Pararousia said:
Maciamo, I do believe you read what I wrote and thought I was referring to you or atheists in general. The pronouns I injected in the scripture quote in my post were personal pronouns referring to ME. Please go back and reread the post.
Alright, I didn't know that you were quoting from the scriptures because you didn't mention it. Therefore, I took the "we (I) too" as referring to you and other Christians, as opposed to atheists. This added with your almost simultaneous reputation comment that you 'prayed for my conversion' only made me feel like you we pointing the finger at the atheists. Maybe you aim was to be vague so as to escape criticism.
The second quoted sentence of yours above does indicate that atheism is a religion to you. You believe strongly that there is no God/god; you are basing your eternal existence or, lack thereof, on your belief that there is no God/god. While religious people usually believe in their various religions in order to reach their nirvana/heaven/paradise, the atheist "religion" believes in a non-God/god to reach their non-nirvana/heaven/paradise.
First of all, if you had cared to read the posts in this thread (and other recent threads on atheism, such as
Is there such a thing as "atheist religion" ?), you would seen that I make a clear distinction between 'religions', which are organised, have rituals and places of worship, and "personal beliefs" which lack them. I consider some forms of Buddhism as an "atheist religion" because they do not believe in god(s) but are organised, with temples, monks, rituals, etc. In my case, I do not belong to any such organisation, and therefore have no religion, however strong are my convictions.
In fact, strength of conviction have little to do with religiousness. Most of those who call themselvs Shintoists and Buddhists do not have very strong beliefs (look at the Japanese).
In my case, I could say that my conviction that no "omnipotentsupreme being" or "creator" exist is not even really a personal belief, but a logical conclusion. I do not
believe that 1+1 do not equal 3, it is a logical conclusion. I do believe in other things so (e.g. my moral principles are subjective, and I admit it, as no moral can really be objective or universal). So my "personal beliefs" are probably very close to the fundamental teachings of Buddhism, and may even share quite a bit with the values taugt by Jesus. I do not deny that there are good moral elements in the NT. What I cannot logically accept is the Christian concept of god. If
I had to define a god for me, it would be Nature (all the universe = god and we are part of it). This is called pantheism and agrees 'almost' perfectly with atheism (just a matter of definition). So, if you want to call me pantheist instead of atheist, or Buddhist-inspired pantheist, go ahead. That may be easier to understand and accept for monotheist people.
I have always contended that TRUE Christianity is not a religion, but a relation-based encounter with God. Most true religions have as a basis that the individual must achieve some kind of goodness, number of good deeds, high morals, etc, etc, inorder to reach their nirvana/heaven/paradise.
Because I believe that life is only a biochemical process, that we have no soul (we are only matter and energy) and that the universe is eternal, I do not need to believe in heaven. For many people the existence of the soul is a matter of belief, but because of the recent progress in neurosciences, I can rationally judge that there is nothing that matches the definition of 'soul' that cannot be explained by sciences (yes, even why true twins feel each feel "I am I, and not you" and all the conscience issue). There are many books on the subject, so I will not write another one about it on this forum. Anyway, people with little scientific knowledge will not be able to understand even if I explain.
True Christianity teaches that inspite of our sins, we can have heaven because of the sole act of Jesus the Christ. We believe His act (death, burial and resurrection from the dead) was propitiatory and totally sufficient to forgive our sins and provide us with redemption.
That must be convenient for people with a lot of sins on their conscience.
Perhaps you can understand these verses as examples of what I'm talking about: Psalm 14:1-3 & Psalm 53:1-3 "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God...;" there is no one who does good." Note how these two passages link non-belief to an assertion that no man does good. Could it be that the idea of God is dismissed because many believe that, if God and heaven are true, they are good enough to be admitted into heaven on their own merit?
