What I believe

[toothycat]

Well, part of it at least, because some people are interested.

It's worth noting that I don't speak for Serge here - we may share a LJ (because we only really use it to read other peoples' posts ;) and we may be married, but we aren't linked at the mind ;) Also, my beliefs have changed quite a bit over the years and I don't promise I won't change my mind on some things or the way I said them tomorrow.

This (in italics) is the Apostles' Creed, anyway, one of the earliest creeds of Christianity. I'm going to start with it but probably not end - I'm posting this late at night, and religion and belief are complicated, never mind the tangles my head can get into. There will probably be more, depending on what questions get asked.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in a Creator, who made the universe. I am, among many other things, an evolutionary biologist who is currently masquerading as a geneticist; I think God created everything and that evolution is the tool he used to do it, the brush with which he painted the world. I don't believe that is incompatible with Genesis, nor do I think that belief in a literal Creation is unChristian or in any way incompatible with Christianity (it does annoy me when non-Christians become convinced that one has to leave one's brain at the door when one enters a church).

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

So yeah, the Trinity. I suppose I think of the Trinity in a very vague and fuzzy way. I am not only a scientist; in fact, first and foremost, although I think I tend to logical and rational thinking (at least, I try to) I would identify myself as a storyteller before I identify as a scientist. As such, I recognise that not everything is divisible or explainable in the current human languages and vocabulary. Possibly a good analogy for the Trinity is the three phases of water; ice, liquid, steam. They're all water, but different aspects. Anyway, I believe that there is one God and three persons in the Trinity, and I recognise that there are some things beyond my current comprehension. I'm willing to accept the Trinity on faith.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

Was Jesus born of a virgin? Does it matter if he was the product of rape or fornication? I don't think (as I understand Catholics do) that Mary was sinless. However, if you're going to swallow the idea that God is all powerful and made the universe, is it really so hard to believe that he could cause a virgin to be pregnant? There are much harder things in Christianity to handle than that, after all. So yes, I do believe he was born of a virgin, and then obviously God (the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity) would have had a hand in it.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again.

The subject of atonement is never an easy one to explain. There are so many explanations and I have met people who insist that unless you accept their personal choice (usually penal substitutionary atonement, for those who are interested), you're not a proper Christian. That kind of attitude annoys me.

To go back to the beginning, I believe that every person born gets things wrong (except Jesus). We tend to stray, just like an apple, left to its own devices with nothing to support it, tends to fall. My view is that God wants us all to be with him; he loves us and longs for us to know him. However, because we have done wrong things (of our own free will, I should add), we cannot exist in the same place as God. His goodness and holiness and our wrongness or sinfulness literally cannot co-exist, like shadows can't exist when a dazzling light illuminates every corner of a room.

The entire Old Testament consists of God making covenants with his people, which they then broke. Those covenants - well, that covenant; it gets restated but it's pretty much the same one - consist of a promise on the part of Israel, God's people, to obey God's laws, and on God's part to forgive their sins and provide them with the promised land and what they need to survive - more, every good thing. God does actually enjoy giving us good things. (Note: I'm not a theologian. I could be getting this vastly wrong, but it's my understanding and a quick and probably somewhat flawed summary). The Israelites couldn't keep their covenant, and went through cycles of disobeying, being warned, being punished (which was also written into the covenant) and repenting and being rescued.

The new covenant is one where God upholds both sides, and because he is perfect, the covenant remains unbroken. He provides the reward, and he also provides the perfect life and obedience required to claim it. Because Jesus died - whatever the exact theological mechanism - we are permitted to claim his perfect life as ours, and so we receive his reward. We can then be in God's presence after death, because our sin has been removed.

Hell's not mentioned in the creed, but it did come up in previous conversations, so here's what I think. If someone chooses not to let God get rid of their sin (via Jesus), then God has no choice but to let them exist apart from him. I think that is hell; not a place of punishment as such but a place of being apart from God, who is the source and centre of everything that exists.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Jesus was perfect himself, and thus did not remain damned. Like I say, I don't pretend to understand how it all works.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

As it says. I have no idea when this will be.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

Whoo, lots there. I've already mentioned the Spirit. The 'holy catholic church' means the worldwide church, not that part of it that is the Roman Catholic church, although they are a part of that worldwide church. I think God is rather less bothered by denominational divides than we (Christian) like to think. I'm sure he'd rather have heartfelt devotion than absolute doctrinal correctness. (Do I get excommunicated now? ;).

