Figuring Out Religion

[Greg]

I started reading up on the Crusades after MediumTex kept bringing it up. While I'm still digging, I did find this that as interesting:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/200 ... /52.0.html

This article speaks about how Islam spread through conquest after Mohammed started the religion. After a few centuries of conquering in the name of the faith (for the world is to surrender to Islam, since that's what the word means), many countries has been taken over by Muslims. The crusades from the article speaks about how it was a noble quest on the part of the Catholic church (at least in the beginning), two do two things, 1.) help out other Christians in need from being wiped out such as the Orthodox, and 2.) retake the holy city of Jerusalem.

While many people used the wars to ransack/pillage/etc. there was the overall goal of keeping Muslims from taking over the entire western world at the time. This seems at least to show that the Christians weren't trying to convert Muslims through force, they were acting in self-defense to allow themselves the opportunity to follow the God that they believed was correct, not the one that was being forced upon them by the Muslims at the time.

Just something for us to think about. I'll keep digging.

[Mark Leavy]

I've always thought Wodin was a pretty great god.  Seriously good values.  Historical texts.  Heroes and apologists.  Thousands of years of history.

I'm feeling a little left out by all of these discussions around the Yaweh god.  Yaweh's heroes and apologists and sacred writings just don't seem up to par when you compare him against a great god like Wodin.

[Stewardship]

But sadly I doubt your post will gain much interest among the participants in this thread.

That's okay.  I'm just trying to knock down some hurdles one may come across in their journey and let God do the heavy lifting (the calling.)

Afterall, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." John 6:44

[Stewardship]

Is it wrong to kill babies?  Was it wrong back when we were hunter/gatherers and the clan knew exactly how many mouths it could feed and practiced infanticide on those they could not support?  Moral relativism.

The Pharisees tested Jesus Himself by asking a similar question.  Instead of about killing babies, it was about divorce.

Matthew 19:3-9

"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?"  He said in reply, "Have you not read from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?'  So they are no longer two, but one flesh.  Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss her?"  He said to them "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

[MediumTex]

Is it wrong to kill babies?  Was it wrong back when we were hunter/gatherers and the clan knew exactly how many mouths it could feed and practiced infanticide on those they could not support?  Moral relativism.

The Pharisees tested Jesus Himself by asking a similar question.  Instead of about killing babies, it was about divorce.

Matthew 19:3-9

"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?"  He said in reply, "Have you not read from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?'  So they are no longer two, but one flesh.  Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss her?"  He said to them "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

But that suggests that the Jewish Law was this malleable thing that fluctuated based on the hardness of the Israelites' hearts.

That doesn't make any sense to me.

[Stewardship]

To me it suggests that God took the Israelis into account when giving them laws, just like a parent would do with their child.

[MediumTex]

To me it suggests that God took the Israelis into account when giving them laws, just like a parent would do with their child.

But they broke them continuously, which caused God to punish them continuously.

Did God expect too much of them?  Why give a group of people a set of laws that they have so much trouble following? 

If a parent gave a child a set of rules that the child was unable to follow, which led to endless punishment from the parent, at some point that starts to look like child abuse.

[dualstow]

I can't remember what I read about Woden/Odin in mythology texts, and what I learned from playing D&D.  What I do remember is that he used to fight enemies with fairly equal power, which is pretty cool. And, that he gave up one eye in order to drink from the well of knowledge, or something.

I'll be thinking of Him come Wednesday!

[Mark Leavy]

Please feel free to tell us more about Woden (I believe he spells his name with an "e").  He looks a lot life Gandalf, but with only one eye.  I don't want to start a groundless rumor, but I can't help but wonder if he tangled with David and his sling.

My apologies for that comment, Desert. It was a bit trollish and not respectful of the general high level of discourse in this thread.

My broader point, which I poorly attempted, is that much of the discussion of "truth" i.e. religion devolves into atheism/agnosticism versus Yahweh.

