It is clear to me that you are lying to yourself when you describe yourself as an agnostic, an unknower.

Your grammar is enough to seal the deal: as a Hebrew, you capitalize He when referencing the big deity, but do not do so when writing jesus christ, indicating that he has more importance in your life than his purported son does. You may not believe in the son, but you are at least hedging your bets (as any adolescent philosopher might do) regarding the existence of your religion's idea of a supreme being. Your grammar rats you out, my friend.

If that is not enough, you argue that you cannot believe in a deity that handles things in a way that you find less than acceptable, an absolutely, illogically ridiculous argument, and not worthy of even grade-school publication, much less a supposedly international website of profound and intelligent writers.

You believe. Quit pretending, to yourself and to us, that you do not. Get Christopher Hutchins to read the bible. I would enjoy his take, and even consider his conversion to be genuine if it were to happen.

I am, by the way, an agnostic. I understand the existence of true faith, and respect my friends who are true believers. In fact, I envy them the peace they must live with, knowing that there is something after this life. You are not an agnostic. You just want to be, for some odd reason.

Take care,

Joe

I like the part where he says he can't get into the Christian stuff because he's Jewish. If he's as agnostic as he claims, then what's the difference? For that matter, why not read the Koran and find out why you aren't supposed to flush one down the toilet?

If that is not enough, you argue that you cannot believe in a deity that handles things in a way that you find less than acceptable, an absolutely, illogically ridiculous argument, and not worthy of even grade-school publication, much less a supposedly international website of profound and intelligent writers.

Just because it's a simple and obvious objection doesn't mean that it's not a good one. If Yahweh wants us to know him, why does he reveal himself in a way that is incomprehensible and repulsive to many decent and sincere people? I am an agnostic, but I don't envy people who hold a belief system which I reject. They may be happy, but I think as human beings we ought to aspire to be as honest, brave, and empathetic as we can -- and for me, to become a Christian would be to turn my back on that.

How would becoming a Christian- or even being a Christian- necessarily mean "turning your back on honesty, bravery, and empathy"? How does this differ from others deriving thier morality, guidance, or sense of worth and justice from other sources?

One chooses one's source. I think the traditional Biblical conception of god is very unlikely to be "true," and it's very hard to accept him as a "good" or "just" being, let alone a perfect one. Virtually the only reason that would push me to claim that the Bible was the word of god would be fear. It would be a surrender to a very dark corner of my imagination.

For me (and I mean specifically me, or someone who shares my assumptions) to choose the Bible as a source would be dishonest (I can't possibly be certain about what happened in a cave in Judea 2000 years ago, and a virgin birth sounds like a myth, so if I recited the Nicene creed I'd be saying something I don't believe), pessimistic (I would find it depressing for anyone to be separated from a genuinely loving god), and un-empathetic (if I really believed that people were going to hell, I'd have to make myself extraordinarily callous to not spend every waking moment on a street corner, begging passers-by to convert). The main reason for me to convert would be the threat of punishment, so that would make me cowardly.

Note again that I'm referring to me, specifically. I know several Christians who I think are brave, empathetic, honest, and optimistic. I don't quite get how they reconcile their theology with their other values, but human thought processes are a funny thing. I still respect them. In some cases I think they love their church, individuals and institution, and have a conception of god which is beautiful, but maybe not all that scriptural.

In terms of a better source of values, I would choose those which are common to most belief systems -- in particular, courage, honesty, and most of all, compassion. The Bible is kind of hit-and-miss on these: lots of compassion in certain parts of Paul's epistles, not so much in Exodus or Revelation, in my opinion. I also respect the Golden Rule of reciprocity, which pre-exists the Sermon on the Mount, is something that many systems have in common. Thus, I think they have greater value than the ideosyncratic and to many people rather odd New Testament supreme injunction -- that you believe in a particular version of events surrounding the life and death of a Judean preacher from 2000 years ago.

