This post is not going to be in the standard format. Instead of laying out what I think about a particular issue and then possibly getting into a discussion afterward, I really just want to ask a series of questions that I hope readers will answer in the comment section.
My background with Christianity is with a very fundamentalist variety that believes faith, grace, and works are all tightly woven together — each plays a necessary part in salvation. I’m much less familiar with more liberal versions of Christianity, and that’s what I’m hoping to learn more about in this discussion. So here are my questions:
- The New Testament speaks a lot about salvation. What exactly are Christians being saved from?
- In a similar vein, are non-Christians bound for a different fate than Christians? What will the afterlife be like for each?
- What does God/Jesus expect from us? Anything?
- Of what value are works? Is baptism a work? If so, then is faith also a work?
- What’s the relationship between faith, grace, and works?
I’ve numbered these for ease of reference, but please answer any or all of them in whatever way you like. Or if some of them are bad questions, let me know that too. It’s time to witness, folks! 🙂
Finding Truth 
”There’s good reason to believe the gospels are accurate eyewitness accounts.”
Sorry this is absolute crap. I can’t be kind like the other two and you can respond to them if you wish , Josh.
This sounds like Apologetic Coaching 101. from the William Lane Craig handbook of bullshit.,
Have you even INVESTIGATED the compilation of the gospels?
Know who Marcion was?
Did you know that of the 661 verses in Mark 600 are in Matthew. The same verses.
You are going to tell us Matthew was a tax collector next.
If Mark was an eye witness why in the best manuscripts is there no Resurrection and no visions of the risen lord. Why is the consensus that these verses were later add ons?
Do you know how long it took to actually formulate the canon?
And you want to trust Eusebius and his Patron, Constantine?
Come on, Josh.Please for your gods sake, listen to what you are saying!
Eyewitness?
And what about the gospel of Thomas, or the supposed Q source?
And John….an eyewitness testimony? Come on…really?
LikeLike
@Josh
“No amount of explaining or evidencing can get another person to see things from my perspective. And, I really cannot see things from their perspective, either.”
Your first sentence is incorrect, Josh. I CAN see things from your perspective because I’ve been there. I would daresay many of the other posters on this blog could say the same thing.
On the other hand, your last sentence is probably 100% correct.
When your home is surrounded by fences, it’s pretty difficult to see what’s going on around you.
LikeLike
@Josh
Another point on the Eyewitness claims.
If the gospels were written by eyewitnesses why did nobody else mention him?
The usual apologist rejoinder is to wave this problem away by claiming that Yashu’a would not have been a noteworthy figure, coming from some dirt poor hick town like ”Nazareth”” .
But this disingenuous tactic contradicts what the Gospels say about him, doesn’t it?
He attracted the attention of many thousands during his supposed ministry. Including Jewish Hierarchy
One cannot hold, at the same time, that the Gospels are true eyewitness accounts of actual events, AND that the Jesus figure in those works would not attract the attention of men like Philo, Pliny or Seneca. It’s an absurd contradiction.
But if we are getting a bit too near the knuckle here, too much honest, objective inquiry, ask unklee, he will offer some sort of panacea.
LikeLike
@Nan: you are absolutely right about Josh’s first sentence being wrong and I didn’t catch that when I first read it. Yes, I was a believer in Jesus’ divinity as well as the inspiration of the bible years ago and I did have Josh’s perspective then and I am able to remember and understand why I had that perspective. While Josh can’t see things from our perspective now, I believe he does have the ability to both respect and see things from our perspective even if he might not agree with it.
@Josh: There is some truth to your frustration you are dealing with in these discussions, and I believe it has to do with the fact that there are so many variables involved in coming to decisions on these kinds of things. Most of us realize that it isn’t all that simple, but it is hard to zoom out and think about that sometimes when we are concentrating on one particular aspect of it and not seeing how we could change our minds on that particular aspect. People on all sides (there are more than 2 sides) of the debate do this. Also, it is very rare that people dramatically change their overall worldviews, although even that certainly occurs as Nate has given examples. I am personally an example of someone who changed dramatically twice in my life. However, what I believe is happening all the time but is not being told is a change in minor opinions on particular topics – a huge percentage of the time it’s not enough to change people’s overall worldviews, but views on “sub-topics” are changing all the time. I personally believe the discussions are worthwhile – I know they help me learn. I put more weight on debates between experts and sometimes put the effort in to understand the details at that level, but even at our “layperson” level I can learn from others as far as more logical ways to think. Most of the time it is just the mention of a particular topic that spurs me to dig deeper and seek out more detail from true experts on the topic. It’s certainly not all for naught, although I understand your frustration.
LikeLike
Nate-
“What are those reasons?”
Multiple accounts. Inclusion of embarrassing details about founders. Early dating, for the time period, of the accounts. Majority of errors amongst copies considered to be “copyist errors”, and do not impact the teaching about Jesus.
Regarding me being culturally blinded. Whether or not that is true has no bearing on whether other religions have the historical footing the NT accounts are considered to have.
