Those who argue those who don't?

CerebralCortex · 11-12-2008 12:49pm

Húrin wrote: »

.....Seriously though, I didn't mean that people should have to justify their atheism. I'm just trying to refute the assumption that I get in this thread, that all atheists are so because they have applied rigorous logic and reasoning to their information about the world, are well read on the subject, etc.....

There are those that would argue that one is born an atheist and that it is the natural state until you inherit your parents ideologies/memes and that it requires only that you go back to that state. I certainly attribute my atheism to an understanding that I had to be thought or indoctrinated with a particular belief which set all kinds of alarm bells off.

Oh a completely unrelated matter, is your handle Húrin because you like the works of Tolkien who happened to be a very devout Roman Catholic and was in part responsible for converting CS Lewis back to christianity from atheism?

Rev Hellfire · 11-12-2008 12:59pm

Húrin wrote: »

No, the requirement to be Christian is to follow Christ. A passive intellectual acceptance of his claims does not suffice.

That's your interpretation of the meaning of the word Christian, and while that of a 'passive' followers doesn't align itself yours it remains no less valid for doing so.

Its purely subjective and as such if they believe themselves to be Christian, identify as Christian and accept the idea of the Christian god/trinity then Christian they are. They might not be 'good' Christian in your book, but your view doesn't negate the fact.

Húrin · 11-12-2008 1:19pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

There are those that would argue that one is born an atheist and that it is the natural state until you inherit your parents ideologies/memes and that it requires only that you go back to that state. I certainly attribute my atheism to an understanding that I had to be thought or indoctrinated with a particular belief which set all kinds of alarm bells off.

I am familiar with this idea and I agree that we were probably all born as athiests.

Oh a completely unrelated matter, is your handle Húrin because you like the works of Tolkien who happened to be a very devout Roman Catholic and was in part responsible for converting CS Lewis back to christianity from atheism?

No, he was just one of my favourite characters in The Silmarillion, my favourite novel. I think I registered on this site before I became a Christian. After I did, I saw that Tolkien didn't just happen to be a Christian, The Silmarillion itself is an allegory of the Bible, as is LOTR. I am not sure if that was a subconscious reason for liking his work in my athiest days, but it is now one more layer of enjoyment I get from the books.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its purely subjective and as such if they believe themselves to be Christian, identify as Christian and accept the idea of the Christian god/trinity then Christian they are. They might not be 'good' Christian in your book, but your view doesn't negate the fact.

There are no good Christians or bad Christians. Only Christians and non-Christians. What I said is not my idea; it's Christ's:

Matt 16:24 wrote:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it."

Luke 10:27 wrote:

He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

and of course the now-infamous John 3:7!

Numerous other passages like this can be found in the gospels. The message is that Jesus demands that his followers give him all their lives, and that in return he will give them everything - happiness now and forever. He doesn't want a lot of your time, thought or work; he wants you*.

I don't see where there is a place for nominal belief or lip-service.

*I'm using "you" in an expanded sense here

robindch · 11-12-2008 1:37pm

Húrin wrote: »

I saw that Tolkien didn't just happen to be a Christian, The Silmarillion itself is an allegory of the Bible, as is LOTR. I am not sure if that was a subconscious reason for liking his work in my athiest days, but it is now one more layer of enjoyment I get from the books.

From the introduction to LOTR:

JRRT wrote:

As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. [...] The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. [...] Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

Húrin · 11-12-2008 2:02pm

robindch wrote: »

From the introduction to LOTR:

Correct, it is not an allegory of the Second World War.

However, the idea that the remarkable resemblance of Aragorn's role to that of Jesus Christ in the Christian narrative is accidental, is surprising to say the least. The sheer dualism of the whole book as well as numerous other themes also implied allegory to me, but it seems that I was wrong. Should have remembered that intro.

8kvscdpglqnyr4 · 11-12-2008 3:42pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If they define themselves as Christian, then Christian they are. There's only one requirement to be a Christian which is naturally to believe (how ever passively) in the idea of Christ.
That's it, nothing more. Going to mass/service, believing or not believing the bible, etc is all purely optional as is putting any thought into the matter.

Didn't you read my post Hurin was replying to? I'll post it again:

Belen Dirty Tic-tac-toe wrote:

Practically every Christian I know in the real world are like this, my parents included. I consider this group to be the most annoying (even though it doesn't really annoy me as such). They don't really believe Jesus is God when asked directly yet they insist on baptising their kids, first communion, confession ... etc. I don't understand what goes on in their heads. When pushed they define God as "love". The people I have spoken to in this category think there may have been a guy called Jesus 2000 years ago who was a great philosopher and was an all round good guy ... but when I ask did he perform miracles and was he born of a virgin ... the answer is NO!

I'm talking about "Christians" who do not believe in the idea of Christ.
@ Rev Hellfire: Do you think these people are Christians?

Just because someone lebels themselves are something, doesn't make it so.
If I label myself as Doctor Belen Dirty Tic-tac-toe ... that doesn't make it so. If everyone in the country decided to label themselves Doctor and we were all members of the Irish Doctors Association because we labelled ourselves doctors, then how would anyone find a "real" doctor?

8kvscdpglqnyr4 · 11-12-2008 3:48pm

Húrin wrote: »

It would also require not only terminological awareness among the people, but also actually caring about the fact that the catholic religion is taught in the schools. Most people don't seem to see it as a problem even if they don't believe.

