Interesting article about the role of Greenland:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/thank-g ... -greenland
Excerpt:
Did you know that if it were not for Greenland and all its ice we couldn’t be here? Our large population and high technology requires that we be living in between two ice ages in a 100,000-year ice age cycle at a time when the Sun is most stable and releasing the least amount of ultraviolet and x-ray radiation.
Today, the Sun is about 25 percent brighter than when God created the first life-forms on Earth. By all accounts it is too bright for any reasonable possibility of an ice age—and yet our planet is experiencing a delicate balance between ice and no ice manifesting itself as an ice age cycle. This is due to a “perfect storm”? of five amazing tectonic events.
... Mountaineer
Figuring Out Religion
Moderator: Global Moderator
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Mountaineer, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Much appreciated!
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
You are very welcome.iwealth wrote: Mountaineer, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Much appreciated!
... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
I had the priviledge of attending a wonderful funeral today for a dear friend. The funeral was full of hope, focused on the future day when we will be raised to live with God for eternity - reunited with perfect body and soul, free from the weight of sin, free from the strife and bickerings of this world, eternally blessed, reunited with our loved ones for everlasting joy. The funeral did not focus, as do so very many, on the life of the deceased, treating a somber crowd with a memorial service that looked into the rear view mirror, but instead cheerfully looked to a hopeful future with Jesus. And lastly, the sermon focused on the truth that we will have a body AND soul after the Last Day in the new heaven on earth, not merely be some soul or spirit drifting around on clouds looking down on humanity, or just an aimless soul becoming part of "the one" or the cosmos. Christianity is so very comforting, and so very truthful for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. The following are words from the opening of the funeral brochure:
We belong to eternity. --- If only, more frequently and more
gladly, we could see our life as the waiting angels do. In all
its long perspective, as a brief prelude and death as an
opening chord rather than a coda. Perhaps nothing
actually big happens here except as He see it in its relation
to the eternal world, except what reaches into eternity, the
death of a man, the baptism of a child, the Prayer of a
soldier.
It is for the tragedy of our blindness that we raise our arms
to You. Under the Christian reading of existence, created
by the coming of the eternal Son of God into time, fusing
time and eternity in the fire of atonement. Saving and
transfiguring life by the power of the Spirit of God, the soul
is lifted into eternity. My old catechism had much to say
about the old man and the new man, much that we no
longer see clearly. The new man lived in a new world in
which his sins were forgiven daily, his passing through time
was touched by the glory of eternity here and now, and his
life, though stained by time, was of the essence of the
Eternal. It was all so simple and clear with the simplicity
and clarity of God. A Person from eternity had come here
to free us from the changes of sin and time and make us
heirs of eternity. All we had to do was to believe.
Nothing more. Only our hands reaching out and up.
This is an excerpt from O. P. Kretzmann’s “The Pilgrim”?.
Kretzmann was president of Valparaiso University from 1940
to 1968.
... Mountaineer
We belong to eternity. --- If only, more frequently and more
gladly, we could see our life as the waiting angels do. In all
its long perspective, as a brief prelude and death as an
opening chord rather than a coda. Perhaps nothing
actually big happens here except as He see it in its relation
to the eternal world, except what reaches into eternity, the
death of a man, the baptism of a child, the Prayer of a
soldier.
It is for the tragedy of our blindness that we raise our arms
to You. Under the Christian reading of existence, created
by the coming of the eternal Son of God into time, fusing
time and eternity in the fire of atonement. Saving and
transfiguring life by the power of the Spirit of God, the soul
is lifted into eternity. My old catechism had much to say
about the old man and the new man, much that we no
longer see clearly. The new man lived in a new world in
which his sins were forgiven daily, his passing through time
was touched by the glory of eternity here and now, and his
life, though stained by time, was of the essence of the
Eternal. It was all so simple and clear with the simplicity
and clarity of God. A Person from eternity had come here
to free us from the changes of sin and time and make us
heirs of eternity. All we had to do was to believe.
Nothing more. Only our hands reaching out and up.
This is an excerpt from O. P. Kretzmann’s “The Pilgrim”?.
Kretzmann was president of Valparaiso University from 1940
to 1968.
... Mountaineer
Last edited by Mountaineer on Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8883
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Figuring Out Religion
I am starting to explore Buddhism and am discovering thats it seems to offer a lot of appealing insights. For example, here's what it says about religion:
...which makes waaaaaay too much sense to me. It's an interesting school of thought. I hesitate to even call it a religion. It's more like a philosophy.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm
The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origins in fear. The Buddha says:
Gripped by fear people go to sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines.
Dp. 188
Primitive humans found selves in a dangerous and hostile world, the fear of wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes were constantly with them. Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in good times, courage in times of danger and consolation when things went wrong. To this day, you will notice that people become more religious at times of crises, you will hear them say that the belief in a god or gods gives them the strength they need to deal with life. You will hear them explain that they believe in a particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered. All this seems to support the Buddha's teaching that the god-idea is a response to fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He replaced fear, not with irrational belief but with rational understanding.
The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not seem to be any evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions, all claiming that they alone have god's words preserved in their holy book, that they alone understand god's nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other religions do not. Some claim that god is masculine, some that she is feminine and others that it is neuter. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the existence of their god but they laugh in disbelief at the evidence other religions use to prove the existence of another god. It is not surprising that with so many different religions spending so many centuries trying to prove the existence of their gods that still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence has been found. Buddhists suspend judgement until such evidence is forthcoming.
...which makes waaaaaay too much sense to me. It's an interesting school of thought. I hesitate to even call it a religion. It's more like a philosophy.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
This is an interesting bit of United States history that concerns the relationship of Church and State.
... Mountaineer
Genius and Courage
on January 5, 2015 in FROM THE PRESIDENT, LUTHERAN WITNESS
Late in 1821, Rev. Frederick Schaeffer presided over the cornerstone laying of a new building for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of St. Matthew* in New York City. Afterward, he sent his homily to James Madison, the “Father of the U.S. Constitution,”? and chief author of the Bill of Rights.
Pastor Schaeffer’s address was rather strongly Lutheran, in spite of the general weakness of American Lutheranism prior to 1840. Madison replied:
Montpellier, Dec. 3rd ,1821
Revd Sir,–I have received, with your letter of November 19th, the copy of your address at the ceremonial of laying the corner-stone of St Matthew’s Church in New York.
It is a pleasing and persuasive example of pious zeal, united with pure benevolence and of a cordial attachment to a particular creed, untinctured with sectarian illiberality. It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.
In return for your kind sentiments, I tender assurances of my esteem and my best wishes.
James Madison
Schaeffer had struck several notes that resonated with Madison, so much so that the aging former president and constitutional patriarch noted “a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations.”? Wow. The drafter of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”?), wrote, “The genius and courage of Luther led the way.”?
What is the “due distinction”? “between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God”?? This is a reference to Luther’s two kingdoms doctrine. Historic, pre-Reformation Catholicism perpetuated the myth of the “Donation of Constantine”?–that the Emperor Constantine (ca. A.D. 317) had given authority to the papacy to rule the Roman Empire, and that the Church was supposedly given the divine right and authority to govern both itself and the world. This was used to justify all sorts of mischief through the centuries following, where the Church meddled in governmental affairs and vice versa.
A second approach emerged at the time of the Reformation among the so-called radical reformers. They asserted that society should be ruled only by the Bible. This led to either a radical withdrawal from participation in civil society (e.g., the Amish), or to the view that a “Christian government”? is needed to institute biblical principles upon society (e.g., the Puritans and their legacy). The views of both the Roman Catholic as well as the radical reformers resulted in a “mixing the kingdoms.”?
