Ruminations: What weapon has mortally wounded Christianity?

[Julius Seeker]

My Answer: The sword of Jesus


SKIP DOWN TO THE BOTTOM if you have no wish to read any of the back ground info I have written. It is quite lengthly as I rushed through its writing in order to get all of the info and ideas out; so likely it is filled with very poor grammar, and some things may not make sense..

Before I begin, don't believe anything that I am writing, but also do not believe that it is false either; because none of us knows for certain. These are just ideas (mine, and others, even Jesus just had ideas), ideas that can be liked or disliked, adopted or ignored. There is no need to be correct or incorrect. I am only saying this because I know we have some people who claim to be Christian here; don't ignore ideas just because they offend you (as Nietzsche would say).


################BACKGROUND####################


Some background on Christianity; Christianity is based off of Judaism which is a religion that is archaelogically much younger than the story. Judaism is about as old as Buddhism, it borrows heavily from Zoroastrianism and Atenism. Zoroastrianism is archaelogically about the same age as Atenism, about 100 years older (dates to 1500 BC), traditions vary, Medieval tradtions date it to about 600-650 (which is very unlikely), some to as long ago as 10,000 BC, others to 6000, and 2000, but archaeologists place the birth of Zarathustra/Zoroaster at between 1800 and 1400 BC based on the languages used and the society described. Perhaps Zarathustra, like Homer, may have been multiple people, no one knows if Homer was one man or several.

Judaism speaks of Abraham making covenant with God about 2000 BC, and Moses again at 1400 BC. According to the tradition of the time (about 520 BC when Judaism first appears in archaeology) Zarathustra also lived in the ancient past about 2000; and Akhenaten lived 1400 BC (archaological evidence.). So it might be that Moses = Akhenaten and Abraham = Zarathustra; or that these people were based off of the story of those two people. Abraham has A LOT of similarities to Zarathustra, and Moses has a lot to Akhenaten, and it helps that they are dated to about the same time periods. Sigmund Freud suggested the Akhenaten/Moses connection. After much study, I believe that Ezra and his followers were a rebel sect of Zoroastrianism which was spreading rapidly around this time. There are other monotheistic groups, such as the Samarians. I would cast heavy doubt on Moses or Abraham as ever having walked the earth in the Jewish story at the very least.

The Assyrians captured the Samarian capital at about 721 BC and relocated their population. This is where I believe that the whole Babylonian captivity story comes into play. The Samaritans seemed to be another monotheistic sect, perhaps also joining in on the new thing to do at the time. There may have been other monotheistic religions, smaller ones that just aren't spoken of, or known to many. Anyways, this is what I highly doubt; that the Babylonians went to Israel, captured their entire population, relocated them, and then razed Jerusalem and all of the Israeli cities to the ground. If they were going to destroy Israel's cities, why not the people? Anyways, the Capiti9vity according to the story ended when the Persians conquered Babylon. The figure of Ezra had this story to tell them as to why they should own the land that is Israel. They speak of a great Kingdom of David (which makes no appearance in archaeological records) and traditions that spread back 1500 years.

Archaeology is certainly not on the side of the Jewish story, as they speak of trading in Myrrh using camels, and marriage with Aramaic women, now take into account this was around 2000 BC. Myyrh was an incredibly popular item among the ancients for perfumes and religious ceremonies. Especially in Egypt and the Middle East, and Greece. Yet, it was not traded until about 720, during the Assyrian period. Camels were not domesticated until about 1000 BC, and the Aramaic language began developing about 1100 BC (as a result of connecting city states) and there was no real Aramaic identity until about 700 BC. So how is it that Rachel was Aramaic in the year 2000 BC?

Anyways, Ezra, by this, founded Judaism around 537 BC. Ezra was the first, historically, to write down the Torah; The Nevi'im and the word sort of emerged between Ezra and to about the time of Jesus (those are the Prophecies and the Word are the books such as Psalms, which is actually likely based off of older scrolls from various religions)..

