Christianity and the charade of human life

[stuntpickle]

Hi! I'm glad somebody knows all about Keats, because I merely thought the poem was cool and pertinent. Its one of the most famous and well known. Now you've got me pulling up the man's bio.

I'm not so sure that my knowledge of Keats is sufficient to be called "knowing all about him." I have merely made a thorough reading of his verse and letters. I do know he led a short and sad life brimming with sickness and both personal and professional rejection.

But anyway, I think it's safe to say that along with Coleridge and Kierkegaard he helped construct the preeminent explanation of why science is ultimately insufficient. It's no accident that when the mediocre Richard Dawkins wrote a book to try and silence the critics suggesting he was a philistine (*Unweaving the Rainbow*), he picked for his main target the man responsible for lines such as "Real are the dreams of Gods," "Can death be sleep, when life is but a dream," and "Cold philosophy will clip an angel's wings." Unfortunately for Dawkins, Romantic poets tend to have more resonant voices than professors of "public understanding."

 

[seattlegal]

lol, now I'm off to read Keat's Ode to Psyche

 

[blearyeyed]

stuntpickle: I posed the question because I sincerely wanted an intelligent answer that will convince me to give Christianity (American Christianity, as you call it--I am aware that there are MANY branches of the faith) a fair chance before decidedly turning my back on it. I wanted to spark a debate which will not yield the same type of circular reasoning (the bible is the word of God because the bible said so) that I hear in my Sunday services.

I apologize if my reasons for doubting my faith seem to be of the straw man variety, but as I said before, the straw man examples I have mentioned are exactly the types of beliefs that I see many Christians practice. The fact that the average Christian will not be able to articulate what you just wrote half as well says a lot. You said so yourself, some Christians may even regard you as a sort of heretic.

I see many posts romanticizing certain aspects of Christianity: God and his reason for creation, his love for human kind, good vs. evil etc. Those are all good things, and I am not against any of that. But there are OTHER parts of the Bible, those that don't talk about "loving thy neighbor," or mention "For God so loved the world." There are verses that describe condemnation of people who worship a different God REGARDLESS of their morality, or as you call it, degree of "person-generation." Verses that promote slavery, infanticide, and rape. For this reason, I feel as if some people who defend Christianity as a religion seem to be very selective in the verses of the Bible they choose to emphasize.

From a "Christianity as a way to self-awareness and the Bible not to be taken literally" standpoint, ok, wonderful. But if this is indeed the case, then the Bible is simply a set of well-written metaphorical moral stories, despite many verses claiming otherwise.

I understand the need for giving undeniable authority to a book of morality for people to actually take it seriously (GOD says we shouldn't do such and such, therefore it is wrong to do such and such. The Bible is the word of GOD) Many religions share this trait…. However, there are also many philosophers who have penned wonderful books about self-awareness and morality—and they did it without giving themselves authority as the one and only word of GOD--the highest authority of all.

Trust me, I am not here to create a strawman out of Christianity... I do not believe there was a literal snake in the Garden of Eden, or that Hell is a literal fire pit of eternal damnation--but let me tell you, many Christians do. And that little fact makes me a bit uncomfortable.

However, I would like to thank you for taking the time to share the secret of life with me, free of charge. My church advises me to give 10% of my income for that kind of revelation. The bible apparently said so. (I'm sorry, here I go creating another straw man again)

 

[Thomas]

Hi blearyeyed ...

I wanted to spark a debate which will not yield the same type of circular reasoning (the bible is the word of God because the bible said so) that I hear in my Sunday services.

To be fair ... the Bible is received as Revelation, so I find it hard to conceive what other authority could be used in support, other than it's own?

It's not circular reasoning, it's quite logical, really.

There are nuances, for example Catholic doctrine does not say that every word in the Bible is absolute truth, but that the Bible conveys absolute truth ... these truths are the truths of testimony, not of history, or science, or philosophy ... so it boils down to, receive the testimony, or not.

The fact that the average Christian will not be able to articulate what you just wrote half as well says a lot. You said so yourself, some Christians may even regard you as a sort of heretic.

