faith: a christian's perspective

Romans 14:19

I live by this

Examining the theories behind Religion: ‘Religion is based on superstitious fear’

From Christianity and Greek Philosophy:

“I. It is affirmed that the religious phenomena of the world had their origin in SUPERSTITION, that is, in a fear of unseen and supernatural powers, generated from ignorance of nature.

This explanation was first offered by Epicurus. He felt that the universality of the religious sentiment is a fact which demands a cause; and he found it, or presumed he found it not in a spiritual God, which he claims can not exist, nor in corporeal god which no one has seen, but in “phantoms of the mind generated by fear.” When man has been unable to explain any natural phenomenon, to assign a cause within the sphere of nature, he has had recourse to supernatural powers, or living personalities behind nature, which move and control nature in an arbitrary and capricious manner. These imaginary powers are supposed to be continually interfering in the affairs of individuals and nations. They bestow blessings or inflict calamities. They reward virtue and punish vice. They are, therefore, the objects of “sacred awe” and “superstitious fear.”

(Insert poem: Lucretius, “De Natura Rerum,” book vi. vs. 50-70.)

In order to rid men of all superstitious fear, and, consequently, of all religion, Epicurus endeavors to show that “nature” alone is adequate to the production of all things, and there is no need to drag in a “divine power” to explain the phenomena of the world.

This theory has been wrought into a somewhat plausible form by the brilliant and imposing generalizations of Aug. Comte. The religious phenomena of the world are simple one stage in the necessary development of the mind, whether in the individual or the race. He claims to have been the first to discover the great law of the three successive stages or phases of human evolution. Both in the individual mind, and in the history of humanity, thought, in dealing with its problems, passes, of necessity, through, first, a Theological, second, a Metaphysical, and finally a third, or Positive stage…The first stage, in its religious phase, is Theistic, the second is Pantheistic, the last is Atheistic.

The proofs offered by Comte in support of this theory are derived: 1. From Cerebral Organization… 2. The second order of proof is attempted to be drawn from the analogies of individual experience.

It is claimed that the history of the race is the same as that of each individual mind; and it is affirmed that man is religious in infancy, metaphysical in youth, and positive, that is, scientific without being religious, in mature manhood; the history of the race must therefore have followed the same order.

We are under no necessity of denying that there is some analogy between the development of mind in the individual man, and in humanity as a whole, in order to refute the theory of Comte. Still, it must not be overlooked that the development of mind, in all cases and in all ages, is materially affected by exterior conditions. The influence of geographical and climatic conditions, of social and national institutions, and especially of education, however difficult to be estimated, can not be utterly disregarded. And whether all these influences have been controlled, and collocated, and adjusted by a Supreme Mind in the education of humanity, is also a question which can not be pushed aside as of no consequence. Now, unless it can be shown that the same outward conditions which have accompanied the individual and modified his mental development, have been repealed in the history of the race, and repeated in the same order of succession, the argument has no value…

1. The third proof is drawn from a survey of the history of certain portions of our race.

Comte is far from being assured that the progress of humanity, under the operation of his grand law of development, has been uniform and invariable. The majority of the human race, the vast populations of India, China, and Japan, have remained stationary; they are still in the Theological stage, and consequently furnish no evidence in support of his theory. For this reason he confines himself to the “elite” or advance-guard of humanity, and in this way makes the history of humanity a very “abstract history” indeed…

The three stages of development which Comte describes as necessarily successive have, for centuries past, been simultaneous. The theological, the metaphysical, and the scientific elements coexist now, and there is no real, radical, or necessary conflict between them. Theological and metaphysical ideas hold their ground as securely under the influence of enlarged scientific discovery as before; and there is no reason to suppose they ever had more power over the mind of man than they have today. The notion that God is dethroned by the wonderful discoveries of modern science, and theology is dead, is the dream of the “pro-fond orage cerebral” which interrupted the course of Comte’s lectures in 1826. As easily may the hand of Positivism arrest the course of the sun, as prevent the instinctive thought of human reason recognizing and affirming the existence of a God. And so long as ever the human mind is governed by the necessary laws of thought, so long will it seek…(transcriber’s note: missing page here)

