Figuring Out Religion

[Kbg]

Thanks to those replied. Whether someone approaches it via religion, philosophy or the middle finger it seems many still think about the big three existential questions. (Where from, why here, where going?)

I enjoy religion as a topic and it is great to have discussions with people to get their take on things and have had some great discussions in person over the years. I guess it must be the anonymity of the internet but there are very few (if any) online forums where things don't go south in a hurry...and that's the reason why I only peak in the door here occasionally. Get's ugly here too which is almost by and large not the case with the investing sections of the board. I personally finding it highly fascinating that mankind seems almost hardwired for religion yet is constantly striving for rationale understanding at the same time. Personally, I live in both worlds and don't find it that difficult to navigate between the two though I'm certainly aware of the areas they basically become incompatible.

A couple of years ago I began to get more aware of my own mortality as we always do with age and in my case working with/visiting a lot of elderly people and so I took the death question head on and found help in both areas. I personally have hope the religious take on things turns out to be correct; however, if there is nothing once the lights finally go out for good you will have no conscience of your changed state anyway, so it just doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things.

Until then:

“This is the beginning of a new day. I have been given this day to use as I will. I can waste it, or use it for good. But what I do today is important because I am exchanging a day of my life for it. When tomorrow comes, this day will be gone forever, leaving in its place the thing I have traded for it. I want it to be gain, not loss; good, not evil; success, not failure; in order that I shall not regret the price I paid for it.”

---Author unknown

[farjean2]

I personally have hope the religious take on things turns out to be correct; however, if there is nothing once the lights finally go out for good you will have no conscience of your changed state anyway, so it just doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things.

I guess that all depends on what "religious take" on the afterlife you are talking about. If orthodox Christianity is correct, I think it would be vastly better for the lights to simply go out than what is in store for the mass of humanity.

FYI, Bart Ehrman is going to be taking on the subject of the afterlife in his next book. I think the tentative title is "The Invention of the AfterLife". Should be interesting reading as most of his books are. He's been discussing it on his blog and a major point he is making is that the standard Christian understanding of the afterlife has very little to do with the Bible, but comes from other sources.

[Maddy]

How true. A good example is Luke 17:20-21, where Jesus is responding to a question from the Pharisees about when the Kingdom of God will come. Jesus answer, which is about as unambiguous as it could be, turns the ordinary Christian formulation of Heaven on its head. Far from describing an actual place to which we will "go" at some particular time in the future, He stated, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

Much of Jesus' ministry was spent correcting the reified notions of intangible concepts that have continued to dominate religious thinking through today.

[Kbg]

Some Christian theology is pretty harsh, no doubt. Not all are though. For my particular brand, it's actually pretty hard to get into hell, almost impossible really.

[Mountaineer]

How true. A good example is Luke 17:20-21, where Jesus is responding to a question from the Pharisees about when the Kingdom of God will come. Jesus answer, which is about as unambiguous as it could be, turns the ordinary Christian formulation of Heaven on its head. Far from describing an actual place to which we will "go" at some particular time in the future, He stated, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

Much of Jesus' ministry was spent correcting the reified notions of intangible concepts that have continued to dominate religious thinking through today.

The kingdom of God is within me, at least in my tradition. Jesus is the kingdom of God when He makes those statements per our teaching. The kingdom of God was right before their eyes (the Pharisees) and they could not see it, or believe it. I received the Holy Spirit at my baptism and I receive the body and blood of Jesus every Sunday at the Lord's Table. My take on heaven is described in the Book of Revelation. New heaven, new earth and such.

[farjean2]

How true. A good example is Luke 17:20-21, where Jesus is responding to a question from the Pharisees about when the Kingdom of God will come. Jesus answer, which is about as unambiguous as it could be, turns the ordinary Christian formulation of Heaven on its head. Far from describing an actual place to which we will "go" at some particular time in the future, He stated, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

Much of Jesus' ministry was spent correcting the reified notions of intangible concepts that have continued to dominate religious thinking through today.

Jesus was a very confusing fellow. In the quotation above he says the kingdom doesn't come with observation. In other places he describes the signs that will precede the coming of the kingdom.

So go figure.

[Mountaineer]

I have only watched the Introduction * and the Q&A but it is very good and thought provoking for those who have interest in learning more about C. S. Lewis. Registration for the course is required at Hillsdale, but is free.

