Infidel

[SteveB]

I don't believe in God because some preacher told me to. I believe in God because God told me. (i.e. The personal spiritual experience that Dave was talking about). Everything else about Christianity (or any religion, really) is just history and philosophy.

 

If that's what it takes to believe in God, then are the rest of us (those who have not been blessed with a personal spiritual experience) simply locked out of salvation?

 

How can God hold us to account for our doubt when he hasn't grabbed us by the neck and said "HELLO" like he did for you?

 

You have heard the joke about the nun that keeps praying to win the lottery. Finally God screams down “Would you just buy a ticket!” Moral of the story she wasn’t doing her part to make it happen. Perhaps the same can be said for your personal experience you just didn’t see it as the opportunity it was?

[Dave McReynolds]

You have heard the joke about the nun that keeps praying to win the lottery. Finally God screams down “Would you just buy a ticket!” Moral of the story she wasn’t doing her part to make it happen. Perhaps the same can be said for your personal experience you just didn’t see it as the opportunity it was?

 

Or, as in the case of Paul on the road to Damascus, it could be quite inconvenient, and happen whether we like it or not.

[David]

I think Kevin Schwantz is a Christian.

 

I asked him what time he long he holds the throttle open on the long straight at Road Atlanta.

 

He said he doesn't start braking until he sees Jesus.

[Troper3]

This is a very interesting thread, where is it going?

[russell_bynum]

I don't believe in God because some preacher told me to. I believe in God because God told me. (i.e. The personal spiritual experience that Dave was talking about). Everything else about Christianity (or any religion, really) is just history and philosophy.

 

If that's what it takes to believe in God, then are the rest of us (those who have not been blessed with a personal spiritual experience) simply locked out of salvation?

 

How can God hold us to account for our doubt when he hasn't grabbed us by the neck and said "HELLO" like he did for you?

 

That's a great question, and one of my "Top 10 things to ask when I meet the Big Guy face to face."

 

As Steve said, sometimes you have to be open to it. But there are certainly plenty of cases where that wasn't the case. I don't know why the difference or what it means.

[Pilgrim]

I don't believe in God because some preacher told me to. I believe in God because God told me. (i.e. The personal spiritual experience that Dave was talking about). Everything else about Christianity (or any religion, really) is just history and philosophy.

 

If that's what it takes to believe in God, then are the rest of us (those who have not been blessed with a personal spiritual experience) simply locked out of salvation?

 

How can God hold us to account for our doubt when he hasn't grabbed us by the neck and said "HELLO" like he did for you?

 

Mitch, because I don't think you're asking that question to be provocative, I'll take it seriously. Which doesn't mean I have a good answer, but that's never stopped me answering stuff before, so I'll proceed.

 

First of all, any thoughts justified by any theology but mine go out the window, here.

 

Epiphany is unpredictable and unsummonable. It can escape a seeker for decades (or forever) and it can smite the worst skeptic out of the blue. Sometimes it's not the blinding "HELLO" moment you mention - or it might be. It's even possible to not recognize it, certainly not instantly. In fact, it may be such a slow process that you don't recognize it at all as an event, but rather, a change in your life that maybe you notice.

 

Here I stumble for a way to present what I think . . .

 

I don't believe epiphany is necessary for salvation. In fact, I believe that a conscious decision to trust and serve a Lord you aren't even sure exists is the toughest and most praiseworthy road to grace. Those who've been blessed with an epiphany have an easy job of believing; those who doubt have it tough. So I can't imagine a God who wouldn't look with kindly tolerance at someone who says with good heart, "God, if you're there . . ." and goes on to live his life acting in a way that shows he appreciates the sacrifice made on his behalf - even if he's not sure it happened.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

This is a very interesting thread, where is it going?

 

You just never know. Does it matter?

 

Think of it as a dorm-room conversation when you just got back from the pizza parlor where you had three beers.

 

Pilgrim

[beemerman2k]

I don't believe epiphany is necessary for salvation. In fact, I believe that a conscious decision to trust and serve a Lord you aren't even sure exists is the toughest and most praiseworthy road to grace. Those who've been blessed with an epiphany have an easy job of believing; those who doubt have it tough. So I can't imagine a God who wouldn't look with kindly tolerance at someone who says with good heart, "God, if you're there . . ." and goes on to live his life acting in a way that shows he appreciates the sacrifice made on his behalf - even if he's not sure it happened.

 

Pilgrim

 

Not to hijack your excellent thought, Pilgrim, because I like where this thread is going. But one thing I often think to myself is this: I have to have some sort of "evidence" for this reason -- is the only reason I believe in Christian theology due to the fact that I grew up in a Christian thinking society? Given the level of evidence I require for my faith, would I be a devout Jew were I born in Israel or a devout Muslim were I born in Saudi Arabia? Is the only reason I am of the Christian persuasion due to the fact that this society taught me to ascribe my thanks to the "God" who is socially acceptable in this particular country?

 

What are the odds of any of us Christian types ever converting to a different religion? If the answer is "slim to nil", is it really because of a lack of evidence other religions could produce or is it because we aren't interested in their evidence?

 

The bulk of what I am reading from those who "believe", I feel as though your threshold for "evidence" is alarmingly low! And that's what inspired these questions I am raising.

[beemerman2k]

This is a very interesting thread, where is it going?

 

You just never know. Does it matter?

 

Think of it as a dorm-room conversation when you just got back from the pizza parlor where you had three beers.

 

Pilgrim

 

 

Exactly!

