Show Summary, From Chris and Nate

Chris Says: Relationships start with God, but our relationship with God affects our relationships with other people (environment).

Nate Says: Relationships start with ourselves and branch out in our interconnectedness with others (even the environment)

- - Show Site: http://www.thechristianandtheatheist.org/

Hey, guys! I love your podcast. Great idea, great program so far.

I sure hope you guys have time to mod this forum for trolls. Let's hope it doesn't turn into a usenet group. :-)

This is a bit tangential, and I just want to offer some food for thought.

In recent feminist writings (mostly the 80s and early 90s) there has been alot of discussion on the subject of "care" as a neglected interpersonal perspective (the dominant perspective is claimed to be "justice."). It says that a caring relationship is not simply one in which care is given, but in which the care is also recognized. Without recognition, there is no completion of emotion, and no real relationship.

It seems to me that God is incompatible with this definition, that even if we care about God, then we don't ever get a real reception of care. Does God need refining? Does the definition need refining? Or is God simply outside of this normal schema for a caring relationship?

God most definitely cares but the hard thing is perception of His caring. What if he speaks a caring language that might be different then how we percieve caring?

I suppose it also depends on what "God" you are speaking of. If it is of the Christian God, then He sending His Son to die would be one of His expressions of His caring. Creation might be another one.

I personally feel like God cares for me every day, in personal ways.

Man conversing is fun!

In my point of view, the two laws
Mat 22:37 "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." and
Mat 22:39 "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
often collide, namely if the neighbour does not share the same faith, if he is either a disbeliever, of another faith or of a slightly other denomination.
The first commandment "Exd 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
immediately leads to contentions with people of other faiths. The bible is full of these contentions, especially the old testament, talking about Gott commanding the Israelites to kill the unbelieving Canaanites.
Deu 7:2 "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:"

The story continues in the new testament, though the aggressions towards disbelievers are less harsh, as they are not directed towards members of other nationalities. Instead, the new Christian faith grew within and across all borders of nationalities. Hence, it was rather an inter-social problem:

Mat 10:35-37 "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Mat 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Although the second law "Love thy neighbour" is a great ideal, the first law undermines it, leading to religious wars and crusades, contentions in areas where different denominations live (have a look at baptist vs. mormon contentions)
The struggle whether during the eucharist, the bread is really changed into the body of Christ or only symbolically has no real effect on human beings, but on the contrary led to millions of people killed in the course of e.g. the thirty years' war.

So while teaching to love thy neighbours, the judeo-christian faith embeds a hidden animosity towards nonjews/nonchristians, thus contradicting its own teachings.

[B] Where others see care,I see the divine protection rackett! Judaism requires no animal sacrifice, so why should Christinsanity have a human sacrifice and ritual cannabalism?

Sorry, this should be a new topic but the system won't let me start a topic...

Anyway, I discovered your show recently and now I've listened to them all! Firstly, congratulations and thank you for all the effort you must put into making this happen. It's an interesting and thoughtful show and it's certainly kept my iPod busy for a lot of hours

But I do have an observation and a question. Although, I have not kept a numerical count, I do consider which of you two guys has the more compelling argument on each topic. Being as objective as I can be I'd say that Emery succeeds in falsifying Norton's position 9 times out of ten or better. If we look at individual arguments the ratio is even more heavily in Emery's favour.

I understand this may happen because Emery is simply smarter or better read than Norton or may just be better at expressing himself. But it's possible that it happens because Norton's position is not defensible.

My question is to Norton. How does it make you feel to be so heavily outgunned by your friend? And when you have no answer to him, does it not make you doubt your belief in god? Even just a little bit? Of course, I don't want you to become an atheist as that would be the end of the show but I am curious how you avoid cognitive dissonance and whether your views have any rational foundation at all. That is not intended to be disparaging--it may be that your commitment to God is wholly emotional (and there's nothing wrong with that) so you use reason only in an attempt to rationalise your emotional needs.

What do you think Norton?

Argenta

Argenta, welcome to the forum!
Good question for Norton. I have upset him with my challenges.I mean to challenge ,not to troll.
What are his main arguments for the existence of Yahweh?
Some state that challenges to their faith, aids their faith.Do they really fathom the challenges?
Blessings to all!

Hi SG and thanks for the welcome!

I must give Norton credit--he will often concede an argument when his position is hopeless but he is a bit like a General who has lost every battle, has no troops left but refuses to admit that the war is over.

I could imagine challenges might strengthen faith. I guess people feel that their religious beliefs are based on a combination of reason and faith. If you are shown that your reason is unjustified, yet you wish to continue to believe in God, you would be forced to rely even more heavily on faith.

Relying on faith is like saying, "I want to believe x even though I know there is no evidence for it (or there is contradictory evidence) so I shall believe it on faith." I think this is the same as saying "I believe in x because I like to believe in it."

I'm coming to the conclusion that the world would be a better place if religious people would just be honest and admit they believe in God because they LIKE to. That way they would stop asserting that it is TRUE; they would stop trying to pass laws to compell non-believers to respect scriptural morality and they would stop harming people because they believe their god wants them to. Wouldn't that be nice?

Argenta

Argenta, that would be Heaven!E ven the Bishop Spongs and John Hicks rely on faith as the starting point. Spong notes that so much of the Bible is hellacious and advocates a humanist morality,yet clings to Yeshua as a role model;Hick shows the nonsense of natural theology,yet clings to all religions as aspects of God.
They have no evidence for the ground of being,yet think their approaches are rational!It's the mere feeling that there just has to be a super mind behind and beyond Existence.It's the mere pareidoliac feeling.Feurbach is right!

Hi Grisggy

Posting to this forum is a strange experience. Feels like I've just arrived in a run-down deserted small town. I'm in the main street. There's no-one here but there are signs that people were here recently. There are buildings, shops, a filling station, a dentist, a doctor, even a church. Everything people would need but no people. It's getting dark, there's a chill east wind swirling dust around the street but no people, no lights and no sounds except that relentless wind and a door rythmically banging.

But wait a minute. Someone opened a door and stood in the light for a few moments then retreated to the shadows. Hi Griggsy!

It's a pity. Norton and Emery put on a good show, they do well on search engine rankings and with almost 30 shows in the can, you'd think they would have a big and enthusiastic audience by now. But I have a theory.

I reckon they are keeping everyone waiting for a blockbuster Christmas Special. During this quiescent period Norton has been thinking, wrestling with his conscience and, alternating between despair and excitement, he's finally decided that he NO LONGER NEEDS THE GOD DELUSION. And as this extraordinary conclusion solidifies in his mind he begins to feel free, lighter, sharper, more in tune with nature and the final revelation, GROWN UP! He feels fantastic, like the son coming of age and able to join his dad in the bar. There's just one regret he cannot shake from his mind--why did he spend so many years denying what was truly obvious to him, looking away from dissonant things or searching for explanations compatible with the God delusion--explanations that always seemed inconclusive, hollow?

So now, his mind settled, he is working on the Christmas special. It will need a small change of title, An atheist and an atheist: Two friends discuss religion, morality etc... Well done Norton, come and join the grown-ups son.

Love

Argenta

Does this mean I shouldn't post on this forum?

Does this mean I shouldn't post on this forum?

I wouldn't bother if I were you. This board is dormant. I posted here in error thinking it was related to the excellent "A Christian and an Atheist" podcast originally hosted by Emery and Norton.

If you want a good discussion try posting here http://www.achristianandanatheist.com/phpBB3/index.php

Good luck

Argenta