Figuring Out Religion

[screwtape]

It has prompted me to really thoroughly examine my beliefs, do a lot of reading and studying, become awed as how well the 66 books of the Bible written over a few thousand years by many different authors are interconnected and consistent,

I used to be awed by the same thing but upon further reflection how could those 66 books not be connected and consistent? First of all, they wouldn't have made it into the canon if they hadn't been, but don't you think most, if not all of the writers except whoever wrote the very first books  were familiar with what was already known as "scripture" at the time?

To me, the most powerful proofs of inspiration of the Bible were to be found in reading the many ways in which the characters in the Bible served as shadows and types of Christ. Have you ever read Arthur Pink, namely Gleanings in Genesis and Gleanings in Exodus? Some pretty powerful stuff. I used to have both books but have no clue what I did with them.

[screwtape]

My father-in-law just retired from being a Presbyterian pastor whose views sort of jibe with yours.

It's a very warm and compassionate view, but not very exciting, and his church lost members as they died and nobody took their place.

I remember people used to joke of Presbyterians as the "frozen chosen". And there was also another joke about which denomination would go first in the rapture. It was decided that it would be the Presbyterians because  the Bible says "the Dead in Christ will rise first".

Maybe people are moving to churches with more of a hellfire and brimstone message but I'm not so sure. I haven't checked in with what's really going on with Christianity for a while but I have heard some things that lead me to think people are moving away from it.

But in this age of the internet and non-stop entertainment I wouldn't doubt people are looking for a religion that is more exciting. Maybe that even has something to do with rise of ISIS in Islam.

[Mountaineer]

It has prompted me to really thoroughly examine my beliefs, do a lot of reading and studying, become awed as how well the 66 books of the Bible written over a few thousand years by many different authors are interconnected and consistent,

I used to be awed by the same thing but upon further reflection how could those 66 books not be connected and consistent? First of all, they wouldn't have made it into the canon if they hadn't been, but don't you think most, if not all of the writers except whoever wrote the very first books  were familiar with what was already known as "scripture" at the time?

To me, the most powerful proofs of inspiration of the Bible were to be found in reading the many ways in which the characters in the Bible served as shadows and types of Christ. Have you ever read Arthur Pink, namely Gleanings in Genesis and Gleanings in Exodus? Some pretty powerful stuff. I used to have both books but have no clue what I did with them.

I have not read Arthur Pink.  I have read a lot about the shadows and types of Christ, but mainly from Lutheran theologians.  I'll add Pink to my list.  Thanks.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Sorry, but I'm not accepting that monkey on my back.  If you don't believe the Scriptures and the thousands of years of evidence (note I do not use the word proof - you apparently use the word proof to shift what I said to your belief system - no go), I pose it is up to you to disprove them. 

Cheers!

... Mountaineer

It is never up to the skeptic of a supernatural event to disprove it.  The burden of proof involving any type of supernatural event is always on the one claiming that it happened.

As far as thousands of years of evidence, I don't think that there are thousands of years of evidence.  There were probably many people like Jesus out in the country preaching stuff that was not the official line of the Jewish faith of the time.  The Romans probably crucified quite a few of these country preachers whose followings got too excited about change.

And there is no secular record of any kind that talks about Jesus, other than one or two lines in Josephus's writings, and he could have been referring to any number of troublemakers.

I think that if you are a deep believer as Mountaineer is, you would do better to just say the whole thing is based on faith and that there is no proof concerning most of what the Bible talks about.  I don't understand these apologist-types going around as if they have bulletproof arguments when all they really have is a series of documents that they cite as proof of the divinity of those same documents.  You can't do that.  That's not how proof works.  A supernatural event is not proven just because a book says it occurred.

I want to make it clear that I think that Jesus's ministry is packed with great teachings and much wisdom.  I hate that people get so bogged down in the supernatural stuff when there is all of this other stuff that is clearly true, but no one wants to pay any attention to it because it consists of boring old rules for how to live a peaceful and happy life.  IMHO, that's the only reason anyone ought to be interested in religion in the first place, though.  I always thought of the supernatural stuff as window dressing, and I actually think that it weakens the underlying message because any supernatural claim implicitly suggests that the underlying story isn't impressive enough on its own and it needs to be jazzed up with something supernatural to make it seem more like something that God might do.

