Atheist says he acts in good faith

Honolulu Advertiser ^ | 2/11/02 | Will Hoover

[LarryLied]

Mitchell Kahle added another scalp to his belt when restrictions on apparel and accessories depicting Satanism were yanked from Kaimuki High School's dress code last week.

"To me, Satanism is a superstition," Kahle said. "Just like Christianity."

The point, he insisted, was that if one religious symbol is banned from a public school dress code, they all must go.

[ArGee]

Sure there is. We are finite beings. Any action we undertake has finite consequences. Infinite punishment for a finite sin is unjust.

I'm not sure what you mean by finite, and why you use that as an excuse. I know that finite means limited. Can you clarify the connection that you see?

Particluarly, what part of your finiteness makes you incapable of understanding the relationship between you and G-d, or you and Heaven and you and Hell?

Shalom.

[aruanan]

But in the seventh grade he declared that he did not believe in God, and that he never had.

"Religion dropped off my radar screen after that" he said. "I never thought about it."

He locked in his disbelief in a child's understanding of Christianity at an early age. His subsequent adult behavior looks as though he's been doing all in his power to reinforce his early misapprehension. I suppose it's never even occurred to him that he's a bigger religious fanatic than almost any of those he rails against.

[malakhi]

I'm not sure what you mean by finite, and why you use that as an excuse. I know that finite means limited. Can you clarify the connection that you see?

You've pretty much got it. We are created, limited beings. God is uncreated, unlimited. We are finite. He is infinite.

Particluarly, what part of your finiteness makes you incapable of understanding the relationship between you and G-d, or you and Heaven and you and Hell?

You misread me. Here is my point: God is Just. God judges us. To be just, a punishment must be proportional to the crime. If your son hits his sister, do you

A) give him a 15 minute time-out in his room.

B) send him to his room for the rest of his life.

As limited beings, we are incapable of committing infinite acts that would justify infinite punishment.

[malakhi]

and why you use that as an excuse

BTW, who said anything about using this as an excuse? Perhaps you can try to justify infinite punishment for finite acts.

[ArGee]

As limited beings, we are incapable of committing infinite acts that would justify infinite punishment.

I think you and I have different concepts of heaven and hell and judgement. Just so we are on the same page, can you tell me your understanding of the three?

If that is too broad a question, please give me one example of how a person gets sent to hell.

Shalom.

[malakhi]

I think you and I have different concepts of heaven and hell and judgement. Just so we are on the same page, can you tell me your understanding of the three? If that is too broad a question, please give me one example of how a person gets sent to hell.

I expect that we do, since I am a Jew and you are a Christian.

Let me begin by saying that there is little fixed Jewish dogma on the afterlife. Judaism is more focused on how we live in this life than in what happens after it. We agree with Christians regarding the resurrection of the body; this is listed by Maimonides as one of his 13 Principles of Judaism. Another is a belief in divine reward and retribution. This reward and punishment can happen in this life or in the next.

What I will describe is the traditional Jewish belief on the afterlife. Not all Jews agree with this, and, as I said, it is not a matter of dogma, so aside from what I stated above Jews are free to have their own opinions.

The Christian concept of salvation from sin and damnation is not found in Judaism. "Salvation", for us, refers to being saved from the trials of this world (the freeing of our ancestors from bondage in Egypt, for example).

Furthermore, we do not believe that anyone needs to believe as we do or convert to Judaism in order to be 'saved'. We believe that the righteous of all nations will have a place in Olam Ha-Ba (the World to Come). In fact, potential converts are traditionally discouraged three times, in order to make sure they are really serious and understand the obligation to follow the Law that they would be undertaking.

Non-Jews are not bound to follow all the Law of the Torah. Jews believe that all mankind including gentiles are under the Covenant of Noah. The Seven Laws of Noah derived from the Torah are:

1) to establish courts of justice;
2) not to commit blasphemy;
3) not to commit idolatry;
4) not to commit incest and adultery;
5) not to commit murder;
6) not to steal; and
7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal.

