Anonymous
01/08/2015 16:45
Subject: Why believe in god?
PP here:
I just want to clarify that I think one can absolutely be "good" without believing in "God"... as long as a God or something like it -you might call it "Good"- exists.
It does not matter if you believe in it or not, but is has to be there so that saying this is good and this is bad makes sense.
I just want to clarify that I think one can absolutely be "good" without believing in "God"... as long as a God or something like it -you might call it "Good"- exists.
It does not matter if you believe in it or not, but is has to be there so that saying this is good and this is bad makes sense.
Anonymous
01/08/2015 16:34
Subject: Why believe in god?
I did not read the whole thread but I will try to answer the original question "Why believe in God?"
First, let me define what I mean by God.
God= an eternal being outside of the universe (and/or of the Hawkins multiverse) who created this universe (and/or of the Hawkins multiverse) and gave it some sort of "order", both physical and moral.
To use an analogy, God would be to this universe as Shakespeare is to the world of Hamlet. Everywhere in Hamlet's world, but no where to be found at the same time.
I feel the need to believe in such a being "outside" of my world because without it I can not come up with a rational basis to define Good and Evil in absolute terms, while my heart/gut tells me that they are in fact things/actions that are absolutely wrong and absolutely right.
If such a being exists, then that being is the source of those absolutes. Think of it as the standard (unchanging) agaist which everything can be measured against.
If not, then one has to admit that nothing is absolutely right or absolutely wrong, and that, to me, makes even less sense than supposing a God.
In Richard Dawkins words, without God:
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
One might *say* to believe in a universe like that, but no one lives as if that universe is true. Even Dawkins calls religion "evil" in the same books in which he denies the rational basis for purpose, meaning, good and evil.
For example:
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. "
It is a matter of consistency: if I live my life as if calling something good and something else evil make sense, then I have to suppose a God of some sort.
First, let me define what I mean by God.
God= an eternal being outside of the universe (and/or of the Hawkins multiverse) who created this universe (and/or of the Hawkins multiverse) and gave it some sort of "order", both physical and moral.
To use an analogy, God would be to this universe as Shakespeare is to the world of Hamlet. Everywhere in Hamlet's world, but no where to be found at the same time.
I feel the need to believe in such a being "outside" of my world because without it I can not come up with a rational basis to define Good and Evil in absolute terms, while my heart/gut tells me that they are in fact things/actions that are absolutely wrong and absolutely right.
If such a being exists, then that being is the source of those absolutes. Think of it as the standard (unchanging) agaist which everything can be measured against.
If not, then one has to admit that nothing is absolutely right or absolutely wrong, and that, to me, makes even less sense than supposing a God.
In Richard Dawkins words, without God:
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
One might *say* to believe in a universe like that, but no one lives as if that universe is true. Even Dawkins calls religion "evil" in the same books in which he denies the rational basis for purpose, meaning, good and evil.
For example:
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. "
It is a matter of consistency: if I live my life as if calling something good and something else evil make sense, then I have to suppose a God of some sort.
Anonymous
12/31/2014 18:37
Subject: Why believe in god?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Thanks, PP, for a very thoughtful piece on the origins of Christianity and the relationship to Judaism.
PP here. Obviously there is much more. One point I did not mention is that in the early Christian church the new year began at the vernal equinox with the feast of the Annunciation. That is, Jesus's conception marked the coming of his life to earth and it coincided with the new life spring brings, particularly for animals, which were all important in ancient Semitic religion, which, it must be emphasized, was the religion originally of a nomadic people.
Spring is also the time that Christ died so that we may have new life.
It was only later as Christianity became mainstream in the Roman Empire that the church calendar was reconciled with the Roman calendar for practical reasons. Nine months from the vernal equinox is the winter solistice and, thus, the day that Christ was born. Atheist OP is obsessed with Christmas being pagan, but in fact this was originally a minor feast day and may not have been celebrated at all in the early church.
Over time, of course, it gained popularity as a time for celebration alongside the nonChristians celebrating their mid-winter holidays. Perhaps in response to that, advent was established as a time of penance to help ensure that religious meaning was preserved. The liturgical year actually begins with advent, which is the first Sunday after the feast day of St. Andrew, known as the introducer to Christ. Just as Andrew introduced Peter to Jesus, Andrew introduces us each year through the liturgical calendar to Christ.
After the calendars were reconciled, the church fathers gave metaphorical meanings to some of the feast days. Christ's birth on earth symbolized the coming of an age of light, just as the solistice marks the beginning of longer days. The birth of John the Baptist was put at the solar equinox, for he was announcing the end of the age of darkness to come. This makes him six months older than Jesus and that fits in with John leaping for joy in Elizabeth's womb when she meets Mary pregnant with Jesus.
All of this is meant to convey metaphorical and spiritual truths, not literal truths, a point that seems to escape atheist OP.
No kidding -- where did that come from? - not the bible. Plus nature had been bringing new life in the Spring long before Christ supposedly cam around. Debates about Jesus' existence or significance aside, there no good reason to believe Jesus died in the Spring for some reason not mentioned in centuries of church history.
Jesus died at Passover, as He was the final sacrifice that was foreshadowed at the first Passover. The Last Supper was a Passover meal. God knows what He is doing, and it was meant as a further sign to the Jews that he was the foretold Messiah. His blood on the cross directly mirrors the blood on the door posts of Jewish homes in Egypt before the final plague. This is why Christ is referred to as the Lamb of God, and the Lamb slain since the foundation of the world. It has nothing to do with pagan rites of spring.