Gyroscopic Investing

So far in this thread, it seems clear that when it comes to God, some people are as certain of his existence as others are skeptical of his existence.

The question to me is what separates the two groups.  It would be easy to say that it is just the evil, sinful and fallen nature of humanity that is causing people who don't see God not to see him, but it would be just as easy to say of the believers that it is only their need for psychological soothing when they think about dying and their desire for compact explanations about why so many strange things happen in the world that make them see the shape of God in the ether.

I don't know how you connect those two perspectives.  Proclaiming that one is right and one is wrong probably isn't going to do it.

MediumTex wrote: So far in this thread, it seems clear that when it comes to God, some people are as certain of his existence as others are skeptical of his existence.

The question to me is what separates the two groups.  It would be easy to say that it is just the evil, sinful and fallen nature of humanity that is causing people who don't see God not to see him, but it would be just as easy to say of the believers that it is only their need for psychological soothing when they think about dying and their desire for compact explanations about why so many strange things happen in the world that make them see the shape of God in the ether.

I don't know how you connect those two perspectives.  Proclaiming that one is right and one is wrong probably isn't going to do it.

I think the connect might be "grace through faith".  If we understood all, there is not need for grace or faith because we would be God and thus understand ourselves completely and totally from the smallest sub-atomic particle to an understanding of why we do things and what we are going to do to the last detail years into the future.  If we understood nothing, we would be at the mercy of Satan who would fill the vacuum in a heartbeat.  If we understand some, then there is the struggle for occupying the vacuum, will we trust God's Word, or will we let Satan fill the void?

... Mountaineer

Desert wrote: I think I addressed at least a bit of your point in my previous post.  But just to say it again in slightly different words: I don't view God as a cosmic rule maker out to trip us up, to send us to hell on a technicality.  He's put down a red carpet for us, not only to spend eternity with him, but to have a real purpose and fulfilling life here and now.

I think that it is ironic that a religion can be based entirely on false beliefs (as I assume you would agree is the case with religions other than your own), and yet it can make for such happy, peaceful and joyous people.  I can't argue with someone's joy.  If they feel joy, who am I to question it?

For me, the best example of genuine joy rising out of a set of questionable beliefs is Mormonism.  While there are obviously a few bad apples out there in the LDS community (read Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven for a couple of them), I find most Mormons I meet to be really high quality, upbeat, and honest people who seem to draw a lot of meaning and inspiration from their faith.  Why would I try to shake the faith of someone like that just because it seems absolutely absurd to me?

I'm not quite sure where this comment fits into the discussion, but I wonder how bad it really is to have strongly held religious beliefs and get spiritual nourishment from those beliefs throughout your life, even it turns out that those beliefs are not literally true.  If a person is going to go to Hell anyway (which is apparently what will happen to at least 3/4 of the world), why not live a mortal life with as much spiritual peace and equanimity as possible?

Maybe there will be a section in Hell where everyone wears T-shirts that say "Diligently Pursued Wrong Religion " and the temperature there will be just slightly cooler than everywhere else.

Desert wrote:

MediumTex wrote: So far in this thread, it seems clear that when it comes to God, some people are as certain of his existence as others are skeptical of his existence.

The question to me is what separates the two groups.  It would be easy to say that it is just the evil, sinful and fallen nature of humanity that is causing people who don't see God not to see him, but it would be just as easy to say of the believers that it is only their need for psychological soothing when they think about dying and their desire for compact explanations about why so many strange things happen in the world that make them see the shape of God in the ether.

I don't know how you connect those two perspectives.  Proclaiming that one is right and one is wrong probably isn't going to do it.

I think that's a very good summary of this thread so far.  I think it's somewhat unusual to have a discourse this civil on the topic also. 

MT, I forgot to ask earlier, what sort of place did you take the NT class at?  Was it a Christian college?  Just curious.

I spent my freshman year at a fundamentalist Christian college in Texas.  I took a bunch of classes like that New Testament course where you were sort of expected to just swallow and not talk as the ideas were being ladled out.

