Figuring Out Religion

[screwtape]

What is the difference between bits of information and the atomic particles that constitute everything around us? What is the difference between the simulation programmer and a God? Both the simulation hypothesis and the Christian story of  creation coupled with our basic scientific understanding of matter and reality seem to be completely compatible.

Both suggest intelligent design, for sure. To be completely compatible with the Christian story we will have to discover that there is at least a virtual hell as opposed to just a bit bucket although I do know some Christians believe in only a bit bucket (annihilation). And how can one be saved from the virtual hell if it exists? The simulation programmer hasn't made that clear, at least to my knowledge, despite my own theory.

[MediumTex]

Self-created meaning can only ever be make believe; behind it is always the knowledge that this only matters because I have arbitrarily decided it matters. In fact, there can logically be no responsibility to create one's own meaning; whence would such responsibility derive?  In the absence of any source for such a responsibility, there is no meaning but permission to pretend there is as long as you apply it only to yourself. That is to say, self-created meaning is simply meaninglessness+delusion.

... Mountaineer

I think that it's very hard to say whether a particular bit of meaning is self-created or store bought.

In a sense, all meaning is self-created in that our brains are constantly assembling reality in a way that we can comprehend.

For anyone who has ever taken a hallucinogenic drug, it is often surprising to find just how fragile our window to the world is and how easily it can be distorted or broken.  One of the purposes of that window to the world is to allow meaning to enter and coagulate in our consciousness, but the idea of a bit of meaning being self-created vs. ready made would probably make no sense whatsoever to a person who six hours ago realized that if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it is simply because they aren't listening.  I don't know that you can ever really nail down the source of meaning in any kind of meaningful way.

Did the universe have meaning before humans appeared on the scene?

From whose perspective, and according to whose definition? 

[doodle]

I think that it's very hard to say whether a particular bit of meaning is self-created or store bought.

In a sense, all meaning is self-created in that our brains are constantly assembling reality in a way that we can comprehend.

For anyone who has ever taken a hallucinogenic drug, it is often surprising to find just how fragile our window to the world is and how easily it can be distorted or broken.  One of the purposes of that window to the world is to allow meaning to enter and coagulate in our consciousness, but the idea of a bit of meaning being self-created vs. ready made would probably make no sense whatsoever to a person who six hours ago realized that if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it is simply because they aren't listening.  I don't know that you can ever really nail down the source of meaning in any kind of meaningful way.

Did the universe have meaning before humans appeared on the scene?

From whose perspective, and according to whose definition? 

I was more directing the question to mountaineer. Meaning seems to be something which is entirely subjective because without a subject, there can be no such thing as meaning in the same way that there is no sound without an ear or light without an eye.

[Mountaineer]

Did the universe have meaning before humans appeared on the scene?

From whose perspective, and according to whose definition? 

I was more directing the question to mountaineer. Meaning seems to be something which is entirely subjective because without a subject, there can be no such thing as meaning in the same way that there is no sound without an ear or light without an eye.

Why do you think that to be the case?  Two people standing side by side are next to a radio playing a tune and pulsing light in rhythm to the beat and they begin to wonder what is happening.  One of the two is deaf.  One is blind.  Does the sound wave or light wave exist regardless of whether it is perceived by one, two, neither, both, if the same person is both blind and deaf?

I can stare at the Grand Canyon all day and see and hear and smell and touch and maybe even taste much.  However, without an understanding of how it may have been created, who or what did the creation, the properties of errosion and gravity, the hardness of the rock, weather patterns from the last long period of time, am I dreaming, is it a very realistic painting, how have others perceived this, I would not really understand the entire situation and its possible meaning.  And that meaning has to come from something external to me.  Yes?  No?  Why?

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

But are you saying you actually believe there is a true "Word of God"?

Not that I've ever seen.  I suspect it may be a little busy two handfuls of hierarchy levels away to be worrying about us little ants.  Imagine the fantastic vantage point where it gets to observe all the billions upon billions upon billions of multiverses!

[MachineGhost]

But seriously, I think a more cerebral message would make Sundays a lot more interesting for you.  I'm not thinking you'd end up tearfully kneeling at the alter (well, maybe), but I think you could find a more intellectually-stimulating environment.  Maybe something to consider.  There's no rule against exploring some other church situations.

