just a suggestion

[steveb1]

Seems to me that the "great debate" between the "new" atheists and theists is quagmired in a two-pronged problem:

1. The atheists are attacking very popular/populist - even fundamentalist - notions of God. The assumption is that "God" must necessarily be defined as a supernatural creator-intervener. But, theologically speaking, this is a little like saying that the moon must be made of green cheese, or it doesn't exist. "God" is not, cannot be, limited to the restrictive Creator-Intervener model that currently dominates the debate.

2. Therefore the debate remains stuck on the level of evidence for / or against / a divine Creator-Intervener

It seems to me that the debate could be widened by incorporating other God-definitions as issues of discussion, e.g., God as Absolute, God as No-Thing-Ness, God as Presence, God as Infinite Wisdom/Infinite Compassion, God as a non-creating, non-intervening panentheistic being, etc.

Perhaps if God-definitions were expanded beyond the mere biblical/creatorist/interventionist category, both atheists and theists would find that the very ground of the debate had shifted into a new and perhaps more fruitful area of discussion.

[FmrMarine]

(05-02-2012 04:00 PM)steveb1 Wrote:  Seems to me that the "great debate" between the "new" atheists and theists is quagmired in a two-pronged problem:

1. The atheists are attacking very popular/populist - even fundamentalist - notions of God. The assumption is that "God" must necessarily be defined as a supernatural creator-intervener. But, theologically speaking, this is a little like saying that the moon must be made of green cheese, or it doesn't exist. "God" is not, cannot be, limited to the restrictive Creator-Intervener model that currently dominates the debate.

2. Therefore the debate remains stuck on the level of evidence for / or against / a divine Creator-Intervener

It seems to me that the debate could be widened by incorporating other God-definitions as issues of discussion, e.g., God as Absolute, God as No-Thing-Ness, God as Presence, God as Infinite Wisdom/Infinite Compassion, God as a non-creating, non-intervening panentheistic being, etc.

Perhaps if God-definitions were expanded beyond the mere biblical/creatorist/interventionist category, both atheists and theists would find that the very ground of the debate had shifted into a new and perhaps more fruitful area of discussion.

I think what you typically find, at least in most western countries, is a challenge to the existence of the god of the Bible. Having said that, atheists obviously don't believe in the Hindi gods, Norse gods, Xenu and the Scientology nonsense, Zeus, etc., etc. I think this is because the god of the Bible is the one we are most confronted with in the western world.

[lucrezaborgia]

(05-02-2012 04:52 PM)FmrMarine Wrote:  I think what you typically find, at least in most western countries, is a challenge to the existence of the god of the Bible. Having said that, atheists obviously don't believe in the Hindi gods, Norse gods, Xenu and the Scientology nonsense, Zeus, etc., etc. I think this is because the god of the Bible is the one we are most confronted with in the western world.

The major lack of understanding about things outside of Christianity doesn't help either.

[Hollandmichigan]

You really ha e to be careful not to think of atheism in terms of belonging to a sort of group or club. Rather, atheism is a quality of mind. I like what richard dawkin says: that christians (and muslims, hindus etc..) are atheist about all the other gods they dont believe in--They just make an exception For their own. The fundamental difference between atheism and theism that i see is this: did the world come about naturally through random, unplanned events; or was the process driven In some way by an intelligent creative agent. By definition, there can never be harmony between the two positions, nor should there be.

[lucrezaborgia]

(05-02-2012 09:30 PM)Hollandmichigan Wrote:  By definition, there can never be harmony between the two positions, nor should there be.

There is a third position: Don't care aka agnostic.

I don't say this mockingly believe it or not. I don't feel that I can honestly say with 100% accuracy whether or not there are beings on a higher dimension than we are.

[Ricardo]

Thanks, Holland.

The other issue that ties in is the whole issue of defining god

For many Baptists, if you believe in the god of the Catholics, you are an Atheist.

It is inconceivable for them that we could discuss among CHRISTIANS, how to redefine god in terms that are not anthropocentric, in terms that are not culturally loaded.

Examples: After watching Will and Kate's wedding, and paying attention to all the kings and queens and princesses there, all with their funny hats, the idea of god as King of Kings doesn't do anything for me.

After reading the carnage of Joshua, Chronicles, Judges, the idea of god as General of the Armies, is NOT someone I want to be associated with.

After reading the images of god as the angry husband, punishing Israel as his whore of a wife, with beatings, exposure and more, I most definitely do not want to be associated with the god of Domestic Violence.

