Why Hate Religious People?
April 16, 2008
Sometimes, as someone who is an “unbeliever,” I am asked why I hate believers; why am I so against their beliefs?
It’s a funny question. Maybe I come off arrogant and intolerant. That’s entirely possible (I’ve been known to be so), and if that is the case I must apologize both to people of faith, and atheists. I apologize to the people of faith because I really don’t mean to project hate. I apologize to the atheists because I don’t want to contribute to the stereotype “angry atheist” that is often portrayed.
Let me be perfectly clear: I don’t hate “believers.” I hate their beliefs.
What people of faith are probably picking up from me is impatience and my discomfort with an absolute certainty on their part, and a double standard.
Somehow, it is okay to question and debate someone’s beliefs about physics, astrology, medicine, politics, psychology, parapsychology and astrophysics. Yet it is (as far as I can tell) not acceptable to debate someone’s religious beliefs.
Here I am simply re-phrasing Sam Harris. None of this is new to atheists, though I am sure it is new to some people of faith. For them, I would suggest reading Mr. Harris, or at least spending twenty minutes watching him here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM
He’s not perfect, and I don’t agree with everything he says.
But I do think he makes quite a few good points.
Let me be clear: I don’t hate religious people. I just hate their religion. I’m not entirely sure how different this is from “love the sinner, hate the sin.”
I hate what religion does to people. I hate the evil that has been committed in this world in the name of God/Allah/Jehovah — whatever.
To be honest, that’s kind of a funny thing because I don’t believe in evil. Let me quote Robert Jay Lifton of Harvard (visiting professor of psychiatry):
“…one has to be aware of any claim to absolute virtue, because it’s absolute virtue that you call forth to kill large numbers of people. It may be impossible to do that without that claim.”
I’m hard-pressed to come up with a more apt description of the horrors of history.
Most of the evils of the world can probably be traced back to such sentiments. It is the adherence to absolute virtue, the belief one is serving God, that provides us with the means to commit unspeakable horrors. Some evils can be traced to selfishness, competition for resources, exploitation, racism, untreated mental illness and just plain stupidity. But I still believe the majority of the atrocities that have taken place on our planet were done in the name of “absolute virtue.”
I’m posting this on an atheist site, obviously. I suppose I am posting this to ask all of you atheists to recognize that we don’t hate people, we just hate what their beliefs have contributed to.
In a future post, I’ll address the popular belief that atheism has given us the dictators of the world. What makes that ludicrous is the belief that atheism is a philosophy that has adherents.
But for now, let’s agree that people of faith are not people to be hated, and we (atheists) don’t hate them. We just don’t like the bi-product.
I’m new here. But ….. Is that a fair start?
Comments
12 Responses to “Why Hate Religious People?”
Got something to say?
-
Atheist Blogroll
What you write is important, and a sentiment I’ve expressed for some time with a rather important adjustment.
See, I’ve always clarified that I have respect for my fellow human beings (BECAUSE they’re my fellow human beings and deserve some level of respect before they prove otherwise), and I respect that they HAVE beliefs, but it’s the beliefs, themselves, hat I don’t respect.
It’s that one word you used, that I traded in for respect, that is an important difference, I believe. Hate, to me, is very similar to evil. Evil is a concept that in an Atheist mindset, when taken purely literally and not symbolically, does not exist. It’s part of a very black-and-white belief set that only works from a religious perspective where everything is either good or evil, the work of God or the work of the Devil (even when their own holy book contradicts the source of evil constantly). Without the biblical interpretation, people and actions in this world are never truly evil, as far as I’m concerned. They’re merely symbolically evil as a matter of perspective, and usually as agreed-upon by a majority. But those actions from the perspective of the perpetrator are never carried out in the name of committing evil, and certainly aren’t the result of some outside demonic force.
Hate to me seems similarly extreme and too black-and-white to be useful, and it seems to fit too well into religious viewpoints and less so into ours. It’s a powerful and dangerous emotion, and one that can easily overtake people and drive them to extreme actions. Hate has driven a great deal of stupidity throughout history, even from otherwise intelligent people. It’s a toxic and contagious emotion, and when a group of people start to express it together it can drive them to do terrible things. Kind of like religion. And I think more often than not, hate is fueled by religion, itself. Very little else seems to drive people to it than someone doing something that their ancient book told them is bad.