Luther’s view, however, is unique. In view of texts like “The truth shall make you free”? (John 8:32) and “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”? (Matt. 22:21), Luther asserted that the conscience, the religious convictions of the individual Christian, belong to God and not the government. The Bible teaches two distinct realms.
The “right hand”? realm or kingdom is that of the Church. In this kingdom there is to be no coercion, no force, no corporal punishment. It is a kingdom ruled solely by the Word of God in service to the Gospel of Christ. “My kingdom is not of this world”? (John 18:36). It is a kingdom whose glory is hidden in weakness, small numbers, persecution, reviling, etc. It makes no sense to reason whatsoever–things like “the resurrection of the body,”? “baptismal regeneration,”? “the body and blood of Christ,”? in the Lord’s Supper, etc.
The “left hand”? kingdom is temporal government. This kingdom, too, is established by God (Rom. 13:1–7). It flows form the Fourth Commandment (“Honor thy father and mother”?). This kingdom operates not by revelation, but by reason or natural law. The Gentiles, “when they do the things of the law, demonstrate that the law is written on their hearts”? (Rom. 2:14) The governing authorities “do not bear the sword in vain”? (Rom. 13:4). Temporal government is established by God for maintaining good order, peace, to thwart evil (by just war and other means), etc. When government forbids the Gospel, however, or commands us to act against a Christian conscience informed by the inerrant Word of God, then “we must obey God rather than men”? (Acts 5:29).
When natural law or reason is functioning properly, it agrees with the Ten Commandments. In fact, the law “written on the heart”? is the point of contact with the Law revealed in the Ten Commandments. That’s why the preaching of the Law hits home with people who don’t know Christ. God designed it that way as preparation for the Gospel! When it is commonly said that America was founded as a “Christian Nation,”? that is only true in the sense that the overwhelming number of the founders were Christians, and that they recognized the benefit Christianity affords government.
Our founders recognized that “Christian morality”? agreed with reason and natural law (law evident to any reasonable person). What was new in America was that there was no nationally established church or religion. But from the beginning, the national government was favorably oriented toward religion and acted to promote it. Even Jefferson (who moved from Deism to Unitarianism) went to church every Sunday of his presidency at Christian services held in the House Chambers! Offering government facilities today for services would be viewed by many secularists and courts as a gross violation of the “separation of church and state.”? Yet, there are dozens of such examples of our founders recognizing the great blessing of religion. For the government to thwart religion–so far as it contributes to morality and peace (and this is why orthodox Islam is problematic)–is foolish and self-destructive.
As James Madison indicated to Pastor Schaeffer, our founders had a view of the relationship of church and state that was much closer to Luther than that of modern secularists. The Church serves the state by providing a moral, charitable and decent people. The state serves the Church by providing peace and order, a context in which religious ends may prosper. The state is not to legislate matters of religious conscience. The church is not to meddle in the affairs of the state, nor is it to expect the state to operate according to anything other than sound reason.
“Luther rendered greater services to mankind. . . . At present it is more extensively admitted than formerly that no religious or political institution can be salutary and prosperous, unless it is established on the principles for which he become the successful champion.”?
I agree with Pastor Schaeffer . . . and James Madison.
... Mountaineer
Genius and Courage
on January 5, 2015 in FROM THE PRESIDENT, LUTHERAN WITNESS
Late in 1821, Rev. Frederick Schaeffer presided over the cornerstone laying of a new building for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of St. Matthew* in New York City. Afterward, he sent his homily to James Madison, the “Father of the U.S. Constitution,”? and chief author of the Bill of Rights.
Pastor Schaeffer’s address was rather strongly Lutheran, in spite of the general weakness of American Lutheranism prior to 1840. Madison replied:
Montpellier, Dec. 3rd ,1821
Revd Sir,–I have received, with your letter of November 19th, the copy of your address at the ceremonial of laying the corner-stone of St Matthew’s Church in New York.
It is a pleasing and persuasive example of pious zeal, united with pure benevolence and of a cordial attachment to a particular creed, untinctured with sectarian illiberality. It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.
In return for your kind sentiments, I tender assurances of my esteem and my best wishes.
James Madison
Schaeffer had struck several notes that resonated with Madison, so much so that the aging former president and constitutional patriarch noted “a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations.”? Wow. The drafter of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”?), wrote, “The genius and courage of Luther led the way.”?
What is the “due distinction”? “between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God”?? This is a reference to Luther’s two kingdoms doctrine. Historic, pre-Reformation Catholicism perpetuated the myth of the “Donation of Constantine”?–that the Emperor Constantine (ca. A.D. 317) had given authority to the papacy to rule the Roman Empire, and that the Church was supposedly given the divine right and authority to govern both itself and the world. This was used to justify all sorts of mischief through the centuries following, where the Church meddled in governmental affairs and vice versa.
A second approach emerged at the time of the Reformation among the so-called radical reformers. They asserted that society should be ruled only by the Bible. This led to either a radical withdrawal from participation in civil society (e.g., the Amish), or to the view that a “Christian government”? is needed to institute biblical principles upon society (e.g., the Puritans and their legacy). The views of both the Roman Catholic as well as the radical reformers resulted in a “mixing the kingdoms.”?
Luther’s view, however, is unique. In view of texts like “The truth shall make you free”? (John 8:32) and “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”? (Matt. 22:21), Luther asserted that the conscience, the religious convictions of the individual Christian, belong to God and not the government. The Bible teaches two distinct realms.
The “right hand”? realm or kingdom is that of the Church. In this kingdom there is to be no coercion, no force, no corporal punishment. It is a kingdom ruled solely by the Word of God in service to the Gospel of Christ. “My kingdom is not of this world”? (John 18:36). It is a kingdom whose glory is hidden in weakness, small numbers, persecution, reviling, etc. It makes no sense to reason whatsoever–things like “the resurrection of the body,”? “baptismal regeneration,”? “the body and blood of Christ,”? in the Lord’s Supper, etc.
The “left hand”? kingdom is temporal government. This kingdom, too, is established by God (Rom. 13:1–7). It flows form the Fourth Commandment (“Honor thy father and mother”?). This kingdom operates not by revelation, but by reason or natural law. The Gentiles, “when they do the things of the law, demonstrate that the law is written on their hearts”? (Rom. 2:14) The governing authorities “do not bear the sword in vain”? (Rom. 13:4). Temporal government is established by God for maintaining good order, peace, to thwart evil (by just war and other means), etc. When government forbids the Gospel, however, or commands us to act against a Christian conscience informed by the inerrant Word of God, then “we must obey God rather than men”? (Acts 5:29).
When natural law or reason is functioning properly, it agrees with the Ten Commandments. In fact, the law “written on the heart”? is the point of contact with the Law revealed in the Ten Commandments. That’s why the preaching of the Law hits home with people who don’t know Christ. God designed it that way as preparation for the Gospel! When it is commonly said that America was founded as a “Christian Nation,”? that is only true in the sense that the overwhelming number of the founders were Christians, and that they recognized the benefit Christianity affords government.
Our founders recognized that “Christian morality”? agreed with reason and natural law (law evident to any reasonable person). What was new in America was that there was no nationally established church or religion. But from the beginning, the national government was favorably oriented toward religion and acted to promote it. Even Jefferson (who moved from Deism to Unitarianism) went to church every Sunday of his presidency at Christian services held in the House Chambers! Offering government facilities today for services would be viewed by many secularists and courts as a gross violation of the “separation of church and state.”? Yet, there are dozens of such examples of our founders recognizing the great blessing of religion. For the government to thwart religion–so far as it contributes to morality and peace (and this is why orthodox Islam is problematic)–is foolish and self-destructive.
