How can people still take the Bible or other the religious texts literally?

[kaysixteen]

Most people here seem to be avoiding the issue of sin.   If one is a sinner, one deserves consequences for that sin, or needs someone or something to take those consequences for one.   If one does not believe in sin, that would of course be a different issue.

There is also the concept of 'the noetic effect of the fall', which suggests that sin affects our minds the same way it affects the rest of our bodies, and, thus, as Paul notes, we 'see as through a glass, darkly', IOW, our ability to understand God and His ways, even for the most wise and spiritually mature person in this life, is by definition flawed.

[Wahoo Redux]

Well, yeah, one has to buy into the concept of sin and the concept of The Fall as a justification.

I'm still troubled by the snake (symbolism accidental in this context) burned to a crisp in a forest fire.

That animal did not sin.

[Treehugger]

it is completely reasonable for a person to accept religious beliefs if they provide a more complete description of their universe and life within it. Specifically, if questions of human value, the purpose for existence, and so on are  more satisfactorily answered in a religious framework, then it is reasonable for someone to accept those beliefs on that basis even without being able to verify specific factual claims about ancient events.

I was once channel-surfing and ran across one of those mega-church broadcasts at exactly the moment that the preacher was saying "What would you rather believe in?  A God that is all-powerful and benevolent or a cold impersonal universes?" or something right along those lines.  My thought, of course, is that there are all sorts of things I'd like to believe in (I am a rock star in the world's biggest band; I can bench-press 500 lbs; I've won the Nobel Prize in Basket-weaving), but reason and experience suggest otherwise. 

You can't really believe you've won the Nobel Prize. You can say it; you can try to get other people to believe it, but that's all.  What you can actually believe is what makes sense. Which is part of why religious groups, political parties, etc. contain hypocrites - people can claim to believe things for a variety of reasons. What they actually believe will become apparent by observing their actions over time in a variety of settings.

But by the same reasoning, couldn't we call the vast majority of Christians hypocrites? If they truly believed, wouldn't they be positively thrilled when they found out they had a terminal illness, because then they would go to heaven, see God, live in eternal bliss and all that? And yet most Christians (just like atheists) seem to want to avoid dying.

Just an observation I've made over the years ...

[Treehugger]

What evidence would convince me of the literal resurrection of someone who was actually dead for three days back 2,000 years ago way before modern medicine?

Shrug. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, crucifixion is quite a slow death. It can take days for the victim to suffocate, die of dehydration, or be dispatched by their friends. If you took someone down before they'd actually died, they'd have ghastly but not immediately life-threatening wounds, and they might well seem dead. If they woke up sometime later, you'd be pretty surprised by it. More recently, we have plenty of evidence of people who were thought to be dead, but who came to life suddenly (in some stories, during the funeral services, although that may well be apocryphal). It doesn't stretch my imagination to believe this happened at some point to someone who'd been crucified. Maybe Inanna? It's the kind of story you'd tell for a while after.

But this does not actually make a case for the validity of the resurrection. The whole point of the resurrection was that Jesus was actually dead. In the words of one translation of the Apostles creed: "I believe ... in Jesus Christ ... who ... was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day, he rose again."

In your scenario, he didn't actually die. In order to prove that the resurrection happened, you would have to prove that Jesus was actually dead for three days, then came back to life on earth before ascending into heaven. Which you cannot do. The whole point of the story is that it is not in the slightest bit reasonable or amenable to empirical investigation.

As Mark Twain famously said: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Which is, I believe, why most Christians aren't happy to die (even a quick pain free death) — because deep inside they "know [it] ain't so."

[marshwiggle]

You can't really believe you've won the Nobel Prize. You can say it; you can try to get other people to believe it, but that's all.  What you can actually believe is what makes sense. Which is part of why religious groups, political parties, etc. contain hypocrites - people can claim to believe things for a variety of reasons. What they actually believe will become apparent by observing their actions over time in a variety of settings.

