Scorned for positive image...?

[moshe_levy]

...if we can elect a man named Hussein, we can elect an man named Moshe

I'm not so sure. It partly depends on whether Moshe is perceived as Jewish, agnostic, or an atheist (although I suspect that many people feel there is no difference between the last two). Despite recent anti-Muslim hysteria (and PLEASE don't take this as some sort of coded political reference, because it's NOT), I suspect that even a Muslim would have a better chance than an atheist for being elected.

 

Gallup Polls & Other Surveys on American Attitudes Towards Atheists

 

The results weren't much different in 2006, and are not likely to be today.

 

My point was more skeptical. It was that despite the fact that everyone running in hypothetical country ASU is Christian, that now the issue is that "some" Christians are "not Christian enough!" So Hussein vs. Moshe is not the issue. The chances of anything outside of a Christian being elected in this climate is the issue - hypothetically, of course!

[beemerman2k]

...if we can elect a man named Hussein, we can elect an man named Moshe

 

For the record, I feel I dropped the ball by not editing this post. While I like and argument with the point, we must not refer to politicians or political parties/ideologies in our threads.

 

I am constrained by my iPhone, so I have a tough time seeing all the posts in a thread. I miss some all the time. Frustrating.

[Ken H.]

A serious problem with most naturalists is that they seem to insist on starting from something rather than from nothing in their arguments. If the position posits a true "something from nothing" worldview, we must be honest and embrace "nothing" as the starting place in philosophical/meaning discussions as well. The practical problem is that you cannot do that. The reality of "personality" is a serious problem. Cogito ergo sum is more profound than even René Descartes could appreciate. Implicit in his proposal is that "I am" has meaning. In a purely time plus chance, plus nothing view this is precluded by definition - unless one gets "slippery" with definitions - which I find intellectually dishonest. A good portion of the time, among amateurs, this is not intentional - but due to a lack of "rigorous enough" critical thinking. Naturalists often speak as though they are not speaking from presuppositions about the nature of reality, that they are beginning at a proper beginning for their logic-chains. It is rarely the case.

Yes, the existence of “I”, the reality of personality, has implications. But where I don’t understand (but I’m listening) is where that gives evidence to one side of the creationism argument, something from nothing, or the other?

 

The naturalist hypotheses that time goes back indefinitely and never can reach a prior state of true nothing. The God believer hypotheses that his existence has been indefinitely until such time as something was created out of nothing. Including creating himself??? Neither position in my mind adequately explains the existence of "I think therefore I am."

[pbharvey]

To people of faith, its OK to reach a point of discovery and find out there is no suitable answer. And yes, to those issues I rely on something bigger than myself and my own understanding and determine that its OK to not have all the answers and rely on faith. To some that's a cop out; I get that. To the faithful, its mere recognition of a higher power. You may view this as a weakness while I view it as a strength.

So let me, if I may, rephrase this ever so slightly from the other point of view. And is it any less valid?

 

To people of no faith (as traditionally defined, as in faith in a singular all knowing all creating God), its OK to reach a point of discovery and find out there is no suitable answer. And yes, to those issues I rely on myself and acknowledge my own lack of understanding and determine that it’s OK to not have all the answers. To some that's a cop out; I get that. To the no faithful, its mere recognition of what we do not know. You may view this as a weakness while I view it as a strength.

 

 

Its not any less valid at all.

 

 

[Ken H.]

You're creeping into politics there Moshe...

 

Let's solve the God problem first, eh?

 

It's probably easier!

[pbharvey]

...if we can elect a man named Hussein, we can elect an man named Moshe

 

For the record, I feel I dropped the ball by not editing this post. While I like and argument with the point, we must not refer to politicians or political parties/ideologies in our threads.

 

I am constrained by my iPhone, so I have a tough time seeing all the posts in a thread. I miss some all the time. Frustrating.