* [ Introduction / “Men Without Chests” C.S. Lewis is most widely known for his fiction and his Christian apologetics. However, he was also a professor at Oxford—and later Cambridge—where he was a first-rate scholar of English literature. In his philosophical work, The Abolition of Man, Lewis argued that truth, beauty, and the good are not merely a matter of personal preference. Teaching such a view, Lewis warned, would lead to the abolition of man.]


The following is from Brian Wolfmueller in his weekly blog.

... Mountaineer

Last week I recommended the Hillsdale C. S. Lewis course. I still have not started watching, but I received this review from Wednesday What-Not reader Josh:

http://info.hillsdale.edu/cs_lewis?utm_ ... 1_23_2016)

Dear Rev Wolfmueller,

I went through Hillsdale's online C.S. Lewis course-line last year. I am an avid student of Lewis, but there is always more to learn about him and his writings. The courses go through a range of Lewis material, so there really is something for every viewer.

The first two videos by Rev Dr Ward -- on Imagination and Reason in apologetics -- I found to be the most challenging because of some the heady language and concepts. More than once I had to go back and rewatch certain sections. If you find the need to do this, do not let it discourage you: it is very worth it to penetrate this essential aspect of Lewis's thought, to better understand both his fiction and non-fiction.

The above two sessions set up the next two, by Dr Whalen, very nicely, as he delves into Lewis's Narnia series and his Cosmic Trilogy. These are not simply overviews of the works, but engages the viewer in what Lewis was hoping to accomplish in writing these two series.

Video 6 with Dr Ward is very useful for teachers and pastors. It discusses Lewis's belief that the best kind of teaching (and writing) is that which works the mind of the student (and reader); which respects their ability to work things out when it is appropriate to do so. Not only is this good exercise for sharpening the mind, but the student is more apt to retain what they have learned. (A good follow-up work to this video is Lewis's 'An Experiment in Criticism' -- a short treatise and one of the last he wrote.)

The session that follows this may be one worth skipping if you are not interested in learning about the medieval cosmology that it appears Lewis used as a kind of paradigm for each of the Narnia books. The lecture is based on Dr Ward's book, Planet Narnia (which I have but have not yet read). I enjoyed it because I am a Narnia/Lewis uber-fan, and indirectly it gave me some insight into the world of the Reformation, but this video is not essential viewing unless the specific topic is of interest.

The last two sessions with Dr Arnn circle back to Lewis's treatise, 'The Abolition of Man'. I found the last session better than the one preceding it. "The Way" waxes philosophical re. the existence of objective truth and the value of ages-old moral tradition (Luke 6:31 is invoked at one point) and the desire of the modern Intellectual world to destroy this concept. The session has its merit, but philosophy is not a topic I am strong with.

What I liked about the last session is that Dr Arnn explains how the final book in Lewis's Cosmic Trilogy, 'That Hideous Strength', takes 'The Abolition of Man' and brings its argument to life. This was fantastic, because it also shows the value in fiction using the imagination to illustrate an argument that the mind can wrap itself around.

As an aside: It is worth it to watch the follow-up interviews after each session. The lecturer often adds additional anecdotes, either because they could not get to the point within the limits of the session, or they would have been tangential.

I hope you enjoy the sessions when you get to them!

+Sub Cruce, Josh Radke

[Mountaineer]

What is your stage?

http://www.psychologycharts.com/james-f ... faith.html

... Mountaineer

[farjean2]

What is your stage?

http://www.psychologycharts.com/james-f ... faith.html

... Mountaineer

Not Listed

[MWKXJ]

Speaking only for myself, I am an ex-Christian and I never, ever bring up the subject of religion to anybody. When somebody else brings it up, I do get passionate about my unbelief in the things they assert are true with no evidence to back up their claims. I could just ignore it, to be sure, but to me it feels like someone asserting 2+2=3 with absolute certainty over and over again and eventually you just have to say something to defend the fact that 2+2=4. It usually does nothing but make them mad but something makes me do it any way. Why are humans like that? God only knows.

This sounds like a case of dogma being countered with dogma. Man's knowledge of the world is heaped up upon what information can arrive through one's limited senses. In other words, what people know is fundamentally limited by what man uses to know things. See Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" for a trip down this rabbit hole.