[KMG_365]

[ . . .] one thing I often think to myself is this: I have to have some sort of "evidence" for this reason -- is the only reason I believe in Christian theology due to the fact that I grew up in a Christian thinking society? Given the level of evidence I require for my faith, would I be a devout Jew were I born in Israel or a devout Muslim were I born in Saudi Arabia? Is the only reason I am of the Christian persuasion due to the fact that this society taught me to ascribe my thanks to the "God" who is socially acceptable in this particular country?

 

What are the odds of any of us Christian types ever converting to a different religion? If the answer is "slim to nil", is it really because of a lack of evidence other religions could produce or is it because we aren't interested in their evidence?

 

The bulk of what I am reading from those who "believe", I feel as though your threshold for "evidence" is alarmingly low! And that's what inspired these questions I am raising.

Wow, that's deep.

 

I think Richard Dawkins would agree with you:

 

"...it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions."

 

 

 

"Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it."

So when/if one is out contemplating the beauty of the stars in their multitudes in the vast stillness of the desert night and one DOES have this "HELLO" epiphany one is most likely to frame it in the Judeo-Christian context one was culturally subjected to since childhood rather than any of the many other options one knows little to nothing about. This doesn't in and of itself lend any particular validity to one's explanation for said epiphany, however.

[russell_bynum]

So when/if one is out contemplating the beauty of the stars in their multitudes in the vast stillness of the desert night and one DOES have this "HELLO" epiphany one is most likely to frame it in the Judeo-Christian context one was culturally subjected to since childhood rather than any of the many other options one knows little to nothing about.

 

Ummm....duh.

 

 

Seriously, though...that's just logical.

 

As to the validity of that explanation...I think that ANY explanation we come up with will be woefully inadequate at best because we are incapable of comprehending what's actually going on. So we frame it into some context that we can understand.

 

So...do Christians and Hindu's both go to "Heaven"? Maybe there's a Hindu Heaven and a Christian Heaven? I dunno. Personally, I suspect that this question is stupid because it assumes that I have some way to comprehend "heaven".

[Ken H.]

is the only reason I believe in Christian theology due to the fact that I grew up in a Christian thinking society?

I suspect for the most part the answer to that question is yes. As Jamie points out, by and large children adopt the religion of their parents. And one area of the world tends toward one religion while another toward an different one for that reason. Over time the there is a shift to a commonality in any region of the world.

 

So given that, and given there is only one 'right' religion, is my odds of 'getting to heaven' based primarily on the luck of the draw that I was born in the 'right' part of the planet? That had I been born in one of 'those other ones', areas that as a whole prescribe to the 'wrong' religion, I'd likely be doomed to hell? What kind of a god sets up a system like that? Where coincidence of birth location dictates your 'odds of success in eternity' or not? I'm sorry, but to me it's all just so much malarkey.

[russell_bynum]

So given that, and given there is only one 'right' religion, is my odds of 'getting to heaven' based primarily on the luck of the draw that I was born in the 'right' part of the planet? That had I been born in one of 'those other ones', areas that as a whole prescribe to the 'wrong' religion, I'd likely be doomed to hell? What kind of a god sets up a system like that? Where coincidence of birth location dictates your 'odds of success in eternity' or not? I'm sorry, but to me it's all just so much malarkey.

 

Religion (which is man-made) says "do it my way or go to hell".

 

I'm not convinced that's God's will.

[Couchrocket]

Mitch, because I don't think you're asking that question to be provocative, I'll take it seriously. Which doesn't mean I have a good answer

Another partial answer is found in scripture itself. There is a place were it is said that "evidence" of God's existence and two of his attributes (eternality [divine nature] and power) are evident "from what has been made."

 

We're just now coming to a place where science is being liberated to some degree from lock-step secularism as a "faith" to a place where our ability to analyze "what has been made" is getting interesting in light of this portion of scripture.

 

I distinctly remember being taught in high school science "the fact" that this is a steady-state universe, that is is infinite, has always been here and will always be here. The implication at the time was that you didn't need a "god" to create something that has always been here.

 

We've come a long way in a short time.

 

For people with inquiring minds like yours, Mitch (and others), look at my recommendation of Schroeder and Varghese books above. They aren't some puff pieces w/ pop-science to "Prove Jesus," in fact Schroeder isn't a Christian. Varghese, especially, is a polymath of monumental proportions who will take you on a tour de force of scientific observation with some rather startling implications. And, don't worry he is also not a "pop-ID" person either.

 

In my opinion, scripture (i.e. biblical Christianity), far from being afraid of science, is encouraging us to "look as close as we can" into "what has been made." But we should do so with open minds. Lock-step secular cosmologists, for instance, are frustrated and have a "need" to come up with a completely material cause for what "was" right before and was "what caused" the Big Bang. Since it may very well be that the laws of physics and quantum mechanics as we know them today may not have existed at all before the BB, one possibility we should not rule out is that someone of immense power and divinity said, "Let there be light." As I understand it, there was a lot of light, pretty much right away! And, whereas as we understand today you cannot get something from nothing, we may discover at some future time that you can certainly get something from "someone." So the call is to be open minded as to where the evidence may eventually lead us. To start from, arguendo, a position of pure materialism with only the possibility of closed system matialism providing sufficient answers, isn't very open minded.

 

As an aside, I'd like to say that I'm impressed with how this thread has morphed into such an interesting one, with such civil and respectful discourse.

[beemerman2k]

As an aside, I'd like to say that I'm impressed with how this thread has morphed into such an interesting one, with such civil and respectful discourse.

 

I agree. I've been sorta walking on ice for fear that people start getting radical and offended, but I am pleased to see the level of maturity, honesty, and civility with which this conversation has progressed.

 

One interesting "Creation" story is from that of J.R.R. Tolkien. In a collection of his early writings called "The Silmarillion", in which he provides the history behind the mythology of Middle Earth (which of course is where "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" takes place), he tells the story of how Eru, also called Illuvatar (who is the "Creator"), basically conjured up Middle Earth from his own imagination and used the singing of his angels (The Valar, I think they're called) to bring his vision to life!