So now we advance to Jesus, and in short.

Jesus the teacher challenged the many Jewish traditions, told people to reject their faith, reject what their parents have said, reject the traditions around the books that have been read. Reject many things, do not trust your parents, they are your worst enemy as they bring belief to you; belief should be rejected.

Of course, Jesus is killed for spreading this kind of disorderly "nonsense", but he had a lot of impact. he had followers, not many, but it was Paul who came and said "Hey, this guy is the Messiah" and he sort of created Christianity, and his followers became part of Paul's new religion. We have the institution now which redefined what Jesus was. They turned a teacher, revolutionary, and messenger of love into The Messiah, the bringer of judgement, and the founder of a new religion.

Getting on, people are most often coming to the conclusion that there is no way we can know if any of this is real, so that doubt is there, and they become agnostic as a result. There are many reasons why people become agnostic. Anyways, it seems that most practicing Christians are actually agnostic nowadays, they go to Church, but they doubt; they are not true Christians because Christians must believe in Jesus, these people do not quite believe that Jesus was the "Messiah" anymore, they put faith in God, and God isn't even human anymore, but rather an entity or divinity. The word Christianity itself is derived from the word Christ, if one does not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, then one is not Christian.

Of course this does not mean that people do not like the teachings of Jesus any longer, he is still an important figure in their lives. They still go to Church, and listen, and take to heart what is spoken. Yet even this is dying, people aren't going to believe in the stories forever; morality in the Christian definition will likely be the last to go. So I believe that Christianity will die; even though Jesus may remain as a figure in the future; he will be the teacher and not the Christ.

###################THE POST#####################

So now with that said above, my actual post.

I would like to say that Christianity is dead, but that isn't quite the case yet. There are still a lot of believers remaining in the world. However, It does seem that Christianity has lost hundreds of millions of followers in recent decades, and the rate of its decay is only speeding up. Many who no longer believe in Christianity still go to Church.

There are people who claim to be Christian, just out of convenience. Agnosticism is the dominant religion iin North America; this is what I am going to say. People do not look to institutions any longer. In fact, people may have stronger faith now than before (when I say faith, I am leaving out the belief part, rather I will use the term to mean "value placed on an idea" than its traditional form). The God they believe in does not judge, the God they believe in is not human. The Jesus they know is a teacher who is misunderstood. Jesus has become a prominent figure, but is human, and teachings from Socrates, Plato, Einstein, Darwin, and others become equally as valid as his (Jesus). So is this still Christianity? No Messiahtic Jesus, no this is the beginning of a new religion. Should we continue calling it Christianity as the early Christians still called their religion Judaism? We could call it Agnosticism instead.

What is killing Christianity though? Is it Reason? Is it Science? Is it Logic? How about Archaology? Or maybe it was Luther? Is it our free speaking society? Is it our free religion?

All we have to do is disagree with Paul's assessment, and see Jesus as who he was, a teacher. Perhaps it was that Jesus would dislike the idea of leading a quest of doubt to destroy belief only to replace it with a new belief system. If he wished his followers to reject the techings, then they should also reject Paul and Christianity. So with that in mind, is Jesus the wielder of the sword which will slay the beast that is Christianity?

[Nev]

I would like to say that Christianity is dead, but that isn't quite the case yet. There are still a lot of believers remaining in the world. However, It does seem that Christianity has lost hundreds of millions of followers in recent decades, and the rate of its decay is only speeding up. Many who no longer believe in Christianity still go to Church.

Christianity is estimated by the Smithsonian Institution to have approximately two billion adherents worldwide, Seek, with a small margin of error. That's 2,000,000,000 people. I wouldn't be surprised if its numbers are still growing, too, though it may have declined in percentage of total world population somewhat. In any case, it is far, far from dead, or even dying.

