Figuring Out Religion

[dualstow]

I don't think we have to rely on personal revelation.  I *could* be wrong about that, I must admit.  But I think there is sufficient evidence for Christianity to sway critical thinkers. 

BUt you have to admit, of those devout Christians who were not born into Christianity, they are far less likely to have found God in the library or lab than in rehab.

[moda0306]

Chief,

Glad to hear I'm not being unreasonable in my stances of interpreting reality.

There certainly are some things around us that don't seem super easily explainable.  But even if there is decent evidence of Jesus' miracles (which I highly doubt), this far from proves that the entire Bible is correct.  I find that using science to find the edge of material reality has been far more reliable than using arbitrary statements by any religion to describe where that edge is.

And if they're wrong once in their connection to the unprovable realm of the divine, who knows what else is simply lies or misinterpretations of reality.

Samson really didn't have super powered hair?  Does that mean genesis was wrong?

Jonah really didn't live inside a whale?  Does that mean some aspect of the Gospel isn't true?

Moses didn't really part the entire Red Sea?  Do we go on assuming that God really sent him the 10 Commandments?

The Bible might have some truths in it.  Most of the ones we all agree on are just natural historical truths. But if it isn't a reliable source of the truth, then what good is it?  If it is 100% true, I'd like to see some basis for that belief.

The bible itself is not proof. It is just assertions about history and God's will.

The world around us is not proof. Seeming irreducible complexity does not denote intelligent design. Every time it has been asserted as such, science eventually reveals a fully natural process. Why are we to assume this still isn't the case... Or at the very least, that science isn't better suited to figure out the boundaries of material reality than other methods/sources.  A snowflake looks like an example of intelligent design. How does one end of the structure know what the other one is doing!!?? 

If we had more proof, it certainly wouldn't be coercion. No more than knowing how gravity works coerces us to never jump off a cliff because of the scary implications of doing so.  Nothing Desert mentions stands as proof unless we accept certain unsound and invalid arguments as truth alongside those facts.

If they think it does, they're free to lay out their logic, but short of some of the better debates out there (and even within many of those debates) not very good logic seems to be used.  And since anything that does NOT follow an objective process is, by definition, subjective information, I simply can't accept information like that as proof. If I did, my life would be a mess.

[Mountaineer]

What you are missing, moda, is Revelation.

I agree with PS.  Moda, in my opinion you are missing "revelation" and are not receptive to deeply understanding what that means.  I also sense that you try to use the Scientific Method (or logic, if you prefer) outside the boundaries for which it is intended. 

Perhaps it would be a useful exercise for you to examine all the things in which you have "faith" and then analyze why you have that "faith" in them (assuming there are many things or ideas or concepts you have not personally  seen or proved) instead of God's promises.  This will require you to be very objective and really, really examine your presuppositions carefully.  I noted from your previous posts that you spent most of your time and ink describing your questions and what you did not firmly believe, not your presuppositions; is there a reason for that?  I may be completely wrong on this, but you seem to be using your beliefs to create evidence for what you wish to be true, rather than searching for and analyzing evidence to shape your beliefs; I appologize if this is not the case ... it is just the conclusion I reach from reading many, many of your posts.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Yeah, the search for proof of a religion's truth strikes me as a futile one. The believers don't need it, and the skeptics won't believe it. So what's the point?

[Mountaineer]

Satan's Angelic Disguises

Excerpt:
There’s something of a corrective needed to the popular view of Satan today.  He will try first of all to convince people to deny his existence.  After all, there’s no need to be on guard against something that’s not real.  In the words of French poet Charles Baudelaire, “The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist.”?[1]  But if he can’t manage that, the next best thing is to get us to look for a devil that doesn’t resemble him at all.

http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=37894

... Mountaineer

[hljockey]

What you are missing, moda, is Revelation.

Absolutely.

Good folks on here like Mountaineer try to convince you of the power of what they think are reasonable arguments but Jesus said "Unless a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God".

Either something happens on the inside or it doesn't. No amount of reasoning can get you there.

[Mountaineer]

What you are missing, moda, is Revelation.

Absolutely.

Good folks on here like Mountaineer try to convince you of the power of what they think are reasonable arguments but Jesus said "Unless a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God".