Hell, I'm surprised MT even goes to church, but I guess that stifling tradition of the Deep South is just too much to overcome when you have a family and have to live in the community.

[doodle]

Here's a video that is well worth watching.  The scenes of nature are really beautiful.  The science is beautiful.  It's a fascinating little video that we all should watch.  It is essentially a statement on fine-tuning, but I think it's a very nice video to watch regardless of one's religious/philosophical views.  So grab a malbec, sit back and enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1899&v=VoI2ms5UHWg

The video should clarify....all of this is not essential to "life", but simply "life" as we know it. Im also perfectly comfortable with the infinite universes hypothesis so it wouldnt surprise me that one universe looks like this.

Im not ruling out the possibilty of a higher creative force that has played a role in all this, but i can say almost for certain that any intelligence capable of creating galaxies and the incredible life forms within them could not be the same intelligence or rather, lack thereof that is contained in any of the worlds organized religions. My mind recoils in horror at the idea that the creator of the universe could similarly be incapable of anything better than the bible.

[MachineGhost]

Im not ruling out the possibilty of a higher creative force that has played a role in all this, but i can say almost for certain that any intelligence capable of creating galaxies and the incredible life forms within them could not be the same intelligence or rather, lack thereof that is contained in any of the worlds organized religions. My mind recoils in horror at the idea that the creator of the universe could similarly be incapable of anything better than the bible.

You stole the words right out of my mouth!

Don't forget to include all the other numerous sacred religious texts as well!

In a way, the religious "God" is the same thing as the extraterrestrial alien problem.  What is more realistic for first contact by superior entities, The Day the Earth Stood Still or abducting humans in the dark of the night to perform experiments on them?  Sacred religious texts are the equivalent of the latter.

[doodle]

Im not ruling out the possibilty of a higher creative force that has played a role in all this, but i can say almost for certain that any intelligence capable of creating galaxies and the incredible life forms within them could not be the same intelligence or rather, lack thereof that is contained in any of the worlds organized religions. My mind recoils in horror at the idea that the creator of the universe could similarly be incapable of anything better than the bible.

You stole the words right out of my mouth!

Don't forget to include all the other numerous sacred religious texts as well!

Sorry to single out the Bible, on the whole they are all crap. We dont need iron age solutions or morality to address 21st century issues. We dont need 7 billion people divided and killing each other over a bunch of mythological nonsense. The Koran, Bible, Torah all belong on bookshelves next to  the stories of Zeus and Thor and all the other mythological mumbo jumbo of our past.

[doodle]

On the other hand, Im completely comfortable with people involved in a personal spiritual quest for something greater. Im comfortable with the fact that some people might believe in god and others not as long as they acknowledge that it is a belief and is not backed by any proof. on the subject of God i find strident atheists as intolerable as their christian counterparts.

[Libertarian666]

What is the difference between bits of information and the atomic particles that constitute everything around us? What is the difference between the simulation programmer and a God? Both the simulation hypothesis and the Christian story of  creation coupled with our basic scientific understanding of matter and reality seem to be completely compatible.

Both suggest intelligent design, for sure. To be completely compatible with the Christian story we will have to discover that there is at least a virtual hell as opposed to just a bit bucket although I do know some Christians believe in only a bit bucket (annihilation). And how can one be saved from the virtual hell if it exists? The simulation programmer hasn't made that clear, at least to my knowledge, despite my own theory.

What language is the simulation program written in, do you think?  It feels like Fortran to me.

A real programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language.

[MediumTex]

But seriously, I think a more cerebral message would make Sundays a lot more interesting for you.  I'm not thinking you'd end up tearfully kneeling at the alter (well, maybe), but I think you could find a more intellectually-stimulating environment.  Maybe something to consider.  There's no rule against exploring some other church situations.

Hell, I'm surprised MT even goes to church, but I guess that stifling tradition of the Deep South is just too much to overcome when you have a family and have to live in the community.

I transcribed the following from one of my Joseph Campbell lectures.  It's good, and it might provide some insight into why I go to church.

Now, what is the problem with our churches and our temples?  Do they have to disintegrate?  Can't they help people anymore?  Of course they can help people.  They can help people by giving them these [mythological] symbols. 

The rite, the ritual, is what counts in a religion.  A ritual is an opportunity to participate in the archetypes of the soul.  A ritual is a manifestation and organization of mythological symbols, and by participating in the rite you participate in these symbols.  Where the churches and synagogues go wrong is by telling you what the symbols mean.  The main thing is that they should be there. 