These seven basic laws can be found in the moral codes of almost all religions. Jews believe that gentiles who (intentionally or as a part of their own religious practice) follow these laws are righteous.

The Jewish concept of hell (Gehinnom) is more comparable to the Catholic concept of purgatory than to the traditional Christian concept of hell. It is a place of repentance and atonement. Traditional Jewish teaching says that almost no one stays there longer than one year, after which time they ascend to Heaven. The exception is for the truly wicked. There are differing opinions on their fate. Some believe that they remain in Gehinnom for a longer time until their sins are fully atoned for. Others believe that their souls are destroyed.

[ArGee]

Thanks for the reply. If you had told me you were Jewish I would have understood you better. I am familiar with much of what you told me.

What's often misunderstood is that the Christian Hell is not an eternal prison sentence for a tempral sin. That's what you described. The Christian concept of Grace is very much akin to the Jewish concept of Hessed. G-d's faithfulness extends so far beyond our sinfulness that we can not apprehed the fullness of it. The Rev. Shaul (a Pharisee student of Gameliel (sp?)) expressed it well when he said, "Nothing can separate us from the love of G-d...

The Tanak teaches us that in the beginning G-d "separated the light from the darkness" before the sources of incandescent light, sun, moon, stars, had been created. Therefore, the light He created must have been His glory. My understanding is that He created a place where His glory would not extend. In a sense, He created a place where He would not go. Anthropomorphism is always difficult but I can not read that passage any other way.

In Christian theology, the Messiah's first coming (I know you don't believe in two comings, but bear with me) was to be the perfect and ultimate sacrificial lamb. He was to make it possible for us to live forever in the presence of G-d. As you know, G-d actually offered the Hebrews to live with them in their presence, but they told Moses to do all the conversing with G-d because they could not live in His presence. They knew their sinfulness could not be in the presence of G-d's holiness without being destroyed. But G-d still desires to live with us in our midst. The sacrifice of Messiah was the "technical maneuver" that would solve that problem and make it possible.

Now, back to the original issue. If Heaven is that place where G-d is, and G-d reigns according to G-d's ways, what to do with people who reject G-d's rule?

I believe that's why He separated the light from the darkness. In His mercy he wanted to give those who rejected His rule someplace to spend eternity. I don't think it was created as hell. But I do believe that it will become hell when men try to set up their rule without G-d. So Hell is not an example of G-d's harshness, but His Hessed.

There is one more issue, why not just snuff them? There is a Christian answer for this also. Let me know if you are interested.

Shalom.

[My2Cents]

My honest opinion is that they have to convince themselves daily that God doesn't exist.

This is good insight. Personally, I think atheists are personally terrified of God. That, and, as it says in the Gospel of John, "men loved darkness more than light."

[Dimensio]

Question: What is the difference, besides the fact that one is breathing, between a dead atheist and a live atheist?

All cell function, brain activity, oxygen intake (with respective conversion to CO2 -- this doesn't count for any bacteria in either specimen's body), usually body temperature as well.

Lots of differences, those are just a few. Actually, the being an atheist has little to do with most of the differences.

[Dimensio]

Now, believing that "God is merciful" and "God damns people to Hell for all eternity," there's a contradiction!

I try to avoid such assertions. True, to me the statements seem contradictory, but since I'm an atheist I cannot readily identify all of the properties ascribed to the subject of either statement (God) and as such there might be something within the definition that allows for both properties to be true. Further, there could be additional context for one or both statements that clarifies how they are both true.

[Dimensio]

Whenever a religious themed thread is posted, the atheists here flock to it. You'd think that since they have no belief in God, they wouldn't pay it any attention, right?

Actually I usuall only check out religious-themed threads if the word "atheist" or "atheism" appears in the title. Sometimes I like to see how many people misrepresent what atheism is and what it implies about a person and their political beliefs.

[stuartcr]

Perhaps in good faith to his fellow man.