I think that this is a subtle and easy trap to fall down, because the alternatives involve too much cognitive dissonance.

Suppose that I am moved to reject atheism. It is not immediately obvious that my first choice of deism should be Yahweh.

For the religious, there are many arguments against atheism. And this is a comfortable place for the religious to sit and argue from. Reject god or accept god.

But it becomes awkward if the debate changes.

How can one argue that Yahweh’s religion with its long history, it’s sacred writings, it's prophets and it's thousands of years of accepted truth, has a prima facie better god than Woden, or Apollo, or Vishnu or Buddha?  Each of these gods has had thousands of years of sacred writing, prophets, temples, oracles and have had serious, honest believers that made or make up a large percentage of the world’s population.

Yes, today, Yahweh seems to be ascendant - but why is that not just an accident of time and place?  Each of these other gods had the same advantages at a different time and place.  How can you say one is Truth and all others are Myth?  The fundamental arguments in favor of each deity are the same for anyone looking to make the change from atheism to deism.

I think that most Yahweh apologists today don’t explore that aspect because it is just too damn hard to think about seriously.  It is better to ignore it.

[dualstow]

Yahweh had better marketing. And once the head of the Byzantine empire goes Christian, all bets are off.

[Pointedstick]

I'm not as knowledgeable regarding world religions as I would like to be.  I would like to discuss this issue more though.  One of my first thoughts is that I would try to quickly reduce the near infinite number of possibilities to those religions with at least some semblance of a current, modern-day following of people.  After all, if a god is so weak as to let its belief system die out entirely on the earth, I think it's safe to assume that isn't the god who created the universe.  What do you think of that, as a starting point?

I think that is a very Christian lens to look through. Lots of religions don't really have gods per se, and certainly not one individual god who is purported to have created the entire universe. Some of them are more ambiguous, or don't attempt to explain those kinds of things at all, or if their explanation is wrong, the entire thing doesn't come crumbling down so it isn't really emphasized. The cynical part of me would say that these religions are less popular because most people are attracted to simple answers to their complex questions. There is a certain comfort in believing that there is a big omnipotent dude who created the entire universe from whole cloth and that's that. Even if this view may be unsupported by all of modern science, an awful lot of people prefer it to the uncertainty of not knowing the answer to that basically unknowable question and will go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to reconcile it with science ("God messed up all of our technology so that anything that dates an object farther than like 6,000 years ago is malfunctioning!").

It all brings me back to the question of purpose, which I have kept meaning to discuss again after all of your very interesting points. All the believers here seem to be people who have an extremely difficult time with the concepts of oblivion, a purposeless universe, and a final death. At its core, Christianity appears to me to be a very efficient vehicle for inspiring people to believe that they will achieve immortality, that their earthly lives have purpose, and that there is an overall meaning to the universe. I wonder if there are any truly devout Christians out there who are comfortable with concepts like nothingness, purposelessness, and cosmic directionlessness. I know that I have absolutely no trouble with these concepts and I don't seem to sink into nihilism when I ponder the notions that my life has no purpose except for what I make out of it, that the universe does not care about me or anyone else, and that once I die my consciousness will end.

[Mark Leavy]

I'm not as knowledgeable regarding world religions as I would like to be.  I would like to discuss this issue more though.  One of my first thoughts is that I would try to quickly reduce the near infinite number of possibilities to those religions with at least some semblance of a current, modern-day following of people.  After all, if a god is so weak as to let its belief system die out entirely on the earth, I think it's safe to assume that isn't the god who created the universe.  What do you think of that, as a starting point?

Okay.

Now you and I both know that you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

Here goes - you’ve convinced me.  I’m making the move from atheism to deism.

Let’s assume Yahweh is the bestest god.  I’m going to go with your argument that, ”When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse”

Now which flavor of Yahweh is the bestest?

Judah’ism, Muhammad’ism or Christ’ism?