Mountaineer wrote: I have a few questions for the atheists, agnostics and semi-believers, in order of my priority.

Why do you feel/think they way you do about religion? 

What led you to that way of thinking?

How do you explain why death happens?

What do you think happens when you die?

What or who created the universe?

Do you think there is an absolute right and wrong?  If so, what is the basis for that?

For the evolutionists - Why have no "transitional" species been found?

Thanks,  ... Mountaineer

These are all good questions.  Great in fact.

I'd ask what transitionon you're looking for?  There is lots of evidence of species between monkeys and human-beings.

While it's awesome to ask questions about the universe, and to be humble about the possible answers being outside our understanding, there is very little that I think most religion adds to things directly.  Indirectly, many religious people add good discussion to the debate of morality or where we came from, but very rarely as a direct result of scripture or the Gospel or very self-referential religious law.

Plus, I think the existence of any non-obvious answer has to come with either 1) extreme humility as to whether it's true, and 2) to be as non-self-referential towards Scripture when people question Scripture.  If you FEEL something just say you feel it.  If it was written down by people, referring to that as proof simply isn't going to engage people who think people write lies all the time (because they do).

Desert wrote:
I think that's a very good summary of this thread so far.  I think it's somewhat unusual to have a discourse this civil on the topic also. 

I too feel this is the most civil discourse about religion I have ever engaged in with a mix of opinions/perspectives, especially on the internet.  It speaks to caring for one another regardless of our beliefs.  Thank you Medium Tex for suggesting this thread. 

As Martin Luther once reportedly said, "I'd rather have a competent Turk (Muslim) for a governor than an incompetent Christian".  Not to imply at all there are any Turks involved in this conversation, just that we are different, and competent.

... Mountaineer

MediumTex wrote:

Desert wrote: I think I addressed at least a bit of your point in my previous post.  But just to say it again in slightly different words: I don't view God as a cosmic rule maker out to trip us up, to send us to hell on a technicality.  He's put down a red carpet for us, not only to spend eternity with him, but to have a real purpose and fulfilling life here and now.

I think that it is ironic that a religion can be based entirely on false beliefs (as I assume you would agree is the case with religions other than your own), and yet it can make for such happy, peaceful and joyous people.  I can't argue with someone's joy.  If they feel joy, who am I to question it?

For me, the best example of genuine joy rising out of a set of questionable beliefs is Mormonism.  While there are obviously a few bad apples out there in the LDS community (read Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven for a couple of them), I find most Mormons I meet to be really high quality, upbeat, and honest people who seem to draw a lot of meaning and inspiration from their faith.  Why would I try to shake the faith of someone like that just because it seems absolutely absurd to me?

I'm not quite sure where this comment fits into the discussion, but I wonder how bad it really is to have strongly held religious beliefs and get spiritual nourishment from those beliefs throughout your life, even it turns out that those beliefs are not literally true.  If a person is going to go to Hell anyway (which is apparently what will happen to at least 3/4 of the world), why not live a mortal life with as much spiritual peace and equanimity as possible?

Maybe there will be a section in Hell where everyone wears T-shirts that say "Diligently Pursued Wrong Religion " and the temperature there will be just slightly cooler than everywhere else.

Who in Hell (pun intended) would not want to believe that when they die they would go have their own planet and populate it with people of their choosing?  That is better even than getting "specified by Allah" 77 virgins when you croak by killing a bunch of infidels.  I'd have a smile on my face too if I really had succumbed to Mormonism.  Sorry, could not resist.  God forgive me for any disrespectful behavior I have done - I'm really glad I can be confident I will not have to specify my T-Shirt size.

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I have a few questions for the atheists, agnostics and semi-believers, in order of my priority.

Why do you feel/think they way you do about religion? 

What led you to that way of thinking?

How do you explain why death happens?

What do you think happens when you die?

What or who created the universe?

Do you think there is an absolute right and wrong?  If so, what is the basis for that?