Also note that things change a little bit if you believe in a universalist interpretation of the Bible. I suspect that Paul was probably a universalist, and Jesus was maybe one. (Go to tentmakers.org if you want a good description of the arguments and an analysis of the Greek "aeonious", translated in some places as "everlasting" or something similar, but in others as "ages-lasting.") I think I could be a universalist Christian without sacrificing empathy or quite as much bravery. However, I still think it's pretty unlikely that Jesus of Nazereth was born of a virgin or rose from the dead, so that doesn't solve the honesty problem.

Your reply was lengthy, given the simple question, but I don't think you hit to the heart of what I asked, and so my question still stands. What about Christianity exclusively and necessarily means "turning your back on honesty, bravery, or empathy?"

You claim that, for you, fear would be the only- or at least chief- reason to follow the Bible. Is not fear the predominant reason for many to follow any other moral paradigm? Read Hobbes. Read John Locke. Is not the fear of returning to that "nasty, brutish, and short" state called "nature" the very reason why Man makes social contracts and erects the State to begin with? I will never entertain the notion that our country is founded on anything less than the Judeo-Christian paradigm; but even if founded on any other principle, it is that same fear which would drive it's founding- fear of death, fear of destruction, and fear of losing an overarching sense of well-being.

It seems you use "courage, honesty, and most of all, compassion" loosely, picking and choosing as you will. Needless to say the OT and NT are complete opposites, in terms of which God-figure is used as the chief schema. I' 'd like consistency. Are you using these descriptives to mean the people mentioned in the Bible? The belief of the divinity surrounding those people, including Christ himself? The people following the Christological paradigm in Biblical times or in all the ages subsequent to the Bible's inception? Paul, certainly my favorite Apostle, was an end-of-days believer. He believed there were no slaves or free men, but had no qualms with owning slaves, for the mere reason Christ was coming again in the immediate future. If you take it to mean these descriptives pertain to modern-times followers of Christ, then I need only point to every major human rights movement to show the contrary. All white men, and subsequently blacks and women were given various modern freedoms within the context of this country and others because of the Christian movements that were there at the time, so clarification is needed on what and who these sets of adjectives of yours pertain to.

I don't have time to give as thoughtful an answer as this deserves, but I'm not sure how I'm being unclear, so I'll reformulate...

The tags don't apply to every Christian. They are specific to my thought processes. However, I do think that it requires a certain amount of cognative dissonance to overlook the more vicious parts of the Bible and the problem with the belief that disobediance = hell.

I don't reject Christianity "exclusively." I think I would be a dishonest, cowardly, and un-empathetic if I chose to be Muslim, a Sauron-worshipper, or a member of any other belief system in which a supernatural being threatens to punish those who do not obey.

I reject it "necessarily" I think that the Christian god is 1, imaginary, and 2, self-evidently tyrannical. The only really compelling reason I might would be a version of Pascal's Wager -- that the threat he makes is so awful, that you ought to serve him on the very slight chance that it is true. I think that this logic -- that you serve the darkest possible conception of god to avoid the consequences -- is essentially a surrender to fear and a surrender to one's own imagination.

Even if he was demonstrably not imaginary, I would question whether or not he is omnipotent. I am not going to do the bidding of every supernatural being that comes down the turnpike and publishes a book, particularly one riddled with apparent historical and scientific errors.

If people applied this logic in their day-to-day lives, we would still be cringing under absolute monarchs. Btw, our government -- and particularly not out rights -- are not based on Judeo-Christian principles. The American Revolution was a rejection of Paul's formulation on obediance to divinely-constituted authorities. It is not a coincidence that the key framers of the Constitution wrote dismissively of Christianity, and appeared to be deists, as (most likely) was Lincoln.

They were also informed by the experience of the 16th and 17th centuries, when both Protestant and Catholic societies made a serious effort to reorganize themselves in a more religiously-inspired way. The problem was that no one could agree on what the scripture meant, and so Europe suffered a bout of terrible wars.

Yes, there were Christian abolitionists movements in the 1850s and 1860s, but there was also a Christian defense of slavery. I happen to think that the pro-slavers had scripture on their side. The abolitionists were very decent people who happened to overlook inconvenient pieces of scripture. In other words, I think that they were decent people first, Christians second. People are very capable of cognative dissonance, thankfully. If not, you end up with a Cromwell or a Khomeini.