I was raised in the USA (that seems a good enough premise), and even though my parents had some of my dick cut off, I think I should go with Christ’ism.

Now what?  What is the bestest flavor of Christ’ism?

The Catholics have some damn fine real estate properties.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything to rival Saint Peter’s Basilica.  Truly impressive.  (Note to self, keep an eye on these folks…)

The Jehovah’s Witnesses know their bibles backwards and forwards.  Any good JW has worn out several bibles.  Sounds like a lot of work, though.

The Mormons have excellent family values, great business skills and some very good military leaders.  Plus that whole polygamy thing is pretty cool.  Hmm….

Snake handling and speaking in tongues seem pretty damn awesome.  Really, who wouldn’t want to be able to do that?

The Lutherans are hard workers, no bullshit and pretty trustworthy.  Really, you could do a lot worse than being Lutheran.

The Free Masons are seriously powerful and have had an amazing influence on politics, war and industry.  Plus - they’ve got a lot of old magic mixed in with the Christ stuff - so the bets are well hedged.  I may not qualify for that club though…

The Shakers made some of the best furniture I have ever seen.  If you find any, buy it up.  Of course, the whole celibacy thing didn't work out in the long run...

If I really look at the pluses and minuses, I think Mexican Catholicism is the way to go.  You’ve got Yahweh [Winner!].  And on top of that, Catholics have a pretty strong claim to being the "Catholic" version of christianity.  Hard to argue with that.  Plus add in the Mexican component and you get all of the expired gods from the new and the old world.  It is a no lose situation.  The best answer to Pascal’s wager.

Aestra
[img width=600]http://writ-in-water.com/wp-content/upl ... -large.gif[/img]

Our Lady of Gudalupe
[img width=600]http://www.queenoftheamericasguild.org/ ... ndiego.jpg[/img]

Dia de Los Muertos
[img width=600]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... co,_CA.jpg[/img]

Yule Log
[img width=600]http://wintersolsticemusic.com/images/c ... le-log.jpg[/img]

The Solstice Tree
[img width=600]http://carrieparis.com/wp-content/uploa ... Tree-2.jpg[/img]

More Eostre / Ostara / Fertility festivals
[img width=600]http://paganpages.org/content/wp-conten ... Ostara.jpg[/img]

And of course, everyone loves Saturnalia
[img width=600]https://friendsofthemuseumofsomerset.fi ... rnalia.jpg[/img]

By God!  I think I’m Catholic.  Who would have known?

[Greg]

I'm not as knowledgeable regarding world religions as I would like to be.  I would like to discuss this issue more though.  One of my first thoughts is that I would try to quickly reduce the near infinite number of possibilities to those religions with at least some semblance of a current, modern-day following of people.  After all, if a god is so weak as to let its belief system die out entirely on the earth, I think it's safe to assume that isn't the god who created the universe.  What do you think of that, as a starting point?

Spiritual stuff for us to munch on, especially the first link below that I like:
http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/so-many-religions.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/true-religion.html

[MediumTex]

This is an awesome discussion.

People who disagree keep talking about their religious beliefs, it doesn't get emotional, it keeps moving forward, knowledge is shared, and understanding is deepened.

I've never made it remotely this far into a religious discussion without it completely falling apart, usually starting with a toe being unintentionally stepped on.

[Mountaineer]

I'm not as knowledgeable regarding world religions as I would like to be.  I would like to discuss this issue more though.  One of my first thoughts is that I would try to quickly reduce the near infinite number of possibilities to those religions with at least some semblance of a current, modern-day following of people.  After all, if a god is so weak as to let its belief system die out entirely on the earth, I think it's safe to assume that isn't the god who created the universe.  What do you think of that, as a starting point?

Spiritual stuff for us to munch on, especially the first link below that I like:
http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/so-many-religions.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/true-religion.html

Hey Greg,

Thanks for the links.  Very interesting and logical for us engineer types.  But I have to say, Mark's post with all the pictures was pretty darn entertaining.  His was more along the lines of a Hollywood B movie or Rush L., or maybe "The View", or National Enquirer - Men in Black style.  You are going to have to hurry to keep up.     