…Its fundamental error is the assumption that all our knowledge is confined to the observation and classification of sensible phenomena—that is, to changes perceptible by the senses. Psychology, based, as it is, upon self-observation and self-reflection, is a “mere illusion; and logic and ethics, so far as they are built upon it as their foundation, are altogether baseless.” Spiritual entities, forces, causes, efficient or final, are unknown and unknowable; all inquiry regarding them must be inhibited, ‘for Theology is inevitable if we permit the inquiry into causes at all.’ “

Christianity and Greek Philosophy was written by Benjamin Franklin Cocker and published in New York in 1870. Please keep that in mind.

Religion, cont’d

From Christianity and Greek Philosophy:

“This universality of religious sentiment and religious worship must be conceded as a fact of human nature, and, as a universal fact, it demands an explanation. Every event must have a cause. Every phenomenon must have its ground, and reason, and law. The facts of religious history, the past and present religious phenomena of the world can be no exception to this fundamental principle; they press their imperious demand to be studied and explained, as much as the phenomena of the material or the events of the moral world. The phenomena of religion, being universally revealed wherever man is found, must be grounded in some universal principle, on some original law, which is connate with, and natural to man. At any rate, there must be something in the nature of man, or in the exterior conditions of humanity, which invariably leads man to worship, and which determines him, as by the force of an original instinct, or an outward, conditioning necessity, to recognize and bow down before a Superior Power. The full recognition and adequate explanation of the facts of religious history will constitute a philosophy of religion.

The hypotheses which have been offered in explanation of the religious phenomena of the world are widely divergent, and most of them are, in our judgment, eminently inadequate and unsatisfactory. The following enumeration may be regarded as embracing all that are deemed worthy of consideration.

I. The phenomena of religion had its origin in SUPERSTITION, that is, in a fear of invisible and supernatural powers, generated by ignorance of nature.

II. The phenomenon of religion is part of that PROCESS or EVOLUTION OF THE ABSOLUTE (i.e., the Deity), which gradually unfolding itself in nature, mind, history, and religion, attains to perfect self-consciousness in philosophy.

III. The phenomenon of religion has its foundation in FEELING—the feeling of dependence and of obligation; and that to which the mind, by spontaneous intuition or instinctive faith, traces this dependence and obligation we call God.

IV. The phenomenon of religion had its outbirth in the spontaneous apperceptions of REASON, that is, the necessary a priori ideas of the Infinite, the Perfect, the Unconditional Cause, the Eternal Being, which are evoked into consciousness in presence of the changeful and contingent phenomena of the world.

V. The phenomenon of religion had its origin in EXTERNAL REVELATION, to which reason is related as a purely passive organ, and heathenism as a feeble relic.

As a philosophy of religion—an attempt to supply the rationale of the religious phenomena of the world, the first hypothesis is a skeptical philosophy, which necessarily leads to Atheism. The second is an idealistic philosophy (absolute idealism), which inevitably lands in Pantheism. The third is an intuitional or “faith-philosophy.” which finally ends in Mysticism. The fourth is a rationalistic or “spiritualistic” philosophy, which yields pure Theism.) The last is empirical philosophy, which derives all religion from instruction, and culminates in _Dogmatic Theology.

In view of these diverse and conflicting theories, the question which now presents itself for our consideration is,—does any one of these hypotheses meet and satisfy the demands of the problem? does it fully account for and adequately explain all the facts of religious history? The answer to this question must not be hastily or dogmatically given. The arbitrary rejection of any theory that may be offered, without a fair and candid examination, will leave our minds in uncertainty and doubt as to the validity or our own position. A blind faith is only one remove from a pusillanimous skepticism. We can not render our own position secure except by comprehending, assaulting, and capturing the position of our foe. It is, therefore, due to ourselves and to the cause of truth, that we shall examine the evidence upon which each separate theory is based, and the arguments which are marshalled in its support, before we pronounce it inadequate and un-philosophical.”