For the evolutionists - Why have no "transitional" species been found?

Thanks,  ... Mountaineer

These are all good questions.  Great in fact.

I'd ask what transitionon you're looking for?  There is lots of evidence of species between monkeys and human-beings.

While it's awesome to ask questions about the universe, and to be humble about the possible answers being outside our understanding, there is very little that I think most religion adds to things directly.  Indirectly, many religious people add good discussion to the debate of morality or where we came from, but very rarely as a direct result of scripture or the Gospel or very self-referential religious law.

Plus, I think the existence of any non-obvious answer has to come with either 1) extreme humility as to whether it's true, and 2) to be as non-self-referential towards Scripture when people question Scripture.  If you FEEL something just say you feel it.  If it was written down by people, referring to that as proof simply isn't going to engage people who think people write lies all the time (because they do).

Thanks re. the questions.

OK, from the bottom up on my list:  Probably the main transition that comes to my mind is the one from gills to lungs.

And, one comment on your perspective re. FEELING.  In my mind, I equate that to mysticism as a the foundation for a belief system.  If I base my religion on feeling, I'm screwed because some days I feel great, some days terrible.  I do not want my religion to depend on whether the sun is shining or not or whether I got lucky last night.  I need something rock solid, for me, that is Christianity.  I know I cannot prove that to you.  There really is a large body of evidence that indicates Christ rose from the dead.  As someone way earlier said, without the cross and the resurrection, there is no Christianity.  Thank God there were 500+ direct witnesses that many of which were unwilling to recant and to be killed professing it because they had seen Jesus after his rising from the tomb.  Thank God it moved from an oral tradition to someone capable of writing it down, even if several years after the event.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

Desert wrote:
I think that's a very good summary of this thread so far.  I think it's somewhat unusual to have a discourse this civil on the topic also. 

I too feel this is the most civil discourse about religion I have ever engaged in with a mix of opinions/perspectives, especially on the internet.  It speaks to caring for one another regardless of our beliefs.  Thank you Medium Tex for suggesting this thread. 

I have learned a lot so far.  I think that a discussion like this allows everyone's views to have room to breathe.  For a person who feels compelled to share his religious views based upon God's wishes (i.e., to "witness" to others), I think that this is a great way to do it because it gets your beliefs in front of others in a comprehensive and engaging way (with lots of good links), and with the benefit of the context provided by other perspectives.

One person laying out his beliefs in detail is usually boring, but several people laying out their beliefs in the process of understanding how they all relate to one another is interesting.

Desert wrote: Sometimes it's easier to throw a link in a post than it is to defend a position.  I hope this post doesn't come across that way, because I think this person is worth watching for anyone wishing to learn a bit more about the Bible and its central themes.  His name is Tullian Tchividjian.  After I became a Christian, and couldn't yet bring myself to go to a church building, I watched this guy online on Sunday mornings.  The first series I watched was this series on Ecclesiastes.  I think he does a good job of presenting the real message of Ecclesiastes, and he does it in a reasonably well-spoken and even entertaining manner.  Please give it a try.  Obviously start with part 1, and choose "watch." 

http://www.crpc.org/media/series/eccles ... ithout-god

I'm going to go through it again myself as well.

I know that guy.  He spoke at my church a while back (yes I go to church).  Really good communicator.

Desert wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

Desert wrote: Sometimes it's easier to throw a link in a post than it is to defend a position.  I hope this post doesn't come across that way, because I think this person is worth watching for anyone wishing to learn a bit more about the Bible and its central themes.  His name is Tullian Tchividjian.  After I became a Christian, and couldn't yet bring myself to go to a church building, I watched this guy online on Sunday mornings.  The first series I watched was this series on Ecclesiastes.  I think he does a good job of presenting the real message of Ecclesiastes, and he does it in a reasonably well-spoken and even entertaining manner.  Please give it a try.  Obviously start with part 1, and choose "watch." 

http://www.crpc.org/media/series/eccles ... ithout-god

I'm going to go through it again myself as well.

