Christians are Revolting - Sean Lauren

[otseng]

This thread will debate the book Christians are Revolting: An Infidel's Progress, by Sean Lauren.

We will go through the book one chapter at a time and discuss the contents of each chapter. I anticipate we'll spend several days on each chapter and then move on to the next one. Please avoid jumping ahead, but you're free to discuss previous chapters (for those that join late). We'll end the debate with each person giving a general overview of the book. The thread will then be closed.

If you'd like to participate, sign up here.

[Divine Insight]

So he still could have had the authority of God himself as witnessable by his miracles and everything to restore God's original command back to love.

It's nowhere near that easy. In this case you would be ignoring extreme theological problems. For example, why was the original God so inept at getting his message across to humans in the first place that he had to send Jesus to explain it better.

PLUS, you are even claiming that both God and Jesus failed to restore God's original command back to love anyway because Chrsitianity got it all wrong. So now we have both God and Jesus failing in their ability to communicate effectively to humans.

And then you have the extreme theological problem of Jesus being crucified. How do you explain that if that wasn't part of God's PLAN? Think about it. You'd have to have God and Jesus saying "OOPS! We just wanted to clarify God's instructions we never INTENDED for Jesus to end up being crucified over this".

I mean, you appear to be totally oblivious to all the theological problems you're creating for anyone who wants to continue to think that Jesus has anything to do with a God.

Your explanation (taken as a theology) ends up with Yahweh and Jesus being totally bumbling idiots who can't even effectively communicate with the humans that they had supposedly created.

Just for the record, I will totally GRANT you that Christian theology doesn't do any better. But still. At least they try to address all these things. Usually trying to always blame everything on humans and the original fall from grace.

The "big problem" you're referring to seems to be coming from this idea that I must force my belief upon everyone and fix it all. I'm not that silly. I don't think I'm going to fix anything myself. I'm sharing the story so that others who are seeking, like I was, can find some better answers. Perhaps they or others can find better ways to fix the world through the message Jesus actually taught. Who knows. I'm doing a small part, and I hope others might do their small part. I'm no Christ myself, after all.

I totally appreciate what you are trying to do. In fact, what you are trying to do is quite honorable and respectable.

None the less, it's not going to make a viable theology. At least not for anyone who has any training in theology. You may very well attract people who don't actually consider all the problems and just accept wild and crazy ideas.

I hate to get cited for incivility again in this book review thread, but I can't help but say that from my perspective Christian theology already is a wild and crazy idea. So I guess in your defense, you wouldn't be asking Christians to believe anything anymore outrageous than what they already believe.

Perhaps from that perspective you have a point.

But any serious theologian is going to be saying. "What? God sends Jesus to correct God's first miscommunication to humans. Then Jesus fails to correct the message. And then OOPS! Jesus get crucified which wasn't even part of the original PLAN?"

Surely you can see where, from a purely theological perspective there are huge problems with this. You have both Yahweh and Jesus failing to be able to communicate to humans effectively, and then you have Jesus ending up being crucified which wasn't even part of God's original plan?

That's going to be a very hard sell in any theological circles.

At least in current Christian theology God was not surprised by the crucifixion of Jesus as this was actually a major part of God's plan all along. The "Sacrifical Lamb" idea comes to the rescue when trying to explain how God's Son could have ended up being crucified.

Is this problematic as well? I certainly think so. But clearly theologians all over the globe seem to think that it makes some sort of sense.

But you're idea has no explanation for why Jesus was crucified when all he intended to do was clarify what the original God screwed up.

And according to you, even Jesus failed to clarify anything. So now we have two bumbling God's with one of them getting nailed to a pole when it was never his intention to end up being crucified.

That's not problematic for you?

[ElCodeMonkey]

For example, why was the original God so inept at getting his message across to humans in the first place that he had to send Jesus to explain it better.

It's not about ineptness to communicate, it's about a creating a particular environment for choice to be available. He very much knew this would happen and prophesied it from the get-go. So definitely not bad communication. If God is trying to cultivate goodness it certainly cannot be compelled. And no, God is not threatening with fire like modern Christians believe.

And then you have the extreme theological problem of Jesus being crucified. How do you explain that if that wasn't part of God's PLAN? Think about it. You'd have to have God and Jesus saying "OOPS! We just wanted to clarify God's instructions we never INTENDED for Jesus to end up being crucified over this".

Theological "problems" (even of the "extreme" type) are very easy to work around. It could indeed still be part of the plan to show just how much he wants us to love even to our own harm. This is what shows us to be his people. That we're passive even unto death.