 

I'm not quite clear on the details as the writing is intentionally vague (to replicate some ancient thoughts that have been passed down through time I would imagine where the basic story is intact but the details are sketchy), but if you take his meaning to what could be their natural conclusion, all of creation exists only in the mind of the Creator! Nothing is "real", this is all just a part of his vast imagination!

 

Anyone else familiar with the story? I'd love to hear what others though of Tolkien's mythical creation story.

 

Oh, as an interesting aside, this would explain the reason for the irreconcilable difference in understanding between scientists in Middle Earth and the believers.

[Dave McReynolds]

but if you take his meaning to what could be their natural conclusion, all of creation exists only in the mind of the Creator! Nothing is "real", this is all just a part of his vast imagination!

 

That certainly would solve a lot of the problems we've been discussing in this thread, wouldn't it?

 

If I'm nothing but an evil thought that crept into my creator's mind brought on by an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, or a fragment of an underdone potato (to borrow some words from Dickens) then he can pretty much banish me to anyplace he wants without having to worry about the fairness of it all, couldn't he?

[smiller]

I distinctly remember being taught in high school science "the fact" that this is a steady-state universe, that is is infinite, has always been here and will always be here.

You must not have had a very good teacher as the steady-state theory was one of many cosmology theories and mainstream science has never considered any of them as 'fact.'

 

Lock-step secular cosmologists, for instance, are frustrated and have a "need" to come up with a completely material cause for what "was" right before and was "what caused" the Big Bang.

No, cosmologists are merely looking for evidence leading to logical theories. If a non-material cause could be detected then that would be one avenue of study. It isn't the researcher's fault that no such evidence exists. And as to which point-of-view (science or faith-based) is really in 'lock step', well, people can make their own judgments there.

 

Scott, I don't mean any of this personally and I'm not trying to make light of your views, but feel compelled to point out that they represent some pretty common misunderstandings about what science says about the origin of the universe. In fact, with respect to the Big Bang science is only trying to address what happened in the microseconds after the creation of the universe, not the creation itself. Science recognizes that as unknowable to any level of certainly, which of course it is, and in fact it is other disciples of thought that claim to know to for certain. In this way science does not and never has conflicted with religion regarding the creation of the universe as that particular facet is considered unknowable and thus not addressed. Most scientists will readily admit that a single creative force is possible, even if they personally consider it unlikely. How many of those who believe strongly in God will admit that there is even a scant possibility that he doesn't exist? Which discipline really has the open mind?

 

It is true however that while secular science doesn't condemn the idea of a creative force it does often disagree with the accounts in the Bible or other religious texts. Is this latter issue what really bothers everyone? It's worthy of discussion, but it's also totally different than the completely fallacious 'science denies God' undertone in many of these discussions.

[David]

As an aside, I'd like to say that I'm impressed with how this thread has morphed into such an interesting one, with such civil and respectful discourse.

 

I'd have to say it's civil, which is noteworthy, but other than that, it's been largely vapid--entrenched positions at either end of the spectrum and one person with a foot firmly planted on both sides of the fence, not yet realizing that the pain in his groin is barbed wire.

 

While I have appreciated the civility, there's not really much discussion in this thread. It's really adults promulgating their views on a platform. It's not really open learning.

[beemerman2k]

...and one person with a foot firmly planted on both sides of the fence, not yet realizing that the pain in his groin is barbed wire.

 

That'd be me I take it? Yes, I have 1 foot planted firmly on both sides of the fence. And no, I feel no pain in my groin; I am rather enjoying this thread, thank you.

 

I think I pointed out way early on in this thread how much I appreciate those people in "holy writ" who have the courage to take a stand on what they think -- even in the face of God himself. I absolutely feel quite free to do the same thing. God's religion isn't something I feel at all compelled to defend; so what another thinks about God is ultimately between the two of them. If God wants to persuade anyone or everyone in a more obvious fashion, that's up to him, but I don't mind going on record as acknowledging that both sides of the argument have good, substantial merit. Present a good argument one way or the other, and you'll have my respect. Present a flimsy one, and I'll challenge it.

 

Ultimately, ideas are just that: ideas. Nobody is going to hell because of their ideas or ideology -- that's my conviction anyhow. (In fact, my convictions are that nobody's going to hell at all! And I do mean NOBODY!) So I don't get all caught up in whether a person really believes or not or even that it's all that important in the grand scheme of things. I've thought about explaining why I feel this way as I do have my reasonably thought through reasons, but I figured every person has to walk their own walk and come to their own conclusions on their own. I firmly believe that if there is a God, and this God is anything like a "father", then we are truly sweating the small stuff in a big way.

 

But we do sweat it for reasons I have already stated! People are trying to reconcile what "holy writ" says with our own natural, common sense. And I'm ultimately claiming that this is an exercise in futility -- the book was written by humans, and while much of what it says is beautiful to read, it ain't perfect nor is it infallible.

 

Perhaps I am the real infidel here! Perhaps. But I am being as truthful as I can be in this discussion. Somethings I agree with on both sides of the argument, other things I don't. Sorry, that's the best I can do.

[David]

Here's what you're missing, though, and even though it's just one thing, it's monumental. It turns what you're saying into nonsense, really, and it's this: the claims in Christianity (and other religions, to varying degrees) don't allow for the smorgasbord approach you're taking. They claim to represent the words of God; they claim that God wrote the Scriptures by handing them down, word for word; and they claim that people who don't believe these things are condemned and going to hell.