Paul's language is beautiful, but as you point out, he is advocating passivity -- don't change anything in this world because the next world is coming quickly. Well, Paul was wrong about that, and wrong about the value of passivity too, I think.

Hobbes based his political philosophy on danger avoidance, but at least he was referring to a danger which you could (theoretically) empirically observe. Also, Hobbes was proven wrong. You don't need a Leviathan. In fact, the less Levianthany a government is, up to a certain point, the better off the society is. I disagree that our society is based on a pessimistic form of human nature -- we want to avoid chaos, but we can also grant each other considerable freedom because we have some basic faith in our own decency. If people weren't on some level decent and empathetic, there would have been no 19th century abolitionist movement, Christian or otherwise.

On the honesty issue, I don't proclaim the Nicene creed because I don't believe what it says. What sort of god would want me to lie to myself?

On the empathy issue, if I did serve god who condemned people to hell, I would not be able to remain sane unless I convinced myself that somehow those people deserved a hell. I reject the justice of hell for me, and I reject it for everyone else.

It seems you use "courage, honesty, and most of all, compassion" loosely, picking and choosing as you will. Needless to say the OT and NT are complete opposites, in terms of which God-figure is used as the chief schema. I' 'd like consistency. Are you using these descriptives to mean the people mentioned in the Bible? The belief of the divinity surrounding those people, including Christ himself? The people following the Christological paradigm in Biblical times or in all the ages subsequent to the Bible's inception?

I'm not sure that I fully understand this, but the OT and NT are hardly complete opposites. The god-like figure still threatens -- worldly destruction in the OT, otherworldly destruction in the NT. Jesus is quoted repeatedly by the authors of the gospels as speaking of a perfectionist, wrathful god -- which seems to be a rather separate being than him, btw. He advises humans to become perfect in order to avoid risking the wrath of god. Normally his advice is so impractical that hardly any Christians follow it. Don't call your friend a fool. Don't so much as look at a woman with lust. Give away all your money to the poor. Do not resist evil. Never get divorced, save in case of adultery. However, also be ready to reject your family.

I can't provide complete consistency because I don't think that the Bible itself is internally inconsistent in its theology. In some parts of the OT Yahweh seems to be one deity of many, and is fallible; in others he is perfect and supreme. In some parts of the gospels Jesus seems to be a separate being from the father and subordinate, in John he may be more of a partner or an emanation. Paul seems to emphasize forgiveness; Jesus talks (or is quoted as taking) a lot about punishment.

If you take it to mean these descriptives pertain to modern-times followers of Christ, then I need only point to every major human rights movement to show the contrary.

I would emphasize strongly that they don't -- people can be good, kind, empathetic, and courageous, and still Christian. I would say in many cases that they are good, kind, empathetic and courageous despite being Christian. However, there are also plenty of major human rights movements which are not religious, plenty of hateful discourse in churches, and plenty of Christian or Christianity-inspired social movements which I think are rather destructive.

Also, I would argue that our society has gotten a lot better as it has become less religious, and that contemporary societies that are post-religious, like Denmark, tend to have a more compassionate and functional social contract than societies that are religious, like Egypt or Texas. Even in the US, I think you could probably see a correlation between states in the amount of church attendance and the vindictiveness of the penal system.

Anyway, I might have just reformulated my original points, but I hope that is a little clearer.

I enjoy the debate, by the way! Sorry to run on a bit.

It occurred to me that the experience of post-Soviet Europe does not exactly reinforce my less religion = better social contract argument. I'd argue that Communism was in fact an extreme (if atheist) religion, in that it was dogmatic and condemnatory and scripture-based, and that Russia and other countries are still suffering from the aftereffects, but I realize that this argument might not be convincing to everyone.

It seems to me that there is a simple answer to the questions being posed.

Human beings are decent to each other because that is truly the most important part of our basic nature. If it weren't, we'd have killed ourselves off a long time ago. Our holy books, insofar as they provide a moral basis for behavior, are nothing but the explication of the decency and altruism which exists in all of us save for the born psychopaths.