I know that guy.  He spoke at my church a while back (yes I go to church).  Really good communicator.

Cool!  I'm guessing you go to a fairly good sized church.  Tullian's also a big Cowboys fan.  It sounds like he makes pretty frequent trips to Dallas. 

He is a real good speaker.  He's written some good books also.

I'm watching the videos from your link right now.  No cheese and no ego.  Good stuff.

I'm also really enjoying this discussion, only on this forum could such an intelligent conversation take place on such a sensitive subject.

MediumTex wrote: What proof is there that the resurrection occurred?  I'm not saying that it didn't; I'm just saying that I would hate to have to prove it to anyone.

The stories about Jesus's life were written decades after he died.  It makes no sense to me that if a dude was murdered by the government and after they buried him he dug himself up and spent a few days or weeks walking around (or flying around) telling everyone to cheer up, would it really take 30-40 years for anyone to write anything down about it? 

How about the Romans?  Wouldn't you think they would have recorded something as unusual as an executed criminal who dug himself up after being executed and kept spreading anti-Roman propaganda?  Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to get that message out to the rest of the Roman Empire, if for no other reason than to improve the quality of their execution methods?

How would you like to be the executioner in a situation where the guy you executed was seen walking around glowing and telling everyone to cheer up and that the Romans still sucked?

There isn't concrete irrefutable proof of the Resurrection, but there is enough evidence to reasonably assume it could have happened (watch the videos I linked to in my previous post).  Maybe we should call it the "Christian Theory."  Since this is the best theory I can find for God directly interacting with the human species, I can then upgrade this theory to fact in my mind through faith until new evidence comes to light that leads me to disbelieve the theory which would then destroy the faith and fact.  So theory becomes fact through faith, which makes it far more powerful.

Now there is also the more subjective evidence such as I get a warm tingly feeling when I read the Bible, but feel nothing when I read the Bhagavad Gita or the Tao Te Ching.  This can obviously cause me to become biased towards the Christian Theory.

Regarding the Gospels written decades after Jesus was crucified, well, it is possible it was written down earlier but we simply haven't found the original documents.  But what seems more likely is the Gospel was spread through oral tradition, and then eventually written down once Jesus's disciples were getting older.  This is likely why so many of the sayings of Jesus are in parable form which makes them easier to memorize.  See Wikipedia for more.

Regarding the Romans, well, it's difficult to know.  I still have to read NT Wright's book "The Resurrection of the Son of God" which is 740 pages, so I'm sure if there are any historical records from the Romans then I'm sure he will have found them.

Gosso wrote: I'm also really enjoying this discussion, only on this forum could such an intelligent conversation take place on such a sensitive subject.

MediumTex wrote: What proof is there that the resurrection occurred?  I'm not saying that it didn't; I'm just saying that I would hate to have to prove it to anyone.

The stories about Jesus's life were written decades after he died.  It makes no sense to me that if a dude was murdered by the government and after they buried him he dug himself up and spent a few days or weeks walking around (or flying around) telling everyone to cheer up, would it really take 30-40 years for anyone to write anything down about it? 

How about the Romans?  Wouldn't you think they would have recorded something as unusual as an executed criminal who dug himself up after being executed and kept spreading anti-Roman propaganda?  Wouldn't the Romans have wanted to get that message out to the rest of the Roman Empire, if for no other reason than to improve the quality of their execution methods?

How would you like to be the executioner in a situation where the guy you executed was seen walking around glowing and telling everyone to cheer up and that the Romans still sucked?

There isn't concrete irrefutable proof of the Resurrection, but there is enough evidence to reasonably assume it could have happened (watch the videos I linked to in my previous post).  Maybe we should call it the "Christian Theory."  Since this is the best theory I can find for God directly interacting with the human species, I can then upgrade this theory to fact in my mind through faith until new evidence comes to light that leads me to disbelieve the theory which would then destroy the faith and fact.  So theory becomes fact through faith, which makes it far more powerful.

