What are the view on agnostics? Not only in America (because they are pushed away and shunned as being "atheists" which is completely biased.)

Are you agnostic? Do you think it would be wise to be agnostic? Shouldn't everyone be agnostic (since you can't prove any religion)?

What about being a theist and agnostic? Like being Christian - Agnostic.



Personally I call myself a Christian - Agnostic. I can't prove or disprove God (agnostic), but for things I choose to belief in I go with the Christian religion.

Please try to refrain from commenting directly on my personal views, at first.

Zarathustra is at least an agnostic (given that the definition includes a very wide spectrum of positions), and generally commends this position in an undogmatic fastion as perhaps the wisest to take. Even if the existence of a Supreme Being were known or provable, its nature would be a matter of sheer speculation; as such, then, it has no necessary place in human existence unless it is a poetical allegory.
Thus Spake Zarathustra

It definately brings the issue of accountability for our actions to question. If our actions are subject to popular belief or our own whim, that sure makes it easier to justify doing what we might feel like without accepting the responsibility. Actions like rape and murder are therefore theoretical ideologies when it comes to their moral value. Thats what we see happening around the world in general today. Some states accept prostitution as legal so long as it doesn't interfere with the gambling (can't confuse the public with too many vices as the would say in Nevada).

This verse applies to the atheist more then the agnostic.
Psalm 10:4 (New American Standard Bible)
The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him
All his thoughts are, "There is no God."

But the Bible has an answer for the agnostic as well.
James 4:8 (New American Standard Bible)
Draw near to God and He will draw near to you

According to the Bible, not only is it possible to know that God exists, but to become a close friend of God as many have in the past.

This I must take issue with.

The presentation of the either/or in saying, " If our actions are subject to popular belief or our own whim, that sure makes it easier to justify doing what we might feel like without accepting the responsibility" seems to me to over-simplify the situation. Actions can be subject to other than herd standards or concupiscience, so the disjunction is not exhaustive, and simply ignores that actions can be subject to well-reasoned and existentially authentic morality.
am not sure what is meant by "theoretical ideologies." If this means that all moral value is based on theoretical principles (excepting those, of course, based on whims), then this statement seems plausible, although the use of '"ideologies "seems somewhat dismissive in tone. Of course, one could suggest that morality could be grounded on religious principles, but then the individual must accept those religious principles as valid and this is the same as an acceptance of "theoretical ideologies." Indeed, it could be argued that basing moral actions on a religious creed is subjecting them precisely to popular belief or to a whimsical choice about which religion is valid.
Z

Who's morality, man's (constantly changing since "well-reasoned" in one culture is "fanatic" or "murderous" in the eye's of another) or God's(consistent)?



It would seem so to someone who ignores or is ignorant of true Godly principles and his morality.

2 Examples
If those claiming to follow Jesus Christ's teaching would actually adhere to a couple of them, just think of the difference this world would see.


1 Authority within the Family

There are countless acts of violence and abuse within families today in so called "Christian households." The Bible spells out the chain of authority quite clearly an simply.

-Almighty God
-Jesus Christ
-the congregation (the church)
-Husband (to his own wife, not women in general)
-Wife (to her own husband, not men in general)
-Children (in subjection to parents)

This arrangement is laid out in Ephesians 5:21-6:4

The husband's area of responsibility lies in providing materially for his families needs and he is ultimately responsible for the spirituality of the family.
The wife's area of responsibility lies in taking care of the home. This does not mean she is home bound, can't go outside and exists only to take care of and make babies. (Proverbs 31)

Husbands are to love their wife as Christ loved the congregation. He was willing and eventually did give his life for it. He never abused his disciples, even when they disagreed over the same petty problem again and again. NEVER did he strike or hit one of his disciples. So a Christian man would never have LEGITIMATE grounds for striking his wife. Doing so would be an act of violence. Likewise for the wife.

Yet the scripture gives counsel and makes it clear that parents (both the father and mother) have the God given responsibility to discipline their children. This means verbal reproof and correction, reasoning with them, and if patience and words don't get through, then corporal punishment to help them get the point. (Proverbs 14:24)

Therefore, a husband hitting his wife constitutes an unlawful use of force and is an act of violence.
A father or mother who spank their child (after other means of discipline have failed) would be a lawful use of force and NOT an act of violence.
Parents who resort to spanking their child as the only means of discipline would be abusing their authority over their children and would be acting violently toward them and find themselves failing to serve God as caretakers of the children He has given them.

2 Christians are not to take up weapons in combat

God is the source of life. He is the only one who has the right to take life. He has taken the lives of those who disobey him. He has granted his followers to take the lives of such men. And he has allowed nations who did not worship him to punish his chosen nation (the Jews) when they strayed from him, to discipline them and let them see what happens when they are without his protection.

After abandoning the Jews for their complete departure from true worship of God, he gave commands to those who would worship him truthfully to that "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Mathew 26:52)

Every man and woman who picked up a weapon during ANY war after Jesus uttered those words, did so contrary to what Jesus instructed his followers to do. And therefore used force ILLEGALLY, committing violence. By doing so they showed that they were not True followers of Jesus Christ.

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

What would this world be like if God's morality was practiced by "Christian nations"?

Approx. 14 Million dead in WWI
Approx. 50 Million dead in WWII
Millions dead in wars over the last few centuries in "Christian" nations.

Millions of wives (and a few husbands) abused by their spouse.
Millions of children abused by parents.
Countless parents abused by their children, young, or left without support when they get old.