Now look at what's happening in the Catholic church.  They had one of the strongest, most magnificent ritual situations in the modern western world, and now they have vulgarized it.  They're translating it into English...not very good English.  It was in great Latin, and when you are in a church and this Latin comes out it has weight--and if you want to know what it means it's on the other side of your prayer book so what do you need to have it translated for? 

A person's notion of God is a function of his own spiritual magnitude, and so just because everybody mentions the same name--the Christians all say Jesus and the Jews all say Yahweh...no two people have the same concept of God.  They can't.

If I built an open air cathedral overlooking the Grand Canyon and I started a Grand Canyon-themed religion called "Canyonism", it would be foolish for me to try to tell people the meaning of the Grand Canyon.  Anything I could possibly say about the canyon in an attempt to explain its spiritual significance would probably just make me sound like a self-important tour guide. 

What I would need to do would be to provide my flock of Canyonites with a place and a process for understanding the Grand Canyon for themselves.  I would have created the "place" by building the cathedral, and to create the "process" I would need to create rituals that would essentially put people in the mood to grasp deep canyon truth.  You can't expect people to just walk in off the street and commune with a landscape--you need a bit of spiritual foreplay to create the proper mental ambiance to get everyone warmed up.  That's the role of the rituals.  That is how you facilitate direct connection with what Campbell calls the "archetypes of the soul."

[Mountaineer]

This is from a person on another forum I read.  What do you think?  Any particular one of these 15 you think is the biggie?

... Mountaineer

My theories as to why people don't like "organized" religion. These theories, with a smile, a shoeshine, a tux and the ability to tap dance for tourists at the corner of 47th and Broadway will get you almost nothing. I present them in no particular order. (And somewhere soon, maybe in an Op-Ed article, I will tell you why believe the Church is thriving and a critical part of the lives of many people and in our society.) But for now, I humbly explain why people don't like "organized" religion.

1. The "over-selling" of religion during the 1950s.
2. The scandals - going back to the 1950s - indicating hypocrisy and debunking the myth that Christianity and all its people were unblemished and great.
3. Making the church a platform for rigid moralism.
4. The 1960s challenges to all authority, following abuse of authority by government and institutions of society, including education, business and the church.
5. The refusal of large segments of the church to accept "new" knowledge and science, and telling people they had to believe in things - like a six-day young-earth creation - that they could not believe.
6. The refusal to deal creatively with "modern" society, including such things as racism, classism, art, literature, public media, and tying the church to political ideologies such as capitalism, anti-Marxism, and "wealth-has-to-be-yours" economic policies.
7. Lousy preaching.
9. Dreary worship.
10. Parents failing their parental duties.
11. Obsession with controversies over theological nuances that few understand.
12. Infighting in congregations.
13. Wearing out members with constant pleas for more work on committees.
14. Modern society's chief heresy, namely that whatever we want - including God - we can create ourselves.
15. Television evangelists.

[doodle]

But seriously, I think a more cerebral message would make Sundays a lot more interesting for you.  I'm not thinking you'd end up tearfully kneeling at the alter (well, maybe), but I think you could find a more intellectually-stimulating environment.  Maybe something to consider.  There's no rule against exploring some other church situations.

Hell, I'm surprised MT even goes to church, but I guess that stifling tradition of the Deep South is just too much to overcome when you have a family and have to live in the community.

I transcribed the following from one of my Joseph Campbell lectures.  It's good, and it might provide some insight into why I go to church.

Now, what is the problem with our churches and our temples?  Do they have to disintegrate?  Can't they help people anymore?  Of course they can help people.  They can help people by giving them these [mythological] symbols. 

The rite, the ritual, is what counts in a religion.  A ritual is an opportunity to participate in the archetypes of the soul.  A ritual is a manifestation and organization of mythological symbols, and by participating in the rite you participate in these symbols.  Where the churches and synagogues go wrong is by telling you what the symbols mean.  The main thing is that they should be there. 

Now look at what's happening in the Catholic church.  They had one of the strongest, most magnificent ritual situations in the modern western world, and now they have vulgarized it.  They're translating it into English...not very good English.  It was in great Latin, and when you are in a church and this Latin comes out it has weight--and if you want to know what it means it's on the other side of your prayer book so what do you need to have it translated for? 

