Figuring Out Religion

[lazyboy]

I've been enjoying this conversation. I have respect and reverence for everyone's true nature and ground of being. I also have a fondness for lightening the load and, as well, for terrapins and the blues.

COSMOLOGY by Billy Collins

I never put much stock in that image of the earth
resting on the backs of four elephants
who are standing on the back of a sea turtle,
who is in turn supported by an infinite regression
of turtles disappearing into a bottomless forever.
I mean how could you get them all to stay still?

Now that we are on the subject,
my substitute picture would have the earth
with its entire population of people and things
resting on the head of Keith Richards,
who is holding a Marlboro in one hand
and a bottle of Jack Daniel’s in the other.

As long as Keith keeps talking about
the influence of the blues on the Rolling Stones,
the earth will continue to spin merrily
and revolve in a timely manner around the sun.
But if he changes the subject or even pauses
too long, it’s pretty much curtains for us all.

Unless, of course, one person somehow survives
being hurtled into the frigidity of outer space;
then we would have a movie on our hands—
but wait, there wouldn’t be any hands
to write the script or make the movie,
and no theatres, either, no buttered popcorn, no giant Pepsi.

Putting that aside, let’s imagine Keith
standing on the other Rolling Stones,
who are standing on the shoulders of Muddy Waters,
and, were it not for that endless stack of turtles,
one on top of the other all the way down,
Muddy Waters would be standing on nothing at all.

[Mountaineer]

The recent comments, including those in the original article, are interesting. It seems people in general are somewhat more motivated to escape something (fear of whatever) than moving toward something that is appealing (like or love of whatever). Humans are indeed fascinating. Perhaps that is why I've had a difficult time relating to some of the comments about burning in everlasting flames, a wrathful God, etc. I fully agree that God is a God of justice and will give unbelievers exactly what they want, but for me at least, the reason I'm a Christian has far more to do with it being a better way, a more appealing way, in this life and beyond, than anything else I can imagine. God is primarily a God of mercy for those who believe His promises. The examples are plentiful from my perspective:
Don't want STDs? Choose wisely, marry for life and stay faithful. Try traditional, confessional Christianity *.
Don't want to worry about death? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Don't want to worry about suffering? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Wonder about where we came from? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Wonder about where we are going? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Don't want to go to jail? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Want good relationships with your neighbors? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Want to be satisfied with what you have? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Tired of feeling like you are on a treadmill? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Is work boring, unfullfilling? Try traditional, confessional Christianity.
Etc.
(* Traditional, confessional, Christianity = believing the promises of Jesus as spoken by and recorded in the inspired, inerrant Word of God)
And, if if it turns out I'm wrong about traditional, confessional, Christianity, it is a heck of a good ride to lights out time.

Not so sure this is a "Biblical" way to present the gospel, but whatever floats your boat. Sounds a bit Joel Osteen-ish to me.

The way I read the message is that the reason to accept the gospel is because God has commanded all men to repent, not for the great benefit plan.

I'm sure Paul would have liked to have known about the staying out of jail provision. He also said that if only in this life we have hope in Christ then we are of all men most miserable. But what did he know about confessional Christianity?

Speaking of Osteen: http://babylonbee.com/news/seminary-now ... pastoring/

Pondering: Is jail a physical thing? A state of mind? Being trapped in false illusions? Unable to see truth? Lack of faith?

[curlew]

Speaking of Osteen: http://babylonbee.com/news/seminary-now ... pastoring/

Pondering: Is jail a physical thing? A state of mind? Being trapped in false illusions? Unable to see truth? Lack of faith?

For Paul, I think it was just plain old jail.

But perhaps you are speaking in parables.

[Mountaineer]

Story from a book I’m reading: “Has American Christianity Failed” by Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller.

