« Previous entries · Next entries »
July 22, 2007
Posted at 5:38 pm by Richard and tagged books, christianity, conversations-with-god, interpretation, neale-donald-walsch, truth. Popularity: 16% [?]
After discussing Misquoting Jesus recently, I thought it was about time I talked about another book that’s had a profound impact on my views - “Conversations with God”. A 3-part (now, with many more ) work in which the author, Neale Donald Walsch, claims to be having an actual written dialogue with God.
“I was unhappy … and my life was feeling like a failure on all levels … This time, rather than another letter to another person I imagined to be vicimizing me, I thought I’d go straight to the source; … I decided to write a letter to God.”
… and, God replies. The book follows with a written dialogue between Walsch and God, talking about prayer, love, divine inspiration and the nature of the bible, and all sorts of potentially controversial topics.
Now, if you haven’t already read these books, you’re probably thinking exactly what I thought when a friend first told me about them - “what kind of nut-job publishes a book claiming he actually had a conversation with God? He’s either nuts, or full of c#@p”. A perfectly valid position to take, but as you read further, you start to understand that it doesn’t matter if Walsch is actually having a conversation with God, if he’s a con artist, or even if he’s nuts - what matters is the book contains some very valid insights.
If God truly did inspire the bible, then why those people? Many of them “never met or saw Jesus in their lives, they lived many years after Jesus left the Earth”. Some might suggest that the bible as we know it cannot be the word of God unless each of these writers, scribes, translators, etc. were all divinely inspired, which further complicates the issue. Walsch (or, God) suggests the answer to this problem is that the bible is not the only divinely inspired text - “everything in life is holy”, and God’s inspiration is available to anyone who “listens”:
“Listen to your feelings. Listen to your Highest Thoughts. Listen to your experience. Whenever any of these differ from what you’ve been told by your teachers, or read in your books, forget the words. Words are the least reliable purveyor of Truth.”
The God portrayed in “Conversations with God” is exactly the kind of higher power I could imagine being behind all the world’s religions. There’s no way any one religion has got it perfectly right, because each rely on the words that have been passed down through generations, which have been translated, changed and misinterpreted. Each “divinely inspired” text may have come from people who were more in touch with this “God”, and therefore came closer to God’s true message, but each writer had their own human flaws as well, and thus no text is perfect. In the later books, he hints at the idea that by being “in touch” with God, one is really in touch with oneself - God is not only “in” each of us, but we are (collectively) God.
The book certainly solves some of the issues with traditional religion, but possibly so much so that it’s incompatible with traditional religions (which is probably a good thing!). I mentioned in my previous post “Soft Atheist, Hard Agnostic”, that I am a “soft” agnostic when it comes to “spiritual” gods or other non-interfering higher powers. Despite the personal connection Walsch claims to have with this god, to me his ideas seem very close to these types of “gods”
The books are certainly a departure from the seemingly popular non-fiction books on religion and atheism today, but if you haven’t read anything like this before, it’s not a bad place to start.
Permalink
Share This
Posted at 10:31 am by del.icio.us and tagged atheism, beer, bible, catholicism, christianity, debaptism, fundamentalism, google, humour, jesus, language, Links, map, mashup, mathematics, movies, pacifism, religion, spoilers, war, wwjd. Popularity: 38% [?]
Here are some of the sites I’ve been looking at recently, that I wanted to share:
Permalink
Share This
July 16, 2007
Posted at 8:05 pm by Richard and tagged bart-ehrman, bible, christianity, interpretation, reviews, richard-dawkins. Popularity: 21% [?]
I just came across a review of a book I’ve been reading off and on for the last month or so - Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why - on a couple of different sites. The review itself (at Powell’s Books) gives a nice summary of Bart Ehrman’s arguments regarding the impossible task of obtaining and understanding the “original texts” of the bible.
Many people have a vague notion that all the original biblical texts are preserved in vaults somewhere, and translators work from those original texts. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. The earliest surviving versions of the gospels are handwritten copies dating from centuries after the original texts were written. Also, we don’t just have a single version of each gospel; we have many versions, and even more fragments. The trouble is, none of the versions agree with each other.
If you haven’t read the book, I’d highly recommend it. Dawkins even mentions it in his recent “God Delusion” (so, it’s gotta be good, right?). Ehrman details many specific examples of differences between versions of the biblical texts, and also examines how the specific books were chosen and compiled.
Also, if there’s any Christians reading this - please, tell me - how DO you reconcile the problems Ehrman mentions? Were all of the copies of the bible divinely inspired? Was there one particular version that was divinely inspired? Please… I’m dying to know!
Permalink
Share This
July 12, 2007
Posted at 2:33 pm by Richard and tagged atheism, belief, christianity, church, definitions, evangelism, religion. Popularity: 14% [?]