... M

[dualstow]

After all, if a god is so weak as to let its belief system die out entirely on the earth, I think it's safe to assume that isn't the god who created the universe.  What do you think of that, as a starting point?

I mean this seriously, and not as a dig, when I say that might be a dangerous thing for a theist to say in 2015. After all, if something like a pro-gay rights feeling -- not necessarily incompatible with religion of course -- is spreading from stranger to unrelated stranger, it seems like religion is mainly only spreading as quickly as the religious can have babies. Is that false?

(dualstow)
I can't remember what I read about Woden/Odin in mythology texts, and what I learned from playing D&D.  What I do remember is that he used to fight enemies with fairly equal power, which is pretty cool. And, that he gave up one eye in order to drink from the well of knowledge, or something.

I'll be thinking of Him come Wednesday!

Woden loves you, dualstow, and has a wonderful plan for your Wednesdays. 

Ha! 

[Greg]

I'm not as knowledgeable regarding world religions as I would like to be.  I would like to discuss this issue more though.  One of my first thoughts is that I would try to quickly reduce the near infinite number of possibilities to those religions with at least some semblance of a current, modern-day following of people.  After all, if a god is so weak as to let its belief system die out entirely on the earth, I think it's safe to assume that isn't the god who created the universe.  What do you think of that, as a starting point?

Spiritual stuff for us to munch on, especially the first link below that I like:
http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/so-many-religions.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/true-religion.html

Hey Greg,

Thanks for the links.  Very interesting and logical for us engineer types.  But I have to say, Mark's post with all the pictures was pretty darn entertaining.  His was more along the lines of a Hollywood B movie or Rush L., or maybe "The View", or National Enquirer - Men in Black style.  You are going to have to hurry to keep up.     

... M

I very much agree with you Mountain Man; Christianity isn't the most fashionable religion. That's not to say you shouldn't try to jazz it up/promote it however in appropriate ways hah.

Based on the links I provided above, I believe I understand the logic that pantheism can't exist because God can't be the universe. That would mean that God had a beginning (since the universe had a beginning), and you can't create yourself. He would have to be eternal and outside of the universe.

The one I'm still trying to figure out is the Christianity vs. Islam vs. Judaism one based on the logic in the first article. If there is a lot of textual evidence showing that the New Testament hasn't changed too much over time, then I believe that would be invalidating one of Islam's claims saying that the New Testament has been corrupted (same as Mormon's thoughts on this)?

I don't understand this quote from the article:
"Now, if Jesus is God, then what He says must be true. And if Jesus said that the Bible is inerrant and true in everything it says (which He did), this must mean that the Bible is true in what it proclaims." I don't believe this logic is correct. The New Testament technically could not change over the course of time, invalidating Islam's claim, but that doesn't mean that what Jesus said is true and that he is God (based on what is written in the NT). This would then mean it invalidates Islam, but doesn't necessarily validate Christianity.

So based on the information above, it would state that there is a God, but that we can't precisely say that Christianity is what points to said God. This would point to then someone being a theist. They know there is a God (versus an agnostic that believe there could or could not be a God), but are not positive which religion points to this God. Christianity makes sense to me but I'd need to dig more to better understand this.

[Mountaineer]

Spiritual stuff for us to munch on, especially the first link below that I like:
http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/so-many-religions.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/true-religion.html

Hey Greg,

Thanks for the links.  Very interesting and logical for us engineer types.  But I have to say, Mark's post with all the pictures was pretty darn entertaining.  His was more along the lines of a Hollywood B movie or Rush L., or maybe "The View", or National Enquirer - Men in Black style.  You are going to have to hurry to keep up.     

... M

I very much agree with you Mountain Man; Christianity isn't the most fashionable religion. That's not to say you shouldn't try to jazz it up/promote it however in appropriate ways hah.