But by the same reasoning, couldn't we call the vast majority of Christians hypocrites? If they truly believed, wouldn't they be positively thrilled when they found out they had a terminal illness, because then they would go to heaven, see God, live in eternal bliss and all that? And yet most Christians (just like atheists) seem to want to avoid dying.

Just an observation I've made over the years ...

Being inconsistent is part of being human. Back in the '80's, there was a physicist named Jearl Walker, who used to do all kinds of physics tricks, like walking on hot coals, putting his hand in molten lead, and drinking liquid nitrogen. He did this in live shows, and explained the physics behind it. I sat in the front row and even kept a souvenir of a blob of molten lead, but there's NO WAY I'm ever going to try those things. I undertsand physics; I've seen it with my own eyes, but I don't have enough faith to do it.

There are inconsistencies in various areas of my life, regardless of how strongly I hold the principles that I try to live by.

[marshwiggle]

Uh yeah...Marshy...so in your analogy God correlates to the surgeon (who presumably used anesthesia on the infant unless hu was working in the early 19th century?) and the infant correlates to the snake flash-burning to death for its own good? 

God turned the rattler into charbroil because of some plan that benefits the snake? 

We don't perceive the good that comes from an agonized animal with an IQ of around, what? 2 points or something?

I didn't come up with this basic scenario anyway.  Rowe first proposed the problem of the fawn in the forest fire (I couldn't remember the name so I had to Google it). 

You might want to try that one again, or not at all.

So how bubble-wrapped should life be? Whether it's natural disasters or actions of people, to what degree should we be kept safe from any harm? Is "Brave New World" the ideal?

I have no idea what you are on about.  Are you suggesting that I am somehow being a wimp for wondering why there is needless suffering and harm?  I'm being ridiculous because I question the validity of a simple animal's torment?

Dumb.  Dumb.  Dumb.

If there is a benevolent omnipotent god it should keep us from harm.  I would never let anything I love suffer if I could help it.  For that matter, I would never let anything I don't love suffer if I could help it. A benevolent omnipotent god should certainly keep its creation from needless agony if it could. 

So no sports, no wilderness hikes, no climbing stairs, ........

Almost EVERY activity imaginable carries some risk. As I said, unless you want people to live in bubble wrap, OR turn them into Stepford people, who only do what is "safe", this would make the world mind-numbingly dull and existence pretty much without purpose. But safe.

If I were god I would pop down to the planet in all my magnificence and tell all of humanity to stop the crap; provide a miraculous rain of meat to every predator everywhere so they would not rend and tear any other creatures; cure all the birth-defects, diseases, and accidents and make sure no other accidents ever happen.  I would be a god of utopias because I am kindly and I really don't want to hurt or see others hurt.  I went vegetarian a decade ago because I could not abide the cruelty of factory farming, and so if I were god there is no question that every creature would prosper; all pollution, and natural disaster would vanish in the blink of a cosmic eyelid. Being omnipotent I would simply make humanity love me in the deep, profound, fulfilling way they are supposed to.

If any human said this, you'd put them on a watch list for some sort of predatory abuse.

And this is what we should expect from an omnipotent, benevolent, all-loving father.  If God's idea of bringing us to Him is to hurt us, this is not a nice god.  It is getting harder and harder to support the idea of a wise joyful god who tortures us.  Seen what is happening to Christian church attendance in the last couple decades?

Brave New World is a scientific dystopia.

Of course, but the soma-induced fog seems to be the closest to the kind of world you desire.

Facile explanations, Marshy----avoid them and don't be obnoxious.

A world where any kind of suffering is impossible is about as facile as it gets.

[Wahoo Redux]

So no sports, no wilderness hikes, no climbing stairs, ........

Almost EVERY activity imaginable carries some risk. As I said, unless you want people to live in bubble wrap, OR turn them into Stepford people, who only do what is "safe", this would make the world mind-numbingly dull and existence pretty much without purpose. But safe.