The communion of saints, as I understand it, means that we're part of the family of believers ('saints' means Christians here, and makes no inferences about how holy an individual Christian is). As such, I should consider every Christian a part of my family. Even the ones I disagree violently with ^^;;

The resurrection of the body is interesting. I actually don't believe in souls - well, rather, I think it's an unnecessary term. We are built out of meat, our minds reside in the yellowish matter that is our brain. So to me it makes sense that it's our bodies that get resurrected, because without them, we are not ourselves. Mind and body are irrevocably linked. I don't think people born with disabilities will be resurrected with those disabilities; I don't know how it works. But I do believe that, in heaven, we will have bodies. And hopefully there will be jaffa cakes too ;)

Life everlasting is reasonably clear, but I should say that I have absolutely no idea what it will be like - except that it will be everything earthly life should be but isn't quite. Everything will be clearer, richer, more satisfying, more real. I love the accounts of heaven in Revelations, and I'm looking forward to finding out what it will be like, but I have no idea what it will actually be. I think - I suspect - that there will be paper and pencils there for me, though :)

----

That's it for the Creed. Here's a chunk of conversation from Rob's LJ that may (or may not) be of interest. Rob's parts are in italics.

I'd be interested to know what you think happens to non Christians who haven't heard the gospel

As far as I understand it, they are judged on their lives as they are. God knows what their response would be had they heard, and their lives should bear that out. I believe that is supported in the Bible, although I can't remember where and I could be wrong.

those who hear it and dismiss it

Depends on why. If all they hear/see is Jack Chick, I can't see God blaming them! ^^;;

and those who actively reject it.

See above. I honestly don't think we can tell what a person's eternal fate is. That doesn't mean I think Christians shouldn't tell people about Jesus; actively knowing him, in my opinion, is better than not.

....

Do you think that the only method God has of preventing people going to hell is if those people choose to become Christians?

I think that the only way to God is through Jesus. I don't think that that necessarily limits people to a particular set of rules or a brand of Christianity, but I would of course be very wary of recommending anything other than following Jesis (since that's the only thing I know that's guaranteed to work). I don't think, for example, that a Muslim who has no knowledge of Christ and who sincerely tried to follow Allah would necessarily be damned, and if he is saved, then it must be through Jesus somehow, since he is the only name by which men may be saved. But if I met that Muslim and he asked me what I would recommend, I would recommend Christianity every time (roughly speaking - obviously more thought and consideration would go into it ;).

----

Once, a friend asked Serge what Christianity was about, and he said, 'knowing Jesus'. I don't think I have the kind of relationship with Jesus that, say, Paul the Apostle did. I'd like to, but I don't. I do think that Serge's is a good, brief explanation. Like I said, I don't think correct doctrine is the be-all and end-all; if it were, people with limited mental faculties would be excluded, and that can't be the case. So I do think it boils down to trusting God.

That, for me, is a gift. I was brought up as a Christian, I made the commitment when I was 4 and I was baptised when I was about 11, I think. I have never doubted God's existence, (lots of other things, but never his existence). I did spend several weeks thinking that I couldn't be a Christian, because I couldn't see any sign of God in my life. I thought about it, and came to the conclusion that if, as I believed, God existed, and he was the God of the Bible, then I must be a Christian because I had committed myself to following him and I meant it. And for everything I said above, for all my woolly reasoning and the arguments that may be brought to bear, above all else I trust in God and I believe he can and will do the things he has promised.

I'm going to finish with a fantastic quote that I love to bits. "Man's chief purpose is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." I think (after a swift google) it's from the Westminster Shorter Catechism. I strive to do both of those.

Any questions, go ahead. I don't promise to be able to answer them, satisfactorily or not. I don't have enough time to handle large online conversations (note that I am posting this at 1:14 in the morning and I'm getting up at 5:45). But I can try :)

Comments

[toothycat]

getting sick of having them shoved down my throat

Just to clarify: I (Sergei) am STILL not seeing how posting something under a cut in one's personal livejournal qualifies as shoving it down anyone's throat. Posting something in someone else's livejournal, especially if it's done repeatedly and at length, I can see. But... no-one's forcing anyone to read ours ^^;

[toothycat]

Minorities are opressed, I get it. You feel you are an oppressed minority, I get it. I am not seeing how that answers my question. You STILL haven't explained how your choosing to read something located in my space and clearly labelled as being about Christianity equates to me "shoving" Christianity "down your throat".

If I had strapped you down and forced you to read what I wrote, then what you say would have been relevant. If I made repeated posts in your livejournal promoting my POV and saying how much I despised yours, I could see how one might call that pushing my POV down your throat. If, even, the posts in my LJ hadn't been cut away and clearly labelled, I would not consider your position entirely untenable, though I would still say that reading my LJ is a choice you made.