I also deeply relate to the position that sincere believers can find themselves in if the story starts to feel kind of frayed at the edges in their minds.  What are you supposed to do?  Your social and spiritual life is centered in church, and none of your fellow church members are going to want to hear you start talking about how the Bible is all allegory, etc.  There is a huge cost to some of these realizations and changes of heart.  It can be very lonely.

With all due respect, I really do get where you "skeptics" are coming from.  I was there with you for a while.  Once again, I'm going to say it is not about proof; it is about evidence and the evidence for me is quite substantial.  Of course, you are free to want more than what is provided - that is human nature and we are by nature, since the fall, enemies of God who fight him tooth and nail.  I do say, if you guys are a tenth as smart as I believe you to be from your posts, I am humbled by your faith as your professed belief system requires much more faith than mine.  Just saying ......  And, one of the good things that happened to me was this thread.  It has prompted me to really thoroughly examine my beliefs, do a lot of reading and studying, become awed as how well the 66 books of the Bible written over a few thousand years by many different authors are interconnected and consistent, and really understand why Christianity remains so popular and widespread - it is founded on truth that is obvious to most who hear the message proclaimed.  Everything is a gift from God, including the people God has chosen to place in my path.  Thanks to all for stimulating discussions.  I will see you all on the other side of the unescapable divide - hopefully we will be assigned the same eternal path as our believing loved ones and we can laugh about these conversations.

... Mountaineer

What is our "professed belief system?"  Most non-believers here are simply agnostic... Not knowing what is true, and being skeptical of anything that doesn't have a lot of empirical evidence. Until we get some solid evidence of one truth or another, most here simply are saying "we don't know."

How is that faith? Much less more than yourself?

[Greg]

Continuing from the "Figuring out Islam" thread…

I want to make it clear that I think that Jesus's ministry is packed with great teachings and much wisdom.  I hate that people get so bogged down in the supernatural stuff when there is all of this other stuff that is clearly true, but no one wants to pay any attention to it because it consists of boring old rules for how to live a peaceful and happy life.  IMHO, that's the only reason anyone ought to be interested in religion in the first place, though.  I always thought of the supernatural stuff as window dressing, and I actually think that it weakens the underlying message because any supernatural claim implicitly suggests that the underlying story isn't impressive enough on its own and it needs to be jazzed up with something supernatural to make it seem more like something that God might do.

I also deeply relate to the position that sincere believers can find themselves in if the story starts to feel kind of frayed at the edges in their minds.  What are you supposed to do?  Your social and spiritual life is centered in church, and none of your fellow church members are going to want to hear you start talking about how the Bible is all allegory, etc.  There is a huge cost to some of these realizations and changes of heart.  It can be very lonely.

My father-in-law just retired from being a Presbyterian pastor whose views sort of jibe with yours. He is a very serious intellectual fellow who sees the Bible as a collection of allegories, and thinks  that Jesus's act of salvation worked, and everyone everywhere through history is saved, no preconditions or magic incantations required, and that this leaves us free to focus on his message, which is pretty darn awesome. It's a very warm and compassionate view, but not very exciting, and his church lost members as they died and nobody took their place. I think it's instructive that the fastest-growing Christian sects (or even the only ones growing at all) are the fire-and-brimstone varieties that emphasize heaven and hell and a very simplistic, easy-to-digest belief structure. To me they seem like religion-lite, with very little of the substance and mystery and complex theology that some of the greatest thinkers in history have wrestled with. It's just believe-in-Jesus-and-go-to-heaven-don't-believe-in-Jesus-and-go-to-hell and that seems to take up an absolutely inordinate amount of the focus, which seems really odd to me from the perspective of a spiritual belief system, but perfectly understandable from the perspective of a social structure designed to appeal to simple people who have difficulty with complexity.

I forget if someone wrote it in this forum but Christianity is interesting because you can either explain it in simplistic terms for a child to understand, or if you've got the mental horsepower, you can really dive in and try to understand. It appeals to the simpleton and the intellectual.

