Figuring Out Religion

[Gosso]

One thing to keep in mind is that Jesus was primarily the one that spoke of Hell.  This supposed pacifist and great moral teach, seemed to add to the end of all his sermons "or else you're going to Hell." 

Bullshit!

Which part is bullshit?

Jesus did warn us of Hell more than anyone in the Bible.

Added:  Apparently Jesus mentioned Hell 46 times.  We can ignore him, interpret it metaphorically, or write him off as crazy.  I think it was CS Lewis that said, "A defanged Jesus is a useless Jesus."

[Gosso]

I tried this myself, but the more metaphorically I started to see things, the less interest the stories held. Even the metaphors I was trying to read into them contradicted each other.

I think a big problem with Judeo-Christian religions for me is that none of the stories have ever had even a shred of resonance for me. Reading the Bible is a terrible slog. I find it so boring. The stories make no literal sense and seem to espouse terribly discordant messages if read metaphorically.

I wouldn't start with the Bible.  I'd start with Mere Christianity.

Although the Psalms are quite beautiful and fun to read (essentially love songs between God and Man).  The Gospels are also very good.  I'd avoid the Old Testament for now.

Also I learned a lot from this YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/VeritasForum

The Francis Collins (former Director of the Human Genome Project) lecture is extremely good (95 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGu_Vtbp ... verview-vl

[ns3]

One thing to keep in mind is that Jesus was primarily the one that spoke of Hell.  This supposed pacifist and great moral teach, seemed to add to the end of all his sermons "or else you're going to Hell." 

Bullshit!

Which part is bullshit?

Jesus did warn us of Hell more than anyone in the Bible.

Added:  Apparently Jesus mentioned Hell 46 times.  We can ignore him, interpret it metaphorically, or write him off as crazy.  I think it was CS Lewis that said, "A defanged Jesus is a useless Jesus."

I hear this all the time how Jesus spoke more about hell than he spoke about heaven but I don't see one single scripture in the Bible where Jesus clearly warned us about the Christian view of hell as a place of eternal punishment for non-believers.

Not once.

And if that was the case why would he tell the disciples to go and preach the good news to every creature when the true message would have been to warn the people that if they didn't believe in him they would go to hell and be tormented forever and ever and ever to all eternity?

Is it because he loved the world too much to say such a thing clearly even if it was true? If it was true and he couldn't say it then he's a complete asshole like a politician.

I do see that the he came into the world to reconcile sinners to himself. I don't see that he failed, or, at least did the best he could.

[Tortoise]

Much is made of the fact that those accounts don't agree - especially in regards to the beginning and the end of the story. Try as I might I have never been able to reconcile them. It's curious however that the scribes who compiled them into the Bible didn't straighten out the discrepancies to make it a more credible narrative. Speaks to me of integrity in the process.

Agreed. Consider that if all four Gospels agreed perfectly on every single detail, detractors would accuse the authors of plagiarism.

Despite the minor inconsistencies between certain details in the Gospels, all four of them agree on the really big things: that God sent his Son to us in human form as Jesus Christ, that Jesus claimed that he was indeed the Son of God, that he fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies about him, that he performed many miracles, that his own people rejected him and had the Romans crucify him, that he was placed in a tomb, and that three days later he was resurrected and appeared in the flesh to many people for a certain period of time after that.

All four Gospels agree on those things. Those are the big ideas that define Christianity, not the handful of minor details that are inconsistent between the Gospels.

[doodle]

I will have a look at The Age of Reason.

Here is a link to the full text.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/singlehtml.htm

As I recall, part of it was written while Paine was in a cell in France waiting to have his head chopped off, so it probably has a different pace to it than the other part.  Happily, I think that Jefferson was able to bring him back to the U.S. with his head still attached.

Just started and thoroughly enjoying. :-) Paine's reason and logic are very convincing and he raises a lot of good questions.

I wonder how the Michelle Bachmans and Sarah Palins feel about this founding father? How does he fit into their American mythology and the fairy tales that we tell ourselves about who we were and are?

[Gosso]

I hear this all the time how Jesus spoke more about hell than he spoke about heaven but I don't see one single scripture in the Bible where Jesus clearly warned us about the Christian view of hell as a place of eternal punishment for non-believers.

Not once.

And if that was the case why would he tell the disciples to go and preach the good news to every creature when the true message would have been to warn the people that if they didn't believe in him they would go to hell and be tormented forever and ever and ever to all eternity?

Is it because he loved the world too much to say such a thing clearly even if it was true? If it was true and he couldn't say it then he's a complete asshole like a politician.

I do see that the he came into the world to reconcile sinners to himself. I don't see that he failed, or, at least did the best he could.

I sympathize with your POV, and often find myself phasing in and out of it myself.  I was simply pointing out what was recorded in the Gospels.  I'm using the King James Version.  Read Matthew 25, it is utterly terrifying (yet also joyful).