Now there is also the more subjective evidence such as I get a warm tingly feeling when I read the Bible, but feel nothing when I read the Bhagavad Gita or the Tao Te Ching.  This can obviously cause me to become biased towards the Christian Theory.

I don't know if theory could ever become fact for me through faith, but I might say that theory can become practical through faith.  That seems more realistic to me.

What has your own religious journey been like?  Have you been close to God at some points and distant at others?  If so, what brought you back when you drifted away?  Is your current faith the same faith that you were brought up in?  If not, how did you come to your current faith?

What do you think the chances are that your current beliefs will change in the future?  Have your beliefs regarding this topic ever changed in the past?

What would you say is the purpose of religion in your life?

Do you think that Muslims are going to Hell?  I am always impressed at how devout many Muslims seem to be compared to followers of other religions (with the exception of the homicidal psychopaths who like to kill people as an expression of their religious beliefs--I do not find those people impressive at all).

Desert wrote:

MediumTex wrote:
I'm watching the videos from your link right now.  No cheese and no ego.  Good stuff.

Yeah, I feel like he's a pretty honest guy.  We may or may not agree with him, but at least he's not a sleazebag. 

Unfortunately, now I'm gonna be up all night watching this series.

Wait a second, that's Billy Graham's grandson.  That's what I had forgotten about him.  He's very good regardless of who his relatives are, but that's an interesting thing to know about him.

In case this adds to the discussion in any way, here is an actual proof of the existence of absolute truth:

-------------------------------------------------------
Proof by Counterexample That Absolute Truth Exists

Either absolute truth exists or it does not. (Law of Excluded Middle)

Assume that absolute truth does not exist. This implies that the statement, "Absolute truth does not exist" must hold under all conditions; i.e., it must be absolutely true.

But that contradicts our assumption that absolute truth does not exist, therefore the assumption that absolute truth does not exist must be false. Thus, its negation must be true; in other words, absolute truth exists.

Q.E.D.
-------------------------------------------------------

A more informal way of saying this would be that the existence of 2-valued (true/false) logic implies the existence of absolute truth.

Tortoise, haven't you assumed your conclusion right from the start?  You begin with an absolute truth.  Not that I disagree that absolute truth exists, but I don't think it can be proven; it's based on faith, not on proof.

I think Kshartle's/Libertarian666's "disproof" of an omnipotent God by contradiction suffers from a similar problem.  God isn't bound by logic.

Tortoise wrote: In case this adds to the discussion in any way, here is an actual proof of the existence of absolute truth:

-------------------------------------------------------
Proof by Counterexample That Absolute Truth Exists

Either absolute truth exists or it does not. (Law of Excluded Middle)

Assume that absolute truth does not exist. This implies that the statement, "Absolute truth does not exist" must hold under all conditions; i.e., it must be absolutely true.

But that contradicts our assumption that absolute truth does not exist, therefore the assumption that absolute truth does not exist must be false. Thus, its negation must be true; in other words, absolute truth exists.

Q.E.D.
-------------------------------------------------------

A more informal way of saying this would be that the existence of 2-valued (true/false) logic implies the existence of absolute truth.

I took logic in college and it made my head hurt.

Isn't the argument above basically the same one that is used to show that God can't be all-knowing and all powerful because he wouldn't know how to make a rock that was too heavy for him to pick up (or something like that)?

Does that argument really tell us anything useful about a supernatural being or whether absolute truth exists as a meaningful concept?

Xan wrote: Tortoise, haven't you assumed your conclusion right from the start?  You begin with an absolute truth.

Yes, I did. But the Law of Excluded Middle is pretty hard to argue against

Most people probably don't look at the Law of Excluded Middle ("either X or not-X, but not both")--and immediately think to themselves, "Obviously that implies that absolute truth exists!" But that's exactly what it implies. So I just constructed a simple proof to "translate" it into a more interesting, controversial statement that's more directly relevant to this discussion of religion ("Absolute truth exists").

