How many here are atheists?

[Vitruvian]

Silly me: I thought that, by asking simple yes-or-no questions, I might receive an answer resembling a "yes" or "no."

[Caleb]

I don't believe in the infallibility of scripture.
I don't believe most stories in Scripture are best taken literally.

I reject the premise that what you posted is Christianity in any substantial form. So your questions to my ears are nonsense. It would be like if I asked you what you thought the chemical makeup of the luminous ether is. The only sensible answer is to reject the premise.

[Russell Kanning]

You call yourself a Christian, Caleb. 

• Do you believe that God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh? 
• Do you believe that God created man in his image, and woman from man's rib? 
• Do you believe that a talking serpent convinced Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and that God banished them both from the Garden of Eden?
• Do you believe that God caused a great flood to punish the wicked, but admonished Noah and his family to build an ark, which would carry them safely to land? 
• Do you believe that God brought the Ten Plagues onto Egypt, that the pharaoh might free the Hebrews? 
• Do you believe that Jesus was the sole begotten son of God? 
• Do you believe that Jesus performed miracles during his life and that, after his execution, he appeared before his followers? 
• Do you believe that Jesus, after spiriting all the Christians away to heaven, will return to Earth at some point in the future to judge mankind?
  

You could have asked him if he believes the stuff written in the Bible actually happened. I do.
Someone could call themselves a follower of Christ ... a Christian ... and not.

A better question taken from the Bible is .... you can tell what kind of tree you are looking at by the fruit it produces.
Caleb is a decent person ... that talks philosophy every day, and helps others sometimes. Those are his actions. Judge for yourself.

[dalebert]

In Caleb's defense, he has stated his definition of a Christian reasonably well and it was basically one who follows the teachings of Christ. Still, he could probably just say "no" to your questions and explain that.

[Nathan.Halcyon]

In Caleb's defense, he has stated his definition of a Christian reasonably well and it was basically one who follows the teachings of Christ. Still, he could probably just say "no" to your questions and explain that.

He could just as easily, and more accurately define himself as an adherent to a philosophy of nonviolence and conditional respect, without debasing himself to the authority of a higher power. Caleb doesn't necessarily seem to believe in the orthodox divinity of "christ", so I see no need for him to identify himself as such. His choice to pigeon hole himself, however. While I disagree with pacifism to an extent, myself being an adherent to a rather broad definition of "self-defense only pacifism", I recognize his laudable virtue regardless of his devotion to, but also with some sadness, the authority of another.

I see humanity as one of three things. Either a happenstance occurrence of evolution, the inadvertent "creation" of an entity we call "god", which may be nothing more than a quantum hiccup, or perhaps even a seeded or Sitchinian manipulation of existing life. We could be nothing more than a genetic experiment of those who are the product of a quantum hiccup. Why must we be so unique, I wonder? While this is important, in the long run, I don't think it important to us today. It is obviously beyond us, and there is so much wrong needing to be rectified in there here and now.

[Caleb]

He could just as easily, and more accurately define himself as an adherent to a philosophy of nonviolence and conditional respect, without debasing himself to the authority of a higher power. Caleb doesn't necessarily seem to believe in the orthodox divinity of "christ", so I see no need for him to identify himself as such. His choice to pigeon hole himself, however. While I disagree with pacifism to an extent, myself being an adherent to a rather broad definition of "self-defense only pacifism", I recognize his laudable virtue regardless of his devotion to, but also with some sadness, the authority of another.

There's a whole lot there, Nathan. I'll try to be succinct.