I wonder what people expect of Christians?

The first generation Christians were quite probably utterly inarticulate compared to today, they had next to nothing to articulate anyway, except a faith in the Son of God, born, crucified, risen. But somehow, from them, the Word spread like a contagion, like wildfire ... I think we're far too much focussed on the words which, at the end of the day, are just words ... the essence of the thing, the spirit of it, that's something else, that can't be put into words.

I can argue the case quite successfully ... I have a degree in theology ... but do not for a moment assume that such qualifies me as a Christian, in fact, when someone told a delightful 90+ year old monk I was talking to that I was a graduate, he asked: "Does that mean you can talk at great length about things you know nothing about?" To which I replied yes, and after 5 years' hard study, I've earned the right to do so!

But there are OTHER parts of the Bible...

That's why Christianity could not be contained within the mythos of Israel and its history ...

From a "Christianity as a way to self-awareness and the Bible not to be taken literally" standpoint, ok, wonderful.

OK, but then so-what? The Little Book of Calm is probably an easier read, and less controversial, and less expensive. Anybody who follows Christianity as a way to self-awareness has already missed the point.

If you want the fast-track route to Christian realisation, ditch the notion of 'self' at the earliest opportunity ...

However, there are also many philosophers who have penned wonderful books about self-awareness and morality—and they did it without giving themselves authority as the one and only word of GOD--the highest authority of all.

Sadly, they can't confer peace, let alone eternal life ... let alone the charisms of the virtues of which they speak.

I do not believe there was a literal snake in the Garden of Eden, or that Hell is a literal fire pit of eternal damnation--but let me tell you, many Christians do. And that little fact makes me a bit uncomfortable.

You do realise this presents you as quite supercilious person? (Dare one suggest that there are many more pertinent parables and metaphors which you seem to ignore and are well worth contemplating?)

How much of your faith is dependent upon others? I ask, because that's another stumbling block. When it comes to meeting one's Maker, it's One-on-one ... pointing the finger at others won't cut it, we've been doing that ever since the Garden of Eden, it pissed Him off then, and I suggest it still pisses Him off today ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[bob x]

To be fair ... the Bible is received as Revelation, so I find it hard to conceive what other authority could be used in support, other than it's own?

WHY is the Bible received as Revelation? As opposed to, say, the Qur'an or Book of Mormon or Bhagavad-Gita?

It's not circular reasoning, it's quite logical, really.

Saying that you receive the Bible as revelation because it calls itself so is indeed the very definition of circular reasoning. And it is not at all logical, since there are all these other books making grandiose claims for themselves, which you do not receive.
It is more honest to say that you receive the Bible, and not the others, because certain people tell you so. But why do you trust those particular people, and not others? And why should this be persuasive to those who are not affiliated with your group of people, and do not find them at all trustworthy?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

The Bible could be re-titled: "The Crowd"
and it's lessons could be referred to as,
'The Laws of Ettiquette'.

Learn em, live em, and thus,
inherit future administrative tasks as one's own personal Dharma (occupational duties).

 

[seattlegal]

John Keats, a Romantic poet par excellence, took issue in one of his private letters with the phrase “vale of tears.” This phrase has been used traditionally to refer to the preponderance of sorrow humans are likely to experience in their earthly lives. Although this concept is bound to be difficult for someone reared in the sappy, crude traditions of American sentimentalism, brimming with romantic comedies and Hallmark platitudes, I assure you that it was once an entirely conventional notion; being “happy” was not always thought to be the default state of existence. Keats, however, preferred the phrase “vale of soul-making.”

<snip>

...I think an average person spends the first part of his life learning what exactly life entails and the last part learning what its negation entails. A *person* is, ideally, taught by exquisitely minute degrees that he will be deprived of everything he has ever even slightly cherished and that all our seemingly enduring human institutions are illusory, as is the whole of human cultural continuity, and this person should begin to see himself unburdened by linear time so that the boasts of his youth are juxtaposed with the failures of his adulthood, and ideally he will begin to understand that a knowledge of good and evil necessarily entails a capacity for both, and even worse, that he has, himself, consciously committed any number of evil acts himself because when, surveying the whole of human freedom, he was selfish and mean and generally careless with others not because God made him that way, but because God allowed him to choose. And at this point this person will, ideally, regret any number of things, which is to say he will become an actual “person” equipped with all the sensitivities that entails. The ordeal, you see, isn’t to allow God to cull a few moral exemplars from the whole host of humanity, but rather the only conceivable means by which personhood is achieved. It isn’t a test, but creation itself.