George MacDonald (CS Lewis called him his guru) shared a similar view of universal reconciliation:

MacDonald was convinced that God does not punish except to amend, and that the sole end of His greatest anger is the amelioration of the guilty. As the doctor uses fire and steel in certain deep-seated diseases, so God may use hell-fire if necessary to heal the hardened sinner. MacDonald declared, "I believe that no hell will be lacking which would help the just mercy of God to redeem his children." MacDonald posed the rhetorical question, "When we say that God is Love, do we teach men that their fear of Him is groundless?" He replied, "No. As much as they fear will come upon them, possibly far more. ... The wrath will consume what they call themselves; so that the selves God made shall appear."

However, true repentance, in the sense of freely chosen moral growth, is essential to this process, and, in MacDonald's optimistic view, inevitable for all beings (see universal reconciliation). He recognized the theoretical possibility that, bathed in the eschatological divine light, some might perceive right and wrong for what they are but still refuse to be transfigured by operation of God's fires of love, but he did not think this likely.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_MacDonald

I think it's possible everyone will be saved (in this life or the next), but they must accept it.  Free will is extremely important, and without it my arguments for a good God go out the window.

Edit: Fixed typo

[doodle]

If your Christian faith is like a well tended garden then Paine's "Age of Reason" is like a D9 bulldozer.

I found it interesting as he dissects the origins of the word "prophet" and explains that historically this word was used for story weavers, poets and musicians known to take myths and spin them into fantastic tales. Paine then goes on and draws quite a few parallels between ancient mythology and Christian beliefs and tears into the idea that "revelation" can ever be communicated second hand. By this definition he sees the bible as pure hearsay and when he employs his God given faculties of reason and logic to the stories and subject within finds the whole thing insulting and of such poor quality that any creator capable of putting the heavens and earth into motion would be insulted to have what is written in the Bible attributed to Him.

On the whole, I really like this guy so far.
 

[Gosso]

I'm not sure if this is authentic, but even if it's not it is still a valid criticism of The Age of Reason:

[quote=Benjamin Franklin]I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For, without the belief of a Providence that takes cognisance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that, though your reasons are subtle, and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind spits in his own face.

But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantage of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a great deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion,what would they be if without it?

Source: http://www.constitution.org/primarysour ... paine.html
[/quote]

It reminds me of this G.K. Chesterton quote:

[quote=G.K. Chesterton]In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.”? To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

Source: http://www.chesterton.org/discover-ches ... ence-down/
[/quote]

So far The Age of Reason seems to be a more intelligent critique of religion than the modern atheists.  But one passage that struck me was this:

[quote=The Age of Reason]But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection, and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.[/quote]

That truly is the crux of the problem.  Paine demands proof, while Christ demands faith.  Ultimately we each have to make that choice.  The Bible is also fully aware of how difficult this decision will be, especially for highly intelligent people:

[quote=John 20:24-31]24    But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Did'ymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.[/quote]

No mincing of words in that last passage.

I think a lot of people seem to believe that it is a black and white problem between faith and reason, but I have found both to work wonderfully together...although I realize I may be in the honeymoon phase...

Another thought: it seems people place too much faith on the Bible being perfect and literally true, and not enough faith on Jesus Christ himself.  The Bible is an important tool to know God and Christ, but it is not God himself.

[MediumTex]

I'm not sure if this is authentic, but even if it's not it is still a valid criticism of The Age of Reason:

I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For, without the belief of a Providence that takes cognisance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that, though your reasons are subtle, and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind spits in his own face.

But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantage of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a great deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion,what would they be if without it?

Source: http://www.constitution.org/primarysour ... paine.html

Franklin was a big believer in providing adequate tools for the common man to get through life.  In Franklin's other writings, he makes it pretty clear that he doesn't think there is an afterlife, so perhaps he was just being very practical, as opposed to saying that Paine was wrong.

Paine, of course, only sought the truth, and didn't really care whose feelings got hurt in the process (which almost cost him his head in France).  That's what made him such an effective revolutionary, and what made him so effective in shaping the thinking of pre-Revolution colonists through his political writings.  He didn't want an insurrection, he wanted a true revolution, and he did a very good job.  Without him, it's almost certain that there either wouldn't have been a Revolutionary War, or if there had been it would have been very brief.

As I read the quote above, I kept thinking to myself: Couldn't all of these same things have been addressed to Jesus?

So far The Age of Reason seems to be a more intelligent critique of religion than the modern atheists.  But one passage that struck me was this:

But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection, and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.

That truly is the crux of the problem.  Paine demands proof, while Christ demands faith.  Ultimately we each have to make that choice.  The Bible is also fully aware of how difficult this decision will be, especially for highly intelligent people.

But it seems to me that a big part of the Gospels consists of Jesus performing miracles and other supernatural acts, chief among them being born to a virgin and later rising from the dead.  If Christ really demanded faith, what was the point of all of the miracles?

Another thought: it seems people place too much faith on the Bible being perfect and literally true, and not enough faith on Jesus Christ himself.  The Bible is an important tool to know God and Christ, but it is not God himself.

