what does agnostic mean to you?

[flash2015]

Fair enough.

I remain unable to conceive of God.

I should think it would be hard for you to conceive God. Also I assume you aren't a virgin so that makes it even harder. But who knows? As they say God works in mysterious ways...

It's not entirely impossible. Happened once before, why shouldn't it happen again?

Though last time it wasn't Joseph that became pregnant...

[flash2015]

Fair enough.

I remain unable to conceive of God.

I should think it would be hard for you to conceive God. Also I assume you aren't a virgin so that makes it even harder. But who knows? As they say God works in mysterious ways...

It's not entirely impossible. Happened once before, why shouldn't it happen again?

On a more serious note, did it?

We already know that a lot of the stories are not true. The world was not created in six days. There was no great flood the way it is described in the Bible. God probably did not part the Red Sea to get the Israelites out of Egypt. Joshua probably didn't bring down the walls of Jericho with trumpets etc. etc.

The New Testament was written well after the fact, the later the Gospel the more embellished the story of Jesus became (e.g. John which was written much later embellishes Jesus story far more than Mark. And these Gospels were specifically chosen to present a specific orthodoxy - there were many, many others that painted Jesus in a different light. Perhaps the virgin birth story was made up to cover that Mary was not married at the time? Or it was just another embellishment added later to show how special Jesus was? The story of the loaves and fishes could be interpreted as a parable about sharing rather than a miracle. Perhaps the apostles went and hid Jesus body to make people believe that he rose from the dead? If all this were true would this shake your faith? If Jesus body was conclusively found tomorrow would you be OK with it? If not, why do we "ring fence" the New Testament stories as true when we know that most likely none of the miracles in the Old Testament happened?

[bo_sox48]

The second part is much more true. Many Christians rely on a doctrine that believes that Jesus will come back any day now riding on a celestial donkey and wielding a flaming sword of vengeance striking down our enemies. This, oddly enough, is exactly what the Jews were(and are still) waiting for. A warlike messiah, instead the got a peaceful preacher.

What Jews are waiting for Jesus riding a donkey smiting the enemies of his faith? I'd love to meet them, they sound interesting.

I was raised Jewish and as a result know a lot of Jews, and I've never met one who thinks this way. Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism reject the idea of a messiah altogether, and those two sects make up the majority of Jews in the United States. It's got me wondering - do you just badly misunderstand the teachings of the Jewish faith or are you simply swinging (and missing) for some sly attempt at humor? A literal interpretation of the words of Torah or Tanakh is a fairly rare occurrence nowadays, which is why, for example, most Jewish sects reject the idea that people with disabilities are unfit to participate in worship. The Tanakh said that too, but here we are thinking for ourselves instead of being blinded by calligraphy on parchment.

This doctrine is not fully formed yet, so don't yell heretic quite yet. But I just want you to know that there are some Christians much more focused on
"fixing" the world than leaving it.

No question. Christians aren't bad people, and while some may not like me saying so, there are thousands of sects of Christianity out there with wildly varying beliefs. You may consider many of these sects to be totally non-Christian, but they say they are Christian. Like you, they assume their own beliefs and practices to be the most valid. Who are we to say otherwise? There's a lot of people out there that think a lot of things. Do objectively good things and live an objectively good life while you exist on this Earth and believe whatever you want.

[ubercacher16]

I should think it would be hard for you to conceive God. Also I assume you aren't a virgin so that makes it even harder. But who knows? As they say God works in mysterious ways...

It's not entirely impossible. Happened once before, why shouldn't it happen again?

On a more serious note, did it?

We already know that a lot of the stories are not true. The world was not created in six days. There was no great flood the way it is described in the Bible. God probably did not part the Red Sea to get the Israelites out of Egypt. Joshua probably didn't bring down the walls of Jericho with trumpets etc. etc.