That said, the evil and destructive aspects of human nature are always controlled by some kind of social contract. It doesn't have to be religious. British Common Law, upon which most modern western concepts are based, was developed specifically to reject the "divine" control over us and our kings.

To me, human history is the record of our slowly freeing ourselves from the bonds of fear engendered by the pre-scientific age's inability to understand exactly how things really work. This allowed shamans and priests to control us via our fears.

God was invented to explain the universe and provide those same shamans and priests with lifelong employment.

We don't need the concept any more.

You answered the right points; but I still feel you lump every Christian in a reductionist method here. The OT and NT both exude a wrathful God-image, but it is abundantly clear which one projects it as the chief schema (i.e., the image of God which sticks in your mind). The former clearly dictates how you see God.

There are so many different images and characteristics of God used in the Bible, and used by other theologians, I have trouble seeing how just the one variety is the only one you take to heart. Worshipers of Christ are more than able to serve without fear, but it is not being cowardly to serve out of that fear. Susan B. Anthony, Mother Teresa, MLKJ, and other Christian reformers and social movers served as Christians, following in the footsteps of Christ. I do not believe the consensus is that they served out of fear of damnation. They did not "serve god who condemned people to hell," they served God who brought salvation to all. Again- their God-schema meant something different to them through their view of Christianity.

You take issue with the various inconsistencies of the Bible, but this does not diminish the way one views their life, if done through a Christological paradigm, like these people have done. To serve in a Christ-like manner does not necessarily concern itself with how literal you take the Bible to be, or how one interprets it- which strikes at the heart of what I take to be a misunderstanding on your part on what shapes people through thier faith and religion. You only seem to embrace the negative aspect of religious doctrine, and if something positive stems from it, you only seem to dismiss it. One could say more harm than good has come from science, just as they could religion. The question which still stands, then, follows how religion is any different than the other paradigms guiding us?

I dissagree that Hobbes thought any measure of observation to the state of nature, empirical or otherwise. He and Locke both felt Man needs escape from chaos, and social contracts are the measure. How one calibrates those contracts (your "certain point") is what they disagree on. I somewhat agree with you on Man's nature, but both authors are right that by our nature, we are flawed and negative. That "Basic faith on our own decency" you call on only comes about with the formation of social contracts, with enforcement by the State. You state that "If people weren't on some level decent and empathetic, there would have been no 19th century abolitionist movement, Christian or otherwise," but if "decent and empathetic," the abolitionist movement would have happened sooner than the 19th century, no? It is because of the state in which people can function in that manner, and Christ was saying "no slave or free man" at a time when the State sponsored slavery.

These and others served precisely because they were Christian, not despite being one. If I go along and follow your line of reasoning, then at the end of the day, it doesn't matter our (dis)agreement on why states are formed, or through which foundation- Judeo-Christian or otherwise. That same fear of being persecuted by the State for infractions is no different than being punished by God for the same- they both bring about those better natures you speak about.

I would just rather see the loving, NT God image more at the forefront for you than it is, as it was for myself those aforementioned people; but when it comes to your imagery and feelings of God, to each his own. Good discussion.

That's a very thoughtful answer. I'd like to respond to it, and also address some of Ted's points. Unfortunately it will take me a little while to formulate a response.

In the meantime, I probably ought to admit that I really don't know Hobbes very well, and should also concede that I should have done a little more Googling before writing that the key framers of the Constitution were dismissive of Christianity. I don't think most of the big names were doctrinaire Christians, but I also think that their views were a little more varied and nuanced.

My very brief response is that people tend to take the New Testament as a package, and it's hard to separate the Christ-like model of devotion to one's fellow human from the more fear-inducing judgment and End Times parts. But your answer deserves a much longer response than that, which will take probably take me a little while to write out.

Anyway, I had a chance to give this some thought, and this is what I came up with --

I ought not to lump all Christians together. I respect that there is huge diversity of thought within a tradition with 2000 years of history and a worldwide scope. I do not believe I can look into the soul of any individual Christian. However, I do think that it is fair to me to argue based on my own experiences with the Bible (and I emphasize that the cowardly, dishonest, and un-empathetic descriptors refer specifically to me, were I to convert) and argue a little bit based on generalities.