But what is the difference between saying that the Bible is imperfect and saying that the Bible is just a bunch of speculation and hearsay about the nature of God?  I could write a Bible myself in which I speculated about the nature of God and invited (or threatened) people to follow my interpretation of God and his plan for the world.  What would be the difference between me and the writers in the Bible?  Why are their writings more valid than mine?  Is it because they said that God spoke to them or inspired them?  What if I said the same thing about my Bible?  I don't think that gets us anywhere.

To me, the way that you validate the truth of a set of claims is to test their logical soundness, their internal consistency and whether they actually work in practice.  On all three counts, the Bible fails in many ways, especially in the enormous differences between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament.  The two iterations of God really don't resemble one another at all.  On another front, while I find Jesus's teachings completely sound, I find the need to attribute supernatural acts to him as being an unnecessary means of validating his message to humanity of love, kindness and humility.  For me, I validate the truth of Jesus's message by simply following his teachings and observing their effects in my life and the lives of others. 

The Bible's saturation with supernatural acts in support of the existence of God just cheapens the whole thing for me.  Does God really need to engage in parlor tricks for the people he created in order to convince them that he exists?  I mean, think about a statue of Mary crying tears of blood that apparently only Catholics can see.  Stuff like that just seems absurd and completely misses the point of whatever message that God might be trying to deliver to us.  Imagine getting to Heaven and excitedly telling God: "I saw that statue with the tears of blood.  That was freaking awesome!", to which God might reply: "Actually, I didn't do that one.  It was just the local priest with some tubing and an aquarium pump trying to increase attendance at Mass."

I'm sort of with Franklin on the sociological benefits of religion, and in many ways I would probably do better to just keep my mouth shut, but like Paine I feel drawn to the search for the way things actually work, and I find many religious concepts to be akin to a tree that has fallen across the road, blocking my way to an urgent appointment. 

I don't seek to discredit or debunk religion; rather, I seek to move past it to a more direct and complete understanding of Creation.  The trouble I have when I discuss religion in the real world is that it often turns into a discussion of either the stupidity of a tree falling across the road, or the value of a tree falling across the road, when what I really want to discuss is how the tree got there in the first place, and what frontiers might exists beyond the tree.  This is a surprisingly difficult conversation to have, though I think we are having it here, and I really appreciate everyone's contributions.

[Gosso]

But it seems to me that a big part of the Gospels consists of Jesus performing miracles and other supernatural acts, chief among them being born to a virgin and later rising from the dead.  If Christ really demanded faith, what was the point of all of the miracles?

I'll admit that the miracles don't do much for me either.  When I read them I usually interpret them as spiritual rather than physical miracles.  But this is likely my Jungian background coming through.

However, as I have said plenty of times, the one miracle that Christians must accept is the Resurrection.  Here is a short YouTube clip that sums up NT Wright's position on the Resurrection (2 minutes): http://youtu.be/W0Dc01HVlaM

I don't seek to discredit or debunk religion; rather, I seek to move past it to a more direct and complete understanding of Creation.  The trouble I have when I discuss religion in the real world is that it often turns into a discussion of either the stupidity of a tree falling across the road, or the value of a tree falling across the road, when what I really want to discuss is how the tree got there in the first place, and what frontiers might exists beyond the tree.

I also felt the same way for about four years.  I tried to build my own relationship with God, I interpreted my own dreams for over a year, tossed coins with the I Ching, tried to adopt stoic morals, etc.  But nothing lasted.  I then somehow ended up with Christianity, which was the last place I thought I'd ever end up from this "spiritual journey", but here I am.

Another way to look at it is that Christianity has already developed a complete system that works and can be used to build a relationship with God, rather than try to develop our own.  I'm not smart enough to accomplish the latter.

This is a surprisingly difficult conversation to have, though I think we are having it here, and I really appreciate everyone's contributions.

I agree.  This discussion has been amazingly civil and is a testament to the great thinkers on this forum.

BTW lately I have been obsessed with "Ave Maria", which was composed by the great Lutheran, Bach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5cF5GGqVWo

[Mountaineer]

To me, the way that you validate the truth of a set of claims is to test their logical soundness, their internal consistency and whether they actually work in practice.  On all three counts, the Bible fails in many ways, especially in the enormous differences between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament.  The two iterations of God really don't resemble one another at all.  On another front, while I find Jesus's teachings completely sound, I find the need to attribute supernatural acts to him as being an unnecessary means of validating his message to humanity of love, kindness and humility.  For me, I validate the truth of Jesus's message by simply following his teachings and observing their effects in my life and the lives of others. 

The Bible's saturation with supernatural acts in support of the existence of God just cheapens the whole thing for me.  Does God really need to engage in parlor tricks for the people he created in order to convince them that he exists?

MT, you may have addressed this somewhere back in the thread, but could you please say why you think the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT?  To me, they are the same; it seems to me that God the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit were all over the OT as well as the NT.  Beginning with the Creation account in Genesis and ending with the final verses of Revelation 22.  Or, are you just pointing out the role differences within the Triune God?  The Father, creator of all that exists; Jesus Christ, the Son, who became human to suffer and die for the sins of all human beings and to rise to life again in the ultimate victory over death and Satan; and the Holy Spirit, who creates faith through God's Word and Sacraments. The three persons of the Trinity are coequal and coeternal, one God.

