God
Although I've been, for the most part, a conservative my whole life, I've run in very liberal circles my whole life also. The town I grew up in, Evanston, IL, is and was insanely liberal.
Now, I'm not making any other claims about liberalism other than if you run with liberals, and you're a christian, you're gonna meet more than your fair share of people who think you're an idiot.
And their arguments are all the same, it's either "You might as well believe in Santa Clause", or "You know you're all hypocrites, that why you did the spanish inquisition" (yeah, I played a HUGE role in the spanish inquisition), or "There's proof that the world's existed for billions of years, thus proving that christianity's wrong", or some moral paradox that they feel proves not only that there is no God, but also that all christians are idiots for believing otherwise.
I'm a firm believer that if you're asked a logical question about any of your beliefs, religious or otherwise, if you can't answer it, than you need to reconsider your stance. No one benefits from self deceit, and so regardless of what my answers (or lack thereof) may imply, I try my best to respond to these questions.
"You might as well believe in Santa Clause." This is not a condemnation of religion, but of faith in general. If your girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife leaves your sight, most believe that s/he will not go sleep with someone else. Why would you believe this? Unless you've actually spied on your significant other, you have absolutely no idea what s/he does out of your sight. Just turn on "Cheaters" and you can see that it's perfectly possible that your significant other is just running to another's arms as soon as s/he leaves. So why do so many believe that their mate is remaining faithful outside of one's sight? It's faith, so according to this logic, they might as well believe in Santa Clause.
And, of course, in many situations, it's true, one might as well believe in Santa Clause. Many like to close their eyes and ears to anything they hear that's inconvinient to their current beliefs, thus why there's a debate about creationism.
"You know you're all hypocrites, that why you did the spanish inquisition"
This is the argument of those who lack the presence of mind to realize that christians are a diverse group of people.
I'm personally of the opinion that this argument does not even merit a counterpoint, but I'll provide one anyways. What happened in the Spanish Inquisition, and other similar situations was deplorable and immoral, and I can guarantee there is no way one could read the bible and afterwards say with a straight face that that shit was justifiable. I personally have not oppressed, tortured, or murdered anyone, nor have the majority of christians, so clearly this is a problem of a sect, and only an idiot would be stupid enough to believe those situations are generalizable to the christian community as a whole.
Also, name me one group that is still judged for shit that happened centuries. How well is the "I hate jews because they killed Jesus" argument playing these days? How about "I don't trust Italians because Romans used to feed people to lions."?
"There's proof that the world's existed for billions of years, thus proving that christianity's wrong"
This is only over whether the bible is meant to be interpreted literally, which I believe it very clearly isn't.
"This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says:
You shall indeed hear but never understand,
and you shall indeed see but never perceive."
-Matthew 13: 13,14
If you want to prove the bible isn't a history book, don't bother, I agree.
The most recent thing that helped shape my opinion on God is a logical thread that someone presented. I'll sum it up
1 God is omnipotent
2 God is omnibenevolent
3 There is evil in the world
4 If God were omnipotent, then God could give us anything that zhe gives us through the trials of this life without the trials, and thus in allowing suffering when zhe could prevent it God is not omnibenevolent.
The more I tried to argue against this, the more merit I saw in it. Even though I haven't ever taken the bible as literal, I've always thought of God as omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but I kept coming up with counterpoints to my counterpoints, and I couldn't come up with any counterpoints to those, and thus it left me feeling that my beliefs were in need of revision.
The first argument that came to mind against this was "Maybe we benefit the most from going through these struggles, and we learn more about the need to help each other and to love our neighbors."
But the counterpoint to this lies in omnipotence. If God is omnipotent, not only could God prevent this suffering, but God could also give us all of the benefits we would've gotten from going through the suffering without compramising our free will.
Between the two aspects of God, zhis omnipotence and zhis omnibenevolence, I feel compelled to believe that the omnipotence, in the literal sense, is my initial flaw. This does not compramise my belief that through God all things are possible. When a person truly turns him/herself over to God anything is possible, which has been shown over and over again. I mean, christ, it was through people who had given themselves to God that the civil rights movement happened. People have food where none grows because of others who have given themselves to God.
When it comes to God, I could be wrong. Hell, I assume at least parts of my beliefs on God are wrong in some way shape or form. I am a human being, and thus I am fallible. And I have difficulties articulating what God is on this earth beyond the teaching that if two people are together in the Lord, God is there. God is the force that joins all humans together, that gives meaning and accountability to this life. Why is it wrong to hurt your brother or sister? Because we are connected through God, and thus if you hurt anyone you hurt everyone including yourself. It's hard to articulate, I hope that you get what I mean.
But even if I'm entirely wrong about God, and if I die there's nothing there (considering that I'm afforded an opportunity to reflect), I wouldn't give a shit, to be perfectly honest. I live a certain way because of my belief in God. I treat people a certain way, I try my best to extend unconditional love to all (I fail, but I keep trying), and my life is better for it. I am not concerned about the afterlife, because I figure that I should be on God's good side regardless, so if I die, hopefully I go to heaven (unless I completely got all of my beliefs on christianity wrong and I end up elsewhere), or I'll have lived a richer life due to my belief in God, and then I rot in the ground like everyone else.
I've never heard a good counterpoint to that.
Now, I'm not making any other claims about liberalism other than if you run with liberals, and you're a christian, you're gonna meet more than your fair share of people who think you're an idiot.
And their arguments are all the same, it's either "You might as well believe in Santa Clause", or "You know you're all hypocrites, that why you did the spanish inquisition" (yeah, I played a HUGE role in the spanish inquisition), or "There's proof that the world's existed for billions of years, thus proving that christianity's wrong", or some moral paradox that they feel proves not only that there is no God, but also that all christians are idiots for believing otherwise.