As James Madison indicated to Pastor Schaeffer, our founders had a view of the relationship of church and state that was much closer to Luther than that of modern secularists. The Church serves the state by providing a moral, charitable and decent people. The state serves the Church by providing peace and order, a context in which religious ends may prosper. The state is not to legislate matters of religious conscience. The church is not to meddle in the affairs of the state, nor is it to expect the state to operate according to anything other than sound reason.
“Luther rendered greater services to mankind. . . . At present it is more extensively admitted than formerly that no religious or political institution can be salutary and prosperous, unless it is established on the principles for which he become the successful champion.”?
I agree with Pastor Schaeffer . . . and James Madison.
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Good discussion of being "called".
Excerpts:
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel”? (Mark 1:15, ESV). This is the urgent call of God to sinners; though unlike in the time of Jonah, we have no timetable. Whether the call is to sinners who already trust that Christ’s forgiveness is for them, or whether it is to sinners who remain in their sin, the call is the same: “repent and believe in the gospel.”?
....
It is really nothing more than refusing to be of, to belong to, the world. Here, we mean the world as that which is opposed to God and His Christ. “If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you”? (John 15:19, ESV).
https://bishopandchristian.wordpress.co ... 25/called/
... Mountaineer
Excerpts:
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel”? (Mark 1:15, ESV). This is the urgent call of God to sinners; though unlike in the time of Jonah, we have no timetable. Whether the call is to sinners who already trust that Christ’s forgiveness is for them, or whether it is to sinners who remain in their sin, the call is the same: “repent and believe in the gospel.”?
....
It is really nothing more than refusing to be of, to belong to, the world. Here, we mean the world as that which is opposed to God and His Christ. “If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you”? (John 15:19, ESV).
https://bishopandchristian.wordpress.co ... 25/called/
... Mountaineer
Last edited by Mountaineer on Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Book Review
The Age of Nothing: How We Sought to Live Since the Death of God
Peter Watson
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 624pp, £30
Culture and the Death of God
Terry Eagleton
Yale University Press, 264pp, £18.99
There can be little doubt that Nietzsche is the most important figure in modern atheism, but you would never know it from reading the current crop of unbelievers, who rarely cite his arguments or even mention him. Today’s atheists cultivate a broad ignorance of the history of the ideas they fervently preach, and there are many reasons why they might prefer that the 19th-century German thinker be consigned to the memory hole. With few exceptions, contemporary atheists are earnest and militant liberals. Awkwardly, Nietzsche pointed out that liberal values derive from Jewish and Christian monotheism, and rejected these values for that very reason. There is no basis – whether in logic or history – for the prevailing notion that atheism and liberalism go together. Illustrating this fact, Nietzsche can only be an embarrassment for atheists today. Worse, they can’t help dimly suspecting they embody precisely the kind of pious freethinker that Nietzsche despised and mocked: loud in their mawkish reverence for humanity, and stridently censorious of any criticism of liberal hopes.
Against this background, it is refreshing that Peter Watson and Terry Eagleton take Nietzsche as the central reference point for their inquiries into the retreat of theism.
Read entire review here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/201 ... t-religion
... Mountaineer
The Age of Nothing: How We Sought to Live Since the Death of God
Peter Watson
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 624pp, £30
Culture and the Death of God
Terry Eagleton
Yale University Press, 264pp, £18.99
There can be little doubt that Nietzsche is the most important figure in modern atheism, but you would never know it from reading the current crop of unbelievers, who rarely cite his arguments or even mention him. Today’s atheists cultivate a broad ignorance of the history of the ideas they fervently preach, and there are many reasons why they might prefer that the 19th-century German thinker be consigned to the memory hole. With few exceptions, contemporary atheists are earnest and militant liberals. Awkwardly, Nietzsche pointed out that liberal values derive from Jewish and Christian monotheism, and rejected these values for that very reason. There is no basis – whether in logic or history – for the prevailing notion that atheism and liberalism go together. Illustrating this fact, Nietzsche can only be an embarrassment for atheists today. Worse, they can’t help dimly suspecting they embody precisely the kind of pious freethinker that Nietzsche despised and mocked: loud in their mawkish reverence for humanity, and stridently censorious of any criticism of liberal hopes.
Against this background, it is refreshing that Peter Watson and Terry Eagleton take Nietzsche as the central reference point for their inquiries into the retreat of theism.
Read entire review here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/201 ... t-religion
... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
This is from another Forum I read. I thought this illustrious group of critical thinkers might enjoy it. Thanks to Pr. Daniel Fienen for writing the post.
... Mountaineer
Does God need us to defend Him? No - God doesn't need us to do anything for Him. There is nothing that we can do for God that He is not quite capable of providing for Himself entirely without our help. God needs our help the same way that a mother needs her six year old to help her in the kitchen. It is out of love for the child, and to allow the child to express her love for her mother by her actions, that the mother accepts the help the child can give and to help in her development that she encourages the help.
It is salutary and humbling for us to realize that at our best and greatest, God accepts our efforts to serve Him purely out of grace, never out of need. When we have done our best we must confess that we are unworthy servants, we have only done what was asked of us and not made that good of job of it at that.
Does God need us to proclaim the Gospel? No - God has ways of spreading the Gospel that are better than what we can do. God could do it Himself directly, as He revealed Himself to the prophets and apostles. God could send angels to do it far more powerfully and eloquently that our poor feeble efforts and preaching and teaching. God could bring back great preachers from the past, give them a quick refresher course in the current cultural milieu, and turn them loose.
Yet, God has entrusted to us, His people on earth, the Church Militant, the Gospel of reconciliation, and commanded that we spread it abroad. Part of that proclamation needs to be the clearing up of misinformation and wrong headed ideation about God, His nature and works. Strictly speaking we do not and cannot defend God. But we do defend the Gospel proclamation from being corrupted by misinformation and false teaching. If some things are true, other things - contradictory to the truth of the Gospel - are false. If lies are being told about a friend and we stand by doing nothing to correct the lies, are we being a good friend? If lies are told about God and we do nothing to expose them as lies, are we being faithful? Are we being loving toward those who promote and believe those lies? Are we being loving toward those who would be led not to God but to falsehood by those lies if we let them stand unchallenged?
In the Post-modern mind set, the only falsehood is to assert truth. I would not drive over a bridge designed by a thorough going Post-modern who considers tables of strengths of materials and calculations of the carrying capacity of designs to be merely one group's opinion and of no more value that the opinions of those who believe that bridges should be built according to aesthetic consideration with no regard for strength. Should I entrust my soul to those who believe that all talk of God is mere emotive myth making and all roads lead to heaven?
... Mountaineer
Does God need us to defend Him? No - God doesn't need us to do anything for Him. There is nothing that we can do for God that He is not quite capable of providing for Himself entirely without our help. God needs our help the same way that a mother needs her six year old to help her in the kitchen. It is out of love for the child, and to allow the child to express her love for her mother by her actions, that the mother accepts the help the child can give and to help in her development that she encourages the help.
It is salutary and humbling for us to realize that at our best and greatest, God accepts our efforts to serve Him purely out of grace, never out of need. When we have done our best we must confess that we are unworthy servants, we have only done what was asked of us and not made that good of job of it at that.