Once while I was patiently waiting inline to return a movie, a little lady tottered up to me and asked abruptly, “What do you do?”
“I’m a Lutheran pastor.”
“Oh,” she said. “I’m a Baptist. What’s the difference?”
What a surprise this conversation was!
“Well,” I began, “I suppose in your church, they have a time of decision at the end of the service.”
“Yes, an altar call.”
“Right, an altar call, a time to receive Jesus into your life and pray the sinner’s prayer.”
“Yes,” she said.
“Lutherans do things a bit differently. Instead of asking the sinner to receive Jesus, we ask if Jesus has received us. Instead of asking the sinner to dedicate his or her life to Christ, we ask if Christ has given His entire life and died for us. Instead of asking sinners to pray, we ask if Jesus prays for us. And the answer to these questions is a sure and certain ‘Yes’!”
She started crying. “That’s the most wonderful thing I’ve ever heard.”

For so many American Christians, their certainty is wobbly and their faith is unsure because it is built on the weak foundation of self: on their decision, their works, their experiences, their inner life, their resolve. These things are unsure. This chasing after certainty found in oneself is a failure of American Christianity. These things were never meant by God to give us certainty. We were meant to be uncertain about ourselves, but sure of God. Jesus is the one who died and was raised. He sits at the right hand of God. He intercedes for us. He sends the Holy Spirit with the Word of promise (received at baptism) to give faith and impute righteousness. What a wonderful gift.

[Mountaineer]

Story from a book I’m reading: “Has American Christianity Failed” by Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller.

Once while I was patiently waiting inline to return a movie, a little lady tottered up to me and asked abruptly, “What do you do?”
“I’m a Lutheran pastor.”
“Oh,” she said. “I’m a Baptist. What’s the difference?”
What a surprise this conversation was!
“Well,” I began, “I suppose in your church, they have a time of decision at the end of the service.”
“Yes, an altar call.”
“Right, an altar call, a time to receive Jesus into your life and pray the sinner’s prayer.”
“Yes,” she said.
“Lutherans do things a bit differently. Instead of asking the sinner to receive Jesus, we ask if Jesus has received us. Instead of asking the sinner to dedicate his or her life to Christ, we ask if Christ has given His entire life and died for us. Instead of asking sinners to pray, we ask if Jesus prays for us. And the answer to these questions is a sure and certain ‘Yes’!”
She started crying. “That’s the most wonderful thing I’ve ever heard.”

For so many American Christians, their certainty is wobbly and their faith is unsure because it is built on the weak foundation of self: on their decision, their works, their experiences, their inner life, their resolve. These things are unsure. This chasing after certainty found in oneself is a failure of American Christianity. These things were never meant by God to give us certainty. We were meant to be uncertain about ourselves, but sure of God. Jesus is the one who died and was raised. He sits at the right hand of God. He intercedes for us. He sends the Holy Spirit with the Word of promise (received at baptism) to give faith and impute righteousness. What a wonderful gift.

So now it's not good enough to just be a Christian, you have to be a Lutheran?

Come and hear the Law and Gospel proclaimed faithfully and find out for yourself. It is so very freeing. Come and hear, join some of my (former Baptist, Evangelical, and Progressive Christian) family and friends. Free at last, free at last.

[curlew]

This 7 minute Youtube by Bart Ehrman succinctly nails the reason why I eventually rejected Christianity altogether while still trying to retain some of it. There is simply no way the gospel stories can be true.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR5lOgr0FSY

[Mountaineer]

This 7 minute Youtube by Bart Ehrman succinctly nails the reason why I eventually rejected Christianity altogether while still trying to retain some of it. There is simply no way the gospel stories can be true.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR5lOgr0FSY

I watched Ehrman's video. My guess is that he was well schooled in the Historical (Higher) Criticism method given the schools, and those schools are very prestigous, he attended. He is obviously a very intelligent and well trained individual and a good communicator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
Many have gone down that road and Ehrman is a good example of why fundamentalism is so dangerous. Personally, I do not agree with Ehrman's presuppositions - others do. Doubt and pride in one's own brilliance are powerful tools used by the Father of Lies. Sadly, many succumb.

