I'm not sure yet whether or not we *are* able to reconcile our ideas, as we haven't yet gotten to that point in the discussion. Christians disagree on many matters of faith, and that's one of the reasons for the different denominations of Christianity. Some of these differences are absolutely irreconcilable because they are mutually exclusive. Others are simply differences of opinion about things which may be true either way, if approached from the right viewpoint.

[pikatore]

Then you are not looking closely enough, or you have blinders on. It is both inaccurate and closed-minded to reduce someone simply to a label such as "moral absolutist." There is a lot more to my argument than that.

Your entire argument rests upon the idea that it's either God's way or the highway. Not just anyone's God, but YOUR GOD. You are the one who isn't seeing the bigger picture. The quibbling I'm seeing here comes down to a direct conflict of beliefs, which all rests on the idea that your beliefs are more 'right' than your fellow Christian. In fact, if you were a bit more blunt in your delivery, you'd effectively be claiming that disinterested was not a True Christian(TM). While from the other side of this, which is also based on utterly irrational faith, touche. Stalemate.

Or is there wiggle room? And how are you able to discern when one Christians beliefs deviate too much from yourself to be reconcilable? Ultimately, said beliefs have massive implications on the framework of morality you have both chosen to adopt.

Excuse me while I fetch my blinders and put them back on.

[Talthas]

Your entire argument, rests upon the idea that it's either God's way or the highway.

Straw man. Sorry... that's not what my argument rests upon at all. My argument rests upon the idea that it is a *choice* to follow a moral code, and it is a choice to fail to follow that code. Shifting blame onto someone else for our own moral failings is both irresponsible and destructive to our mental and spiritual growth.

As for the idea that "it's God's way of the highway," that's a straw man. I never said that, and nothing in my argument implies that. So hop down off your high horse, there, buddy.

The quibbling I'm seeing here comes down to a direct conflict of beliefs, which all rests on the idea that everything you believe is more 'right' than your fellow Christian. In fact, if you were a bit more blunt in your delivery, you'd effectively be claiming that disinterested was not a True Christian(TM).

Another straw man. I never said nor implied that disinterested is "no True Christian." I just said that her argument most likely hinges upon an incorrect understanding of what "morals" and "ethics" are.

Or is there wiggle room? And how are you able to discern when one Christians beliefs deviate too much from yourself to be reconcilable? Ultimately, said beliefs have massive implications on the framework of morality you have both chosen to adopt.

There are lots of "mutually exclusive" sets of beliefs between different sects of Christianity. Among them are: Predestination vs. alternatives, apostolic succession vs. the priesthood of all believers, sola scriptura vs. the inclusion of traditional teachings, sola fide/gratia vs. the need for Confession/personal accountability for sin. There are more, but I'm not going to bother with them until you demonstrate to me that you're actually reading my posts instead of lashing out with poorly thought-out vitriol.

Excuse me while I fetch my blinders and put them back on.

I don't believe you ever took them off, but thanks for the sarcasm.

[pikatore]

Straw man. Sorry... that's not what my argument rests upon at all. My argument rests upon the idea that it is a *choice* to follow a moral code, and it is a choice to fail to follow that code.

See the things in bold? Those things are things to you that are set in stone, concrete, unchangable, and by virtue, RIGHT.

Shifting blame onto someone else for our own moral failings is both irresponsible and destructive to our mental and spiritual growth.

I say so is shifting blame onto someone else for your own perceived moral achievements. But it's not the same, is it? Instead, you can only ever go down by yourself, but never up. No, you need the guidance of a magical sky fairy to show you the right path. Otherwise, who knows that horrible depths of humanity you'd be plumbing? Like say... shock horror HOMOSEXUALITY?!

As for the idea that "it's God's way of the highway," that's a straw man. I never said that, and nothing in my argument implies that. So hop down off your high horse, there, buddy.

Touche.

And as for what I said, the very fact that you two are divided on such a big thing screams incompatibility. 'The highway' is sin, and straying from the path of 'righteousness'. She has got it 'wrong', because her religion doesn't line up with yours, and vice versa. Deny it all you like. That's the root of the problem.

Another straw man. I never said nor implied that disinterested is "no True Christian." I just said that her argument most likely hinges upon an incorrect understanding of what "morals" and "ethics" are.

Oh, no biggie, it's all a big misunderstanding. I await disinterested's response on your dismissal of what she has to say on just a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation of a couple of concepts, a couple of words.

You are playing down the massive implications something like sola gratis has on one's beliefs, and are playing down the rift that that one thing alone has created. Whether or not you think it's irresponsible matters not - it's her belief. It's her religion, it's her god's own message. And nothing you say will change that.

Even though I think that she is further down the rabbit hole than the rest of the Christians here, my point is, and one of the main points of the entire OP is that it is incredibly difficult to relinquish strongly rooted religious beliefs due to their inherently irrational basis, and that goes for you as well as her. Which is why I was curious when you could 'disagree' with her beliefs, but not see the exact same faith-fueled sentiment coming from her side.