Nope.  Sports.  Climbing.  Hiking.  Skiing.  Karate.  Skydiving.  Fire walking.  I'm God.  It's all there.  I can make all these things safe and wonderful at all times.  You think you've made a statement, Marshy, but you haven't.  I, God, am omnipotent and benevolent----I can do anything. Bubblewrap us.  We are incredibly fragile, all of us on the planet. Out bodies are maimed, our psyches are victimized, our lives are snuffed out in an instant.   I, God, apparently did not make you in My image because you are so easily damaged.  I am God.  I made you.  I love you.  I will keep the things I made safe and the things I love safe.  And because I am omnipotent, I can give you depth and personality.  I would say, "Go forth, My creation, and create beauty and industry, seek depth and knowledge and personality in My safe and wholesome world" and you would, because I am God.

You think the Holocaust keeps us from being "Stepfords" (another sci-fi dystopia themed around the idea of unthinking robot drones) or that cancer makes us better, more interesting people, and that this is a "plan" for our own good?  Really!?  Or do these simply make our world more painful and terrifying.

If I were god I would pop down to the planet in all my magnificence and tell all of humanity to stop the crap; provide a miraculous rain of meat to every predator everywhere so they would not rend and tear any other creatures; cure all the birth-defects, diseases, and accidents and make sure no other accidents ever happen.  I would be a god of utopias because I am kindly and I really don't want to hurt or see others hurt.  I went vegetarian a decade ago because I could not abide the cruelty of factory farming, and so if I were god there is no question that every creature would prosper; all pollution, and natural disaster would vanish in the blink of a cosmic eyelid. Being omnipotent I would simply make humanity love me in the deep, profound, fulfilling way they are supposed to.

If any human said this, you'd put them on a watch list for some sort of predatory abuse.

Yeah?  How so?  I've just eliminated abuse.  And predation.

And anyway, I'm God there, not a human.  I just want to make things nice.  Nobody can put me on a watch list, and human's wouldn't even have the concept of "a watch list"----we never would have had reason to invent such a thing.

Of course, but the soma-induced fog seems to be the closest to the kind of world you desire.

Nothing there about soma.  That's you very lamely trying to poke holes in a very simply premise.

As a matter of fact, I'm God, I've eliminated drug abuse and drug addiction.  There is no need for drugs of any kind anyway, there is no disease, injury, or psychological dysfunction.  My creation is at one with nature and the cosmos.  I'm omnipotent.  The Earth I am describing is actually very much the vernacular conception of Heaven.  I, being God, just don't force you through this miserable, dangerous planet, tempting and testing you at every turn, just so you can get to sit at my feet in perfect bliss...maybe...one day, if my planet doesn't break you----'cause you know, being a sinful creature, you might not even get to Heaven after I've endangered and tortured you through a lifetime.  The way we have it now, you might make a mistake (probably based on the biology I programmed into you) and, Bang! Trap door open: into the Lake of Fire with you!!!

But no; I, being God, would not trick you in this manner.  I would give you depth upon birth.  I would give you wholesomeness and piety.  No need to torture you into being better than I initially designed you.

A world where any kind of suffering is impossible is about as facile as it gets.

Why?  I'm God.  Why should there be suffering?  Why should it be impossible not to suffer?  There's nothing facile about that question.  It's actually one of the profoundest and most considered questions in Christianity.  You just have a simplistic, not-well-thought-out response that sounds a lot like the crap they fed us in Sunday school when I was a kid.

And none of that explains the last terrible moments of a snake in a forest fire.

[apl68]

A world where any kind of suffering is impossible is about as facile as it gets.

Why?  I'm God.  Why should there be suffering?  Why should it be impossible not to suffer?  There's nothing facile about that question.  It's actually one of the profoundest and most considered questions in Christianity.  You just have a simplistic, not-well-thought-out response that sounds a lot like the crap they fed us in Sunday school when I was a kid.

And none of that explains the last terrible moments of a snake in a forest fire.