[Dimensio]

We don't believe that all religions are definitely false. We just don't know which one's right, so we don't believe in any. That isn't to say we aren't looking to find which one we think is right, just that we haven't found it yet.

You've described what is referred to on the USENET newsgroup as "weak atheism" -- where abscence of religion is based upon absence of evidence. There's also "strong atheism" which positively asserts that no gods exist.

I personally try to avoid using the word "we" to describe atheists as a collective, as the only collective truth about all atheists is a lack of god-belief (despite assertions of some theists and even some atheists) -- but then I'm neurotic.

[malakhi]

If you had told me you were Jewish I would have understood you better.

My apologies for the confusion. You must have missed my reply #54.

The Tanak teaches us that in the beginning G-d "separated the light from the darkness" before the sources of incandescent light, sun, moon, stars, had been created. Therefore, the light He created must have been His glory.

The problem I have with this interpretation is that the light is created:

And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. (Genesis 1:3)

You must then posit that God existed before His glory, that His glory was not eternal, was not an inherent quality of His being.

As you know, G-d actually offered the Hebrews to live with them in their presence

And I will dwell among the people of Israel, and will be their God.
And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, who brought them forth out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them; I am the LORD their God. (Exodus 29:45-46)

Are you saying that this didn't happen? Please explain.

but they told Moses to do all the conversing with G-d because they could not live in His presence.

Moses spoke on their behalf, but they did hear God speak to them:

Then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. (Deuteronomy 4:12)

They knew their sinfulness could not be in the presence of G-d's holiness without being destroyed.

God's presence was with them continually, by day and by night. Furthermore, you wouldn't suggest that Moses was without sin? And yet God knew Moses "face to face".

If Heaven is that place where G-d is

God is Omnipresent. He is everywhere on Earth as much as He is in Heaven. There is nowhere where He is NOT. His Presence sustains the existence of His creation.

what to do with people who reject G-d's rule?

Deuteronomy lists the curses that the people would undergo. These were temporal punishments. But God also said that when Israel repented and turned back to Him, He would restore the blessings He promised to their fathers.

I believe that's why He separated the light from the darkness. In His mercy he wanted to give those who rejected His rule someplace to spend eternity. I don't think it was created as hell. But I do believe that it will become hell when men try to set up their rule without G-d.

So you are saying that men choose hell. Do you believe then that God does not literally judge us, in the manner of Matthew 25?

[ArGee]

So you are saying that men choose hell. Do you believe then that God does not literally judge us, in the manner of Matthew 25?

In order to give you a complete answer I will need to have access to my Tanak. I don't have it here. But let me make two brief statements. G-d talked with Moses face to face, but He was separated from Israel by the veil which only the High Priest could penetrate and only after a very specific purification. So no, G-d did not dwell among them in the way that He desired. He desired the kind of face to face relationship He had with Adam before the fall.

As to the literal judgement, my understanding of the Hebraic concept (which is not necessarily good) has less to do with handing out a punishment and more to do with discerning the truth of a situation. We might actually call it "discernment." So I do believe that the story which Matthew records will happen after a fashion, but it will not be G-d handing down a punishment so much as discerning the result of the choice.

And as for the temporal blessing and cursing of Deuteronomy, it is my opinion that those are the blessing and cursing of the nation, which is created to be temporal, not of men, which were created to be eternal.

I am "unarmed" as it were today, but I will try to get you specific quotes this evening or tomorrow. I can't promise this evening because I have a lot to do this evening.

If you are really interested in the source of some of my understandings, contact The Center for Judaic-Christian Studies at www.jcstudies.com. If you talk to Dwight, you will be talking with a scholar who can discuss Talmud with the Rabbis yet has never been a Jew. He would be able to do much better off the top of his head than I can. I can't even read Hebrew.

Shalom.

[mindprism.com]

. I'm just known for separation of state and church

So am I. No more state forced charity.