The U.S. and Canada are arguably experiencing a loss in the importance of religion, and I believe this is occurring in other heavily industrialized societies as well, but truly industrialized societies are actually not a huge part of the total human population. Also, even given the "diminished" importance of religion, both our nations have more Christian adherents than any other religion. You keep wondering who chooses to vote for Bush - one of the major answers is American Christians.

Most of Europe is still mostly some kind of Christian. Italy is mostly Roman Catholic, not surprisingly, but so is Spain. France has Roman Catholicism listed as its primary religion as well in my Smithsonian world reference book. Russia and much of Eastern Europe are variants of Eastern Orthodoxy. Germany is very, very Lutheran, also not surprisingly. All the Scandinavian countries list as Lutheran. Sweden lists as 87% Lutheran.

It might surprise you, but Christianity is well represented in Africa due to missionary work (mostly East Africa, I think). There are a good number of Christians throughout Asia, as well, though I don't know much about numbers or denominations.

Christians are about equal in number worldwide to Muslims and Hindus put together, and these are the two second largest faiths. But even aside from that, I don't think you realize how much importance religion - in general - still has worldwide. Atheists, agnostics, humanists, and similar schools of thought are a very, very small population of believers worldwide.

I don't know if the more "secular" belief systems are gaining in followers worldwide or not. But I don't think there's any reasonable way to justify an argument that either Christianity, or - and probably more importantly - faith in general, are going anywhere.

[Julius Seeker]

All the Scandinavian countries list as Lutheran. Sweden lists as 87% Lutheran.

There is a large difference between those who are labeled as Christians and those who are Christian. Like I said, a lot of people who go to church are agnostics, but will be labeled in accordance to the church they attend (and I will say that no one I know in Sweden goes to church, not even my grandparents). I will say that you should doubt the statistics you have read; I was born in Gothenburg Sweden, my first language is Swedish, and I spoke it as my main language until I was four or five years old, Swedish is my first language (Danish and English are second languages, and I speak a little French, a little German, and a little Spanish and Japanese). Anyways, I can tell you that Sweden is a very non-religious country, even Canada is much more religious, there are actually religious people here. If the stats say 87% Lutheran, then they are not correct.

I could be labeled as a Lutheran as well, but I am not.



Speaking of Martin Luther, he is somewhat of a "hero" of mine, a very interesting character. I spoke about doubt above, well Martin Luther himself was a major figure who challenged the institution by doubting everything about it. He took the bible and said in similar words, "If you are truly Christian, then rely not on the authority of other men in churches to tell you of the word of God" and he held up the bible and said "this is the only authority."

Luther's movement could be said to be the first step towards a popular agnostic faith which has been emerging within Christian culture. If you ask a very hardcore Christian, they will even tell you that most of the people that go to the churches are not Christian simply because they doubt key aspects about the religion.

But anyways, on the statistics again, they might be labeling people Christian based on whether or not they celebrate Easter and Christmas. Mostly everyone celebrates Christmas in Sweden, but it is a commercial holiday. It is not inconceivable that whole empires of population will fall to non-religiousness in a relatively short period of time; Look at the Romans for an example on that, look to Russia and China for much more recent examples. At this point in time, the idea is that there is a massive transformation inside of this western world into an agnostic state, I would not be surprised if most of the population of Euro-North America were agnostic.

[Nev]

"Today about 78% of Swedes belong to the Church of Sweden, but the number is decreasing by about one percent every year, and church services are sparsely attended (hovering in the single digit percentages of the population)[8] - despite this, a majority of Swedes claim to believe in a higher Deity. Also of significance are the about 100,000 Muslims in Sweden[9]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

Well and good. So they're Christian they way "we" are - i.e., lots of casual churchgoers in that 87%, with fewer devout folk. I'll accept the idea that most of Scandinavia, and probably much of Europe, is like that. That does not do much, however, to dispel the millions upon millions in Mexico, Brazil, Africa, Polynesia, and elsewhere, and many of these countries will be *far* more devout on the whole.