 

In other words, either Christianity is essentially correct or it's totally wrong. You can't pick and choose without the whole thing crashing down around you.

 

Well, you can pick and choose, but that's not Christianity in the end. This very post of yours has probably a half-dozen statements that an evangelical professor would consider pure heresy.

 

Me? I think Christianity is a religion and I want nothing to do with religion. I do have a belief system, though, that overlaps maybe 5% with Christianity. It makes sense to me and I'd die for it in a heartbeat, but I feel no compulsion to explain it to anyone, much less convince someone else of the same belief.

 

The longer I live, the fewer things I believe...but the more deeply I believe them. What I get from listening to your dialogue is no real filter--in other words, what are you testing ideas against? Are there wrong ideas, and how do you identify certain ideas as wrong?

 

You're in love with the idea of no absolutes. That's your religion.

[DavidEBSmith]

Here's what you're missing, though, and even though it's just one thing, it's monumental. It turns what you're saying into nonsense, really, and it's this: the claims in Christianity (and other religions, to varying degrees) don't allow for the smorgasbord approach you're taking. They claim to represent the words of God; they claim that God wrote the Scriptures by handing them down, word for word; and they claim that people who don't believe these things are condemned and going to hell.

 

In other words, either Christianity is essentially correct or it's totally wrong. You can't pick and choose without the whole thing crashing down around you.

 

I think the mistake you're making here is thinking of "Christianity" as a monolithic whole. There are some branches that believe as you describe, and some that don't. Over a spectrum that includes the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, the UCC, Quakers, Pentacostalism, Seventh-day Adventism, the Amish, the Shakers, the Anglican Church, Swedenborgianism, and maybe Mormonism, there's a lot of opportunity to find most any combination of beliefs you choose.

 

And they're all the true and correct faith.

[smiller]

I think the mistake you're making here is thinking of "Christianity" as a monolithic whole. There are some branches that believe as you describe, and some that don't.

David said 'They claim to represent the words of God; they claim that God wrote the Scriptures by handing them down, word for word; and they claim that people who don't believe these things are condemned and going to hell. '

 

Which of the many Christian sects you named don't hold these tenets as true?

[beemerman2k]

David, I am quite eager to address the issues you raised, but I am at work and bogged down at the moment. Hang with me, my replay is forthcoming, but I don't want to rush it.

 

In short, here's what's coming: There are many "models" by which one can view the Bible -- one is that it establishes a "religion". But this is NOT a model I subscribe to. That model may be true of the Old Testament, but I do NOT see Jesus doing this in the New Testament. Instead, he points us to God's values, God's personality, God's principles, and then encourages us all to make those very values our own. Jesus is liberating, not enslaving! He points us to a free and purposeful life, not a life bound by rules and religion.

 

Religion is mindless, it's for sheep, it's for people who are too lazy or too scared to think and speak for themselves. It's for followers! Jesus was not about religion; how many people questions his teachings? Now how many were blasted for doing so as opposed to given insight and answers as to where he was coming from? God want to deal with living, thinking, breathing people, not dulled robots. Personally? I believe God takes great pleasure in dealing with you because you are real, you are honest, you are bold! To me, you are a good "model".

 

Anyhow, I do agree that our society sees things the way you stated, but I do not agree that this is a good or accurate model at all. And that's where a lot of the "this stuff is rubbish" sentiments come from. And if you haven't noticed, I agree with those sentiments entirely. I guess it makes me appear as though I have a foot firmly planted in both camps, but I'd rather think of it as my feet being firmly planted in my own camp, I just think a lot of what other camps believe agrees with my own views.

 

The Bible is a collection of arguments. It's not a scientific document nor is it a legal one. It's full of scientific problems because it doesn't care much about science! It's only cares about trying to present the personality of God to us in a way that we can understand and emulate. Period.

 

Anyhow, gotta go, I'll say more later.

[KMG_365]

While I have appreciated the civility, there's not really much discussion in this thread. It's really adults promulgating their views on a platform. It's not really open learning.

This is one of the saddest statements in this whole thread.

[David]

Here's what you're missing, though, and even though it's just one thing, it's monumental. It turns what you're saying into nonsense, really, and it's this: the claims in Christianity (and other religions, to varying degrees) don't allow for the smorgasbord approach you're taking. They claim to represent the words of God; they claim that God wrote the Scriptures by handing them down, word for word; and they claim that people who don't believe these things are condemned and going to hell.

 

In other words, either Christianity is essentially correct or it's totally wrong. You can't pick and choose without the whole thing crashing down around you.

 

I think the mistake you're making here is thinking of "Christianity" as a monolithic whole. There are some branches that believe as you describe, and some that don't. Over a spectrum that includes the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, the UCC, Quakers, Pentacostalism, Seventh-day Adventism, the Amish, the Shakers, the Anglican Church, Swedenborgianism, and maybe Mormonism, there's a lot of opportunity to find most any combination of beliefs you choose.

 

And they're all the true and correct faith.

 

I was speaking specifically of taking "truths" from the Protestant Bible, picking and choosing as measured against common sense.

[David]

While I have appreciated the civility, there's not really much discussion in this thread. It's really adults promulgating their views on a platform. It's not really open learning.

This is one of the saddest statements in this whole thread.

 

So, have you got something to add to it, or you just wanted to throw that out? If you disagree and want a discussion, maybe you ought to elaborate.

[KMG_365]

While I have appreciated the civility, there's not really much discussion in this thread. It's really adults promulgating their views on a platform. It's not really open learning.

This is one of the saddest statements in this whole thread.

 

So, have you got something to add to it, or you just wanted to throw that out? If you disagree and want a discussion, maybe you ought to elaborate.