If someone puts a notice on their front door saying "come in if you want to listen to my views", and I choose, of my own accord, to walk into their house and listen to their views, can I really say those views have been pushed down my throat? Would it not, in fact, be completely unjustified and exceedingly rude to do so? If I then start telling them off for the very fact that they have the gall to speak their views out loud in their own front room - what does that make me?

[toothycat]

If you're taking offence on behalf of your faith
I am taking offence because my wife has been publically accused of doing something (ramming her religion down someone else's throat) that she has not, in fact, done. What is even more galling is the way the accusations take precisely the form of the thing my wife is accused of doing. Religion does not come into it - I would have felt just the same way if the first post in this thread had been about garden gnomes.

I will start by saying that I don't think you *do* get the minority thing
I immigrated from Russia aged nine with no knowledge of English. Whatever privileges I may have, I fought for them and won them. This, however, is not relevant to the issue.

Secondly, my view on privacy when it comes to the internet is that there is none. Public LJ is not your living room, it's public. Likewise, a public LJ entry is not confined to "your" space, it's public information.
My web space is not a public space, in the sense of a sign in the street or a city park. It is my space, like my house and garden. Parts of it, like LJ, are like rented property, but that doesn't make them any less mine to control.

Now, like my house and garden, I do things to my LJ that are directly visible to passers-by, and I may do things that passers-by have to take some action in order to observe, like maybe walk through into my walled garden or open an LJ cut. I can also lock things up inside my house, and lock up entries in LJ. I can post signs visible from the street that warn people what will happen if they come inside.

Now, you appear to me to be saying that if someone walks into my garden and takes offence at, say, a garden gnome I have put there, what I have actually done is "rammed" that gnome "down their throats", and it is perfectly reasonable for them to stand there in my garden and repeatedly tell me so until I apologise and remove it; and also that my garden should be completely bare, because anything I might like to put in it might offend someone that comes in, and I should keep my garden gnomes inside the house under lock and key; whereas I really do not see that: it is not the front wall of the house where all the passers-by can see, it is the garden, which, although not locked, is still no less my own space. It is the passer-by's choice to come in and look.

It is your religion
As far as I am concerned, religion is not the issue here. The issue is whether writing whatever I like in my own livejournal, religious or not, equates to ramming that thing down other people's throats. I do not see that it does. If anything did, that would be posting my opinions in other people's livejournals.

[toothycat]

Comparing religion to garden gnomes is like comparing serial killers to catflaps

It doesn't look like there can be a productive outcome to further conversation between us on this subject.

If our livejournal offends you, I humbly suggest not reading it any more.

[toothycat]

You sound as though you have given up the fight.

It is precisely the fact that I am finally winning it that gives me the gall to say "hang in there and you will prevail".

I refuse to be drawn into a "my life was worse than yours" showdown, since I feel that "look how bad it was, see me not whinge" is just as bad as using my position as an emotional crutch to lean on and batter other people with used to be.

I will concede that I don't know what it's like to be you, but ONLY if you concede that you have no clue what it was like to be me.

[atreic.livejournal.com]

I am very confused. Further up the thread you said

there is such a thing as privilege you don't realise you have. I learnt a lot about that when I spent a year being hated simply for not being Spanish, while I lived in Madrid.

But here you say

You're misinterpreting what I mean by privilege. The language and culture barrier, the xenophobia problem, is not the same thing as the privilege gap.

So you learnt about privilege when you were English in Spain, but toothycat can't possibly have learnt about privilege by being Russian in England?

(Actually, I think it's very obvious toothycat isn't British. He has a Russian accent and 'looks foreign', whatever that means. Not that I think this is a bad thing!)

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

"he dismissed my direct and rational complaints about his behaviour and the insane running of the department by someone blatantly unsuited to do so as mere hysteria."

Were they the same kind of direct and rational complaints you're making on this thread?

[von-pud.livejournal.com]

Wow. You have issues. I don't know what they are and frankly I don't care. What you are espousing as rational debate is simply coming across as ignorance and, quite frankly, rude.

You don't like what is being said? Then exercise your right as a free human being and DON'T READ IT! You complain about it being rammed down your throat? It was behind a cut with a huge disclaimer attached to it. You certainly go out of your way to be offended, don’t you?

You are coming across as the very thing you are trying (and failing) to argue against. Your attitude is one of complete intolerance and you are slamming and insulting people who are (supposedly) friends of yours based on their religious beliefs. This is representative of the very worst type of religious intolerance. Yes, Christianity, especially the Catholic Church, has a poor track record when it comes to accepting other ways of life. But you know what? Most of that is in the past and by and large people get over it. I would suggest you do likewise but first you would have to get over yourself and that would appear to be a task of the Herculean type.