Xan wrote: Not that I disagree that absolute truth exists, but I don't think it can be proven; it's based on faith, not on proof.

Okay, but keep in mind that proving the existence of absolute truth is not necessarily the same thing as describing that absolute truth.

Proving that absolute truth (or God) exists and exhaustively describing every absolute truth (or every attribute of God) are very different things. Being able to do the former doesn't necessarily imply being able to do the latter.

Believing things based on faith is just not how my brain is wired. God created me with a rational brain to think and reason, not to shut off my brain and act like its natural mode of operation (logic) is somehow an impediment to my spiritual development and salvation.

Xan wrote: I think Kshartle's/Libertarian666's "disproof" of an omnipotent God by contradiction suffers from a similar problem.  God isn't bound by logic.

And yet the Bible implies that He's bound by His own rules, such as "The wages of sin is death."

If God's only choice was to let us suffer the consequences of sin or send His Son to suffer them in our stead, that doesn't seem like omnipotence to me. What about the choice to avoid death altogether?

The Bible says Christ himself--fully divine--begged his Father--also fully divine--to save him from having to be crucified. ("Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.")

In other words, God asked Himself for a favor but was denied... by Himself. Seems like self-constraint to me. Either that, or Jesus of Nazareth was in fact not God incarnate.

MediumTex wrote: Isn't the [proof that absolute truth exists] basically the same one that is used to show that God can't be all-knowing and all powerful because he wouldn't know how to make a rock that was too heavy for him to pick up (or something like that)?

Does that argument really tell us anything useful about a supernatural being or whether absolute truth exists as a meaningful concept?

I suppose there's a certain similarity between the two proofs: they're both very short proofs by counterexample.

The proof I stated addresses only the existence of absolute truth, not descriptions of particular absolute truths. There could be an infinitude of them--who knows!

In mathematics, Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that in a formal system such as logic, there must exist some true statements that are impossible to prove. So if we extend that idea (very loosely) to the junction between logic and religion, it's quite possible that, even if we prove the existence of God using logic, there will always be certain facts about God that are impossible to prove.

I personally find the idea of the existence of absolute truth to be extremely meaningful to me--even if I have no idea what the absolute truth is all about. Its mere existence tells me, for example, that moral relativism contradicts logic. If truth is identified with the concept of moral "good," then the existence of absolute truth implies the existence of an absolute morality. That's huge.

Tortoise wrote:
And yet the Bible implies that He's bound by His own rules, such as "The wages of sin is death."

If God's only choice was to let us suffer the consequences of sin or send His Son to suffer them in our stead, that doesn't seem like omnipotence to me. What about the choice to avoid death altogether?

The Bible says Christ himself--fully divine--begged his Father--also fully divine--to save him from having to be crucified. ("Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.")

In other words, God asked Himself for a favor but was denied... by Himself. Seems like self-constraint to me. Either that, or Jesus of Nazareth was in fact not God incarnate.

Here is a way to think about the above:  Jesus, fully God and fully man, CHOSE to die on the cross.  Because He was devine, he could not die by the actions of man unless Jesus (God) decided to do so himself. 

Thus, he was able to die, defeat death for all of us, and rise again to show us once more God in one substance and three persons will keep his promises.  The biggest of those promises for us is captured in John 3:16 (among many others) and should give us hope no matter what happens to us in this earthly life.

I think (my opinion) that is one of the benefits for denominations that recite frequently the three creeds (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian), to help keep in front of us, worldwide, the central part of the Christian belief.  That is keep us, the church, focused and together and remembering who God is, what he did, what period of time Jesus came, died, and rose again, and what His future mission is.

... Mountaineer

Tortoise wrote:
The proof I stated addresses only the existence of absolute truth, not descriptions of particular absolute truths. There could be an infinitude of them--who knows!

In mathematics, Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that in a formal system such as logic, there must exist some true statements that are impossible to prove. So if we extend that idea (very loosely) to the junction between logic and religion, it's quite possible that, even if we prove the existence of God using logic, there will always be certain facts about God that are impossible to prove.