Define:Religion

As said in Christianity and Greek Philosophy:

“Religion, in its most generic conception, may be defined as a form of thought, feeling, and action, which has the Divine for its object, basis, and end. Or, in other words, it is a mode of life determined by the recognition of some relation to, and consciousness of dependence upon, a Supreme Being. This general conception of religion underlies all the specific forms of religion which have appeared in the world.”

whatsyrdamagex asked: Look, im not trying to disprove the truth of the Bible or anything, i believe its true but in a different way, which is to say not in a literal way, anyway, accepting evolution or that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old doesnt invalidate your religion. Theres a reason why schools wont let Creationism or ID be taught in classes, its because its not science, and since you're not a scientist, i dont see how you're justified to comment on the interpretation of scientific findings.

Ok, good for you. No, I’m not a scientist, which means I don’t present my own interpretations-I present scientists’ interpretations. Creation itself may not be ‘science’ but there is science that backs the theory up. To me, it takes more to believe in spontaneous generation of life than in ID.

Actually, it would, because without original sin, humankind was never perfect, which means there would be no way for a perfect sacrifice to make up for that sin, which means none of us would ever pass the standards necessary to get into heaven. But that’s not the point. 6,000 years aren’t mentioned in the Bible; as I have stated in an earlier post, that is merely the amount of time that an early Christian apologist came up with after adding the ages of people in the Old Testament together, plus the 400 year break between the OT and the NT. As stated earlier, I believe that it’s possible that the earth is thousands of years older: after all, we have no way to know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they fell.

Also, the only things God created were light and life. It says “the spirit of God hovered over the waters.” The primordial soup, perhaps. That’s one theory.

Another theory is that time didn’t start until they left the Garden, and that it like a wound-up clock that will end with the end of this world and the end of sin. That supports the 6,000 year theory.

I keep an open mind.

whatsyrdamagex asked: Also why do you call yourself 'reasonable' Christian when you try to rationalize stuff like the literal existence of Eden, Noah's flood, a young age for the earth etc. Being reasonable involves accepting scientific evidence, the garden of Eden wasnt a literal place, and Noah's flood didnt actually happen, its a story, some of it may be based in history, but its mostly story.

There is scientific evidence, such as the geological record, and then there is interpretations of said evidence. You believe that it means the flood never happened. I believe that it means the flood did happen.

I had a long answer here and then my laptop screwed up and deleted it all. I apologize for the stupidity of technology. If I remember what I said, I’ll post it. Sometime. Eventually. As long as my laptop and/or internet doesn’t screw up again.

whatsyrdamagex asked: If Islam is a lie, then why did the 9/11 hijackers die for it? If Heavens Gate was a lie, why did the members of the cult die for it? Do you see what im getting at? Martyrdom doesnt prove anything.

I haven’t heard of Heavens Gate. I’ll google that.

The point I’m trying to make is that the disciples were the founders of Christianity. Generally, conmen don’t die for their lies to prove themselves right. The Islamic terrorists honestly believed in what they were doing. They weren’t the founders of Islam. However, I do see your point.

If Christianity is a lie, why did all of the original eleven disciples, except for John, die for it?

John was exiled to an island for the rest of his life, he wasn’t actually martyred. But still, 11 out of 11 suffered terribly for their beliefs.

And why is an upside-down cross considered “anti-Christian?” It’s a very Christian notion. Peter was crucified on an upside-down cross because he felt unworthy to die on a cross the way Jesus did.

Oh, btw, whenever you say ‘Jesus Christ’ you are saying Jesus, the Christ. Christ is his title, not his last name. I don’t think he had a last name…actually, I just realized that no one has a last name in the Bible. That’s weird. How did I not notice this before? I’ve got to research when last names came about.

Anyway, digressing, I’m honestly curious, this isn’t a sarcastic question. Why would the original disciples die for a faith that they knew was a lie? what are your opinion(s)?