I mean, you appear to be totally oblivious to all the theological problems you're creating for anyone who wants to continue to think that Jesus has anything to do with a God.

Instead of assuming I don't have answers and calling me oblivious, why not simply ask for clarification? I have plenty of good answers for you .

Just for the record, I will totally GRANT you that Christian theology doesn't do any better. But still. At least they try to address all these things.

I can clarify anything you ask. Just ask politely without accusation to make it a little more friendly .

I totally appreciate what you are trying to do. In fact, what you are trying to do is quite honorable and respectable.

Thank you.

None the less, it's not going to make a viable theology. At least not for anyone who has any training in theology.

I am quite well trained in theology and yet it hooked me.

So I guess in your defense, you wouldn't be asking Christians to believe anything anymore outrageous than what they already believe.

Precisely.

But any serious theologian...

Do you mean dogmatic modern day Christian Pharisee? Oooh, "Christian Pharisees" might be a good book title . Or maybe "Return of the Pharisees". What do you think Otseng?

[Divine Insight]

Instead of assuming I don't have answers and calling me oblivious, why not simply ask for clarification? I have plenty of good answers for you .

If you genuinely believe that you have good apologies for a rock solid theology then why have you rejected the theological aspect of it?

An atheist theological apologist makes no sense. It should be crystal clear to everyone that they aren't even buying into their own apologies.

You say:

I am quite well trained in theology and yet it hooked me.

Perhaps because of this you have come to see apologies as not needing to be rational? You obviously don't believe the orthodox apologies. So could it be that you have come to see theological apologies as merely any ridiculous scenarios a person can think up?

Your theological apology:

Theological "problems" (even of the "extreme" type) are very easy to work around. It could indeed still be part of the plan to show just how much he wants us to love even to our own harm. This is what shows us to be his people. That we're passive even unto death.

And so you are suggesting that this God was so naive and non-omniscient that he wouldn't have realized that even the authors of the Gospels would have totally misunderstood his plan?

I'll grant you that orthodox apologies aren't much better. But just because they are so weak and feeble doesn't mean that any weak and feeble apology will do.