LikeLike
We also have the advantage of reading these manuscripts and knowing first hand the discrepancies . 2000 yrs ago hardly any of them could read therefore they could espouse anything they wanted. I seriously doubted that any authors of what we now called the Bible ever in their wildest imaginations thought their writings would ever be collected into a single book to be shared by many and especially those who can read.
LikeLike
Ok. I’m going to back off from commenting. I don’t mind having discussions, but I don’t have to listen to people calling what I believe and think “complete bullshit”.
If I am as wrong as William, Nate, Ark, etc think I am I can assure it is not because of lack of investigating. Maybe I’m not smart enough or whatever, but I have spent the last 15 years looking for reasons that I should NOT trust christianity. I haven’t found any convincing. But, I’m not going to continue reading and engaging in a discussion where people are allowed to completely flog others with no respect. I will respectfully bow out of discussions on this blog.
LikeLike
When you read about the Early Church Fathers, it is obvious from the beginning, they were “All About” turning this New Religious Concept into an Organized Power and Wealth machine. From Clement on, their message was to Obey their Bishop and that Salvation was not obtainable outside the Church.
Just as famed Scholar Geza Vermes stated, “This historical Jesus, however, is so different from the Christ of faith that Christians, says Vermes, may well want to rethink the fundamentals of their faith.”
LikeLike
@Ark: While I agree with you that the gospels are very unlikely “eyewitness” accounts, by calling that belief “crap” instead of just clearly and respectfully laying out the facts for why that is incorrect you are going to turn this blog into an echo chamber which would disappoint a lot of us. I think you have the knowledge to lay out these facts without the insults. I and others could learn better that way.
@Josh: I like hearing what you have to say, although I certainly understand if you want to back off from commenting. Please don’t!
LikeLike
Josh, I’m not sure how many here are trying to bash the teachings of Jesus as much as they are trying to point out how Christianity took a dramatic turn from those teachings. There are many Scholars who claim Jesus never intended to start a new religion. Paul is the one who saw an opportunity here and ran with it. And yet when you read the 13 or 14 books attributed to Paul, he quotes Jesus just 3 times. He clearly didn’t care to know the earthly life of Jesus. He also noticed early that he wasn’t going to convince many Jews and headed straight for the Gentiles. Why ? Because Jews knew Jesus didn’t fit the mold of what they believed.
LikeLike
@Howie.
We are adults. It is no more disrespectful for the likes of Josh to claim the old canard ”Eyewitness” and offer zip and think he can get away with this than it is for mean to state this is crap.
Let’s be mindful that there is plenty of evidence to refute these silly statements, and for Josh to say he has investigated (and we would hope with an open mind) is clearly not true.
If he truly believes what he does, then he should tell me the same. I can take it, no problem.
Let him tell my claims are bullshit. Let him SHOW me.
Apologists teach this stuff to kids as if it is truth. They must step up to the plate and demonstrate irrefutable evidence or pipe down.
Do you honestly believe Josh or Unklee are EVER going to change because of what an atheist says?
No. Like you, like Nate and every other normal person they will only change if they reach a point where they grow up and think.
This is not right…and go and find out.
Until then, if they are going to come on an atheist blog and try and call Nate out then they must deliver.
There are people in the States who are afraid to admit they are atheist because of the recriminations. Some of these folk have lost friends, jobs, family.
The religious fanatics corrupt kids.
Maybe Josh isn”t as bad as Unklee of out there fundies but it is still a slippery slope.
Free speech. He calls god man, I say bullshit.
LikeLike
I agree, kc.
The way that Paul portrayed Jesus (dying/rising god) made it much easier for the Gentiles to accept Jesus. The Jewish people were expecting a human messiah so there was no way they would accept the “spiritual” Jesus that Paul painted.
LikeLike
@Ark: I didn’t say that you aren’t free to say it is bullshit, but I believe that the consequence of that will be an echo chamber. If that’s the result so be it, but I’d prefer that isn’t the result.
LikeLike
I love blogs like this, but eventually such discussions become circular.
One question that is not asked out loud is why would the likes of Josh, and more so unklee come and comment.
When you read what Nate went through and maybe yourself, and then read what the likes of unklee & Josh post you HAVE to wonder why they bother?
They are NOT asking for evidence of their faith, and they certainly won’t find it here. Lol!
If they are looking for evidence that what they believe is false then they are not showing ANY willingness to engage in a manner that is conducive to helping them solve such a dilemma.
No, they are here to be combative, no matter how subtle they may approach the topic.
Josh doesn’t like bullshit and objects to crap? Good heavens! He’s been listening to it from those that inculcated him with religion since day one.
No.What Josh doesn’t like is truth and before his bluff is finally called he is running away. They all do.
LikeLike
Okay,for Nate’s sake. I apologize for saying what Josh believes is crap and bullshit.
Sorry, Nate, too.
Maybe I was getting a bit over the top.
My overall standpoint is this:
If you wish to believe in a god and follow a religion fine. Just ‘please, please please, don’ t teach it to kids or others, let them follow this route when they are old enough to make an informed decision. Do this and we can all be mates, no sweat.
Fair enough?