Either something happens on the inside or it doesn't. No amount of reasoning can get you there.

And yet, y'all keep trying anyway, and become increasingly frustrated when it doesn't work. 

I can't speak for others, but I do not get frustrated.  Christ died that all could live.  There is always hope.  My job is to cast seeds; it is up to God whether He chooses to water and nourish them.  If people do not accept and trust God's promises, it is on them, not me.  Why should I feel frustrated?  I KNOW where I stand and the consequences of my belief - which basically is a temporal life of much suffering, hardship and persecution along with the rest of humanity.  I do not live my worldly life looking in the rearview mirror - I try to look at the present and future as to what my neighbors' needs are and help them meet them.  I look forward to an eternal life of joy.  It is such a comfort to KNOW I will be reunited with all my loved ones in an eternity free from the worldly mess that we live in (just read the newspapers, you will not see much joy and happiness being reported).  Frustration?  Nah, not for me; that is for those who think this earthly life is all there is.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

The only presuppositions I really think I'm making is that I exist on this earth, and there are an infinite number of other truths I could believe, so I have to accept certain systems as the best way of developing truths beyond that. The systems I try to use, logic and the scientific method, haven't shown me whether or not we have a creator, nor what he wants from us.

Are there other presuppositions you don't think I'm realizing that I'm making?

Would you care to correct any that you disagree with?




Desert,

I watched that Collision movie so far (on YouTube) but that's about it. No books yet!  I find Hitchens makes some really good points dismantling religion, but Wilson (who is a much nicer guy and extremely smart as well) points out well to Hitchens that he is making up morality (though I think it's far fetched to say he's necessarily borrowing morality from Christianity).  I think the big difference I have is that Hitchens loves to go on anti-theist tirades, where as most of the time I'm simply agnostic. He also presupposes objective morality, which I think goes too far.

But there's nothing there that really pushes me into the deeper ends of feeling like the Bible is a valid source of truth. Perhaps the books are better. And regarding this whole revelation thing... It appears there are two aspects... And we've been over this before:

1) hearing the word of God: I mean this in a physiological sense. Simply hearing the Gospel.  If this is revelation, then so is might be a TON of other stuff that Christianity asks us to reject. To this extent, the Gospel, like any other unproven statement about reality, is just an I backed assertion. I hear those every day.  If all those are Revelation I've got a complex life ahead of me.

2) FEELING the word of God. I use the term feeling loosely here. Basically, it would be a subjective experience accompanying the Gospel that makes us aware of God's presence.  This, to me (unless Jesus' miracles can be proven), is where the rubber meets the road. This is the difference between you & me. You had this subjective experience when hearing the Bible. I did not.

If this is so, it's this last part that is worth focusing on. Because I've heard the arbitrary statements of Christianity dozens of times, and I've felt nothing. 

But if I'm presupposing things that I shouldn't that is blocking the process of revelation from happening, I'd like to know what that is. I certainly am prone to subjective experience fed affecting my view of reality. I've seen things done that affect my view of morality, which I can't prove as being correct. I'm not opposed to the idea that learning might be acquired on a subjective level. But let's talk about how that is actually done... Blindly accepting unproven premises seems to be a shoddy way of learning from a subjective position.

[Mountaineer]

The only presuppositions I really think I'm making is that I exist on this earth, and there are an infinite number of other truths I could believe, so I have to accept certain systems as the best way of developing truths beyond that. The systems I try to use, logic and the scientific method, haven't shown me whether or not we have a creator, nor what he wants from us.

Are there other presuppositions you don't think I'm realizing that I'm making?


A few examples:

What is your presupposition re. "why" you exist?  Not how, but why.

What is your presupposition re. "why" do you not believe the Christian Scriptures are the revealed Word of God?

What is your presupposition re. "why and where and how" the universe came into being?

Why do you have "faith" the sun will "rise" in the morning (I'm assuming you do not have a Doctorate in celestial mechanics and do not understand the associated mathematics and thus have to take someone's word for it)?

Note: I suggest a "root cause analysis" approach for answering the "why" questions above; that is, when you answer the first why, ask why about that answer and so forth until you have asked and answered at least 5 whys.  Helps from just having a superficial answer or not think through things to the "bottom" - my opinion.