I don't seek to discredit or debunk religion; rather, I seek to move past it to a more direct and complete understanding of Creation.  The trouble I have when I discuss religion in the real world is that it often turns into a discussion of either the stupidity of a tree falling across the road, or the value of a tree falling across the road, when what I really want to discuss is how the tree got there in the first place, and what frontiers might exists beyond the tree.  This is a surprisingly difficult conversation to have, though I think we are having it here, and I really appreciate everyone's contributions.

MT, why do you not believe what God's Word says about how the tree got there in the first place?  Is the main issue due to the fact that man has (thus far) not been able to create life from scratch (cloning is just using what is already there), therefore creation by God is irrational?  Or have I misunderstood?  Also, I'm unclear as to what you mean about moving past religion to a more direct and complete understanding of Creation.

I know for me, I really struggled with some Christian concepts for a long time.  For me the major stumbling block was "original sin".  I did not want to accept that I was sinful through not fault of anything I had done because I thought I was a "good" person and my friends were largely "good" people.  Finally, I came to realize I was curved in on myself and my own importance and my rational scientific thought and had not been open to receiving God's Word that had been there all along.  For example, when I finally started to listen to the Creationist view as taught by my Pastor and examine it carefully, I came to the realization that it was a better worldview or explanation and more rational than anything else I'd ever been exposed to (e.g. macro evolutionist or intelligent design).  My chief learning was how important it was, for me the scientificlly trained whizbang engineer, to immerse myself in receiving God's Word from a trained theologian that holds Scripture to be true and to understand the whole Bible is about Jesus.  Somehow my scientific "thirst for knowledge" brain was able to want to study Christianity in depth and somehow, God caused my path and my Pastor's paths to cross at a very opportune time (I have also come to believe there are no coincidences).  At the beginning, it was like I was in third grade arithmetic wanting to learn calculus - it took a lot of time and effort and perseverance on my part to get there and a lot of patience on the part of my Pastor and my various Bible Study partners.  For my wife, it was different; she always was a believer and did not have the "ho hum, maybe yes, maybe no, who really cares, I'll get to that later, I have to rationally understand it" phase. 

Anyway, I would be interested in your continuing thoughts, perspectives, and comments.  It helps me learn and grow.

... Mountaineer

[MediumTex]

MT, you may have addressed this somewhere back in the thread, but could you please say why you think the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT?

The God of the Old Testament always struck me as sort of a frustrated babysitter of the Jews.  He would help them and then punish them in a seemingly endless cycle that led God to a state of great exasperation with his chosen people.  This state of exasperation must have gone into overdrive when much of the world came to accept Jesus as the Son of God, but almost none of God's own people did!!!  I am picturing God doing a huge cosmic facepalm as he watched the centuries following Jesus's ministry unfold and the Jewish people not only turned away from Jesus as the Messiah, but actually turned away from Judaism itself in huge numbers.

I'm unclear as to what you mean about moving past religion to a more direct and complete understanding of Creation.

I guess I am sort of saying the same thing that Jesus was saying when he criticized the religious institutions of his time for getting WAY off track in their understanding of God's wishes for humanity.  For example, I view the Pharisees and Sadducees as basically trees laying across the road that leads to a real understanding of God.  Jesus seemed to be saying that it's not about studying the Law and building a multi-layered church hierarchy with experts on all of the minutiae of how to cook certain foods and deciding whether it's okay to ride a bike on the Sabbath.  Jesus seemed to be saying that God didn't really give an oink about all of that.  Instead, he wanted something much simpler for humanity, and it basically came down to rising above our animal nature in the ways that we think and the ways that we act, while simply loving one another as we view the world through a lens of humility and kindness.  It's a message so simple that a child could understand it.  That, to me, rules out much of what passes for theology, which a child almost certainly could not understand.  After all, if a child could understand it, why would we need theologians to tell us what it means? 

[Mountaineer]

I just watched the third in a series of seven on "Questioning Christianity".  Thanks to Desert for pointing me to this.  I thought it was another outstanding session that believers and thinking non-believers will appreciate.  It is maintaining my interest.

http://new.livestream.com/redeemer-nyc/ ... dium=email

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

MT, you may have addressed this somewhere back in the thread, but could you please say why you think the God of the OT is different than the God of the NT?

The God of the Old Testament always struck me as sort of a frustrated babysitter of the Jews.  He would help them and then punish them in a seemingly endless cycle that led God to a state of great exasperation with his chosen people.  This state of exasperation must have gone into overdrive when much of the world came to accept Jesus as the Son of God, but almost none of God's own people did!!!  I am picturing God doing a huge cosmic facepalm as he watched the centuries following Jesus's ministry unfold and the Jewish people not only turned away from Jesus as the Messiah, but actually turned away from Judaism itself in huge numbers.

I'm unclear as to what you mean about moving past religion to a more direct and complete understanding of Creation.