 

 

Hmmm...sorry about that. A previous point was made about the likelihood of a person being elected who has a Jewish-sounding name (can I say that?). My point was that we already elected a person with a Muslim-sounding name. POTUS by his own account is a Christian so my point was that the religious tone of the name doesn't matter. Innocent banter.

[moshe_levy]

Yes, I apologize as well for straying and using POTUS' name. Innocent banter on my part as well.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

...if we can elect a man named Hussein, we can elect an man named Moshe

 

For the record, I feel I dropped the ball by not editing this post. While I like and argument with the point, we must not refer to politicians or political parties/ideologies in our threads.

 

I am constrained by my iPhone, so I have a tough time seeing all the posts in a thread. I miss some all the time. Frustrating.

 

 

Hmmm...sorry about that. A previous point was made about the likelihood of a person being elected who has a Jewish-sounding name (can I say that?). My point was that we already elected a person with a Muslim-sounding name. POTUS by his own account is a Christian so my point was that the religious tone of the name doesn't matter. Innocent banter.

 

Yes, I got that, and I took it as cute, harmless fun, not to mention a pretty good point (can I say that? )

 

I just wanted to call attention to it before we all get sloppy and start going off the deep end with the naming of political personalities.

[Couchrocket]

A serious problem with most naturalists is that they seem to insist on starting from something rather than from nothing in their arguments. If the position posits a true "something from nothing" worldview, we must be honest and embrace "nothing" as the starting place in philosophical/meaning discussions as well. The practical problem is that you cannot do that. The reality of "personality" is a serious problem. Cogito ergo sum is more profound than even René Descartes could appreciate. Implicit in his proposal is that "I am" has meaning. In a purely time plus chance, plus nothing view this is precluded by definition - unless one gets "slippery" with definitions - which I find intellectually dishonest. A good portion of the time, among amateurs, this is not intentional - but due to a lack of "rigorous enough" critical thinking. Naturalists often speak as though they are not speaking from presuppositions about the nature of reality, that they are beginning at a proper beginning for their logic-chains. It is rarely the case.

Yes, the existence of “I”, the reality of personality, has implications. But where I don’t understand (but I’m listening) is where that gives evidence to one side of the creationism argument, something from nothing, or the other?

 

The naturalist hypotheses that time goes back indefinitely and never can reach a prior state of true nothing. The God believer hypotheses that his existence has been indefinitely until such time as something was created out of nothing. Including creating himself??? Neither position in my mind adequately explains the existence of "I think therefore I am."

 

So, if I understand you, the nothing upon which the naturalist really stands is an infinite "something." Very interesting. I believe that your infinite "something" is in fact a possible cause for the genesis of our current state of observable space-time something. At least my view provides a possible foundation for the appearance of personality. The naturalist "nothing" i.e. (an infinite something) still clings to an a prioi assumption that his nothing-something is totally impersonal, albiet with no evidence to support that, while the evidence of personality all around us flies in the face of such an assertion. Somehow the logic of that position escapes me.

[beemerman2k]

If I might say just a word on faith.

 

The Biblical definition of faith is quite different than the definition that we use today. The idea of faith, which is closely associated with the idea of "knowing God", means simply this: you have experienced God's ways enough such that you feel you know his personality.

 

Imagine if we met every Tuesday for coffee at 9AM. Only I am always 20 minutes late. After a while, you'll expect me to be 20 minutes late! Why? Because you KNOW I will be late? No, you cannot possibly KNOW that until 9:20 and I show up. But you KNOW me, and therefore you have faith that I won't be here until 9:20! And sure enough, here I come on my trusty RT at 9:20 :smirk:

 

This is the kind of relationship with God the Bible speaks of. One of my favorite passages that describes this idea is Psalm 139. In this particular writing, Israel's King David (assuming he's the author) speaks of how well God knows him (verses 1-16). Great literature for sure! I can almost cite this Psalm from memory only because it was a favorite of mine for so long.

 

King David's response to his realization of God's thorough understanding of him, is for him to want to understand God just as intimately.