[Julius Seeker]

It is certainly correct that those countries are much more religious than Europe or North America. One feature about the nations you listed though is that they are both third world and Catholic for the most part. There might be something to that... However, in Central America, Brazil, and Argentina at the very least, the youth are significantly less religious than their parents; they do not have the same absolute belief.

In Honduras (I am visitng there for a couple of weeks) for example; Catholicsm is in steep decline, of course much of the transition is going towards another extremist form, Evangelism, or Evangelicos, as they refer to it as. It is not a recent thing either, Catholicism has been in decline for a while.

Anyways, one very key feature of Catholicism is that it discourages the reading and self-interpretation of the bible. A lot of Catholics may own a bible, but if you ask if they have read it, they won't have. A central figure in Catholicism is the "Virgin Mary"; and that is a very central pillar; not in Protestantism. Why? In the Gospels, only two of them even mention that Mary was a Virgin, so therefore how can a religion based on the book have "The Virgin Mary" as a central figure? It can't.

People who read the bible and think on their own can come to some very strange conclusions as well (strange in accorance to the Catholic faith). One thing that even a religious minded person, a strong believer in god, can conclude is that perhaps Jesus was not the Messiah.

In the Gospel, Jesus essentially tells his followers to kill their parents and leave the bodies unburied. Yet how can that be taken literally? It is a metaphor. Jesus was quite obviously a highly rebelious Jew. He had a lot of ideas to share, he disliked all the rules and laws that the Jewish elite had set upon the followers. If one thing that is written can be a metaphor, than perhaps everything can be; as telling someone to kill their parents is equally as ridiculous as anything that theology discusses as "proof" that Jesus is the Messiah. So inside the religious framework, one could conclude that Jesus was a teacher, and nothing more.

Agnosticism is spreading quite rapidly, it has been something that has existed for centuries, but it is only in quite recent times that it has hit the mainstream. Why is it that Agnosticism does not appear in any of the statistics that you have brought up? I can say right now that a very large portion of Canadians and Swedes are agnostic, but do the statistics show it? I would say that agnosticism is likely the largest belief system in North America and Europe right now. I would not be surprised if in two generations things will be the same throughout latin America (I do not know about Africa, only that it is about half Islamic and half Christian; Christian in the South, Islamic in the North). Two generations ago in North America we were MUCH more religious. Who knows, perhaps a similar thing will happen with Islam in the future.

Witht hat in mind, I do believe the written word is causing injury to Christianity. After all, it was the written word that was Luther's sword.

[Nev]

There are many who feel that religion, especially traditional religions such as Christianity, are diminishing in importance in the modern world. I don't know statistics, but it does seem probable, if you take it as a percentage of world belief as opposed to simply absolute numbers.

I suppose I should have said "anytime soon" at the end of my first post - I'm familiar with the argument that modern science is reducing the effectiveness of religion, and I think it's true to a certain extent, but I highly doubt that we will see the end of Christianity during any of our lifetimes, or our children's, or our children's children's. If it is going to die out, my guess would be that it will take at least a few hundred years.

At any rate, I don't know if one can say that the written word is doing it damage, either. If anything, it is the ability of a greater number of people to *read* the written word - higher literacy rates - and higher scientific literacy in general - that may be reducing its importance.

Why is it that Agnosticism does not appear in any of the statistics that you have brought up? I can say right now that a very large portion of Canadians and Swedes are agnostic, but do the statistics show it?

My guess is that a many surveys do not consider agnosticism to be a belief system. This tends to bother me, actually, as an agnostic myself, as does the general perception of agnosticism.

Agnosticism tends to get portrayed as this sort of wishy-washy "I don't really know, and I don't care" non-belief system by many people. While I'm sure there are many agnostics out there who are like that, there are also very formal, highly developed schools of belief and thought within the agnostic tradition, as well as agnostics (like me) who have invested a degree of time and effort into a personal belief system that deals with the traditionally "religious" questions. I get offended because it seems most people don't realize that agnosticism can be just as strong (for lack of a better word) a belief system as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions, and so if I tell someone I'm agnostic, they may dismiss me as one of the wishy-washy kinds, which really isn't true.