Does God need us to proclaim the Gospel? No - God has ways of spreading the Gospel that are better than what we can do. God could do it Himself directly, as He revealed Himself to the prophets and apostles. God could send angels to do it far more powerfully and eloquently that our poor feeble efforts and preaching and teaching. God could bring back great preachers from the past, give them a quick refresher course in the current cultural milieu, and turn them loose.
Yet, God has entrusted to us, His people on earth, the Church Militant, the Gospel of reconciliation, and commanded that we spread it abroad. Part of that proclamation needs to be the clearing up of misinformation and wrong headed ideation about God, His nature and works. Strictly speaking we do not and cannot defend God. But we do defend the Gospel proclamation from being corrupted by misinformation and false teaching. If some things are true, other things - contradictory to the truth of the Gospel - are false. If lies are being told about a friend and we stand by doing nothing to correct the lies, are we being a good friend? If lies are told about God and we do nothing to expose them as lies, are we being faithful? Are we being loving toward those who promote and believe those lies? Are we being loving toward those who would be led not to God but to falsehood by those lies if we let them stand unchallenged?
In the Post-modern mind set, the only falsehood is to assert truth. I would not drive over a bridge designed by a thorough going Post-modern who considers tables of strengths of materials and calculations of the carrying capacity of designs to be merely one group's opinion and of no more value that the opinions of those who believe that bridges should be built according to aesthetic consideration with no regard for strength. Should I entrust my soul to those who believe that all talk of God is mere emotive myth making and all roads lead to heaven?
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Re: Figuring Out Religion
I came to Christianity through Zen Buddhism. I call myself a contemplative Christian. For me, the factual truth of Christian stories is not important compared to the insights they impact about how I am related to God, other people, the Universe, and eternity. The deep internal meanings of the Gospels give great peace. The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon, but it shows you how you must go.
Re: Figuring Out Religion
My unscientific guess would be neither. If I want answers to religious questions I don't look to science. There are other sources for that.Desert wrote: Does Science Argue for or against God?
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
My perspective would be that the "physist" types are shifting toward believing "someone" had to have created it all. The "biologist" types seem to be still more wedded to the idea of random chance started it all. I have no proof for these statements, just my reading the tea leaves.Desert wrote: Does Science Argue for or against God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjGPHF5A6Po&sns=em
6 minute video
On a side note, the book "A Rational Christian Look at UFOs and Extraterrestrials - Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men" by Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples, and Mark Clark, 2002, expounds on many of the ideas like "fine tuning" presented by Eric Metaxas in the YouTube video. I thought the video was well done and presented a complex idea very simply and easy to understand way for the non-scientific minded; but that said, if one is ruled by emotion more than logic, his argument really won't convince many who are of the mindset: I already know what I want to believe so it must be true. I think Metaxas' video is more for those with somewhat open minds.
... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
This post will be long. It is commentary from another forum I read about the ISIS articles that I thought you would appreciate, and perhaps get your grey matter stimulated a bit. The commentators vary from liberal to conservative tilts but are all Christians. First the two articles, links have been posted already in another thread but I'm including them here for clarity.
... Mountaineer
Atlantic article: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... ts/384980/
NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opini ... 22000&_r=0
Commentary 1
The NY Times piece brings out what was troubling me about the other article. It seems possible to conclude from the other article that Islam is, must be, and will inevitably be what ISIS is today. So the reaction to all Islam will tend to be "We know you're not ISIS, but you will be someday. Your religion requires it."
Isn't that a little like judging Christianity from the prevailing attitudes during the Crusades, or perhaps during the Spanish Inquisition? Or the Massachusetts Bay Colony? Or Salem during the witch mania? Or any period of deadly anti-Semitism?
Is Islam, or a majority of Muslims, or the prevailing "true" Islam destined to be ISIS-like?
Commentary 2
I think we need to keep in mind that there are three parties to this discussion, not two. It is not Christianity vs Islam. What we have is really what you might call the Enlightenment* vs. Christianity and Islam. The New York Times represents the Enlightenment view, as it uses the current sins of Islam to rehearse its favorite list of the sins of Christianity.
The Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials are two [in Pr. Austin's list] that stand out. The common conception of the Spanish Inquisition is that it was driven by the Catholic Church and that most of the deaths occurred at the hands of the clerics. The truth is that there were two inquisitions, the Royal and Church. The vast majority of deaths happened through the Royal courts. Far fewer were sentenced to death by the Church. Furthermore, the Church courts were much more likely to follow rules of procedure and evidence than the Royal courts. Finally, a similar number of Jews, "witches" and religious dissenters were being killed by Protestant courts in Germany and England at the same time. This misconception of the Inquisition, that it was the exclusive work of "Papists", was promoted both by Protestants and by the Enlightenment. It is sometimes refereed to as the Black Legend.
A similar thing can be said about the Salem Witch Trials. The popular image is of witch hunts lead by Puritan clerics. The truth is that is did not originate among clerics, nor was it driven by clerics. Many in the clergy opposed the witch trials and helped to bring them to an end.
The Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials are favorite talking point among the New Atheists. They use them to argue for the moral equivalence of all religion over against reason and science. Now imagine if a Christian would draw a moral parallel between ISIS and progressive atheism. Why remind Christians that they are not morally superior but not at the same time remind the enlightened atheists of the same thing?
*I'm looking for a better description of Enlightenment era criticism of organized religion.
Commentary 3
Must Islam inevitably become ISIS? There are many Muslims in the world today, and have been for centuries who are peaceful people, even willing to live peaceably with their neighbors. Also, there seem to me in my limited knowledge of Islam some tendencies of ISIS that are at odds with classic, Islam - especially the tendency to slaughter fellow Muslims. That is not in the foundational texts.
Still there are some elements of the foundation and founding of Islam that seem to me to make it easier for Islam to morph if not into ISIS into a militant aggressive religious/political movement.
Contrasting to Christianity. Christianity was founded as a minority movement with little or no political power and at best tolerated by the states in which it existed and spread. To be sure, after some centuries when it came to have access to political power, Christians soon became as adept as any in exercising the power that they had gained and abusing it. But for the first formative centuries, Christianity had little power. Christianity also had at its founding a concept of separation of church and state. "Render unto Caesar" and all that. It also had little or no governmental power in its earliest days. So Christianity has a tradition of living under non-Christian government, and not feeling that it had to dominate.
Now, as said, as soon is Christians gained access to governmental power and influence, Christians proved as corruptible as any by power. But that is a story for down the road.
Contrast this to the founding of Islam. Within the lifetime of its founding, its founder and leader had gained control over the cities and region of its founding, religious and civil control. Also, within the lifetime of its founding, its founder and leader became a warlord, leading the army of the faithful against their enemies and beginning a campaign of conquest. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." Muhammad sought a kingdom of this world for Islam and sought to bring the whole world under Islamic control. And there is no natural separation of religious and civil in Islam. Which makes freedom of religion problematic under Islam.
None of this makes ISIS inevitable. But the seeds are present. The ISIS ideology is perhaps a selective reading of the foundational Islamic texts, and for the extremes to which it goes, it must ignore some of the material. The extent to which the core leadership is devoutly Islamic and the extent to which they are opportunists using religion as a cloak to their greed, hatred, and cruelty is a question that I cannot answer.
We Christians need to remember that our hands have not always been clean, and we need to carefully watch lest the power we have been granted corrupts us. But that does not excuse others either or make them less of enemies out to subjugate or obliterate us.
In order to counteract ISIS and their allies we need not only to understand that they are terrorists, but we need to understand the roots of their ideology in the classic Islamic texts, as the articles in the Atlantic and elsewhere indicate. Whether or not the leadership are devout or opportunists, it is by their use of these texts that they attract followers and have created a world view to justify their actions. Ignoring the roots in Islam will defeat any effort to counter the ideology and leave only military options.