 

How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!...Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord?

 

King David yearns to know God, to understand God's personality as it were. The idea being that when he is in a situation where he feels he needs to trust in God's deliverance, he doesn't want to do so because some prophet told him to. No, he wants the peace that comes from being personally confident that there is a God, and that this God cares for him!

 

Because King David knows God, King David can have faith in God's personality very much like you can have faith that I'll be 20 minutes late for coffee! This is the consistent definition (when put to practical application) of the word "faith" in the Bible. It's not some idea that you just simply intellectually believe something absent of any real evidence. The evidence is ultimately found in relationship. As my preacher used to say:

 

I don't know what the future holds, but I do know who holds the future!

 

(What is it about black culture and rhymes? You know the Psalms weren't written by black people. It would amount to religious rap lyrics if we did )

 

Holy Lord I am in trouble. I need you here on the double. I'm not strong, my weapons are gone, and Israel is about to be reduced to rubble!

 

 

So you see this idea in many places in the Bible. When Israel is trapped between Pharaoh's army and the Red Sea, Moses tells them in advance not to worry and that God will deliver. King David does the same thing when he confronts Goliath. And of course, the Gospel accounts of Jesus life are filled with such examples.

 

All this is great and wonderful, but the problem is that today, we don't get to see God interact with us like they did back in those times -- assuming all that really happened as recorded (and I know that this is not a given in this thread, but I'm just sayin').

 

As I look around the world today, I find it very difficult to "know" God's personality. People are going through hell on a daily basis, so I know that there isn't some invisible force out there that's protecting anyone. Look at what the Syrians are having to endure these days.

 

King David writes:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.

 

So maybe this is that "personality" Scott has been trying to point to. Maybe, but to me, I have to consider all of creation! What does all of creation tell me about this Creator?

 

You have made men like fish in the sea, like sea creatures that have no ruler.

 

Ahhh, now that's much closer to the reality I see being lived out in this world. The powerful grow more powerful, and the weak get trampled on. The big fish swim freely while the little fish serve as food.

 

Anyhow, we've been tossing around this idea of "faith", and I wanted to say a word or two about it.

 

My second thought on the matter, which I don't have time to explore right now, is the fact that the Bible is full of evidence based arguments! They're everywhere!

 

A couple of my favorites are in John 5:36-47. Here, Jesus offers up 4 proofs that he is the Messiah. Can you name the 4 proofs?

 

Acts 2:14-36. The Apostle Peter presents 4 proofs that Jesus is the Messiah. Can you name the 4 proofs?

 

Of course, I have no idea how credible these arguments really are or even were. I'd have to refer you to Jewish scholars for the answer to that question as this entire situation is really a matter internal to Israel that only later became open to us non-Jews. Maybe Christianity is really Judaism for Gentiles?

 

There are countless such arguments where evidences are presented. I noticed that in the Old Testament, the story of Israel's deliverance from Egypt is a HUGE event that Moses and the prophets are constantly driving home as evidence that God is indeed with Israel. So my point is that apparently, evidence was pretty important to these Biblical figures as well.

 

Of course, the only problem is that how do we know, today, what if any of this material is true?

[moshe_levy]

How do we know it's true, eh?

 

Ever play "telephone" as a kid? One kid at the start of the class whispers something in the next kid's ear. The next kid is supposed to repeat it verbatim to the next kid, and so on all the way down the line. Inevitably once the 30th or whatever kid repeats the story, it's totally convoluted.

 

The Gospels were written how many years after Christ's death again?

 

And the New Testament actually picks and chooses among the gospels, leaving out the Gnostic Gospels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels which believe "that salvation lay not in merely worshipping Christ, but in psychic or pneumatic souls learning to free themselves from the material world via the revelation. According to this tradition, the answers to spiritual questions are to be found within, not without..."