For those entertaining options, perhaps they are more towards appealing to the simpletons. Churches in my eyes aren't the place you go for the intellectual. These are best found in small worship groups or forums like this to really dig down deep. You can't go too in depth into a sermon to truly have people understand because it needs to be a conversation and questions, not just one-sided.

Or for me, I don't go to church for truth. I go because it connects me with other truth-seekers and then we can talk on our own time to better understand things.

[Greg]

What is our "professed belief system?"  Most non-believers here are simply agnostic... Not knowing what is true, and being skeptical of anything that doesn't have a lot of empirical evidence. Until we get some solid evidence of one truth or another, most here simply are saying "we don't know."

How is that faith? Much less more than yourself?

I like Rush's quote: "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice".

God gave us all of the information we need to make an informed choice and like with everything in life, you make decisions based on incomplete knowledge. You can't always wait until all of the information comes in to make a choice, otherwise sometimes the opportunity will pass you by. As Engineer/logical people, I would love to get all information before I make my decision on Christianity but the fact is we can't. I choose to be a Christian, and spend time of my life searching for why I believe what I believe and in the meantime having a relationship with God.

[MachineGhost]

That is certainly how Christianity got off the ground (pun intended).  Christianity rests on the resurrection.  If Christ's resurrection is ever disproved, I suspect the religion is over for good.  However, the evidence is overwhelming it really happened - people have been trying unsuccessfully to disprove it for 2000 years and forcasted it for hundreds/thousands of years prior.

I think you first need to prove the resurrection actually happened before you can then disprove it.   But I feel safe in saying that neither will ever happen.

[MachineGhost]

Sorry, but I'm not accepting that monkey on my back.  If you don't believe the Scriptures and the thousands of years of evidence (note I do not use the word proof - you apparently use the word proof to shift what I said to your belief system - no go), I pose it is up to you to disprove them. 

What kind of evidence do you perceive it to be: circumstantial, preponderence or beyond a reasonable doubt?

[MachineGhost]

I always thought of the supernatural stuff as window dressing, and I actually think that it weakens the underlying message because any supernatural claim implicitly suggests that the underlying story isn't impressive enough on its own and it needs to be jazzed up with something supernatural to make it seem more like something that God might do.

But the so-called Resurrection is the primary hook to get you follow the ministry.  That is the point.  No one would give two shits otherwise.  In fact, all religions have a primary hook that causes cognitive dissonance.

[Mountaineer]

Sorry, but I'm not accepting that monkey on my back.  If you don't believe the Scriptures and the thousands of years of evidence (note I do not use the word proof - you apparently use the word proof to shift what I said to your belief system - no go), I pose it is up to you to disprove them. 

What kind of evidence do you perceive it to be: circumstantial, preponderence or beyond a reasonable doubt?

Beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Think of a 1000 piece completely unique jigsaw puzzle of a picture never before seen with 50 pieces permanently missing - I still can figure out what the big picture is, but I can't prove what is on the missing 50 pieces.  And, for those do not figure it out and refuse to listen the answer imbedded on the back of the puzzle in an iPod nano, they are judged a fool by the one who created the puzzle and condemned to jigsaw hell for eternity.  Really bad example, but good enough to communicate. 

Side question:  Can you think of any "book" written over a millennia plus by several different authors that tells a cohesive story, and that people have been trying unsuccessfully to disprove for another two millennia?  (Forget about it being the most popular book ever written and is still the number one best seller - there is only one that fits that category.  Did you ever wonder how so many could have been "duped"?  http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wor ... ction  )

... Mountaineer

[barrett]

I forget if someone wrote it in this forum but Christianity is interesting because you can either explain it in simplistic terms for a child to understand, or if you've got the mental horsepower, you can really dive in and try to understand. It appeals to the simpleton and the intellectual.

I don't think that Christianity actually does appeal to most children. I have no data to back this up but I do have my own experiences as a child and have talked to a lot of people who right away felt confused by the central story of the bible. IMHO it's only because kids want to believe they are not being duped by their parents that they come to the conclusion that the story must be true even if it strikes them as, at best, disjointed and, at worst, cruel.

I would also add that the intellectual who believes has a lot of sunk cost in terms of time and mental effort. It's really hard for them to let go without feeling as if they have wasted a lot of effort.