Jesus, and Christians, seem to be saying that there is more to the universe than that which arrives through one's nose or eyes or touch, etc. Whether this knowledge arrives through a sixth sense, or, through a revelation resulting from the amalgamation of all the other senses is unclear, and perhaps, unimportant. However, as it seems to be true that there is more to a thing than the sum of its parts (i.e., the logical principal of the "exclusion of the middle"), perhaps the latter revelation is the best way of understanding Christianity; Christ's physical presence, earthy parables, and manner of death, gleaned via the senses, point his followers to a truth beyond adult man's rationalist and reductionistic tendencies. In other words, Christians are not attempting to state 2 + 2 = 3, they are asking others to look for something beautiful they have themselves only caught a fleeting glimpse of. For either party, Christians or atheists, to assert that such a vision does or does not exist seems as silly as arguing whether a Shinto temple is beautiful.

Perhaps, rather than asserting atheism, more should try remaining agnostic, leaving open the chance of exploring ideas which trespass against the empiricism worshiped in this day and age, and hoping against hope for a rekindling of the imagination, wonder, and awe of possibilities from one's younger years.

I know an age-old song
about life’s joys and woes;
about shipwrecks long gone
to the cellars of the sea.

The words are lost forever
but still, the tune persists —
like a dimly recalled image
from a very old folk tale.

Visions, dreams, and names,
have been scattered by the wind
and where all the words went
only a child could see.

Nomads, with no direction;
Seekers that never find…
In the end, we are all just
children of the wind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAjRhptZ-ao

[farjean2]

Jesus, and Christians, seem to be saying that there is more to the universe than that which arrives through one's nose or eyes or touch, etc.

The Christians I know and have known and which I once was assert that the Bible is the word of God, a divine revelation. That there is more to the universe than that which arrives through one's nose or eyes or touch is a proven scientific fact that I readily accept.

In other words, Christians are not attempting to state 2 + 2 = 3, they are asking others to look for something beautiful they have themselves only caught a fleeting glimpse of. For either party, Christians or atheists, to assert that such a vision does or does not exist seems as silly as arguing whether a Shinto temple is beautiful.

There are a few beautiful things in the Bible. Very Few. When you are able to step back and take an unbiased look, most of it is quite ugly.

Perhaps, rather than asserting atheism, more should try remaining agnostic, leaving open the chance of exploring ideas which trespass against the empiricism worshiped in this day and age, and hoping against hope for a rekindling of the imagination, wonder, and awe of possibilities from one's younger years.

I don't assert atheism. I do challenge other peoples assertions about the existence of God and the claims of Christianity. I prefer to simply call myself non-religious.

[MWKXJ]

That there is more to the universe than that which arrives through one's nose or eyes or touch is a proven scientific fact that I readily accept.

The next step is realizing that there are things one will never know. Ever. For example, even if humanity sent a probe to the furthest regions of the universe, gravid with Star-Trekian sensors, in an age when science reached its apogee, what man draw could glean from the experience would be limited by his metaphysical and physical inheritance. And this is the core of what Kant was saying; men are born with limitations on what they can know. In light of this, subjecting religion to the litmus of science would seem to be as silly as subjecting science to the litmus of religion. Beyond politely differing on fundamentals, it smacks of defining the premises of the other party so said premises can be dismissed.

There are a few beautiful things in the Bible. Very Few. When you are able to step back and take an unbiased look, most of it is quite ugly.

It's very likely true that "you get out of something what you put into it". One could argue there are many beautiful passages in the bible, however, that assumes a mindset unburdened by an ideological prejudice. No doubt there's something beautiful, too, in the theories of evolution, Adam Smith's market forces, Plato's Forms, ad infinitum.

I don't assert atheism. I do challenge other peoples assertions about the existence of God and the claims of Christianity.

And its the "challenge" that's the rub. One might do better by seeking the essence, or kernel of truth, in what someone else believes rather than seeking to disprove ideas wholesale. The world is certainly richer with more perspectives.

[Mountaineer]

This article may be of interest as many of us focus on Christ's betrayal (Maundy Thursday), suffering, death (Good Friday), and resurrection (Easter Sunday) - all for us!

http://www.answering-islam.org/Andy/Res ... rmony.html

Excerpt from the article:

The most obvious conclusion, providing one does not come to the Bible with preconceptions (such as the non-existence of miracles, or that Jesus didn’t actually die on the cross), is that the accounts are telling the truth and describe events as the eye-witnesses actually saw them. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, not just in some mystical his ideas and teaching will live on forever sense, but in some sense in which the actual person of Jesus of Nazareth still lives on and interacts with people. It is this that transformed his disciples from a bunch of defeated nobodies into a fearless body of men and women who set out to transform the world, it is this that is the testimony of millions upon millions upon millions of Christians around the world today; Jesus Christ is still transforming lives today, and will continue to do so until he comes back again!