The New Testament was written well after the fact, the later the Gospel the more embellished the story of Jesus became (e.g. John which was written much later embellishes Jesus story far more than Mark. And these Gospels were specifically chosen to present a specific orthodoxy - there were many, many others that painted Jesus in a different light. Perhaps the virgin birth story was made up to cover that Mary was not married at the time? Or it was just another embellishment added later to show how special Jesus was? The story of the loaves and fishes could be interpreted as a parable about sharing rather than a miracle. Perhaps the apostles went and hid Jesus body to make people believe that he rose from the dead? If all this were true would this shake your faith? If Jesus body was conclusively found tomorrow would you be OK with it? If not, why do we "ring fence" the New Testament stories as true when we know that most likely none of the miracles in the Old Testament happened?

"Know" is a strong word. All we can really do is guess based on various methods that exist. I'm not saying that scientists are wrong when they say that the earth is millions of years old and that there was no flood, I'm just saying that they are just as arrogant to assume they are right as Christians are when we assume that the world was created in six days.

About the virgin birth. The distinction between it and the miracles of the Old Testament is an important one. It is very important to Christian doctrine that Christ was born of a virgin. This is a sign of his purity. I am willing to concede that we can't prove this, but I'm not willing to concede that it didn't happen. The miracles of the Old Testament and the creation story(myth if you prefer) are simply symbols of God's power, wrath, grace, and so on. To me at least, it doesn't matter if God actually created the world in six literal days, if that is a barrier to belief for someone I am willing to tare it down.

[ubercacher16]

The second part is much more true. Many Christians rely on a doctrine that believes that Jesus will come back any day now riding on a celestial donkey and wielding a flaming sword of vengeance striking down our enemies. This, oddly enough, is exactly what the Jews were(and are still) waiting for. A warlike messiah, instead the got a peaceful preacher.

What Jews are waiting for Jesus riding a donkey smiting the enemies of his faith? I'd love to meet them, they sound interesting.

I was raised Jewish and as a result know a lot of Jews, and I've never met one who thinks this way. Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism reject the idea of a messiah altogether, and those two sects make up the majority of Jews in the United States. It's got me wondering - do you just badly misunderstand the teachings of the Jewish faith or are you simply swinging (and missing) for some sly attempt at humor? A literal interpretation of the words of Torah or Tanakh is a fairly rare occurrence nowadays, which is why, for example, most Jewish sects reject the idea that people with disabilities are unfit to participate in worship. The Tanakh said that too, but here we are thinking for ourselves instead of being blinded by calligraphy on parchment.

That was a bit of an attempt at humor. I have been taught(by Christian teachers in Christian schools) that the Jews of the first century AD were waiting for a kind of military messiah to free them from Roman oppression. This is evidenced in the many rebellions and uprisings and by the way people reacted to Jesus at the time.

I'm apologize for misrepresenting Jewish beliefs, that was not my intention. I obviously should do more research about what modern Jews actually believe. Also, please correct me if I am wrong about first century Jews as well.

This doctrine is not fully formed yet, so don't yell heretic quite yet. But I just want you to know that there are some Christians much more focused on
"fixing" the world than leaving it.

No question. Christians aren't bad people, and while some may not like me saying so, there are thousands of sects of Christianity out there with wildly varying beliefs. You may consider many of these sects to be totally non-Christian, but they say they are Christian. Like you, they assume their own beliefs and practices to be the most valid. Who are we to say otherwise? There's a lot of people out there that think a lot of things. Do objectively good things and live an objectively good life while you exist on this Earth and believe whatever you want.

We tend to avoid that point, yes. But I would say that the most "Christian" groups are the ones that focus the most on the Bible and actual Biblical teaching, it's ok if they interpret it slightly differently, the problems start to come in when something is taken out of context(textual and historical) or when something is made up entirely.

There is also a subset of beliefs which fall into a category outside of the Bible itself. These include liturgical practices and other traditions that are not mentioned by the Bible. This is also a place where I (at least) consider it ok to have some breathing room.

[bo_sox48]

You might be right about first century Judaism. I don’t know myself, but if I were under Roman rule and being oppressed, I would have prayed for Genghis Khan over Gandhi.

[ubercacher16]

It follows then, that modern Jews in America aren't looking for that kind of messiah(or any messiah) anymore.

[Jamiet99uk]

Secondly, I would like to sincerely thank Uber for his genuine and diligent attempt to explain God, in response to my question. Unfortunately, you fail to get to the root of my problem. Let me try to explain it more clearly:

- I struggle to understand what God is.
- Christians tell me, "God is incomprehensible, but you must have faith".