As an atheist you clearly do not buy into your own apologies. How in the world can you expect anyone else to? It appears to me that you are simply suggesting apologies for Christians who would like to keep believing that Jesus was the Son of God. And apparently (perhaps because of the weakness of orthodox apologies) you feel that apologies don't need to actually make any sense.

~~~~~

The bottom line for me Sean is your position that you are "Restoring Christianity to it's True Meaning".

That's the sole problem I have with your thesis.

If you had written a book simply suggesting a potential alternative understanding of Jesus offered up as food for thought for anyone who might be interested. You would have won my total respect, and I would most likely agree with your whole narrative.

But the mere fact that you are claiming to "Restore Christianity to it's True Meaning", and then even rejecting your own theological apologies for the theist view and take an atheist stance, is, quite frankly, laughable.

In short, my review of your book is quite brief.

As a claim to restore Christianity to its true meaning, the book is a joke.

Had it merely been an atheist's view of why he rejects orthodox Christianity, it might have been a good read.

Just as a final note. You might have actually ended up convincing some Christians that your views could be made into a viable theology. And then let them come up with those ridiculous theological apologies.

But as it is now, you sound more like an atheist preacher trying to convert Christians from orthodox theology over to a theology that even you yourself clearly don't buy into. For if you truly bought into it you wouldn't be an atheist.

Your going to try to convince me of the viability of a theology that you yourself have rejected?

Something doesn't seem quite right here.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 72 by Divine Insight]

Sorry for the late reply, I was out all yesterday with some crazy sickness barfing my brains out. I knew it was coming as it took down each of my family members one at a time .

You make an excellent point that I should probably make this more of a "could it be" kind of concept than a "this is definitely it" concept. I'm not sure if the book specifically says I'm trying to restore it though. I think that's just been me, here, saying I want to "restore" it to what I "believe" is accurate. But if the book does sound that way, then perhaps I should update some of that. Have you already finished the book to know if that's the case?

As for denying my own theology, there is a big difference between soundness of an argument and trueness of it. I can say A implies B and B implies C, and my conclusion is therefore that A implies C. This is logically sound. However, you and and I might disagree on the premise of A or whether or not it truly implies B. Christians believe A, I do not. But, I can indeed say that IF A then B and simply know the answer is ~A and be done with it. So I've made the theology entirely sound even if I believe the answer amounts to False. Since "A" can never be proven one way or another, we simply have to rely on what we "feel" is more appropriate. I can't "prove" we're in a simulation, but I think there's more reason to believe that than a God. I also believe it's slightly more likely that this is not a simulation mostly due to extreme suffering which I'd like to think is beyond the reasonabilities of any simulation-making creatures. But maybe it's not. Who knows. So for me, I think it's about 1/2 the likeliness that we're in a simulation than not. For someone else, it might be much different. It can never be proven one way or another, but we can adjust probabilities as we learn more aspects. The same is true for the Christian religion. I believe I have more reasonable ideas to be considered that would make my understanding of Christianity far more likely than the current understanding. I can't prove it, like I've said multiple times, and no one ever could. It's simply more probable. And again, I'm not out to convince the world, just the few who are interested.

As for my version of God being incompetent, he very precisely claimed that everything would get corrupted. He knew it was going to happen and he proclaimed it upfront. The fact that he allowed it shows that he desired to allow it, not that it was an oversight or incompetence. So rather than simple accusations of any nature toward my concept or me, just ask about any part that doesn't make sense to you and I can clarify. I promise the whole argument is very sound even if it doesn't lead to you believing it yourself. A religion only needs soundness (and most not even that!). Mine is at least sound even if I find it less believable than a simulation. That could always change though as I experience more in life.

[Divine Insight]

You make an excellent point that I should probably make this more of a "could it be" kind of concept than a "this is definitely it" concept. I'm not sure if the book specifically says I'm trying to restore it though. I think that's just been me, here, saying I want to "restore" it to what I "believe" is accurate. But if the book does sound that way, then perhaps I should update some of that. Have you already finished the book to know if that's the case?

I don't have time to read the entire book right now. Also I though we were supposed to be taking this "Book Debate" one chapter at a time. I'm more than ready to move on to chapter 2. I don't know who decides the schedule of when to move onto the next chapter?

In any case, I see this as being your position in Chapter one. From your book in Chapter 1,...

"I write this mostly for Christians since it is their faith which has been corrupted and which I wish to see restored."

This sounds to me like a pretty direct claim that the "Christian Faith" (which I take to mean "Christian Theology") has been corrupted. And that you would like to see it "restored", to what you believe should be the original "faith" (or theology).

It just seems like a pretty bold claim to be making. Whether you "tone down" this approach later in the book I have no clue.

As I had asked, who decides when we move onto the next chapter?

It appears there are 12 chapters. If each chapter is given a week for discussion this is thread is going to be three months of discussions. I have no preferences. But the chapters seem to be fairly short. Maybe a few days for each chapter would make more sense?

I believe Otseng suggested that we can always refer back to previous chapters, so those will always be available for discussion. But we aren't supposed to be jumping ahead. So I'm basically waiting for Chapter 2 to be discussed before commenting on it.

As for denying my own theology, there is a big difference between soundness of an argument and trueness of it.
,... {snip for brevity},...