I think "most" people do see it as a problem ...

A new poll in Ireland shows that eighty two per cent of parents intend to let their children choose their own religion rather than force them to join the Catholic Church. Thirty years ago only 7% of parents felt the same way.

The MRBI/RTÉ poll also found that 12% of Irish people no longer believe in God ...

That's 82%!!!!

Rev Hellfire · 11-12-2008 4:19pm

Belen Dirty Tic-tac-toe wrote: »

I'm talking about "Christians" who do not believe in the idea of Christ.
@ Rev Hellfire: Do you think these people are Christians?

Unless they've actually explicitly stated they don't believe Jesus was god, then they're still Christian if that's what they say they are.

Interestingly enough when I looked up the word Christian it also is applicable to people who belong to a Christian church/community, so perhaps even believing isn't a requirement simply belonging to a Christian community is. An example perhaps of this is say the Christian community in the Lebanon. (Though my original point didn't include this).

Rev Hellfire · 11-12-2008 4:20pm

Belen Dirty Tic-tac-toe wrote: »

I think "most" people do see it as a problem ...

More accurately most people see the problem but don't care.

Húrin · 13-12-2008 2:58am

Belen Dirty Tic-tac-toe wrote: »

I think "most" people do see it as a problem ...

That's 82%!!!!

Letting your kids choose their religion is perfectly compatible with letting them be taught about Catholicism. Education does not compel agreement with what is taught.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Unless they've actually explicitly stated they don't believe Jesus was god, then they're still Christian if that's what they say they are.

Interestingly enough when I looked up the word Christian it also is applicable to people who belong to a Christian church/community, so perhaps even believing isn't a requirement simply belonging to a Christian community is.

1. I think that The Bible is the authority on this matter, not the Oxford Dictionary.

2. If a community does not believe in Jesus Christ it is not a Christian community.

Rev Hellfire · 13-12-2008 9:58am

Húrin wrote: »

1. I think that The Bible is the authority on this matter, not the Oxford Dictionary.

Not strictly true on two fronts. Firstly not all Christian communities believe in the literal translation of the bible. Rather it is a book to be interpreted, not taken at face value. Both the main churches here and in the UK catholic and Anglican churches take this stance afaik.

As such the only requirement still remains a belief in the Christian god, the belief in the Christ and an acceptance of the 'spirit' of the message of the bible (i.e divinely inspired).

As for the authority of the Oxford dictionary, when it comes to the semantics of the English language I'm afraid it will trump the bible, that I would have thought is obvious. When I require the meaning of a word I don't consult the bible

Therefore as far as the census goes if a person believes themselves to Christian, Christian they are. Neither your narrow or my broader definitions come into the matter, its purely down to that person.

Húrin wrote: »

2. If a community does not believe in Jesus Christ it is not a Christian community.

Broadly I'd agree, but a Christian community can also now a days in terms of language reflect a common ethos, identity and history within a group. We often refer to Ireland as a Christian country which is true in the general case, in so far as historically and culturally its identity has been shaped by Christian scholastic thought and practices as has much of Europe. But thats a side issue to the census topic.

Dades · 13-12-2008 4:08pm

Húrin wrote: »

Education does not compel agreement with what is taught.

Children are obviously more likely to believe what an adult tells them is true. Having a choice to believe something or not is nowhere near the same as being taught about more than one option.

Húrin · 13-12-2008 7:01pm

Dades wrote: »

Children are obviously more likely to believe what an adult tells them is true. Having a choice to believe something or not is nowhere near the same as being taught about more than one option.

So you would also be against schools in which no religion is taught? As you think this would prejudice the children in favour of atheism?

I agree that children are likely to believe what they are told. But such belief rarely lasts into adulthood unless they do their homework, and then they will decide for themselves.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Not strictly true on two fronts. Firstly not all Christian communities believe in the literal translation of the bible. Rather it is a book to be interpreted, not taken at face value. Both the main churches here and in the UK catholic and Anglican churches take this stance afaik.

As such the only requirement still remains a belief in the Christian god, the belief in the Christ and an acceptance of the 'spirit' of the message of the bible (i.e divinely inspired).

That what I was saying, because that is the clear Biblical definition. Some parts are more open to interpretation than others. Could you be any more lazy, to just dismiss all arguments with "don't take the Bible literally"?

I was disagreeing that the Oxford dictionary has the spiritual authority to say that someone is a Christian because they are part of a particular community.

I'm not a literalist, and not a creationist. Is it just me or is there an assumption on this forum that all Christians, especially those who quote the Bible, are literalists, creationists, probably right-wing, etc?

Dades · 13-12-2008 8:56pm

Húrin wrote: »

So you would also be against schools in which no religion is taught? As you think this would prejudice the children in favour of atheism?

Are you asking me if I think it would favour atheism? That wouldn't be the intention at all. Just something a little more 'balanced'.

Húrin wrote: »

But such belief rarely lasts into adulthood unless they do their homework, and then they will decide for themselves.

That point is kind of moot don't you think!

I don't really care if all religions or no religion is taught, my real beef is with parents outsourcing their childrens' religious beliefs to schools. It's obvious that most parents simply don't have the required knowledge of their own beliefs or the inclination to teach their kids. They want it done in school to avoid taking up any actual life-time, save for the trendy Christmas mass.

Those who argue those who don't?

Comments