- HOW can I have faith in the existence of something I cannot mentally conceive of? I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. I CAN'T IMAGINE IT. HOW CAN I HAVE FAITH IN ""IT"" WHEN I LITERALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT "IT" IS?

A Christian asking me if I believe in God is like me asking a Christian to believe in vrhgchegg, the jrifkeikfir who created the world and demanded that all men rkffikrri3krifr to his rhrjrirjrjjr.

I am sorry that I couldn't get there. I'm not even sure how answer that. I have always had a concept of God, and never really questioned that basic concept(I have questioned my belief in it).

May I assume your lack of knowledge is complete? You have absolutely zero idea who God is?

That's a start by the way, God is a who not an it.

It seems I have zero idea, yes. I once had the impression that God was meant to be some kind of wizard who lives in the sky. However, Christians tell me this is wrong. I have no better concept to replace this with. So I have no idea.

[flash2015]

It's not entirely impossible. Happened once before, why shouldn't it happen again?

On a more serious note, did it?

We already know that a lot of the stories are not true. The world was not created in six days. There was no great flood the way it is described in the Bible. God probably did not part the Red Sea to get the Israelites out of Egypt. Joshua probably didn't bring down the walls of Jericho with trumpets etc. etc.

The New Testament was written well after the fact, the later the Gospel the more embellished the story of Jesus became (e.g. John which was written much later embellishes Jesus story far more than Mark. And these Gospels were specifically chosen to present a specific orthodoxy - there were many, many others that painted Jesus in a different light. Perhaps the virgin birth story was made up to cover that Mary was not married at the time? Or it was just another embellishment added later to show how special Jesus was? The story of the loaves and fishes could be interpreted as a parable about sharing rather than a miracle. Perhaps the apostles went and hid Jesus body to make people believe that he rose from the dead? If all this were true would this shake your faith? If Jesus body was conclusively found tomorrow would you be OK with it? If not, why do we "ring fence" the New Testament stories as true when we know that most likely none of the miracles in the Old Testament happened?

"Know" is a strong word. All we can really do is guess based on various methods that exist. I'm not saying that scientists are wrong when they say that the earth is millions of years old and that there was no flood, I'm just saying that they are just as arrogant to assume they are right as Christians are when we assume that the world was created in six days.

About the virgin birth. The distinction between it and the miracles of the Old Testament is an important one. It is very important to Christian doctrine that Christ was born of a virgin. This is a sign of his purity. I am willing to concede that we can't prove this, but I'm not willing to concede that it didn't happen. The miracles of the Old Testament and the creation story(myth if you prefer) are simply symbols of God's power, wrath, grace, and so on. To me at least, it doesn't matter if God actually created the world in six literal days, if that is a barrier to belief for someone I am willing to tare it down.

Really?? The Jewish/Christian creation myth (which is one of many, many creation myths human civilizations made up) is equivalent to real science based on evidence? Why is making theories based on evidence "arrogance"? So I assume you would be one who believes we should "teach the controversy" in schools?

[ubercacher16]

Really?? The Jewish/Christian creation myth (which is one of many, many creation myths human civilizations made up) is equivalent to real science based on evidence? Why is making theories based on evidence "arrogance"? So I assume you would be one who believes we should "teach the controversy" in schools?

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to get into this discussion, but I guess now I have to defend myself.

It's not equivalent, obviously. They are totally different things. "Real science based on evidence" and a story passed down through generations of people are totally different things. The idea I'm trying to get across is that even "theories based on evidence" are subject to change and adaptation. Isn't that the point of the scientific method? That you can adapt to new information?

And about education, I think that everything should be given its proper place. Science(to use the colloquial definition) should be taught as fact when it is, and as theory when it is. Religion should at least be given more than a cursory glance and the occasional scathing remark.

But this point is moot considering what I was trying to say is that we are all in the same boat of understanding, we have what we can see and what thousands of years of recorded history have told us. We just use (very)different methods to come to our conclusions. You might think that my methods are wrong, and I might think that your methods are faulty. But at the end of the day, we all know very little.