First, I am an adherent to a philosophy of nonviolence and unconditional respect and love. I'm not saying I live up to this ideal all the time, I'm just saying that complete nonviolence and unconditional love and respect are the ideals to which I strive. Second, I don't see acknowledging a higher power as "debasing myself to God's authority." Quite the contrary, I find the ultimate expression of my humanity and freedom only in God. I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again:  God taught me who I am. He doesn't have his hand on my back pushing my on my knees, he finds me on my knees and holds out his hand to lift me up on my feet. Third, I do believe in the divinity of Christ. To be a little more specific, I believe in the divinity of Christ. Christ is Mashiach, the end towards which we strive, modeled by Jesus of Nazareth in fullness, but calling each of us to join with him and become this Christ. This is a very Eastern Orthodox theological idea; doesn't really have much of a counterpart in western theology, except in the Pauline exhortations to be part of the promised "Seed", and in John's gospel calling us to "oneness" with the Christ.

Why must we be so unique, I wonder? While this is important, in the long run, I don't think it important to us today. It is obviously beyond us, and there is so much wrong needing to be rectified in there here and now.

I thank Russell for his kind words about me. But I think Russell introduced a false dichotomy. Caleb sometimes helps others, sometimes does philosophy. Why can't philosophy help people? I agree with you, Nathan, that there is a lot of work to do in the here and now. But I don't think people can get there until they are ready for it. We live in a world where science has dazzled us with myriads of technological innovations, and yet people's lives still feel, to them, very empty. Science and technology can't impart meaning and purpose to people's lives. So we live in a very sophisticated world in many ways, and yet a world of despair, where people are literally dying on the inside. To quench this despair people try to distract themselves, or else acquire material possessions, and yet they still feel empty, alone, splintered from the rest of humanity, without meaning. Not everyone, of course. But a substantial number of people. They buy self help books, but they acquire new outlooks, new theories, new religion, but they still aren't quenched: tomorrow they will buy the next new thing in the hopes of quenching their thirst for meaning. You want to make a difference in the here and now? Give people something to hope in.

[Russell Kanning]

I could have said that Caleb sometimes also drinks beer .... do I have to list them all?

[Caleb]

In Caleb's defense, he has stated his definition of a Christian reasonably well and it was basically one who follows the teachings of Christ. Still, he could probably just say "no" to your questions and explain that.

I could have simply said `no', but that would have also been misleading. A good example is the Fall of man. Do I think that a literal first woman took a piece of literal fruit, and thus inherited sin and death? No.

On the other hand, I do think that the Fall is a very appropriate and sophisticated myth in symbolic form for the idea that man has alienated himself from his source by his insistence on moral autonomy, which is a deadly illusion.

So there isn't really a "yes or no" way of answering the questions that Vitruvian put to me.

[Caleb]

I could have said that Caleb sometimes also drinks beer .... do I have to list them all?

Beer can sometimes help people. 

[Pat K]

I could have said that Caleb sometimes also drinks beer .... do I have to list them all?

Beer can sometimes help people. 

[Jim Johnson]

I could have said that Caleb sometimes also drinks beer .... do I have to list them all?

Beer can sometimes help people. 

Oh great... now it can be regulated by the food and drug administration.

[Caleb]

That would be an improvement. Right now it is regulated by the BATF. 

[Vitruvian]

I could have simply said `no', but that would have also been misleading. A good example is the Fall of man. Do I think that a literal first woman took a piece of literal fruit, and thus inherited sin and death? No.

So you do not accept the account of creation in Genesis as literally true?  In other words, you believe it is a fiction, a fabrication, a lie?  Why not discount every claim in the Bible?

[Caleb]

A Christian is NOT a "person of the book". Vitruvian, this is really a pretty senseless discussion. You appear to be completely unaware of any form of Christianity that isn't "Bible-thumping fundamentalism". More, you appear unable to process this reality once it has been presented to you. Such arguments as you are presenting are likely to work on someone who believes that Scripture is infallible. I've often said that the view that Scripture is infallible has created a ton of atheists. But it won't work on me, because I don't believe that Scripture is infallible; Scripture isn't the source of my beliefs. Frankly, I'm astounded that I have to tell you this.

Do you even make any attempt to restructure your arguments to make them appropriate to your audience?

[dalebert]

Beer can sometimes help people. 

Pat, that was your queue to say "Hallelujah!" You missed it.