Amen, Come, Lord Jesus.
The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people.
Amen.

Psalm 22 (Why have you forsaken me?).
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV

and,

Martin Luther's introduction to Psalm 22 http://www.hope-aurora.org/docs/Psalm22LutherIntro.pdf

[farjean2]

The next step is realizing that there are things one will never know. Ever.

"Ever" is a long time but I get the point. If there are things we can never know then why not just accept that? Religion claims to have the answers to the things we cannot know.

One could argue there are many beautiful passages in the bible, however, that assumes a mindset unburdened by an ideological prejudice. No doubt there's something beautiful, too, in the theories of evolution, Adam Smith's market forces, Plato's Forms, ad infinitum.

I don't think there is anything like a world wide flood destroying the entire human race, acts of genocide, etc. in the writings of Adam Smith and Plato.

And its the "challenge" that's the rub. One might do better by seeking the essence, or kernel of truth, in what someone else believes rather than seeking to disprove ideas wholesale. The world is certainly richer with more perspectives.

Well, sometimes I can't resist challenging statements that I don't believe are true. Just part of my nature. For example, Mountaineer's statement above that there were eyewitnesses to the resurrection. This gets repeated all the time but it just isn't true. We only have stories of people who were supposedly eyewitnesses to the resurrection, not the testimony of any eyewitness themselves. And we don't even know who wrote those stories.

[Xan]

The next step is realizing that there are things one will never know. Ever.

"Ever" is a long time but I get the point. If there are things we can never know then why not just accept that? Religion claims to have the answers to the things we cannot know.

There is plenty that we can never, ever, possibly figure out on our own. Just accepting it is one option. Another option is revelation: if a God exists and wants us to know something, then he'd have to reveal it in some way.

So it's reasonable to examine the various claimed revelations and see which, if any, you think hold water. If one does, then maybe we can know just a bit more about things than we can figure out on our own. Not everything by any means! But enough.

[farjean2]

Another option is revelation: if a God exists and wants us to know something, then he'd have to reveal it in some way.

I completely agree with this.

I think there either is no God (atheism), or he created every thing and then left us completely on our own (deism), or he wants to interact with his creation and reveal himself to us.

If the latter is true, why choose to do it through an ancient book written in a scientifically illiterate age and not include one fact that would make a modern scientist say "gee, this must be God? If you know one, please tell me.

And then you can move on to History. Why are the stories in the Bible so difficult to prove? Why wouldn't God see to it that plenty of evidence was left behind when over 2 million people wandered for 40 years through the desert of Sinai? Instead there is none. What is the point of God hiding his tracks like that if he truly wants to interact with people?

And then you have Jesus who said there was nothing wrong with not washing your hands before you eat, because nothing that goes into a man defiles him. That's probably a true statement in regards to religion but what about germs? And why leave us with the impression that sickness and disease is caused by demons? Could not God in the flesh have given some better hints that would have been helpful to mankind?

[Mountaineer]

Revisiting C. S. Lewis via some of his quotes:

God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.


Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.


Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.


If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.


Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.


There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'


Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.


We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.


Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.


Nothing is more dangerous to one's own faith than the work of an apologist. No doctrine of that faith seems to me so spectral, so unreal as one that I have just successfully defended in a public debate.


Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.


A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.

[Mountaineer]

Martin Luther: In lectures and published comments, he made clear that the preacher who does not offer public critique of unjust authorities and call them to repentance bears responsibility for rebellion since the opression practiced by rulers provokes revolt.

[farjean2]

Prof. Craig Evans Debates Rabbi Tovia Singer: Is Jesus the Promised Jewish Messiah?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGVochFzup4

This is a great debate. Most of what I knew about why the Jews rejected Jesus came from the New Testament so it was interesting to allow a real, Bible-believing Orthodox Jew speak for himself. Prof. Evans is a very boring speaker and if you are a Christian you are probably familiar with what he has to say. The fun starts when it gets the Rabbi about 35 minutes in. He's a very entertaining Jewish speaker who sounds a lot like Henny Youngman. Also very passionate about his belief in Torah as the inerrant word of God.