Commentary 4
I find it interesting how the intellectual community seems to delight in pointing out how Christians have supported injustices and atrocities over the ages - even perhaps suggesting the Christianity was responsible for that evil. The Inquisitions, Salem witch trials, Crusades, slavery and Jim Crow have all been laid to Christianity's door.
Yet now when it comes to Islamic Extremist Terrorists, it is at least impolite to mention that they are Islamic, as though the Islamic faith espoused by ISIS and such groups, and the religious fervor of their fighters were an unimportant accidental coincidence. Recently in reporting the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian Egyptians on a beach in Libya, the White House in its initial statements referred to the simply as Egyptians, their Christianity - although a reason given by ISIS for their killing - being apparently unimportant to understanding the gravity of the event. Yet when 3 Muslims were killed in North Carolina, even though initial investigation suggests it was more about a dispute over parking and noise in an apartment complex, the White House highlighted that they were Muslims killed.
4 Jews were killed in the attack on a Jewish deli in Paris, and the White House tried to suggest that their being Jews were accidental. I guess when one attacks a Jewish deli perhaps Jews might be there to be killed but who would think about that?
Commentary 5
ISIS per se was not inevitable. However, Islam is an aggressive religion charged with bringing all people to their proper role as followers of Allah. Many of the Muslims who have immigrated to the US and Europe come with at least a partial goal of bringing Islam to the forefront in these lands. Islam has spread by the sword because that is part of who and what it is. Our failure to understand that will keep us always back on our heels in the inevitable confrontations.
Muslim nations lived in peace with their neighbors over the last 400 years because they had no real choice. They lacked the military and economic strength to impose their will. What we see today is the outgrowth of wealth for some Muslim nations and the willingness of those nations to finance others to spread the influence of their religion. The Saudi government is afraid of the radicals, but many of the radicals, especially those from the West, have been trained in institutions funded by the Saudis.
As followers of the Christ, we must always remember that Islam is not a benign group of fellow seekers after righteousness--it is a tool of Satan to attack the true Church. I suspect Mohammed did receive his ideas from Allah just as Joseph Smith received his from Moroni. Convenient names for demons.
Commentary 6
An observation made by my son last night: when Christians have tortured or killed in the name of Christ, they did so AGAINST the words of their Lord in the Sacred Scripture; when Muslims have tortured or killed in the name of Allah, it would be very hard to argue that they did so AGAINST the words of the Koran. I think that's at the heart of it and it eviscerates the typical enlightenment-shaped perspective that would lump these two together as just "imagine there's no heaven, no religion too."
I thought the article's take on the group that postpones this out to the future and only by the action of God and so works towards personal cleansing resonated with certain of the groups Chaim Potok described where some Jews hated Zionism not because they disagreed with the final vision; but they disagreed with human hands bringing it to be.
... Mountaineer
Atlantic article: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... ts/384980/
NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opini ... 22000&_r=0
Commentary 1
The NY Times piece brings out what was troubling me about the other article. It seems possible to conclude from the other article that Islam is, must be, and will inevitably be what ISIS is today. So the reaction to all Islam will tend to be "We know you're not ISIS, but you will be someday. Your religion requires it."
Isn't that a little like judging Christianity from the prevailing attitudes during the Crusades, or perhaps during the Spanish Inquisition? Or the Massachusetts Bay Colony? Or Salem during the witch mania? Or any period of deadly anti-Semitism?
Is Islam, or a majority of Muslims, or the prevailing "true" Islam destined to be ISIS-like?
Commentary 2
I think we need to keep in mind that there are three parties to this discussion, not two. It is not Christianity vs Islam. What we have is really what you might call the Enlightenment* vs. Christianity and Islam. The New York Times represents the Enlightenment view, as it uses the current sins of Islam to rehearse its favorite list of the sins of Christianity.
The Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials are two [in Pr. Austin's list] that stand out. The common conception of the Spanish Inquisition is that it was driven by the Catholic Church and that most of the deaths occurred at the hands of the clerics. The truth is that there were two inquisitions, the Royal and Church. The vast majority of deaths happened through the Royal courts. Far fewer were sentenced to death by the Church. Furthermore, the Church courts were much more likely to follow rules of procedure and evidence than the Royal courts. Finally, a similar number of Jews, "witches" and religious dissenters were being killed by Protestant courts in Germany and England at the same time. This misconception of the Inquisition, that it was the exclusive work of "Papists", was promoted both by Protestants and by the Enlightenment. It is sometimes refereed to as the Black Legend.
A similar thing can be said about the Salem Witch Trials. The popular image is of witch hunts lead by Puritan clerics. The truth is that is did not originate among clerics, nor was it driven by clerics. Many in the clergy opposed the witch trials and helped to bring them to an end.
The Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials are favorite talking point among the New Atheists. They use them to argue for the moral equivalence of all religion over against reason and science. Now imagine if a Christian would draw a moral parallel between ISIS and progressive atheism. Why remind Christians that they are not morally superior but not at the same time remind the enlightened atheists of the same thing?
*I'm looking for a better description of Enlightenment era criticism of organized religion.
Commentary 3
Must Islam inevitably become ISIS? There are many Muslims in the world today, and have been for centuries who are peaceful people, even willing to live peaceably with their neighbors. Also, there seem to me in my limited knowledge of Islam some tendencies of ISIS that are at odds with classic, Islam - especially the tendency to slaughter fellow Muslims. That is not in the foundational texts.
Still there are some elements of the foundation and founding of Islam that seem to me to make it easier for Islam to morph if not into ISIS into a militant aggressive religious/political movement.
Contrasting to Christianity. Christianity was founded as a minority movement with little or no political power and at best tolerated by the states in which it existed and spread. To be sure, after some centuries when it came to have access to political power, Christians soon became as adept as any in exercising the power that they had gained and abusing it. But for the first formative centuries, Christianity had little power. Christianity also had at its founding a concept of separation of church and state. "Render unto Caesar" and all that. It also had little or no governmental power in its earliest days. So Christianity has a tradition of living under non-Christian government, and not feeling that it had to dominate.
Now, as said, as soon is Christians gained access to governmental power and influence, Christians proved as corruptible as any by power. But that is a story for down the road.
Contrast this to the founding of Islam. Within the lifetime of its founding, its founder and leader had gained control over the cities and region of its founding, religious and civil control. Also, within the lifetime of its founding, its founder and leader became a warlord, leading the army of the faithful against their enemies and beginning a campaign of conquest. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." Muhammad sought a kingdom of this world for Islam and sought to bring the whole world under Islamic control. And there is no natural separation of religious and civil in Islam. Which makes freedom of religion problematic under Islam.
None of this makes ISIS inevitable. But the seeds are present. The ISIS ideology is perhaps a selective reading of the foundational Islamic texts, and for the extremes to which it goes, it must ignore some of the material. The extent to which the core leadership is devoutly Islamic and the extent to which they are opportunists using religion as a cloak to their greed, hatred, and cruelty is a question that I cannot answer.
We Christians need to remember that our hands have not always been clean, and we need to carefully watch lest the power we have been granted corrupts us. But that does not excuse others either or make them less of enemies out to subjugate or obliterate us.
In order to counteract ISIS and their allies we need not only to understand that they are terrorists, but we need to understand the roots of their ideology in the classic Islamic texts, as the articles in the Atlantic and elsewhere indicate. Whether or not the leadership are devout or opportunists, it is by their use of these texts that they attract followers and have created a world view to justify their actions. Ignoring the roots in Islam will defeat any effort to counter the ideology and leave only military options.