A person's notion of God is a function of his own spiritual magnitude, and so just because everybody mentions the same name--the Christians all say Jesus and the Jews all say Yahweh...no two people have the same concept of God.  They can't.

If I built an open air cathedral overlooking the Grand Canyon and I started a Grand Canyon-themed religion called "Canyonism", it would be foolish for me to try to tell people the meaning of the Grand Canyon.  Anything I could possibly say about the canyon in an attempt to explain its spiritual significance would probably just make me sound like a self-important tour guide. 

What I would need to do would be to provide my flock of Canyonites with a place and a process for understanding the Grand Canyon for themselves.  I would have created the "place" by building the cathedral, and to create the "process" I would need to create rituals that would essentially put people in the mood to grasp deep canyon truth.  You can't expect people to just walk in off the street and commune with a landscape--you need a bit of spiritual foreplay to create the proper mental ambiance to get everyone warmed up.  That's the role of the rituals.  That is how you facilitate direct connection with what Campbell calls the "archetypes of the soul."

And if that isn't enough then you throw a few of the nonbelievers over the cliff and tell the children in the congregation that if they don't believe that the canyon will swallow them alive where they will suffer for all eternity.

[MediumTex]

This is from a person on another forum I read.  What do you think?  Any particular one of these 15 you think is the biggie?

... Mountaineer

My theories as to why people don't like "organized" religion. These theories, with a smile, a shoeshine, a tux and the ability to tap dance for tourists at the corner of 47th and Broadway will get you almost nothing. I present them in no particular order. (And somewhere soon, maybe in an Op-Ed article, I will tell you why believe the Church is thriving and a critical part of the lives of many people and in our society.) But for now, I humbly explain why people don't like "organized" religion.

1. The "over-selling" of religion during the 1950s.

I wasn't aware it had been oversold back in the '50s.

2. The scandals - going back to the 1950s - indicating hypocrisy and debunking the myth that Christianity and all its people were unblemished and great.

Irrelevant to question of whether God exists.

3. Making the church a platform for rigid moralism.

The Bible is a platform for rigid moralism. 

4. The 1960s challenges to all authority, following abuse of authority by government and institutions of society, including education, business and the church.

I don't know.  I didn't come along until 1970.

5. The refusal of large segments of the church to accept "new" knowledge and science, and telling people they had to believe in things - like a six-day young-earth creation - that they could not believe.

Yes, this is problematic and makes the church seem like the same type of dummies who wouldn't look through Galileo's telescope because they were afraid of what they might see.

6. The refusal to deal creatively with "modern" society, including such things as racism, classism, art, literature, public media, and tying the church to political ideologies such as capitalism, anti-Marxism, and "wealth-has-to-be-yours" economic policies.

I would say that not only has the church not dealt with modern society creatively, I would say that it mostly hasn't dealt with it at all.

7. Lousy preaching.

That's a church-specific complaint, and could be partially attributable to lousy listening.

9. Dreary worship.

Is that different from lousy preaching?

10. Parents failing their parental duties.

Which duties?  The duty to take the family to church?

11. Obsession with controversies over theological nuances that few understand.

I don't think most people care that much about things like that.

12. Infighting in congregations.

That might actually be a reason to want to go to church, depending on the nature of the infighting and how colorful the infighters are.

13. Wearing out members with constant pleas for more work on committees.

I've never been asked to work on a church committee.

14. Modern society's chief heresy, namely that whatever we want - including God - we can create ourselves.

That's a bit slippery, considering that all of religion was delivered to humanity in the form of something that someone created for himself (though he always says that he just wrote down what God told him).

15. Television evangelists.

I say that if you don't like televangelists, you should change the channel.

[MediumTex]

If I built an open air cathedral overlooking the Grand Canyon and I started a Grand Canyon-themed religion called "Canyonism", it would be foolish for me to try to tell people the meaning of the Grand Canyon.  Anything I could possibly say about the canyon in an attempt to explain its spiritual significance would probably just make me sound like a self-important tour guide. 

