Christianity wasn’t any part of the question. The question was…
“Why Christianity?” is a completely different question with a different answer: here
Remember that I wasn’t raised Christian or in any other religion and had no basis for seeing any meaning in the word “God” at all – that was something I had to figure out before I could take either the Bible or Christianity seriously.
You see this idea of nothing after death (ignoring all the meaningless “kaput” babble) as a problem with atheism but that sounds really good to me. I don’t believe it (this idea of nothing after death) because to me it looks too good to be true.
When I read this, I get the feeling you are just making things up and you don’t even bother reading what I wrote at all.
Given Christianity says no such thing why do make this up and insert it into your version of Christianity?
I would argue that you make things up in order to change Christianity and the Bible into a tool of power for controlling other people.
This combat analogy fits well my conclusion that you use the Bible and Christianity as a tool of power over other people.
In my view we are children not pawns and Satan only has power because we give it to him with our own refusal of responsibility.
More like you have no understanding of existentialism at all. Existentialism came from Soren Kierkegaard (called the father of Existentialism) who was always a devout Christian.
To be sure… others like Sartre and Camus were not. Camus, my favorite, criticized Christianity and since this is how I was raised, nothing could be more natural for me. Sartre adapted existentialism to an atheist point of view.
Is this how you treat everyone who becomes Christian? You attack them for what they believed before they became Christian. I guess you would shut down all missionary efforts and condemn the whole world for the crime of being born into any other culture or religion. Sounds like entitlement Christianity for sure – Christianity made into something completely evil.
I think some people want this life to go on for ever. Perhaps becasue they are afraid of what might or mght not follow it?
I think the idea of just going to permanent sleep or oblivion has its appeal. Eternal peace in temrs of eternal nothing. You aren’t aware so it does not matter.
It does seem that the whole notion of Heaven and Hell came from Jesus, or at least the human understanding of what He said.
The dead know nothing?
As opposed to the dead knowing everything?
I am not sure that the idea of my parents knowing all my secrets and faults is very comforting, or even that God does. I would guess that most of us have our little private parts that we are reluctant to reveal, even to our closest friends or spouse.
For me. eternity would have to be something other than what I have now. The idea of pandering to a body like ours for eternity is less tha appealing. No amount of pleasure of contentment could compensate for eating, drinking, disposing of such, and having to sleep for at least a third of it. If Heaven is eternal joy, then mundane survival is not a part of it.
I almost feel sorry for those who are craving Heaven or even the Second Coming. I do not see the apocalyps as something i want ot live through or come out the end of. I see the New Heaven and Earth as a police state to which there is no rebellion possible let alone allowed. The only way I could live in it would be if i was brainwashed.
Perhaps this makes me a bad Christian? Or perhaps it just means that have rejected most of what you see as wrong in Christianity.
There is no doubt that the Christianitypromoted by most “Christians” on this forum is of a single type and I am seen as a rebel at best or a heretic at worse. but…
Faith is personal. And I, for one, do not think that God is as dictatorial, or inflexible as the traditional Christian Doctrine makes Him. Perhaos this will give my eternity a bit too much warmth, but I cannot change who I am in this respect.
I see no reason to fear nothingness. That looks and feels very irrational to me. But yes many people do fear it – and I think it is a product of ego (unable to imagine or value a world where you are not a part of it). Once you let go of that, and nothingness holds no more fear for you, then it becomes rather appealing. But for all your problems and mistakes to disappear with no worries or consequences from anything you have done wrong – that begins to look too easy. Furthermore there is a basic conflict with the faith that life is worth living. Why endure the difficulties when you have such an easy escape?
Therefore… I do not believe it. I think there are consequences and we cannot escape from ourselves and the choices we have made. If I am wrong and death is the end, well that is all good and I have no problem with that. But I don’t think so.