[MWKXJ]

Prof. Craig Evans Debates Rabbi Tovia Singer: Is Jesus the Promised Jewish Messiah?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGVochFzup4

Stand up routine aside, Singer presents Judaism as being 1) a caste based religion with an potential adoption for those willing to leave behind Jesus and adopt the mantle of an exclusively-chosen light unto the nations, and, 2) a religion in which salvation is obtained via vigorous works. Christians can read Galatians to address point 1. In regards to point 2, Kierkegaard's analysis of Abraham in "Fear and Trembling" calls out the importance of faith alone---rather than works---in God's ultimate blessing upon Abraham and his descendants (which many of the works-salvation-focused Jews of today claim title to). Mountaineer, being a Confessional Lutheran, will likely have other reading suggestions for those willing to explore the subject of Sola Fide, but I believe the Book of Concord would be a good start.

In regards to works-based salvation, people by default seem to put their in faith in earned redemption, and this may explain why so many religions also tend in that direction (Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, many/most-Protestant bodies, ad infinitum). The end-product of this mindset, especially in cases of magnificently wealthy believer-benefactors or thriving religious communities, is more often than not a meddling--and ultimately misanthropic--Pharisaism tending toward vainglory.

IMHO, lurking somewhere behind the Puritans' stocks and gallows, the Jacobin Club's guillotines, and the Abolitionists' fiery marches-to-the-sea was a prospering, yet militant, charity directed anywhere but inward. It could be that many of the issues fracturing the Western World stem from this mindset. Perhaps righteous Jews, proselyting Muslims, and social-justice preaching Christians would make a bigger difference in the world by addressing their own shortcomings rather than tearing at the mote in their neighbor's eye.

While sections of the world harangue over belief, somewhere, there are Hasids, Anabaptists, etc. minding their businesses, ploughing their fields, shrugging their shoulders, and living their beliefs. And perhaps this, a quiet life, is the best argument in favor of any religion.

A field deep furrow'd next the god design'd,
The third time labour'd by the sweating hind;
The shining shares full many ploughmen guide,
And turn their crooked yokes on every side.
Still as at either end they wheel around,
The master meets them with his goblet crown'd;
The hearty draught rewards, renews their toil,
Then back the turning ploughshares cleave the soil:
Behind, the rising earth in ridges roll'd;
And sable look'd, though form'd of molten gold.

Another field rose high with waving grain;
With bended sickles stand the reaper train:
Here stretched in ranks the levell'd swarths are found,
Sheaves heap'd on sheaves here thicken up the ground.
With sweeping stroke the mowers strow the lands;
The gatherers follow, and collect in bands;
And last the children, in whose arms are borne
(Too short to gripe them) the brown sheaves of corn.
The rustic monarch of the field descries,
With silent glee, the heaps around him rise.
A ready banquet on the turf is laid,
Beneath an ample oak's expanded shade.
The victim ox the sturdy youth prepare;
The reaper's due repast, the woman's care.

[Xan]

Well said, MWKXJ. There's a lot of wisdom to chew on there.

[Mountaineer]

Dozens Accept America As Lord And Savior At First Baptist Dallas Service

http://babylonbee.com/news/dozens-accep ... s-service/

And from a different source:
This rendering of "public happiness" mirrors the definitions and aims of Greek democracy. The private, self-centered person was viewed as ineligible for public citizenship. That ineligible self-referent was called an "idiot."

Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill", "a private citizen", "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private", "one's own").[1] In ancient Greece, people who were not capable of engaging in the public sphere were considered "idiotes", in contrast to the public citizen, or "polites".....An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private—as opposed to public—affairs. Idiocy was the natural state of ignorance into which all persons were born and its opposite, citizenship, was effected through formalized education. In Athenian democracy, idiots were born and citizens were made through education (although citizenship was also largely hereditary). Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters.


The idiot was a demonstrably private person. The citizen was by definition a public person.

[farjean2]

Can somebody explain to me why this isn't considered a form of insanity?

http://www.france24.com/en/20170708-no- ... ut-gmos-ok

[Marlb10]

I don't what to say here. It often gets me confuse, what to do, what not do. What is right to do but sometimes is not the most favorable thing to do. I don't follow any religion.

[Mountaineer]

Evolution? Where are the fossils of the transitional forms? (The historical problem) If the Evolutionist’s story of millions of years of gradual transition from one form to another is true, the evidence of these transitions ought to be everywhere. To my knowing, there are not.