[screwtape]

Side question:  Can you think of any "book" written over a millennia plus by several different authors that tells a cohesive story, and that people have been trying unsuccessfully to disprove for another two millennia?

I think the Bible does a pretty good job of disproving itself in many places. For example:

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:28

Unless you believe that the Son of Man has already come in his kingdom then which of those people that Jesus was talking to is still alive?

[Mountaineer]

Side question:  Can you think of any "book" written over a millennia plus by several different authors that tells a cohesive story, and that people have been trying unsuccessfully to disprove for another two millennia?

I think the Bible does a pretty good job of disproving itself in many places. For example:

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:28

Unless you believe that the Son of Man has already come in his kingdom then which of those people that Jesus was talking to is still alive?

God is eternal.  God is three persons in one, one of the persons is Jesus.  One of Jesus' many titles was "Son of Man".  A kingdom is where the king reigns.  The Lord God reigns over all creation.  Some of those standing there (Mt 16:28) were believers - they will never taste death.  Humans are body and soul.  The soul never dies.  Thus the person never dies, the body just sleeps until the Last Day.  Body and soul will be reunited on the Last Day as they were in the beginning before sin entered the world.  These statements all seem consistent and rooted in Scripture.

So, what is the issue?  Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your question.

... Mountaineer

[screwtape]

Side question:  Can you think of any "book" written over a millennia plus by several different authors that tells a cohesive story, and that people have been trying unsuccessfully to disprove for another two millennia?

I think the Bible does a pretty good job of disproving itself in many places. For example:

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:28

Unless you believe that the Son of Man has already come in his kingdom then which of those people that Jesus was talking to is still alive?

God is eternal.  God is three persons in one, one of the persons is Jesus.  One of Jesus' many titles was "Son of Man".  A kingdom is where the king reigns.  The Lord God reigns over all creation.  Some of those standing there (Mt 16:28) were believers - they will never taste death.  Humans are body and soul.  The soul never dies.  Thus the person never dies, the body just sleeps until the Last Day.  Body and soul will be reunited on the Last Day as they were in the beginning before sin entered the world.  These statements all seem consistent and rooted in Scripture.

So, what is the issue?  Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your question.

... Mountaineer

I guess that's as good an explanation for why it doesn't mean exactly what it says as any others I've heard.

I have a much simpler explanation but you probably already know what it is so I won't waste your time with it.

(Actually, a more palatable explanation than yours that I have heard is that this is simply not an authentic saying of Jesus. I realize you can't go there however so I can see you're stuck with having to mangle the text as best you can.)

[moda0306]

Sorry, but I'm not accepting that monkey on my back.  If you don't believe the Scriptures and the thousands of years of evidence (note I do not use the word proof - you apparently use the word proof to shift what I said to your belief system - no go), I pose it is up to you to disprove them. 

What kind of evidence do you perceive it to be: circumstantial, preponderence or beyond a reasonable doubt?

Beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Think of a 1000 piece completely unique jigsaw puzzle of a picture never before seen with 50 pieces permanently missing - I still can figure out what the big picture is, but I can't prove what is on the missing 50 pieces.  And, for those do not figure it out and refuse to listen the answer imbedded on the back of the puzzle in an iPod nano, they are judged a fool by the one who created the puzzle and condemned to jigsaw hell for eternity.  Really bad example, but good enough to communicate. 

Side question:  Can you think of any "book" written over a millennia plus by several different authors that tells a cohesive story, and that people have been trying unsuccessfully to disprove for another two millennia?  (Forget about it being the most popular book ever written and is still the number one best seller - there is only one that fits that category.  Did you ever wonder how so many could have been "duped"?  http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wor ... ction  )

... Mountaineer

Unsuccessful in trying to disprove the Bible?

How about the age of the Earth... That's an easy one.

[MachineGhost]

Think of a 1000 piece completely unique jigsaw puzzle of a picture never before seen with 50 pieces permanently missing - I still can figure out what the big picture is, but I can't prove what is on the missing 50 pieces.  And, for those do not figure it out and refuse to listen the answer imbedded on the back of the puzzle in an iPod nano, they are judged a fool by the one who created the puzzle and condemned to jigsaw hell for eternity.  Really bad example, but good enough to communicate. 