[ziran]

uber, do you think scientology should be taught in schools? there are a lot of competing theories out there. i think teachers have a duty to exclude those theories with untenable evidence.

[ubercacher16]

uber, do you think scientology should be taught in schools? there are a lot of competing theories out there. i think teachers have a duty to exclude those theories with untenable evidence.

Like I said, everything in it's place. Scientology shouldn't be entirely ignored, teachers have a right to tell their students about everything out there. Of course teachers should only teach things they think have some grounding in fact, but that doesn't mean they should leave those things aside entirely. At least a simple understanding of what other people believe should be required. Not that "Christian" schools are free from blame, they often misrepresent those of other viewpoints.

But that is more from a historical perspective. This discussion is more focused on science.

Teachers have a duty to properly inform and instruct their students in the subject of the class. If they want to do that by teaching only one philosophy or theory, that is their way, I wouldn't do it, but I'm not going to try to force them to do otherwise. I just think that we should all give other perspectives a chance, this is an unpopular opinion in my own community as well as yours. I don't think a student is properly informed if they only know one side of an issue that has many dimensions.

[Fluminator]

Young earth creationism is an unfortunate side effect of the scientific revolution.
A lot of the old testament religious stories aren't meant to be a literal fact, and their purpose (like most ancient myths) was to create an identity and get points across, not to be a scientific history lesson.
After the scientific revolution, people in the west began viewing the world as "Is it factual? If not, it's wrong or a lie". A lot of Christians fell under this and believed they had to view everything in the Bible as such and created the silly fundamentalism and almost pharisaical view of religion you see common today.

[Fluminator]

Secondly, I would like to sincerely thank Uber for his genuine and diligent attempt to explain God, in response to my question. Unfortunately, you fail to get to the root of my problem. Let me try to explain it more clearly:

- I struggle to understand what God is.
- Christians tell me, "God is incomprehensible, but you must have faith".

- HOW can I have faith in the existence of something I cannot mentally conceive of? I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. I CAN'T IMAGINE IT. HOW CAN I HAVE FAITH IN ""IT"" WHEN I LITERALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT "IT" IS?

A Christian asking me if I believe in God is like me asking a Christian to believe in vrhgchegg, the jrifkeikfir who created the world and demanded that all men rkffikrri3krifr to his rhrjrirjrjjr.

I am sorry that I couldn't get there. I'm not even sure how answer that. I have always had a concept of God, and never really questioned that basic concept(I have questioned my belief in it).

May I assume your lack of knowledge is complete? You have absolutely zero idea who God is?

That's a start by the way, God is a who not an it.

It seems I have zero idea, yes. I once had the impression that God was meant to be some kind of wizard who lives in the sky. However, Christians tell me this is wrong. I have no better concept to replace this with. So I have no idea.

God is thought to be a force outside of time that has consciousness and interacts with our world.

[ziran]

i guess, for the record, i should state that i believe that it should be taught in schools. but only to older children after they have established that they can differentiate claims with substantial evidence from those with flimsy evidence. and it should be made clear what evidence (or lack thereof) exists. people do need to know what other points of view are out there.

[Fluminator]

I think the different religions should be taught in school, but the key thing is it's not a scientific theory so why teach it in science class? I'm not just slamming it, it's literally not a scientific theory by definition.

[flash2015]

Young earth creationism is an unfortunate side effect of the scientific revolution.
A lot of the old testament religious stories aren't meant to be a literal fact, and their purpose (like most ancient myths) was to create an identity and get points across, not to be a scientific history lesson.
After the scientific revolution, people in the west began viewing the world as "Is it factual? If not, it's wrong or a lie". A lot of Christians fell under this and believed they had to view everything in the Bible as such and created the silly fundamentalism and almost pharisaical view of religion you see common today.

Accepting part of the Bible as the literal truth whilst accepting other parts of only metaphor/allegory causes cognitive dissonance i.e. if this part of the Bible is not literally true...what stops people from thinking this other parts of the Bible are not literally true (I can't remember the documentary name, but I remember someone being interviewed at the Creationist museum explaining this)? Given this, whilst it is most likely is factually wrong, the Fundamentalist view makes a certain type of logical sense.