As for my version of God being incompetent, he very precisely claimed that everything would get corrupted. He knew it was going to happen and he proclaimed it upfront. The fact that he allowed it shows that he desired to allow it, not that it was an oversight or incompetence. So rather than simple accusations of any nature toward my concept or me, just ask about any part that doesn't make sense to you and I can clarify. I promise the whole argument is very sound even if it doesn't lead to you believing it yourself. A religion only needs soundness (and most not even that!). Mine is at least sound even if I find it less believable than a simulation. That could always change though as I experience more in life.

Well, as I see it the problem of "soundness" requires a knowledge of the entire theology.

Keep in mind that Christianity is built upon a religion that has a God who will severely punish or condemn those who disobey him. Therefore I hold that any theology where this God doesn't make his instructions known with unambiguous clarity, has the major problem of a God who has turned our eternal fate into a game of craps (or pure chance gambling). The reason is because we would then not have a crystal clear picture of what this God expects from us.

Your theological apology is that this God knew things would become confused and misunderstood and just allowed that to be the case. But this would then require that your theology also abandons the idea that this God is going to judge people harshly for getting it wrong.

Keep in mind that many orthodox Christian Theologians hold that there is no ambiguity at all. Christianity is precisely "correct", and has not become "corrupted" as you suggest.

They accept Paul's proclamation that people are "without excuse" for not believing in this God. And they also proclaim that anyone who doesn't understand that coming to Jesus for free undeserved salvation by Grace is only pretending to not understand what this God has demanded of people.

So they hold that their theology is consistent with a God who demands obedience because, in their mind, their theology is crystal clear and unambiguous.

Obviously, neither you nor I are convinced of this orthodox position.

None the less, this is often the position. There is no "ambiguity" or contradictions, in God's Word, according to them.

But your theology is already founded on the idea that Christianity has it all wrong and that God himself knew that this would be the case, and apparently didn't do anything to correct it.

Therefore, you end up with a God who will condemn us for being confused, when he himself knew that we would indeed become confused.

If you want to call that a "sound" theology, be my guest.

Personally I wouldn't buy it if it were on sale at 100% off.

I don't even buy the orthodox theology. But this is mainly because I don't see the Bible as being crystal clear without ambiguity. In fact, even Christendom isn't crystal clear without ambiguity. So even though their theology would be "sound" if we accept their premise that the Bible is crystal clear without ambiguity. we can still reject their premise.

But in your case, you would need to change the "premise" to the idea that God isn't going to pass judgement on anyone since even He knows that his instructions have become totally corrupted.

I mean, sure you could do that, but then look where this is heading? You're going to end up with a whole new theology where the God isn't even going to hold anyone responsible for anything because his instructions to humans got all fouled up.

In short, "your God" could not blame orthodox Christians for having gotten everything all wrong.

By the way, sorry to hear of your illness. Glad to hear that it was temporary.

[ElCodeMonkey]

I'm more than ready to move on to chapter 2. I don't know who decides the schedule of when to move onto the next chapter?

Otseng and I have both attempted to move on to chapter 2 multiple times already . We'll probably start allowing chapter 3 soon! You can find his previous 2 posts and my posts about Prayer.

In any case, I see this as being your position in Chapter one. From your book in Chapter 1,...

"I write this mostly for Christians since it is their faith which has been corrupted and which I wish to see restored."

You're right. That is extremely explicit. That was quoted previously I believe and I completely forgot . Yeah, that does sound too forward and arrogant for a beginning especially when I hold a position of non-proof but more likelihood. People might be far more open if I say "hey, did we consider this?" So thanks for that advice!

It just seems like a pretty bold claim to be making. Whether you "tone down" this approach later in the book I have no clue.

I'd like to think I do, but outside opinion would be useful as obviously I can forget or not realize how I'm coming off .

Keep in mind that Christianity is built upon a religion that has a God who will severely punish or condemn those who disobey him.

That does complicate things. It took me a long time to even consider such ideas because I feared rejecting God and thus suffering hell forever. Finding a way to ease into it to make it "okay" to question or at least entertain the ideas would be a great idea. More good advice from you. Thank you.

Your theological apology is that this God knew things would become confused and misunderstood and just allowed that to be the case. But this would then require that your theology also abandons the idea that this God is going to judge people harshly for getting it wrong.

The harsh judgement is indeed gone in my particular theology. Well, unless poofing from existence is harsh. Some will continue to eternity while others simply cease to exist. No hell and damnation.

I mean, sure you could do that, but then look where this is heading? You're going to end up with a whole new theology where the God isn't even going to hold anyone responsible for anything because his instructions to humans got all fouled up.

We can still be held accountable for our level of "goodness". Christians like to pretend we need perfection for God to like us, but that's just plain silly. The whole system is designed perfectly to judge the "goodness" of a particular person. Give them just enough info and just enough doubt to make a real choice based upon who they are. Anything more clear and it's compelled. Any less clear and they can't recognize a need for goodness. How God judges us for that goodness is entirely up to him and we should simply do our best and not particularly think about whether or not we make the grade for eternity. Goodness doesn't need a book since it is dynamic. Plus, with a living God, he can help give us those whispers in our ear what is good and what is not. It doesn't matter if someone "claims" God whispered that he should murder people since clearly we can hear our own whispers and believe it's bull while he will be judged both by society and God. Following this particular path of seeking "goodness" (or "love" if you prefer) is very rare and unique. The simple act of trying is enough to be hopeful for eternal life, and successful application of it, like a good Buddha, removes one's personal desire in such a way that we recognize how much it doesn't truly matter if we don't make the cut. That comprehension probably comes later though. This should be seen as a matter of judging heart rather than perfect success.