 

Sounds familar to anyone who knows a thing or two about Zen Buddhism. Makes alot of sense, actually. Less faith in men - more introspection and mediation on knowing yourself and finding salvation from within. But curiously, totally ignored by the Church and the flock at large because it doesn't totally jive with the Gospels they chose to bolster their story.

 

Hmmmmmmm.....

 

-MKL

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Sounds familar to anyone who knows a thing or two about Zen Buddhism. Makes alot of sense, actually. Less faith in men - more introspection and mediation on knowing yourself and finding salvation from within.

 

Without delving into the why, this is the direction I have found myself heading in of late.

 

This might be a situation of "yin and yang", I don't know, but one thing is for sure, we (modern day religious community, of which Moshe is such a vital member ) have completely discounted the critical importance of the individual soul, the individual voice, the individual convictions. Instead, religion today seems to want sheep, people who will blend in, not people who will stand out based upon their own unique growth, insights, and discoveries.

 

In any case, when I say, "how do we know it's true", I don't mean from a doctrinal point of view, I mean from a, "did it actually happen" point of view. Did the stories of the Bible, either Testament, ever actually happen? If they did happen, if the miraculous events chronicled therein really did occur, that's something worthy of serious consideration. What it all means we can each figure out for ourselves, but it would clearly mean something!

[moshe_levy]

I'm not a Zen Buddhist, but I have learned about it through the study of martial arts, specifically Chinese Kung Fu. From what I have learned, it makes infinite sense on many levels. The emphasis on simplicity, on self reflection, and on the connectedness of everything makes sense to me. It seems quite difficult to take these concepts and use them as an excuse to justify violence toward others, as has been done with the Bible and Koran ad nauseum.

 

I also like the quotes I here in class, like "The hard road is the easy road, and the easy road is the hard road," and "Out of one there is many, and from many there are one." And most importantly, I've learned the value of meditation. This is probably THE hardest task I've ever tried in my life - stilling the mind purposely, for as long a period a time as you can. This is the opposite of praying where you're speaking to something or asking for something. This is "stopping," and using that skill in every day life has proven itself time and again.

 

I have not studied it in depth, but so far I have not seen or heard any of the emphasis on "Believe this, or else" so prevalent in other major religions today.

 

-MKL

[Selden]

...The Gospels were written how many years after Christ's death again?

 

And the New Testament actually picks and chooses among the gospels, leaving out the Gnostic Gospels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels which believe "that salvation lay not in merely worshipping Christ, but in psychic or pneumatic souls learning to free themselves from the material world via the revelation. According to this tradition, the answers to spiritual questions are to be found within, not without..."

Looked at from a historical, rather than a religious perspective, much of the New Testament is a political document, written to enable the survival of a small, struggling sect within a pagan Roman Empire. Why spend so much effort blaming the Jews, rather than the Romans for the crucifixion? The parts that were selected, rejected, and ultimately codified reflect this political need.

 

The same is true of the Qur'an. After Muhammad's death, his followers realized that most of his message resided in people's memories, or had been written down on scraps of bone, leather, wood, and would soon be lost. These were collected into codified into a canonical version, and the parts that didn't meet the needs of the caliphate were destroyed.

 

As is so often the case, the needs of (organized) religion and faith diverged.

[pbharvey]

I'm not a Zen Buddhist, but I have learned about it through the study of martial arts, specifically Chinese Kung Fu. From what I have learned, it makes infinite sense on many levels. The emphasis on simplicity, on self reflection, and on the connectedness of everything makes sense to me. It seems quite difficult to take these concepts and use them as an excuse to justify violence toward others, as has been done with the Bible and Koran ad nauseum.

 

I also like the quotes I here in class, like "The hard road is the easy road, and the easy road is the hard road," and "Out of one there is many, and from many there are one." And most importantly, I've learned the value of meditation. This is probably THE hardest task I've ever tried in my life - stilling the mind purposely, for as long a period a time as you can. This is the opposite of praying where you're speaking to something or asking for something. This is "stopping," and using that skill in every day life has proven itself time and again.