I personally find the idea of the existence of absolute truth to be extremely meaningful to me--even if I have no idea what the absolute truth is all about. Its mere existence tells me, for example, that moral relativism contradicts logic. If truth is identified with the concept of moral "good," then the existence of absolute truth implies the existence of an absolute morality. That's huge.

Tortoise, that is the best reason for and defense of absolute truth I've ever seen presented.  As you imply, that blows Postmodernism religion out of the water. 

As an aside, the Postmodern approach to Bible reading and Bible Study has always bothered me (read a passage, go around the room asking people what it means to them, never dispute anything even though people give contradictory answers, etc.) as that method, almost by definition, says there is no absolute truth.  If one really believes there is no absolute truth, why even bother to go to church or study the Bible?  If one really belives there is no absolute truth I can see how difficult it would be to believe or admit we are all miserable sinners deserving of death and so in need of a savior. 

And, it explains why to a Postmodernist life sometimes can seem so meaningless and drifting.  The metaphor that popped into my mind was that for a Postmodernist, life is like being on the tip of an iceberg - able to see the tip but drifting along in the ocean, never knowing where you are.  For a Premodernist, life is like being on the top of the mountain - able to see the top, planted firmly and always knowing you are well grounded and where you are.  And, I can quickly respect a Modernist, at least they believe in absolutes and truth and believe that most everything can be answered by science given long enough; I just think there is another dimension that a Modernist has not yet come to accept (knowledge by revelation).

Thank you, you expanded my thinking.  Pardon the rambling.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

I read those Creeds.  To me, they're just self-referential statements.  It's all well and good, but before I lend any weight to certain assertions of a religion, I have to have some external or internal reason to believe it is truly the word of God.  Referencing the word of God as proof that you have the word of God on your hands just doesn't move me one inch.  In fact, it distances me from religion even more.

When I mentioned "feelings," it was perhaps a bit of a back-handed (unintentionally) way to speak of faith.  I'm not saying you don't have good days or bad days, but your "Faith" is what I see as a "feeling" inside of you that tells you that the Gospel is correct instead of other religious theories.



I would love love love the people with faith in this discussion to do the best they can to describe to us 1) How they came about their faith in God (and, more specifically, that their breed of Christianity is the "correct" one), and 2) as difficult as it may be, describe their Faith.

If you're going to provide physical/historical evidence of your version of God/Jesus/history, then it might serve you to do so better without the use of self-referential quotes/prayers/dictations.  Those things just don't mean anything to the un-convinced.  We would love to hear more details about your Faith, though, as we realize that's the internal piece that we might be missing.

So I brought up this discussion to my father-in-law, who's an ordained Presbyterian minister. He thought it was pretty funny that we eventually started rehashing all on our own discussions that are as old as the hills. He cautioned that our questions are ones that theological scholars have been pondering for centuries, and that anyone who claims to have a hard-and-fast answer supported by the Gospels is kidding themselves and trying to fit the complexity of reality into an overly simply belief structure.

I asked him about Heaven and Hell, and he said that in his opinion too much is made of them, and they don't even appear that much in the Bible. Claiming that any one thing is a sure ticket to heaven is something he characterized as overly rigid, lazy thinking that was ignoring Christ's earthly message. Asked about whether babies and Muslims are going to Hell, he said that it's irrelevant since nobody knows whether or not there even is a hell, but if there is, a loving god would judge people based on their deeds not their adherence to a strict belief that they might have been unlucky enough to never be exposed to or not mentally capable of accepting at the time of their death. I mean, good earthly behavior was one of Christ's big messages. He reminded me that Jesus was a Jewish reformer who was aghast at the overly rigid and doctrinaire state of the Jewish establishment. We're not supposed to just forget about all of that as soon as he rose from the dead.

He also cautioned me against trying to interpret anything in the Gospels literally. There are too many statements that contradict themselves if you take them all at face value, he said. They have to be metaphorical.