Yes. I'm wondering about the motivation for such a comment in the first place. Is this not a discussion? If not, how else would you define it? "Adults promulgating their views on a platform" and engaging in this civil back and forth is about as useful a discussion as we're liable to have here. Unless you mean you'd rather have it "face-to-face" in the real world and that would make it more of a discussion, but I really fail to see what else would meet your strict definition of "discussion". It strikes me more as a flippant way of disregarding all the information earnestly presented here.

[David]

In short, here's what's coming: There are many "models" by which one can view the Bible -- one is that it establishes a "religion". But this is NOT a model I subscribe to. That model may be true of the Old Testament, but I do NOT see Jesus doing this in the New Testament. Instead, he points us to God's values, God's personality, God's principles, and then encourages us all to make those very values our own. Jesus is liberating, not enslaving! He points us to a free and purposeful life, not a life bound by rules and religion.

 

Sort of, but he's really espousing freedom from the religion that grew out of the faith in the Old Testament. He's reacting to those rules, not rules in general. He replaces them with some of his own, and then of course the early church built a religion from that faith, which I suspect Jesus would have disagreed with just as vehemently as he did the Pharisaical religious system of his day.

 

Religion is mindless, it's for sheep, it's for people who are too lazy or too scared to think and speak for themselves. It's for followers! Jesus was not about religion; how many people questions his teachings? Now how many were blasted for doing so as opposed to given insight and answers as to where he was coming from? God want to deal with living, thinking, breathing people, not dulled robots.

 

I can embrace what you've said here.

 

Anyhow, I do agree that our society sees things the way you stated, but I do not agree that this is a good or accurate model at all. And that's where a lot of the "this stuff is rubbish" sentiments come from. And if you haven't noticed, I agree with those sentiments entirely. I guess it makes me appear as though I have a foot firmly planted in both camps, but I'd rather think of it as my feet being firmly planted in my own camp, I just think a lot of what other camps believe agrees with my own views.

 

Here's what I can't make the connection, because the Bible itself claims to be true. I can see how you would gather parts of it and build into your own belief system (like I do), but I don't understand how you can't condemn the whole system as deluded. The Bible itself has a POV and is willing to put it all on the line in relation to several things: goodness of Jesus; his resurrection; veracity of Scripture; reality of certain miracles; etc.

 

The Bible is a collection of arguments. It's not a scientific document nor is it a legal one. It's full of scientific problems because it doesn't care much about science! It's only cares about trying to present the personality of God to us in a way that we can understand and emulate. Period.

 

Maybe this is what I'm not understanding about your position--I'll look forward to later discussions.

[tallman]

As an aside, I'd like to say that I'm impressed with how this thread has morphed into such an interesting one, with such civil and respectful discourse.

 

I agree. I've been sorta walking on ice for fear that people start getting radical and offended, but I am pleased to see the level of maturity, honesty, and civility with which this conversation has progressed.

 

One interesting "Creation" story is from that of J.R.R. Tolkien. In a collection of his early writings called "The Silmarillion", in which he provides the history behind the mythology of Middle Earth (which of course is where "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" takes place), he tells the story of how Eru, also called Illuvatar (who is the "Creator"), basically conjured up Middle Earth from his own imagination and used the singing of his angels (The Valar, I think they're called) to bring his vision to life!

 

I'm not quite clear on the details as the writing is intentionally vague (to replicate some ancient thoughts that have been passed down through time I would imagine where the basic story is intact but the details are sketchy), but if you take his meaning to what could be their natural conclusion, all of creation exists only in the mind of the Creator! Nothing is "real", this is all just a part of his vast imagination!

 

Anyone else familiar with the story? I'd love to hear what others though of Tolkien's mythical creation story.

 

Oh, as an interesting aside, this would explain the reason for the irreconcilable difference in understanding between scientists in Middle Earth and the believers.

 

One of his interesting and rather obtuse undertakings.

I found it to be very different from his other mythological texts, yet necessary for the Middle Earth sagas.

[David]

I'm wondering about the motivation for such a comment in the first place. Is this not a discussion? If not, how else would you define it? "Adults promulgating their views on a platform" and engaging in this civil back and forth is about as useful a discussion as we're liable to have here. Unless you mean you'd rather have it "face-to-face" in the real world and that would make it more of a discussion, but I really fail to see what else would meet your strict definition of "discussion".

 

I was reacting to the notion that this is a substantive discussion, and I disagreed. It strikes me more as a debate of political candidates, none coming with an openness to change their views but instead listing platforms. That's all well and good, but the only thing remarkable to me about this thread is its civility. Just because it's civil doesn't mean it's substantive. I think we've had a lot of substantive discussions in this forum, but this didn't strike me as one of those.

 

Hopefully I can have that opinion without a flippant response from you.

[zbassman]

This is a pretty interesting discussion. Having participated in similar discussions on other boards I'd like to congratulate you all on keeping this civil. Discussion of religion often quickly falls in to petty bickering and name calling, especially online where we are shielded from reverberations of our words by anonymity.

 

Here's my two cents, if its worth even that:

 

I grew up in the Catholic church. But I turned my back on that branch early on. I couldn't wrap my heart and mind around the idea that there was only one way to God and those who took other paths were condemned.

 

So next I tried Unitarianism. While better ultimately that didn't work for me either.

 

Eventially I realized that I actually don't believe in a God, at least not as defined through organized religion. I also developed a real distrust and antipathy towards religion in general. I just see too much arrogance, too much intolerance, and too much blind doctrinarianism exhibited in at least the most visible public adherents of religion.

 

But my rejection of religion has left a hole in my life. That hole is the place where a certainty of purpose and ultimate destination for life would be filled in by religious conviction. Of course these big questions, why are we here and where are we going, have long been identified as part of the purpose that religion serves for mankind. I also think there is another purpose.

