A Brief Summary of the Christian Bible

[Tigers!]

That never fails to put it succinctly, if harshly, imo. And many atheists just don't get how many theists don't see it, and many theists don't get how atheists can see it that way. Therein lies the gulf between the two perspectives.

I think the gulf is in questioning. Atheists do it, theists do not.

What questioning to atheists do? Do they question their atheism?

 

[Angry Floof]

That never fails to put it succinctly, if harshly, imo. And many atheists just don't get how many theists don't see it, and many theists don't get how atheists can see it that way. Therein lies the gulf between the two perspectives.

I think the gulf is in questioning. Atheists do it, theists do not.

What questioning to atheists do? Do they question their atheism?

Maybe some don't question and were raised as atheists who never went through the process of questioning indoctrination as you find with most of us. However, atheists are not bound by authoritarian, punishment religion and are free to question anything. Doesn't guarantee that they will, but it does mean they can. If you're religious, you have to be an rare independent mind OR some serious suffering has to occur before you question because religions such as Christianity discourage and even punish questioning. Doubt is a mortal sin.

Lack of dogmatic religious belief offers the freedom to choose to question anything. It's just ordinary humanness minus the layers of fear and stupidstition that religions like Christianity use to control people.

 

[ruby sparks]

What questioning to atheists do? Do they question their atheism?

That depends. Different atheist jurisdictions have different terms and conditions. Here in NI you have to sign a pledge to do your best not to question your atheism. If you don't sign the pledge, you don't get the membership card and the discounts at numerous quality atheist retail outlets. I don't know what the situation is in other places. I'll be honest with you though, I do occasionally lapse, despite my best efforts, and ask myself things like, 'is there any decent evidence, beyond a funny feeling in my tummy, for elf-type beings of the universe-creating variety?' So in my case the answer to your second question is yes.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Do we question our atheism? No, we get our cues every weekend from charismatic orators who give us our marching orders. And we chant readings from Robert Ingersoll. There's no reflection whatever. You've nailed it.

 

[Politesse]

What questioning to atheists do? Do they question their atheism?

Maybe some don't question and were raised as atheists who never went through the process of questioning indoctrination as you find with most of us. However, atheists are not bound by authoritarian, punishment religion and are free to question anything. Doesn't guarantee that they will, but it does mean they can. If you're religious, you have to be an rare independent mind OR some serious suffering has to occur before you question because religions such as Christianity discourage and even punish questioning. Doubt is a mortal sin.

Lack of dogmatic religious belief offers the freedom to choose to question anything. It's just ordinary humanness minus the layers of fear and stupidstition that religions like Christianity use to control people.

You must have been raised in a very authoritarian sect. I don't recall ever having been discouraged from asking questions.

 

[funinspace]

What questioning to atheists do? Do they question their atheism?

Maybe some don't question and were raised as atheists who never went through the process of questioning indoctrination as you find with most of us. However, atheists are not bound by authoritarian, punishment religion and are free to question anything. Doesn't guarantee that they will, but it does mean they can. If you're religious, you have to be an rare independent mind OR some serious suffering has to occur before you question because religions such as Christianity discourage and even punish questioning. Doubt is a mortal sin.

Lack of dogmatic religious belief offers the freedom to choose to question anything. It's just ordinary humanness minus the layers of fear and stupidstition that religions like Christianity use to control people.

You must have been raised in a very authoritarian sect. I don't recall ever having been discouraged from asking questions.

Yeah, I was going to come back and comment on this, as the comment doesn't really seem to reflect the attitudes of a huge swath of the mainstream Protestant sects.

 

[Angry Floof]

What questioning to atheists do? Do they question their atheism?

Maybe some don't question and were raised as atheists who never went through the process of questioning indoctrination as you find with most of us. However, atheists are not bound by authoritarian, punishment religion and are free to question anything. Doesn't guarantee that they will, but it does mean they can. If you're religious, you have to be an rare independent mind OR some serious suffering has to occur before you question because religions such as Christianity discourage and even punish questioning. Doubt is a mortal sin.

Lack of dogmatic religious belief offers the freedom to choose to question anything. It's just ordinary humanness minus the layers of fear and stupidstition that religions like Christianity use to control people.

You must have been raised in a very authoritarian sect. I don't recall ever having been discouraged from asking questions.