The meaning of life is person-generation or, as Keats put it “soul-making.”

So Pickle, any advise or strategies for this midlife crisis you describe? {Please don't say it's like childbirth, pretty please!}

 

[blearyeyed]

Thomas: First of all, I would like to thank you again for your thoughtful responses.

To be fair ... the Bible is received as Revelation, so I find it hard to conceive what other authority could be used in support, other than it's own?

It's not circular reasoning, it's quite logical, really.

There are nuances, for example Catholic doctrine does not say that every word in the Bible is absolute truth, but that the Bible conveys absolute truth ... these truths are the truths of testimony, not of history, or science, or philosophy ... so it boils down to, receive the testimony, or not.

This is exactly what makes me uncomfortable about the Bible and the many religions that refer to it. It gives itself so many loopholes it pretty much makes itself impossible to argue in any logical fashion.

"Not every word in the Bible is absolute truth..." loophole. It gives everyone who reads it permission to pick and choose which verses to revere, and which ones to ignore. Now, I do not have a degree in theology, but that trait doesn't sit well with me. It sounds like a disclaimer. How can you trust completely in a book if the meaning is often unclear, ambiguous, and contradicting?

Using that logic, anything that is received as "Revelation" is immune to any historical/philosophical/logical/factual debate. It can neither be proved or disproved because it purports itself as its own authority.

I wonder what people expect of Christians?

The first generation Christians were quite probably utterly inarticulate compared to today, they had next to nothing to articulate anyway, except a faith in the Son of God, born, crucified, risen. But somehow, from them, the Word spread like a contagion, like wildfire ... I think we're far too much focussed on the words which, at the end of the day, are just words ... the essence of the thing, the spirit of it, that's something else, that can't be put into words.

I have heard all these arguments before. And perhaps my human mind is too feeble and too limited by worldly logic to accept them as satisfying answers.

In my humble opinion, this sounds merely like another loophole: Words are too limited to capture spirituality. People are too focused on the words themselves, which are hopelessly inadequate.

That means, again, that any flaw that is seen in words of Revelation is blamed not on the "testimony" itself, but on the limits of language. Sounds to me like the perfect disclaimer.

You do realise this presents you as quite supercilious person? (Dare one suggest that there are many more pertinent parables and metaphors which you seem to ignore and are well worth contemplating?)

I mentioned those examples simply because they have been mentioned before by the poster to which I was responding. I am aware of the many other parables in the Bible and by assuming my ignorance in the matter one might think you are being supercilious yourself.

I do not pretend to understand the Bible, nor do I pretend to be an expert on those parables/metaphors you refer to. It is this lack of understanding that motivated me to seek answers in forums such as this. Please do not take my personal doubts as an attack on the Christian faith--I understand it might seem that way--but I am simply trying to convey exactly what it is about the faith that I am not comfortable with.

How much of your faith is dependent upon others? I ask, because that's another stumbling block. When it comes to meeting one's Maker, it's One-on-one ... pointing the finger at others won't cut it, we've been doing that ever since the Garden of Eden, it pissed Him off then, and I suggest it still pisses Him off today ...

My faith is a personal thing. My faith is what is faltering. If it solely depended on other people, trust me, it would be MUCH more convenient for me to embrace what I've been told, please my family, and suppress my doubts.

I hope I do not present myself as an attacker of Christianity. I want to remind everyone that I am simply trying to tackle my personal doubts in the Faith that I was born into.

 

[absolute]

I do not pretend to understand the Bible, nor do I pretend to be an expert on those parables/metaphors you refer to. It is this lack of understanding that motivated me to seek answers in forums such as this. Please do not take my personal doubts as an attack on the Christian faith--I understand it might seem that way--but I am simply trying to convey exactly what it is about the faith that I am not comfortable with.