Desert,

I watched that Collision movie so far (on YouTube) but that's about it. No books yet!  I find Hitchens makes some really good points dismantling religion, but Wilson (who is a much nicer guy and extremely smart as well) points out well to Hitchens that he is making up morality (though I think it's far fetched to say he's necessarily borrowing morality from Christianity).  I think the big difference I have is that Hitchens loves to go on anti-theist tirades, where as most of the time I'm simply agnostic. He also presupposes objective morality, which I think goes too far.

But there's nothing there that really pushes me into the deeper ends of feeling like the Bible is a valid source of truth. Perhaps the books are better. And regarding this whole revelation thing... It appears there are two aspects... And we've been over this before:

1) hearing the word of God: I mean this in a physiological sense. Simply hearing the Gospel.  If this is revelation, then so is might be a TON of other stuff that Christianity asks us to reject. To this extent, the Gospel, like any other unproven statement about reality, is just an I backed assertion. I hear those every day.  If all those are Revelation I've got a complex life ahead of me.

2) FEELING the word of God. I use the term feeling loosely here. Basically, it would be a subjective experience accompanying the Gospel that makes us aware of God's presence.  This, to me (unless Jesus' miracles can be proven), is where the rubber meets the road. This is the difference between you & me. You had this subjective experience when hearing the Bible. I did not.

If this is so, it's this last part that is worth focusing on. Because I've heard the arbitrary statements of Christianity dozens of times, and I've felt nothing. 

But if I'm presupposing things that I shouldn't that is blocking the process of revelation from happening, I'd like to know what that is. I certainly am prone to subjective experience fed affecting my view of reality. I've seen things done that affect my view of morality, which I can't prove as being correct. I'm not opposed to the idea that learning might be acquired on a subjective level. But let's talk about how that is actually done... Blindly accepting unproven premises seems to be a shoddy way of learning from a subjective position.

I will not attempt to answer for Desert, but from my perspective, it is extremely dangerous to base your views about God on "feelings".  You will end up either in dispair or arrogant judgmental pride - my opinion.

I hesitate to mention this as it may just cause a lot of confusion, but here it is anyway.  I will not discount God revealing Himself to an individual today (vs. 2000 years ago) as I'll discuss more in a moment.  I think the main or most important way to understand "revelation" is that the Christian Scriptures are the revealed word of God; I base my view on Christ's words on the cross "It is finished" - which can mean Christ perfectly fullfiled the "Law", and/or there will be no more prophets, and/or there will be no more revelation, etc.  Back to individual revelation:  my daughter says she saw Jesus two times, once as a preschooler when she calmly and matter of factly told my wife she saw Jesus sitting on top of the Dairy Queen which was across from the preschool.  The second time she was in Junior High.  She and her friend were sitting in the room when they saw a bright bluish light, then saw Jesus.  Her friend confirmed the story.  They both "went forward" the following Sunday at church.  They were not doing drugs or drinking and were stable, normal kids being raised in stable, healthy, loving environments.  I was not a practicing Christian at the time, and was not for several more years so hearing the story had very little if any impact on my journey; Christ decided to get my attention in other ways.  So, if personal revelation were the only way to come to trust God's promises, there would likely be very few believers; hearing the Word of God proclaimed seems to be a much more universal method.  Hard to believe my daughter's story I know - my daughter has told almost no one about the experience because she did/does not want to sound like a loonie to 99+ percent of her friends and acquaintances. 

My comments in bold red. 

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

To me, the "why" of anything that doesn't contain motivations is essentially "how?"  For instance, if you say "why does a rock fall?"  I'd say "gravity."  If you said "how is it that a rock falls?"  I'd also say "gravity."  Why in human motivational terms is different.

So when you say "why do I exist," unless we can establish a motivated being involved, there is no "why" that isn't essentially "how." 

Can we agree on that?

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

To me, the "why" of anything that doesn't contain motivations is essentially "how?"  For instance, if you say "why does a rock fall?"  I'd say "gravity."  If you said "how is it that a rock falls?"  I'd also say "gravity."  Why in human motivational terms is different.

So when you say "why do I exist," unless we can establish a motivated being involved, there is no "why" that isn't essentially "how." 

Can we agree on that?

Why does a rock fall?  Because of gravity.