------------------------- All these things would never have occurred and would cease if more "Christians" would actually become True Christians, and recognized their authority as defined by God in the Bible.

"God is the source of life. He is the only one who has the right to take life. He has taken the lives of those who disobey him. He has granted his followers to take the lives of such men."

Even if God is the source of life somehow, what gives him the right to take life? Is he somehow "above" his own teachings in the words of Jesus? If God lives by the sword, won't he himself die from the sword (in fact, he has died already)? What gives God the right to force people to "obey" him, assuming anyone (except the elect who alone understand his secrets) really knows what he wants?

I am sure the Taliban would agree that God gives permission to kill or murder the "disobedient," using any violence they deem necessary. It is diseased arrogance or dark stupidity on their part just as it is on the part of dogmatic Christians of certain "holier than thou" sects, and it is unforgivable on God's part to justify such violence in this way.
*******

"Therefore, a husband hitting his wife constitutes an unlawful use of force and is an act of violence.
A father or mother who spank their child (after other means of discipline have failed) would be a lawful use of force and NOT an act of violence."

This argument is worthy of one of the famed Sophists which Sokrates so abhorred, or a Medieval schoolman after debating how many angles can sit on a pinhead. Slapping around one's wife is somehow different than taking a whip to a young boy's back? If this is the kind of reasoning one learns from the Bible, and if this is God's teaching of right actions pleasing to him, then the Bible should be committed to the flames so that its abysmal teachings vanish from the minds of men.
Thus Spake Zarathustra

I too take umbrage with the quote "The wicked ... do not seek him". For surely there are many of us in this world that do not believe and are far, far from wicked.

I suspect it was not intended as an insult at all but gentle sigh.

For myself, many atheists have gone through the journey and simply don't believe, while agnostics are still in the midst of the journey,questioning and wondering, and unsure what awaits them. I always root for those that are still seeking as if they find comfort within religion that's wonderful - as long as they don't force it upon others or condem others for not sharing in their beliefs, of course. Gentle smile.

I don't believe it says "only the wicked...do not see him". So, it would seem that even some good people would "...not seek him".

Unless the meaning of the words is based on the action - "seeking him" makes one good, "not seeking him" makes one wicked.

Sounds like one of those point-of-view perspective things.

Agnosticism is, to me, the second most logical view of thinking of creation, Deism being the first. We can never KNOW if there is a God or not in this life. We can have faith and believe, but never know. Thus, I do have issues with any statement that dejects non-believers as going to suffer, because God must be fair.

As an Atheist myself, I'm still on my journey of life, discovery, and growth. And this journey will end only upon my death. Spiritual growth is not dependent on religion - religion and spirituality are not synonyms. Religion can actually be a hindrance to spiritual growth; it allows many to fall into complacency and spiritual stagnation. Life is a process of learning and growth. And as such, ought to be lived for what it is rather than what one wishes will come after it. If you are remembered at all, it will be for how you lived your life, not how you planned for death.

I think I'm guilty of not clarifying my above thoughts as when I said 'end of journey and not believing', I meant end of journey of trying to discover within oneself if belief in God is valid - and arriving at the end of that particular journey not believing (in God).

Spirituality and a life filled with wonder and curiousity and the joy of 'magic' is, to me, ever changing and ever fascinating (if that makes any sense - gentle smile) - but I suspect it is vastly different from most Christian's point of view.

Being a Christian was easy for me ... being agnostic less so ( the haunting, never ending questions within one's self and masses of guilt for even doubting) ... and being atheist easy for me, thankfully. We each have our own journey, whether it's Christianity or another religion, I suspect ... personally, I don't think the outcome matters at all as all as we are at peace within ourselves and with those around us.

There are agnostics who authentically and carefully view the many past and present systems of religious belief, and find them wanting in some way or another. Rather than accept a wrong ground for belief, they withhold their assent because while they may not know what is absolutely true, but they do recognise what is absolutely false.

But this does not necessarily make them unreligious, or sinfully "wicked" except from the perspective of enthusiastic and judgemental believers in one or another sect. It seems to me it takes a certain amount of courage to stand outside and accept the responsibility of choosing the difficult path of withholding themselves from a comforting belief.

Perhaps being religious is not a state of being for a human, but a process of becoming.
Z

This post has been edited by Zarathustra: Oct 15 2007, 04:56 PM

Some have personal experiences with the plutocracy of some organized religions. That has caused them to turn away fro all religions. To me, such reasoning lies on the same lines as eating bad food, so one stops eating altogether because it might all be bad.

Most of you have mentioned that you are searching for truth. Searching for answers. Those are all good goals. So long as this is done with humility. The willingness to change current thinking or understanding of a matter when presented with a more reasonable understanding.

In my congregation I have lawyers, a pharmacist, farmers, engineers, I've had a doctor, millionaires and some who struggled to make ends meet, yet we've all shared the same understanding of God, his purpose for creating man, how he made us and the universe and why he chose to do so. I've met those of my faith from more the 20 countries, and even the children know the basics about the God of the Bible, as to why God permits suffering and why people die.

All I can say is keep searching.

Re: (Quote) "Some have personal experiences with the plutocracy of some organized religions. That has caused them to turn away fro all religions. To me, such reasoning lies on the same lines as eating bad food, so one stops eating altogether because it might all be bad" (Unquote).

That may be true in some cases - I honestly don't know as I can't judge for others. But for myself it is truly not the truth at all.