 

I have not studied it in depth, but so far I have not seen or heard any of the emphasis on "Believe this, or else" so prevalent in other major religions today.

 

-MKL

 

Some of the nicest people I know are Buddhists, or at least conduct themselves along the Buddhist line of thinking.

 

Ironic though that you've chosen to point out the softer side of Kung Fu and compare it to the violent side of religion.

 

I watched enough Kung Fu back in the 70's to know that right after he snatches the pebble from the master's hand, he knocks the bad guy into the next county.

 

The hard road/easy road quote you mentioned is similar to scripture "the last will be first, and the first will be last" and the out of one, many idea is quite similar to the concept of the trinity. Interesting.

 

As far as meditation, much of Christian prayer is introspective. There is a term, waiting on God, meaning listening in prayer rather than speaking.

 

A lot of emphasis here on the ugly side of organized religion and for us adherents its embarrassing and shameful. The bad side doesn't invalidate the good side though. Faith and religion are not the same thing.

 

Tim Tebow proclaims his faith, not his religion.

[beemerman2k]

Looked at from a historical, rather than a religious perspective, much of the New Testament is a political document, written to enable the survival of a small, struggling sect within a pagan Roman Empire. Why spend so much effort blaming the Jews, rather than the Romans for the crucifixion? The parts that were selected, rejected, and ultimately codified reflect this political need.

 

Absolutely this is true! You don't need to be a historian to see this reality. When I would read accounts of Jesus death and resurrection, especially in Johns account, there is this strange and obvious fixation in the role of Jesus countrymen in making things happen and in denying Jesus divinity.

 

I have often read those accounts and thought to myself, "OK, the Jewish leaders moved this forward, you've already established that fact several times now, so why are we still dwelling on this matter?". Clearly the material was written with an agenda in mind.

[moshe_levy]

I have often read those accounts and thought to myself, "OK, the Jewish leaders moved this forward, you've already established that fact several times now, so why are we still dwelling on this matter?". Clearly the material was written with an agenda in mind.

 

Nahhhh, couldn't be! But, after so many of the faithful read these same accounts and slaughtered non-believers en masse - convert or die! - they magically changed their mind about the whole account. I refer you again, as I did before, to "Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week," by Pope Benedict XVI. After 2,000 years of exactly the opposite message - and all of its intended circumstances (look up the word "Ghetto" for its origin - and that's the mild stuff!) - the Church now conveniently says, "Ooops, sorry. The Jews didn't do it. No less an authority than the Pope himself. But there's no politics here. None at all.

 

What are the consequences to the organization that ethnically cleansed non-believers now admitting after 2,000 years that the entire premise for doing so was false? Exactly nothing. Sound like justice to you?

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

Some of the nicest people I know are Buddhists, or at least conduct themselves along the Buddhist line of thinking.

 

Ironic though that you've chosen to point out the softer side of Kung Fu and compare it to the violent side of religion.

 

I watched enough Kung Fu back in the 70's to know that right after he snatches the pebble from the master's hand, he knocks the bad guy into the next county.

 

The hard road/easy road quote you mentioned is similar to scripture "the last will be first, and the first will be last" and the out of one, many idea is quite similar to the concept of the trinity. Interesting.

 

As far as meditation, much of Christian prayer is introspective. There is a term, waiting on God, meaning listening in prayer rather than speaking.

 

A lot of emphasis here on the ugly side of organized religion and for us adherents its embarrassing and shameful. The bad side doesn't invalidate the good side though. Faith and religion are not the same thing.

 

Tim Tebow proclaims his faith, not his religion.

 

I think we actually agree on much. Some of the characterization or comparison of the Buddhist sayings to Biblical to me aren't entirely accurate, but ultimately we see similarity and "more than one line around the racetrack" as it were. The culture of some eastern philosophies go back 5,000 years. More than twice as old as Christianity, and older than even Judaism. It is deep stuff - very interesting, no doubt.