My point is merely that I think expressing any sort of hate doesn’t do much good for our side. It’s a concept that seems too far rooted in the people we oppose, and is more useful to them than to us. Hate doesn’t belong in the so-called “moral high-ground,” and I’m not sure it belongs in our lexicon. We need to rise above that and be exactly who we are, which is, deep down, more like what the religious people claim to be than they could ever imagine. I have extremely negative feelings about the role religion plays in our society, and I will not stand one bit for its intrusion on my rights and way of life, and I’m damn angry about it. And I’m okay with that. Anger is strong, powerful, and can lead to positive change. Hate always seems rooted in blind, irrational, and unyielding beliefs, and none of that seems to fit what we’re about. Religion leads to hate, not open-minded rationality.
I want to make sure you realize I state this not as any way of putting down what you wrote. What you wrote is something I deeply believe, and I’m so happy to see someone else putting it out there. I only wanted to express my support and feelings on the Pandora’s Box that word creates. I suspect I may not be the only person to have concerns about it. And I also suspect there may be some downright intelligent rebukes of my angle that could make me think differently about why that word may be more acceptable than I thought.
And welcome, btw. I rarely comment here, but I frequently Stumble here and enjoy good, strong, intelligent posts like yours. Keep it up.
@TurboFool:
Not in the least.
Thank you for your eloquent comments.
You wrote, “Most of the evils of the world can probably be traced back to…. the adherence to absolute virtue, the belief one is serving God .. provides us with the means to commit unspeakable horrors. I still believe the majority of the atrocities that have taken place on our planet were done in the name of “absolute virtue.”
I can only assume you are unfamiliar with the history of the Soviet Union, the anti-clerical movement in the 19th and 20th centuries not to mention China’s treatment of Tibet, all of which saw atrocities against people with religious opinions.
I would suggest that it is human beings who perpetrate atrocities using as “reason” that which excuses their behaviour, excuses which, in the majority of cases, are not religious but political - even if the language is couched in religious terms.
This was expressed in Nazism which identified Jews and Eastern European peoples as lesser beings to an extent that when the SS killed they did not see themselves killing human beings but killing animals, a philosophy based on Darwinism, though not necessarily what Darwin intended. At various times Nazi leaders expressed themselves in pseudo-religious and even mythical terms but in reality they denied their own humanity by hating other human beings.
As a Christian I am surprised that my beliefs should cause you so much trouble and distress. From my perspective I see you as somewhat opinionated, inflexible, dogmatic, almost evangelical, in your propagation of an atheistic message. In fairness I often view people who claim to be Christians in a similar light.
The philosopher Bryan Magee pointed out that after 40 years of trying to answer the “Big” Questions he was no nearer to a solution than he had been at the outset. He drew the conclusion (which is not too far from the truth) that people believe what they want to believe.
Taking that as more or less true (my argument is that people believe what they choose to believe, which is slightly different) then websites such as your own seeking to denigrate those with whom you disagree and promoting your own opinions as fact are unlikely to move humankind any closer to discovering true reality.
Labelling people is not the best way to understand them, not least because labels usually fail to provide an exact fit. In some circles I would be regarded as a fundamentalist, in others a conservative Christian. Neither position leads me to believe the war in Iraq is justified, abortion clinics should be bombed or that people should be discriminated against on grounds of race, colour, creed or sexuality. That doesn’t mean I am in favour of abortion on demand or civil partnerships. What it does mean is that listening remains the first rule of communication and that there will always be areas of disagreement between people of good faith (if you’ll pardon the expression).
Personally, I find atheism an unsupportable doctrine and those who advocate it often seem incapable of the rational argument they claim is an integral part of their analysis, preferring polemics and propaganda to scientific method. Perhaps its worse feature is the arrogance which appears to prevent atheists from admitting that they cannot actually prove that God does not exist but have chosen to believe that God could not exit. There is a substantial difference and I do find it disappointing that people who claim to be rational often act in an irrational manner.