So where do you lie on the spectrum between seeing the Bible as literal truth and metaphor/allegory (a religious teacher at high school first presented to me the idea that the whole Bible should be seen as only allegory - i.e. it shouldn't matter whether Jesus rose from the dead or whether he even was the Son Of God)? I know a lot of Christians lie in the middle...the sort of "God of the Gaps" conundrum...i.e. what can't be explained **right now** by science can be assumed to be magical but this catches you in the cognitive dissonance trap. Of course you can assume that it is all metaphor/allegory to...though the next logical progression from that is the faith part isn't that important. And you start questioning how your faith can have a monopoly on truth etc.

[Jamiet99uk]

It seems I have zero idea, yes. I once had the impression that God was meant to be some kind of wizard who lives in the sky. However, Christians tell me this is wrong. I have no better concept to replace this with. So I have no idea.

God is thought to be a force outside of time that has consciousness and interacts with our world.

What does that mean? What kind of force? A gust of wind? An electromagnetic field?

I literally have no understanding at all of what this might mean.

[Jamiet99uk]

Like I said, everything in it's place. Scientology shouldn't be entirely ignored, teachers have a right to tell their students about everything out there. Of course teachers should only teach things they think have some grounding in fact, but that doesn't mean they should leave those things aside entirely. At least a simple understanding of what other people believe should be required. Not that "Christian" schools are free from blame, they often misrepresent those of other viewpoints.

Scientology was invented by L. Ron Hubbard as a money making scheme. HE SAID SO IN INTERVIEWS BEFORE HIS DEATH. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD.

Scientology should absolutely and entirely be ignored, unless the school happens to want to teach a class on the subject of "Sophisticated but obvious scams which incredulous people fall for".

[Fluminator]

Young earth creationism is an unfortunate side effect of the scientific revolution.
A lot of the old testament religious stories aren't meant to be a literal fact, and their purpose (like most ancient myths) was to create an identity and get points across, not to be a scientific history lesson.
After the scientific revolution, people in the west began viewing the world as "Is it factual? If not, it's wrong or a lie". A lot of Christians fell under this and believed they had to view everything in the Bible as such and created the silly fundamentalism and almost pharisaical view of religion you see common today.

Accepting part of the Bible as the literal truth whilst accepting other parts of only metaphor/allegory causes cognitive dissonance i.e. if this part of the Bible is not literally true...what stops people from thinking this other parts of the Bible are not literally true (I can't remember the documentary name, but I remember someone being interviewed at the Creationist museum explaining this)? Given this, whilst it is most likely is factually wrong, the Fundamentalist view makes a certain type of logical sense.

So where do you lie on the spectrum between seeing the Bible as literal truth and metaphor/allegory (a religious teacher at high school first presented to me the idea that the whole Bible should be seen as only allegory - i.e. it shouldn't matter whether Jesus rose from the dead or whether he even was the Son Of God)? I know a lot of Christians lie in the middle...the sort of "God of the Gaps" conundrum...i.e. what can't be explained **right now** by science can be assumed to be magical but this catches you in the cognitive dissonance trap. Of course you can assume that it is all metaphor/allegory to...though the next logical progression from that is the faith part isn't that important. And you start questioning how your faith can have a monopoly on truth etc.

Context is the key thing. I'm sure you already know this since you were raised Christian, but the Bible is a collection of books, and you have to look at each one by itself to figure out where it fits and what its message is. The Bible is not an all-or-nothing thing.
I read the story of the garden of Eden, the tree of knowledge, the deceiving serpent, getting kicked out of paradise, etc. and it seems so clear to me those are all representations of something much deeper. And the context of creation myths in early Palestine seem to support this.

The stories of Jesus are pretty clearly a different genre, where you have them start off with the writer basically saying "I'm talking to as many eyewitnesses as possible, lets record this."
The creationist museum and rich creationists like Ken Ham can claim "if you don't believe Genesis is literal you'll question everything" but it's insanely naive to assume it's all one continuous book. (And you really should question if all parts of the Bible were meant to be literally fact)