Reading through your comments I can only assume one of two things.
1. You are deliberately going out of your way to pick a fight and upset as many people as possible, which makes you the lowest form of life on the Internet. And believe me, I deal with thousands of such people on a daily basis. I know what I'm talking about.
2. You genuinely believe everything you are saying. Dear God I pity you. I mentioned God there. Hope that doesn't offend or make you feel subjugated or oppressed. Not my intention.

So what else? My own religious views are rather private and you are the last person I would dream of sharing them with. However I will state this; the Christian community is one that is, at its very core, about helping others, forgiveness, and generally being a good human being. What is so wrong about that? No! Stop! Don't bring any of the bullshit into this. What is wrong about the core values mentioned? Yes, there are flaws, there are mistakes. But when is there not? You think Christianity is alone in this? Islam preaches love and peace and yet people twist its meanings to justify acts of atrocity the equal of any in the Christian world. That does not make Islam evil by any means. The Christian community is made up of humans. Humans are flawed. Some have more flaws than others.

You mentioned you were bisexual. Well done. No, seriously, have a medal. That makes you part of a minority does it? You know what? I'm Cumbrian, so statistically so am I. Do not bring something into this conversation that is irrelevant.

You complain that you can't get away from Christianity? I sympathise, I really do. I tried getting away from Coca Cola and Co-op but the fuckers are still all around me. Its tough, it really is.

You say you have nothing against Toothycat as people. Then why make such attacks on their faith? If said I hated bisexuals because they make me sick (I'd be lying) but said I said I had nothing against you personally (also lying), how would that make you feel?

To sum up, your beliefs are yours, and no one can take them away from you. No one should. They don't have the right. But at the same time you should offer the same courtesy to others. Especially if these people are your friends. If they aren't your friends then what the hell are you doing on this LJ? If you want to offend someone then fuck off and do it somewhere else. The Internet is a big place and I'm sure that somewhere out there is a place where your ignorance and intolerance will be accepted, or at the very least, ignored.

It only leaves me to congratulate Toothycat on the manner in which they have been responding to these personal attacks against their faith, integrity and their way of life. Guys, you represent the very best in the Christian community. YOU on the other hand, represent all that is bad about atheism, or indeed any religious standpoint.
Man, I wish I could say things like this on certain forums.

[nameandnature]

As one proselytizing atheist to another, you're not doing a great job of it. You make an incorrect (but popular on some anti-Christian websites, admittedly) statement about the origin of the claim that Mary was a virgin, get called on it, and cover your retreat by indiscriminately firing off stuff about how evil Christianity is, and how people ought not to write about it in their own journals in case it upsets you or furthers Christian privilege.

My overwhelming impression is that you were bitten by a Christian as a child (probably figuratively rather than literally, I guess) and have decided to take that out on the toothycats. There's certainly a place for that sort of ranting if you have been hurt by Christians, and I've done it myself (though the entries are locked) but the toothycats are not the Christians who have hurt you.

Having thought more about the privilege issue, I think there is a cultural Christian privilege in this country, which is an odd thing as it applies to Richard Dawkins as much as it does to people who actually believe real Christianity. I don't believe that talking about real Christianity furthers the privilege, for the reasons I gave before, namely that the privilege is really for people who can get along with the folk religion Christianity, which is actually opposed to real Christianity in a lot of places. In this country, if you're a real Christian who can't get along with folk Christianity, you're a fundie nutter, not a pillar of the establishment. This is different from the USA, where the folk Christianity is a religion where you notionally sign up to the beliefs of real Christianity (and so are what most Britishers regard as a fundie nutter) but actually worship the Devil in his aspect of the Republican party.

Secondly, even if Christians who provide information about their faith are actually proselytizing (whether deliberately or because their church has nurtured this strategy without telling the foot-soldiers why they're doing it), who cares? (and you've already said that you'll allow that's not what's been going on in these posts, so I'd again remind you that these are not the Christians you are looking for) In a free society, people are allowed to attempt to convince you of the most outlandish of things. Do you similarly object to, say, Muslims putting stuff on the web about their beliefs? Or Buddhists? or atheists?

[edited for incorrect link]

[(Anonymous)]

Ooh, you have an archived link to the Gay Bishops article! I thought I had lost that forever! Thank you!

[nameandnature]

I mentioned to Rilstone that his stuff had vanished and he linked to his new archive. wget -r while ye may.

