Overthinking Christianity

@mike69 said
Figure of speech saying it’s not a loaded question, just a conversation, not to be used against you at a later time and so on. Thank you for answering.

I am not particularly interested in a conversation with you. I mean you specifically.

@kingdavid403 said
Do you consider yourself somewhat of a Deist?

Borderline, I'd say. The notion of deism would explain the existence of the universe, while [1] not accommodating the human obsession with claiming such an entity has communicated with us and [2] settling for the anthropomorphizing of such an entity ~ even as theists contradict themselves and claim it is "unknowable". Btw: I don't see why it is capitalized unless it's at the beginning of a sentence. I am not part of some movement with an official name that warrants a proper noun.

@mchill said
I've noticed a number of atheists and agnostics here overthinking Christianity. Some with genuine questions, and some with the intention of discrediting it. I don't claim to have answers to all your questions, but the prayer used in my church sums up our relationship to God. Rather than overthinking it all, you might consider the fact that none of us has all the facts and that ...[text shortened]... , so that we may delight in your will and walk in your ways, to the glory of your holy name. Amen 🙂

sorry marra far to christian for me.

@fmf said
Borderline, I'd say. The notion of deism would explain the existence of the universe, while [1] not accommodating the human obsession with claiming such an entity has communicated with us and [2] settling for the anthropomorphizing of such an entity ~ even as theists contradict themselves and claim it is "unknowable". Btw: I don't see why it is capitalized unless it's at the begi ...[text shortened]... ing of a sentence. I am not part of some movement with an official name that warrants a proper noun.

Btw: I don't see why it is capitalized
I capitalized it because it is a 'name' given for many of a certain faith; or lack thereof to some.
I may be wrong; I'm not very good at English. The only language I speak BTW. lol...

@kingdavid403 said
Btw: I don't see why it is capitalized
I capitalized it because it is a 'name' given for many of a certain faith; or lack thereof to some.
I may be wrong; I'm not very good at English. The only language I speak BTW. lol...

It doesn't need to be treated as a term that needs a proper noun. Same goes for atheism and atheist.

@fmf said
It doesn't need to be treated as a term that needs a proper noun. Same goes for atheism and atheist.

Thanks for the knowledge. They say one learns something new everyday. 😉 I sure hope I have many days to come when it comes to learning proper English; or is it english? Spell-check says it's English. Oh brother... 🤔

@kellyjay said
I'm simply stating that mindlessness cannot account for all we see and experience
in this life. The beginning of life, not just an individual life, was what I was referring
to, but even an individual life's complexity, if you consider all the things that have
to happen are also a miracle considering all that could go wrong.

You cannot come up with a reason for all thin ...[text shortened]... ect me when I misunderstand you. I
guess avoiding the subject is as good an answer as I can expect.

I know what you are stating, but stating something doesn't make it true, does it? I could state that I'm Father Christmas and turn into a werewolf every other Thursday, but I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to believe me. (Although it could be true....) You have also stated that talking snakes are 'beyond reasonable doubt', so, you know, let's not get too excited about statements, shall we?

And nature is indeed complex, and as I have said before we may marvel at its' complexity, but that does not make it miraculous, and as you forget or ignore the complexity has evidentially built upon itself over billions of years, in (very) slow, incremental stages. As I have also said before, things do 'go wrong', frequently; you attribute the 'going wrong' to your god, who you say deliberately makes copy errors in order to produce sick and suffering children, which is something else that you seem to have conveniently forgotten.

Which subjects by implication do you think I have avoided? This is rich anyway, coming from the master of avoiding subjects, so let's see if you can clear at least one thing up which as a mere infidel I find puzzling:

The Christian church would have us believe that someone called Jesus of Neasden (sorry, Nazareth) died on the cross a couple of thousand or so years ago to save us from our sins, (lucky old us) so why then does the same Christian church also state (here comes another one of those statements...) that if we sin we will actually burn in the fires of hell for eternity? How does that apparently complete contradiction work? What did Jesus (you know, the saviour) actually save us from?

@indonesia-phil said
I know what you are stating, but stating something doesn't make it true, does it? I could state that I'm Father Christmas and turn into a werewolf every other Thursday, but I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to believe me. (Although it could be true....) You have also stated that talking snakes are 'beyond reasonable doubt', so, you know, let's not get too excited ab ...[text shortened]... pparently complete contradiction work? What did Jesus (you know, the saviour) actually save us from?

"The Christian church would have us believe that someone called Jesus of Neasden (sorry, Nazareth) died on the cross a couple of thousand or so years ago to save us from our sins, (lucky old us) so why then does the same Christian church also state (here comes another one of those statements...) that if we sin we will actually burn in the fires of hell for eternity? How does that apparently complete contradiction work? What did Jesus (you know, the saviour) actually save us from?"

God.