Here’s a concept I hadn’t come across before - an irreligious Christian. The post at DeConversion centres around the quote from an apparently irreligious Christian:
“Christianity is not about a religion… Christianity is about a relationship…” I even recall myself saying, on probably more than one occasion, “I’m not religious, I’m a Christian.”
While “Thinking Ape” claims this person is being dishonest about their religion, I think it is (at least in principle) possible to distinguish between the two. Religion, according to one definition is “an institution to express belief in a divine power”. By this definition, perhaps “the church” and “religion” would be synonymous. My major gripe with religion has always been the institution associated along with it - sure, the beliefs are almost certainly delusional as well, but the beliefs alone (in my view) don’t cause any harm. It’s for this same reason that I disagree with organised atheist evangelism.
For me, the first step away from religion (although I was never raised in a particularly religious family) was when I rejected organised religion. I was inclined to think that, while the beliefs may have been true, the institutionalisation and control from the Church was problematic. An irreligious Christian would, I imagine, reject the various denominations of Christian churches, like I did. They would also not necessarily accept the interpretations of any one denomination, and would (hopefully) be more open to semi-rational thought.
I say, good on them. Sure, it’s not ideal, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.
Link: I’m not religious, I’m Christian (DeConversion)
Permalink
Share This
Posted at 12:57 am by Richard and tagged christianity, humour, jesus, mohammed, philosophy, religion, socrates. Popularity: 10% [?]
I thought Jesus and Mo was a perfect combination to highlight the illogical nature of religion, but I was wrong - who could pick apart Christianity better than Socrates?
It’s a long read, but it seems to sum up Christianity quite well. A small snippet to tempt you:
Socrates: If God created man’s eyes, legs and mind, he also created man’s desires; all his desires, even his desire for knowledge and sex. Why did man sin?
Jesus: He sinned because of his weaknesses and his evil nature.
Socrates: Who created man’s nature?
Jesus: God.
Socrates: It seems to me that you Lord God has merely created man to watch him suffer. This business of Satan, the Garden of Eden and free will is merely a facade. God merely wanted an excuse to harass, persecute, torment and oppress mankind. If an all-powerful and all-knowing being creates everything, and allows his creations to react in a certain way, he actually intended them to act in that way and is solely responsible for the results.
Link: Socrates Meets Jesus
Permalink
Share This
July 8, 2007
Posted at 12:14 am by Richard and tagged 10commandments, atheism, christianity, eclecticism, heaven, hell, morality. Popularity: 13% [?]
It seems a common claim that morality is impossible without religion. While I might agree that in some cases religion (or, more specifically, the fear of eternal damnation) can be a pretty good motivator, I think that a morality that doesn’t rely on religion is not just possible, but it’s a lot more desirable. In the last couple of weeks, I’ve outlined how some people think that religion is the only kind of morality, even though religious teachings aren’t necessarily moral. This week, I’d like to outline some moral structures that can (and do) exist without religion.
Non-Theistic Morality (or, what you do when nobody’s watching)
In line with my theory of religious eclecticism, I think that all religions share the same basic ideas on morality. That said, however, morality based on religion is flawed not because of what is taught (be good to others, don’t kill, etc.) but how it’s enforced.
Athiest’s Wager suggests (as I did in my last post) that Christian morality is flawed because of the opportunity to receive forgiveness through religion. Without being able to fall back on forgiveness from God, how could an Atheist respond when given the opportunity to act immorally? Simple, they’d do the right thing.
I didn’t feel that I had a choice since I answer to myself. I am able to tell right from wrong and I would have to live with the knowledge that I had caused harm to someone else.
A moral Atheist might have no one to answer to but themselves (which seems to be the reason some suggest that an Atheist has no reason to be moral), but does this make them more or less moral than a Christian who answers only to God? Is a Christian who acts “morally” from fear of eternal punishment more or less moral than an Atheist who acts morally because they feel it’s the right thing to do?
We rightly do not consider a well-behaved dog to be acting “morally.” In the same way, the religious person who obeys not out of love and respect for other people, but in response to the promise of Paradise or the specter of Hell, acts not as an independent, moral person. He is merely a trained animal seeking to please an unseen master.
A great real-world example of this is described over at Parenting Beyond Belief:
“If not for the seventh commandment,” I once heard a Veneerist proclaim in a debate, “there would be NOTHING to keep me from walking out the door to cheat on my wife!” Nothing? Not love? I wondered. Or commitment? Or simple human decency? If you say so.
While I’d agree that not cheating on your wife is the moral way to act, I think that the reasons behind one’s actions are just as important (if not more so) than the actions themselves. While it’s certainly possible to have immoral Atheists, it’s just as possible to have immoral Theists. I think that a morality based on a true respect for those around us is far better than one based on the threat of hell and the promise of heaven.
True morality is what you do when no one (even God) is watching. Or in other words - being good, for goodness sake
Permalink
Share This
« Previous entries · Next entries »
Posts