Commentary 4
I find it interesting how the intellectual community seems to delight in pointing out how Christians have supported injustices and atrocities over the ages - even perhaps suggesting the Christianity was responsible for that evil. The Inquisitions, Salem witch trials, Crusades, slavery and Jim Crow have all been laid to Christianity's door.
Yet now when it comes to Islamic Extremist Terrorists, it is at least impolite to mention that they are Islamic, as though the Islamic faith espoused by ISIS and such groups, and the religious fervor of their fighters were an unimportant accidental coincidence. Recently in reporting the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian Egyptians on a beach in Libya, the White House in its initial statements referred to the simply as Egyptians, their Christianity - although a reason given by ISIS for their killing - being apparently unimportant to understanding the gravity of the event. Yet when 3 Muslims were killed in North Carolina, even though initial investigation suggests it was more about a dispute over parking and noise in an apartment complex, the White House highlighted that they were Muslims killed.
4 Jews were killed in the attack on a Jewish deli in Paris, and the White House tried to suggest that their being Jews were accidental. I guess when one attacks a Jewish deli perhaps Jews might be there to be killed but who would think about that?
Commentary 5
ISIS per se was not inevitable. However, Islam is an aggressive religion charged with bringing all people to their proper role as followers of Allah. Many of the Muslims who have immigrated to the US and Europe come with at least a partial goal of bringing Islam to the forefront in these lands. Islam has spread by the sword because that is part of who and what it is. Our failure to understand that will keep us always back on our heels in the inevitable confrontations.
Muslim nations lived in peace with their neighbors over the last 400 years because they had no real choice. They lacked the military and economic strength to impose their will. What we see today is the outgrowth of wealth for some Muslim nations and the willingness of those nations to finance others to spread the influence of their religion. The Saudi government is afraid of the radicals, but many of the radicals, especially those from the West, have been trained in institutions funded by the Saudis.
As followers of the Christ, we must always remember that Islam is not a benign group of fellow seekers after righteousness--it is a tool of Satan to attack the true Church. I suspect Mohammed did receive his ideas from Allah just as Joseph Smith received his from Moroni. Convenient names for demons.
Commentary 6
An observation made by my son last night: when Christians have tortured or killed in the name of Christ, they did so AGAINST the words of their Lord in the Sacred Scripture; when Muslims have tortured or killed in the name of Allah, it would be very hard to argue that they did so AGAINST the words of the Koran. I think that's at the heart of it and it eviscerates the typical enlightenment-shaped perspective that would lump these two together as just "imagine there's no heaven, no religion too."
I thought the article's take on the group that postpones this out to the future and only by the action of God and so works towards personal cleansing resonated with certain of the groups Chaim Potok described where some Jews hated Zionism not because they disagreed with the final vision; but they disagreed with human hands bringing it to be.
Last edited by Mountaineer on Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8883
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Also from the ISIS article:
He has the courage to admit it!http://www.theatlantic.com/features/arc ... ts/384980/
Cerantonio quoted a Prophetic saying, that to die without pledging allegiance is to die jahil (ignorant) and therefore die a “death of disbelief.”? Consider how Muslims (or, for that matter, Christians) imagine God deals with the souls of people who die without learning about the one true religion. They are neither obviously saved nor definitively condemned. Similarly, Cerantonio said, the Muslim who acknowledges one omnipotent god and prays, but who dies without pledging himself to a valid caliph and incurring the obligations of that oath, has failed to live a fully Islamic life. I pointed out that this means the vast majority of Muslims in history, and all who passed away between 1924 and 2014, died a death of disbelief. Cerantonio nodded gravely. “I would go so far as to say that Islam has been reestablished”? by the caliphate.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
This is an excellent sermon by a family member's pastor that you can either read or listen to: GODS AND FOOLISHNESS
"The Law of God is obvious. It is summarized for us in Exodus 20, but in the end it is as obvious as that other law that God has made, the law of gravity. You don’t have to like the law of gravity, or “believe in it,”? for it to be true. No matter what you think about it, it will not be denied; it must be taken into account, or serious injury or death will follow. You don’t have to believe it, but if you jump off your roof, you’ll quickly find out just how uncompromising the law of gravity is. And though the time-frame might be wider for the consequences of ignoring or disobeying the Law of God, it is no less uncompromising. Consider first the Second Table of the Law: the commandments we usually number from 6-10. Who will say that you can completely avoid the consequences of ignoring or transgressing those commandments? Look at it this way: will it go better or worse for you if you honor your parents? When you were a child, were things more peaceful when you obeyed your parents or when you disobeyed? Regardless of how good at parenting they were, and taking into account the fact that sinners will sin no matter how well other people keep the law, with very few exceptions it will go better for you if you honor and obey and respect your parents, as well as the other authorities that stem from the office of father. Will it be better or worse for you if you ......." (click the link for the whole sermon).
https://bishopandchristian.wordpress.co ... /#comments
... Mountaineer
"The Law of God is obvious. It is summarized for us in Exodus 20, but in the end it is as obvious as that other law that God has made, the law of gravity. You don’t have to like the law of gravity, or “believe in it,”? for it to be true. No matter what you think about it, it will not be denied; it must be taken into account, or serious injury or death will follow. You don’t have to believe it, but if you jump off your roof, you’ll quickly find out just how uncompromising the law of gravity is. And though the time-frame might be wider for the consequences of ignoring or disobeying the Law of God, it is no less uncompromising. Consider first the Second Table of the Law: the commandments we usually number from 6-10. Who will say that you can completely avoid the consequences of ignoring or transgressing those commandments? Look at it this way: will it go better or worse for you if you honor your parents? When you were a child, were things more peaceful when you obeyed your parents or when you disobeyed? Regardless of how good at parenting they were, and taking into account the fact that sinners will sin no matter how well other people keep the law, with very few exceptions it will go better for you if you honor and obey and respect your parents, as well as the other authorities that stem from the office of father. Will it be better or worse for you if you ......." (click the link for the whole sermon).
https://bishopandchristian.wordpress.co ... /#comments
... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Good 12 minute sermon on the resurrection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiBkgMly9j4
... Mountaineer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiBkgMly9j4
... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Re: Figuring Out Religion
I didn't listen listen to the sermon but I did click on the link and the picture that accompanied it was thought provoking.Mountaineer wrote: Good 12 minute sermon on the resurrection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiBkgMly9j4
... Mountaineer
Are you aware that this is generally agreed to be the the last authentic verse of the gospel of Mark? If you don't believe me you can check out the commentary in practically any bible that has notes in the margins.
This has been a source of puzzlement to New Testament scholars and most seem to believe that there must have been more that has simply been lost but I wonder if Mark really did mean to end it there, kind of like when you watch a movie and it ends all of a sudden.
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
madbean,madbean wrote: I didn't listen listen to the sermon but I did click on the link and the picture that accompanied it was thought provoking.
Are you aware that this is generally agreed to be the the last authentic verse of the gospel of Mark? If you don't believe me you can check out the commentary in practically any bible that has notes in the margins.
This has been a source of puzzlement to New Testament scholars and most seem to believe that there must have been more that has simply been lost but I wonder if Mark really did mean to end it there, kind of like when you watch a movie and it ends all of a sudden.
Yes, I'm aware. Here are some notes from my Lutheran Study Bible on the subject in case you are interested. Are they consistent with your teachings? As an aside, the sermon really is good, might be worth the 10 minutes or so it would take you to listen.