Anyway, I would make the following points:

1) Christ-like behavior, in the sense of dedication to others, is found in many intellectual traditions, including other Abrahamic traditions which do have a judging God (Muslim Brothers in the poor slums of Cairo), spirtual traditions that do not have a judging god (the Buddha), and secular traditions (a great deal of human rights work going on today).

2) I found that when you engage with the Bible, you don't just get to take away the bits you like. I went away with the strong temptation to become a Christian out of fear, an act which I eventually decided that I ought not to do.

Some people, I believe, come away determined to become Christ-like. But other people, I believe, take away the idea of a perfectionist and wrathful god as a role-model. Some, I believe, take away the idea that their medical or psychological problems, or those of their children, are caused by demons. Some, I believe, come away believing that all other religions are false. Some, I believe, come away eager to punish those who they believe are wrongdoers. Some, I believe, come away enthusiastic about the suffering which they claim will be inflicted on non-Christians in the End Times and the hereafter. Some, I believe, come away deeply hostile to scientific inquiry which might conflict with their faith. Some, I believe, come away tormented by the idea that they might not match up to the Bible's standards.

I would argue that the collective harm done by all of these reactions to the Bible outweighs the good that comes of attempting to imitate Christ. I can't possibly measure or quantify this, however.

3) Finally, I would argue that acting in order to please a perfectionist god, rather than the satisfaction you get from simply seeing other people happy, is less likely to make you and others happy than simply deriving satisfaction from the good that you do in this world. I would argue this based on my own experiences, and also from some of the writings of Mother Teresa. I don't know enough about Martin Luther King to really talk about him.

Ted -- I don't think God was "invented" for any cynical purpose. I suspect that most shamans and priests were sincere believers. However, I would agree that religion is a stage in our development from which we now can move on, at least not in relatively peaceful and prosperous societies.

Somehow, you miss the illogic of the statement entirely.

To presume that you would or must understand and even agree with a deity is the pinnacle of hubris.

As for envy, you miss the point there, as well. It is not their belief system I envy, but the peace of mind I must assume accompanies it.

Take care,

Joe

I think I understand your point, I just don't agree with it.

Regardless of whom you believe may have wrote or inspired the Bible, it appears to be addressed to humans. Thus, we're supposed to understand and react to the version of god presented in the Bible.

To respond to revulsion at the Bible by saying "Oh, those are the ways of a deity whom you are not supposed to understand," strikes me as a bit of a morally relativistic cop-out. The Bible is supposed to be god presenting himself to humans, as I understand it.

Cheers, Steve

Good points; however, I am still puzzled that you say one cannot "take the away the bits you like," and then just take away the bits about serving God out of Fear. The followers of Christ that I specifically cited served primarily out of love, and the Christological paradigm that they followed was the NT-dominated message of understanding, love, and support of one's fellow Man, predominantly taught by Christ.

Your entire second paragraph, concerning itself with "some Christians do x- Others do y" can be replaced by any paradigm, moral, spiritual, secular, or otherwise. Go ahead and try it- even those who are strictly secular, following the law of the State, think judgment on others who wrong. There are many who follow the law, not out of love for it, but out of fear of its consequences, lest they break its pact. There are many who believe our law of the State to be the best one in all the earth, shadowing all other, lesser State contracts, agreements, or social pacts. And so on. Why you take this away only from Christianity is still a conundrum; but ultimately, the goal is to curtail this "collective harm done by these reactions to the Bible," however you are somehow perceiving them to be. As you said, you can't quantify or measure this, but as for your perception of these "reactions which cause harm," I do not know.

On your third point, I do not know why it cannot be both. Why both serving out of your love of God as well as fellow Man is out of the picture for you, I do not know, but all the great Christian social movers did so out of both and not one exclusively. It is interesting to note that many of those, even staunchly secular psychologists (e.g., Freud) who believed the God image was created (See "The Future of an Illusion") also state we naturally create said totemic schemas for positive reasons. Ergo, regardless of belief in the divinity of God, or even whole portions of the Bible (or any other Holy Writ), it is no different than any other fashion you devise your moral or social compass.