One could point out that the steady stream of small animals that died to sustain the snake's life hadn't sinned any more than the snake had--and each one probably died just as horribly in the snake's maw as the snake did in the fire.  Of course you said above that if you were God you would eliminate predation.  That would mean no more snakes, since a snake is an animal specifically designed--by God, evolution, or both--to be a predator.  So, to a large extent, are human beings.  The suffering-free world you're talking about would be entirely alien to anything we know, or can really imagine (Unless we imagine a world that consists only of inert matter that can't suffer).  We can't live in such a world because if we did we simply wouldn't be us. 

The thing that really strikes me about your most recent posts, though, is your assertion that if you were God you'd do things differently.  You're sure you can do better than God has done (Sort of like Woody Allen's comment that "if there is a God, he's an underachiever").  It appears that, at some level at least, you want to be God. 

That's what we're saying when we tell God that we have a problem with something that he has done or allowed to happen.  Which, not incidentally, I have done myself.  We all have.  Wanting the world around us to confirm to our desires is a fundamental human desire.  There have been times in my own life where I have made myself miserable for extended periods of time because I was so determined to be angry and disappointed over something very important to me that God didn't make turn out the way I wanted.

I felt that way when my dreams of an academic career failed.  I felt that way when my marriage turned out childless and abusive, and ended with my being abandoned (Though in hindsight that was the biggest favor my ex ever did me).  And I felt that way in the past year when my mother, myself, and father each suffered serious injuries and health crises in turn, and I experienced another severe disappointment in life, which I won't go into here. 

Each time I found I had a choice.  I could decide to be angry and bitter and resentful toward God for the rest of my life, or maybe decide I didn't want to believe in God anymore and be angry and bitter toward the blind Universe instead.  Or I could say "Okay, God, this is the situation you've given me to face.  Please help me to deal with it."  Each time I've made the second choice, and have found myself freed from that anger, bitterness, and resentment.  And in the process have found myself becoming far better able to help, love, and serve other people.

I make this choice because when I look around at the vast world of humanity, and nature, and the solar system and galaxies and all the rest of Creation's vastness, I just can't muster that sublime confidence that I know best.  That the world, or even my own life, would actually be better if I got to be God.  I've known others who went down that road of being bitter and resentful because God wouldn't conform to their wishes.  It hasn't work out well for any of them.  Somebody near and dear to me literally went crazy doing that.

Life goes better when we drop the burden of wanting to be God.

[apl68]

But by the same reasoning, couldn't we call the vast majority of Christians hypocrites? If they truly believed, wouldn't they be positively thrilled when they found out they had a terminal illness, because then they would go to heaven, see God, live in eternal bliss and all that? And yet most Christians (just like atheists) seem to want to avoid dying.

Just an observation I've made over the years ...

A few things.  First, who says we all want to avoid dying?  Many Christians throughout history, dating back to Paul of Tarsus, have expressed a wish to be released from this life to go to their eternal home.  There's a part of me that would really like to excused from the next thirty years or so that I can reasonably expect to live in this world.  It doesn't look like they're going to be pretty.

Second, as others have already acknowledged, many of us are aware of our inconsistencies.  We know that our desires for God and the things of God are not perfect.  It's something we're working on.  There is a part of me that really likes good books, and sunsets, and occasional vacations, and other pleasant things of this world--and would like to remain alive and healthy to keep enjoying those for awhile longer.

Third, and most important for a more mature Christian, is the realization that in this, as in the rest of life, it's not our call to make.  God didn't just save us to take us to Heaven.  He has work for us to do right here and now.  Paul of Tarsus spoke of being torn between a desire to go on to be with God, and an understanding that it was best for others if he stayed and continued with his work.  So it is for each of us.  We've all got people depending on us--in our jobs, our families, our friendships, and in the work of telling others about Jesus.  Life here may not be as good as Heaven will be, but it's very meaningful and important while it lasts.  It's not something that we need to be in a hurry to bail out of.