Wasn’t it Robbie Burns who said we should try to see ourselves as others see us? That seems to me to be a valuable lesson from which we can all learn before engaging in pointless debates about the existence of a God in whom I believe and you do not.
Wow. I am really impressed at how far off your interpretation of my post is, but let me please address some of the more important issues.
> I can only assume you are unfamiliar with the history of the Soviet
> Union, the anti-clerical movement in the 19th and 20th centuries not
> to mention China’s treatment of Tibet, all of which saw atrocities
> against people with religious opinions.
Absolutely. It is not *just* the case that atrocities are committed by people of zealous faith. It is the case, for the most part, that any group that has a certainty about the virtue of what they believe can do horrible things, as per my quote from Robert Jay Lifton. It doesn’t matter what the belief is: Islam, Christianity, Communism, Socialism. In all cases, we’re talking about TOTALITARIANISM.
Thus, I don’t actually belive in “evil.” Evil is the result of people believing in absolute virtue and using that to justify *anything*.
If I believe God cries in the face of abortion, and I must prevent abortions from taking place, then murdering an abortion doctor is justified for I am virtuous in the sight of God. If I believe polytheists are the enemies of Allah, and Islam is the One True Religion and that Allah commands me to kill nonbelievers, then I am virtuous in killing polytheists even if they have never done the slightest harm to me.
According to the Bible, God literally does hate homosexuals. I would be acting from a place of virtue and would be doing God a favor by killing them.
> I would suggest that it is human beings who perpetrate atrocities
> using as “reason” that which excuses their behaviour, excuses which,
> in the majority of cases, are not religious but political - even if
> the language is couched in religious terms.
It probably doesn’t matter whether we’re talking “political” or “religious.” In either case, what you call “reason” is simply conclusions based on absolutes. They may even be filled with massive amounts of logic, but since they are based on initial beliefs (Islam is the one, true religion; Capitalism is evil; The Jews are the ‘chosen people’), they are what I might call “unreasonable reason.” Or, more precisely, reason based on unreasonable assumptions.
> This was expressed in Nazism which identified Jews and Eastern
> European peoples as lesser beings to an extent that when the SS killed
> they did not see themselves killing human beings but killing animals,
> a philosophy based on Darwinism,
I think you are forgetting Martin Luther. Darwinism has diddly-squat to do with Nazism. Treating someone like an animal, or as a non-human, is not the result of a theory. It is the result of a belief. Theories are not beliefs. Theories are explanations for observations in the world. Beliefs are simply beliefs. They do not attempt to explain anything.
As a side note, can you please explain to me why Hitler, nor any of the leaders of Nazism, were never excommunicated?
And the Nazis didn’t just murder Jews. Jews accounted for about half the people they murdered.
> At various times Nazi leaders expressed themselves in
> pseudo-religious and even mythical terms but in reality they denied
> their own humanity by hating other human beings.
At various times, fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist (fill in the blank) leaders have expressed themselves in not pseudo-religious terms, but in very religious terms but in reality they denied their own humanity by hating people.
My point is the fact that they were Nazis is irrelevant.
> As a Christian I am surprised that my beliefs should cause you so much
> trouble and distress.
They don’t. It is the actions that are justified in the name of those beliefs that are of grave concern to me.
> Taking that as more or less true (my argument is that people believe
> what they choose to believe, which is slightly different) then
> websites such as your own seeking to denigrate those with whom you
> disagree and promoting your own opinions as fact are unlikely to move
> humankind any closer to discovering true reality.
Here’s where you completely missed my entire post. Did you even notice the title?
I’m a doctor. You have skin cancer. I believe blood-letting is a good treatment for you. That’s my belief.
Wouldn’t you have a problem with that?
I’m a Muslim. I believe Christians are unbelievers, and unbelievers should be killed. You’re a Christian. I will kill you.
Don’t you have a problem with that?
Just like Jesus, I believe slavery is justified.
Don’t you have a problem with that?