To cut a long story short, I don't think there's anything wrong with refusing to claim to have an answer about a question that I don't think I really have an answer for. To be honest, I think it actually shows a degree of humility. However, I'm not unwilling to at least think about the questions, and see what can be learned from the experience.

And I don't think it would hurt survey agencies to be sure to include a checkbox for "agnostic" on surveys - or, better yet, actually ask for a write-in to describe beliefs, and don't pad the survey with any predetermined responses. Effective statistics and surveying is a lot harder than people give it credit for, and I highly doubt everyone out there is doing it right.

Hopefully this is a partial answer to your agnostic question.

[SineSwiper]

Agnosticism tends to get portrayed as this sort of wishy-washy "I don't really know, and I don't care" non-belief system by many people. While I'm sure there are many agnostics out there who are like that, there are also very formal, highly developed schools of belief and thought within the agnostic tradition, as well as agnostics (like me) who have invested a degree of time and effort into a personal belief system that deals with the traditionally "religious" questions. I get offended because it seems most people don't realize that agnosticism can be just as strong (for lack of a better word) a belief system as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or other religions, and so if I tell someone I'm agnostic, they may dismiss me as one of the wishy-washy kinds, which really isn't true.

How can you have a stong belief in not knowing? To believe in something is to either know or have faith that it exists or doesn't exist. Atheists have faith that god doesn't exist, and theists have faith that god does exist. Agnostics, on the other hand, leave the question open, to let science eventually figure it out.

[Nev]

Because I have a lot of "faith" in the scientific method as a useful tool for researching these questions. I just dispute the idea that my philosophy is less valid than a "believer" because I choose to take the stance that I should not profess to know the things I do not know.

[Julius Seeker]

Agnosticism at its heart is "not believing". Atheism is a belief that there is no God/divinity/etc. whereas Theism is the belief that there is a God/divinity/etc.

Agnosticism is very diverse in nature which people have come to its conclusion. Agnosticism really began to catch on in the western world during the Age of Enlightenment. I came to my conclusion not through faith in science, even though my life revolves around it, but rather through the knowledge that humans have the possibility to be corrupt; I used this reason as reason enough to doubt the existence of any religion. The kind of doubt that I used to reject religious tradition is the same that led me to reject atheism. Applying doubt to everything is actually quite a liberating experience. Neitzsche said something in one of his books about beliefs being like chains; when I first read it I thought it was just a very negative view of things, but I have since changed my mind. I used to believe that unbelief was a bad thing: "I don't believe in anything anymore!" Used to be in my mind a very bad way to look at things.

Another way that leads to agnosticism is also this question: "Why is it necessary to believe that there is a God, or that there is not a God?" And by using the word "God" I am just using a convenient term which could describe anything. It actually takes a while in order for that question to mean anything; because it is easy for one to just choose the path of atheism.

I am going to say that atheism is an arrogant path. I know there are atheists here, it is popular in North America. Hear me out none-the-less: People who have chosen atheism have often chosen to doubt tradition and all that has been said, very similar to how agnostics have. Yet, unlike agnostics, they have not chosen to doubt their own beliefs as well; and that can justifyably be viewed as arrogance. Often atheism rests on the path towards agnosticism.

[Kupek]

How can you have a stong belief in not knowing? To believe in something is to either know or have faith that it exists or doesn't exist. Atheists have faith that god doesn't exist, and theists have faith that god does exist. Agnostics, on the other hand, leave the question open, to let science eventually figure it out.

This is an innacurate characterization of atheists and agnostics.

I am an atheist, but I don't have faith that there is no god. The term "faith" implies that my disbeleif in the existence of god is based a belief system of some kind. It is not. I don't believe in god because I see no compelling reason to. Similarly, I see no compelling reason to believe in invisible, odorless and intangible pink elephants. My disbeleif is the result of my own capacity to reason, not a subscription to an external system of thought.