EDIT: tumblr won’t let me enable the ‘answers’ thingy, so just message me, I guess. Or reblog. Whatever suits you.

alteredclone asked: flood is get drunk. and then? "Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend Japheth’s territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.” Why would Noah curse them with such cruelty ? Because Canaan decided to cover up his naked body with a cloth... What kind of morals are we taught in this story? Also I dare you to research carbon and other modern dating procedures. Really, seriously read about them.

I never said that I thought you were the guy who scoffed in the back of the church…at least I think I didn’t. If I said anything to imply that, please point it out to me.

You’re assuming that I am a stereotypical Christian who went to church all my life. Actually, I became a Christian a few months ago because I researched the claims of Christianity and actually took them seriously without keeping my mind closed. Partially it was because of an experience with angels, but that’s another story.

I’m sorry you feel that way. However, I was talking generically about most of what happens in the OT. I wasn’t talking specifically about any one part of the OT. Honestly, I wasn’t really researching my answers to your questions the first time, because I was half-asleep. I won’t make that mistake again.

Do you have the original Greek Bible? Because I do.

Well, not on the entire earth, actually. On the poles it is far too cold for rain to occur. Floods are commonplace, but they all have stories of a great flood that destroyed the world, except for their ancestors. Coincidence? I think not.

No, God no longer acts physically in our world. Right now, Lucifer is the king of this Earth, and will be until Christ’s return. And also, God promised that he would never flood the whole world again.

Louisiana-are you talking about when Hurricane Katrina came through?

Probably he was relieved to be on dry land again. After all, he was shut up in a boat with a bunch of animals for forty days and forty nights-I would get drunk if I was in that situation. Noah was definitely a sinner, as was his entire family. But he was the only one willing to let God be God instead of himself or money or property.

I don’t pretend to understand everything in the Bible. But I do try to. It was Ham, Canaan’s father, who saw Noah’s nakedness. It wasn’t Ham or Canaan who covered up Noah’s nakedness. And, that was Noah-a man-who cursed Canaan. (He probably had a hangover or something.) It wasn’t God.

It says that Ham saw the nakedness of his father, and when Noah woke up, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. What his youngest son did to him, it doesn’t say, but I’m thinking it’s more than just seeing his nakedness.

I have really, seriously read about carbon dating, radiometric dating, etc. Have you? Because I’ve found things seriously wrong with those methods.

For example, radiometric dating. They’re assuming that the rate of decay remains the same for millions, even billions, of years. They’re assuming that the original content was 100% the decaying portion and not already partially broken down. See [here.]

However, I do have some problems with the creationism theory. Everyone assumes that everything was suddenly created-but energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Thus, the Big Bang theory flies out of the window.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.” God exists outside of our space-time continuum, but because he is God, he can still influence it. It is possible he provided the energy needed for creation.

It doesn’t say how long the earth was there before God shaped it and formed life. For all I know, it could have been there for eons. Keep an open mind and explore all the possibilities.

Anonymous asked: You are very curious and there is a btumblr alled ikilledgod. I am a Christian myself, and a an anon I've tried to understand this man. He has been hurt in the past and has come to conclusions that God is basically evil and would rather spit in his face than be with Him. I have no idea what to say.. I know it's his choice but.. It's so sad. I never seem to have good enough answers but you seem to have good answers. Talk to him?

I have good answers because I do my research, both on the atheist side and the Christian side of whatever subject I debate. Also because I pray that God will give me the right words to say (I mean, write, type, whatever.) I would suggest you do the same, educate yourself on both sides of every argument: that way you’ll know what you’re talking about, and no one can accuse you of being ignorant or closed-minded.

But his choices are his own. I can show/tell people why I believe, and why Christianity is a reasonable faith, but I cannot force them to accept the truth. No one can (that’s called free will.)

I will try to talk to him, but I make no promises. A heart that has been hardened does not soften easily, and a closed mind does not open easily.