I am a Catholic. I believe condom use is immoral and must be stopped. However, millions of people die of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Thus, even though condoms don’t cause anyone any suffering, and condom use can reduce the incidence of AIDS which does cause suffering (and death), my belief will cause more people to suffer and die.
I’m hoping you have a problem with that.
In these cases, I simply have a belief which has NO basis in evidence. These beliefs allow me to commit ludicrous actions that cause great harm.
> Labelling people is not the best way to understand them,
I’m not labeling people. It wasn’t me using your terms: “dogmatic” and “arrogant.” And I’m not trying to understand religious people. I already understand them pretty well. These are people who believe things in spite of evidence to the contrary, or in spite of there being no evidence.
> What it does mean is that listening remains the first
> rule of communication and that there will always be areas of
> disagreement between people of good faith (if you’ll pardon the
> expression).
And I maintain that those disagreements, particularly among people who literally are of ‘faith,’ is the foundation of the vast enterprise of death in human history.
> Personally, I find atheism an unsupportable doctrine
Atheism is not a doctrine. Atheism is not a philosophy.
> and those who advocate it often seem incapable of the rational
> argument they claim is an integral part of their analysis,
> preferring polemics and propaganda to scientific method.
I believe you are flat-out wrong.
I’m sure there are plenty of atheists who prefer propaganda to scientific method, but atheism itself is nothing more than the admission that we should approach questions about God the same way we approach any other question: with a persuit of evidence.
Let me put it another way.
At the end of the book “Contact,” by Carl Sagan, Eleanor Arroway leaves a computer calculating Pi to an absurd length, using some method of speeding up the process that I don’t quite recall. Pi, as you know, is a figure without end, and the digits past that decimal point are entirely random in sequence.
However, at one point, the series of numbers coming out of the computer cease to be random. They are a series of ones and zeroes. When mapped in two dimensions, the sequence describes a circle inside a square. Clearly, a sign of intelligence.
Imagine that: a mark of intelligence burried right there in the ratio of Pi.
I don’t think you’d find an atheist who would deny the evidence. SOME kind of intelligence was clearly at work in the very structure of mathemtaical truths in our universe.
Scientists, atheists, — everyone — would be interested in exploring this fact further. What is the nature of that intelligence? Are there any other interesting indications of this intelligence in other mathematical laws? Is there any other way to account for this?
This would all be worthy of investigation. If it ultimately proved the existence of God, fine.
Again, atheism simply asks that we approach the question of God’s existence with the same critical thinking we use with regard to anything else.
> Perhaps its worse feature is the arrogance which appears to prevent
> atheists from admitting that they cannot actually prove that God
> does not exist but have chosen to believe that God could not
> exit.
It is not possible to prove an absolute negative.
> There is a substantial difference and I do find it disappointing
> that people who claim to be rational often act in an irrational
> manner.
Everyone acts irrationally. However, I maintain that if history reveals any categorical truth, it is that an insufficient taste for evidence regularly brings out the worst in us.
> Wasn’t it Robbie Burns who said we should try to see ourselves as
> others see us? That seems to me to be a valuable lesson from which we
> can all learn before engaging in pointless debates about the
> existence of a God in whom I believe and you do not.
I don’t believe it is a pointless debate. Certainly, plenty of your ilk believe the same thing to the point of insisting we are a “Christian nation,” Islam is evil, and nuking Iran would be a good thing because it would usher in the Second Coming of Christ.
Beliefs are powerful things. False beliefs are powerful and dangerous things.
Thank you very much for your comment.
Interesting site and blog.
If atheism isn’t about beliefs or doctrine then why is atheism defined as the doctrine or belief that there is no God?
Don’t you have to believe in something to say it doesn’t exist? I think the fact that you are blogging about it has to say something.
Next, I want to apologize for all the horrible and ungodly things that the Christian religion or any religion has brought about and done to the world. This is how us humans destroy God and make you think he isn’t good. I think if you truly look at how the bible defines religion it’s not what you see in the world today. James 1:27 says “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Even when you look at the teachings of Christ, he visited the poor, homeless, diseased, those in need and taught the need for a relationship with Him….. and look at Christians today… so content on keeping themselves unstained by the world that they have refused to love on people and the world. So yes, the Christian religion taught by the most churches is faulty, but true religion would change the world cause it isn’t about killing people or doing wrong to others, it’s a message of love, not hate or killing.. I think we will find in the end that Love wins!