I think the differences between an atheist and an agnostic are minor. An agnostic is someone who is not willing to commit either way due to lack of evidence. An atheist is someone who is willing to deny the existence of god because of the lack of evidence. A friend of mine considers himself agnostic even though the two of us have (as far as I can tell after eight years of friendship) the same views. The only difference between us is that he's not willing to come to a conclusion whereas I am.

I don't think either atheism or agnosticism are arrogant, but I do think it is arrogant to presume to know how someone arrived at a conclusion when all you know is the conclusion itself.

[Nev]

How can you have a stong belief in not knowing? To believe in something is to either know or have faith that it exists or doesn't exist. Atheists have faith that god doesn't exist, and theists have faith that god does exist. Agnostics, on the other hand, leave the question open, to let science eventually figure it out.

This is an innacurate characterization of atheists and agnostics.

I am an atheist, but I don't have faith that there is no god. The term "faith" implies that my disbeleif in the existence of god is based a belief system of some kind. It is not. I don't believe in god because I see no compelling reason to. Similarly, I see no compelling reason to believe in invisible, odorless and intangible pink elephants. My disbeleif is the result of my own capacity to reason, not a subscription to an external system of thought.

I think the differences between an atheist and an agnostic are minor. An agnostic is someone who is not willing to commit either way due to lack of evidence. An atheist is someone who is willing to deny the existence of god because of the lack of evidence. A friend of mine considers himself agnostic even though the two of us have (as far as I can tell after eight years of friendship) the same views. The only difference between us is that he's not willing to come to a conclusion whereas I am.

I don't think either atheism or agnosticism are arrogant, but I do think it is arrogant to presume to know how someone arrived at a conclusion when all you know is the conclusion itself.

I think this is mostly spot-on definition-wise, but I disagree that the difference between an atheist and agnostic are minor. I don't identify as an atheist, for example, and I really wouldn't like to be called an atheist. This is both because the word does not accurately characterize my belief system, and because I figure if I actually am agnostic, I may as well try to avoid knee-jerk prejudices against atheism (which are certainly out there) if I can.

Also, I disagree with the "either way" phrasing. It only becomes "either way" if you define the question as "does x believe in some sort of deity-like entity". Remember that theist/atheist/agnostic beliefs in general do not have to be stances regarding a monotheistic God - I don't deny the possibility that multiple entities currently beyond our powers to percieve "exist" in some way, though I certainly don't assert it as true, either.

I find certain parts of Hinduism incredibly interesting, for instance, though I'm not sure I know yet what I "believe" yet regarding these parts.

[Tortolia]

I consider myself Agnostic. I have the feeling that there is something above and beyond out there, but I in no way feel I can define what it may be, and as such I don't concern myself with it. I'm not interested in organized religions from a religious standpoint, though I find them fascinating from a mythological type perspective (which is probably why I'm such a Megami Tensei fanboy).

[Kupek]

I admit to being a Judeo-Christian atheist. There is a particular notion of god that I reject, and that is the Judeo-Christian god. This is a result of the culture in which I was raised, and the belief system I was supposed to subscribe to. For a long time I assumed I did believe in the Juedo-Christian god, and it wasn't until I was about 12 that I started questioning it. This is the only god, supreme being, or deity I find emotionally appealing and it required effort on my part to distance myself from the idea.

I also reject all other religions, but I do so out of hand. Since I was not raised as a Hindu or in a culture in which Hinduism is the dominant religion, I do not find it emotionally appealing. I reject Hinudism just as I reject the anciet Greek gods and the existance of undetectable pink elephants.

A point on semantics: I <i>don't believe</i> there is a god. This is different from <i>believing</i> there is no god. I have a lack of belief, not a belief itself.

[Julius Seeker]

A point on semantics: I <i>don't believe</i> there is a god. This is different from <i>believing</i> there is no god. I have a lack of belief, not a belief itself.