That is Ecclesiastes 9:5, not Jesus. And I don’t think many parts of Ecclesiastes taken out of context is a good source for theology. It is poetry and I don’t think we are meant to take the extreme pessimism of parts of it so seriously.
I certainly do not believe this. I don’t believe death gives us any knowledge at all – not even the knowledge that we are dead or what it is like after death. Instead I think the source of knowledge from things outside ourselves that we have in life just disappears, and all we have is the knowledge we died with. …unless we have made relationships with others a part of ourselves, and then those relationship become a source of new knowledge. The relationship with God being the best of all.
yes and no…
I certainly agree that eternity would have to be something other than what we have now in order to be worthwhile. But no I don’t think this is guaranteed. It is what we can hope for in a relationship with God. God can give us more, but no we don’t get this by ourselves.
My vision of heaven and hell are as follows: Hell is our hearts desire and heaven is God’s desire for us. Hell is eternal existence without that which makes it worthwhile, and it is being consumed by our sins (where our sins grow and multiplying in us until all goodness in us is destroyed). Heaven is eternal life (existence AND that which makes such an existence worthwhile), where there is no end to what God has to give and no end to what we can receive from Him. The implication of this is no limitations. It is like being born from a womb of limitations which exist for our protection, so we can grow enough to do well in a much bigger world with so many more possibilities.
Of course. Most atheists have the same motivation.
What absolute nonsense! The Christianity promoted here and everywhere is not of a single type but as many as there are Christians. But this is not a bad thing. Diversity is a principle characteristic of life. A Christianity without diversity is a dead Christianity. But I think you would be correct to conclude the majority believes in life after death as taught by Jesus.
Faith and belief in religion is a collection of highly subjective choices. I do not think God is self absorbed (preoccupied with His own rights and glory), purist (unable to relate to anyone with sin), hard hearted (finding it difficult to forgive or needing some kind of special magic to do so), controlling (rather His creation of the universe was a choice for love and freedom over power and control), manipulative (giving us an offer we cannot refuse like a racketeering scheme), or sadistic (resurrecting suicides in order to punish them). I believe in a God who embodies what Jesus taught was great – to be a servant of servants, as demonstrated by submitting to nature as an infant to learn and grow as one of us before being mocked, tortured, and executed in order to get past all the lies and misunderstandings and show us how much He loves us.
I’ve been “internet friends” with the philosopher Helen De Cruz (author of Wonderstruck: How Wonder and Awe Shape the Way We Think) since 2020, first on Twitter and now on Bluesky. She was a Catholic Christian until about 2022, when she publicly shared that she was a theist, but no longer a Christian.
Her reason for leaving Christianity was that she could not philosophically justify the Trinity. Her reason for remaining a theist was simply hopeful optimism and an intuition of “something beyond” the universe. I still call myself a Christian, but I totally understand her position and agree with it most days. Theism is no more likely than atheism, regardless of anecdotal evidence and personal experience of signs and wonders.
Not only don’t I believe in battle theology putting Satan in opposition to God (God put Lucifer/snake in opposition to mankind not in opposition to Himself) – considering the book of Enoch to be a work of pure fiction. But it was particularly adamjedgar’s talk of human beings as pawns in the battle which I objected to. This is a typical way in which cults abuse people by telling them the victory of God in this battle depends on them doing what they are told by the leaders of their cult and justification for doing whatever it takes (lying for Jesus).
Unitarians call themselves Christians. I guess Mormons also do even if that claim is denied by hard lined Christians. I would find it a shame if the Trinity Doctrine or philosophy was the cause of loss of faith or, as in this case, dismissal of Christianity.
The trinity was concieved to account for logical anomolies in Crist being in one place and talking with “the Father”. As such it is a human understanding and description of something we cannot see or confirm. If it doesn’t work for you?
I do not think that the Trinty should define Christianity or what it is meant for.
I think hat the Trinity model was the best that could be undderstood at the time it was conceived. I might even suggest that there are better modern analogies but, it would seem that,.like with Scripture, modern thoughts are not valid.
