The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Hakons]

When I say "spirituality isn't natural" the point is that the spiritual realm (if it exists) is different from the natural realm and if the two are separate, how would there be evidence for the spiritual realm in the natural realm?

To continue with the logic, if one realm of existence is immeasurable by empirical standards, one shouldn't use empirical standards against it.

However, I reject the premise that the spiritual world is separated entirely from the temporal world

[Andromeda Islands]

Yes, for example, extraterrestrial life, if there is no evidence for it, why should I believe in it?

There is historical evidence for Christ.

Well, I know that Christians and Jews exist, is that evidence that their religions (which don't agree in some (many?) ways), are true?
By the same token, if there is historical evidence for Christ (and I'm not interested in arguing that there isn't) what does that prove?

[Northern Davincia]

There is historical evidence for Christ.

Well, I know that Christians and Jews exist, is that evidence that their religions (which don't agree in some (many?) ways), are true?
By the same token, if there is historical evidence for Christ (and I'm not interested in arguing that there isn't) what does that prove?

If there is evidence for Christ, it goes a long way to validate the record found in the gospels.

[Andromeda Islands]

When I say "spirituality isn't natural" the point is that the spiritual realm (if it exists) is different from the natural realm and if the two are separate, how would there be evidence for the spiritual realm in the natural realm?

To continue with the logic, if one realm of existence is immeasurable by empirical standards, one shouldn't use empirical standards against it.

However, I reject the premise that the spiritual world is separated entirely from the temporal world

Well, getting back to my original premise, in my opinion (I won't call it a fact), it seems speculative and subjective.
With that I'll have to get back to this at some point in the future as I need to go.
Shalom.

[Kowani]

Is their scientific evidence for anything spiritual? Science doesn't have all the answers, but it is based on empirical evidence, can you say the same thing about religion? To put it more bluntly spirituality isn't natural.

Spirituality and religion are incredibly natural. To be even more blunt, in the history of humanity and civilization, widespread atheism as we see in modern Western society (though still a minority) is decidedly unnatural and without historical precedent.

I mean, technically, everybody is born atheist, so you're wrong there, but natural does not automatically mean good. Many things are without historical precedent, or were at the time they were enacted. If we didn't do things because nobody had ever done them before, we wouldn't have moved past Hammurabi's Code.

[Luminesa]

Spirituality and religion are incredibly natural. To be even more blunt, in the history of humanity and civilization, widespread atheism as we see in modern Western society (though still a minority) is decidedly unnatural and without historical precedent.

I mean, technically, everybody is born atheist, so you're wrong there, but natural does not automatically mean good. Many things are without historical precedent, or were at the time they were enacted. If we didn't do things because nobody had ever done them before, we wouldn't have moved past Hammurabi's Code.

You have to choose atheism in order to be an atheist...

[Kowani]

I mean, technically, everybody is born atheist, so you're wrong there, but natural does not automatically mean good. Many things are without historical precedent, or were at the time they were enacted. If we didn't do things because nobody had ever done them before, we wouldn't have moved past Hammurabi's Code.

You have to choose atheism in order to be an atheist...

Atheism: Lack of belief in any gods.
Babies: Don't believe in any Gods. Heck, they don't even have the concept of a God.
You have to teach Children about your religion for them to become religious. Now, my anti-theism is learned, and in that you would be correct, but one is technically born atheist.

[Hakons]

You have to choose atheism in order to be an atheist...

Atheism: Lack of belief in any gods.
Babies: Don't believe in any Gods. Heck, they don't even have the concept of a God.
You have to teach Children about your religion for them to become religious. Now, my anti-theism is learned, and in that you would be correct, but one is technically born atheist.

How do you know they're not aggressive pagans? Did they tell you? Babies aren't exactly rattling off Nietzsche quotes. You have no, nor can you even obtain, evidence for this claim. Humans have ingrained biological knowledge. Who are you to say this doesn't include belief in spirituality or God. How do you know you did not have belief beaten out of you by the forces around you? Even more, it's quite arrogant to say atheism is the natural, neutral state. Atheism is a radical stance, in contention with most cultures and societies, now, and even more so in the past. Atheism isn't neutral, it is a specific ideology that contrasts with the vast majority of humanity.

[Kowani]

Atheism: Lack of belief in any gods.
Babies: Don't believe in any Gods. Heck, they don't even have the concept of a God.
You have to teach Children about your religion for them to become religious. Now, my anti-theism is learned, and in that you would be correct, but one is technically born atheist.