I think that pretty much you get what you look for. So if you find religion to be hopeless, destroying the world, then that’s what you are going to find, but I hope that you will also look for the good that is out there.
My next, and final question, then… is what are you doing to show the people around you love? Or are you so content on bashing and looking for the intolerant beliefs people have? Is blogging really going to feed those dying of AIDS in Africa, is pointing out how religion has ruined the world going to help those people in Myanmar?
Sorry you have been hurt or burned by the church or someone who is religious.
Numbers 6:24-26
“The Lord bless you and keep you;
the Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace.”
Hello, Brock. Thank you very much for your comments.
> If atheism isn’t about beliefs or doctrine then why is atheism defined
> as the doctrine or belief that there is no God?
There are probably plenty of atheists who would describe it just as you have, however atheism really isn’t a philosophy. It is more of an approach. Why should we approach questions about god (or any other religious belief) any differently than we approach other questions?
> Don’t you have to believe in something to say it doesn’t exist? I
> think the fact that you are blogging about it has to say something.
To be honest, this isn’t my blog. I’m just a contributor. However, I write about this because I am worried. I’m worried that the human species is destined for destruction unless we reconcile ludicrous beliefs with rational thought. We need to move beyond superstition. Otherwise, I think we’re going to kill ourselves.
> Next, I want to apologize for all the horrible and ungodly things that
> the Christian religion or any religion has brought about and done to
> the world.
It is clearly not your job to apologize, but I do appreciate the sentiment.
> This is how us humans destroy God and make you think he
> isn’t good.
It’s not that I think god isn’t good. It’s that I think *belief* in god is not good.
If god exists, he’s probably a pretty cool guy. :c)
> I think if you truly look at how the bible defines
> religion it’s not what you see in the world today.
On the one hand, I agree. What we see in the Christian religion today is not what we see in the bible of old. (putting aside things like killing doctors who perform abortions, etc)
However, there is a lot of intolerance in the bible (and the Koran, and the old testament) that has been used throughout history (and is used today) to justify genocide and other horrible acts.
> “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is
> this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep
> oneself unstained by the world.”
That is beautiful.
When you get Jesus in his better moods, that’s the kind of saying you find. However, there is also this:
Luke, 19:
“Anyone who doesn’t want me to reign over him, bring them here and kill them in front of me.”
That’s not all that different from the kind of intolerance I see in the Koran.
> faulty, but true religion would change the world cause it isn’t
> about killing people or doing wrong to others,
Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Most religions are very much about subjugating those who will not go along with the “correct” religion.
> My next, and final question, then… is what are you doing to
> show the people around you love?
Simple:
- I spend a lot of time with kids. I love kids. They really rock my world. I love seeing the world through their eyes. I have a lot of patience, and I enjoy explaining things to them. I love showing them the universe: stars, planets, galaxies, the international space station, the moon, Saturn, gravity, electo-magnetism, and so on. The universe is SO AMAZING. We don’t need some spooky guy in the sky to tell us how amazing it is.
- I provide whatever my friends need. Any time.
- I donate anything I have that I no longer need to those who could use what I have.
- I look for the truth.
> Is blogging really going to feed those dying of AIDS in Africa,
No. Neither will the Catholic church’s decree that condoms are sinful. I think we need condoms in Africa, don’t you?
> Sorry you have been hurt or burned by the church or someone who is
> religious.
I was hurt when very well educated men piloted aircraft into the World Trade Center twin towers. I worked there, and I realized then that this kind of act was not simply a kind of madness. It was based on religious beliefs; a certainty that they were acting in accord with absolute virtue.
You can say that’s the fault of a “wrong” religion (Islam), but I don’t think it is limited to Islam. It just happens that in the 21st century, Islam is the most backward.
> “The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine upon
> you and be gracious to you; the Lord turn his face toward you and
> give you peace.”