 

I believe that part of the reason man created religion is because at our core we all need to belong to a finite group. A tribe. This is why we identify with specific sports clubs as fans, or organizations like Kiwanas or Elks, or even joining motorcycle brand specific online groups. We all have a need to belong to a tribe. To feel a part of a finite community. To say we are part of the community of mankind is too large, to vast, to ambiguous. We seek to identify with a smaller, more personal group. Religion in part serves to satisfy this need.

 

There are also practical, evolutionarily advantageous roles that organized religion has served. Things like helping to teach "rules" that help propogate the species.

 

Recently I found another positive role religion plays. My father-in-law passed away recently. They were very involved in their church. That community rallied around his widow and have been instrumental in assisting her in the transition.

 

I still don't believe and I still don't buy in to organized religion. But I can now see that for some people it does serve a positive role.

 

Just my opinions. As always I could, and probably am, full of bull.

[Ron_B]

Happy Birthday, uhhh...

 

Sorry, I guess I got stuck in a loop.

 

Somehow, I foresee a short life for this thread. (a subject that can't help but get political)

 

Boy, was that ever a bad prediction!

[Couchrocket]

Big Bang science is only trying to address what happened in the microseconds after the creation of the universe, not the creation itself.

First, no personal attacks perceived on this end. It is a good discussion (regardless of what David says ).

 

Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part re "frustrated" re the prelude to your quote above. But there is I think "a" frustration within the scientific community when they began to realize that studying the "few microseconds" after the BB is as good as it was going to get with their current understanding of physics. What I was trying "get at" with my comment is that the mindset that insists on "natural causes only" as being relevant -- by definition will make any "pre-big-bang" investigation impossible. If you listen closely to the multi-verse discussions now being pursued as a way to make quantum mechanics "work out" vis matter / anti-matter / dark matter... it is as much a leap of faith as any other, since a multi-verse itself is beyond scientific observation and measurement. Kicking things into an "upper story" like this is exactly the same sort of thing that was done by theologians in the last two centuries in order to avoid the implications of "science" at that time. Pretty amazing, and actually pretty amusing.

 

It is a popular notion that only those things that can be measured with the current "scientific method" are candidates for "reality." I think this idea is fundamentally flawed. Your recitation of same is evidence of a problem I see in our current materialistic "faith" in "science" as offering the only legitimate answers to what we observe and experience in life.

 

As far as my old science teach is concerned, you are no doubt correct. In the same way that today's science teachers are woefully ignorant of the broader view of possible avenues of investigation for many areas "restricted to science by scientists."

 

Again, I fully realize that what I'm saying here will seem akin to "gibberish" to you given your paradigm. That's OK. My intent is merely to show that "today's scientific theory" (if you insist on that word) is no less bound by a "natural causes only faith statement" as was my science teacher back in the day.

 

To others...

 

A careful, and sane look at scripture, using decent scholarship and an understanding of those words in the context in which they were written, offers amazing insight into, and "truth claims" about the nature and condition of human existence -- ones that are unique (as stated by others) and that offer a hope for "the human condition." No other system I've investigated carefully in my life long search, came anywhere "near" the power of explanation for what I've actually observed in my life about "people," history, and me. The fact that much of what is proffered has been either butchered by poor scholarship, or hi-jacked for evil purposes, is insufficient to reject both the myriad positive effects it has had on civilization, or what is posits.

 

I've always thought the modern attacks on Christianity and the person of Jesus very interesting. It is in part, I'm certain, because of the unique and demanding aspects of Jesus' truth-claims... but I also feel that it is the spiritual "dividing line" that is drawn, that is anathema to human kind who insist on being the center of the universe, that also makes it a candidate for such vehemence.

 

In the final analysis, none of that matters. Faithful people who make honest attempts to live as Jesus calls us to live will continue to be salt and light. The idiot "Christians" will continue give it a bad name. Evil men will continue to hi-jack that bus as long as it has any traction in Western culture, and people who insist on being the center of their universe will continue to reject it as a possibility because of the implications to their personal lives.

[Kitsap]

Happy Birthday, uhhh...

 

Sorry, I guess I got stuck in a loop.

 

Somehow, I foresee a short life for this thread. (a subject that can't help but get political)

 

Boy, was that ever a bad prediction!

 

I've enjoyed this thread even more than any of FD failure ones Keep it coming

[philbytx]

All very nice and entertaining stuff.....but, minute by minute and at the end of the day, the only thing I know for certain is - Ehyeh asher ehyeh

[smiller]

What I was trying "get at" with my comment is that the mindset that insists on "natural causes only" as being relevant -- by definition will make any "pre-big-bang" investigation impossible.

Well yes, exactly, 'pre-big-bang' is not something science tries to address because no tests can be applied... and if you're looking for objective truth that constraint is a strength, not a weakness. It simply means that we don't know, and that's as far as the methodology can go. I suppose that is 'frustrating' to scientists just as it is for most any human being, but that's just the way it is. And BTW I would take issue with your 'natural causes only' clause as again, proper research looks for any cause on which a reasonably supportable theory can be based, and again it's not their fault that no meaningful evidence exists for a supernatural cause. It's not a physicist's job to make things up... that's for the priests and philosophers.

 

It is a popular notion that only those things that can be measured with the current "scientific method" are candidates for "reality." I think this idea is fundamentally flawed. Your recitation of same is evidence of a problem I see in our current materialistic "faith" in "science" as offering the only legitimate answers to what we observe and experience in life.