How do you know they're not aggressive pagans? Did they tell you? Babies aren't exactly rattling off Nietzsche quotes. You have no, nor can you even obtain, evidence for this claim. Humans have ingrained biological knowledge. Who are you to say this doesn't include belief in spirituality or God. How do you know you did not have belief beaten out of you by the forces around you? Even more, it's quite arrogant to say atheism is the natural, neutral state. Atheism is a radical stance, in contention with most cultures and societies, now, and even more so in the past. Atheism isn't neutral, it is a specific ideology that contrasts with the vast majority of humanity.

Right, y'don't have to pull out a specific reason to not believe in a god. All you have to do is never have been taught. Now, with time you could definitely come to your own conclusions (See the old Proto-human religions), particularly to explain natural forces, but babies don't have the mental capacity to do so.

The ingrained biological knowledge within humans are your base physiological instincts (breathing, eating, drinking), the ones you literally cannot survive without. One's body can live without religion, and, except for extreme physical trauma where the nerves no longer work, you cannot get a person to forget how to breathe. If we accept your claim that spirituality is an ingrained trait, it should follow the same rules as those other traits, but as the multitude of religions and conversions show us, it does not.

Atheism is only not neutral to you because you come from the position that a god exists, and in this dichotomy lies the problem. Either there are gods or there are not. (Whether we can know them is something else entirely.) There is no neutral, unbiased position because bias is in the eye of the beholder. As such, as the lack of gods is something that is not required to be learned, whereas religion is, we can say that atheism is the less active of the two. The fact that it contrasts with most of human history is irrelevant, as there are many other things today in Western Society that also contradicts the rules and morals held by those same societies. If the past is wrong, let it be wrong. I am not saying that atheism is the natural state once one is old enough to comprehend a religion, as again, proto-humans show us, because things seem to have to come from somewhere (Atomic Decay and various other fuzzy points of Quantum Mechanics aside), and as such, it is easy to attribute natural processes to a deity. However, because babies are babies, they neither have the mental capacity for, nor the concept of a god until it is taught to them, and, as such, cannot be called theists.

[Uiiop]

Atheism: Lack of belief in any gods.
Babies: Don't believe in any Gods. Heck, they don't even have the concept of a God.
You have to teach Children about your religion for them to become religious. Now, my anti-theism is learned, and in that you would be correct, but one is technically born atheist.

How do you know they're not aggressive pagans? Did they tell you? Babies aren't exactly rattling off Nietzsche quotes. You have no, nor can you even obtain, evidence for this claim. Humans have ingrained biological knowledge. Who are you to say this doesn't include belief in spirituality or God. How do you know you did not have belief beaten out of you by the forces around you? Even more, it's quite arrogant to say atheism is the natural, neutral state. Atheism is a radical stance, in contention with most cultures and societies, now, and even more so in the past. Atheism isn't neutral, it is a specific ideology that contrasts with the vast majority of humanity.

Being more consistent in your convictions will sell them better. If you just went out the gate with the assassin's creed/baby geniuses shit then you would have had something backing up your conclusion other than shit that's already addressed by Kowani and a "maybe". I mean this is a pretty big reach for something that doesn't matter in the big scheme of things(Couldn't one just explain babies lack of belief as a relatively benign effect of original sin?) but something nonetheless.

Kowani also just has a different definition of atheism than y'all. This doesn't make them or their definition right but it is something that needs to be dealt more than denying it exists.

[Australian rePublic]

Don't forget, kids. The story of Jephthah's daughter should serve as a reminder to not make spasmodic promises to God...

[Australian rePublic]

What are some must-read texts if I want to become baptized into the Orthodox Church? I'm not even sure what iteration of the bible is used, such are the drawbacks of an atheist upbringing.

We use the New King James' version, but we also add Apocrypha books to the Old Testament, more of them than the Catholics do

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

We use the New King James' version, but we also add Apocrypha books to the Old Testament, more of them than the Catholics do

What Orthodox Church are you part of? Russian per chance?

*Nvm, presumably Greek Orthodox.

[Australian rePublic]

We use the New King James' version, but we also add Apocrypha books to the Old Testament, more of them than the Catholics do

What Orthodox Church are you part of? Russian per chance?

*Nvm, presumably Greek Orthodox.

Why, which version do Russians use?

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

Why, which version do Russians use?

It was out of curiosity. I'm planning to join our resident Russian Orthodox Church.