Again, that is beautiful but again, that is not the whole book.
I would very much urge you to watch a short (20 minute) video of Sam Harris:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM
TomV
Thanks for your return comments. I am terribly sorry you had to go through 9/11 the way you did. I’m know there is nothing I can do to understand where you are coming from on that one but I am terribly sorry that you had to go through that. These are going to be hard questions but do you ever wonder why you are still alive? Why weren’t you in that building that day? But I guess you will tell me that it is to bash any kind of religious belief? To me it would mean that God has spared you for a reason, for something good (check out Jeremiah 29:11), but I guess it depends on what your definition of good is . I hope I don’t offend, I don’t want to come off pushy or offend.
I’ve heard it said about bad experiences that either you see them as God ‘wooing’ you to Him or you see them as a reason to hate God. I love the book of Job in the Bible. Job had it all, he was the man, think of Bill Gates, and then one day God allows his life to go to the dumps, loses his wife, sons and daughters, money, land, livestock, house, you name it, he lost it, and through it all he continues to praise God and says nothing negative or against God. Then the book just ends with God restoring everything he ever lost.
I’ve always been curious as to why people hate beliefs or the belief in God. I can see how all the negative stuff turns people off, so thanks for letting me explore and learn more from your story.
I had this thought of somehow chatting with you on this and somehow be effective in convincing you of your beliefs. I even came up with this analogy of you being stranded on a island and the only food you had was rotten bunch of bananas except one, only one of those bananas was good… are all the rotten ones going to keep you from enjoying the one good banana? I think its the same with God, we have to go through a lot of rotten bananas to get to the point where we finally enjoy the true God of the universe.
You state that atheism isn’t a philosophy but philosophy defined in the dictionary is the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. So isn’t that what you meant when you said this “it is more of an approach. Why should we approach questions about god (or any other religious belief) any differently than we approach other questions?” I’m sure you will justify that for me some how.
Nice quoting of Luke 19:27. Here Jesus is speaking in a parable and what he means is this. “whoever will not be ruled by the grace of Christ will inevitably be ruined by the wrath of Christ.” So if you continue to reject Christ… then you will have a rough time on judgment day.
You say you search for truth, good, maybe one day you will come to discover Jesus/God is the only good thing in the world. Jesus says in John 14:6 “I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me.” Then John 18:37 ” I have come to testify to the truth.”
I am glad to see we share the same passion, in that we both love to work with kids. You love to show them about the amazing works of a amazing creative God…. while I love pointing them in the way of Jesus.
You say that’s not the whole book… but my friend… that is the story of Christ. We screw up, have to make sacrifices to God, God realizes this isn’t going to get it done, sends his Son Jesus to die for EVERYONE, so people don’t have to make sacrifices, fly planes in the buildings to be justified, even those radical Muslims who reject Him, so that we can have LIFE. What isn’t good about that?
I listened to your Sam Harris, interesting yes, since I did that, I want to point you to a guy name Brennan Manning. Any of his books are amazing but I will recommend “The Ragamuffin Gospel”, so I hope you will do as I did in listening to your Sam Harris and explore a chapter or two of Brennan Manning at your local book store.
Enjoying our chats… even if you aren’t.
> do you ever wonder why you are still alive? Why weren’t you in that
> building that day? But I guess you will tell me that it is to bash
> any kind of religious belief?
I wasn’t there because I was fortunate. It’s that simple. Are you suggesting that the people who were killed there were not saved by god because they didn’t deserve to be saved by god, but I did? For me to think that would be the epitome of arrogance.
> I’ve heard it said about bad experiences that either you see them as
> God ‘wooing’ you to Him or you see them as a reason to hate God.
Another possibility is bad experiences just happen. No different than bad weather.
I have no love or hate of god because of good or bad experiences.
> I love the book of Job in the Bible.
You don’t find God has a very cruel, sick sense of humor?
> I’ve always been curious as to why people hate beliefs or the belief
> in God.
It’s not the beliefs I hate. It’s the consequences of the beliefs.
The beliefs are just silly. The actions are insane.
