Bible Study - Fun for all

[Lucy]

Here are a couple of bits from Lewis that led me to my comment:

http://www.ltwinternational.org/goddess.htm

"A child who has been taught to pray to a Mother in Heaven would have a religious life radically different from that of a Christian child." --C. S. Lewis
[The Healing Presence, p. 126 (Crossway Books, 1989)]

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/162

But must we refer to God via masculine terms? The question has nothing to do with what we would like to do, but instead with what God tells us to do. C.S. Lewis addressed this point in his book, God in the Dock:

Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity.... Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?

Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable (1970, p. 237, emp. in orig.).

It's a little tedious to quote relevant bits, but I found a lot of stuff referring to Lewis' description (which I think is mainstream Christian imagery) of God being not male (He transcends sex) but masculine, and all humans being feminine in relation to God. There's the whole "the church is the bride of Christ" thing, for instance, and the idea that a woman should have a similar relationship to her husband as a man has towards God.

That's quite different from Jewish tradition.While Judaism traditionally refers to G-d using masculine pronouns, Jewish writings include feminine references to G-d, as well:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/162

It also is true, however, that on certain occasions God is portrayed via female images and metaphors. Isaiah 42:14 has God saying, “I cry out like a travailing woman,” and Isaiah 46:3 records God’s words as “Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, that have been borne by me from their birth, that have been carried from the womb.” In Isaiah 49:15, God inquired: “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, these may forget, yet will not I forget thee.” The psalmist used a female attribute in speaking of God when he said, “Surely I have stilled and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with his mother” In Isaiah 66:13, Jehovah promised: “As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you.” In one of His parables, Jesus portrayed God as a woman diligently sweeping her house in search of a single lost coin (Luke 15:8-10). And in Matthew 23:37, Jesus employed a female figure to refer to Himself in His lament over the city of David: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets and stoneth them that are sent unto her! How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”

Despite the references to Jesus in that list (Jesus was a Jew, after all) I don't think Lewis is on the extreme in denying the feminine aspect of G-d. But perhaps I'm wrong on that, or perhaps he speaks for a large minority of Christians. The catechism you site doesn't seem to contradict what Lewis says, however.

[Stanley Milgram]

Originally Posted by Descalzo

Well, you gave me one reason why atheism would appeal to wishful thinking: the desire to sin. Of course if you believe in God (or especially in an organized religion like Catholicism or the LDS) you don't get to pick and choose what sins are, but as an atheist you would have total control over what is to be considered right and wrong. It's horribly easy to justify away whatever anchorless sense of right and wrong we have. That must be appealing.

You inadvertently pointed out another benefit of atheism: feeling smarter than those moranic believers!

Anyway, now that we've pointed out that both believers both in God and in no God have their thoughts tainted, hopefully we can stop sawing that branch off. We're both sitting on it.

I didn't give you the "desire to sin" idea. It is always suggested that that is what atheists want from not believing in God. Honestly I find that really insulting. All of us, no matter what our religious persuasion is or whether we believe in a higher power check ourselves on some measure of right and wrong. Usually we do this collectively. I believe that we are born with a moral compass, and some have a strong one, others have a weak one (psychopaths), and everyone else falls in the middle. Since most people fall in the middle it is helpful to have a framework to guide decisions about right and wrong.

Religions have always provided a framework, but mostly they are mutable and subject to current societal mores. What is a sin in the last century won't be in the following or vice versa (usually the former.) So basically they are picking and choosing what is good, bad, evil,...

I don't recall pointing out that atheists are smarter than non-believers. I think a lot of atheists act that way, but it is like any other minority. It is TOUGH saying your are an atheists. It rattles most religious and actually makes them angry and demean us! So, like any self-respecting minority, we often fight back.

[Stanley Milgram]

Originally Posted by snoo

I think this may be one of the best posts ever. I've thought this, but could never articulate it this well....

Thank you snoo!

[Stanley Milgram]

Originally Posted by magillaG

I remember in an earlier post, you made a comment along the lines that atheism presents a reality too harsh for most people to face (sorry, I don't have the energy to go find it.) Even if you didn't say it, I am saying it- I think this is true.