My conversation to Christianity was based on experience, particularly the conviction that there must be a moral structure of some kind, otherwise, you could justify doing anything. However, since my conversion I’ve sought more objective grounds. I think Romans 1:20 suggests that you can look at the universe and God should be “clearly seen” from the creation itself. The former atheist Anthony Flew found three pieces of science influential in his conversion. I’ve turned his idea as well as Einstien’s notion of a “superior spirit” into an argument for theism. This is the Abstract from a paper I hope to write. Any feedback is appreciated.
Seemingly intractable scientific problems such as the fine tuning of the cosmos, the origin of the DNA language, and the origin of consciousness seem seem to lack scientific evidence and defy “bottom up” explanations - hundreds of years of chemistry experiments haven’t demonstrated life arises from matter, and consciousnesses seems too have too profound consequences to solely explained solely by a need for survival. The laws of the universe are widely believed to be “finely tuned” within narrow bands. These Phenomena are dependent on each other, making the whole “stack” seem exceedingly improbable. Thus, our scientific understanding has made these phenomena appear “miraculous”, showing that what the universe displays exceeds the bounds of what science has been able to illuminate. For Einstein, his understanding of physics evoked an idea a “Superior Spirit”, a type of super-intelligence responsible for the construction and beauty of the physical laws. Since Einstein did not factor biology and consciousness into his thinking, an even greater religious idea than his “Superior spirit” is needed.
Sometimes we search for very special and scientifically impossible evidence while the basic evidence is right under our nose.
When I see a table made of wood, I see a wonder that is greater than most miracles that are told among Christians. It is a triple miracle:
it is made of matter that exists - the miracle of existence
it is made of wood coming from a living organism - the miracle of life
it has been designed and made by an intelligent agent - the miracle of intelligent life
The first in the list, the miracle of existence is the greatest. We can only wonder how everything started as we do not know. Some try to invent explanations like the multiverse hypothesis and just show they do not understand how great wonder existence really is. If you try to explain existence with something that exists - some sort of energy, something happening somewhere, some rules that direct what happens - you try to explain existence with existence.
The miracle of existence does not prove there is a Creator but it makes the option that there is a Creator at least as likely as the alternatives that something appeared from nothing or that energy(/matter) has no beginning, it just has always existed. God or energy has always existed, or something emerged from absolutely nothing. Nothing means there were not even ‘somewhere’ (place) or any rules.
I guess thinking of the wonder of existence can prepare our mind to think about the question of Creator or God in a more open and fruitful way - or it can blow our brains. Best to pray before continuing the thinking…
In the film War Games the conclusion about Global warfare was that the only way to win was not to play. I think there are some things in philosophy that have a similar restriction
Tryubg to assess infinity.
What is the smallest particle made of
What is outside of the Universe
God.
It would seem that religion often tries to do the last one, and fails every time.
The wonder of existence may well sit in that catagory also… Any notion of what existed before creation, or how so much mater came into existence would seem to be beyond our human conception. Trying to understand such things are almost certainly a fool’s errand but one that the vanity of man cannot resist.
It really does define Christianity. It is the essence of the agreement of the first ecumenical council. Otherwise what is the difference from Islam? Both claim to believe and follow Jesus. It is basic honesty. If you don’t agree with the defining beliefs of the religion then you should not claim the religion as being yours, otherwise you are just misleading people. But it is just the definition of the word, and no more than that. It is a much greater distortion to equate being Christian with being a good person or being saved.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not stated there precisely, so it is conceivable that one might agree with this but not the doctrine of the Trinity, but I have never seen it done, frankly. But if you don’t believe according to this very first agreement on what the people of this religion believe, then I really don’t see what the point is of calling yourself by this name. Just games and empty rhetoric – wolves in sheep clothing really.