Why does gravity exist?  Because it is necessary for the function of celestial bodies and for life on earth.

Why do celestial bodies exist?  Because God created the universe in that manner.

Why is there life on earth?  Because God created it.

Why is there only one earth (that we currently know of) that contains life?  Because God selected earth to bring forth life.

Why did God decide to select earth for life?  Unknowable.

Why do you think God is the only means for creating the universe and life?  Because He said so and because all other hypotheses that have been proposed to date have serious flaws.

Why do you think all other hypotheses are flawed?  Because I, with a very limited knowledge of "everything" can think of those flaws.

Why can you think of those flaws?  Because God gave me a body and means to think.

Why did God give me a body and the means to think? and so on until you get to unknowable answers which will then require "faith" in something or someone to develop your beliefs.

Probably lots of holes in this but you get the drift.  You, so far, are not really thinking through very deeply, or if you are, you are not laying out your "whys".

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

All right, I see what you're getting at, and I'll have a go:



Why does a rock fall?  On a planet, because of gravity.

Why does gravity exist?  Because apparently, the general theory of relativity states that all objects are attracted to one another in proportion to their masses, so because the planet earth is the most massive thing around, we are all attracted to it.

Do you personally have any evidence for the theory of relativity being correct?  No.

Then why do you believe that explanation?  I wouldn't say I really believe it or don't believe it. It's just a theory.

So you are agnostic on the subject of relativity?  Yes. It might be correct and explain gravity, or it might not. I don't know.

But you do believe in gravity, right?  Yes. I can actually see what we call gravity acting on things. If I drop a rock, it falls.

Aren't you curious about why gravity exists?  Not really.

How come?  It's not a subject that really interests me.

Why not?  I guess I'm not sure. I've always been more interested in the concrete than the abstract, when it comes to systems and mechanisms. I prefer systems that I can fully understand at the relevant level of their operation to those that I am not capable of fully understanding.

Why is that?  It seems to just be my inherent personality. My parents say they recognized this when I was like two years old. I guess it's an "engineer vs scientist" thing. I'm definitely an engineer.

Why do you think your personality is like this?  I don't have a clue!

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

Those are certainly possible answers.  I've actually thought about these questions A LOT.  But we eventually get to the point that we simply don't know.  We don't know if God created the Earth. It is, in fact, unknowable.  You should have stated that fact much sooner.

Just because some guys wrote a book that said God created the Earth does not, in fact, tell us much at all. People have claimed a LOT of things happened in super-natural ways. 

I know a lot of atheists seem VERY confident in their presuppositions about the nature of reality. I'm much more agnostic than them. I really don't know. But I have to use certain processes to figure out how to get by, since one thing I do know for sure... I don't like disease and I do like happiness.  Perhaps the very ability to have these feelings indicates a God, but we certainly do not know that.

So I think just maybe you're thinking I'm more like Christopher Hitchens than someone who is just pretty unsure about anything that doesn't come as a result of my personal experience and/or reason/science to come up with likely conclusions about reality.

And like I've said before, perhaps every logical or scientific method we've used to discover reality is pure bunk, and we really aren't understanding a deeper fundamental reality.  That is fine to believe as a possibility, but then that begs even more questions about the validity of anything any religious person has to say about reality, because they've perceived truths with the same set of senses that have just been asserted as TOTALLY useless at perceiving reality.

So your assertions still fail. To say that they are God's assertions is begging the question... Assuming your conclusion in their argument. I see this from religious folks all the time, and until I run into a religious person willing to discard that logical fallacy, I don't think I'll be able to true them. If they can't even see that fallacy for what it is, I can't go on trying to have a rational discussion without constantly coming back to it. This is the biggest flaw I see with how religious folks argue.  They are CONSTANTLY assuming their conclusions in their attempts to help you see reality using a sort of botched form of logical thinking.