Based on the links I provided above, I believe I understand the logic that pantheism can't exist because God can't be the universe. That would mean that God had a beginning (since the universe had a beginning), and you can't create yourself. He would have to be eternal and outside of the universe.

The one I'm still trying to figure out is the Christianity vs. Islam vs. Judaism one based on the logic in the first article. If there is a lot of textual evidence showing that the New Testament hasn't changed too much over time, then I believe that would be invalidating one of Islam's claims saying that the New Testament has been corrupted (same as Mormon's thoughts on this)?

I don't understand this quote from the article:
"Now, if Jesus is God, then what He says must be true. And if Jesus said that the Bible is inerrant and true in everything it says (which He did), this must mean that the Bible is true in what it proclaims." I don't believe this logic is correct. The New Testament technically could not change over the course of time, invalidating Islam's claim, but that doesn't mean that what Jesus said is true and that he is God (based on what is written in the NT). This would then mean it invalidates Islam, but doesn't necessarily validate Christianity.

So based on the information above, it would state that there is a God, but that we can't precisely say that Christianity is what points to said God. This would point to then someone being a theist. They know there is a God (versus an agnostic that believe there could or could not be a God), but are not positive which religion points to this God. Christianity makes sense to me but I'd need to dig more to better understand this.

Greg,

I’m going to address your questions by posing some questions to consider.  You may consider this a very obtuse method of responding, if so, I’ll try to fill in some blanks. 

First, some definitions:

Kingdom of the Right - deals with theological things, God things, heavenly things such as Salvation and faith.

Kingdom of the Left - deals with civil things, man things, earthly things such as governments, laws, church polity, organizations.

The Three Creeds - Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian  [see links]  http://www.oursavior-billings.org/index ... reeds 

From my perspective as a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod person, my loyalty pecking order is:  Triune God of which Jesus is His revealed person —> Believers —> Scripture —> Confessions (Book of Concord which includes the Creeds among other foundational documents) —> Christian tradition/denomination —> social club —>world (including other religions).  The further one gets from Jesus as his focus, the more corrupt their worldview becomes.  What would your pecking order be?

Do you believe everything is a gift from God?

Do you believe we have free will in the Kingdom of the Right?  The Left?

If one has proof, is there a need for faith?

Do you believe there is absolute truth?

Do you think the three Creeds are still relevant today?  Are they an accurate description of the Christian faith?

Is evidence as good as proof for convincing yourself of the truth?  For convincing others? 

Do you believe God gives some of us the gift of faith (benefits us in the Kingdom of the Right)?

Do you believe God gives most of us reason (benefits us in the Kingdom of the Left)?

If one has faith, is there a need for proof (or evidence) in Kingdom of the Right?

Do you want a God that is small enough that we could understand all that he/she/it is?

And lastly, what did you learn about yourself from pondering these questions?  Why do you think I posed these questions?

Edit:  I forgot to add, you do not need to post your answers.  Questions intended for self-observation and reflection only.  If you have questions or comments however, please do share.


... M

[Mountaineer]

This is material from about the year 200.  I copied only the introduction below.  See the link for the full article.

http://www.christian-history.org/letter ... netus.html

Letter to Diognetus

The Letter to Diognetus is longer than my typical web page. Do not miss chapters 5 and 9! There is very little like them in all of Christian history (though John Calvin's letter to Cardinal Sadolet is pretty impressive, too).

This rendition of the Letter to Diognetus is in my own words, taken from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I. I haven't left anything out, and where any important issue comes up, I've leaned towards not changing the wording of the Edinburgh translators.

Their work, however, is over a century old, so you'll find this version much easier to read.

As you read, you'll find my comments sprinkled throughout in text boxes. These are not meant to interpret the text for you, although I do some of that. Instead, I'm trying to show you what early Christianity was like. It is very hard to find a better introduction to late 1st century Christianity than the Letter to Diognetus.

