the absurdity of 'investigating' the resurrection of Jesus

[neilgodfrey]

The longer it takes for an unbeliever to convert, the stronger is the evidence for the unbeliever's god-hating, wilfully sinful and blind, arrogant and self-deceptive attitude -- not that the believer will ever presume upon God's prerogative of judging the unbeliever, of course.

The only hope for salvation is to jettison sound worldly human reasoning and embrace what is foolishness to humankind, the wisdom of God -- circular logic, question-begging, unfounded assumptions, false dichotomies, logicide and casuistry . . . .

Also, ironically in some major ways, Fundies are closer to the modern skeptics than the Catholics and early Christians are.
For Fundies, there is such a major emphasis on mental faith (albeit guided in spirit): You need to have a conscious decision of faith. Skeptics on the other hand emphasize mental judgment over feelings, they just come down on the opposite conclusion than the Fundies as to what the mental judgment should be. Dogmatic materialistic atheists are a bit like Fundies but without the God concept.

Catholics and the early Christians were working on a different paradigm, where things are much more about trust and feelings. That's why for example infants could get baptized and people could get healed even if they weren't present when Jesus decided to heal them and only a family member was present.

what a load of self-serving debate-framing crock. somehow it's all of a sudden not about believers but about "fundies" and "Catholics" and "early Christians" self-servingly defined and "dogmatic materialist atheists".

and kids and what Jesus did.... oh my fooken hell.... everyone's lost except dear precious god-beloved you who can't even pass a 101 logic test, thereby proving it is only the foolish and weak of the world who are called.

[Peter Kirby]

The longer it takes for an unbeliever to convert, the stronger is the evidence for the unbeliever's god-hating, wilfully sinful and blind, arrogant and self-deceptive attitude -- not that the believer will ever presume upon God's prerogative of judging the unbeliever, of course.

The only hope for salvation is to jettison sound worldly human reasoning and embrace what is foolishness to humankind, the wisdom of God -- circular logic, question-begging, unfounded assumptions, false dichotomies, logicide and casuistry . . . .

Also, ironically in some major ways, Fundies are closer to the modern skeptics than the Catholics and early Christians are.
For Fundies, there is such a major emphasis on mental faith (albeit guided in spirit): You need to have a conscious decision of faith. Skeptics on the other hand emphasize mental judgment over feelings, they just come down on the opposite conclusion than the Fundies as to what the mental judgment should be. Dogmatic materialistic atheists are a bit like Fundies but without the God concept.

Catholics and the early Christians were working on a different paradigm, where things are much more about trust and feelings. That's why for example infants could get baptized and people could get healed even if they weren't present when Jesus decided to heal them and only a family member was present.

what a load of self-serving debate-framing crock. somehow it's all of a sudden not about believers but about "fundies" and "Catholics" and "early Christians" self-servingly defined and "dogmatic materialist atheists".

and kids and what Jesus did.... oh my fooken hell.... everyone's lost except dear precious god-beloved you who can't even pass a 101 logic test, thereby proving it is only the foolish and weak of the world who are called.

Isn't it scary that the people who think and argue in analogies like this one, are the majority in this world? It's how elections are won and lost. Chilling.

[barryjones]

Isn't it scary that the people who think and argue in analogies like this one, are the majority in this world? It's how elections are won and lost. Chilling.

It would seem an impossible challenge to motivate most people in the world to have and use critical thinking skills. Seems to me you are either born as an intellectual, or you'll only care about what "works".

I've always said that my problem is not Christianity or religion per se, it is the fundies who constantly push the issues and insist that it is unreasonable to disagree with their views, that I take to be an insult to my intelligence, and therefore causes me to give them both barrels right to the face.

I've met plenty of Christians in daily life, and as long as they don't try to hammer me with the bible, I don't attack their beliefs. If it's just a stranger on a bus, I might even say "god bless" as one of us departs. Religion has a lot of positive social benefits, and I think it is the only reason some people don't get bogged down in depression and kill themselves. Reality is not for everybody.

[neilgodfrey]

Unfortunately religious belief is not based on rational thought but it is rationalized -- and "they say" that the more intelligent the believer the more clever and pernicious the rationalisation. My suspicion is that the only way to break the circle of logic used to rationalise a faith is for various life experiences to force themselves into a believers consciousness in a way that leads to the gradual shattering of the fairy tales that mask reality.

[rakovsky]

You bring up an interesting issue, that should bother Christians who aren't fully anesthetized to common decency: Most Christians think the "age of accountability" is somewhere between 5 and 7.

Ok, so if an 8 year old girl says "no" to a gospel invitation, then dies in a car wreck on the way home from church, she goes to hell?

In other words, the fundie god torments 8 year old girls forever in the fiery furnace of hell. Although this offends even biblical notions of divine justice, this is the logical result of saying the age of accountability comes not later than 7 years old.