[Mountaineer]

PS and Moda,

Thanks for giving it a whirl.  The important thing, from my perspective, is not to agree or disagree with what I gave as an example (I just whipped it together in a couple of minutes).  The important thing is to go through the process, with your answers to your questions, until you get to the part where you try to understand why you have "faith" in whatever it is you have "faith" or trust in.  If you are anything at all like me, you may discover some of those "rock solid" things you thought you believed are not quite so rock solid after all.  And, PS, for whatever it is worth, I'm much more of the engineer type than the scientist type 

For me, when I went through scores, maybe hundreds, of "why" type questions, I discovered after a whole lot of time and effort that I came to understand my fundamental presupposition was that Christian Scripture (commonly known as the Bible or OT and NT) were (based on my ability to objectively understand) the breathed inerrant Word of God (inspired) written by men and capturing exactly what God wanted them to capture and recognizing that it must be taken in context - no cherry picking verses.  Jesus is THE central message of the Bible.  We pay attention to and worship the Triune God, not the Scriptures.  A lot of "fundamental" Christians get it backwards, they tend to give priority to the Scriptures and not to Jesus; they tend to give priority to Law and not Gospel; they tend to think the Scriptures say something different to each person rather than the Scriptures being objective truth; they in essence are focusing on subjective feelings rather than the objective facts revealed when one uses Scripture to interpret Scripture.  The OT focuses toward Jesus and the NT tells about Jesus and what is to come.  Jesus is Israel reduced to one.  Looking at the cross, we see through Jesus to God dimly.  God, looking back through the cross and Jesus sees us perfectly justified and holy because of Jesus.  The more I studied, the more what I thought were inconsistencies were not ... but as I said, it took much time and effort to get there for my "engineering, science based, logical" upbringing and natural inclination to think I was smarter than most.  A different "lens" from which to read the Scriptures than all my previous attempts to understand Scripture was the key.  Basically, that key was to read Scripture and seeing Jesus throughout it from the very beginning to the very end.  I expect everyone's path is different.  However, all that said, it is not important what I think or what my path was.  It is only important to trust in the promises of God; call it faith, call it trust, call it whatever you like.  My continuing prayer for you guys is that God opens your eyes before you expire    I can't explain it very well, but I really do care about you.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

To address one area of inconsistency/curiosity for me....

Do you have anything to say of the fact that the Bible tells us how we can treat slaves, and how long we can own them? 

Do you believe that slavery is ok, then?

I'm just asking this because if you believe the Bible is the 100% accurate Word of God, it would seem that God condones slavery.

[moda0306]

PS and Moda,

Thanks for giving it a whirl.  The important thing, from my perspective, is not to agree or disagree with what I gave as an example (I just whipped it together in a couple of minutes).  The important thing is to go through the process, with your answers to your questions, until you get to the part where you try to understand why you have "faith" in whatever it is you have "faith" or trust in.  If you are anything at all like me, you may discover some of those "rock solid" things you thought you believed are not quite so rock solid after all.  And, PS, for whatever it is worth, I'm much more of the engineer type than the scientist type 

For me, when I went through scores, maybe hundreds, of "why" type questions, I discovered after a whole lot of time and effort that I came to understand my fundamental presupposition was that Christian Scripture (commonly known as the Bible or OT and NT) were (based on my ability to objectively understand) the breathed inerrant Word of God (inspired) written by men and capturing exactly what God wanted them to capture and recognizing that it must be taken in context - no cherry picking verses.  Jesus is THE central message of the Bible.  We pay attention to and worship the Triune God, not the Scriptures.  A lot of "fundamental" Christians get it backwards, they tend to give priority to the Scriptures and not to Jesus; they tend to give priority to Law and not Gospel; they tend to think the Scriptures say something different to each person rather than the Scriptures being objective truth; they in essence are focusing on subjective feelings rather than the objective facts revealed when one uses Scripture to interpret Scripture.  The OT focuses toward Jesus and the NT tells about Jesus and what is to come.  Jesus is Israel reduced to one.  Looking at the cross, we see through Jesus to God dimly.  God, looking back through the cross and Jesus sees us perfectly justified and holy because of Jesus.  The more I studied, the more what I thought were inconsistencies were not ... but as I said, it took much time and effort to get there for my "engineering, science based, logical" upbringing and natural inclination to think I was smarter than most.  A different "lens" from which to read the Scriptures than all my previous attempts to understand Scripture was the key.  Basically, that key was to read Scripture and seeing Jesus throughout it from the very beginning to the very end.  I expect everyone's path is different.  However, all that said, it is not important what I think or what my path was.  It is only important to trust in the promises of God; call it faith, call it trust, call it whatever you like.  My continuing prayer for you guys is that God opens your eyes before you expire    I can't explain it very well, but I really do care about you.