Perhaps this view will be helpful. Let us say that I have 66 photographs of an old barn. One question that could be asked is whether I have 66 photographs of the same barn or 66 photographs of 66 different barns. In either case, each photograph will show me something different from the other photographs. But if they are all of the same barn then they are all showing me different views of the same thing, giving me differing insights into the structure and appearance of the same thing, and ultimately they all fit together to show the same thing. But if they are of different barns, then they I should not expect them to all fit together. We have 66 books of the Bible giving us 66 views of God interacting with His people. Now, are they 66 different views of the same God in action, or are they different views of different gods acting each in his or her own way. For example, do Matthew and Paul both give us insight into how the same God interacts with people, although from different viewpoints and thus giving us different but congruent insights, or are they expressions of different religions?

Some may disagree with point 4 below and prefer the Historical or Higher Critical method of interpretation, even though it is a relatively new method compared with the traditional. From my personal perspective, the Historical Critical method [including the JEDP hypothesis most notably associated with German scholar Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918)] gives far too much credit to sinful man's interpretation vs. the Scripture Interprets Scripture method which, if one believes that Scripture is God inspired and inerrant, is what God intended to be written and is truthful.

Now, my shameless appeal to authority.

AD 33 Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus, Pentecost

Mark: Author John Mark Date Written c AD 50– 60

Matthew: Author Matthew Levi the apostle Date Written c AD 50

Luke: Author Luke Date Written c AD 55– 60

John: Author John the apostle Date Written c AD 90

Acts: Author Luke Date Written c AD 60– 62

Source: The Lutheran Study Bible. Concordia Publishing House.
The following scholars served as consultants for books of Scripture, introductions, and biblical chronology. Rev. Dr. David L. Adams Rev. Dr. Mark E. Braun Rev. Dr. Lane A. Burgland Rev. William W. Carr Jr. Rev. Dr. Paul E. Deterding Rev. Dr. Roland Cap Ehlke Rev. Dr. Daniel L. Gard Rev. Dr. Charles A. Gieschen Rev. Adolph L. Harstad Rev. Dr. Horace D. Hummel Rev. Dr. Arthur A. Just Rev. Dr. Jeffrey Kloha Rev. Dr. R. Reed Lessing Rev. David I. M. Lewis Rev. Dr. Walter A. Maier III Rev. Dr. Christopher W. Mitchell Rev. Dr. Timothy E. Saleska Rev. Dr. Peter J. Scaer Rev. Dr. Vilson Scholz Rev. Dr. Bruce G. Schuchard Rev. Charles R. Schulz Rev. Dr. Robert A. Sorensen Rev. Dr. Andrew E. Steinmann Rev. Mark P. Surburg Rev. Dr. Dean O. Wenthe Rev. Dr. John R. Wilch Rev. Dr. Thomas M. Winger

What’s “Lutheran” about This Study Bible? When describing The Lutheran Study Bible project to the CPH Board of Directors, to CPH staff, and to potential contributors, we included six goals for the work. We sought to create a study Bible that does the following:
1. Presents justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, as the chief teaching of Scripture (Lk 24: 44– 47; Jn 5: 39; SA II I 1– 4)
2. Properly distinguishes and applies Law and Gospel (reading the Bible as a book about justification; Jn 1: 17; Gal 3: 21– 22; Ap XIIA 53– 54)
3. Emphasizes God’s work through the means of grace (Mt 26: 26– 29; Jn 3: 5; 20: 22– 23; Rm 10: 17; SA III IV)
4. Functions from a “Scripture alone” point of view and presents a “Scripture interprets Scripture” approach to using the Bible (Ps 119; 1Tm 6: 3; 2Tm 3: 16– 17; FC Ep Sum)
5. Equips the laity for works of service, with a particular focus on evangelism in their various vocations/ callings in life (Ps 145: 4– 13; Eph 2; Ap XV 41– 42)
6. Presents a uniquely Lutheran study Bible that features genuinely Lutheran notes and comments throughout, references to the Lutheran Confessions where appropriate, focus on the Small Catechism for helps and explanations, citations from Luther throughout, and materials to aid daily devotion and prayer.