It was a pretty interesting conversation.

Unfortunately, his brand of Christianity is not very popular. His congregation of thoughtful mellow people is dying off and slowly becoming dominated by wealthy retirees who want easy answers and more fire-and-brimstone judgmentalism (something I have personally witnessed, not just his opinion).

Desert wrote:

jan van mourik wrote:
So what exactly did he sacrifice? He knew everything that was going to happen anyway.

I don't see that foreknowledge affects the magnitude of the pain or sacrifice. 

But doesn't the foreknowledge kind of take the sting out of it? Taking us back to the question, what exactly did he sacrifice?

Unrelated:
This is an article about transitional fossils: Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory

Imagine what they would have spoke and written about David Blaine or David Copperfield had they lived 2000 years ago and really decided to put on a grand show.

MediumTex wrote: I don't know if theory could ever become fact for me through faith, but I might say that theory can become practical through faith.  That seems more realistic to me.

What has your own religious journey been like?  Have you been close to God at some points and distant at others?  If so, what brought you back when you drifted away?  Is your current faith the same faith that you were brought up in?  If not, how did you come to your current faith?

What do you think the chances are that your current beliefs will change in the future?  Have your beliefs regarding this topic ever changed in the past?

What would you say is the purpose of religion in your life?

Do you think that Muslims are going to Hell?  I am always impressed at how devout many Muslims seem to be compared to followers of other religions (with the exception of the homicidal psychopaths who like to kill people as an expression of their religious beliefs--I do not find those people impressive at all).

I was raised in an agnostic/atheistic environment, where religion/spirituality were simply of no interest.  My limited thoughts about religions was at best something people told themselves to feel better about the fact they will die; at worst a system designed to control and suppress the masses.  But then I entered my 20's and life became "real", and there came this feeling that life is this giant cosmic joke.  I'm not sure if I was mildly depressed (I've never been on any medication...although maybe I should be ), but had a difficult time taking life seriously.  So of course I turned to self-help books/blogs, which would perk me up for a few days, but then settle back into the same old pattern.  So this continued for a while.  During this time I studied diet and nutrition, thinking there would be some miracle diet/food/nutrient/herb that would give me boundless energy, but I just ended up more unhealthy than where I had started, so went back to a simpler diet.  I then became interested in how to retire early, which eventually lead me to the PP.  At this point I needed something new to consume my insatiable curiosity, so I thought I'd try religion.  I had no idea where to start but had seen some quotes online from CS Lewis that peaked my interest, so I ordered "Mere Christianity" and a Bible.  My first time reading "Mere Christianity" was amazing, it felt like home, nothing prior to this had had that type of effect on me.

However, this feeling faded, and then I stumbled across the six hour interview between Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers.  I was blown away by Campbell's intelligence and depth of knowledge.  I looked into Zen and other eastern religions, but never felt a pull towards them.  This then led me to Carl Jung's work, which presented a coherent description of how the unconscious mind/world works.  So then I became focused on the "Process of Individuation", which Carl Jung calls the purpose of life.  I then recorded my dreams and did my best to decipher their meaning, but this became a chore without much satisfaction.  I then looked back at Jung's work and saw how favorably he held Christianity, except that it needed to be seen in a new light.  He believes that Christianity can act as a solid foundation for the process of individuation, but the problem in his time and ours is that people have stopped believing that the mythology was actually true, which severs the link between the unconscious and conscious mind.

So this led me back to CS Lewis and Christianity (full circle).  I then discover that CS Lewis had read most of Jung's work and even said he felt himself slipping more and more into a Jungian mindset.  So this is where I am at the moment.  It is possible that I will be led somewhere else next week.  But as of right now I am enjoying the journey more and more, which is half the battle.

***

I don't know if Muslims are going to Hell.  I take a more liberal or agnostic approach to the afterlife.  The afterlife doesn't interest me all that much, but if some people need the satisfaction of "knowing" where they will go when they die then I wouldn't take that away from them.

Edit: fixed typos.