... Mountaineer

It appears that this "lens" that you use to read Scripture is to assume that they are the 100% true Word of God as you read it.  Put another way... Faith.  Otherwise it's no different than reading Lord of the Rings.  Logically, it can be no other way.  Statements either have empirical evidence or they don't.  So to the degree that you accepted certain assertions of the Bible, but did not have evidence of their occurrence, by logical certainty, you simply took them on faith.

To the degree that you could even consider READING something as revelation of its truth without any evidence, it MUST be faith bridging the gap... must it not?

But if I take that approach to anything, then my interpretation of Truth could go off in a number of wild directions... of course, if I'm willing to simply accept false premises on faith, tons of other conclusions could follow from that that simply aren't true.  Right?


Is there anything I'm saying here that is particularly incorrect?  I want to make sure that we're on the same page.

[moda0306]

I'm just confused about this thing you call Revelation.


In the course of life we experience things that color our view of reality.

Some we encounter every day (gravity) so we are pretty confident in what it will do to us.  Obviously, guys like Isaac Newton fine-tune the analysis, but most of the time we don't need to know exactly what his calculations would yield to know enough about gravity to allow us to use our knowledge of gravity to great gain (or to avoid great loss).

Some we have to trust science & a logical process to come to, because it's not immediately intuitive what reality truly is.  We tend to use processes that others can review and repeat to hash out any potential inaccuracies or invalid connections between cause/effect or premise/conclusion.  How to use insurance in finance is not intuitive, so we have to build a logical framework around risk, and conclude how to use insurance effectively.  How photosynthesis occurs is even less intuitive, so we have to use the scientific method to decide a LIKELIHOOD of truth around the process.

Some we might read, and to the degree that we don't have evidence that what we are reading is truth, we either accept it as an arbitrary statement, or accept it as truth based on faith.  To the degree we choose to accept it on faith because we feel the presence of God as we read it, it is a FEELING.  I don't mean like feeling sad or angry.  But for lack of a better term, it is a feeling in our soul.  You seem to want to avoid using this term, or acknowledging this presence in your soul in the discussion of Revelation.  This confuses me a bit, because if I lack that subjective experience, reading the Bible should either be like reading a logical argument or science text book (using objective processes to discover truth)... or it should read like Lord of the Rings (simply a fictional story).  To the degree that I accept it as truth without evidence OR a subjective experience... it's faith, pure and simple.  Blind faith.

To the degree that we simply accept something on Faith with NO subjective experience (feeling, God's presence, etc), and NO evidence, there's NOTHING unique about it.... right?  There's an INFINITE number of things I can accept on faith.  Very, very few are true, comparatively.  I only have so many tools in my mental/spiritual tool-belt to interpret reality.  If I have a FINITE amount of tools to use, and a VERY finite amount of actual true statements out there, I have to be very careful about how I employ and organize those tools.  I've tried asking about one of those... subjective experiences.  The reason is this...


One of the few things that I DO accept on faith is morality.  Because I have a surge of misery and shame that flows through me if I see a child about to lose his life if I'm able to stop it, I take it on faith that I SHOULD go rescue him if he's in danger.  Because I feel a surge of anger when someone cuts me off, I take it on Faith that you shouldn't drive like an asshole.  Because of the surge of disgust I feel if I seen an animal abused, I take it on faith that we ought not to abuse animals.

I can't PROVE any of this stuff.  I have to take it on faith based on my subjective experience.  A feeling about reality.  There are two aspects of this I'm willing to acknowledge.  1) It is very much correlated with a subjective FEELING that I have, and 2) I don't automatically expect people to accept my assertions as universal truths just because I state them. 

If you take away that subjective experience, simply believing something I read is faith, pure and simple.  There's no "knowledge" acquired there, unless it happens to be true... but then that isn't really unique, but for the fact that the knowledge came with NO evidence and NO subjective "feeling" or experience.  It seems to me calling that "Revelation" is putting a pretty fancy term on simply accepting something as true without evidence, and being lucky enough to be right.

I know I've repeated myself a lot here... 