Nice rationalization.  But how much of religious belief is extrapolation and wishful thinking rather than evidence-based?  It's a very common tactic to demonize others to feel righteous about one's own subjective religious beliefs.  That does not make the subjective beliefs any more real in objective reality, though it will certainly feel like it to the believer!

Side question:  Can you think of any "book" written over a millennia plus by several different authors that tells a cohesive story, and that people have been trying unsuccessfully to disprove for another two millennia?  (Forget about it being the most popular book ever written and is still the number one best seller - there is only one that fits that category.  Did you ever wonder how so many could have been "duped"?  http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/wor ... ction  )

I suspect it would be really hard -- if not impossible -- to disprove what didn't literally happen.  Almost like the futility of disproving a negative.  Yet, its hardly difficult to be biased in collecting only that "evidence" which fits into the religious narrative that you want to believe in.  Hence, you have many different cult offshoots due to this "tampering with the evidence".

[MachineGhost]

I would also add that the intellectual who believes has a lot of sunk cost in terms of time and mental effort. It's really hard for them to let go without feeling as if they have wasted a lot of effort.

+100.  When you got your entire life, friends, family and grandchildren completely invested into a religion, that's a lot of responsibility that no one would want to have to face up to.  But hey, it could have been worse!  'coulda been a Jehovah Witness, Amish, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon, Scientologist or even a RIFFF.  Its fine if people want to believe in paranormal mysticism as an excuse to follow a ministry of morality; its what that ministry is composed of that should be viewed with a verrry critical and jaundiced eye.  Christianity is relatively tame and neutered nowadays; so much that it's not really a threat to intellectualism anymore.  I thought this was interesting:

In 1938, an advert was placed in the local paper asking readers “What is happiness?” reports Science Daily. After rating the importance of 10 factors from 226 people, researchers found that people believed security, knowledge and religion were the most important aspects of happiness.

Last year, Sandie McHugh and Professor Jerome Carson repeated the social experiment and found that while security was still in the top three, good humor and leisure came in poll position.

Meanwhile, religion, which was the third most important factor in 1938, has fallen to the bottom of the current list. In 1938, most people said they were happiest at home in Bolton, whereas today 63% said they were happier away from the town.

[Benko]

Christianity is relatively tame and neutered nowadays;

The nature of leaders of whatever sort is that people and then whole organizations tend to crop up around them, often not in accordance with what they would wish.  Then those organizations take on a life of their own.  One can and perhaps should judge the teachings of jesus (and him) apart from what the church has done historically. Or would you say the US system of gov't sucks, look what  the guy in the white house now is doing.  Not exactly fair to the founders. 

Compare  to Islam and look at his life.

[MediumTex]

I think the Bible does a pretty good job of disproving itself in many places. For example:

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:28

Unless you believe that the Son of Man has already come in his kingdom then which of those people that Jesus was talking to is still alive?

God is eternal.  God is three persons in one, one of the persons is Jesus.  One of Jesus' many titles was "Son of Man".  A kingdom is where the king reigns.  The Lord God reigns over all creation.  Some of those standing there (Mt 16:28) were believers - they will never taste death.  Humans are body and soul.  The soul never dies.  Thus the person never dies, the body just sleeps until the Last Day.  Body and soul will be reunited on the Last Day as they were in the beginning before sin entered the world.  These statements all seem consistent and rooted in Scripture.

So, what is the issue?  Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your question.

... Mountaineer

I guess that's as good an explanation for why it doesn't mean exactly what it says as any others I've heard.

I have a much simpler explanation but you probably already know what it is so I won't waste your time with it.

(Actually, a more palatable explanation than yours that I have heard is that this is simply not an authentic saying of Jesus. I realize you can't go there however so I can see you're stuck with having to mangle the text as best you can.)

I think that the people standing there with Jesus that day probably thought he meant during their mortal lifetimes.  I don't picture any of them saying: "Hey Jesus, just so I'm totally clear on what you're saying, when you say the second coming is going to be before all of us here are dead, you're talking about our bodies dying, right?  You're not talking about basically any time in the next few thousand years, are you?"