That is Agnosticism by definition which you have described. The word comes from the Greek "Agnosis" which means Without knowledge. A term used to define those who who lack belief.

Atheism comes from the Greek "Atheos" which means Without Gods. A term used to define in the belief that there is no God/Gods/Divinity/etc.

The term God is just a term that is used for convenience. God has taken on many forms; from divine spiritual energy, to a form similar to mankind (Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Zoroastrianism), to the Sun (Atenism, Mithrasism), to the personification of natural powers, emotions, and almost anything (Greek, Roman), and even to spiritual energy, some people see the power of Love as being the same thing as God. If one really digs down into it, there is a very complex world to be explored. From an agnostic point of view, everything is just an idea, there is no reason to believe in any of those ideas; ideas are not meant to be believed in.

[Kupek]

That is Agnosticism by definition which you have described. The word comes from the Greek "Agnosis" which means Without knowledge. A term used to define those who who lack belief.

I am not an agnostic because although I don't <i>believe</i> there is no god, I actively deny that there is one. This is not a belief, however, but a conclusion I came to through rational thought. Belief implies some form of faith without reasoning.

[Julius Seeker]

The definition of belief is simply: to place trust in something.

Belief does not imply a form of faith without reasoning. Belief can exist with reasoning or without reasoning. Conclusions which trust is placed are beliefs.

If you place trust in your conclusion to disprove the existence of God, then you have the belief that there is no God, and therefore are an atheist.

If you do not trust your conclusion to disprove the existence of God, then you are an agnostic.

[SineSwiper]

A point on semantics: I <i>don't believe</i> there is a god. This is different from <i>believing</i> there is no god. I have a lack of belief, not a belief itself.

Then you are agnostic. An atheist <i>believes</i> there is no god. An agnostic leaves the question open. By not believing, you leave yourself open to the possibility that a god exists or doesn't exists, like if science somehow proved it yes or no. You think probably not, but are willing to see something prove it otherwise.

I'm similar in that respect on a few things. While I consider myself a spiritualist (because I believe that spirits exist) and a theist (because I believe a creator exists), the rest of it is theorecial. I believe in spirits because I have seen evidence that they exist. It is not as strong as my belief in, say, gravity, but I would likely reject any "evidence" that they don't exist as bad science. (There are plenty of biased "scientists" on both sides.) I believe in a creator because I feel it illogical that one wouldn't exist. Some intelligent being had to start it somewhere, even if it only started it, or maybe watched it grow.

Other ideas of mine branch out into possibilities: one could surmise that a collection of spirits would start a hierarchy similar to our own, and perhaps create some sort of idea like heaven and hell, even if it wasn't like what the Judeo-Christian faith believes. (I don't believe in eternal punishment or eternal bliss; one is overly extreme and the other is boring.) One could surmise that if spirits exist and are able to talk to the real world with some effort, then they may be able to influence people, thoughts, and even act as a "guardian angel" to some degree. (It may be one of those jobs that a spirit commonly takes on.)

But, these are just theories based on a belief in spirits, angels/demons, whatever you want to call them. The ideas change as I see fit. I do not just ask a priest for advice and believe it to be "the word of God". It's a matter of fitting logic into the equation. While the theories may indeed be unprovable, they still exist as strong possibilities.

Come to think of it, I guess I could be a Judeo-Christian atheist because I can't possibility believe that mess that is in the Bible. Maybe bits and pieces, but not even the basic ideas, like "God" interfering with our shitty little lives. I think if you replaced "God did this" with "spirits did this" it might actually make a little bit more sense. And I don't think anybody actually follows the definition of atheism that I described. (Even the dictionary term doesn't really follow that.) I don't think that anybody actually <b>believes</b> that there is no god, except maybe your man Richard Dawkins :P

[Julius Seeker]

Well, the dictionary.com term is not very accurate, both Atheists and Agnostics lack a belief in God. Similar to how both Theists and Agnostics lack belief that there is no God.