What questions did you ask exactly? What questions did others around you ask?

 

[Politesse]

You must have been raised in a very authoritarian sect. I don't recall ever having been discouraged from asking questions.

What questions did you ask exactly? What questions did others around you ask?

Whatever I liked, I suppose. My childhood pastor always said "doubt is the crucible of true faith".

 

[Angry Floof]

You must have been raised in a very authoritarian sect. I don't recall ever having been discouraged from asking questions.

What questions did you ask exactly? What questions did others around you ask?

Whatever I liked, I suppose. My childhood pastor always said "doubt is the crucible of true faith".

Then I would say your pastor is a rare breed. Christianity is just not set up to allow questioning doctrine. Some denominations are more liberal in this respect, but no Christian sect or denom will allow the core tenets to be questioned. The payment for doubt is eternal torment and separation from all that is good. You cannot question that and remain true to doctrine. This is a core tenet of Christianity: belief or else pay the ultimate price.

So I'm sure there are myriad peripheral doctrines and matters of detail that can be questioned. No one but the most zealous and dogmatic will care if you think Jesus' skin was medium brown or dark brown or pale. However, it is a rare believer indeed who finds your faith true if you question whether he existed at all, or question the existence of heaven and hell, or question the existence of God.

Those rare sects and individuals are considered blasphemous by mainstream Christianity.

Some rare and small exceptions being Gnostics and perhaps sects like the Quakers, who have the audacity to respect autonomy and to hold that respect as closely as they do pacifism. Both these examples are considered heretics by all but the most liberal among mainstream Christians.

If you question whether God really loves the world if he sends people to hell for not believing the correct story about human sacrifice and eternal flame, you are going to hit resistance (or much worse) from all but the most rare of believers.

In my opinion, Judaism, in contrast to Christianity, is both a religion and culture that deeply values questioning and debate. However, ask any Jewish atheist who was educated in the faith just how far that questioning and debate is really allowed to go.

Allowing *some* questioning up to the point of protected dogma is not the same as allowing questioning. It's a pretense, the kind of hypocritical lip service that authoritarian social dominance ideologies like Christianity must engage in to thrive among so many millions for so long.

 

[funinspace]

Whatever I liked, I suppose. My childhood pastor always said "doubt is the crucible of true faith".

Then I would say your pastor is a rare breed. Christianity is just not set up to allow questioning doctrine. Some denominations are more liberal in this respect, but no Christian sect or denom will allow the core tenets to be questioned. The payment for doubt is eternal torment and separation from all that is good. You cannot question that and remain true to doctrine. This is a core tenet of Christianity: belief or else pay the ultimate price.

Just how familiar are you with mainstream Protestants, like in person? Cuz, I have know United Methodists (the largest US Protestant organization) that had members who openly questioned the divinity of Jesus; ripped their Bibles historicity to shreds, et.al. The ELCA is the largest Lutheran denomination in the US, and theologically really isn't that different than the UMC, and is also very open minded and allowing for individual thinking. The ELCA, for another thing, has fully embraced gay marriage as legitimate and healthy.

 

[Politesse]

Whatever I liked, I suppose. My childhood pastor always said "doubt is the crucible of true faith".

Then I would say your pastor is a rare breed. Christianity is just not set up to allow questioning doctrine. Some denominations are more liberal in this respect, but no Christian sect or denom will allow the core tenets to be questioned. The payment for doubt is eternal torment and separation from all that is good. You cannot question that and remain true to doctrine. This is a core tenet of Christianity: belief or else pay the ultimate price.

So I'm sure there are myriad peripheral doctrines and matters of detail that can be questioned. No one but the most zealous and dogmatic will care if you think Jesus' skin was medium brown or dark brown or pale. However, it is a rare believer indeed who finds your faith true if you question whether he existed at all, or question the existence of heaven and hell, or question the existence of God.

Those rare sects and individuals are considered blasphemous by mainstream Christianity.

Some rare and small exceptions being Gnostics and perhaps sects like the Quakers, who have the audacity to respect autonomy and to hold that respect as closely as they do pacifism. Both these examples are considered heretics by all but the most liberal among mainstream Christians.

If you question whether God really loves the world if he sends people to hell for not believing the correct story about human sacrifice and eternal flame, you are going to hit resistance (or much worse) from all but the most rare of believers.