[MediumTex]

I find the "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" style of defending Christian history and theology to be exceptionally unpersuasive.  I kind of cringe when the conversation moves in that direction.

It seems like a much better line of defense of Christianity is to simply ask a person to live according to Jesus's prescription for a month, a year or whatever, and see whether it results in a better life or a worse life.  If it results in a better life, then consider doing it for another period of time and go from there.

I hate to ask anyone to take anything on faith when there is a way to validate at least some of it.  Once they have validated the part that can be validated, I figure they can decide for themselves what to make of all of the supernatural stuff.

One of the things that people don't talk about a lot is whether there is anything of value left in Christianity once the miracles are skimmed off of the message.  I think that this is a modern thing, in part because of things like the Jefferson Bible and the way it casually edited out all of the miracles in the interest of improving the text.  To my knowledge, people of that time weren't too outraged by it.

I am trying to build a perception tool in my mind that will allow me to perceive God in purely symbolic terms, but it's difficult when you have grown up being told that there is literally this omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being that has a personality, and sometimes he gets mad, or maybe just moody, and when that happens sometimes he will start picking winners in battles, and other times he may just kill people to see what the other people will do.  When he's in a good mood, he might come down to earth for a while in the form of a kindly country hippie preacher who wouldn't harm a fly (unless the fly was a banker).  To go from there to a place where God is a label for the first cause of the universe, or perhaps a label for the complex set of physical laws that govern the universe, is hard.

[screwtape]

I think that the people standing there with Jesus that day probably thought he meant during their mortal lifetimes.  I don't picture any of them saying: "Hey Jesus, just so I'm totally clear on what you're saying, when you say the second coming is going to be before all of us here are dead, you're talking about our bodies dying, right?  You're not talking about basically any time in the next few thousand years, are you?"

This is from a website I was just reading....

I think Mountaineer is stuck on #3. I played with #6 (Preterism) for a while when I was still trying to hold on to my faith but now I'm
basically with #7 although #2 is also a possibility.

7 Possible Responses to Matthew 16:28

1. He lied. But god wouldn’t lie to us, even though as an all-powerful being he could.
2. He never actually said this. But, if that were the case it would bring into question everything in the bible.
3. Jesus actually said this but he didn’t actually mean what he actually said. Let’s make up some stories to explain
  what he really meant -- as if we could know the mind of god.
4. Let’s just ignore Matthew 16:28. Instead let’s argue that in Matthew 24:34 (NIV), when Jesus
    says “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”, he didn’t
    actually mean what he actually said. Let’s make up some stories to explain what he really meant -- as if we could
    know the mind of god.
5. Let’s just ignore both of those quotes. It’s just a mystery after all.
6. The doctrine of Preterism. Jesus actually meant what he actually said and he actually returned within the lifetimes
    of some of those then present, but nobody noticed and for the past 1,945+ years we have been living in the THE AGE TO COME.
    Preterism takes the words of Jesus as the Gospel truth.
7. Jesus wasn’t a very good prophet. This is the response of unbelievers.

[MachineGhost]

I am trying to build a perception tool in my mind that will allow me to perceive God in purely symbolic terms, but it's difficult when you have grown up being told that there is literally this omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being that has a personality, and sometimes he gets mad, or maybe just moody, and when that happens sometimes he will start picking winners in battles, and other times he may just kill people to see what the other people will do.  When he's in a good mood, he might come down to earth for a while in the form of a kindly country hippie preacher who wouldn't harm a fly (unless the fly was a banker).  To go from there to a place where God is a label for the first cause of the universe, or perhaps a label for the complex set of physical laws that govern the universe, is hard.

Bah, its all primitive superstition and mysticism by The Great Unwashed Hordes thousands of years ago in the pre-Rational era.  "God" is not a personal thing for anyone's anthropomorphological convenience.

To think otherwise is merely an ant acting arrogant and self-important is his extremely narrow and constrained worldview bubble.

Humans have another cognitive bias of always rooting for the underdog.  And the Jesus story is the epitome of that.

[Mountaineer]

I think that the people standing there with Jesus that day probably thought he meant during their mortal lifetimes.  I don't picture any of them saying: "Hey Jesus, just so I'm totally clear on what you're saying, when you say the second coming is going to be before all of us here are dead, you're talking about our bodies dying, right?  You're not talking about basically any time in the next few thousand years, are you?"