... Mountaineer
Mark’s Abrupt Ending. As the ESV text note for 16:9–20 shows, these verses do not appear in a number of early Greek manuscripts. This likely means they were not part of Mark’s original composition, which may have used a “suspended”? ending that left readers wanting to learn more about Jesus and His disciples. The longer ending was perhaps added later to satisfy people’s interests.
Concordia Publishing House (2009-10-31). The Lutheran Study Bible (Kindle Locations 114923-114925). Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition.
MARK—NOTE ON 16:1–8 Three women undertake the job of properly preparing Jesus’ body for burial, which the press of time prevented earlier. When they arrive at the tomb, they find it empty and hear the wonderful (and temporarily paralyzing) message that Jesus has risen from the dead and the tomb is empty. In spite of Jesus’ clear predictions on at least three occasions (8:31–32; 9:31; 10:33–34), His disciples do not believe. Jesus rises from the dead, proclaiming His victory to all creation and providing for all believers a resurrection to eternal life on the Last Day.
Concordia Publishing House (2009-10-31). The Lutheran Study Bible (Kindle Locations 116928-116933). Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition.
MARK—NOTE ON 16:9–11 Mary Magdalene sees the resurrected Jesus and tells the disciples about Him, but they do not believe it. Sinful human nature cannot believe. Doubt assails our hearts at every opportunity. Yet faith, like life, comes as a pure gift from God. He keeps us in the true faith unto life everlasting. • “Lord, by the stripes which wounded Thee, From death’s dread sting Thy servants free That we may live and sing to Thee. Alleluia!”? Amen. (LSB 464:5) MARK—NOTE ON 16:12 another form. The unnamed disciples were kept from recognizing Jesus. walking into the country. On the road to Emmaus. Cf Lk 24:13–34. MARK—NOTE ON 16:13 they did not believe them. Even after a second eyewitness report, the disciples did not believe that Jesus was risen from the dead (cf Jn 20:24–25). Tertulian: “It was well, however, that the unbelief of the disciples was so persistent, in order that to the last we might consistently maintain that Jesus revealed Himself to the disciples as none other than the Christ of the prophets”? (ANF 3:422). MARK—NOTE ON 16:12–13 The pattern of unbelief continues in spite of additional eyewitness accounts. Like us, the disciples are slow of heart and deaf to the good news of their reconciliation with God through Christ’s resurrection. Yet, He still rose for them and commissioned them to proclaim the Gospel everywhere. That is still the gracious commission to the Church from Christ.
Concordia Publishing House (2009-10-31). The Lutheran Study Bible (Kindle Locations 116940-116953). Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition.
MARK—NOTE ON 16:12 another form. The unnamed disciples were kept from recognizing Jesus. walking into the country. On the road to Emmaus. Cf Lk 24:13–34. MARK—NOTE ON 16:13 they did not believe them. Even after a second eyewitness report, the disciples did not believe that Jesus was risen from the dead (cf Jn 20:24–25). Ter: “It was well, however, that the unbelief of the disciples was so persistent, in order that to the last we might consistently maintain that Jesus revealed Himself to the disciples as none other than the Christ of the prophets”? (ANF 3:422). MARK—NOTE ON 16:12–13 The pattern of unbelief continues in spite of additional eyewitness accounts. Like us, the disciples are slow of heart and deaf to the good news of their reconciliation with God through Christ’s resurrection. Yet, He still rose for them and commissioned them to proclaim the Gospel everywhere. That is still the gracious commission to the Church from Christ. • “Christ is arisen From the grave’s dark prison. So let our joy rise full and free; Christ our comfort true will be. Alleluia!”? Amen.
Concordia Publishing House (2009-10-31). The Lutheran Study Bible (Kindle Locations 116944-116954). Concordia Publishing House. Kindle Edition.
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Re: Figuring Out Religion
I did go back and listen to the whole thing just to be fair before posting my comment.Mountaineer wrote: madbean,
Yes, I'm aware. Here are some notes from my Lutheran Study Bible on the subject in case you are interested. Are they consistent with your teachings? As an aside, the sermon really is good, might be worth the 10 minutes or so it would take you to listen.
My impression was that it was thoroughly dishonest.
The preacher begins by asserting as an established historical fact that Jesus was buried in a tomb and that it was found to be empty with the stone rolled away. He then proceeds to demolish arguments against the resurrection as recorded in the Bible, like that his body was stolen, to convince the listener that the only truly plausible explanation is that Jesus rose from the dead just as the Bible declares.
This kind of argument works with the totally ignorant if you don't question the original premise.
There is, in fact, no historical evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus was buried in a tomb and that the stone was rolled away. If it really happened, then nobody outside some of the gospel writers bothered to record it. The Bible also says that there was an earthquake and probably an eclipse of the sun accompanying this event and nobody outside the Bible bothered to record these either. And also Jesus wasn't the only person to rise from the dead that day. The Bible says that many righteous people arose from the dead that day and appeared to many in Jerusalem. It also says that the veil in the temple was ripped in two from top to bottom when he died which must have been quite an amazing spectacle to those who were there even though it only garners a slight mention in one of the gospels.
And yet there is not one corroborating mention of ANY of these extraordinary events outside of the gospel accounts. And even more amazing, if they all really happened one would think that ALL of the gospel accounts would have recorded them when, in fact, most of these events are described in only one of the accounts.
So again, as I said, I found this presentation of the resurrection to be thoroughly dishonest and also deceptive.
Last edited by madbean on Sat May 02, 2015 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Tim Keller, Session 5, on evidence for God with different worldviews (Gods) discussed - might be of interest to those who wonder if there is a God and those who question why a good God who is all powerful could allow bad things to happen:
http://livestream.com/redeemer-nyc/even ... dium=email
Next month's session will be about Jesus.
... Mountaineer
http://livestream.com/redeemer-nyc/even ... dium=email
Next month's session will be about Jesus.
... Mountaineer
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. Psalm 146:3
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Thanks MT!
I've been listening to some debates with William Lane Craig. I think he's BY FAR the most intellectually challenging Christian apologist I've listened to. I still don't "buy it," but I've at least found a gateway to what I think will help me down the line of either solidifying my views or starting to accept more of Christian assertions.
I've been listening to some debates with William Lane Craig. I think he's BY FAR the most intellectually challenging Christian apologist I've listened to. I still don't "buy it," but I've at least found a gateway to what I think will help me down the line of either solidifying my views or starting to accept more of Christian assertions.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
Re: Figuring Out Religion
I was once a devout Christian but today I have serious doubts about whether Jesus was the Son of God who rose from the dead and gives us eternal life if we will only believe that he is who the Bible says he is and that he really did rise from the dead.
Or else the alternative is that we're going to hell to be tortured forever and ever if we don't believe.
Living in a universe, if not a multi-verse, with many possibilities I have to admit that I could be living in a universe where this is true but I think the odds that I landed in that very nasty and cruel universe are so infinitesimal that I don't lose any sleep over it. But I admit it is possible.
Basically, I believe that if there is a God I tend to think he's not the complete and utter asshole that religious people present him to be. Again, I could be wrong and some religion may, indeed be true but I doubt it and I hope not.
Or else the alternative is that we're going to hell to be tortured forever and ever if we don't believe.
Living in a universe, if not a multi-verse, with many possibilities I have to admit that I could be living in a universe where this is true but I think the odds that I landed in that very nasty and cruel universe are so infinitesimal that I don't lose any sleep over it. But I admit it is possible.
Basically, I believe that if there is a God I tend to think he's not the complete and utter asshole that religious people present him to be. Again, I could be wrong and some religion may, indeed be true but I doubt it and I hope not.