I just want to make sure I'm being very clear, and repetitively so if need-be, about the nature of how we take in information about the world around us, and how your experience with Christianity fits into that.

Careful.. you are sounding more like a Gnostic/agnostic with every post moda

[moda0306]

interactive processing,


Well I am agnostic... at least I think I am... 

What do you mean?  I looked up gnositicism on Wikipedia... looks to be a search for spiritual enlightenment... perhaps I'm missing something.

And agnosticism seems to think this is all unknowable, which is what I believe... so how am I sounding like both??


Thanks for clarifying... you've probably already gone through this somewhere in the last 79 pages .

One of the few things that I DO accept on faith is morality. Because I have a surge of misery and shame that flows through me if I see a child about to lose his life if I'm able to stop it, I take it on faith that I SHOULD go rescue him if he's in danger. Because I feel a surge of anger when someone cuts me off, I take it on Faith that you shouldn't drive like an asshole. Because of the surge of disgust I feel if I seen an animal abused, I take it on faith that we ought not to abuse animals.

I can't PROVE any of this stuff. I have to take it on faith based on my subjective experience. A feeling about reality. There are two aspects of this I'm willing to acknowledge. 1) It is very much correlated with a subjective FEELING that I have, and 2) I don't automatically expect people to accept my assertions as universal truths just because I state them.
.

it is the search for spiritual enlightenment or direct knowledge, or as you describe it above "subjective experience. A feeling". agnostic is recognizing the unknown and the unknowable, it is entirely possible for somebody to be gnostic have a direct knowledge about some things (morality) and be agnostic about the nature of or existence of god or other big questions... aka gnostic/agnostic..

the tricky thing with gnosis is it is an experience of the transcendent, that means it is an experience that transcends language and symbols, using language and symbols to describe it is the equivalent of using a single atom to describe the entire empire state building (it cant be done) At best language and symbols can be used as a finger that points toward the experience, but it cant actually describe it, i don't have to take "on faith" the bibles scriptures or some preachers understanding of morality because at some level (conscious or not) i experience the transcendent reality. Reading the bible not as a scientific journal or the circular self confirming word of god but as a finger pointing toward an experience you are trying to bring from the unconscious (vague feelings) into the realm of consciousness or direct perception, changes the read quite a bit, and it resolves most of the conflicts between reason and religion...

much of religion from this perspective seems like confusing the map with the territory or eating the menu instead of the meal..

[Pointedstick]

Moda makes an excellent set of points. If I could condense it, I would say the following:

To believe that something is true, we either need sufficient valid and verifiable evidence that it is true, or else we need to gain a positive emotional feeling from believing it (or a negative one from not believing in it).

Because really, why should I believe that something is true when I cannot find any evidence that it is true, when not believing that it is true causes me no stress, and when my efforts to believe that it is true have gained me no satisfaction? As moda points out, there are innumerable things in this world I could believe are true that lack evidence for their truth and don't make me feel any better for believing. Why is religion special?

[moda0306]

Thanks PS...

You're a good interpreter/condenser. 

It seems to me that it would take a very odd God to actually want us to take a leap of faith that if applied to other areas of our life would have us believing EVERYTHING we hear, including things that conflict with what he wants us to believe.

"Odd" probably isn't the right word, either...

[moda0306]

I know we're kind of lobbing grenade after grenade at Mountaineer... but there aren't many people that have overtly stated to me that they believe the Bible to be very consistent, so I googled the consistency of the Bible, and this is what I came up with.

It is worth perusing.

Not that I think you have to retort to every one of these, Mountaineer, but to the degree you wish to comment on these alleged Biblical contradictions, I'd love to hear what you have to say.

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

[Pointedstick]

I imagine the answer will be that the context makes those seeming contradictions make sense.

Personally, my efforts to read the bible have been constantly hampered by this as well. The presence of context IMHO rarely resolves the obvious contradictions.

Many Christian friends who I have asked about this respond that the Bible is as much a work of history as a theological text, and as such, must be interpreted rather than taken literally, especially a lot of the old testament that's full of slavery, incest, and pronouncements about how to live life that nobody follows, even most Jews. They all say that if you try to take it all literally, you'll go crazy or develop terrible cognitive dissonance because of all of the obvious contradictions.