One last thing.  There's nothing that says in the New Testament that we have to be miserable in this world, even as we look forward with anticipation toward the next.  I'm perfectly fine with enjoying good books, sunsets, etc.  Those are things to thank God for right now.  I'm glad I have my work, even if it drives me crazy sometimes.  I'm glad I still have a chance to be useful.  There have been times in the past when I was so down that I really was about ready to die.  I'm glad I didn't.  Whether I live, die or get diagnosed with a terminal illness next week, or keep going until I'm 90, or live to see Jesus return (Which is looking more and more like a distinct possibility), what's important is serving God and enjoying his presence.

[Wahoo Redux]

One could point out that the steady stream of small animals that died to sustain the snake's life hadn't sinned any more than the snake had--and each one probably died just as horribly in the snake's maw as the snake did in the fire.  Of course you said above that if you were God you would eliminate predation.  That would mean no more snakes, since a snake is an animal specifically designed--by God, evolution, or both--to be a predator. So, to a large extent, are human beings. 

Yup.  Snake is pretty bad if you are a mouse. They does not lessen the problem in the least----it actually makes it more acute.  The mouse laughs and flips the flash-charred monster-snake the bird and celebrates the agony of it's enemy.  But no, wait: I am God.  My snakes are miraculously fed meat everyday.  Or, since I am God, snakes eat turnips.   Or, since I am God, the snake lives off the friction of slithering across the ground----a happy electric snake.  Mouse and snake are friends.  We are friends with mouse, snake, tiger, etc. and because I am God, I can evolve anything I like, or not.  I've made the world perfect for those I love, why would I change it?

The suffering-free world you're talking about would be entirely alien to anything we know, or can really imagine (Unless we imagine a world that consists only of inert matter that can't suffer).

Respectfully disagree.  The world is NOT complete suffering. We wouldn't stay in it if it was.  An Edenic would not be alien at all, simply free of suffering.  I am God, and my world is filled with art, literature, industry, exploration, gourmet restaurants, love, sex, and platonic companionship.  It is very much the world we know, just without the suffering.  Sure, our novels and movies are considerably different, but since I am God I gift you with narrative and empathy and an innate concept of beauty.

It appears that, at some level at least, you want to be God. 

Come on, apl68.  Don't be silly.  God knows, I do not want to be God.  I don't even want to listen to my students complaints that they can't open a Zoom link much less deal with the horrors of humanity and nature red in tooth and claw (which comes from a pretty profound examination of the problem of worldly suffering, BTW).

You, like poor Marshy, are trying to figure out how my own minor selfish concerns are distorting my conception of God's justice and wisdom in the world. It's a typical defensive posture of frustration.  I'm simply pointing out the unsustainable belief in a benevolent, omnipotent, joyful, loving God who allows what happens to happen via a objectively logical argument (if we didn't have predators, we wouldn't have evolution!  No.  We could have evolution by divine intervention, which is maybe what evolution is anyway)----I am by far not the first to wonder aloud about this, as I am sure you know.

At some level, the concept of a benevolent, omnipotent god who makes us better through trauma and torment is simply an untenable argument.  You cannot logic your way through it.  This is where faith comes in. 

And suffering does not necessarily make us better.  I speak as someone who has had a very lucky life but am witnessing mental illness in my family, is a friend of someone who suffered violent childhood sexual abuse, and someone who watched my father lose a long, humiliating and painful battle with lung cancer to leave my mother alone to develop Alzheimer's disease.  These experiences do not redeem us.  They hurt and damage and kill us.

There have been times in my own life where I have made myself miserable for extended periods of time because I was so determined to be angry and disappointed over something very important to me that God didn't make turn out the way I wanted.

Yeah, that's not very nice of Him, is it?  I wouldn't trust a human who denied me something very important, why would I trust a god who denies me many important things?