Last edited by madbean on Mon May 11, 2015 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8883
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Figuring Out Religion
This is my biggest problem too. If all of this stuff is correct, then God is a horrific mass-murdering monster by all known human moral standards. If this is incorrect because His morality is not comprehensible by human standards, then we cannot describe His actions using human standards either--things like calling Him "a loving God" or "a God of mercy." That's a double standard that doesn't make sense; if we can't call Him a mass murderer for killing everyone in the world except a few people, then we can't describe as merciful the act of allowing His Son to be murdered to atone for everyone's sins as long as they believe it, because mercy and murder are human moral constructions that surely don't apply to God if the "God's morals are incomprehensible to us" rubric is the right one to interpret His actions. So much of this stuff is self-refuting if you juxtapose the different assertions, but these contradictions are hand-waved away instead of actually confronted.madbean wrote: Basically, I believe that if there is a God I tend to think he's not the complete and utter asshole that religious people present him to be. Again, I could be wrong and some religion may, indeed be true but I doubt it and I hope not.
And if all of this is missing the point because I'm supposed to feel God's love through Jesus rather than teasing apart all the logical contradictions in scripture and law, then I'm afraid I've lost what the appeal is supposed to be, unless I was depressed or directionless and looking for someone to give me hope and meaning and a purpose in life.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8883
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Figuring Out Religion
Maybe I will approach this from another angle: assuming that it really is all true, and that the fate of my immortal soul hangs in the balance of whether I believe that Jesus died for my sins on the cross 2,000 years ago.
If this is true, then obviously I need to believe it to save my soul. Priority #1. No brainer.
Priority #2 is trying to save as many other people as I can once I realize the moral weight of the people I know and love possibly being tortured for all eternity in a lake of fire for failure to believe this critical truth. This should trump virtually everything in this life. Life ends in a few short decades or years; what's that compared to an eternity of bliss or torment? The only obvious morally legitimate choice I can see making is to become a monk type person and eschew all pleasure in this life that would distract me from the critical work of converting others to save their immortal souls. I should do only the things that sustain my body and mind to the extent that these things help me to save others. Anything else would be terribly selfish when the task was so great. It would be to elevate the brief pleasures of this world over the endless pleasures of eternity. That don't make no sense.
This would lead me to a problem: the gospel is really not all that convincing to people who think about it logically and haven't been brainwashed from birth to believe it. There will always be people who were raised with religion or derive emotional satisfaction from ritual, and those who are not very intelligent or thoughtful, and those who are hurting and suffering and directionless--all people who are highly open to religious messages. Those people are easy. But how should I approach everyone else?
Since I myself am an intelligent person, and most of my friends and family members are intelligent people who are very highly to logical contradictions, how can I convince them? Trying to refute the contradictions they point out is something I can't really do (as evidenced by every religious person who I have ever talked to failing to succeed at this); telling them to consult a religious expert it something I know they're not going to do… what am I to do to prevent the people I love from being tortured forever?
If this is true, then obviously I need to believe it to save my soul. Priority #1. No brainer.
Priority #2 is trying to save as many other people as I can once I realize the moral weight of the people I know and love possibly being tortured for all eternity in a lake of fire for failure to believe this critical truth. This should trump virtually everything in this life. Life ends in a few short decades or years; what's that compared to an eternity of bliss or torment? The only obvious morally legitimate choice I can see making is to become a monk type person and eschew all pleasure in this life that would distract me from the critical work of converting others to save their immortal souls. I should do only the things that sustain my body and mind to the extent that these things help me to save others. Anything else would be terribly selfish when the task was so great. It would be to elevate the brief pleasures of this world over the endless pleasures of eternity. That don't make no sense.
This would lead me to a problem: the gospel is really not all that convincing to people who think about it logically and haven't been brainwashed from birth to believe it. There will always be people who were raised with religion or derive emotional satisfaction from ritual, and those who are not very intelligent or thoughtful, and those who are hurting and suffering and directionless--all people who are highly open to religious messages. Those people are easy. But how should I approach everyone else?
Since I myself am an intelligent person, and most of my friends and family members are intelligent people who are very highly to logical contradictions, how can I convince them? Trying to refute the contradictions they point out is something I can't really do (as evidenced by every religious person who I have ever talked to failing to succeed at this); telling them to consult a religious expert it something I know they're not going to do… what am I to do to prevent the people I love from being tortured forever?
Last edited by Pointedstick on Mon May 11, 2015 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Figuring Out Religion
PS,
Maybe somebody will be able to directly answer your questions, but I'd like to address what I see as a mischaracterization: "the fate of my immortal soul hangs in the balance of whether I believe that Jesus died for my sins on the cross 2,000 years ago".
That makes it sound like some kind of arbitrary test. But "belief" is almost always better to understood to mean "trust" than to mean "assent that xyz intellectual proposition as true". Belief in Jesus is trust in His sacrifice to save you.
Why do you need saving? Well, I would say something along the lines of: there is an objective morality, and fallen humans are unable to meet it. You may disagree with these, but I would say that you likely have fallen short and continue to fall short of at least your own standards, which illustrates how hard it is to meet God's; and being fallen (again, by your own standards) you should not be too quick to assume that you're right in your conclusion that there is no objective morality, especially when it is part of the (near) universal human experience to believe that there is. [I think we both agree that there is no objective morality outside of revelation. Where we may disagree is on whether it's not worth seeking out that revelation, and/or whether or not we've found it.]
So you either believe (trust in) your efforts, your niceness, your trying, your rituals, your religion, in other words you make yourself into God; OR you believe (trust in) Jesus's salvific sacrifice on the Cross, admit you are a sinner in continuing need of His help, and accept that help. Those are the only two options.
And I doubt most are persuaded by doing extrabiblical historical research into whether or not the sacrifice took place, which seems to be the focus of the way you're phrasing things. For me, at least, the better question is, does the story that I just outlined fit the human story? Does it describe our situation? And does it offer hope? I believe that it does, in a way that no other option does.
Maybe somebody will be able to directly answer your questions, but I'd like to address what I see as a mischaracterization: "the fate of my immortal soul hangs in the balance of whether I believe that Jesus died for my sins on the cross 2,000 years ago".
That makes it sound like some kind of arbitrary test. But "belief" is almost always better to understood to mean "trust" than to mean "assent that xyz intellectual proposition as true". Belief in Jesus is trust in His sacrifice to save you.
Why do you need saving? Well, I would say something along the lines of: there is an objective morality, and fallen humans are unable to meet it. You may disagree with these, but I would say that you likely have fallen short and continue to fall short of at least your own standards, which illustrates how hard it is to meet God's; and being fallen (again, by your own standards) you should not be too quick to assume that you're right in your conclusion that there is no objective morality, especially when it is part of the (near) universal human experience to believe that there is. [I think we both agree that there is no objective morality outside of revelation. Where we may disagree is on whether it's not worth seeking out that revelation, and/or whether or not we've found it.]
So you either believe (trust in) your efforts, your niceness, your trying, your rituals, your religion, in other words you make yourself into God; OR you believe (trust in) Jesus's salvific sacrifice on the Cross, admit you are a sinner in continuing need of His help, and accept that help. Those are the only two options.
And I doubt most are persuaded by doing extrabiblical historical research into whether or not the sacrifice took place, which seems to be the focus of the way you're phrasing things. For me, at least, the better question is, does the story that I just outlined fit the human story? Does it describe our situation? And does it offer hope? I believe that it does, in a way that no other option does.