But if they try to push that age to somewhere in the teens, so their going to hell after early death doesn't seem so cruel, then we wind up with fundies teaching that kids are not responsible for their actions until around age 13, a notion that breaks with common sense.

In other words, if a 10 year old boy steals a candy bar from the corner store, there is no more moral basis to condemn him than there would be if a 5 year old had done the same? Nah.

I sympathize with what you are saying. For Calvin, a rationalistic understanding of religion was very important, such that if a person doesn't rationally formulate acceptance of Christianity, he/she is "totally depraved" no matter what. Anabaptists took the next step and said that since infants don't have the ability to formulate mental acceptance of Christianity, they can't be baptized and accepted into the Church either. Today, American Baptists would be an example of a larger group that follows this teaching.

I would be interested to see if someone who has passed a long time in Fundamentalism like Neil can say what the reasoning is that Anabaptists (eg. American Baptists, Fundamentalists, and other adherents of this doctrine) use to avoid the implication that the unbaptized children who biologically inherited the guilt of original sin are guaranteed hell.

That is, there appears to be a major dilemma. In Anabaptist Protestant thought, everyone is born "totally depraved" and carrying biologically "inherited" personal "Original Sin" guilt and the absolutely only way to get saved is through mental faith acceptance, and said mental acceptance is so absolutely critical, kids can't get baptized. Yet somehow the totally depraved faithless kids who aren't allowed baptism can get saved. So... if you're a baby and your parents are faithful Christians (only Protestants count?), you will go to heaven, but if not you go to hell, even though you had no say in the matter?

[iskander]

Hi rakovsky
One version of Christianity is very simple and liberating : in one version man cannot merit God no matter how perfect he is made by the strictest obedience to a sublime code of behaviour . Or something like that. In this model God grants everything to mankind after death as a gift. The natural intelligence of mankind regulates the life of the living with their manmade laws.


The problem with religion is that believers give themselves the right to impose divine laws on society thus interfering with the natural progress of mankind.

[neilgodfrey]

I would be interested to see if someone who has passed a long time in Fundamentalism like Neil can say what the reasoning is that Anabaptists (eg. American Baptists, Fundamentalists, and other adherents of this doctrine) use to avoid the implication that the unbaptized children who biologically inherited the guilt of original sin are guaranteed hell.

Most of my religious life was spent in mainstream Christian denominations but a significant part was also part of a cult that had very little in common with churches that are viewed generally as "fundamentalist". Some critics did not consider us even Christian. We were as different and separate from fundamentalist churches as we were from mainstream ones. We certainly had no belief in the doctrine of "original sin". Nor did we believe in hell. The problem raised by rakovsky never arose in our particular teachings.

(Nor did I reject the cult for atheism, by the way, but returned to a mainstream form of Christianity. -- just mentioning this because I am aware of certain falsehoods spread about me on the basis of misrepresentations of one article I posted years ago for a particular audience for a particular purpose and that was by no means a general biography of my life.)

[andrewcriddle]

On the specific point of those who desire baptism but are delayed until they are older and/or better instructed and who die unbaptized, it would IIUC be generally held that they have received Baptism of Desire

Andrew Criddle

[rakovsky]

On the specific point of those who desire baptism but are delayed until they are older and/or better instructed and who die unbaptized, it would IIUC be generally held that they have received Baptism of Desire

Andrew Criddle

I am familiar with BAPTISM OF DESIRE. However, it says that it is limited to old school Protestants and Catholics.
Further, it doesn't cover infants who cannot form the requisite mental rational acceptance.

[barryjones]

Unfortunately religious belief is not based on rational thought but it is rationalized -- and "they say" that the more intelligent the believer the more clever and pernicious the rationalisation. My suspicion is that the only way to break the circle of logic used to rationalise a faith is for various life experiences to force themselves into a believers consciousness in a way that leads to the gradual shattering of the fairy tales that mask reality.

I've always said that because the average fundie did not come into Christianity on the basis of an argument, they will not leave Christianity on the basis of an argument.

And yet exceptions must be made. Ceaselessly hammering them with the truth that the bible is mostly bunk will inevitably have an effect, and will either drive them toward liberalism/apostasy, or drive them to think the devil sure is doing his best to make them lose faith.

Since most fundies are sociable like most people, seems obvious that we skeptics will see more fruit of our labors if we befriend fundies in real life, thus becoming in their lives a constant reminder that life without god is no less rewarding or purposeful than church-life. Hammering them into silence with irrefutable arguments over the internet is nice, but there's far more to the prospect of getting a person to change their mind about moral, political or religious issues, than simply argument.

If our goal is to make them change their minds, then we need to acknowledge that human beings almost never change their opinion about something simply because they were not able to answer an argument against it.