[MachineGhost]

This 7 minute Youtube by Bart Ehrman succinctly nails the reason why I eventually rejected Christianity altogether while still trying to retain some of it. There is simply no way the gospel stories can be true.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR5lOgr0FSY

What are you trying to retain?

[curlew]

This 7 minute Youtube by Bart Ehrman succinctly nails the reason why I eventually rejected Christianity altogether while still trying to retain some of it. There is simply no way the gospel stories can be true.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR5lOgr0FSY

What are you trying to retain?

I probably didn't say that right. I am not trying to retain any of it any more. When it comes to Christianity I am a non-believer, plain and simple. The biggest thing a Christian has a problem throwing away in the de-conversion process is, IMO, the so-called "personal relationship with Jesus" thing. Going there is like staring into a deep, dark abyss so you want to hold onto it despite all the cognitive dissonance. A book called "The Illusion of God's Presence" does a good job of explaining why this is in terms of evolutionary biology but I only read this recently.

I had already figured out that the Old Testament was mostly fiction but finally coming to the realization that the same was true of the gospels in the New Testament was probably the final step. There may be some truth sprinkled in with those writings but separating fact from fiction, as Ehrman points out in that video clip, is an impossible task. And if it really was a divine revelation, why would that be?

[curlew]

Perhaps this view will be helpful. Let us say that I have 66 photographs of an old barn. One question that could be asked is whether I have 66 photographs of the same barn or 66 photographs of 66 different barns. In either case, each photograph will show me something different from the other photographs. But if they are all of the same barn then they are all showing me different views of the same thing, giving me differing insights into the structure and appearance of the same thing, and ultimately they all fit together to show the same thing.

I think you are missing Ehrman's point. If one photograph says the barn was red and the other says it was green then is it accurate to say the barn must have been yellow? Or is it more accurate to say we don't know what color the barn was because we have two different, contradictory photographs.

[Mountaineer]

Perhaps this view will be helpful. Let us say that I have 66 photographs of an old barn. One question that could be asked is whether I have 66 photographs of the same barn or 66 photographs of 66 different barns. In either case, each photograph will show me something different from the other photographs. But if they are all of the same barn then they are all showing me different views of the same thing, giving me differing insights into the structure and appearance of the same thing, and ultimately they all fit together to show the same thing.

I think you are missing Ehrman's point. If one photograph says the barn was red and the other says it was green then is it accurate to say the barn must have been yellow? Or is it more accurate to say we don't know what color the barn was because we have two different, contradictory photographs.

Perhaps. Or the one looking at the photographs is color blind.

[MachineGhost]

I think you are missing Ehrman's point. If one photograph says the barn was red and the other says it was green then is it accurate to say the barn must have been yellow? Or is it more accurate to say we don't know what color the barn was because we have two different, contradictory photographs.

Or there was no barn at all, but a cardbox box version of one. People who believe in something can argue endlessly about nothing.

[curlew]

Now, my shameless appeal to authority.

AD 33 Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus, Pentecost

Mark: Author John Mark Date Written c AD 50– 60

Matthew: Author Matthew Levi the apostle Date Written c AD 50

Luke: Author Luke Date Written c AD 55– 60

John: Author John the apostle Date Written c AD 90

Acts: Author Luke Date Written c AD 60– 62

Source: The Lutheran Study Bible. Concordia Publishing House.

The authority you appeal to is very questionable. Your dating looks like something commonly agreed upon among modern Bible scholars but I'm sure you know that the authorship of those works is highly questionable and in fact, the majority conclusion except for die-hard fundamentalists is that the claimed author of every single one of those writings is highly questionable and almost certainly not true (except maybe Luke).