[Jeremy_Bentham]

The atheist in the article may be a loon, and he certainly seems to be, but he does not characterize all atheists. He may not have any reason to believe that people have diginity and rights, but other atheists do, and those reasons are based upon science, ie, knowledge of the physical universe.

All he has is his own perspective.

I have a few genuine questions, and I do not want to get into a religious argument/competition. Isn't your higher basis really based upon your own perspective of that higher power, or God? How do you know that these principles are the commands of God, other than by your own reasoning and perspective? Does God speak these commands to you, either directly or indirectly, and how can I know, in truth, that God has spoken to you? What empirical evidence may be presented to me to suggest that your reasoning is correct?

[Sender]

Most of the 'smart' atheists really won't consider anything you put to them, they have prepared an extensive repertoire of challenges to throw back at you to knock you off track. Of course the existence of God cannot be proven by science or in a court of law, so they feel they have a free pass to claim disbelief. Maybe some of them were turned off by repressive religion or hypocrites in the church when they were younger. Anyway, I respect their right to deny God, just don't want them to mess everything up for the vast majority that acknowledge God in one form or another. In other words, if you don't believe in the cross, then just walk on by and laugh. Don't try to have all the crosses taken down. Its a very selfish, arrogant thing to do to all the believers.

[Zack Nguyen]

Those are excellent questions. No, my understanding of God is not based on my own impressions or my own thoughts of who God is. God does not speak to me in a Charlton Heston-like audible voice.

God is an objective fact. He is real whether I believe in Him or not. What I think of Him changes absolutely nothing about who and what He really is.

Were you to read the Bible with an eye for this, you might be astounded at the number of times the writers harken the ancient readers to the physical evidence they have of God's real and abiding presence. God Himself reminds the Israelites repeatedly to remember what He has done for them in leading them out of Egypt and the slavery. He asks them to rememebr what He said to Moses and the commandments He gave, and the long list of physical manifestations He brought among them to prove His presence.

The stories of Christ in the Bible are much the same. John makes reference to "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim."

In other words, the writers of the Bible did not expect people to just believe in something because they said so. They wanted people to know that they had personally witnessed that of which they spoke. They put their personal integrity on the line. They believed that Jesus was who He said he was because they saw Him do what He said He would do.

Perhaps you don't believe in God at all - I do not know. Consider, however, whether your stated beliefs actually line up with the way you live. Do you really live as if there is nothing else in the world beyond the material, that is beyond your flesh and bone, what you can see and hear?

Because if that is what you believe, and that is the case, then understand that you have nothing on which to base a concept of reality. It isn't enough because the person living next door to you who wants to rob you (for instance) may very well believe in something radically different from you, and you have no grounds from which to refute him at all. You cannot call on right and wrong, his concept of right and wrong may be radically different from yours. Who are you to say that he is wrong? What if he believes that stealing is just fine? What can you say?

Hormones, organic brain tissue, Pavlovian programming, and environment do not leave room for morality, because sin behavior can always be written off to one of the above factors.

It is the atheist that wants to sue the guy who wrecked his car, and who wants to press charges for stealing. In order to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, you must be able to call on something Higher than you.

[Jeremy_Bentham]

God is an objective fact.

If this is the case, then there must be some evidence of this objective existence, outside of the Bible. Is this nature? What is it in Nature that evidences the existence of God, or a Creator?

Do you really live as if there is nothing else in the world beyond the material, that is beyond your flesh and bone, what you can see and hear?

Yes, I do live as if there were nothing outside the physical, material universe.

Because if that is what you believe, and that is the case, then understand that you have nothing on which to base a concept of reality... You cannot call on right and wrong, his concept of right and wrong may be radically different from yours. Who are you to say that he is wrong? What if he believes that stealing is just fine? What can you say?

I disagree, and as an example, I present the theory of utilitarianism, which does not rely on a spiritual basis to determine what is right and what is wrong. Instead, it relies upon the material world, our pleasures and pains, comforts and discomforts, etc.