I guess I am sort of saying the same thing that Jesus was saying when he criticized the religious institutions of his time for getting WAY off track in their understanding of God's wishes for humanity.  For example, I view the Pharisees and Sadducees as basically trees laying across the road that leads to a real understanding of God.  Jesus seemed to be saying that it's not about studying the Law and building a multi-layered church hierarchy with experts on all of the minutiae of how to cook certain foods and deciding whether it's okay to ride a bike on the Sabbath.  Jesus seemed to be saying that God didn't really give an oink about all of that.  Instead, he wanted something much simpler for humanity, and it basically came down to rising above our animal nature in the ways that we think and the ways that we act, while simply loving one another as we view the world through a lens of humility and kindness.  It's a message so simple that a child could understand it.  That, to me, rules out much of what passes for theology, which a child almost certainly could not understand.  After all, if a child could understand it, why would we need theologians to tell us what it means?

Thank you for taking the time to respond.  I have to say, on many levels I agree with where you are coming from.  I do think Christianity is somewhat of a paradox.  On one hand, it is extremely simple, so simple a child can understand it (Yes, Jesus loves me ... ) but on the other hand it is so complex that people have been debating its intricacies and meaning for two thousand years ... even us in this multipage thread! 

To me it is much like an onion with its many visible layers that we can peel back.  Then, we start to wonder, why does it burn my eyes when an apple does not?  What are all those things I can see under a microscope?  Where did it come from?  Why?  What if I put it under an electron microscope, chemical analysis, and on and on and on.  Why don't I just take the onion, give thanks that it is just what I needed to flavor my sandwich and move on? 

I think that paradox is part of the issue ... it is so simple that we have a difficult time accepting what the Scripture says (e.g. John 3:16) because we think we have to DO something, no matter how little, and we want to figure out what that something is or what the secret meaning is, or have an endless series of questions.  We want to participate with God in our salvation in spite of the fact He tells us there is nothing we need to do, Jesus did it all .... for me and for you.  We don't want to believe how Jesus came to fulfill the Law.  We can't understand how someone can raise from the dead because we have never seen it with our own eyes.  Or, we just reject the whole Christianity thing as being folly.  It all goes back to that "original sin", which I now understand as doubting God's Word, that so troubled and trapped me and millions of other people beginning with Adam and Eve; I only wanted to acknowledge actual sin, not the imputed or original sin with all its connotations that puts it in my face that I'm the one who caused Jesus to die - a disturbing reality.

OK, enough of my soapboxing ....  You were kind enough to answer my questions and take time out of your busy life to do it.  Is there anything I can answer for you?  I do not claim to know a lot, but I'm willing to share my perspectives if you think there is any value in my doing that.

P.S.  Theology.  I think all that word means is the study of God.  My wife used to perceive it to mean some high faluting thing that does not interest her because only brainiacs engage in "theology".  Then she laughed when she realized all of us are theologians if we have in interest in learning about God.

... Mountaineer

[doodle]

My question is what do I do if I can't believe? Do I just fake belief? Maybe if I pretend to believe long enough I eventually really will? Is it my fault if I can't believe and should I suffer eternal damnation because of that? I mean, let's be honest...what percentage of Christians REALLY believe? And if they don't, aren't they just lying and tring to deceive God? I should think God would prefer one to be honest in his doubt rather than disingenuous in his faith.

[Xan]

I think if you really are worried that you don't believe, then you in fact do.  If you didn't you wouldn't be worried.

[doodle]

I think if you really are worried that you don't believe, then you in fact do.  If you didn't you wouldn't be worried.

That might be so, but in my case I would love to be able to believe in something....but I am filled with doubt regarding everything. If I am really honest with myself I must say that I have no clue what the hell is going on here. At the end of the day what is written in the bible is simply a bunch of very fantastic sounding stories and appeals to some man made concepts of morality that very obviously don't exist within the natural order that God ( if He does exist) created. To me organized religion and it's tales and stories, rituals, beliefs, miracles, etc. have about as much validity to them as the Greek and Roman mythology that preceeded them. I'm at an utter loss to understand rationally how anyone can make the leap of faith necessary to believe fantastic tales written some two thousand years ago by a bunch of eccentric zealots when they would laugh out loud if they were to be told a similar story by anyone today.

If I were to tell you that I am Jesus come again, why would you not believe me? Would I need to show you some proof? What about if I did some of the miracles that I see every now and again on Sunday morning television where some preacher very obviously gives blind people the ability to see and crippled people the use of their legs again. I mean, I have clearly witnessed many miracles on religious TV who is to say that any one of these guys isn't Jesus resurrected?

[Pointedstick]

I'm not sure I understand how it's possible to believe that the Bible was written to be read literally while simultaneously believing that much of it is intended to be read metaphorically and admitting that you interpret various things to determine the meaning behind the words. That's the very opposite of a literal reading, no?

[Mountaineer]

Wow, I'm way behind on this thread.  I apologize in advance for what will probably be an annoyingly long string of replies. 

Moving forward to the New Testament, it always bothered me that at the end of the Gospel of John, the writer talks about how when Jesus was crucified (or it might have been when he was resurrected), many dead religious leaders from the past spontaneously rose from their graves in the middle of an earthquake that coincided with the event and these previously long-dead people walked around for a while before presumably returning to their graves (or ascending into Heaven).

MT, I don't see this in John.  Maybe my brain is foggy this morning, but I can't find it.

It is in Matthew Chapter 27, verses 52 and 53.

The Death of Jesus

45 Now from the sixth hour[f] there was darkness over all the land[g] until the ninth hour.[h] 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”? that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”? 47 And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.”? 48 And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. 49 But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.”? 50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.

51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. 54 When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!”?

55 There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

The note in my Lutheran Study Bible for verses 52-53 states "bodies of the saints ... coming out.  Their resurrection demonstrated the purpose of Christ's death: to bring eternal life to those doomed to die."

A second comment on verse 51: The temple curtain was torn in two to indicate the barrier that shielded the Most Holy Place (where the high priest entered annually on the Day of Atonement to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice) was now open.  The old system of sacrifiee, priesthood, and temple worship ended.  We are no longer separated from God.  Jesus' sacrifice opened the way for every repentant sinner to enter into God's presence (see Heb 9:11-12 and 10:20).

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

I'm not sure I understand how it's possible to believe that the Bible was written to be read literally while simultaneously believing that much of it is intended to be read metaphorically and admitting that you interpret various things to determine the meaning behind the words. That's the very opposite of a literal reading, no?

Additional Thoughts below.  I agree with Desert that you either take the Scripture as a whole, in context, and accept it is true, or you don't.  Once you start to pick and choose which parts you like or dislike, the ball game is over and the long downhill slide toward apostasy, and thus Hell, begins.  As I understand it, the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy (unbelief). 

... Mountaineer

I The Inspiration of Holy Scripture

Holy Scripture is the Word of God because it is divinely inspired. For proof of this thesis no more is required than simply putting into practice the formal principle of Christianity, that Scripture is the only source and norm of all doctrine, thus also of the doctrine concerning the inspiration of Scripture. Three passages are above all others the sedes doctrine or verbal inspiration. We give them in literal translation and according to the best readings of the Greek original. 2 Timothy 3,16: "All Scripture is God-Breathed". 2 Peter 1,21: "Borne along by the Holy Spirit men spake from God". 1 Corinthians 2,13: "Which things also we speak not in words taught of human wisdom but in (words) taught of the spirit, matching spiritual matters with spiritual words". With regard to the first passage, the extreme simplicity of the sentence structure is to be noted. The first predicate adjective of the sentence, "God-breathed", is predicated of the whole of the subject, "Scripture", or the written Word of God. The second predicate adjective, "profitable", is connected with the first by the conjunction "and".

II  The Inerrancy of Holy Scripture

To anyone who truly and honestly believes in the plenary verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture its absolute inerrancy must be a foregone conclusion. A single statement like that of Titus 1,2, which speaks of "God that cannot lie", would be sufficient to prove the absolute inerrancy of all Scripture, which is all "God-breathed" since with the omniscient God the distinction which obtains among fallible mortals between a lie and a mistake has no validity. But there are other more specific proofs for the inerrancy of Holy Sripture, the most striking being the word of our Lord and Savior in the Gospel according to St. John, ch. 10, v. 35: "The Scripture cannot be broken". Since inspiration extends not merely to a part of the Scripture but to the whole of Scripture, and since Scripture consists not of persons or things but of words, it follows that the Scripture in all of its words and in each of its words is completely inerrant. Instances of emphasis on a single word or form of a word are found in Galations 3,16, compared with Genesis 22,18; Matthew 22,43,44, compared with Psalm 110,1; John 10,35, compared with Psalm 82,6.

III  The Inviolability of Holy Scripture

The term "inviolability" designates that devine authority of Holy Scripture which makes it a crimen laesae majestatis to augment or diminish its God-given content and scope. This is a list of proof-passages, warnings, threats, which assert the inviolability of Holy Scripture and the divine judgment against any deviation from the divine teaching which it imparts: Dueteronomy 4,2; 12,32; 13,1-10; Joshua 23,6; Proverbs 30, 5.6; Isaiah 8,20; 29,13 (compare Matthew 15,8.9); Jeremiah 23,28,31,32; Matthew 5,18.19; 28,20; Luke 16,29; 2 Corinthians 2,17; Revelation 22, 18.19. In these passages God has expressly forbidden that anything be taught in His Church except what He Himself has commanded and that nothing of what He has commanded be omitted or neglected; and has expressly declared that He will not be served by the commandments and precepts of men.

[Gosso]

I think if you really are worried that you don't believe, then you in fact do.  If you didn't you wouldn't be worried.

That might be so, but in my case I would love to be able to believe in something....but I am filled with doubt regarding everything. If I am really honest with myself I must say that I have no clue what the hell is going on here. At the end of the day what is written in the bible is simply a bunch of very fantastic sounding stories and appeals to some man made concepts of morality that very obviously don't exist within the natural order that God ( if He does exist) created. To me organized religion and it's tales and stories, rituals, beliefs, miracles, etc. have about as much validity to them as the Greek and Roman mythology that preceeded them. I'm at an utter loss to understand rationally how anyone can make the leap of faith necessary to believe fantastic tales written some two thousand years ago by a bunch of eccentric zealots when they would laugh out loud if they were to be told a similar story by anyone today.

If I were to tell you that I am Jesus come again, why would you not believe me? Would I need to show you some proof? What about if I did some of the miracles that I see every now and again on Sunday morning television where some preacher very obviously gives blind people the ability to see and crippled people the use of their legs again. I mean, I have clearly witnessed many miracles on religious TV who is to say that any one of these guys isn't Jesus resurrected?

Hmmm, well if you were beaten to death, put on display for everyone to see, and then rose from the dead three days later with a transformed body, then I might begin to question my beliefs. 

I don't believe the path to Christianity has to be through the church or common christians.  These come later, and actually can be a test of our faith, at least they are for me.  The best way to Christ is to find a christian that you respect and then learn from them.  For me that person is CS Lewis.  There are many other greats such as Blaise Pascal, St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, GK Chesterton, George MacDonald, Dante, John Milton, Sarah Palin, etc.

Also, just a simple prayer seems to really help me--it humbles the ego.  Just ask for light/knowledge.

I'm not sure if you've seen this one but here is a lecture given by Alan Watts on G.K. Chesterton (41 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlhRsr6BZBo

I sometimes wonder if I need a primer in Christianity before I can reach the deeper levels of understanding.  Christianity is the harbor I return to after I have been out exploring all day.

I was raised with Homer Simpson as my God, so I may have a long way to go.

[Xan]

Gosso,

Before you jump wholeheartedly into Roman Catholicism, may I make a comparison with (and endorsement of) confessional Lutheranism?  There are surely worse choices than Roman Catholicism: like the Eastern Orthodox and the Lutherans, they have the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.  As Luther said, he would far rather eat and drink Christ's Body and Blood with the Pope than mere bread and wine with Zwingli.  (I think Roman Catholics would say that Lutherans don't have the Real Presence, on account of the lack of Apostolic Succession.  I believe we would say that Apostolic Succession can be passed down by pastors and not exclusively by bishops, so we really do have it, but in any case it's not as big a focus for us.)

What's unique about Christianity in the world is that Christ atones for our sins, takes them away, and makes us a new, righteous creation.  It is VERY easy for individuals and for churches to flip this around, and get back to what we need to do in order to earn our salvation.  Taking the Gospel ("good news", remember), and turning it into a new Law.  Becoming imprisoned by the very Gospel which is supposed to set us free.

Up until the Council of Trent, during the counter-reformation, it was perfectly possible to be a Roman Catholic and to hold all the core Lutheran doctrines.  Lutheranism was a movement gaining traction within the Church to re-focus on the really important things, like, say, forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake.

The typical Roman Catholic objection to forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake is that you can't get into heaven until and unless you're "actually good".  They reject imputed righteousness.  Well, if the God who can create the entire universe simply by speaking then tells you that your sins are forgiven and that you are righteous, then you ARE, regardless of anything else.

Roman Catholics as well as many (most?) Protestant churches fall into the same trap: they believe in a progression of righteousness, that people start out unrighteous and then gradually, with great effort aided by the Holy Spirit, they achieve Christ-like righteousness.  Even many churches which claim "grace alone, faith alone" urge people to look inward, to conduct extensive self-examination, to see whether they're really worthy.  Too much of that, and you end up with either despair or self-righteousness.

The Gospel reading in our lectionary last week was Matthew 5:13-20.  Our pastor preached a great sermon on it.  I'll include some key excerpts:

The text did not say: "You are becoming the salt of the earth", the text said "You are the salt of the earth".  Jesus did not say "You are becoming the light of the world", Jesus said "You are the light of the world".

Can you imagine if your momma or daddy said to you, "You are becoming my son", "You are becoming my daughter"?  How do you know if you've ever arrived.  How do you know whether you are their son or their daughter.  Your momma and daddy said "You are my son", "You are my daughter", defining your identity by their proclamation, not by your self-evaluation.

He related a story about a class Dr Luther was teaching, which I'll paraphrase:

Student: So, man can do nothing about his own sinfulness, correct?
Luther: Yes.
Student: God is to do everything, right?
Luther: Yes.
Student: Then I may do as I please!  I can sin as much as I want and it makes no difference.
Luther: Yes, you may do as you please.  But.  Tell me: what pleases you?  Imagine: no more laws, no more punishments.  What do you do?  Do you drink yourself senseless?  Do you make faces at the Duke?  Do you spend the rest of the week in a brothel?  If you are a good man, you do good works.  Not to prove anything, not to gain anything, but just because that's who you are in your heart.
Student: What does it take, then, to be a good man?
Luther: Faith.