[Mana Man]

I think that you're stretching your history of Judaism a bit, but it is true that Jewish history isn't as it portrayed in the bible. From what I've read on the subject, Yaweh, the Jewish God was an amalgamation of various pre-existing Semetic dieties in what was once a large pantheon. Combining Gods was nothing new in those times, the Egyptians did it all the time. I think that they eventually worked their huge pantheon of Gods into a trinity (before Christianity came about with its own trinity). Yahweh is mainly a combination of the Semetic gods "El" and "Ba'al". He is referred to as "El", the father Zeus-figure of the Semetic pantheon in the Psalsm of David. Actions of Ba'al's such as slaying sea monsters are attributed to him in the book of Job. Originally Yahweh was worshipped in a "Henotheistic" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism fashion. Other gods were acknowledged beside him, but a sect (yahweists) was completely devoted to him ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me" - this statement acknowledges other dieties). At times this sect held sway over the government of Israel/Judah, at time not. Eventually, this sect took over and transititioned from being henotheistic to monotheistic. Not only was worship of other gods prohibited, but belief in them as well.

If anyone is interested in learning more: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/034538 ... s&v=glance

[Nev]

Well, the dictionary.com term is not very accurate, both Atheists and Agnostics lack a belief in God. Similar to how both Theists and Agnostics lack belief that there is no God.

I think this is not a complete definition, Seek.

Theism means the person posesses a belief in some sort of deity or deities, though the belief need not be specific.

Atheists are those who actively believe that no such deities exist. Sometimes the term also applies to those who have no beliefs on the subject at all, but I think the former is better described by one of the other words theologists use to classify a position (such as nontheism).

Agnosticism refers to people who take the position that the knowledge of the existence of deities is unprovable (either unprovable at present due to lack of knowledge, or permanently and fundamentally unprovable). It's sometimes considered more of a philosophical position than a religious one, actually.

---------------------------------

I think an important distinction anyone reading this thread should think about is the distinction between ontology - the study of existence and its properties - and epistemology - the study of knowledge and its properties. For instance, an atheist explicitly takes the ontological stance that deities do not exist, which implicitly includes the epistemological stance that the non-existence of deities is something that can be known. An agnostic, on the other hand, explicitly takes the epistemological stance that the existence or non-existence of deities is something that cannot (at least currently) be known, which almost certainly prohibits him/her from taking any ontological stance on deities.

[Julius Seeker]

It is not known if YHWH is pronounced Yahweh, no one knows for certain since during the 1st century BC the Pharisees were so anal about Jewish law "thou shalt not use thy Lords name in Vain" that it came a taboo to use the name at all, and so the pronunciation was lost. Scholars have not yet decided on a pronunciation; but Yahweh and Yehovah are the two most popular ones: Jehovah/Yehovah is how most people pronounce it.

Anyways, Jewish History is likely not 4000 years old. There is no archaeological evidence that suggests it is older than about 500 BC, which dates to the time of Ezra. In fact, it seems the first evidence of a Jewish Kingdom only appears around 200 BC at the earlierst; and that is in Seleucid records. 168 BC is when tensions began to grow, and the Temple was plundered. 167-165 is when Judah Maccabee led the Maccabeen revolt; the clensing of the temple by candles lit for 8 days became the celebration of Hanukkah. Hannukah was more or less symbolic of the Jewish victory against the Greeks.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was discovered that Judaism actually only dates back to about 200-300 BC. It seems strange to me that we have no real archaeological sources identifying the people before 200 BC, and yet we have plenty from 200 BC to the first century AD.

[Mana Man]

No offense, but didn't Seek and Kupek have this argument before? Maybe it was someone else...

[SineSwiper]

Yahweh is mainly a combination of the Semetic gods "El" and "Ba'al".

For a second there, I thought you were talking about "Belial". It's kinda funny how these gods get combined because it's the latest fad. "Oh shit! One-god religions are getting popular! We better follow suit!"

[Nev]

Heh.

"Behold, a new god!" (squish)