The problem with ‘Trinity’ is the term itself, rather than the belief in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Trinity is theological jargon, a short abbreviation for a doctrine that would take some space and time to tell. For someone outside the theological circles, ‘Trinity’ is a confusing term that makes some assume that Christians have three gods, or some of the many heretical interpretations of the reality of God.
God is truly beyond the comprehension of humans. The problem with trying to understand and explain God is that we try to squeeze God to the limits of human understanding and material existence. I can understand the pessimistic attitude of @RichardG towards attempts to explain God with human understanding and terms.
The way to make God somehow understandable is to use expressions that are intuitively easy to comprehend, like Father or Son. I assume that the reality of God cannot be squeezed to these limiting words but the words help to understand something about the relationship and attitude of God towards humans. ‘Trinity’ is not helpful in this attempt.
However, as there ino longer an anathema attached to the Nicene creed I resrve the right to adjust my understanding withn the boundaries of modern understanding…
The underlying issue is not the precise form of God but the nature of Jesus as being God in human form. It is that “truth” that defines orthodoxy not the wording or analogy of the Trinity doctrine.
As I eluded to earlier. Christianity has one basic flaw inasmuch as it is based on historic texts and understanding. As I understand it Hinduism has the same problem.
If the bible is supposed to be the slow revelation of god and hmanitity’s understanding of it to assume that everythig stopped around 2000 years ago is to be cessationist. I am not cessationist. I know God speaks now. it is a shame that there is no way He can transmit those thoughts or understandings within the modern context. Chriistianity has limited God to the Bible with no chance for update or revision. Modern theology is limited to updating the timagery of the bible and culteure. It would appear that it is not allowed any new revelation. It is the equivellant of not allowing science to discover that the world is round…No wonder we have YECs.
I, for one, would love to see Genesis 1 to be revisited to allow for modern scientific discoveries and understanding. It would clarify God’s creative powers much quicker and easier than opening a thread on this forum, for instance.
(Unfortunately the Garden story would be more difficult to update.)
I agree that God speaks to humans even today. There is nothing to prevent that God speaks today using the worldview and understanding of the modern receivers. That kind of speak does not replace the biblical scriptures but may give added understanding to the receivers in the context and moment.
Everything that people claim are messages from God does not come from God. Instead, the brains of the human, or some other source, may generate ideas and thoughts that someone erroneusly assumes to come from God.
When there are conflicting or doubtful ‘messages from God’, how do we know which person gives a sound message? Biblical scriptures are a standard that can be used to judge the messages, as the vast majority of churches accept the biblical scriptures as an authoritative source. That gives the biblical scriptures a special role that cannot be replaced by modern messages from God.
Having the same biblical scriptures as the early believers is a safeguard against slipping to wrong tracks. Interpretations of the scriptures may change but there is always a possibility to return to the scriptures and reinterpret them utilising the best available information about the world of the original receivers. If we try to ‘update’ the scriptures to fit better to the current worldview and scientific understanding we get a text that does not have a lasting value - the ‘update’ may include wrong interpretations and an inadequate scientific understanding that will be replaced with better knowledge after some time.
Without being too cynical. Do you think that our understanding of God evolves? Or is it static.
The problem I see in many views of the bible is that they assume the understanding is correct from the word go. Looking at the bible from a wider perspective the understanding of God changes. God starts as a family god, throguh a tribal god tot he only God. Is it that God started that way, or that was how He revealed Himself to a specific group of people? The human element of understanding is lost as soon as the Holy Spirit is imposed onto Scripture. Attributing it to The Holy Spirit gives an unchallengable authority when, in fact, it is only attributed by humans it is not specified by God.
Interestingly when I was a university student far fewer people in math-heavy sciences had trouble with the Trinity. It boiled down to recognizing that different mathematical operations are appropriate for different situations, so three Persons yet one God wasn’t a big deal: for Persons, addition was appropriate while for God multiplication was proper.
Maybe that should be integrated into a commonly-used diagram:
