Figuring Out Religion

[jafs]

Well, if somebody gives you a kick in the head, you wouldn't call that a gift, even if they don't expect to be repaid for it.  The word gift implies a positive attribute.

So, yes, saying that everything comes from God, without any sort of value judgment would be a better way to say it, from my perspective.

Greg, your comments are self-contradictory - you say that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (which is also true of matter, I believe), but then that something created both of them.  The idea that the two can't be created/destroyed leads more simply and logically to the idea that the universe has always and will always exist.

That's as hard to wrap one's head around as the idea that some entity/being/etc. created the whole thing at some point (said point having to be "out of time" in some impossible to understand way).

[Greg]

That's why I just said an "entity" for God. Something created the universe due to how the 1st law works. By using the fossils we have now and logic, etc. we can piece backwards as to what was correct and what was not. I'd love if there was a better way to this that I'm not currently tracking.

What if that "something" was not an entity?  Given how spooky and strange the quantum physics reality is, I think relying on an "entity" for the Big Bang to have happened is unproven conjecture at best.  And what if there was an entity and it was an alien race that was far advanced enough as we will be some day (hopefully) and they did the equivalent of programming up a universe?  A far cry from that extremely narrow, arthropomorphic trinity of "God, the Father, the Son", yes?  My point being is you have to think outside the box because by defintion the box that you were put in is always camoflauge.  It is like a rat in a maze not having ever having an top down overview of the entire maze and doesn't see past the never-ending walls in front of him.

I think you could use a deep and critical encyclopedia of all the religions from a disinterested agostic or atheist if that isn't an oxymoron.  Anyone know if such a thing exists?

So this is then an assumption that we have more than one universe, or that there is a universe (ours) within another universe (aliens). Also to a certain extent, this thought of yours shows that it is extremely hard to have any form of absolute truth and that there are always going to be fuzzy areas. For one could be that can you prove that I'm a male based on all of the information you know about me without actually seeing me in person.

And I disagree (currently) with quantum if we're talking about nothing existing, other than if you're able to still satisfy the conservation of energy and create particle-antiparticles/virtual particles. I'd have to learn more about this.

[Greg]

Greg, your comments are self-contradictory - you say that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (which is also true of matter, I believe), but then that something created both of them.  The idea that the two can't be created/destroyed leads more simply and logically to the idea that the universe has always and will always exist.

That's as hard to wrap one's head around as the idea that some entity/being/etc. created the whole thing at some point (said point having to be "out of time" in some impossible to understand way).

But based on the Big Bang, we're saying that the Universe had a beginning and is expanding. If it had a beginning, that means something (i.e. entity) added energy into the overall closed system. Once that energy was there, it could transfer to other types for building the universe.

And yes, you would need some sort of ultimate power that has the ability to be outside of time and space to be able to create something inside of it if there is nothing in there in the first place.

[MachineGhost]

And I disagree (currently) with quantum if we're talking about nothing existing, other than if you're able to still satisfy the conservation of energy and create particle-antiparticles/virtual particles. I'd have to learn more about this.

Theres is no "nothing existing".  There's vibrating, one-dimensional strings of energy down at the lowest level of reality which all particles and matter originates from.  Ironically, they are theorized to look rather suspiciously like DNA strands (to me), but that's probably just anthropomorphism at work again. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory

[Greg]

And I disagree (currently) with quantum if we're talking about nothing existing, other than if you're able to still satisfy the conservation of energy and create particle-antiparticles/virtual particles. I'd have to learn more about this.

Theres is no "nothing existing".  There's vibrating, one-dimensional strings of energy down at the lowest level of reality which all particles and matter originates from.  Ironically, they are theorized to look rather suspiciously like DNA strands (to me), but that's probably just anthropomorphism at work again. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_M-theory

Isn't this semantic then? Wouldn't these strings still be something within or to create the universe. Something has to create these strings which leads back to a God or unless we say Strings are God, but then we have to think about how can impersonal strings make personal beings, etc.

[Mountaineer]

Do atheists belive the thermodynamic law of entropy is false for our universe? 

In crude terms:

Entropy: water runs downhill, all things progress toward a lower energy state

Atheist: all is a result of random chance

Observation: things/ideas seem to be moving from the simple to the complex

The answer given on this link seems to waffle quite a bit but touches on MG's singularity comments.  http://asktheatheist.com/?p=2466

... Mountaineer

[jafs]

Well, there's a question about whether or not the universe as a whole can/should be considered an "isolated system".  And, your version of the 2nd law is a bit simplistic, I think, and local areas like the Earth are clearly not isolated systems, so it's quite possible for entropy to decrease here in a number of ways.

The big bang theory isn't a proven fact, it's a theory.  And, even within that, there's an idea that there was a "singularity" containing all of the matter and energy of the universe, and at some point (time issue), it exploded outwards and created the expanding universe that we see now.

In other words, there was always something, rather than something from nothing.

Either one is miraculous and impossible to understand for most of us, and I predict that we'll never know for sure exactly what happened, and that the fundamental question will always be a mystery to us.

[Mountaineer]

Well, there's a question about whether or not the universe as a whole can/should be considered an "isolated system".  And, your version of the 2nd law is a bit simplistic, I think, and local areas like the Earth are clearly not isolated systems, so it's quite possible for entropy to decrease here in a number of ways.

The big bang theory isn't a proven fact, it's a theory.  And, even within that, there's an idea that there was a "singularity" containing all of the matter and energy of the universe, and at some point (time issue), it exploded outwards and created the expanding universe that we see now.

In other words, there was always something, rather than something from nothing.

Either one is miraculous and impossible to understand for most of us, and I predict that we'll never know for sure exactly what happened, and that the fundamental question will always be a mystery to us.

Re. my emphasis (bolded) above:

1. I would say hypothesis instead of theory but either way it requires faith.  Faith in what?

2. How do you know, that sounds like a faith statement.  Faith in what?

3. Only on this side of temporal death.  I predict it will no longer be a mystery to me after I die my temporal death.



... Mountaineer

[Greg]

This was from William Lane Craig and I thought it did a good job of explaining how God gives enough information to those with an open mind but not enough for those who are closed off. Also speaks about that God is the one that seeks us out, owing to the thought of whether we have the total choice of whether we CAN believe or not ourselves, or if God ultimately makes that choice for us. I'm still studying that.

http://www.bethinking.org/is-christiani ... ristianity

[jafs]

If God makes the choice and people are powerless, then the issue of why some people get saved and others are eternally damned raises it's ugly head again, and is very hard to comprehend.

It makes a little bit more sense if people have the choice, and then there are consequences for making that choice.

Although it's still a harsh set-up, and I don't believe that's what going on here.

[Maddy]

I'm not so sure that the whole cause-and-effect paradigm isn't a construct of the human mind, which by its nature is hardwired to spot connections between things and to impute a variety of meanings to them.  (When you think about it, this is a highly adaptive behavior when it comes to survival of the organism.)  Research across many different fields has shown that human beings are notorious for imputing meaning to random events, and for finding cause-and-effect relationships where probability theory says that there are none.  (The book entitled "The Drunkard's Walk" is a fascinating read on this subject for those who are interested.)  For that reason, I tend to find the "always existed" premise no harder or easier to fathom than the "created by" one.

[Fred]

If God makes the choice and people are powerless, then the issue of why some people get saved and others are eternally damned raises it's ugly head again, and is very hard to comprehend.

It makes a little bit more sense if people have the choice, and then there are consequences for making that choice.

Although it's still a harsh set-up, and I don't believe that's what going on here.

This, to me, is one of the most notorious contradictions in the Bible and why it's not worth the paper it's written on when it comes to  determining the truth about one's eternal destiny.

It explicitly says that God prepared "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" and that some were "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before Him".

And then it goes on to say that "God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth".

I'm sure Christian apologists have a way of explaining this contradiction away but if you actually read the Bible for yourself it sounds to me like this God has some sort of mental disorder. Maybe he's bipolar.

[jafs]

Well, if you understand the Bible as having been written by human beings, over many years, and representing their understanding of God and the relationship between God and humanity, it's a little easier to make some sense of it.

Earlier texts, like the Old Testament, represent an understanding that God wants us to please him, and that he will punish us if we don't do that (and sometimes even if we do, as in Job).  It seems to me that this is an attempt to figure out why bad things happen, even to good people.

The NT, generally, presents a different view, that God is a loving, forgiving entity that wants to care for us, and wants us to be happy (particularly the Gospels, which seem the most important part to me).

I prefer the NT view.

Many Christians try to reconcile the OT and NT, and use a variety of what look like contortions/mental gymnastics to do that to the rest of us, and aren't very convincing.

[Fred]

The NT, generally, presents a different view, that God is a loving, forgiving entity that wants to care for us, and wants us to be happy (particularly the Gospels, which seem the most important part to me).

I see the loving and forgiving God in the NT that you are talking about but I also see that it's only a temporary offer. The way I read the NT, the major theme is that the time is short and God's wrath is coming soon. That was basically what Jesus' was preaching - that the "Kingdom of God is at hand". It's "Good News" if you repent,  but very, very bad if you don't. The Apostles took up the same message and so did Paul. Then it ends with the climax of the book of Revelation where God finally destroys all of his enemies and it isn't a pretty picture. Actually, it's just as cruel and violent as anything in the Old Testament and maybe more.

[jafs]

Well, I give the Gospels a lot more weight than the rest of the NT - Paul never met Jesus, for example.

If you look at Jesus' preaching, you find a lot of beautiful stuff about how to live a good life, be closer to God (in some cases, become like God), and parables about how God is a loving Father.  It does seem likely that he believed the world would end soon and the Kingdom of God would come (B. Ehrmann takes this view), but I don't know it means the kind of judgmental wrath that some believe.

But this is another example of the choice of belief I mentioned earlier - I don't know any of this stuff with any degree of certainty.  So, I choose to believe in a loving God rather than a punitive one.  I could be wrong, and when I die, be sent to Hell for my errors.  If so, I've made a big mistake, but I won't know that until then.

A quick google search shows that there isn't much agreement among scholars about what the Kingdom of God really means.

[Fred]

Well, I give the Gospels a lot more weight than the rest of the NT - Paul never met Jesus, for example.

If you look at Jesus' preaching, you find a lot of beautiful stuff about how to live a good life, be closer to God (in some cases, become like God), and parables about how God is a loving Father.  It does seem likely that he believed the world would end soon and the Kingdom of God would come (B. Ehrmann takes this view), but I don't know it means the kind of judgmental wrath that some believe.

But this is another example of the choice of belief I mentioned earlier - I don't know any of this stuff with any degree of certainty.  So, I choose to believe in a loving God rather than a punitive one.  I could be wrong, and when I die, be sent to Hell for my errors.  If so, I've made a big mistake, but I won't know that until then.

I read Ehrman's "Apocalyptic prophet of the New Millenium" too, but he's far from the only one who takes this view of Jesus. To me it's the only way you can really make sense out of the whole New Testament.

As for Paul, I've been reading some interesting material about him lately, mostly by Messianic Jews who believe in Jesus. They tend to believe he was a false apostle and they make a very good case. One book I read pointed out the ways he twisted the Old Testament scriptures to make them say the exact opposite of what they actually said (like nobody can keep the law). I had never noticed this before. Also, they believe that the denunciation of false prophets in Asia Minor that you read in the book of Revelations is actually referring to Paul and his gang. And when you read Paul, he does complain about all the rejection he got from the Jews in his travels so I find this convincing. Interesting stuff.

[Maddy]

I was wondering if there was anyone else on this forum who is as skeptical of Paul's claim to authority as I am.  It's my own view that much of the doctrine integral to mainstream Christianity comes not from the words of Christ, but from the writings of Paul.  Indeed, the gospels take on a very different flavor and interpretation if you cut through the Pauline overlay.

There are some very troubling aspects to Paul's claim to apostleship, not the least of which is the unstated premise that Yeshua was either so incompetent or inarticulate in expressing himself that he needed someone to come along after him and clean up his mess.  Please excuse my bluntness (and I mean no disrespect to anyone--least of all to Christ himself), but that is the situation as I see it.

I have become fascinated by the study of how Paul's message deviated in many important respects from that of Christ, and of how Paul's claim of authority lacks many of the essential indicia of reliability.  I'd be very interested in this group's take on some of the critiques that have been published on this subject; for example, http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/ and http://www.truthseekers.co.za/articles/ ... se-apostle and http://www.truthseekers.co.za/articles/section-1  There's also an interesting discussion of this subject at http://www.christianforums.com/threads/ ... 2193/  I'm not sure these constitute the best explications of the subject, but they are the most readily available to me this morning.

[jafs]

I agree that much mainstream theology seems more "Paulian" than "Christian" 

That's why I go back to the Gospels, to get as close as possible to Christ's actual message and teaching, and even then it's not as close as many believe, and not completely satisfying.

But, it seems like the best we can do.

[Fred]

I was wondering if there was anyone else on this forum who was as skeptical of Paul's claim to authority as I am.

It's interesting how many things you fail to see in the Bible when you read it uncritically as a true believer.

For example - when Paul went up to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles to confirm the gospel he was preaching to the gentiles. According to Acts, they were all in agreement but Paul was supposedly sent off with a letter instructing that the gentile believers were only to refrain from fornication and from eating food sacrificed to idols. And yet when Paul returned to the churches he told them that the only thing they told him to do was to remember the poor and then he goes on to write in his letters that it is okay to eat food sacrificed to idols. Say what? And that is exactly what the false apostles in the letters to the Seven Churches in Revelations are accused of, so I think it is very convincing that it is talking about Paul as "Balaam" the talking donkey.

[jafs]

Well, a google search will find a lot of sources about the differences.

To me, probably one of the biggest is that Paul seems to be the beginning of the idea that Jesus died for our sins, and that it's important to believe that.

The teachings of Jesus seem to be more about how to live a good life, to love, forgive, be generous/charitable, seek the kingdom of heaven (which is within us), and to trust in a loving God.  In other words, to follow his life rather than his death.

And, if there are differences/conflicts, it makes more sense to me that Gospel authors are closer to his message than Paul.

[jafs]

Sure, I wasn't trying to completely lay out his teachings or the writings of the Gospel in one sentence - that would be impossible.  According to many stories, he also healed people in a miraculous sort of way, which I didn't mention.

And, there's a lot of difficulty even in trying to sort out what is accurate in the Gospels and what isn't.

One way to sort through it which makes a certain amount of common sense is that if you find many examples of consistent teachings, and then a few which contradict those, that the majority are more likely correct.

But it's all virtually impossible to know for sure, given how/by whom/when the Gospels were written, and what happened afterwards.

By the way, I mentioned forgiveness in my post, but was referring to his answer about how often we should forgive others.

[Mountaineer]

Well, I give the Gospels a lot more weight than the rest of the NT - Paul never met Jesus, for example.

If you look at Jesus' preaching, you find a lot of beautiful stuff about how to live a good life, be closer to God (in some cases, become like God), and parables about how God is a loving Father.  It does seem likely that he believed the world would end soon and the Kingdom of God would come (B. Ehrmann takes this view), but I don't know it means the kind of judgmental wrath that some believe.

But this is another example of the choice of belief I mentioned earlier - I don't know any of this stuff with any degree of certainty.  So, I choose to believe in a loving God rather than a punitive one.  I could be wrong, and when I die, be sent to Hell for my errors.  If so, I've made a big mistake, but I won't know that until then.

A quick google search shows that there isn't much agreement among scholars about what the Kingdom of God really means.

Paul never met Jesus?  How do you interpret Acts 9?

For me, I believe it is important to identify the presuppositions one has when reading Scripture.  We all have the presuppositions - I just think it is important to identify what they are and why I hold them.  For example, do I believe Scripture is the inspired, inerrant word of God?  If yes, why?  If no, why?  When reading Scripture, do I believe it was written only for the immediate audience at the time it was written, or do I belive it is universal, or both?  Do I believe the Bible is one book with one primary theme, or do I believe it is a collection of separate stories?  Do I believe the people who put the canon together were doing it of their own accord, or do I believe it was directed by God?  Do I believe reason trumps revelation, or vice versa, or something else?  Do I believe there is a Creator of all, or not?  Why?  Do I believe the creature is smarter than the Creator if there is indeed a Creator?  Am I a "red letter only" Christian, or not?  Why?  If I believe Jesus was only a good role model for how to live ones life, why Jesus and not all the other religions that teach morality?  Are the Scriptures a how book, or a why book, a what book, or something else?  Can I accept Jesus rose from the dead, or is that so far from the realm of scientific proof that I immediately discount that as a wild-assed myth?  Regardless of my current presuppositions, am I open to new facts?  New ideas?  New interpretations?  Or am I they type of person that knows what I believe and stick with it no matter what?  Depending on my answers, I may come to quite different understandings of what the Scriptures say if I try to interpret them on my own.  In other words, am I good at self-observing and understand my limitations and prejudices or not?  How would I know?  Can I identify my presuppositions and objectively know why I have them?  Can I interpret Scripture correctly?  Or, do I need a skilled teacher to help me understand complex material?  How will I know if I have a skilled teacher?  In more practical terms, how will I discern if Bart Ehrman, Origen, John Wycliff, Jan Hus, Karl Barth, Johathan Edwards, John Calvin, the current Pope, or Martin Luther has the most truthful or accurate interpretation of the Christian Scriptures?

... Mountaineer

[jafs]

I meant while Jesus was alive.

Those are all great questions, but I don't think there are any definitive answers, other than choices that we make as far as how to go about it.  Some believe the Bible is the inerrant literal word of God, others believe it was written by people inspired by God, and others that it was just written by people.

In my own case, I think that the closest we could get to Jesus and his life is through the Gospels, and even there it's not as close or as definitive as I would like, given the historical realities of who wrote the Gospels/when they were written.  Also, we might have some intuitions/internal sense of things that could serve as some sort of guide.

[Maddy]

Paul never met Jesus?  How do you interpret Acts 9?

One very intriguing interpretation of Acts 9 suggests that Paul's revelatory experience on the road to Damascus was the fulfillment of numerous prophetic warnings, including those of Jesus himself, that there would be an imposter claiming to have had a personal encounter with Christ in the wilderness--and who would be so convincing as to dupe even the twelve.  http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommend ... -paul.html

[Fred]

Paul never met Jesus?  How do you interpret Acts 9?

One very intriguing interpretation of Acts 9 suggests that Paul's revelatory experience on the road to Damascus was the fulfillment of numerous prophetic warnings, including those of Jesus himself, that there would be an imposter claiming to have had a personal encounter with Christ in the wilderness--and who would be so convincing as to dupe even the twelve.  http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/recommend ... -paul.html

This is great stuff. I'm not a believer in any kind of Christianity any more but I 'm fascinated by the mystery of Christian origins. When you are no longer emotionally invested in it, it's like a great detective story.

I haven't read anything on the subject yet but there are even scholars who believe that Paul is a fictional character. I'm not ready to go that far but I think it is partially true because as many as half of the letters supposedly written by him are now believed by most critical scholars to be forgeries. If this be true then I guess you can say that the Biblical Paul is at least half a work of fiction.

I don't know if you are a Messianic Jew or not, but if you are then I think you are probably much closer to what early Christianity was like than are any Christian group striving for the same thing.