I'm a firm believer that if you're asked a logical question about any of your beliefs, religious or otherwise, if you can't answer it, than you need to reconsider your stance. No one benefits from self deceit, and so regardless of what my answers (or lack thereof) may imply, I try my best to respond to these questions.
"You might as well believe in Santa Clause." This is not a condemnation of religion, but of faith in general. If your girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife leaves your sight, most believe that s/he will not go sleep with someone else. Why would you believe this? Unless you've actually spied on your significant other, you have absolutely no idea what s/he does out of your sight. Just turn on "Cheaters" and you can see that it's perfectly possible that your significant other is just running to another's arms as soon as s/he leaves. So why do so many believe that their mate is remaining faithful outside of one's sight? It's faith, so according to this logic, they might as well believe in Santa Clause.
And, of course, in many situations, it's true, one might as well believe in Santa Clause. Many like to close their eyes and ears to anything they hear that's inconvinient to their current beliefs, thus why there's a debate about creationism.
"You know you're all hypocrites, that why you did the spanish inquisition"
This is the argument of those who lack the presence of mind to realize that christians are a diverse group of people.
I'm personally of the opinion that this argument does not even merit a counterpoint, but I'll provide one anyways. What happened in the Spanish Inquisition, and other similar situations was deplorable and immoral, and I can guarantee there is no way one could read the bible and afterwards say with a straight face that that shit was justifiable. I personally have not oppressed, tortured, or murdered anyone, nor have the majority of christians, so clearly this is a problem of a sect, and only an idiot would be stupid enough to believe those situations are generalizable to the christian community as a whole.
Also, name me one group that is still judged for shit that happened centuries. How well is the "I hate jews because they killed Jesus" argument playing these days? How about "I don't trust Italians because Romans used to feed people to lions."?
"There's proof that the world's existed for billions of years, thus proving that christianity's wrong"
This is only over whether the bible is meant to be interpreted literally, which I believe it very clearly isn't.
"This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says:
You shall indeed hear but never understand,
and you shall indeed see but never perceive."
-Matthew 13: 13,14
If you want to prove the bible isn't a history book, don't bother, I agree.
The most recent thing that helped shape my opinion on God is a logical thread that someone presented. I'll sum it up
1 God is omnipotent
2 God is omnibenevolent
3 There is evil in the world
4 If God were omnipotent, then God could give us anything that zhe gives us through the trials of this life without the trials, and thus in allowing suffering when zhe could prevent it God is not omnibenevolent.
The more I tried to argue against this, the more merit I saw in it. Even though I haven't ever taken the bible as literal, I've always thought of God as omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but I kept coming up with counterpoints to my counterpoints, and I couldn't come up with any counterpoints to those, and thus it left me feeling that my beliefs were in need of revision.
The first argument that came to mind against this was "Maybe we benefit the most from going through these struggles, and we learn more about the need to help each other and to love our neighbors."
But the counterpoint to this lies in omnipotence. If God is omnipotent, not only could God prevent this suffering, but God could also give us all of the benefits we would've gotten from going through the suffering without compramising our free will.
Between the two aspects of God, zhis omnipotence and zhis omnibenevolence, I feel compelled to believe that the omnipotence, in the literal sense, is my initial flaw. This does not compramise my belief that through God all things are possible. When a person truly turns him/herself over to God anything is possible, which has been shown over and over again. I mean, christ, it was through people who had given themselves to God that the civil rights movement happened. People have food where none grows because of others who have given themselves to God.
When it comes to God, I could be wrong. Hell, I assume at least parts of my beliefs on God are wrong in some way shape or form. I am a human being, and thus I am fallible. And I have difficulties articulating what God is on this earth beyond the teaching that if two people are together in the Lord, God is there. God is the force that joins all humans together, that gives meaning and accountability to this life. Why is it wrong to hurt your brother or sister? Because we are connected through God, and thus if you hurt anyone you hurt everyone including yourself. It's hard to articulate, I hope that you get what I mean.
But even if I'm entirely wrong about God, and if I die there's nothing there (considering that I'm afforded an opportunity to reflect), I wouldn't give a shit, to be perfectly honest. I live a certain way because of my belief in God. I treat people a certain way, I try my best to extend unconditional love to all (I fail, but I keep trying), and my life is better for it. I am not concerned about the afterlife, because I figure that I should be on God's good side regardless, so if I die, hopefully I go to heaven (unless I completely got all of my beliefs on christianity wrong and I end up elsewhere), or I'll have lived a richer life due to my belief in God, and then I rot in the ground like everyone else.
I've never heard a good counterpoint to that.
posted by Galen at 1:27 AM
2 Comments:
my mom sent me an email talking about something relevant to this. It's from this book "God, the Ingenius Alchemist".
"As St. Paul asserts, we humans will always 'know in part and prophesy
in part,' when it comes to our perceptions. We do indeed 'see as
through a glass darkly,' particularly with regard to understanding the
Holy One, which means that we should never be dogmatic or arrogant
about our theological insights. Realizing that here is more in God
than we can ever fully know, we can sense cedtain askpects of the
Mystery and share our witness with each other as honest gifts, rather
than sledghammer absolutes imposed coercively on others."
What I take from this is that a critical and open mind is essential to meet your full potential. I agree with the idea that knowing that you don't know is far more important, and far more difficult to learn, than thinking that you know.
I'm a Republican atheist, so I get the opposite serving of flack.
Although I don't agree with you, I always appreciate someone who is willing to critically examine their beliefs (knee-jerk anti-Christians should do more of it as well).
Post a Comment
<< Home