Yes, these are issues that it is very easy for Atheists to latch on to in order to ridicule our god.

But, it has to be possible for CHRISTIANS to discuss the idea of finding ways to redefine a Being who by definition surpasses all understanding. It has to be possible to discuss as believers in GOD how some of those definitions we find in the bible no longer describe the God we have come to be in relationship with.

[Hollandmichigan]

(05-02-2012 10:37 PM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  

(05-02-2012 09:30 PM)Hollandmichigan Wrote:  By definition, there can never be harmony between the two positions, nor should there be.

There is a third position: Don't care aka agnostic.

I don't say this mockingly believe it or not. I don't feel that I can honestly say with 100% accuracy whether or not there are beings on a higher dimension than we are.

I believe agnosticism is a perfectly acceptable position, and i don't see it as a flimsy middleground crammed between theism and nontheism, either. For some, the tendency toward religiosity has never so much as existed. Sometimes i forget that, having had my life so utterly consumed by it.

I also don't deny that possibility, although if such beings do exist in our universe i would say that they've come about through processes similiar to the evolution of life on earth.

[FmrMarine]

(05-02-2012 10:41 PM)Ricardo Wrote:  Thanks, Holland.

The other issue that ties in is the whole issue of defining god

For many Baptists, if you believe in the god of the Catholics, you are an Atheist.

It is inconceivable for them that we could discuss among CHRISTIANS, how to redefine god in terms that are not anthropocentric, in terms that are not culturally loaded.

Examples: After watching Will and Kate's wedding, and paying attention to all the kings and queens and princesses there, all with their funny hats, the idea of god as King of Kings doesn't do anything for me.

After reading the carnage of Joshua, Chronicles, Judges, the idea of god as General of the Armies, is NOT someone I want to be associated with.

After reading the images of god as the angry husband, punishing Israel as his whore of a wife, with beatings, exposure and more, I most definitely do not want to be associated with the god of Domestic Violence.

Yes, these are issues that it is very easy for Atheists to latch on to in order to ridicule our god.

But, it has to be possible for CHRISTIANS to discuss the idea of finding ways to redefine a Being who by definition surpasses all understanding. It has to be possible to discuss as believers in GOD how some of those definitions we find in the bible no longer describe the God we have come to be in relationship with.

Frankly, I think this moving target or redefining god because so much of the bible is violent and nonsenscical. It is grasping at something to hold on to instead of just admitting it is as false as Scientology or Greek mythology or the new Avengers movie. It's like reading a biography of Lincoln and then saying "I know what he said and what was reported, but he didn't mean any of it." Without the bible which is the only known narrative of Jesus, there is no Christian religion. It is disingenuious to pick and choose which parts you accept and ignore the parts that are violent, misogynist and just plain wrong based on known and accepted science. It is quite clear the book was written by primitive bronze age men - not inspired by an almighty creator of everything.

[Ricardo]

(05-04-2012 08:35 AM)FmrMarine Wrote:  It is disingenuious to pick and choose which parts you accept and ignore the parts that are violent, misogynist and just plain wrong based on known and accepted science. It is quite clear the book was written by primitive bronze age men - not inspired by an almighty creator of everything.

Probably so.

Part of the issue here is changing the way we read Scripture.

For most fundamentalists it is either the KJV1611 or NOTHING.
A few fundamentalists admit that there is no translation that can be considered as definitive, but hold on to a 66-book canon as God's canon.

Have you read Fowler's "Stages of Faith"? (It is not an easy read.) Bottom line: The Christian church is populated with believers at different stages. Some people need to have a source that is defined as inerrant and infallible. Others -in the same church- can handle some, but not too much doubt. Yet others keep their opinions to themselves because they do not want to confuse people with their Unitarian beliefs. All Christians!!!

Few fundamentalists have REALLY looked, seriously, at the Jesus Seminar, which, believe it or not, is a group of CHRISTIANS. (Not according to most Fundamentalist apologists.)

Now, about picking and choosing what parts to believe and which to ignore, this is not only a time-honored tradition going back to Cain's "Am I my brother's keeper" line, but it is actually the way our brain works.

It is a problem for those who want to CONTROL the message.

Either way.

[Hollandmichigan]

(05-04-2012 10:12 AM)Ricardo Wrote:  Probably so.

probably so... What? Are you agreeing that its wrong to cherry-pick a text that is known to be written by ancient primitives and is therefore factually inaccurate?

Quote:Part of the issue here is changing the way we read Scripture.

if what is written is bullshit then it aint going to matter which way you read the damn thing


[/quote]