Figuring Out Religion

[Mountaineer]

A joyous Circumcision of Christ Eve to all!

[Xan]

The circumcision probably sounds like a weird thing to be celebrating to many folks. Here's what's important about it: it was the start of Christ's mission to fulfill the Law on our behalf. He was circumcised in order to make it optional for us. And very significantly, this was the first of his blood that was spilled to save us.

Our pastor's sermon this past Sunday was really informative and insightful:
http://www.stpaulaustin.org/sermons/putting-name-upon/

I hope everyone has a merry last day of Christmas tomorrow! Except Ad Orientem.

[Mountaineer]

The circumcision probably sounds like a weird thing to be celebrating to many folks. Here's what's important about it: it was the start of Christ's mission to fulfill the Law on our behalf. He was circumcised in order to make it optional for us. And very significantly, this was the first of his blood that was spilled to save us.

Our pastor's sermon this past Sunday was really informative and insightful:
http://www.stpaulaustin.org/sermons/putting-name-upon/

I hope everyone has a merry last day of Christmas tomorrow! Except Ad Orientem.

Great sermon. Thanks for sharing.

It's getting a bit crowded around here with all the maids milking, lords leaping and pipers piping. Tomorrow, back to the comfort of my true love.

https://www.carols.org.uk/the_twelve_da ... istmas.htm

[Mountaineer]

God exists - a proof - posted by Gene Veith in the link at the bottom.

...Mountaineer

The great mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel, who died in 1978, left behind a series of equations that purport to prove the existence of God.
As I understand it (and I don’t understand the math!), the equations test the validity of St. Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence, which defines God as the greatest being that can be conceived. Such a being would have to have the property of existence; otherwise, we could conceive of a greater being, namely, one that exists. And that one would be God.

This sounds like a language game, but philosophers have wrestled with the argument for centuries, finding it more formidable than it might appear on the surface.

Now two European computer scientists have run Gödel’s mathematical proof on a computer and found it valid.
You do the math:
“Ax. 1. {P(φ)∧◻∀x[φ(x)→ψ(x)]} →P(ψ)Ax. 2.P(¬φ)↔¬P(φ)Th. 1.P(φ)→◊∃x[φ(x)]Df. 1.G(x)⟺∀φ[P(φ)→φ(x)]Ax. 3.P(G)Th. 2.◊∃xG(x)Df. 2.φ ess x⟺φ(x)∧∀ψ{ψ(x)→◻∀y[φ(y)→ψ(y)]}Ax. 4.P(φ)→◻P(φ)Th. 3.G(x)→G ess xDf. 3.E(x)⟺∀φ[φ ess x→◻∃yφ(y)]Ax. 5.P(E)Th. 4.◻∃xG(x)”.

After the jump, a news story on the computer scientists’ work. I also include Gödel’s proof and a link explaining the above mathematical notation.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... more-26911

[Greg]

Critical rebuttal by a teacher of the author who wrote the article below. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles ... 154120.htm

Did a man called Jesus of Nazareth walk the earth? Discussions over whether the figure known as the “Historical Jesus” actually existed primarily reflect disagreements among atheists. Believers, who uphold the implausible and more easily-dismissed “Christ of Faith” (the divine Jesus who walked on water), ought not to get involved.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... t-hold-up/

[Greg]

Hey Greg, welcome back ... haven't seen you in a while. I was thinking about you earlier this week, when I was looking at your PowerPoint you put together, to find some links on Mormonism and Jehovahs Witnesses.

Thanks Desert. I like this forum a lot, however it does become a distraction though very easily (a welcomed distraction though because i like y'all). I've been refining my presentation; recently reading more on Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, comparisons of Jesus to various past mythical deities, support for the deity of Christ, and in general the philosophy of religion.

It's odd, engineering has become less interesting to me in the last year or so, and the study of religion is taking its place. Funny how life works. Hope all are well on here.

[Mountaineer]

I listened to another thought provoking discussion of gnosticism yesterday. One comment stood out: gnosticism is another term for self-worship. Events going on in the world today are just another verse of the same song of almost two thousand years ago. Interesting.

http://issuesetc.org/2017/02/09/0403-gn ... eind-2917/

[Mountaineer]

I listened to another thought provoking discussion of gnosticism yesterday. One comment stood out: gnosticism is another term for self-worship. Events going on in the world today are just another verse of the same song of almost two thousand years ago. Interesting.

http://issuesetc.org/2017/02/09/0403-gn ... eind-2917/

i haven't listened to the pod cast (so i don't know the context) but it seems to me to be a common mis-caricaturization made by Christian faith religion followers , it has been made a few times in this thread already as well.... the problem is that gnosis (direct knowledge) is direct knowledge of the devine or transcendent, and what needs to be overcome to experience gnosis, is the pesky little thing called self or ego or the perception of duality (being separate from the divine) seeing that as self worship is a strange leap to make when the concept is almost exactly the opposite..

Thanks for the comments. I hope you can listen to all 5 episodes of the podcast on gnosticism and share your thoughts. Will be interesting to see what you have to say if you can spare the time.

[blue_ruin17]

Wow, this thread (which I just discovered) is about as epic as the Bogleheads PP thread.

No way I'm going to be able to read through this one though, not unless I end up in full-traction at the hospital and have a few weeks to kill.

[farjeon]

I listened to another thought provoking discussion of gnosticism yesterday. One comment stood out: gnosticism is another term for self-worship. Events going on in the world today are just another verse of the same song of almost two thousand years ago. Interesting.

http://issuesetc.org/2017/02/09/0403-gn ... eind-2917/

i haven't listened to the pod cast (so i don't know the context) but it seems to me to be a common mis-caricaturization made by Christian faith religion followers , it has been made a few times in this thread already as well.... the problem is that gnosis (direct knowledge) is direct knowledge of the devine or transcendent, and what needs to be overcome to experience gnosis, is the pesky little thing called self or ego or the perception of duality (being separate from the divine) seeing that as self worship is a strange leap to make when the concept is almost exactly the opposite..

Interesting to see somebody preaching against gnosticism, especially in 5 parts. Admittedly I didn't listen to any of it because not much is really known about gnostic beliefs except for what we hear from the writings of early Christian apologists condemning them as heretics. I understand that some gnostic writings were found in modern times but for the most part, I believe all of their writings were ordered to be destroyed by proto-Orthodox Christians. So what you have left, I believe, is a straw-man version of what gnostics really believed (and some of it that I've read is a hoot).

And calling it the "first Christian heresy" is ridiculous. The idea that there originally was an "Orthodox Christianity" delivered once and for all by Jesus to his apostles to establish the Christian religion doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. The gist of Jesus' message was apocalyptic in nature. How anyone can read the gospels and even the writings of Paul and conclude otherwise is beyond me. I recommend Bart Ehrmann's "Lost Christianities" for an unbiased treatment of the subject.

[Mountaineer]

I listened to another thought provoking discussion of gnosticism yesterday. One comment stood out: gnosticism is another term for self-worship. Events going on in the world today are just another verse of the same song of almost two thousand years ago. Interesting.

http://issuesetc.org/2017/02/09/0403-gn ... eind-2917/

i haven't listened to the pod cast (so i don't know the context) but it seems to me to be a common mis-caricaturization made by Christian faith religion followers , it has been made a few times in this thread already as well.... the problem is that gnosis (direct knowledge) is direct knowledge of the devine or transcendent, and what needs to be overcome to experience gnosis, is the pesky little thing called self or ego or the perception of duality (being separate from the divine) seeing that as self worship is a strange leap to make when the concept is almost exactly the opposite..

Interesting to see somebody preaching against gnosticism, especially in 5 parts. Admittedly I didn't listen to any of it because not much is really known about gnostic beliefs except for what we hear from the writings of early Christian apologists condemning them as heretics. I understand that some gnostic writings were found in modern times but for the most part, I believe all of their writings were ordered to be destroyed by proto-Orthodox Christians. So what you have left, I believe, is a straw-man version of what gnostics really believed (and some of it that I've read is a hoot).

And calling it the "first Christian heresy" is ridiculous. The idea that there originally was an "Orthodox Christianity" delivered once and for all by Jesus to his apostles to establish the Christian religion doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. The gist of Jesus' message was apocalyptic in nature. How anyone can read the gospels and even the writings of Paul and conclude otherwise is beyond me. I recommend Bart Ehrmann's "Lost Christianities" for an unbiased treatment of the subject.

I realize I'm biased toward God's absolute truth so please take my comment in that vein. But I must say, in my opinion, once one starts down the path of "the historical Jesus" or similar views based on man's reason versus the God's truth version, one is in grave danger. My suggestion is to carefully think about:
1. a. Is the world a mess? b. How do you define mess (vs. a perfect world)?
2. Why do you think that?
3. Is there an explanation that seems to fit all causes of the mess, if you think there is a mess?
4. Is there a solution?
5. Has the solution already been provided?
6. Do you have to do anything to benefit from the solution, if there is one?
7. Is there a downside to ignoring the solution, if there most likely is a solution?
8. Is the thought of you personally having a perfect body in a perfect world for all eternity appealing, unappealing?
9. If appealing, is it worth your personal time, study, effort to become knowlegable about it? (Like if understanding math is important to you, are you willing to learn arithmatic, algebra, trig, geometry, calculus, etc., or is just reading about it on wikipedia or watching a couple episodes on the History Channel sufficient?)

i will take a whack at trying to answer this from a gnostic perspective for you (as best i can )
1. a. Is the world a mess? yes
1. b. How do you define mess (vs. a perfect world)? duality vs harmony
2. Why do you think that? harmony exists...
3. Is there an explanation that seems to fit all causes of the mess, if you think there is a mess? people acting as if/believing that they are separate from other people, the universe, and the divinity we live in
4. Is there a solution? yes - seek to be in harmony, overcoming the aspects of self and ego that keep you separate and out of harmony
5. Has the solution already been provided? it is inherent in the underlying nature of existence
6. Do you have to do anything to benefit from the solution, if there is one? see #4
7. Is there a downside to ignoring the solution, if there most likely is a solution? karma or in Christian terms reaping what you sow
8. Is the thought of you personally having a perfect body in a perfect world for all eternity appealing, unappealing? it is "irrelevant" being in the moment, present here and now is what counts..
9. If appealing, is it worth your personal time, study, effort to become knowlegable about it? (Like if understanding math is important to you, are you willing to learn arithmatic, algebra, trig, geometry, calculus, etc., or is just reading about it on wikipedia or watching a couple episodes on the History Channel sufficient? see #8 it is irrelevant

[Maddy]

I listened to another thought provoking discussion of gnosticism yesterday. One comment stood out: gnosticism is another term for self-worship. Events going on in the world today are just another verse of the same song of almost two thousand years ago. Interesting.

http://issuesetc.org/2017/02/09/0403-gn ... eind-2917/

i haven't listened to the pod cast (so i don't know the context) but it seems to me to be a common mis-caricaturization made by Christian faith religion followers , it has been made a few times in this thread already as well.... the problem is that gnosis (direct knowledge) is direct knowledge of the devine or transcendent, and what needs to be overcome to experience gnosis, is the pesky little thing called self or ego or the perception of duality (being separate from the divine) seeing that as self worship is a strange leap to make when the concept is almost exactly the opposite..

Interesting to see somebody preaching against gnosticism, especially in 5 parts. Admittedly I didn't listen to any of it because not much is really known about gnostic beliefs except for what we hear from the writings of early Christian apologists condemning them as heretics. I understand that some gnostic writings were found in modern times but for the most part, I believe all of their writings were ordered to be destroyed by proto-Orthodox Christians. So what you have left, I believe, is a straw-man version of what gnostics really believed (and some of it that I've read is a hoot).

And calling it the "first Christian heresy" is ridiculous. The idea that there originally was an "Orthodox Christianity" delivered once and for all by Jesus to his apostles to establish the Christian religion doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. The gist of Jesus' message was apocalyptic in nature. How anyone can read the gospels and even the writings of Paul and conclude otherwise is beyond me. I recommend Bart Ehrmann's "Lost Christianities" for an unbiased treatment of the subject.

historical gnostic Christianity has been lost to time and destruction by the early political Christians who couldn't be "the authority" if the practice was an internal one of self transformation self transcendence. The modern Christians are dissing a gnostic interpretation of Christianity (i don't think there even is a Christian church organized to teach such an interpretation) and by extension all of the other big religions. When the trappings, superstitions and political hierarchy are removed from most religions and the teachings are read as a map to gnosis, they are blatantly speaking of the same thing , except in Christianity since it has been so effectives stripped of that context.. but even so with a bit of effort and some familiarity with world religion it is still possible to see it in the words of Jesus...

. . . but even so with a bit of effort and some familiarity with world religion it is still possible to see it in the words of Jesus...

I'd argue that the gnostic approach provides the most natural and unstrained interpretation of Jesus' teachings. Once read in that way, it's hard to even imagine how Jesus' words could become so horribly distorted.

How ironic that mainstream Christianity, when confronted with paradoxes, continually reverts to the mantra, "Spiritual things must be spiritually discerned"-- and then more often than not adopts the most concrete, pedestrian interpretation there could be.

i would agree whole heartedly with both of the above comments.
your describing it as a mantra is apt, it is like a strange self hypnosis when confronted with the paradoxes the answer is to repeat the same replies over and over. and pray that some day you to may abandon reason, and have these words repeating endlessly without thought or question, in your head.. or in Christian terms "that they pray that you will open your heart and let yourself be saved like they have been"

and just so there is no confusion i am not a hater, in spite of its irrationality and its disconnect from ..what can be known.. in favor of ...that which can only be imagined and hoped for... Christianity (even with a its pre reformation evils) has largely been a force for good, or at the very least, mostly harmless..

[farjean2]

I have a different username from what I posted last night because I was basically so drunk I didn't remember any of the details of what I posted except that I do remember that I did post something.

1. a. Is the world a mess? b. How do you define mess (vs. a perfect world)?

a. I've gotten into fishing and if I get so lucky as to catch a fish (which I haven't) I think the fish's worldview would be that the world is a mess.
b. The fishes world view

2. Why do you think that?

Because I think.

3. Is there an explanation that seems to fit all causes of the mess, if you think there is a mess?

Yes, there is. It's called evolution.

4. Is there a solution?

No there is not.

5. Has the solution already been provided?

Only in your religion.

6. Do you have to do anything to benefit from the solution, if there is one?

If we're talking about your religion then it depends on which passages in the Bible you are reading. Jesus said not everyone who calls him Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but only those who do the will of his father. He also said strive to enter by the narrow gate because few will find it (or something like that). Paul said to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

If you like other verses in the Bible you can choose the ones that say you don't really have to do anything and call this Christianity. It seems to work for many so have at it.

7. Is there a downside to ignoring the solution, if there most likely is a solution?

Well, of course in your religion there is a downside. I don't know if you only include the "Biblical Downside" of the lake with burns with fire and brimstone or also incorporate Dante's inferno and other traditional, but non-Biblical sources like "The gospel of Peter" but I get the point from all of it that if you ignore the solution accepting God's love, things could get really, really, really, REALLY nasty for all eternity, world without end, forever and ever.

8. Is the thought of you personally having a perfect body in a perfect world for all eternity appealing, unappealing?

Not at all. Can I retain my sex appeal?

9. If appealing, is it worth your personal time, study, effort to become knowlegable about it? (Like if understanding math is important to you, are you willing to learn arithmatic, algebra, trig, geometry, calculus, etc., or is just reading about it on wikipedia or watching a couple episodes on the History Channel sufficient?)

Been there done that. Probably a lot more than you since I was raised and educated in it from the day I was born.

TPG edited 2/23/17 7:30 AM

[Mountaineer]

HOLLYWOOD, CA—At the upcoming 89th Academy Awards ceremony Sunday night, the Oscar award for “Most Tolerable Christian Movie” will be handed out for the first time, sources confirmed.

http://babylonbee.com/news/oscars-intro ... vie-award/

[Mountaineer]

Guys! The Babylon Bee is a satire website, they poke fun at all sorts of things (e.g. lots of sterotypes are made fun of). I thought you all knew that.

[Mountaineer]

http://www.worldvieweverlasting.com/201 ... niversity/

This presentation was given on February 20, 2017 at Washington University to the new Lutheran Student Fellowship campus group. It was surrounded by controversy and an “alternative event” was held outside the room in the student commons. You can hear some background noise from that event in this recording.
Why do men who went insane like Friedrich Nietzsche, Nazis like Martin Heidegger, child-molesters like Alfred Kinsey, and racists like Margaret Sanger get the street-cred to influence your decisions about sex, marriage, and children without you even knowing it? How has their socially-engineered, anti-Christian crusade undermined multiple western civilizations, not to mention in one generation demolished the demographics of American churches? Come see how “marriage” is much bigger than just you, and why the Demographic Bomb that already went off in our postmodern jungle just might spell the end of civilization as we know it, and be reminded why the Church doesn’t have to be afraid of that.

The two articles published before the event:
http://www.studlife.com/forum/op-ed-sub ... than-fisk/

http://www.studlife.com/forum/op-ed-sub ... in-christ/

A balanced report after the event: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31304/

Student Life paper report after the event:
http://www.studlife.com/news/campus-eve ... sity-talk/

[Mountaineer]

IRON (AND JIU JITSU) AND THE EXTERNAL WORD
By Paul Koch –

In 1994, Henry Rollins wrote an essay for Details magazine titled “Iron and the Soul.” Rollins wonderfully elaborates on the need to press against the uncompromising iron weights you find in the gym. Their immovable presence and your desire to conquer them shapes and forms the man you are. While victory is hard earned and progress is often slow, you learn the lessons of discipline and dedication that will impact not only your physical appearance but your character as well.

At the end of his reflection, Rollins says,

“The Iron never lies to you. You can walk outside and listen to all kinds of talk, get told that you’re a god or a total bastard. The Iron will always kick you the real deal. The Iron is the great reference point, the all-knowing perspective giver. Always there like a beacon in the pitch black. I have found the Iron to be my greatest friend. It never freaks out on me, never runs. Friends may come and go. But two hundred pounds is always two hundred pounds.”

There is a real need for such an external reference point, an “all-knowing perspective giver” like iron in our lives. For such an activity doesn’t allow us to remain safely inside our own heads. Inside our own heads, we can begin to believe our own hype. <More below>

https://thejaggedword.com/2017/03/02/ir ... rnal-word/

[farjean2]

OK, a few more... just the headline is enough, I think.

God Does Not Exist, And I Hate Him So Much That I Will Devote My Entire Life To Destroying Him

Rescue Workers Extract New Baptist Parents From Avalanche Of Casseroles

Man Unsure If He’s Persecuted Because He’s A Christian Or Because He’s A Massive Jerk

Study: Calling Other Person A Nazi Is Most Effective Way To Dialogue

That's a great selection of headlines! I love the babylonbee ... and yes, it's the Onion for religious wackos like me.

That first one is my favorite ...

The first one reminds me of the quote from someone, (I think maybe Samuel Beckett), when asked about his belief in God towards the end of his life he said "the bastard doesn't exist".

Coming towards the end of my own life I think that is the only sane conclusion for a rational person to reach and I totally agree. You can't escape the programming to believe, both by evolution and religion, but you can learn to resist it and apply common sense.

[Kbg]

As a general rule, I despise internet discussion about religion and rarely pay attention to this thread but since there are a fair number of folks who don't believe in God on it, why do you waste your time on religious threads? I'd think you just wouldn't care to spend the time posting or reading a thread about the topic. For example, the extent of interest I have in cars is that I have to drive one to get where I want to go and every once in a while I have to buy a new one, but other than that I can't imagine spending a minute of my time on reading a gear head thread anywhere. I sort of understand people who are passionate about their faith spending time on religious threads, but I just don't understand the opposite.

Anyone care to shed some thoughts on the above? Just curious (no other motivation than that).

[Jack Jones]

As a general rule, I despise internet discussion about religion and rarely pay attention to this thread but since there are a fair number of folks who don't believe in God on it, why do you waste your time on religious threads? I'd think you just wouldn't care to spend the time posting or reading a thread about the topic. For example, the extent of interest I have in cars is that I have to drive one to get where I want to go and every once in a while I have to buy a new one, but other than that I can't imagine spending a minute of my time on reading a gear head thread anywhere. I sort of understand people who are passionate about their faith spending time on religious threads, but I just don't understand the opposite.

Anyone care to shed some thoughts on the above? Just curious (no other motivation than that).

There's wisdom to be found in the religions of the world. I'm for the most part a heathen (although raised Christian), but I dabble in meditation and Zen because I feel like it doesn't require me to believe in things that seem nonsensical.

Also, I feel like an important part of living is to come to grips with the fact that you will die someday. Most days I don't think of death, but sometimes I feel that existential dread. Someday, I'd like to pass away without grasping at this life or feeling that I'm losing the most important thing (my existence). I hope that working on my spiritual development will help with that.

[Mountaineer]

This is for mountaineer. Church Hunters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT70cA-7qMk

Desert,
That was a hoot! If I were looking for a church, came across this video and perceived it as the real deal instead of satire, I'd run faster than you can say MOUNTAINEERS ARE ALWAYS FREE. Unfortunately, there is a grain of truth in the video as to what some "churches" are like, although I'd rather spend my Sunday morning at Starbucks or a local bar than at the depicted "church" that is pretty much, if not totally, void of Jesus.

[farjean2]

As a general rule, I despise internet discussion about religion and rarely pay attention to this thread but since there are a fair number of folks who don't believe in God on it, why do you waste your time on religious threads? I'd think you just wouldn't care to spend the time posting or reading a thread about the topic. For example, the extent of interest I have in cars is that I have to drive one to get where I want to go and every once in a while I have to buy a new one, but other than that I can't imagine spending a minute of my time on reading a gear head thread anywhere. I sort of understand people who are passionate about their faith spending time on religious threads, but I just don't understand the opposite.

Anyone care to shed some thoughts on the above? Just curious (no other motivation than that).

Speaking only for myself, I am an ex-Christian and I never, ever bring up the subject of religion to anybody. When somebody else brings it up, I do get passionate about my unbelief in the things they assert are true with no evidence to back up their claims. I could just ignore it, to be sure, but to me it feels like someone asserting 2+2=3 with absolute certainty over and over again and eventually you just have to say something to defend the fact that 2+2=4. It usually does nothing but make them mad but something makes me do it any way. Why are humans like that? God only knows.

[Maddy]

What deep-thinking person wouldn't puzzle over the nature of existence, the characteristics of consciousness, the meaning of life, and what happens to our "self" and to the entire world that comprises our consciousness when we die? When it started out, this thread was receptive to a wide variety of approaches to these questions, but as time went on, it became a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" referendum on evangelical Christianity. Predictably, some real good thinkers turned around and ran.

[Mountaineer]

A fascinating view of why people come to America, how women are treated, and Islamic goals from a woman born and raised in the Islamic worldview. I have not yet read her book.

http://issuesetc.org/2017/03/21/0801-th ... ish-32117/

[farjean2]

As a general rule, I despise internet discussion about religion and rarely pay attention to this thread but since there are a fair number of folks who don't believe in God on it, why do you waste your time on religious threads? I'd think you just wouldn't care to spend the time posting or reading a thread about the topic. For example, the extent of interest I have in cars is that I have to drive one to get where I want to go and every once in a while I have to buy a new one, but other than that I can't imagine spending a minute of my time on reading a gear head thread anywhere. I sort of understand people who are passionate about their faith spending time on religious threads, but I just don't understand the opposite.

Anyone care to shed some thoughts on the above? Just curious (no other motivation than that).

Speaking only for myself, I am an ex-Christian and I never, ever bring up the subject of religion to anybody. When somebody else brings it up, I do get passionate about my unbelief in the things they assert are true with no evidence to back up their claims. I could just ignore it, to be sure, but to me it feels like someone asserting 2+2=3 with absolute certainty over and over again and eventually you just have to say something to defend the fact that 2+2=4. It usually does nothing but make them mad but something makes me do it any way. Why are humans like that? God only knows.

God's chipping away at you, farjean. Those are the exact symptoms.

I did enjoy your last sentence tho.

"Chipping away" is probably a good metaphor for helping to answer Kbg's original question. Every time I answer a post, maybe it's like I'm trying to chip away one more piece of what remains of the darkness of religion in my mind. When you were steeped in it as long and as deeply as I was, the de-programming process can take a long time.