Father Barron (whose videos I truly enjoy, thank you again for linking to them) knows this on some level, but hasn't quite put it together.  In his video on the Council of Trent, he describes the Roman Catholics as "pulling back" from the Lutheran idea of imputed righteousness.  (In fact, they declared that anybody who believed in it was anathema, and excommunicated the Lutherans.  That's where we believe the Roman Catholics left the Church.)  They declared and believe that both faith and works are required to earn salvation.

[Here is a page describing the Council's decisions, along with how they conflict with previous Councils and Church Fathers.]

In a different video (I wish I had the specifics!) he's describing what "good works" are, and he absolutely nails the definition (paraphrase): a good work is one that is done purely for the good of the other person.  If you expect any kind of tit for tat, or that a side-effect of the work will benefit you in some way, then it isn't really a good work.  And he is absolutely correct.

But he doesn't see that Trent's requirement for salvation makes good works, so defined, literally impossible.  If good works lead to my salvation, then I am absolutely benefiting from them in the biggest way.  I'm helping my neighbor in order to save my own hide, not for his sake.  That's not a good work.  Let me say again: if good works are required to earn salvation, then there is no such thing as a good work.

And this touches on the definition of freedom discussion, and Mountaineer's "freedom TO" idea.  With the free forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake, we are free TO do good works.  The fact that our behavior does not impact our salvation doesn't mean that we are turned over to sin; instead, it changes us from a state where it isn't possible for us to do good works to one where it IS possible for us to do good works.  THAT is freedom.  "If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."

In coming to accept Christianity, I realized two things:
a) What's unique about, and central to, Christianity is the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake.
b) The best Christian tradition is one which puts a) at its very center.
That's how I ended up where I am.

I would encourage you to check out a good LCMS church (preferably one that doesn't have "contemporary" services), and see what you think.  It is a part of the catholic church, rightly reformed.  You get the Real Presence; you get all the trappings of Church traditions like vestments, processions, even imposition of ashes, the church year, etc; and you get the proclamation of free forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake.

[MediumTex]

Wow, I'm way behind on this thread.  I apologize in advance for what will probably be an annoyingly long string of replies. 

Moving forward to the New Testament, it always bothered me that at the end of the Gospel of John, the writer talks about how when Jesus was crucified (or it might have been when he was resurrected), many dead religious leaders from the past spontaneously rose from their graves in the middle of an earthquake that coincided with the event and these previously long-dead people walked around for a while before presumably returning to their graves (or ascending into Heaven).

MT, I don't see this in John.  Maybe my brain is foggy this morning, but I can't find it.

Sorry, it's at the end of Matthew.

[Mountaineer]

Gosso,

If I may, I'd like to add just a bit to what Xan so magnificently stated.  Please prayerfully consider routinely attending a congregation where the Word is preached faithfully and the Sacraments are administered rightly (based on my experiences from attending Presbyterian USA and PCA, Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, Assembly of God, ELCA and LCMS services, that would be the traditional Divine Service at an LCMS congregation - I have very little first hand experience with the Roman Catholic service but have discussed it with several of my RC friends).  For me, there is something incredibly special and meaningful about having my sins forgiven and receiving Jesus within a community of like believers that cannot be duplicated elsewhere.

The living voice of Jesus is what we hear when His Word is read and preached.  The Word of Jesus is both a written and an oral word.  This Word, though written in words inspired and canonically received, is also spoken and heard within a community called the Body of Christ.  This voice is a living voice, for by it Jesus Christ is present for us bodily.

Following are a couple of excerpts from a book I'm reading, "Heaven on Earth - The gifts of Christ in the Divine Service" by Arthur A. Just Jr. that may help explain:

This Word is interpreted within the community, broken open throught preaching as hearts burn through proclamation of prophet and apostle.  At the center of our task of interpretation is the understanding that exegesis is always undertaken with preaching as central to our explication of the Scriptures, for the Scriptures were meant to be preached.  To interpret Scriptures rightly requieres a proper method of interpretation that reflects a biblical theology or preaching.

Hughes Oliphant Old describes an understanding of the Word of God among both the New Testament writers as well as the Early Church fathers.  He speaks of this as Christ's "kerygmatic presence" and cites numerous examples in the gospels and Paul's Epistles where Scripture testifies that its very nature is kerygmatic, particularly Luke 10:16 and its parallel in Matthew 10:40.  For Old, "kerygmatic presence" simply means "that when the word of Christ is truly preached, then Christ is present."  These observations are in connection with Paul's well-known words from Romans 10:14-17, English Standard Version (ESV):

14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?  And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”? 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”? 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Wow, I'm way behind on this thread.  I apologize in advance for what will probably be an annoyingly long string of replies. 

Moving forward to the New Testament, it always bothered me that at the end of the Gospel of John, the writer talks about how when Jesus was crucified (or it might have been when he was resurrected), many dead religious leaders from the past spontaneously rose from their graves in the middle of an earthquake that coincided with the event and these previously long-dead people walked around for a while before presumably returning to their graves (or ascending into Heaven).

MT, I don't see this in John.  Maybe my brain is foggy this morning, but I can't find it.

Sorry, it's at the end of Matthew.

MT, see my comments a page or two back.  It disappered quickly as this thread is active today.