 

So you see my point of view re Kung Fu, it is this, as I have been taught. Kung Fu literally translated means "hard effort over long periods of time." It is an art which literally takes a lifetime committment, and you ALWAYS feel like a beginner. It is always difficult, always challenging, and never lets up. Properly taught, you do not measure progress in less than decades. The polar opposite of Western "instant results / instant gratification" mentality. It is eye-opening, for sure, and refreshing.

 

The main lesson is never about the martial aspect (self defense). The main lesson is that constant feeling that if you got through one more Kung Fu lesson, you can get though anything, because it's HARD to do. So you take that outside the training hall, and apply it to real life. Any challenge you face, you remember back to the training hall when you gave it your best, and made it through. And you apply the same skill set - will, perseverance, and so on - to real life. You become a Kung Fu father, or worker, or writer, or whatever you're trying to become proficient at. That is the essence of true kung fu as I have been taught. Not kicking other people's asses. That is not part of the agenda, at all. It is about controlling your mind, so that you can control your body, so that both are in harmony.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

So what exactly was the intent of these New Testament writers? My thought is they simply wanted to discredit the Jewish leaders who had either knowledge or information that might otherwise compromise their Christian teachings. In other words, I wouldn't think their intent was to bring upon Israel the incredibly severe persecution and devastation their writings ultimately did inspire. Do you think their actions were carried out with exactly this kind of violence against their own countrymen in mind?

 

Sometimes I'll see quotes by Dr Martin Luther King, Jr or by Malcolm X chastising the black community for something. Now, imagine a foreign people using those quotes as a justification for the elimination of the race. Well, you can't blame King or X for that as clearly that is not what they had in mind when they spoke those words. Their words were spoken by blacks, to blacks, about an internal black matter.

 

Wasn't early Christianity little more than another Jewish sect? Aren't the Gospel writers wringing to their fellow Jews about internal Jewish matters? Did they really intend to bring the terrible consequences upon Israel when they wrote those words ?

[moshe_levy]

So what exactly was the intent of these New Testament writers? My thought is they simply wanted to discredit the Jewish leaders who had either knowledge or information that might otherwise compromise their Christian teachings. In other words, I wouldn't think their intent was to bring upon Israel the incredibly severe persecution and devastation their writings ultimately did inspire. Do you think their actions were carried out with exactly this kind of violence against their own countrymen in mind?

 

Sometimes I'll see quotes by Dr Martin Luther King, Jr or by Malcolm X chastising the black community for something. Now, imagine a foreign people using those quotes as a justification for the elimination of the race. Well, you can't blame King or X for that as clearly that is not what they had in mind when they spoke those words. Their words were spoken by blacks, to blacks, about an internal black matter.

 

Wasn't early Christianity little more than another Jewish sect? Aren't the Gospel writers wringing to their fellow Jews about internal Jewish matters? Did they really intend to bring the terrible consequences upon Israel when they wrote those words ?

 

What was meant and what actually happened may diverge. You're familiar with Constantine The Great? Christianity was a struggling, tiny little sect (that was itself persecuted and enslaved to some degree) until Constantine became openly Christian and "saw it as his duty to ensure that God was properly worshipped in his empire, and that what proper worship consisted would be determined by the Church . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great#Religious_policy This was an enormous turning point for the power of the Church itself. There is an EXCELLENT documentary by James Carroll, a former Catholic priest, on this historical keystone in Church evolution, called Constantine's Sword. See http://constantinessword.com/ Anyone interested in this should watch it. For the most part it's well done.

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

How do we know it's true, eh?

 

Ever play "telephone" as a kid? One kid at the start of the class whispers something in the next kid's ear. The next kid is supposed to repeat it verbatim to the next kid, and so on all the way down the line. Inevitably once the 30th or whatever kid repeats the story, it's totally convoluted.

 

The Gospels were written how many years after Christ's death again?