In my opinion, Judaism, in contrast to Christianity, is both a religion and culture that deeply values questioning and debate. However, ask any Jewish atheist who was educated in the faith just how far that questioning and debate is really allowed to go.

Allowing *some* questioning up to the point of protected dogma is not the same as allowing questioning. It's a pretense, the kind of hypocritical lip service that authoritarian social dominance ideologies like Christianity must engage in to thrive among so many millions for so long.

I grew up Lutheran, went through both Lutheran and Jesuit schooling, now attend a United Church of Christ meeting; either of those communities would be rather skeptical of these claims I think! Does the bible itself not say "Test everything, hold on to what is good?" Do not all of the patriarchs of the faith, from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses, question God's will and insist on demonstrations before believing what they eventually do?

 

[Angry Floof]

Whatever I liked, I suppose. My childhood pastor always said "doubt is the crucible of true faith".

Then I would say your pastor is a rare breed. Christianity is just not set up to allow questioning doctrine. Some denominations are more liberal in this respect, but no Christian sect or denom will allow the core tenets to be questioned. The payment for doubt is eternal torment and separation from all that is good. You cannot question that and remain true to doctrine. This is a core tenet of Christianity: belief or else pay the ultimate price.

So I'm sure there are myriad peripheral doctrines and matters of detail that can be questioned. No one but the most zealous and dogmatic will care if you think Jesus' skin was medium brown or dark brown or pale. However, it is a rare believer indeed who finds your faith true if you question whether he existed at all, or question the existence of heaven and hell, or question the existence of God.

Those rare sects and individuals are considered blasphemous by mainstream Christianity.

Some rare and small exceptions being Gnostics and perhaps sects like the Quakers, who have the audacity to respect autonomy and to hold that respect as closely as they do pacifism. Both these examples are considered heretics by all but the most liberal among mainstream Christians.

If you question whether God really loves the world if he sends people to hell for not believing the correct story about human sacrifice and eternal flame, you are going to hit resistance (or much worse) from all but the most rare of believers.

In my opinion, Judaism, in contrast to Christianity, is both a religion and culture that deeply values questioning and debate. However, ask any Jewish atheist who was educated in the faith just how far that questioning and debate is really allowed to go.

Allowing *some* questioning up to the point of protected dogma is not the same as allowing questioning. It's a pretense, the kind of hypocritical lip service that authoritarian social dominance ideologies like Christianity must engage in to thrive among so many millions for so long.

I grew up Lutheran, went through both Lutheran and Jesuit schooling, now attend a United Church of Christ meeting; either of those communities would be rather skeptical of these claims I think! Does the bible itself not say "Test everything, hold on to what is good?" Do not all of the patriarchs of the faith, from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses, question God's will and insist on demonstrations before believing what they eventually do?

Again, that is not the thinking of mainstream Christianity in the West. Christianity is an identity-worshiping social dominance ideology. It does not thrive well among questioners. They may be nicer to you than fundamentalists when you question, but they will not put up with hard questions for very long. Test it!

 

[Angry Floof]

Whatever I liked, I suppose. My childhood pastor always said "doubt is the crucible of true faith".

Then I would say your pastor is a rare breed. Christianity is just not set up to allow questioning doctrine. Some denominations are more liberal in this respect, but no Christian sect or denom will allow the core tenets to be questioned. The payment for doubt is eternal torment and separation from all that is good. You cannot question that and remain true to doctrine. This is a core tenet of Christianity: belief or else pay the ultimate price.

Just how familiar are you with mainstream Protestants, like in person? Cuz, I have know United Methodists (the largest US Protestant organization) that had members who openly questioned the divinity of Jesus; ripped their Bibles historicity to shreds, et.al. The ELCA is the largest Lutheran denomination in the US, and theologically really isn't that different than the UMC, and is also very open minded and allowing for individual thinking. The ELCA, for another thing, has fully embraced gay marriage as legitimate and healthy.

They sound more like humanists, and the Christian label is unnecessary. But you can always test it out by actually questioning. If you're a member, that is. Those of us outside that ideological identity are largely ignored by the more well behaved denoms. I mean, I appreciate that they no longer want to straight up kill us, but they're also mostly irrelevant to the problems caused by Christianity and other social dominance religions.