[Australian rePublic]

Why, which version do Russians use?

It was out of curiosity. I'm planning to join our resident Russian Orthodox Church.

I'd assume the Russians use the same version (in English). I wish you well and look forward to seeing a new brother/sister In Christ.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

I'd assume the Russians use the same version (in English). I wish you well and look forward to seeing a new brother/sister In Christ.

Maybe, this church is primarily geared for the local Russian community. I'm unsure if it has primarily English-speaking converts. That's no obstacle mind you.

Also thanks for the info and welcome.

[Australian rePublic]

I'd assume the Russians use the same version (in English). I wish you well and look forward to seeing a new brother/sister In Christ.

Maybe, this church is primarily geared for the local Russian community. I'm unsure if it has primarily English-speaking converts. That's no obstacle mind you.

Also thanks for the info and welcome.

You're Welcome! Before you convert, maybe ask yourself WHY you're converting, You want to make sure you're making the right choice... As for English speaking churches, no, there aren't many of them. If you find one (be it Greek, Serbian, Russian, etc.) you can choose to attend it/make it your primary church, go for it. Just make sure it's not Coptic Orthodox, that's different to Eastern Orthodox. If you join a Greek Church, the Greek churches are divided, so make sure you find one under the Archbishop's authority. I might make a post about WHY I believe in God, if you want, read it and judge for yourself. If I remember, I''ll link you to it

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

You're Welcome! Before you convert, maybe ask yourself WHY you're converting, You want to make sure you're making the right choice... As for English speaking churches, no, there aren't many of them. If you find one (be it Greek, Serbian, Russian, etc.) you can choose to attend it/make it your primary church, go for it. Just make sure it's not Coptic Orthodox, that's different to Eastern Orthodox. If you join a Greek Church, the Greek churches are divided, so make sure you find one under the Archbishop's authority. I might make a post about WHY I believe in God, if you want, read it and judge for yourself. If I remember, I''ll link you to it

Aside from the cultural reasons, being Russian it only seems natural to join a Russian congregation, I do firmly believe in the basis of Christianity, although I'm still uneducated to the finer points of Orthodox theology and ritual. That's something I'll learn on the way. Protestantism and Catholicism don't attract me the same way Orthodoxy does. Most Protestant churches I know just don't elicit any spiritual feelings.

[Australian rePublic]

You're Welcome! Before you convert, maybe ask yourself WHY you're converting, You want to make sure you're making the right choice... As for English speaking churches, no, there aren't many of them. If you find one (be it Greek, Serbian, Russian, etc.) you can choose to attend it/make it your primary church, go for it. Just make sure it's not Coptic Orthodox, that's different to Eastern Orthodox. If you join a Greek Church, the Greek churches are divided, so make sure you find one under the Archbishop's authority. I might make a post about WHY I believe in God, if you want, read it and judge for yourself. If I remember, I''ll link you to it

Aside from the cultural reasons, being Russian it only seems natural to join a Russian congregation, I do firmly believe in the basis of Christianity, although I'm still uneducated to the finer points of Orthodox theology and ritual. That's something I'll learn on the way. Protestantism and Catholicism don't attract me the same way Orthodoxy does. Most Protestant churches I know just don't elicit any spiritual feelings.

Forgive me, but I don't think that cultural reasons are a good enough reason to join a church. If don't truly believe in God, then why bother? You stated that you do believe in Him, so disregard that statement. If you want help, feel free to telegram. I'm only an amateur theologist, but I know quite a bit about Orthodoxy, and should be able to answer many questions...

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

Forgive me, but I don't think that cultural reasons are a good enough reason to join a church. If don't truly believe in God, then why bother? You stated that you do believe in Him, so disregard that statement. If you want help, feel free to telegram. I'm only an amateur theologist, but I know quite a bit about Orthodoxy, and should be able to answer many questions...

Certainly, I would never choose a church based on them alone. But for a raised atheist with once virulent anti-theism its good to have a base-line, something I can hold onto as I look for a full-time Church. Of course, although I'm currently reading through Путь православия, recommended to me by Tarsonis, I will definitely take you up on that offer.

[New Visayan Islands]

Atheism: Lack of belief in any gods.
Babies: Don't believe in any Gods. Heck, they don't even have the concept of a God.
You have to teach Children about your religion for them to become religious. Now, my anti-theism is learned, and in that you would be correct, but one is technically born atheist.