In fact, except for Luke there is no claim to authorship in any of those writings, nor a claim of being an eyewitness to any of the events described. For that matter, there is not even a claim to receiving any of the information from an eyewitness (and with a lot of it, this would have been impossible any way - who was actually present at the trial of Jesus to hear what he said?)

[curlew]

Perhaps this view will be helpful. Let us say that I have 66 photographs of an old barn. One question that could be asked is whether I have 66 photographs of the same barn or 66 photographs of 66 different barns. In either case, each photograph will show me something different from the other photographs. But if they are all of the same barn then they are all showing me different views of the same thing, giving me differing insights into the structure and appearance of the same thing, and ultimately they all fit together to show the same thing.

I think you are missing Ehrman's point. If one photograph says the barn was red and the other says it was green then is it accurate to say the barn must have been yellow? Or is it more accurate to say we don't know what color the barn was because we have two different, contradictory photographs.

Perhaps. Or the one looking at the photographs is color blind.

Sounds like another one of your nicely veiled unanswerable ad-hominem attacks which you always revert to when challenged.

[curlew]

Maybe there really is a god.

Yesterday I was out riding my bike through the neighborhood and some guy on a riding lawn mower started motioning to me with a strange gesture like he was pulling something down over his head. So I slowed down to see what he was saying and he yelled and said "where's your helmet"? I just turned, picked up my pace, and flipped him the bird with my right index finger on the way by.

Just a couple of hours later I was using a new vegetable slicer I just bought and sliced a big piece of that same finger off with it. I'm still trying to decide whether I need to go get stitches or not.

So like I said. Maybe there really is a god. You just have to figure out whether to flip him the bird or not.

(P.S. - this was a totally drunken post and I thought about deleting it but I think I will let it stand).

[Mountaineer]

I think you are missing Ehrman's point. If one photograph says the barn was red and the other says it was green then is it accurate to say the barn must have been yellow? Or is it more accurate to say we don't know what color the barn was because we have two different, contradictory photographs.

Perhaps. Or the one looking at the photographs is color blind.

Sounds like another one of your nicely veiled unanswerable ad-hominem attacks which you always revert to when challenged.

Sorry, but you may need the services of a psychic .... I have no control of how you perceive metaphors. Carry on old chap. Peace be with you and may the blessings of the light shine upon your path. Watch out for the quicksand.

[curlew]

Perhaps. Or the one looking at the photographs is color blind.

Sounds like another one of your nicely veiled unanswerable ad-hominem attacks which you always revert to when challenged.

Sorry, but you may need the services of a psychic .... I have no control of how you perceive metaphors. Carry on old chap. Peace be with you and may the blessings of the light shine upon your path. Watch out for the quicksand.

It did finally occur to me that when you talked about being colorblind to the different colors of the barn in your metaphor that you were talking about yourself and not me. So yes, I could have been wrong. But now I'll have to think about the quicksand metaphor. I'm sure you can't possibly mean to suggest that you perceive me as a soul sinking in the mud. That would be a very unkind to thing to say to someone and I'm sure you are above it.

[Mountaineer]

The Cost

https://bishopandchristian.wordpress.co ... /the-cost/

[curlew]

The Cost

https://bishopandchristian.wordpress.co ... /the-cost/

That's much better advice for following Jesus, according to the Word of God, than your previous list of benefits so I congratulate you.

By all means, hate your mother, father, brothers, and sisters if they don't follow Jesus.

I didn't see it in that article but you also need to be ready to cut off your hand or pluck out your eye if they are causing you to lust.

The true cost of discipleship to Jesus. It is written!

[MachineGhost]

Start at 1:37 until 8:15.

http://watchcartoonsonline.eu/watch/ani ... oneyhands/

[MachineGhost]

Here's Penn & Teller on Creationism.

Part 1: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5fc_1175734380
Part 2: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9fa_1175722937

[Greg]

Start at 1:37 until 8:15.

http://watchcartoonsonline.eu/watch/ani ... oneyhands/

It's been a whiles since I've watched the Animaniacs. I enjoyed it. Thanks for the post.