What I would need to do would be to provide my flock of Canyonites with a place and a process for understanding the Grand Canyon for themselves.  I would have created the "place" by building the cathedral, and to create the "process" I would need to create rituals that would essentially put people in the mood to grasp deep canyon truth.  You can't expect people to just walk in off the street and commune with a landscape--you need a bit of spiritual foreplay to create the proper mental ambiance to get everyone warmed up.  That's the role of the rituals.  That is how you facilitate direct connection with what Campbell calls the "archetypes of the soul."

And if that isn't enough then you throw a few of the nonbelievers over the cliff and tell the children in the congregation that if they don't believe that the canyon will swallow them alive where they will suffer for all eternity.

IMHO, human sacrifice shouldn't have a role in the worship of a being that is supposed to be interested in improving your moral character.

[doodle]

If I built an open air cathedral overlooking the Grand Canyon and I started a Grand Canyon-themed religion called "Canyonism", it would be foolish for me to try to tell people the meaning of the Grand Canyon.  Anything I could possibly say about the canyon in an attempt to explain its spiritual significance would probably just make me sound like a self-important tour guide. 

What I would need to do would be to provide my flock of Canyonites with a place and a process for understanding the Grand Canyon for themselves.  I would have created the "place" by building the cathedral, and to create the "process" I would need to create rituals that would essentially put people in the mood to grasp deep canyon truth.  You can't expect people to just walk in off the street and commune with a landscape--you need a bit of spiritual foreplay to create the proper mental ambiance to get everyone warmed up.  That's the role of the rituals.  That is how you facilitate direct connection with what Campbell calls the "archetypes of the soul."

And if that isn't enough then you throw a few of the nonbelievers over the cliff and tell the children in the congregation that if they don't believe that the canyon will swallow them alive where they will suffer for all eternity.

IMHO, human sacrifice shouldn't have a role in the worship of a being that is supposed to be interested in improving your moral character.

But what if your moral character is always to do bad no matter what because you are sinful by nature and the sacrifice is done out of genuine love and concern for the participants immortal souls? Whatever pain and torture I can temporarily inflict on you will be worth it if it prevents you from an eternity of suffering in the bowels of the canyon.

[MediumTex]

And if that isn't enough then you throw a few of the nonbelievers over the cliff and tell the children in the congregation that if they don't believe that the canyon will swallow them alive where they will suffer for all eternity.

IMHO, human sacrifice shouldn't have a role in the worship of a being that is supposed to be interested in improving your moral character.

But what if your moral character is always to do bad no matter what because you are sinful by nature and the sacrifice is done out of genuine love and concern for the participants immortal souls? Whatever pain and torture I can temporarily inflict on you will be worth it if it prevents you from an eternity of suffering in the bowels of the canyon.

Are you wanting to be labeled an infidel by the Canyonites?  All they want is to worship their canyon in peace.

[doodle]

IMHO, human sacrifice shouldn't have a role in the worship of a being that is supposed to be interested in improving your moral character.

But what if your moral character is always to do bad no matter what because you are sinful by nature and the sacrifice is done out of genuine love and concern for the participants immortal souls? Whatever pain and torture I can temporarily inflict on you will be worth it if it prevents you from an eternity of suffering in the bowels of the canyon.

Are you wanting to be labeled an infidel by the Canyonites?  All they want is to worship their canyon in peace.

So its a spiritual practice, not a religion?

[Mountaineer]

But what if your moral character is always to do bad no matter what because you are sinful by nature and the sacrifice is done out of genuine love and concern for the participants immortal souls? Whatever pain and torture I can temporarily inflict on you will be worth it if it prevents you from an eternity of suffering in the bowels of the canyon.

Are you wanting to be labeled an infidel by the Canyonites?  All they want is to worship their canyon in peace.

So its a spiritual practice, not a religion?

I'm getting the same drift as doodle about those moralistic, judgmental, closed ear, Canyonites - they are Canyonites in name only and are heretical infidels from the perspective of the true Canyon.  They seem to be trying to find the Canyon through their actions instead of realizing the Canyon comes to them.

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

IMHO, human sacrifice shouldn't have a role in the worship of a being that is supposed to be interested in improving your moral character.

No need to prefix your opinion as humble.  Operative word here being "supposed".  There seems to be a LOT of B.S. about everything BUT "God" in religion.  It is very anti-intellectual.

[Greg]

I've been watching the series "A.D. The Bible Continues". While it is not perfect, it is still entertaining to watch.