[moda0306]

So interactive processing,

It sounds like there IS some sort of subjective EXPERIENCE that has to be happening.  It's not just about hearing and acceptance, but something, as you say, transcendent.  The nature of the experience might transcend language, but the fact that it is some sort of experience is happening is undeniable... or would appear to be so.

This is sorta what I was getting at.  Whether deep inside our souls, or God finally connecting with our souls, The Word has to be creating some sort of FEELING or experience.  (I'm not afraid to call my morality a "feeling"... I'm not sure why Mountaineer doesn't like the word)

But I don't how you can have this without questioning it.  I question my views on morality.  BILLIONS of people are having what they TRULY believe to be the same experience through Islam.  Don't we have to question this supposed "transcendence?" Isn't it just another feeling that we have to question?

i question the words in my head too.. the transcendent experience is different than the revelation experience described by Christians and by Islamist's and its no wonder... the words in your (their) head can be in conflict with each other, and with the words in other peoples heads. The transcendent experience is one of inner silence of non duality, it involves stopping the voice in your head and getting past your ego and its dualistic view of the world. Is one persons experience of non duality harmony etc. different than another's ...i don't know.. experience is still subjective. but they don't conflict with one another until someone tries to describe them with words, and a bunch of people who haven't had the experience come along confuse the words for the thing itself and start a religion from it then start arguments with the people using different words..

[Mountaineer]

I have tried for many pages to explain how to read Scripture and why, the difference between Law and Gospel, the two kingdoms, and how to go about "hearing" the Word.  I think I'm not getting through to you with that approach since many of your questions are repeats, so I'm going to suggest another way.  For those who are sincerely questioning and genuinely want to learn rather than restate objections, I'm going to ask you do this:  Listen to all five of these sessions and document your questions along the way.  Maybe even read some of the books Desert suggested if you are truly interested in something to challenge your intellectual smugness if you are like I was.  After you have done that, come back to this thread with your questions - one or two at a time please in order of your priority.  Please put some effort into understanding some more about Jesus rather than expending all your energy in a memory dump of your concerns and diversions (my perception).  In terms of Stephen Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (paraphrased), be proactive, decide what you are trying to learn, prioritize, think win-win, seek first to understand, synergize and keep your self sharp.  So, if you are willing to do some work - great.  If not, hopefully you will find a way to not refuse THE only gift that has eternal importance before you croak.  Just think about the consequences if this is true "you are dead in your sins"; you can no more raise yourself from being spiritually dead than a person who is dead on the operating table can get up and leave the OR - faith comes by hearing the Word.  Be sure to check out Dr. Montgomery's web page - impressive credentials, even better than mine. 

Dr. John Warwick Montgomery [ http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk ]  answers the objections of unbelievers (5 parts) on Issues, Etc.

1. The Existence of God (mp3, 40:48, 16.4 MB)
http://issuesetc.org/podcast/Show81102008H2S2.mp3

2. Miracles (mp3, 40:48, 16.4 MB)
http://issuesetc.org/podcast/Show82102108H2S2.mp3

3. The Exclusive Claims of Christianity (mp3, 40:48, 16.4 MB)
http://issuesetc.org/podcast/Show83102208H2S2.mp3

4. The Problem of Evil (mp3, 40:48, 16.4 MB)
http://issuesetc.org/podcast/Show84102308H2S2.mp3

5. Errors & Contradictions in the Bible (mp3, 40:49, 16.4 MB)
http://issuesetc.org/podcast/Show85102408H2S2.mp3


... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

To address one area of inconsistency/curiosity for me....

Do you have anything to say of the fact that the Bible tells us how we can treat slaves, and how long we can own them? 

Do you believe that slavery is ok, then?

I'm just asking this because if you believe the Bible is the 100% accurate Word of God, it would seem that God condones slavery.

You did not give context to your question so I'll give you a short response based on my context:

Of course slavery is OK and condoned by God - I am a slave to Christ.  I won't get into what slavery meant at the time the Scriptures were written, but I will say almost everyone in the United States has been strongly influenced by events in our country's history so the word slavery means something to us it did not mean 2000+ years ago; and, I'm not saying all slavery is universally OK.  Time for some homework on your part. 

... Mountaineer