> You state that atheism isn’t a philosophy but philosophy defined in
> the dictionary is the rational investigation of the truths and
> principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
That’s one inaccurate definition. I don’t think it is the definitive one.
> So isn’t that what you meant when you said this “it is more of an
> approach. Why should we approach questions about god (or any other
> religious belief) any differently than we approach other questions?”
> I’m sure you will justify that for me some how.
A philosophy is a doctrine. It is a a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school.
Atheism is not a doctrine.
> Nice quoting of Luke 19:27. Here Jesus is speaking in a parable
Are you sure?
Which parts of the bible are literal, and which are allegory?
If you’re sure, why should I listen to you?
What if another person believes that statement is not parable? How is it that he’s wrong and you’re right?
Do you see the precarious position beliefs live in?
> and what he means is this. “whoever will not be ruled by the grace
> of Christ will inevitably be ruined by the wrath of Christ.” So if
> you continue to reject Christ… then you will have a rough time on
> judgment day.
So I have to believe in Jesus, or I’m in trouble. So the reason to believe in Jesus is so he’ll be nice to me in some future day.
I would think god would appreciate people believing in him because they choose to, not because they’re afraid not to.
> I am glad to see we share the same passion, in that we both love to
> work with kids. You love to show them about the amazing works of a
> amazing creative God….
No, I show them the amazing universe.
> while I love pointing them in the way of Jesus.
I do hope that at least *some* of those kids discover that relying on rational, testable ideas is a better approach.
> You say that’s not the whole book… but my friend… that is the
> story of Christ. We screw up, have to make sacrifices to God, God
> realizes this isn’t going to get it done, sends his Son Jesus to die
> for EVERYONE,
If Jesus was resurrected, and ascended to heaven, then he didn’t die. The statement that Jesus “died” for our sins is a statement that is false in its own terms.
> so people don’t have to make sacrifices, fly planes in the buildings
> to be justified,
Evidently, they do need to fly planes into buildings to be justified. After all — they did do it.
> even those radical Muslims who reject Him,
I’m quite sure, if they were still alive, they would dispute that. They were not rejecting god. They were acting on his behalf. That is their belief, that is the absolute virtue they used to justify their actions. This is how beliefs lead to terrible acts.
Evil is simply people who act in the name of absolute virtue because absolute virtue can be used to justify anything.
My point with you not being in the WTC was not to suggest that those who were there deserved to die. My point was about YOU not being there. I don’t see that as chance. Nothing is chance. God had a purpose for you to not be there just like he had a purpose for those who were there. Yes, that is tough for me to type but sometimes you can’t logically explain God. If he were easy to explain then he wouldn’t be God.
You say you have no love or hate of God because of good or bad experience… but didn’t you say “I hate what religion does to people. I hate the evil that has been committed in this world in the name of God/Allah/Jehovah — whatever.” So wouldn’t that be due to the bad experiences they caused?
The actions are insane.. so loving your neighbor is insane? Doing what’s right for those in need is insane? (Here I am talking about the truth of following Jesus Christ)
I love how atheist won’t or can’t define atheism. Your philosophy is that there is no God. That is your doctrine. How am I missing that one?
Philosophy could be defined as the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group. So the belief of a atheist is no God. This reflects the attitudes of individuals or group (atheists) right? Doctrine- a principle of law established through past decisions… someone past decided there was no God.. so doesn’t atheist then have a doctrine? The doctrine of no God?
How do I know Jesus is speaking in parables. 1) He quotes in scripture that he speaks in parables (Matt. 13:13, Mark 12:1, Mark 4:33), and 2) through the examination of the Greek language and history the bible was written in. That’s why you have to study the text to understand the meaning of what was said. You can’t just pick out a verse and say ‘bring my enemies here and slaughter them’ and say that God hates everyone.
The reason to believe in Jesus is not so he’ll be nice to me in some future day. Unfortunately he doesn’t promise that life is going to be easier or get easier if you follow Him. I agree with you that God would appreciate people believing in Him because they choose to, not because they’re afraid to.