My faith is a personal thing. My faith is what is faltering. If it solely depended on other people, trust me, it would be MUCH more convenient for me to embrace what I've been told, please my family, and suppress my doubts.

I hope I do not present myself as an attacker of Christianity. I want to remind everyone that I am simply trying to tackle my personal doubts in the Faith that I was born into.

I hope your still there because it sounds like you ran into a theological seminar.

Your approaching this as a detective. The Bible must pass your test of qualifications for you to believe.

Do you realize that none of the Gentiles that Paul spread the Gospel to had any of the answers you seek? Many of them believed in Christ and received the Holy Spirit after a few sentences by Paul.

What your doing is not about being transformed by God's Spirit...your approaching this as if its a philosophy you can buy into. God converts...not data.

You mention God coercing us by offering hell as the only other option. If that were true every single person on Earth would be saved.

If we didnt live a life but all just stood before some great being with 2 doors...one to heaven and one to hell..there would not be a single person who would not follow that great being into heaven

...and Yes...even if he was the Devil. God did not set up such a ridiculous plan.

Why is God not on CNN? Can he not perform such a task?

Blearyeyed, God is almighty..that means the world is exactly how it has to be to save the most humans. It cannot be better, it cannot be worse. God is hidden for a reason. There is no coercion, there is just enough proof for those who want to know God to search for him through prayer and just enough doubt for those who dont to just say its all crap. Anyone who feels coerced is not a Christian. God is not some idiot we can fool.

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to all who asked in the Sermon on the Mount. What Father would deny his child that gift, Christ said. Once you have that gift--Christ is a fact to you. God strengthens your faith that He alone can be trusted. Right now you seem to trust nothing.

Think about this....If God set up a world in which knowing him was based on a collection of a certain number of facts or satisfactory answers--then that would mean you much reach that certain point of evidence to believe---which would also mean that if one was debunked you would no longer believe.

This isnt an IQ test. Its a test of the heart.

If this wasnt true we would waiver back and forth like fools. God's plan is perfect. His message is designed to penetrate and he doesnt make mistakes. God's children believe God..it is guaranteed. Forget about the legalism, rituals, church attendence, and all the other stuff and focus on Jesus Christ for now. You start by knowing Christ as fact by asking God to know him fully. Your off in the corner looking for incidental things that are, in my opinion, the same subjects unbelievers use to justify rejecting Christ. Paul clearly states--They refuse to believe. They dont ask God about Christ..they surround themselves with evidence that supports their desire to reject Him.

You dont build a case and then go to Christ..you give yourself to Christ and nothing else will even matter because you trust that God is proven good through the acts of Jesus. I, who consider myself a tough guy, cry when I read Christs words. I know Him. I know what he is like and I question nothing I dont understand. God doesnt need my approval. Faith is not just believing a story..it is trusting that God is perfectly Good --and that is revealed to us through His Spirit. God is supernatural...this isnt about going to college.

Whatever Hell is ---the doors are locked from the inside. I know that Christ is real more than I know my own name. Its not blind..it is revealed by the Holy Spirit.

As Paul says

1 Corinthians 1
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

1 Corinthians 2

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[c] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Waymarker]

..How meaningful is a choice to be with God when it is made out of fear from going to hell? Why would an omnipotent God want/need the validation of his creations worshipping him to the point of threatening punishment if they don't?..

If there's a pit at the bottom of your garden you warn your kids not to play near it out of your love for them, and God warns us about hell for the same reason, it's not a threat.
The nuclear core of the Christian ethic is- "Love God, love one another, feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the destitute, tend the sick, visit the prisoners, look after the poor", so who wouldn't want to make the free choice to follow that anyway?

 

[bob x]

If there's a pit at the bottom of your garden you warn your kids not to play near it out of your love for them

Did you dig the pit yourself? Does it have no other purpose except for kids to fall in it? Do you "warn" the kids only by sending them second-hand messages through people your kids have no reason to trust?