[MachineGhost]

Here's Penn & Teller on The Bible.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3e_1401165670

[curlew]

Here's Penn & Teller on The Bible.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3e_1401165670

If you want to really have some Biblical fun go read the story of how Aaron and Moses first went to Pharaoh in Egypt in Exodus 7-8 to tell him to "Let my people go". It started with Aaron throwing Moses' rod down and having it turn into a snake. Pharaoh summoned the Egyptian magicians who proved it was no big deal because they could do the same damn thing, even though Moses' snake ate up theirs. So then they struck the waters of the Nile river with the rod and had it turn into blood killing all the fish and causing a great stink throughout the land. But not to worry Pharaoh, the Egyptian magicians could pull this one off too. Then they had frogs come up out of the Nile causing even more stink throughout the land and still the magicians could do the same thing. Finally, Moses had the dust turn into lice which covered man and beast and this one was finally too much for the magicians. They had to declare that this truly was the hand of God. Only God can turn dust into lice. They had no clue how he did it.

The real fun starts when you start googling for an explanation of how it was that the magicians of Egypt could pull these same feats off. The explanations will give you a fascinating peak into the fundamentalist Christian mind though you might actually find it rather disturbing. You'll be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at all that the whole ancient story is complete and utter nonsense. It's the Word of God so it has to be a true story. It cannot be otherwise.

[Mountaineer]

Sounds like some people on the forum may be Epicurus fans and believe some of the myths related to death (the following from Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller's "Wednesday Whatnot"):


Epicurus, then, was philosophically bound to reject the intervention of any deity, as well as the idea of an afterlife.

I've been reading Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists (by Benjamin Wiker) for a while now. He is convinced that an understanding of Epicurus is vital to understand the operating philosophy of our day. Here is an extended quotation that is worth considering.

"Epicurus counseled his followers to study nature. The reason is rather curious. The goal of the study of nature was not, as one might think, the discovery of the truth. The goal, oddly enough, was to produce and maintain a certain condition of mind, a state of being undisturbed or untroubled. As he cheerfully told his followers, "Do not believe that there is any other goal to be achieved by the knowledge of meteorological phenomena... than freedom from disturbance and a secure conviction..."

"This dual goal, creating "freedom from disturbance" and secure conviction," is worth dwelling on because it defines the why of his whole system. ...

"According to Epicurus, there are actually two related causes of disturbance, the second following upon the first. The first is the belief that things in the sky-whether lightening, thunder, sun, moon, stars, comets of eclipses-are themselves either gods of the effects of the gods' trying to communicate their pleasure or displeasure to human beings. Such suspicion that things in the heavens are divine (or ar the media of divine communication) is, for Epicurus, the cause of all the anxiety and dread associated with religion. The belief that there are gods who not only continually watch over us but are trying to make their wills know to us through astronomical phenomena keeps us in a continual state of disturbance, worried at every clap of thunder or searing drought that we have crossed the will of the gods and are therefore ripe for even worse punishment.

"The second cause of disturbance is the belief in an afterlife. Even if we think we can escape the wrath of the gods in this life, we still dread their hold on us in the next. Rather than spend our lives in a state of contentment, we fritter them away, scurrying about trying to placate the gods with the sacrifices and prayers, cowering at each bolt of lightening or eclipse, and being eaten away by fear of the horrible impending punishments recounted int eh myth about Hades. If only we could rid ourselves of this dark cloud, Epicurus argued, then we would be free from the "worst disturbance [that] occurs in human souls," the fear of hell."


Seven Myths about Death and Dying
This is a great old article by Pr. Melius. The seven myths are:
1. Death is natural.
2. Christians will be judged.
3. When you die you become an angel.
4. When you die you are through with your body.
5. Funerals are for the living, not for the dead.
6. The soul sleeps.
7. The funeral of a Christian is a celebration.

Read the article here. It's fantastic and full of comfort. http://blogs.lcms.org/2011/myths-about- ... ers-4-2011