It got me to thinking, even back during the same year that Jesus was crucified, you'd still have to have people believe without seeing. You have a group of illiterate people who probably have not read much of the Old Testament but heard about it, went to church (as was the custom for Jews at the time), and maybe heard of prophecies.

You then would have the apostles who would be going around preaching the new-fangled idea to these groups of people, spouting that the messiah has come, the prophecies have been fulfilled, and that you should believe in this Messiah and follow him rather than Judaism (or at least that you don't have to go to the temple anymore if you don't want to, that's in the past versus the future for them now).

There was no Bible this time, just the Old Testament. Unless the apostles were to perform miracles in front of others and they directly saw it, wouldn't it still be a reasonably act of faith/belief to believe in these people that you just met that day? This seems to be the same issues we have today, although these ones would have been much closer to the actual event which should help them even more.


Also, I was thinking about all of the bifurcations that occur with Christianity. There was no centralized leadership really in the beginning and the goal was to just get as many people into the fold as possible. Paul ended up going on his own journey, Phillip his own, and the rest stayed where they roughly were in Jerusalem (if I'm getting all of my history right). They were all humans and fallible in the sense of perhaps remembering different things about Jesus and how they viewed him.

Based on their own personalities, they witnessed in different ways and gave people different information. Without a centralized text, etc. to come back to if people had additional questions, you had various viewpoints and rituals, etc. that evolved from each of the individual apostles and who they witnessed to. Fast forward many years, we still have fallible humans who try to interpret what God/Jesus said and did, and still because of these interpretations, you get a lot of different conclusions.

This is one of the things that I like about the Roman Catholic Church (even though I'm not Catholic), because at least there is some harmony to what people should believe and all goes through one central figure (the Pope).

[MachineGhost]

This is one of the things that I like about the Roman Catholic Church (even though I'm not Catholic), because at least there is some harmony to what people should believe and all goes one central figure (the Pope).

I forgot about the Pope!  Isn't he some kind of Christian Prophet?

[Mountaineer]

A Little Gem - from an article I just read.

... Mountaineer

I learned a gem in school from the early French essayist Michel de Montaigne, “On Liars.” It helps me every time we cover difficult topics.

Error can take a thousand forms, while the truth has only one form. The lesson? We can never hope to overcome error by proving it wrong. People who are committed to error will just seek another form of error. The possibilities for error are unlimited. Like a multi-headed hydra, every time we cut down one head, two will arise to take its place.

Montaigne put it this way: “The Pythagoreans regard good as certain and finite, and evil as boundless and uncertain. There are a thousand ways of missing the bull’s eye, only one of hitting it.”

Our answer to error is to focus on the truths we know for certain. No matter how little experience we have with science, we still know the “big picture” from the Bible.

“It is impossible for God to lie,” says Hebrews 6:18. God is the source of all life on earth, created just a few thousand years ago, contrary to evolution.

We aren’t obligated to go into all the details if we aren’t sure about them. In fact, it is foolish to try. Our main duty is to “speak the truth” (Ephesians 4:15) and not proudly speculate on things we don’t understand.

We won’t win people by arguments alone, anyway. The struggle over truth is ultimately a spiritual issue. As Christ said, “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it” (Mark 10:15).

The blind man whom Jesus healed in John 9 shows us the way. The Pharisees were so committed to defaming the Lord that they had no interest in the truth. Every time the blind man gave them answers, they questioned his integrity and just asked more questions.

The blind man’s answer is priceless. “Whether He is a sinner or not, I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see” (John 9:25). He spoke what He knew. And that’s all that God asks of us.

[screwtape]

I've been watching the series "A.D. The Bible Continues". While it is not perfect, it is still entertaining to watch.

Do they have the typical Hippy Jesus that most of these kinds of shows have? There was one a couple of years ago that my wife wanted me to watch with her and all the inaccuracies made me sick. Swore I'd never watch another one. And the way they make things up when the story is re-told makes you wonder about the so-called "original".

You then would have the apostles who would be going around preaching the new-fangled idea to these groups of people, spouting that the messiah has come, the prophecies have been fulfilled, and that you should believe in this Messiah and follow him rather than Judaism (or at least that you don't have to go to the temple anymore if you don't want to, that's in the past versus the future for them now).

Jesus supposedly told them that the temple was going to be destroyed so wouldn't it have been better to tell them that if they wanted to go there they'd better hurry up and do it before it's gone?