 

[Elixir]

Once upon a time there wasn't anything, and so a god made everything. Then people were made but the people became bad so that no one lived happily ever after anymore. Then the people were redeemed, but still not living happily ever after. So now the good ones go to heaven after they die and the bad ones go to hell.

That would be my understanding of the christian bible's most basic message. What would you change?

I don't think that is an adequate summary in the slightest. It only covers the events of a few chapters out of the 1200, and includes some material that isn't even in the Bible.

It would be an adequate summary of early 20th century Protestant soteriology, though.

How about -

"Once upon a time there wasn't anything, and so a god made everything. Then people were made, and a lot of stuff happened within the little circle on this map:

...but the people became bad so that no one lived happily ever after anymore. Then the people were redeemed, but still not living happily ever after. So now the good ones go to heaven after they die and the bad ones go to hell."

Better?

 

[funinspace]

Just how familiar are you with mainstream Protestants, like in person? Cuz, I have know United Methodists (the largest US Protestant organization) that had members who openly questioned the divinity of Jesus; ripped their Bibles historicity to shreds, et.al. The ELCA is the largest Lutheran denomination in the US, and theologically really isn't that different than the UMC, and is also very open minded and allowing for individual thinking. The ELCA, for another thing, has fully embraced gay marriage as legitimate and healthy.

They sound more like humanists, and the Christian label is unnecessary. But you can always test it out by actually questioning. If you're a member, that is. Those of us outside that ideological identity are largely ignored by the more well behaved denoms. I mean, I appreciate that they no longer want to straight up kill us, but they're also mostly irrelevant to the problems caused by Christianity and other social dominance religions.

LOL...I don't have to test it, I used to be a member of the UMC. I was talking from personal experience. US Christianity is broken down into roughly 3 very broad categories, with for probably 80% of the self-described. Of that 80 percentile, about half are Roman Catholics (and they have their own groupings), a quarter are evangelicals/fundamentalists, and another quarter are mainstream Protestants. The remaining 20% are a hodgepodge of everything else that doesn't fit well in any pigeon hole, like the LDS's. Though these more extreme questioners I mentioned weren't necessarily representative of the whole of the congregations I knew, they were fully accepted within the congregation.

 

[Lion IRC]

I grew up Lutheran, went through both Lutheran and Jesuit schooling, now attend a United Church of Christ meeting; either of those communities would be rather skeptical of these claims I think! Does the bible itself not say "Test everything, hold on to what is good?" Do not all of the patriarchs of the faith, from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses, question God's will and insist on demonstrations before believing what they eventually do?

Again, that is not the thinking of mainstream Christianity in the West...

Want me to give you some links to evangelical, fundamentalist apologetics quotes about the problem of pain, divine hiddenness, YEC, biblical errancy, OSAS, the doctrine of hell...
They don't run away from questions or debates.
These topics are enduring and the very same people you claim DONT tolerate questioning actually love defending and answering and preaching. The Doubting Thomas isn't kicked out of church.

The bible says ask/receive, seek/find.

 

[Angry Floof]

I grew up Lutheran, went through both Lutheran and Jesuit schooling, now attend a United Church of Christ meeting; either of those communities would be rather skeptical of these claims I think! Does the bible itself not say "Test everything, hold on to what is good?" Do not all of the patriarchs of the faith, from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses, question God's will and insist on demonstrations before believing what they eventually do?

Again, that is not the thinking of mainstream Christianity in the West...

Want me to give you some links to evangelical, fundamentalist apologetics quotes about the problem of pain, divine hiddenness, YEC, biblical errancy, OSAS, the doctrine of hell...

No, thank you. I've been up to my neck in such for about a decade at least.

They don't run away from questions or debates.

Oh, yes, there are many questions they either run from or tap dance around.

These topics are enduring and the very same people you claim DONT tolerate questioning actually love defending and answering and preaching. The Doubting Thomas isn't kicked out of church.

They do love preaching. And tap dancing.

The bible says ask/receive, seek/find.

The Bible says a lot of things. But cherry picking the nice-sounding parts is also heretical except to the most New Age, liberal versions of Christianity. IF ONLY those liberal Christians dominated the religious identity.