I don't recall saying this, but I do think this is true for atheists coming out of a lifetime of religion. I don't think it is at all true for atheists who did not grow up in the religious realm. Personal I went through a brief phase of this. I had HEAVY doses of religion growing up where basically I was told that my thoughts could be read. Like most children I was very vulnerable to this concept and just having the thought that there could be no god would make me fearful. So, it wasn't until I was an adult that I could have that honest conversation with myself and admit that I didn't buy it.

The thing is, I'm not sure a lot of atheists I see post here have faced it either. I see a lot of posts wondering how believers can believe in an historical genesis. (For the record, I read genesis as myth and allegory, not as history.) But I think this really misses the point.

I agree that it misses the point. I started off with genesis to separate the literalists from the parablists. (made up words!) Plus I have a lot of fun listening to people bend scientific truth into those stories. I trust that people can have strong beliefs in god without being literal about the written word. However, what do you mean about whether the atheists posting here have "faced it". What must they face??

Dismissing religion as a fairy tale with no scientific backing, as many here do, can itself be used as an excuse. Focus on this issue, how scientifically backwards Genesis seems, and you don't really have to focus on your bolded statement (bolds are mine, of course.) I would add "hope" and "human dignity" to "moral order."

Again, the scientific/genesis argument is for pure enjoyment and doesn't get to the heart of the truth of god's existence or not. So I agree with you. Your point is the most interesting part of the discussion. How do we get there (to want morality, ethics, hope, human dignity,...)? What drives us to want them? Why do people believe in god, especially considering the variety of shapes god may take? These are the most interesting questions in my mind.

I think a good personal moral compass comes as easily to an atheist as it does to anybody else. But what about a compelling, coherent system of ethics? I think this is at least as difficult for an atheist as it is for a theist. Nobody seems to post very much on that. (Admittedly, this is probably partly because of all the posts claiming that atheism leads to amorality; I am not claiming that.)

I'm game. This is stuff I think about all the time, but have no answers for. Saying I am an atheist does not limit me to rejecting god. But rather opens up much internal debate about what it all means without this belief.

The French existentialists of the early 20th century, for example, were atheists who really did spend a lot of time wondering what they ethical and spiritual implications for atheism really are. I haven't read them since high school, and don't know a whole lot about what they have to say- my high school self found them a little whiny and lacking rigor, as I recall. But I am a bit surprised that we don't hear quotes from them, or people like them, a little more from the atheists on this board.

Probably because some of us (me!) are fuzzy on those authors as well. I also haven't read any since high school. I recall more the breaking down of notions of religion rather than building up the concepts of goodness, morality, ... All of these are still exceedingly interesting and important outside a religious framework.

Personally, I think it is more important to have a position on religion that is fruitful than it is to believe or not believe in God. Focusing on the scientific inconsistencies in Genesis is not very fruitful.

But very fun, don't you think!

Anyway, I do appreciate you taking this interesting turn in the discussion!

[Stanley Milgram]

Originally Posted by Descalzo

That's fine. I'm just saying that such a person (one who really was able to convince himself that murder wasn't wrong) would be able to convince himself that the society that punished him was wrong. Or that they were doing what they had to do just as he was doing what he had to do. Or whatever.

Either way, it was merely an example of why someone would want to be an atheist, it was not supposed to be an insistence that atheists are all immoral. Sorry if it came off that way.

This very example of justifying murder persists in the christian community, say the abortion doctor is able to convince himself that murder is right because he is saving other lives. BTW, this example is not necessarily only held by the lone loony. I've heard many "normal" christians celebrate when hearing of an abortion doctor murder.

I truly don't believe that people become atheists in order to behave immorally. There are plenty of religions out there that tolerate varying degrees of immorality for their purposes. New ones break off all the time when the rules of the prior don't fit certain congregants. The need to believe or not exists regardless of the morality confines.

[Lucy]

Originally Posted by Stanley Milgram

. . . New ones break off all the time when the rules of the prior don't fit certain congregants. . .

Or old ones change their focus. In the middle ages mainstream Christianity was very concerned with submission to authority (the king and his representatives) and with maintaining the social order in general. The sumptuary laws that restricted who could wear what (it wouldn't do for wealthy merchants to wear clothes finer than princes, for instance) were backed by religion. Gluttony, that is, physically eating more food than your fair share, was a serious moral failing. It was considered a moral weakness to be too concerned with bodily comfort, and so bathing excessively was viewed as morally suspicious. The whole economy was deeply influenced by the moral prohibition against a Christian charging interest to another Christian. Somehow these moral concerns don't seem as compelling to modern churches.