LikeLike
It doesnt work that way, Ark… at least I dont think it does.
I dont care what people believe, but ask that sound arguments be made when possible, and that people try to avoid making things up to support their positions. And once they see that their position doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, the abandon it.
it’s the continual making “evidence/support” up for one’s position, and the invention of reasons as to why errors and contradictions arent errors or contradictions that aid in my loss of patience and sympathy at times. And probably even more frustrating is having to even explain why such issues should be problematic, when it seems as obvious as the big blue sky.
I’d hate for anyone to just run off and leave the discussion, but if they’re going to spout off made up claims and use or abandon logic when it suits their purposes, then maybe they’re better off not engaging in real discussions. I’ve asked several questions to the believers over many blogs posts – and most have gone unanswered – without attempt.
But maybe Josh is frustrated in realizing his position isnt what he thought it was, and this is just an expected stage in the withdrawal process. Not trying to be cute or funny in this. the realization that your lifelong religion is fairy tale is quite a blow. Just evaluate it, consider it and come back to the table for discussion when you’re ready.
good luck to you sir.
LikeLike
@William
I agree, but I’ve been taken to task before for pulling believers up too sharply. And I have to be mindful this is Nate’s blog, not mine.
In an age where there is nothing..and I mean NOTHING the believer is able to offer to justify their claims of religious truth it is utterly disgusting that many people in a country like the US of Eh? will openly state that atheists are unpatriotic, untrustworthy and certain prejudicial laws are still on the statute books.
Research resources are as readily available to believers – of all faiths and religions – as they are for normal people.yet with all these resources available where is the evidence?
If Josh is really here to question his faith then let’s hear it .
LikeLike
Josh, I don’t think Ark’s comment was directed at you personally, but at the assertion that the gospels are reliable history. I don’t know if that’s any consolation to you or not, but I thought it was actually a bit tame, as Ark-isms go… 😉
Like everyone else, I hate to see you pull back, unless you just want to. That’s up to you.
It’s never easy to hear people criticize the things you believe — I know. And I appreciate the character you’ve shown in putting up with that for the last few months that you’ve been frequenting this blog. So I hope you’ll think about sticking around.
LikeLike
Howie said this in one of his recent comments, and I couldn’t agree more. There are some Youtube videos that made an impact on me early in my deconversion, and that guy compared it to “graceful degradation.” That’s the idea that a network can withstand some damage, yet still function. So if you imagine a network made up of many different intersecting points, one (or more) of those points can fail, yet the network as a whole does not go down.
Complicated beliefs like religion seem to operate the same way. On this blog, we can criticize one aspect of Christianity in a post, and even if we succeed in striking down that aspect of Christianity (poke holes in the Bible, for instance), a Christian won’t immediately be deconverted, because their faith is actually built on a number of things: morality, the value of prayer, comfort, the complexity of the universe, etc. So even if one of those reasons for belief eventually fails, there are still other reasons for belief that maintain the network of faith. Instead, it takes a failure of multiple points before faith will finally fail. For me, it was problems with the Bible (failed prophecies, bad history, internal consistency, skewed morality, etc), the problem of evil and suffering, the hiddenness of God, the seeming ineffectiveness of prayer, etc.
I imagine for all the deconverts that frequent this blog, the experience was very similar.
LikeLike
wow, seems like a very heated discussion, I have been so engulfed at work and home these last two weeks, I didn’t even realize u put up a new post nate. give me a minute while I catch up on the comments
LikeLike
UnkleE – “A lot depends on what we mean by “rational”. If either christian or atheist means “according to how I think”, then clearly there is little likelihood of have a constructive conversation. Studies show that analytical thinkers are more likely to be atheist, pessimistic and less social, intuitive thinkers are more likely to be theists, optimistic and social. Analytical thinking is more useful in science and problem solving, whereas intuitive thinking is more useful in life overall, in relationships and in making decisions with inadequate information.”
I would imagine that the time a person has to consider something would dictate or at least influence which type of thinking is used – as well as relation to the topic. But that’s not really what i’m commenting on.
Will Gervais, who is one of the researchers in the report I believe you’re citing, says that intuitive thinkers use mental shortcuts and gut feelings. While I believe most people use a combination of both analytical and intuitive thinking in their lives, I do agree with you that it is primarily intuitive thinking that gets people into religion. It can be a mental shortcut to explain complex ideas away to god.
And when someone has to just out and out deny or pretend they don’t see a problem in the bible to believe in it, then that is the opposite of rational.
LikeLike
Yeah. I overreacted a bit there. I actually think I hold up okay to Ark’s comments most of the time, even if he thinks I’m a complete loon for believing what I do. Should’ve taken a breath before posting that comment.
LikeLike
just glad we didn’t lose you 🙂
LikeLike
Nah. Just a hot-headed moment. Certainly wasn’t my first. Unfortunately, probably not my last.
LikeLike
I thought this particular blog was to get a better understanding of the tenants of Christianity from a more liberal view point than the ultra conservative one Nate was familiar with? Sad to see it has looped into some of the same arguments I’ve seen here for a year or so.
LikeLike