Each time I found I had a choice.  I could decide to be angry and bitter and resentful toward God for the rest of my life, or maybe decide I didn't want to believe in God anymore and be angry and bitter toward the blind Universe instead.  Or I could say "Okay, God, this is the situation you've given me to face.  Please help me to deal with it."  Each time I've made the second choice, and have found myself freed from that anger, bitterness, and resentment.  And in the process have found myself becoming far better able to help, love, and serve other people.

I think that speaks more to your character than to the presumptive character of God.

God, being omnipotent, could have made you able to help, love, and serve other people.  Does He have to hurt you to do that?

I make this choice because when I look around at the vast world of humanity, and nature, and the solar system and galaxies and all the rest of Creation's vastness, I just can't muster that sublime confidence that I know best.  That the world, or even my own life, would actually be better if I got to be God.  I've known others who went down that road of being bitter and resentful because God wouldn't conform to their wishes.  It hasn't work out well for any of them.  Somebody near and dear to me literally went crazy doing that.

You don't mean to, but your examples actually bolster a god of suffering, denial, and eventual insanity and a faithful follower who refuses to believe this.  You choose to see the infinity filled with righteous divine love, your own dialogue illustrates this; others find a cold existential void.

Life goes better when we drop the burden of wanting to be God.

Yeah, I'll agree. 

Life would go a lot better if God would quit torturing His own creatures, too.

[apl68]

Wahoo, it appears our conversation here is at an impasse.  I joined in to try to explain, not to debate.  I've offered the best explanations I can.  To the extent that I have them to offer--I can't say that I have all the answers.  And I am okay with not having them all.  That's where faith comes in.

All I can say more is that Jesus' invitation to trust him remains open.

[Wahoo Redux]

Sure, I hope I made that clear before---I accept  your vision and would not challenge you any more than you wish to be challenged.  We need not debate at all; I was just responding. And I did say pretty much exactly what you said---this is where faith comes in.  Faith is a wonderful thing.

[fast_and_bulbous]

Faith is a wonderful thing.

I'm not a fan. Anecdotally, my life really only began once I lost mine. But I understand its power.

[Treehugger]

Faith is a wonderful thing.

I'm not a fan. Anecdotally, my life really only began once I lost mine. But I understand its power.

I agree with everything you wrote F & B.

I still remember exactly where I was and what I was doing the moment I stopped believing. It was as if I had been watching some lame, silent, black-and-white film and all of a sudden, I was living in a vibrant, multicolor world, a world that was real, that was really, really real. It was a world that mattered. It was all I had and suddenly it was incredibly precious. And I felt free to act in this world exactly the way I saw fit (what I believed was best for myself and others) and I didn't have to worry constantly about what some God thought about my opinions.

And yet I understand or believe I understand the power of faith. When I am in a really bad place (I'm worried about the plane crashing or something like that), I sometimes feel the power of God or the universe protecting me. I know I will be fine. I feel comforted. On some level, I know that I am believing in a fiction, but I also believe that somehow as a human being I am wired to believe in this fiction when the going gets tough and I don't beat myself up about it. I just let myself believe what I need to believe the .0001% of the time I feel like I need this other worldly support it get through whatever the horror is. Then, when all is clear I just return to my normal, realistic atheistic self. And I refuse to let any faith tradition guilt me into thinking I'm a hypocrite.

In fact, I really, honestly think it is normal and healthy to "believe" sometimes and not other times.

I had been having lots of questions for years before I suddenly realized that God doesn't actually exist. But it was    John Shelby Spong's Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism that was the actual trigger for my deconversion epiphany. Somewhere in this book, Spong discusses Mark 2:27: "Then Jesus told them 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath'." Spong interprets this verse as saying that religion is for us, it should help us, not harm us. I agree, but now understand that verse even more broadly than Spong does. I understood it as giving me the freedom to believe in the very rare occasions that I needed to, but not believe at all the vast majority of the time.

[kaysixteen]

What exactly is the nature of a 'belief' that one picks and chooses when to take, as though it were an aspirin?