[sweetiepie]

Originally Posted by Stanley Milgram

Why do people believe in god, especially considering the variety of shapes god may take? These are the most interesting questions in my mind.

Disagree here. The only question more boring than "What is the author trying to say in this poem?" is "Why did the author write the poem?" Biographical criticism is about as exciting as the learning channel. If you're going to go through the sad trouble to read the bible critically, as a work of fiction, you should start at least start with a good school of critical thought.

[Steve Grondin]

I responded last night, but I don't see it here, so it must have gotten lost in those pesky intertubes somewhere...

Originally Posted by Lucy

... but I found a lot of stuff referring to Lewis' description (which I think is mainstream Christian imagery) of God being not male (He transcends sex) but masculine, and all humans being feminine in relation to God. There's the whole "the church is the bride of Christ" thing, for instance, and the idea that a woman should have a similar relationship to her husband as a man has towards God.

You are confusing a relational description of God with an ontological description of God. If you think those statements about the nature of the relationship between God and man makes God exclusively masculine/male, then why does it not make all humans feminine/female?

Originally Posted by Lucy

The catechism you site doesn't seem to contradict what Lewis says, however.

I did not quote the portion of the Catechism to contradict Lewis, I quoted to them contradict your false assertion ' Christians think God is male, as in "not female"'. Which they did, directly to the point. How can you assert that Christians think femininity isn't an aspect of God if females are a reflection of God? You are choosing to make an implication from a discussion about something else and ignore something directly addressing it.

If you are open to getting a better understanding regard what Catholics believe about how we can speak about God, you can refer to the Catechism paragraphs 39-43. Additionally, paragraphs 369-373 (I already quoted 370) talk about the nature of male and female.

[LGW]

Originally Posted by Descalzo

That wasn't the point. It doesn't just have to be liberation from the shackles of morality. It was simply an example of why wishful thinking might lead someone to atheism. Surely you can think of some different reason someone might want to be an atheist. Just the mere fact that you feel you have a better grip on reality would make someone want to be an atheist.

most people i know who call themselves 'atheists' didn't get there because they were 'wishful thinkers'. they got there because they were deep thinkers who recognized that it takes a gargantuan leap of faith to decide to adhere to the tenets of an organized religion. and they took that decision very seriously. and they realized that the logical question to ask is, 'why should i believe in a god (or supernatural agent, whatever you want to call it)?' and not, 'why should i not believe in a god?' (ie first assume there's an eye in the sky and then move from there).

Originally Posted by Stanley Milgram

Why do people believe in god, especially considering the variety of shapes god may take? These are the most interesting questions in my mind.

Originally Posted by sweetiepie

Disagree here. The only question more boring than "What is the author trying to say in this poem?" is "Why did the author write the poem?" Biographical criticism is about as exciting as the learning channel. If you're going to go through the sad trouble to read the bible critically, as a work of fiction, you should start at least start with a good school of critical thought.

i think this is actually the question to ask, and it will lead you down some of very intellectually challenging and interesting avenues.

having said that, i'll leave this thread with the following thought:

"one person's god-vision may be suitable only for that one person. hence i consider it an ethical breach to promote one's own god-vision by telling another that theirs is wrong, and one's own (or someone else's), is right ... however, if someone asks me about my own beliefs i am happy to explain, and that i consider is not an ethical breach."

http://www.megasociety.org/noesis/186.htm

[Lucy]

I did not intend to "make the discussion about something else". I wrote two separate posts, one answering your question directly (at least, that was my intent), and the other explaining why I came to the conclusion that Christians think of God as male, as in "not female". C.S. Lewis does not have the authority of the Catholic Catechism, but he wrote a great deal about Christianity and was respected as an insightful commentator by many Christians.

The relationship does make all humans feminine, as compared to God. I thought that was pretty explicit. Well, it's explicit in Lewis, perhaps the Catholic Church teaches differently.

Don't you think there's a difference between saying "God is neither male nor female" and saying "God is both male and female"? And given that Christianity has an obviously male aspect of God, and the catechism says that God isn't female, doesn't that leave females as sort of less godly? Or more to my initial point, doesn't that make it hard for Christians to pray to the feminine Goddess?