You misunderstood the meaning of my phrases concerning Muslims and Jesus dying and ascended to heaven. The Jesus part is a big theological issue. Jesus was fully God and fully man. So you try to explain that logically.
I’ll agree that Muslims would dispute that they weren’t rejecting God when they flew those planes into the buildings. They would say they were being obedient to allah. But salvation doesn’t come by works or proving it by doing something radical but by faith in Jesus Christ alone.
But Tom, I just want you to know that life can be different, religion could be extremely different if the true Jesus was taught. God loves you so much that he sent His only Son, Jesus to die for you, for me, for the world. I hope that you will come to logically understand that.
God is sovereign but Humans have to be responsible.
Best of luck in your search for truth.
> You say you have no love or hate of God because of good or bad
> experience… but didn’t you say “I hate what religion does to
> people. I hate the evil that has been committed in this world in the
> name of God/Allah/Jehovah — whatever.” So wouldn’t that be due to the
> bad experiences they caused?
Sure, but that has nothing to do with a god. That has to do with what *religion* has allowed *people* to do. Whether god exists or not is irrelevant; people who believe god exists are capable of doing phenomenally bad things.
> The actions are insane.. so loving your neighbor is insane?
Flying planes into the WTC is insane. Female genital mutilation is insane. Honor killings are insane. The Inquisition was insane. Shooting health care providers who perform abortions is insane.
Loving your neighbor doesn’t require religion. But if you want to kill people, religion helps a lot.
> I love how atheist won’t or can’t define atheism.
> Your philosophy is that there is no God.
No, that is YOUR definition.
Atheism is simply acknowledging that we should approach questions of god, faith, Jesus, Mohommed, whatever, the same way we approach other questions in every other domain of our existence.
I don’t believe Elvis is alive. If he is, I’d like to see some evidence.
> You misunderstood the meaning of my phrases concerning Muslims and
> Jesus dying and ascended to heaven. The Jesus part is a big
> theological issue. Jesus was fully God and fully man. So you try to
> explain that logically.
Well, Muslims and Jews would disagree with you on that point. As far as they are concerned, he was absolutely NOT fully god and fully human (which is ludicrous, anyway). But of course, from your perspective, Christianity is right, Islam is wrong.
> proving it by doing something radical but by faith in Jesus Christ
> alone.
Again, same problem.
If I were a Muslim, I’d be deeply offended by that statement, and I would probably have to strap a bomb to my waist and kill you. ~sigh~
My apologies if I have offended. For some reason I finally realized where you are coming from. You are some what similar to the Greeks, you esteem rational truth above all else. You want to comprehend the things of the universe, for them to be explainable in rational beliefs. I can understand that.
Along your search for truth you have found the claims of religion and religious actions to be ludicrous and insane. I can get that, there are a lot of rotten bananas in this arena. It is easy to look and find negative examples of religious belief that proves them illogical and useless. Again I see where you are coming from.
Dwight Pryor made this quote ““Truth” in the Greek sense is important but does not finally set us free. We can be filled with scholarly information and still be terribly bound by the brokenness
of our souls and lives. An intimate, obedient and disciplined relationship with God is the “knowledge” that truly sets us free.
Then I was reading Erwin McManus’ book Soul Cravings and he says of all people, “Maybe you’ve been burned, maybe you’ve been deceived, but deep in your gut, somewhere deep inside, there’s a voice telling you that God can be trusted with your life, that you can trust someone like Jesus.” Now I realize for me to quote that is a stretch because I think you’ve made it obvious you don’t see the need for a God/Jesus.
I saw in your other blog that you are a computer programmer who looks for bugs for amazon. Deep inside your soul is a code that is disrupted by a bug. I hope that you will continue to search your code and find the bug that ales you.
I hope that my words over this conversation have caused more reason for you to hold things against religion or the actions it causes people to do. I have only hoped to be fresh eyes while looking at your code. I realize now that there is nothing I can say, type to change your mind. You’ve heard it all before.
Best of luck on your search for truth.
In the quote below I meant “haven’t cause more reason for you to hold things against religion” My bad.
“I hope that my words over this conversation have caused more reason for you to hold things against religion or the actions it causes people to do.”