There are lots of "mutually exclusive" sets of beliefs between different sects of Christianity. Among them are: Predestination vs. alternatives, apostolic succession vs. the priesthood of all believers, sola scriptura vs. the inclusion of traditional teachings, sola fide/gratia vs. the need for Confession/personal accountability for sin. There are more, but I'm not going to bother with them until you demonstrate to me that you're actually reading my posts instead of lashing out with poorly thought-out vitriol.

That was kind of my point. And my question is, how can you call each other Christians when you differ on such a big issue, with such far reaching implications, which would render the Gods you worship as completely different versions?

If the following quote to you is poorly thought-out vitriol:

Talthas, I see one moral absolutist versus another. How on earth are you two able to reconcile your ideas, when you both have such a strong faith in your own particular strains of Christianity?

You have an exceptionally weak stomach. Oddly enough, you never bothered to directly answer it.

It seems to be the habit here that some of the Christians here tend to sidestep the hard questions, and go for the throat? Is that insecurity?

I also see that when Christians differ on such big theological issues, they tend to go quite soft on each other, because hey, if you believe in Jesus, you MUST be going in the right direction, right?

[Allocutus]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but without a divine edict to define morals, is "morality" even possible? Would you define what a "moral" is for purposes of this discussion, and contrast it with what you believe ethics are... and why one should not rely on an ethical compass rather than a moral compass if one is atheist?

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but it seemed a distinction worth making.

Of COURSE morality exists without a divine edict, Talthas. If you look around and observe various cultures and communities, you'll find that people tend to have very similar moral standards, whether they believe in any received divine message or not and regardless of what deity the divine message is believed to have come from.

There are enough similarities to conclude that morality isn't obtained from any divine message because those who have never heard of any such message (or don't accept any such message) have such close moral values to those who do believe.

At the same time there are some differences in moral values. This supports the contention that morality doesn't come from a divine source as arguably if that were the case then morality would be completely consistent throughout.

In essence if morality were derived from a divine message, all believers would have identical moral values while all those never exposed to the message would have none.

[JohnLocke]

I think it depends some on where you live. I believe last I saw that Atheists were declining slightly in the US or maintaining numbers. In Europe its been generally up, not sure elsewhere.

I happen to live in pretty much the Atheist capital of the US, Seattle Washington.

A lot more people ID as non-religious/secular than Atheist or Agnostic.

I live in the US as well, with a population that, when asked, most will say they are Irish, Italian, or both. Consequently, many go to the local Catholic Church. This Church happens to be the largest parish in the Boston Archdiocese. This means that most of those I know attend this church.
I think this is generally an area where you would think that Catholicism was on the rise. Atheism seems to be common belief among us, however.

I believe that our modern culture is simply eroding religion. Religion is now more of a "traditional" thing, as opposed to a new and active one.
The mixing of cultural values and beliefs result in the occasional... "mutual weakening". If the values of two cultures are completely and irreversibly opposite in an integrated culture, like that of the US, both values tend to weaken in support and staunchness of belief.

[disinterested]

So you feel that with grace you need not make decisions?

Grace IS the Lord Jesus Christ bearing the penalty for sin on the cross (substitutionary atonement) and crediting believers with his righteousness (imputation).

One always has to make decisions - whether to walk in the newness of spirit or to walk in the flesh.

A great number of professed holy spirit filled Christians have fallen into very serious sin and failings of moral choice.

There are also a great number who profess to be filled with the Holy Spirit but are actually filled with another spirit. Those who receive a touch on the forehead (which is actually more like the Hindu shaktipat than any Christian laying on of hands) and a spirit is transferred that causes them to fall on the floor wriggling, or pins them down so they are unable to move, or growl like a lion, or laugh uncontrollably, or any other kind of activity beyond their control. We can be certain this is not the Holy Spirit because one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit is self-control. It is against the very nature of the Holy Spirit to take over a man's physical body to the extent that the person loses the ability to control his behavioour and actions. This spirit is more correctly identified with the raising of Kundalini but sadly many have been deceived into believing that this is the Holy Spirit. This is why so many who receive this spirit fall into sin and immorality.

And the way you use the whole notion of morality seems very narrow. And a great many Christians would probably take issue with what you claim.

That may be the case, but that's what the Bible says. If you would like to read a very well written argument as to why Christianity is NOT morality, you can find one here:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I urge you to read it if you can find the time.

The law was given to make sin more abundant? That rather flies in the face of what the bible itself claims.

Not at all, it is EXACTLY what the Bible claims. Romans 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.

It would be curious to pose for you a set of moral dilemmas and see what your grace guides you to respond with.

Grace IS Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement and the gift of HIMSELF to the believer. Grace is Christ-in-me.

I'm a good man disinterested, and I do not have a Christ in me etc... I follow only my own moral code and that of the culture in which I live. I've never made any choices I have regrets about nor do I live in a state of guilt and anxiousness. Not every moment is chock full of joy, but if you told me you never feel any sorrow or irritation I'd not really believe you without first hand evidence as I've simply never known anyone who felt that way.

But the Bible clearly says that God alone is good.

"There is none good, no not one" (Rom. 3:12).

"No one is good, except God alone" (Luke 18:19).