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

Everything pw201 has said is right on the money. You're behaving like an ass, and ought to step back, take a deep breath, reread what everyone has said, and then apologise for the appalling way you've treated the toothycats.

You talk about how terrible Christianity is and rail on and on and on about it (and some extremely tangental things) to some of the loveliest Christians I've ever met who absolutely do not deserve your tirade.

I'm very very glad that the Christians I know don't think all atheists are somehow responsible for the actions of other atheists, because then they'd associate me with your behaviour, and that's the last thing I want.

I note as well that you've pretty much avoided responding to the non-Christians (such as myself and pw201) who have replied to you. Given that all your responses do not actually deal with what people are saying to you and mostly consist of you ranting about their religion it does seem like you're not responding to us because you can't easily pin the blame on our religion, as we don't have one.

I'm not normally OH SO RUDE in my replies to people, but lots of people have been very very nice here to you and you don't seem to be getting it.

[nameandnature]

Hullo. You missed this one. And I didn't miss any, as it happens. I think an apology to the toothycats would be appropriate at this point.

[woodpijn.livejournal.com]

:))

(Although I think you did, sadly. There are posts on this part of the thread which don't seem to have made it into your document.)

[nameandnature]

Oh well, score one for cowardly revisionism.

[ex-lark-asc.livejournal.com]

I deleted my comments because Internet wank should not be perpetuated, even when idiots like you can't let go of it. In the interests of minimising your or anyone else's ability to keep the pot boiling - at least, not without making their own personal bias clear - I took away the source material. And you have now very generously showed us your hand: you've archived the entire discussion. Thanks to that, it's unambiguous: the one who is interested in carrying this on is you, not me. I don't intend to comment again, nor indeed read anything you or anyone else involved posts on Livejournal, including replies to this comment; if Serge and Morag themselves wish to discuss the matter with me, they are perfectly well aware how to contact me off LJ. You have no right whatsoever to make demands on their behalf.

I expect you to include this comment in your Google document, of course.

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

if Serge and Morag themselves wish to discuss the matter with me, they are perfectly well aware how to contact me off LJ. You have no right whatsoever to make demands on their behalf.
I think you'll find that the toothycats were hoping you'd apologise all along.

And no, it isn't OK for you to attack them as you did on this thread. When you do things like that we will you call you on it, and point out how your comments here are ridiculous to the point where it's hard to distinguish between the parody and the real thing (http://robhu.livejournal.com/569265.html?nc=9).

No one here has it in for you lark_ascending, and I'm flabbergasted that you have concluded that pw201 of all people does.

I guess we're upset because you attacked our friends then tried to cover it up afterwards. You can do that of course, but you should expect people to point out that it's a pretty cowardly thing to do.

I don't know what the cause of the white hot incandescent rage you burned with here was, but whatever it is I hope you make progress with dealing with it in the future.

[nameandnature]

I deleted my comments because Internet wank should not be perpetuated, even when idiots like you can't let go of it. In the interests of minimising your or anyone else's ability to keep the pot boiling - at least, not without making their own personal bias clear - I took away the source material. And you have now very generously showed us your hand: you've archived the entire discussion. Thanks to that, it's unambiguous: the one who is interested in carrying this on is you, not me. I don't intend to comment again, nor indeed read anything you or anyone else involved posts on Livejournal, including replies to this comment; if Serge and Morag themselves wish to discuss the matter with me, they are perfectly well aware how to contact me off LJ. You have no right whatsoever to make demands on their behalf.

I expect you to include this comment in your Google document, of course.

I archived the comments because you don't get to behave like an arse and then remove that from history without any apparent remorse. If you actually regretted it, that'd be different, hence my suggestion that it would be a good idea to apologise. I only know the toothycats through robhu's discussion of this thread, I don't think I've ever met them. I don't hold any brief to defend them personally, I just find your sort of behaviour annoying in general. As you've shown you're incapable of civil discussion, I don't feel too bad about annoying you in return. So yes, I'm biased against people who are uncivil and annoying. Surprised?

The archive was taken earlier than some of your later comments because, based on previous experience of "interesting" people on LJ, I expected you to reach the stage where you'd delete your comments a bit earlier than you actually did it. I don't feel a particular need to update it, thanks all the same.

[(Anonymous)]

I spy copyright infringement.

[nameandnature]

Hello, mysterious anonymous commenter whose identity I have no idea about. Are you one of the people whose copyright you think is infringed? Do let me know, if so. My intention here was to preserve the thread. It's not clear to me that a mirror of content already made public is infringing (for example, archive.org seem to get away with it for most of the web), but I'm amenable to dealing with objections to that mirror in a sensible way.