But anyway, we can indeed move on to Chapter 2.

[otseng]

I'm more than ready to move on to chapter 2. I don't know who decides the schedule of when to move onto the next chapter?

Otseng and I have both attempted to move on to chapter 2 multiple times already . We'll probably start allowing chapter 3 soon!

Let's start chapter 3 now.

"Evidently, I had been sold a fake fire insurance card; the future flames of hell still endangered my eternal soul!"

This is in reference to Matthew 7:21-23:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Evangelicals believe it is faith that saves, not works. However, true faith will be demonstrated through works. An example is a relationship between a couple. It is love that defines a relationship. However, what if there is no manifestation of love in the relationship? It would then question the existence of love and if they are really a couple. But, if there is a demonstration of patience, serving, giving, etc, then it shows that true love exists. There is also an element of works that maintains a relationship. But, it's not the works that defines the relationship.

"The idea of grace alone did not seem to work with the simultaneous requirement of obedience found in the Bible. It would have to be obedience and grace together."

I agree that Christians do not place enough emphasis on obedience. Protestants have gone too far with the idea of grace and place little emphasis on works. There needs to be a balance. Yes, it is only by grace we are saved. We get married by making a commitment at the altar. But, if people act like they are still single afterwards, are they really married? We need to put in work in the marriage after the vows are made.

"I wanted everyone to know that I was an unashamed fanatic and that they could come to me if ever they needed spiritual guidance."

Fanaticism/radicalism of any sort can be dangerous. I'm not saying it's always wrong and should be avoided at all cost. But, if one decides to go down that path, there will be difficulties and opposition. Think John the Baptist. He was a radical, but his life was not easy and ended up with his head on a platter.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Evangelicals believe it is faith that saves, not works. However, true faith will be demonstrated through works.

Absolutely. So, meta analysis, what's the point in saying this? Is there utility? Can we and should we measure someone's (or our own) faith by their works? Was it just an attempt to say "try" and trying is all that really matters?

Fanaticism/radicalism of any sort can be dangerous. I'm not saying it's always wrong and should be avoided at all cost. But, if one decides to go down that path, there will be difficulties and opposition. Think John the Baptist. He was a radical, but his life was not easy and ended up with his head on a platter.

Jesus kind of required fanaticism, did he not? He basically said to trash our own lives to become a disciple. Or do we not all need to be disciples?

[otseng]

Can we and should we measure someone's (or our own) faith by their works? Was it just an attempt to say "try" and trying is all that really matters?

We can judge others by their fruit.

Mat 13:22-23
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. 23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Are they demonstrating the fruit of the spirit? Are they promoting peace and reconciliation in the world? Are they ministering to the poor in spirit? Are they loving God and loving others?

Jesus kind of required fanaticism, did he not? He basically said to trash our own lives to become a disciple. Or do we not all need to be disciples?

I agree he required us to lay down our lives and to follow him to be a disciple. But, the question is how should that play out practically? I personally believe the key is being in a zone of balance between two opposing forces (which is not easy to do).

Matt 10:16
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

On one hand, we're to be like a serpent, but on the other, we're to be like a dove.

Jhn 17:14-15
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

On one hand, we're not of the world, but we are also sent into the world.

Philippians 4:6-7
6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. 7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

We're to pray and trust God, but we also have to work and not be lazy.

"Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you." ~ Saint Augustine

[ElCodeMonkey]

Are they demonstrating the fruit of the spirit? Are they promoting peace and reconciliation in the world? Are they ministering to the poor in spirit? Are they loving God and loving others?

What is the utility in judging others in such a way? What might it change to make a decision on whether or not they truly have faith? And since I do not have faith myself, would that make me a sort of baseline for judging? Would everyone claiming faith have to produce those things at least better than me? I would argue I do quite a bit of each of those measures even as an atheist. Even loving God if indeed God is love. I just don't call it "God" except maybe as my lower-case "god."

Jesus kind of required fanaticism, did he not?

I personally believe the key is being in a zone of balance between two opposing forces (which is not easy to do).

Balance would be as opposite fanaticism as possible. Yet Jesus not only said to give up our lives, but he said to one man it wasn't even worth burying his dead father. He said we're not worthy of following him if we even dare look back. He said that, by contrast of our love for him, our love for our own family and lives ought to look like hate. We should not store up treasures on earth. We should sell everything and give to the poor to store up treasures in heaven. This all sounds far less balanced and far more fanatic.

On one hand, we're to be like a serpent, but on the other, we're to be like a dove.
...
On one hand, we're not of the world, but we are also sent into the world.
...
We're to pray and trust God, but we also have to work and not be lazy.

I don't particularly see those as contrasting or mutually exclusive. One can be fanatic for wisdom and peace simultaneously. Same with being not of the world yet remaining in it and trusting yet working. Should we not be fanatical in all elements of Jesus' teachings?