 

[Angry Floof]

Just how familiar are you with mainstream Protestants, like in person? Cuz, I have know United Methodists (the largest US Protestant organization) that had members who openly questioned the divinity of Jesus; ripped their Bibles historicity to shreds, et.al. The ELCA is the largest Lutheran denomination in the US, and theologically really isn't that different than the UMC, and is also very open minded and allowing for individual thinking. The ELCA, for another thing, has fully embraced gay marriage as legitimate and healthy.

They sound more like humanists, and the Christian label is unnecessary. But you can always test it out by actually questioning. If you're a member, that is. Those of us outside that ideological identity are largely ignored by the more well behaved denoms. I mean, I appreciate that they no longer want to straight up kill us, but they're also mostly irrelevant to the problems caused by Christianity and other social dominance religions.

LOL...I don't have to test it, I used to be a member of the UMC. I was talking from personal experience. US Christianity is broken down into roughly 3 very broad categories, with for probably 80% of the self-described. Of that 80 percentile, about half are Roman Catholics (and they have their own groupings), a quarter are evangelicals/fundamentalists, and another quarter are mainstream Protestants. The remaining 20% are a hodgepodge of everything else that doesn't fit well in any pigeon hole, like the LDS's. Though these more extreme questioners I mentioned weren't necessarily representative of the whole of the congregations I knew, they were fully accepted within the congregation.

Good for them! Their ordinary humanness is superior to that of the Bible they supposedly base their religious beliefs on. But these people are, at best, mostly irrelevant to the problems caused by social dominance religions like Christianity today. At worst, they passively serve as numbers strengthening an ideological identity group.

If they truly value humane, realistic principles, the ideological identity should not matter. It takes a hell of a lot of courage to even recognize the nature of group identity in widespread social influences on wider society, forget the courage it takes to actually denounce the identity in favor of those principles.

Christianity - very few forms, if any - place questioning above or even at level of the value placed on the ideological identity itself. No one needs a label to be a good human. In fact, it's that overall lack of questioning the ideology that allows for the kind of hypocrisy we see wherever religions like Christianity thrive. (I'm sure you don't need examples of that, being a member of this board for so long now.) That lack of value on questioning the ideological identity is how people can go about their lives feeling satisfied in their self image while their identity group, whether they agree with others or not, wreaks havoc on the world.

If Christians are so open to questioning, can they not question the ideological label?

I've said for years that if I were still a Christian, I'd be shouting from the rooftops telling everyone to not only question my beliefs and identity, but to bash them into the ground, ridicule them, whatever they want. Because my personal belief can't be changed by others' opinions, and whatever relationship I have with any god or transcendent experience cannot be equated to a group identity. They are two different things, and one depends on how other people react to a label rather than on any genuine personal belief or experience. That label is just not important enough to turn a blind eye to the volatile nature of religious group identity in the world.

"Well, don't lump me in with them." Well, don't lump yourself in with them. Question that label itself along with whatever you think it stands for. Or don't, but if you claim to be so open to questioning, I'm calling bullshit.

 

[Politesse]

I suppose I simply find it a bit odd to claim that the "central tenet" of the faith is something that none of the people itt who belong to that faith quite recognize.

And the more this thread goes on, the more tempted I am to produce my own summary of the Bible. A bit of an egotistical enterprise, though, summarizing something that means such different but important (and to my mind valid) things to different people.

 

[Politesse]

Once upon a time there wasn't anything, and so a god made everything. Then people were made but the people became bad so that no one lived happily ever after anymore. Then the people were redeemed, but still not living happily ever after. So now the good ones go to heaven after they die and the bad ones go to hell.

That would be my understanding of the christian bible's most basic message. What would you change?

I don't think that is an adequate summary in the slightest. It only covers the events of a few chapters out of the 1200, and includes some material that isn't even in the Bible.

It would be an adequate summary of early 20th century Protestant soteriology, though.

How about -

"Once upon a time there wasn't anything, and so a god made everything. Then people were made, and a lot of stuff happened within the little circle on this map:
View attachment 14984
...but the people became bad so that no one lived happily ever after anymore. Then the people were redeemed, but still not living happily ever after. So now the good ones go to heaven after they die and the bad ones go to hell."

Better?

It still includes an awful lot of things that aren't stated directly, if at all, in the book... is that really a summary, or more like a set of implications the book would have, given a certain set of assumptions?