I'm not trying to be disingenuous and I do understand what you and others are saying in this regard. But any meaningful definition of 'reality' has to include some way of demonstrating that there is some kind of objective truth present, i.e. subject to experimentation and objective analysis or the word 'reality' doesn't have much meaning. So in that way, yes, the scientific method is more legitimate since subjective opinion based only on faith does not constitute objective 'reality' by any meaningful definition. If OTOH you are looking for an 'it's real to me' kind of reality, then yeah, science kind of sucks at providing that. If you want to make things up as you go along then you're going to need some other method of looking at things.

 

In the end I think your dissatisfaction with classical scientific investigation and the reason that I embrace it is because we are looking for two different things. I am OK with the fact that we humans can try to describe reality only past the Big Bang (as an example) and I can live with the fact that what happened before is not knowable. So science works for me, and is in fact for me the only intellectually honest option. If you want to believe that you can ever really know the rest then science will indeed be a big disappointment because it can't help you there. It never even tried.

[David]

Big Bang science is only trying to address what happened in the microseconds after the creation of the universe, not the creation itself.

First, no personal attacks perceived on this end. It is a good discussion (regardless of what David says ).

 

Okay, now you've asked for it. Let's get nitty gritty. (No, that's not a bad rap song.)

 

A careful, and sane look at scripture, using decent scholarship and an understanding of those words in the context in which they were written, offers amazing insight into, and "truth claims" about the nature and condition of human existence -- ones that are unique (as stated by others) and that offer a hope for "the human condition." No other system I've investigated carefully in my life long search, came anywhere "near" the power of explanation for what I've actually observed in my life about "people," history, and me. The fact that much of what is proffered has been either butchered by poor scholarship, or hi-jacked for evil purposes, is insufficient to reject both the myriad positive effects it has had on civilization, or what is posits.

 

Are there any parts of Scripture that strike you as misguided? I'm thinking of what at least by modern cultural terms would be considered genocide, child rape, polygamy, abuse of women, slavery, etc.? I basically agree with the paragraph above, but to use one of your favorite terms, how does your epistemology allow you to favor certain parts and discard others?

 

On a related note, I spent a day with Francis Schaeffer one time, back in the early eighties. You would have enjoyed him.

[Jerry_75_Guy]

What I was trying "get at" with my comment is that the mindset that insists on "natural causes only" as being relevant -- by definition will make any "pre-big-bang" investigation impossible.

Well yes, exactly, 'pre-big-bang' is not something science tries to address because no tests can be applied... and if you're looking for objective truth that constraint is a strength, not a weakness. It simply means that we don't know, and that's as far as the methodology can go.

 

Not to hijack this portion of the thread, but current cosmological theory now indicates that it may well be possible to gain information as to the conditions in the 'pre big bang universe', so to speak, by testing certain predictions made by these theories, and it looks as if some of these predictions could well be tested in the near future.

 

But I feel that this is somewhat beside the point. Even if there is conclusive proof of multiple prior universes, that new earlier timeline horizon will still leave us wondering what came prior to that.

 

I've never really understood why, even if we find proof of an origin to the universe that does not need a Deus Ex Machina to explain it's beginning, that that necessarily excludes the possibility of a 'God'. I don't see how it could, actually, but I get the impression that is a real concern with many believers.

[Couchrocket]

proper research looks for any cause on which a reasonably supportable theory can be based, and again it's not their fault that no meaningful evidence exists for a supernatural cause.

I agree. PROPER research is the operative term here. And I'd say that "meaningful" needs further exploration.

 

It's not a physicist's job to make things up... that's for the priests and philosophers.

LOL.. I'll assume you had your tongue in cheek here. If not... OUCH (and a tad presumptuous ).

 

I really would encourage you to read Varghese. I've read extensively on your side of the fence, and it would do you no harm to see an intelligent argument for a broader perspective. Honestly.

[Couchrocket]

Are there any parts of Scripture that strike you as misguided?

Yes. But I can also embrace the notion of progressive revelation. What we have in the biblical record is flawed by the humans who wrote it in their Sitz im Leben. Also, judging cultural norms by our standards can often result in a lopsided view of what was being communicated "then." So, in a way I'm not disagreeing with you at all... just saying that good scholarship doesn't "back away from" or deny those huge differences we see (another good example of this is the NT's seeming acceptance of the notion of slavery as practiced in the 1st century in a Roman and Greek context) today that look (and by our standards are) less than enlightened -- but some accommodation needs to be extended. I'm certainly not a "fighting fundy" in this arena at all. Any good class in exegesis should knock that out of someone who approaches these things honestly. Unfortunately, in the face of the industrial revolution, and the philosophic "God is dead" movement of the last two centuries, theology made a retreat into one of two major errors -- either a Kirkegaardian leap into the upper story, or the "fighting fundy" decent into the basement of intellectual honesty.

 

 

On a related note, I spent a day with Francis Schaeffer one time, back in the early eighties. You would have enjoyed him.

Indeed. I met him once, and corresponded with him over the years up until his death. He is one of my heros. His letters to me are some of my most prized possesions. I cried like a baby when he died.

[smiller]

and it would do you no harm to see an intelligent argument for a broader perspective.

OUCH (and a tad presumptuous ).

[smiller]

And BTW, I probably should expand a bit lest you complete your picture of me as a closed-minded and hardcore atheist who believes that science can explain every aspect of the Universe. That is not what I am saying, nor am I intending to deny any notion of God, although as always much depends on the definition. If God is defined as a level of organization to the Universe that we do not fully understand (and cannot yet be explained, or even properly explored, by conventional science) then I not only accept that as possible, but probable, as there are likely many levels of organization of the Universe that are beyond our current comprehension. Whether there is intelligence involved or not is a more difficult question as there are multiple possibilities. It is often posed that intelligence is mandatory due to the immense complexity of the Universe, for example the balance of strong and weak nuclear forces being just so and allowing for matter to exist, and that it follows that this could not possibly be a mere coincidence. Maybe it isn't, or maybe it is, perhaps the Universe has existed in an infinite number of forms and every once in a while a fluke occurs that allows matter to exist and know itself. Given enough iterations this could potentially happen by chance. Unfortunately it's not something mankind is likely to know in our lifetimes, if ever.