@indonesia-phil said
I know what you are stating, but stating something doesn't make it true, does it? I could state that I'm Father Christmas and turn into a werewolf every other Thursday, but I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to believe me. (Although it could be true....) You have also stated that talking snakes are 'beyond reasonable doubt', so, you know, let's not get too excited ab ...[text shortened]... pparently complete contradiction work? What did Jesus (you know, the saviour) actually save us from?

From a godless, nothing beyond the natural perspective, everything from talking
snakes, virgin births, someone announcing they are going to die and rise from the
dead to having the whole universe that exists is not reasonable.

@kellyjay said
From a godless, nothing beyond the natural perspective, everything from talking
snakes, virgin births, someone announcing they are going to die and rise from the
dead to having the whole universe that exists is not reasonable.

What you are admitting here, for all intents and purposes, is that you have filled the gap in human knowledge about an "unknowable" creator entity [whether it exists, what is its nature etc.] with tales of talking snakes, virgin births, [and] someone dying and rising from the dead [and so making you immortal] which just so happens to appeal to the subjectivity of your imagination.

@mchill said
I've noticed a number of atheists and agnostics here overthinking Christianity. Some with genuine questions, and some with the intention of discrediting it. I don't claim to have answers to all your questions, but the prayer used in my church sums up our relationship to God. Rather than overthinking it all, you might consider the fact that none of us has all the facts and that ...[text shortened]... , so that we may delight in your will and walk in your ways, to the glory of your holy name. Amen 🙂

With respect to your subject line and OP, one suggestion (as I understand Christianity) would be to let God do the thinking, at least in some domains and realms of thought.

@fmf said
It doesn't need to be treated as a term that needs a proper noun. Same goes for atheism and atheist.

Fair. Its not as if deism has a global organization with er whatever office-holders such an organization might have.

@kellyjay said
From a godless, nothing beyond the natural perspective, everything from talking
snakes, virgin births, someone announcing they are going to die and rise from the
dead to having the whole universe that exists is not reasonable.

Ever since humankind has evolved the capacity to wonder, and to imagine, we have invented gods to as it were 'fill the gap' in our understanding of the world and universe around us. Without the Christian god the world would would not be 'godless', there are plenty of other gods to be going on with. You would say that these are the wrong sort of gods, others would disagree with you.

If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that your religious beliefs are unreasonable, so here is something we can agree upon.

Our capacity to reason is that which sets us apart from all other species; without reason our instincts would see to it that we would live in a world of chaos. We are able to foresee the consequences of our actions and act accordingly in a reasonable way.

If we apply this reason to things which we don't understand, such as the origin of the universe, to say 'I don't understand' or 'I don't know' is a perfectly reasonable position to take, since given the current extent of our knowledge none of us can know such things.

I see science as humanity's quest to better understand the nature of nature, so to speak, and in this regard we have made huge progress over the last couple of centuries. How we apply this understanding is of course controversial; we have made vaccines against disease and nuclear weapons, such is our nature, but regardless of ethical and moral considerations, everything in science is based on reason. I should perhaps add that I'm not a scientist, so I have no axe to grind in this regard; in fact in part I'm a hobby novelist, and my stories come purely from my imagination, and I don't think or pretend otherwise.

So anyway, we may say that science in its' raw and pure state is reasonable, since it relies upon reason, and that religion is unreasonable, since as we now agree it exists only in the imagination of its' proponents. I think that to prefer unreason to reason is unreasonable, so I have no religion.

@indonesia-phil said
Ever since humankind has evolved the capacity to wonder, and to imagine, we have invented gods to as it were 'fill the gap' in our understanding of the world and universe around us. Without the Christian god the world would would not be 'godless', there are plenty of other gods to be going on with. You would say that these are the wrong sort of gods, others would disag ...[text shortened]... f its' proponents. I think that to prefer unreason to reason is unreasonable, so I have no religion.

Well, one of the things I have been going on about, and even with you, is the
Meta-Narrative, which is the story of everything from beginning to end. You have
something that resembles one (at least in part) that you are suggesting at some
point in time humans could wonder, and then you start painting a picture of why
from there, we can know in part at least why some things are right and true, others
not.

Yours is incomplete; you have no idea how everything got started, how it all
developed to the point you can now speak with some confidence on reality. For
me, it is even more fascinating that you don't seem to care either; you got this
partial story that fits nicely with what you think, so it's good enough. Sort of like
playing a chess game, half the board you can see, the others are hidden.

@kellyjay said
Well, one of the things I have been going on about, and even with you, is the
Meta-Narrative, which is the story of everything from beginning to end. You have
something that resembles one (at least in part) that you are suggesting at some
point in time humans could wonder, and then you start painting a picture of why
from there, we can know in part at least why some thin ...[text shortened]... g got started, how it all
developed to the point you can now speak with some confidence on reality.

Your "confidence" - in the theological "meta-narrative" you subscribe to - is not evidence of anything.