I often wonder why people feel the need to seek grandeur and beauty in a book that is old, contextually inappropriate, discriminatory and narrow. Sure there are beautiful parts in the bible, interspersed with the murder of millions of innocent people and poorly veiled threats. But there is much more beauty in the pure simplicity of life around us. And the complexity of simple things is what always brings my inner self to it’s knees with awe. Because not much is truly simple, a sea of grass, a flower on that sea of grass that blooms, then transforms into a hundred floating seeds to be carried by the wind to land among another sea of grass. There is eloquence in the simplest things around us. I’m not saying a person of faith does not see these things, but why is it necessary to attribute it to some divine source? Why can’t it just be beautiful on it’s own, why can’t the wonder be in the way everything that makes up the earth, every atom and molecule, came together unintentionally and created something so resilient and so fragile as life.
The word is marriage:
The first point I’d like to raise about this is the concept of the institution of marriage. The Christian institution of marriage is best described as a covenant with god representational of Jesus union with the church, whereby the man is following in the footsteps of Jesus and the woman is his church. By church i mean people not buildings. This is all good and well but as a word, the meaning of marriage has changed semantically within our culture. I perfectly understand the Christian view that Marriage should be kept as their term, but marriage is used to describe non-Christian ceremonies also, religious or otherwise. The problem seems to arise when it is perfectly reasonable for a heterosexual non-Christian couple to be “married” (even in a church), but it is in no way acceptable for a homosexual couple to be “married” (especially in a church). If the argument is about the word then I see no reason why legally it can’t be called something else (union, civil union, joining, nadjonsdakl, whatever, etc..) because it doesn’t matter, a word is just a word and the argument is really over the semantics of said word. When you boil it down to the meaning, what Christians get out of marriage is a sanctified, holy covenant between themselves and God (and all the legal, and social, benefits and recognition that this brings). Aside from the first part, there is an equal desire in the GBLT community to have there marriages recognised as equally deserving of the same rights and social recognition. Semantically to the GBLT community, the word marriage may or may not include the God stuff, but it is still contains some of the vital essences of a marriage (union, becoming one, lifelong commitment, a bond to love and nurture one another). It’s really not fair to deny someone a marriage when the meaning of the word marriage has semantically changed. Christians have no problem saying that non-Christians are married if they are heterosexual, it’s only when homosexuality comes into the picture that it becomes a word issue. It’s a homophobia issue. Now I’m not saying this is true of all Christians. One of my friends even wrote a brilliant Christian based piece on loving and accepting homosexuals. It did omit accepting their union, however. But for most Christian males, they have to fight every urge to push you away when you even give them a hug.
You’re too young:
Or are you? I don’t know to be honest. But I don’t think so. I have seen a lot of people who enter marriages at a young age, some have experienced more in their life, some have experienced little but they all have a definite commitment to each other and a strong connection and love. I think they stand as much chance as modern later marriages, perhaps more so.
It’s an effort thing:
What I see in Christian marriages is a different approach. The classic modern approach is boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, girl and boy are perfect for each other, marriage will happen in 5 years +- 2. Up to this point however, there is a good chance that boy and girl have had a number of partners, all of whom have not been ‘perfect’ and have finally settled. This is not true of all cases, of course. The Christian approach is much the same, just in a shorter time period. The difference, however, is in the sacrifice that the partner is willing to make. I’ve seen a lot of my friends go through relationships, figure out they aren’t the socially desired ‘perfect for each other’ and give up there. Now I’m not saying every relationship should work, but a little more work can go a long way, especially when you aren’t looking for other options. The notion of romantic love has only been around since the mid 20th century anyway, before then marriages were mostly arranged and the only ethic was one of work and mutual sacrifice. You don’t have to sacrifice who you are to make a relationship work, often the littlest things go a long way.
Hi: You seem interested in what’s going on in life; what do you think happens when we die?
Mattias
No I haven’t. Is it a strong defense? Sorry I haven’t got around to replying to your previous response, I have been studying for exams and had one today.
I’m not usually one to enter the discussion on abortion. I’m pro-choice and always have been. But Sam Harris makes some interesting points against Christian claims about the awareness of an embryo.
An embryo at 3 days old is 150 cells arranged in a spherical shape. In contrast, the brain of a common housefly is 150,00 cells arranged in a functional manner. If increased complexity equals increased consciousness (and it seems to be that way), then killing a housefly is a more contemptuous act than aborting a 3-day old human embryo. 1,000 times more contemptuous.
“But it’s the soul that’s conscious!” I hear Christians scream, in this case, when a chimera occurs (two embryo’s merge), what happens to the notion of the soul, do the souls merge too?
I think that the claims of inflicting pain on an unborn embryo of that size are invalid. In many cases, bringing that child into the world would cause it more harm than destroying it at 3 days conceived. Some women just can’t provide the stable and loving environment a child needs at the time of pregnancy.
A belief is a notion that one accepts to be true. Faith is belief without evidence.
As such, atheism may be a belief but it is not faith.
Faith is belief despite the absence of evidence.
Atheism is belief in light of current evidence.
No. Atheism is…
But by philosophical definition, you still hold this proposition to be true. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/#2.2)
A belief is a notion that one accepts to be true. Faith is belief without evidence.
As such, atheism may be a belief but it is not faith.
Faith is belief despite the absence of evidence.
Atheism is belief in light of current evidence.
No. Atheism is the lack of belief in god in light of LACK of evidence or not giving a shit. It is not a belief. It makes no claims. It really is that simple.
A belief does not have to make claims to be a belief, a faith does. A belief is just an idea you hold to be truth. It doesn’t matter whether it is truth, whether it can be proved as truth or not, you still accept it as a true notion. If a belief is not “a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true” (Schwitzgebel, Eric (2006), “Belief”, in Zalta, Edward, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab, retrieved 2008-09-19) then what is it? This is a standard philosophical definition, well accepted, and supported. This definition is from where I base my understanding. But atheism is not a faith, a belief takes no leap of faith. It can be based on evidence, rational thinking, or irrational thinking, it is still a belief.
That's not rhetorical; I'm always happy to find out I'm a huge idiot who shouldn't assume the worst about people based on shit they write on the Internet.
Well, I’m assuming the internet is giving you the courage to be so rude, but I will answer your question regardless. However, you are mistaken if you think I have a lack of appreciation for rigorous inquiry. I study psychology which, as a growing field is constantly trying to prove itself as a natural science. One thing psychology does not lack is an appreciation for rigorous inquiry, on which all modern findings are based and by which all the old pseudo-scientific psychological theories are erased.
My theories are based on my own observations from living within a house of devout protestant Christians for the last 18 months. In this time I have been surrounded and become good friends with many Christians and witnessed their hypocrisy first hand. The theory to explain this observation comes from the work of Henri Tajfal on social identity and the in group bias phenomenon. Because I have not been able to research this theory with specific testing, I can’t, at this point, call it an explanation. However, I intend to formally research it in the future.
Have your interactions with Christians strengthened your beliefs as an atheist?
Sincerely,
Cap'n Fabs and Steshnik
In all honesty, yes. At first the increased contact with such devout Christians was off putting, but that feeling slowly grew within me to become deep respect for the people around me. Out of the strength of their convictions, my own were tested and through that i was forced to become more informed, less reactive, and now i know, more than ever before, that this is what I believe.