 

So no, science does not and cannot explain all, and again that isn't even its mission. But beyond science there are only intellectual mind games. Fascinating and challenging games to be sure but in the end they are more a result of the artistic mind than the rational one. We look to fill in the blanks and attempt to create the tools that science cannot provide but those efforts are apart from the discipline of scientific investigation. Are they superior? Depends on what you are looking for I suppose.

 

The part where I think mainstream religious thought really goes astray is the extrapolation of the possibility of some sort of intelligent design out to absurd specifics, such as a being who somehow cares how we behave, who we sleep with, or what day we go to worship (or whether we worship at all.) That particular God was created by man and I don't have any doubt about that.

[Ken H.]

As an aside, I'd like to say that I'm impressed with how this thread has morphed into such an interesting one, with such civil and respectful discourse.

I'd have to say it's civil, which is noteworthy, but other than that, it's been largely vapid--entrenched positions at either end of the spectrum and one person with a foot firmly planted on both sides of the fence, not yet realizing that the pain in his groin is barbed wire.

 

While I have appreciated the civility, there's not really much discussion in this thread. It's really adults promulgating their views on a platform. It's not really open learning.

If you define "open learning" as one person persuading/converting another, then yes, kind of like synthetic vs. dino oil - not much mind changing is likely going on.

 

But I for one am learning a lot. If nothing else expanding my future reading list. And as a pretty anti-religion person (not necessary to be confused with anti-god) the inputs of some of the posters so far who have studied religions far more than me is a learning experience. Keep it coming, I am listening!

[Couchrocket]

and it would do you no harm to see an intelligent argument for a broader perspective.

OUCH (and a tad presumptuous ).

Sorry if it sounded such. It was an honest encouragment to explore.

 

Maybe it isn't, or maybe it is, perhaps the Universe has existed in an infinite number of forms and every once in a while a fluke occurs that allows matter to exist and know itself. Given enough iterations this could potentially happen by chance. Unfortunately it's not something mankind is likely to know in our lifetimes, if ever.

These are the kinds of issues Varghese explores so well. It really is stimulating. And, when taken in combination (it isn't just "one thing" in physics that "just happened to be just so" but many many) are very interesting and the kinds of things that had an impact on Anthony Flew.

[Ken H.]

You're in love with the idea of no absolutes. That's your religion.

While David you were relying to Mr. Granberry, I would certainly pled guilty to that. To me the real problem with religions of the world is their presumption that we know anything at all as absolutes. In the whole scheme of things; the universe, space, time, and also the other direction - sub-atomic particles and beyond, it's arrogant beyond belief IMHO that we actually know much of anything.

 

I love the analogy of humans and God vs. house ants and Humans. To an ant we must truly be gods. We create everything the ants knows for their entire life. The ants can only experience, understand a tiny, tiny, part of what thier God has created. Indeed the scope of the ants’ god’s creation is vast beyond what the ants could even begin to grasp. And we can destroy the ant’s entire world in an instant, apparently in a whim. When we do the ants must truly wonder what they did wrong to piss off God. And all the ants likely try to determine what they might be able to do to keep God happy, maybe even worship us in their ant-like way. But the task is hopeless.

 

But yet ‘above’ the ants’ God there is supposedly a whole another ‘layer’ of god(s) that the ants’ god is trying to understand too. And its (our) task is equally hopeless and absurd.

 

If I when I die, I’m proved to be wrong, and get face to face with God, the first question I’m going to ask him (her?!) is, “Who do you believe created you and therefore you worship?” In effect; who/what is the ant’s god’s god’s God? I’m betting there’s a yet a whole another layer of “absolutes” beyond the scope of our God’s creation that is vast beyond what our God could even begin to grasp. Why would it be any other way? How can we presume there is some ‘stopping’ point just ‘above’ us? If God created everything, who created God?

[Pilgrim]

Seth said:

Whether there is intelligence involved or not is a more difficult question . . .

 

Now, that just closed the circuit in my head that leads to a possibly meaningless question that will maybe change the direction of this thread - if anyone should respond. David B or one of our deeper thinkers will likely give me a rap on the knuckles with a long ruler (at least in his head) for it.

 

At what point does our understanding of what constitutes "intelligence" become meaningless, or at best, inadequate? Going back to the ants that Ken H likes: they build successful societies and act in a directed manner, albeit they are communists at heart. The Commissar of All Ants might even think they're pretty darn smart. But we don't.

 

Pilgrim

[smiller]

At what point does our understanding of what constitutes "intelligence" become meaningless, or at best, inadequate?

Well, pretty quickly, but I used the word for want of a better way to describe something planned vs. totally random. But I'll raise you one... to what extent does it even matter whether such a non-random element exists? Meaning, if in our mere humanity we cannot possibly comprehend a meaning, what effect should any of this have on us with respect to our daily lives? How do you get from 'strong and weak nuclear forces happen to be just so' to 'Jesus Christ died for my sins' (or any other religious philosophy)?

[philbytx]

will someone start a political or football thread

[KMG_365]

will someone start a political or football thread

Sure! How about:

 

Was football or politics created on the eighth or ninth day and by whom? Please state your reasoning and independently verifiable proof. Ready? Go!

[smiller]

Was football or politics created on the eighth or ninth day and by whom?

Please, we haven't even settled on God's existence yet, let's not start with Satan...