This is from a website I was just reading....

I think Mountaineer is stuck on #3. I played with #6 (Preterism) for a while when I was still trying to hold on to my faith but now I'm
basically with #7 although #2 is also a possibility.

7 Possible Responses to Matthew 16:28

1. He lied. But god wouldn’t lie to us, even though as an all-powerful being he could.
2. He never actually said this. But, if that were the case it would bring into question everything in the bible.
3. Jesus actually said this but he didn’t actually mean what he actually said. Let’s make up some stories to explain
  what he really meant -- as if we could know the mind of god.
4. Let’s just ignore Matthew 16:28. Instead let’s argue that in Matthew 24:34 (NIV), when Jesus
    says “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”, he didn’t
    actually mean what he actually said. Let’s make up some stories to explain what he really meant -- as if we could
    know the mind of god.
5. Let’s just ignore both of those quotes. It’s just a mystery after all.
6. The doctrine of Preterism. Jesus actually meant what he actually said and he actually returned within the lifetimes
    of some of those then present, but nobody noticed and for the past 1,945+ years we have been living in the THE AGE TO COME.
    Preterism takes the words of Jesus as the Gospel truth.
7. Jesus wasn’t a very good prophet. This is the response of unbelievers.

8. Jesus actually said this and meant what he said but his cohorts did not understand what he said until they looked back after Jesus was resurrected and had their eyes opened by .......  Hmmmm, that sounds like something I've read somewhere, hmmmm. 

I love it when internet sources do not give all the options - i.e. especially those that do not agree with their preconceived worldview.  Guilty as charged, just like non-objective sinners all.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

I am trying to build a perception tool in my mind that will allow me to perceive God in purely symbolic terms, but it's difficult when you have grown up being told that there is literally this omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being that has a personality, and sometimes he gets mad, or maybe just moody, and when that happens sometimes he will start picking winners in battles, and other times he may just kill people to see what the other people will do.  When he's in a good mood, he might come down to earth for a while in the form of a kindly country hippie preacher who wouldn't harm a fly (unless the fly was a banker).  To go from there to a place where God is a label for the first cause of the universe, or perhaps a label for the complex set of physical laws that govern the universe, is hard.

Bah, its all primitive superstition and mysticism by The Great Unwashed Hordes thousands of years ago in the pre-Rational era.  "God" is not a personal thing for anyone's anthropomorphological convenience.

To think otherwise is merely an ant acting arrogant and self-important is his extremely narrow and constrained worldview bubble.

Humans have another cognitive bias of always rooting for the underdog.  And the Jesus story is the epitome of that.

The story of Job is even worse (by human standards of fairness) if you are looking for an underdog to latch on to.    Maybe you could start a Jobite or Jobanity religion.

... Mountaineer

[MediumTex]

I am trying to build a perception tool in my mind that will allow me to perceive God in purely symbolic terms, but it's difficult when you have grown up being told that there is literally this omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being that has a personality, and sometimes he gets mad, or maybe just moody, and when that happens sometimes he will start picking winners in battles, and other times he may just kill people to see what the other people will do.  When he's in a good mood, he might come down to earth for a while in the form of a kindly country hippie preacher who wouldn't harm a fly (unless the fly was a banker).  To go from there to a place where God is a label for the first cause of the universe, or perhaps a label for the complex set of physical laws that govern the universe, is hard.

Bah, its all primitive superstition and mysticism by The Great Unwashed Hordes thousands of years ago in the pre-Rational era.  "God" is not a personal thing for anyone's anthropomorphological convenience.

To think otherwise is merely an ant acting arrogant and self-important is his extremely narrow and constrained worldview bubble.

Humans have another cognitive bias of always rooting for the underdog.  And the Jesus story is the epitome of that.

The story of Job is even worse (by human standards of fairness) if you are looking for an underdog to latch on to.    Maybe you could start a Jobite or Jobanity religion.

... Mountaineer

How about homosexuals?  Talk about an underdog!  They went from being subject to the death penalty because of their sexual preference in the Old Testament to going to Hell to burn for eternity in the New Testament.