How do you know they're not aggressive pagans? Did they tell you? Babies aren't exactly rattling off Nietzsche quotes. You have no, nor can you even obtain, evidence for this claim. Humans have ingrained biological knowledge. Who are you to say this doesn't include belief in spirituality or God. How do you know you did not have belief beaten out of you by the forces around you? Even more, it's quite arrogant to say atheism is the natural, neutral state. Atheism is a radical stance, in contention with most cultures and societies, now, and even more so in the past. Atheism isn't neutral, it is a specific ideology that contrasts with the vast majority of humanity.

An ideology that, for the past century, was closely associated with the Hammer and Sickle, to the point that the moral panic stoked by McCarthy led to "In God we trust" as the US motto to contrast with the state atheism of the USSR.

BUT I DIGRESS. There are things that defy mortal comprehension; should we deny them because we have no hope of understanding them? If so, that is hubris. Hubris ante Nemesis.

[Kowani]

How do you know they're not aggressive pagans? Did they tell you? Babies aren't exactly rattling off Nietzsche quotes. You have no, nor can you even obtain, evidence for this claim. Humans have ingrained biological knowledge. Who are you to say this doesn't include belief in spirituality or God. How do you know you did not have belief beaten out of you by the forces around you? Even more, it's quite arrogant to say atheism is the natural, neutral state. Atheism is a radical stance, in contention with most cultures and societies, now, and even more so in the past. Atheism isn't neutral, it is a specific ideology that contrasts with the vast majority of humanity.

An ideology that, for the past century, was closely associated with the Hammer and Sickle, to the point that the moral panic stoked by McCarthy led to "In God we trust" as the US motto to contrast with the state atheism of the USSR.

Bad people believing in certain things does not invalidate those things in and of themselves. (Unless an ideology is explicitly the reason that those people were bad, in which case revision is needed.) Was the USSR And Communism a terrible experiment? Yes. We’re the deaths of Christians justified? No. Does that mean atheism is the spawn of Satan? No. Tying an apolitical lack of belief to an economic ideology is one thing, blaming the first for the atrocities of the second is wrong.

BUT I DIGRESS. There are things that defy mortal comprehension; should we deny them because we have no hope of understanding them? If so, that is hubris. Hubris ante Nemesis.

Convenient little escape you’ve got there.

[New Visayan Islands]

An ideology that, for the past century, was closely associated with the Hammer and Sickle, to the point that the moral panic stoked by McCarthy led to "In God we trust" as the US motto to contrast with the state atheism of the USSR.

Bad people believing in certain things does not invalidate those things in and of themselves. (Unless an ideology is explicitly the reason that those people were bad, in which case revision is needed.) Was the USSR And Communism a terrible experiment? Yes. We’re the deaths of Christians justified? No. Does that mean atheism is the spawn of Satan? No. Tying an apolitical lack of belief to an economic ideology is one thing, blaming the first for the atrocities of the second is wrong.

BUT I DIGRESS. There are things that defy mortal comprehension; should we deny them because we have no hope of understanding them? If so, that is hubris. Hubris ante Nemesis.

Convenient little escape you’ve got there.

Not even REMOTELY my point; atheism predates Communism, but due to how Communists suppressed religion--often with extreme prejudice--it (perhaps unwittingly) lent itself to the image peddled by McCarthyists. Or would you prefer Thomas Stearns Eliot's take on those who despise religion, who in his words "will not have God?"

[Kowani]

Bad people believing in certain things does not invalidate those things in and of themselves. (Unless an ideology is explicitly the reason that those people were bad, in which case revision is needed.) Was the USSR And Communism a terrible experiment? Yes. We’re the deaths of Christians justified? No. Does that mean atheism is the spawn of Satan? No. Tying an apolitical lack of belief to an economic ideology is one thing, blaming the first for the atrocities of the second is wrong.

Convenient little escape you’ve got there.

Not even REMOTELY my point; atheism predates Communism, but due to how Communists suppressed religion--often with extreme prejudice--it (perhaps unwittingly) lent itself to the image peddled by McCarthyists. Or would you prefer Thomas Stearns Eliot's take on those who despise religion, who in his words "will not have God?"

Eh. I missed it entirely, it seems. Although Mr Eliot seems to miss the point that one's religion does not make necessarily one a good person (as well as the fact that Hitler's own beliefs were a bit of a mystery, but that's something for another time.) You're right though, in that McCarthy used the extreme religiosity of the US at the time to make the atheist Soviet Union seem even worse than it already was.