To borrow from the argument I linked above:

Can anything or anyone else be said to be "good" in the same sense that God is good? No! We must not make ourself, another person, an object, an idea or an activity equivalent to God.

To apply mathematical logic to these premises, let "God is good" be represented by the equation x=good. Anything or anyone else might be represented by y=good. If so, then y=x, anything else thus represented is equivalent to God; y=God. Never! The two premises cannot be maintained as equal premises. To do so is either to deify the person or thing, or to relativize and reduce God to simply an expedient abstraction.


.

---------- Post added at 08:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 AM ----------

I'm one of them. Sorry, but I just don't buy the "Doctrine of Holiness," as that doctrine is stated in the Methodist church.

I'm not familiar with this doctrine - but I don't expect that I'd buy it, either!

I believe in the process of sanctification, that is, growing more Christlike as the believer chooses to walk in the newness of his regenerate spirit instead of the flesh.

Galatians 5:16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

I do believe that a strong, healthy relationship with God will incline us to do good things and to shun evil, but it must always be a choice we make. Otherwise, our participation in the mystery of the Resurrection means absolutely nothing. We are solely responsible for *choosing* to live according to God's commandments, and we must always make the conscious, active *choice* to love God above all things. It is when we fail to do this.. when we *choose* some lesser good or some evil thing over God that we fall into sin. We don't just magically stop wanting to do sinful things, though we do have Grace to help us in the fight.

Our relationship with God is predicated on the indwelling Spirit of God, thus it is Christ-in-me that does good and then only to the extent that the Christian chooses to walk in the Spirit and not the flesh; that is, allowing Christ to be seen in and through him.

I'm a Christian who wrestles with habitual sin daily.

Don't we all! But I now have Christ-in-me saying; "this is the way, walk thou in it." And as I choose to listen and obey I find that I am able to overcome habitual sin....until the next time I stumble. It's an ongoing, lifelong process. But the wonderful thing is: For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Philippians 2:13

With hindsight I am able to observe this in my own life. Over 30 years of walking in the Spirit, I can look back and see how changed I am. Slowly, over the years, God has been transforming my mind to a likeness of Christ's so that now I desire to do God's will whereas formerly God's will was not at all what I desired and therefore it was extremely difficult to do it! That is not to say that I have achieved perfection - NO WAY. It is only to say that God is working in me to will and to do....

Sometimes I win, and sometimes I lose... but I always realize that at the end of the day, it is me who is responsible for the choices I have made... not God, and not the Devil. I cannot truly repent for sins I don't believe I'm responsible for, and acts of moral goodness are utterly meaningless if they are not the product of the active choice to love and serve the Lord. Trying to foist responsibility for our choices off onto someone else seems to me to be a form of escapism, and I believe it hinders genuine spiritual growth. I do understand and agree with the idea that none of us is "righteous enough" by the measure of the Law, and this is where the Grace of Jesus comes in. But to rely on a sola gratia position for Salvation is to totally abdicate any personal responsibility for one's spiritual life. That to me, seems irresponsible at best and may even be destructive to a good spiritual life.

I agree, we are always responsible for our own choices. However, I do not agree that to accept salvation through grace is an abdication of personal responsibility. It is liberty.

Galatians 5

Christian Liberty

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,[a] and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

And Ephesians 2:8,9

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Of course, one would expect that faith to be evidenced by actions (works) since faith is pointless, worthless (dead) if it doesn't produce anything. It would be a very foolish thing if I went about proclaiming that I fully believe I have £1million in my bank account but did nothing about it. One would have to question whether I really believed I had access to £1 million. Faith (belief) always leads to actions. And if there are no actions then one has to question the existence of that faith.

"Religious observance," as was derisively mentioned, exists as a discipline precisely because it helps provide a framework in which we can structure our lives and actions to help us continue to choose the right and to shun the wrong. Morals and ethics are not a "substitute" for righteousness. They are the framework by which we understand what it means to be a good person. Morals especially come to us directly from the Bible, and ethical principles can easily be derived from the actions of Jesus, the Prophets, and the Apostles. I think that what you have said stems from an ignorance of what the terms "ethical" and "moral" really mean.

I would urge you to read the argument Christianity is NOT Morality that I linked in my reply to Sigfried. It is too long to post here and I know that I couldn't do justice to the subject in just a few paragraphs - even if I had the ability.

I think that the primary reason I take umbrage to this argument is that it does no service to the Christian position. I don't feel that this accurately represents any commonly accepted theological viewpoint in the larger Christian community, and I think that it clouds the issue of how Christians view not only sin, but also Grace, the Holy Spirit, free will, and morality.

It certainly reflects the viewpoint of many Christian apologists and theologians over the ages (Spurgeon, JC Ryle, to name but two) and those Christians whom I have fellowship with today.

And CS Lewis said:

"I think all Christians would agree with me if I said that though Christianity seems at first to be all about morality, all about duties and rules and guilt and virtue, yet it leads you on, out of all that, into something beyond. One has a glimpse of a country where they do not talk of these things, except perhaps as a joke. Everyone there is filled full with what we should call goodness as a mirror is filled with light. But they do not call it goodness. They do not call it anything. They are not thinking of it. They are too busy looking at the source from which it comes."