Again, it seems that this religion was created for "bad people". What is more, it seems that the "there is no one who does good" is an idea that was popular in ancient times, as Lexico explained. But our world is different. There are millions of people who do good without thinking of a material reward, even among non-Christians like the Japanese. This is because making people happy can be as much as reward in itself (or more) than a material one. However, this is something psychology (which is a branch of philosophy) teaches. Religions don't explain these things. At best they mention them or profess them, but people still need to believe rather than understand. For rational people, faith only is more difficult to trust than understanding, even if the result in behaviour is the same. That's why I say that the so-called Christian values of compassion, benevolence, altruism, etc. are not in fact Christian, but universal characteristics shared by human beings of a certain personality. That is why, if one does not have this personality type, even becoming Christian will not change them much (or only in the short-term, or when constantly encouraged to do so by the community, but not in other situations). There are so many Christian who are not compassionate or do not follow most of the tachings of Jesus, yet firmly believe that they are Christian. I am not sure that even 1% of all Christians can claim to behave in a way nearly as similar as Jesus want them to be. Many don't even try hard. But I know many Japanese who would be much closer to Jesus in behaviour, and don't know anything about Christianity. This is the dilemma of religions. They often create the opposite of what is intended (e.g. wars, violence...).
Ezekiel 28: "In the pride of your heart, you say, "I am a god..." But you are a man and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god. You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
This description of "a god" is very close to the polytheist concept of human-like god. The original meaning of god was probably more like the way the Japanese use it today "oh, this baseball player is so good. He is a god !". It just means "superhuman". Studying the history and evolution of religion, we see a clear transition from this, to a omniscient and omnipotent god, then to a loving god.
Do you remember your morality as a child? How black and white everything was and how idealistic you were in your standards? At what point did you begin breaking your own standard? At what point did you begin lowering the standard? Why?
If you are asking me, I believe that nothing is simply black or white, but in an infinite shade of nuances in between. Since as far as I can remember, I have disliked the use of words like "always" and "never" and preferred "usually", "often", "sometimes", "rarely", "hardly ever", and tried not to say "all" but "most", when it was clearly not "all". Precision is important, especially when generalising. I do not call that lowering my standards, except if simplemindeness is a quality for you. Btw, I have always (this time it is the right word) been more idealistic than the vast majority of people in society. I am also very humanistic.
Our answer to this question says more about us than it does about Jesus. Jesus is presented to us as a perfect sinless and holy standard.
Yes, me too, by my standards.
Yet, by my standards, Jesus is not pure or sinless as he created a religion that caused wars and violence ever since its creation. He also lack rationality and failed in explaining his ideas of goodness in unambivalent terms that the whole word could understand, through the ages and cultures. If that was divinely inspired and "perfect like god", then Christian standards are much lower than my own. All this to say that Jesus is no match compared to someone like me (don't see it as sth arrogant, it is a judgement based simply on my standards).
If we judge Him to be only a man, we are in effect saying that, we, as men, are capable of reaching that standard.
Yes, why not ?
If we find fault with Jesus, how much more at fault are we?
I can't talk for 6 billion people, but I am not much to reproach myself compared to him.
By judging Jesus to be one with God, as God, we admit that we are incapable of reaching the high standard; we are asking God to grade us on a curve, because we know that we have no hope of passing the test on our own merit.
This is basically for people who lack self-confidence and do not know themselves well.
John 16:27, "For the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God."
John 3:3, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again."
What is love if you have never met that "god" and he cannot or doesn't want to use his power to help humans reach perfection ? The Judeo-Christian god is fundamentally vicious and sadistic because he had to power to create a perfectly happy world, and didn't, preferring to watch humans and animals struggle, species disappear, etc. Who knows how many other planets support life in the infinity of the universe. But are these life beings happier there ? Did god discriminate or experiment with each planet in a different way, or does he want to cause pain, sorrow, destruction and all sorts of other negative things because he enjoys it ?
By dying, He taught us the meaning of self-sacrifice; He taught us how to die to ourselves. In rising, He allowed us to be born again, so that we could live for others and overcome our selfish nature.
But the physical body of Jesus was made a matter and energy. He ate material food, drank water, this food was rejected as excrements. His whole body cells were regenerated on a daily basis and it took 7 years for all the body's cells to be changed completely, like for other humans. The air he breathed, the calorific energy he released from his body, the matter that passes through him, and the decomposition of the corpse of Jesus or the blood he shed, all still exist in the nature. It is even very likely that this matter and energy was recycled, and with time, it passed through the body of other humans, or animals or plants. Some of it could even be inside you or me now or sometime in the future, from the food we eat and the air we breath. So Jesus died but he is still among us ! Like anybody else who died before on this Earth.
How does a person know that the color red is real? Because they see it.
Some people cannot see the colors red and green (daltonians), but see grey instead. Others are blind. Our senses aren't perfect anyway. Don't trust only your senses ! Of course, the people who wrote the Bible didn't know or care much about these things at the time.