Why is it so good? You'll notice that the writer does not quote a single Scripture, neither from the Old Testament nor the New. He is the only early Christian writer not to do so.

Nonetheless, you'll also recognize his thoughts as Scriptural. This is a man who is telling you what he was taught in a church established by apostles (ch. 11), not a man who is interpreting the Bible for himself.

This is an awesome thing, as it makes the Letter to Diognetus a much better insight into early Christianity than it otherwise would have been.

... M

[Mountaineer]

I'm not as knowledgeable regarding world religions as I would like to be.  I would like to discuss this issue more though.  One of my first thoughts is that I would try to quickly reduce the near infinite number of possibilities to those religions with at least some semblance of a current, modern-day following of people.  After all, if a god is so weak as to let its belief system die out entirely on the earth, I think it's safe to assume that isn't the god who created the universe.  What do you think of that, as a starting point?

I understand the need to winnow the list.

But why assume that death of the belief system is a sign of weakness of a god?  It seems a very human-centric connection to draw.

I tend to be that way, being human and all.   

But putting aside my comment above for a bit, is there a religion out there that appears more believable or compelling than Christianity to you?

Ah yes, we are human.  But we are also simul justus et peccator. 

And if any formula summarizes and captures the essence of the Reformation view, it is this little formula. Simul is the word from which we get the English word simultaneously. Or, it means ‘at the same time.’ Justus is the Latin word for just or righteous. And you all know what et is. It simply means and. Peccator means sinner.

And so with this formula Luther was saying, in our justification we are one and the same time righteous or just, and sinners.

... M

[MediumTex]

I'm not as knowledgeable regarding world religions as I would like to be.  I would like to discuss this issue more though.  One of my first thoughts is that I would try to quickly reduce the near infinite number of possibilities to those religions with at least some semblance of a current, modern-day following of people.  After all, if a god is so weak as to let its belief system die out entirely on the earth, I think it's safe to assume that isn't the god who created the universe.  What do you think of that, as a starting point?

I understand the need to winnow the list.

But why assume that death of the belief system is a sign of weakness of a god?  It seems a very human-centric connection to draw.

I tend to be that way, being human and all.   

But putting aside my comment above for a bit, is there a religion out there that appears more believable or compelling than Christianity to you?

Does anyone think it is odd that most people tend to simply adopt the religion of their family and community?

If religion is about ultimate truth, it seems like people would be more willing to step outside of their cultural norms to find the one that is actually true, given how high the stakes are (i.e., we're talking about immortality and eternal bliss or eternal suffering).

[Pointedstick]

If religion is about ultimate truth, it seems like people would be more willing to step outside of their cultural norms to find the one that is actually true, given how high the stakes are (i.e., we're talking about immortality and eternal bliss or eternal suffering).

Well, those are only the stakes you'll internalize if you happen to have been born in an area dominated by Judeo-Christian religions. For the 1/3 of humanity whose religion is Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto, their offshoots, or some combination of them (which is very common in China), the stakes are more along the lines of living an unfulfilling and suffering-filled life or being reincarnated as something sucky. There's not nearly so much cosmic pressure to find the one true path that will prevent you from experiencing an eternity of torment.

[Mark Leavy]

Does anyone think it is odd that most people tend to simply adopt the religion of their family and community?

If religion is about ultimate truth, it seems like people would be more willing to step outside of their cultural norms to find the one that is actually true, given how high the stakes are (i.e., we're talking about immortality and eternal bliss or eternal suffering).

I thought I had made the point pretty explicitly - and was a bit surprised to see Mountaineer dismiss it as buffoonery.

[dualstow]

(re: growing numbers in East Asia) Makes sense, Desert,
thanks.

[Mark Leavy]

Here's a photo of Mark with his new selfie cross:

[img width=400]http://www.wordonfire.org/wof-site/medi ... age-57.jpg[/img]

Saved as my next passport photo.  How did you know...