 

And the New Testament actually picks and chooses among the gospels, leaving out the Gnostic Gospels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels which believe "that salvation lay not in merely worshipping Christ, but in psychic or pneumatic souls learning to free themselves from the material world via the revelation. According to this tradition, the answers to spiritual questions are to be found within, not without..."

 

I need to respond to the above for the sake of clarity in this discussion.

 

Your first statement, “How do we know it’s true, eh?” (sic) is a reasonable one, and the logic of it is pretty plain to my way of thinking. As far as any religion / worldview / philosophy goes we pretty much can’t know with certainty that it is true (correct, mutually exclusively true, demonstrable scientifically, etc.). But you go on to support the “we can’t know it’s true” thrust of your argument with what amounts to uninformed blather common among folk who have not done their homework. I think your original statement is fine, and let me say at the outset that I agree 100% with that assertion on its own merits. “We can’t know with certainty that ‘it’ (fill in the blank with your world view) is true.”

 

OK, so how about the rest of the statement above, and why I would bother commenting upon it?

 

As an opener let me encourage you to look into the subject of textual criticism as it applies to ancient documents in general and therefore religious texts as part of that milieu. Much of what you’ve said shows a woeful lack of understanding of how all ancient texts are evaluated for their historicity and accuracy in relation to the original monographs. I’ll make a blanket statement here that I challenge you to refute. “The bible as we have it today is the best attested ancient document in the world of ancient documents. Its reliability (in terms of having certainty that it corresponds with the original monographs) is monolithically certain for the vast majority of the text. The portions of the text where there is variability and uncertainty comprise a startlingly small percentage of the total (something on the order of 1 percent), and none of those uncertainties impinge on any of the core content.” Let me state the obvious just to head off a normal response typical of those who don’t know anything about textual criticism. I’m not talking about “what you think about what was written,” I’m talking about “what” was actually written. I hope that makes sense. Many people who do understand that the bible is well attested and reliable in terms of its accuracy in relation to the originals, still reject its message. That’s fine, and that’s honest. But the oft bandied about criticism you offer above is just uninformed and borders on the silly.

 

First – the telephone analogy. Not a bad one actually, but if you had done your homework your analogy would have read something like the following, however: “Suppose you whispered something to a kid and he whispers (or in our case makes copies of the original message) that to other kids?” Here’s what you’d observe vis-à-vis the bible. Let’s not just have one kid whispering, let’s have many kids (starting in and around Jerusalem) whispering. And let’s not have them doing it in a single afternoon, let’s have them doing it for hundreds of years. Oh, and let’s not have them stay put, let’s have them each take copies of the “whisper” all over the known world. And when we get to these far flung places (eastern med, western med, northern Africa, etc.) let’s give that whisper-message to a lot of the locals in each of those places and have them make copies and send them all about their region. Wow, talk about an opportunity for the “telephone game” to produce “a totally convoluted” whisper! Dang… from a single whisper-message to multiple “separate copies” of that message going to different places widely separated not only geographically, but culturally, that now comprise a whole bunch of separate opportunities for the message to be compound-mangled. Makes your simple version of the telephone game look like a pretty safe bet by comparison.

 

Fast forward another few hundreds of years and have a bunch of people who are interested in “written whispers” start rummaging around all over that world and gathering up either copies of the whole whisper, or fragments of it. Let’s say they do this and end up with thousands and thousands of these fragments and a some really complete copies representing all the locations that the whisper-message spread to over the hundreds of years it got copy-whispered in all those places. What would you expect to find? A mess, right? No congruence at all, right? Wrong. This in fact is what is the case with the bible. Thousands of manuscripts from literally “all over the place” dated from within a few decades of what is believed to be the date of the monographs to hundreds of years “since.” And what is the result? They all say exactly the same thing with only around 1% of the text in question. There are good reasons why this is so, as amazing as it seems, and none of that is “magic.” It has to do with the importance placed upon the document-whispers being copied and safeguards that were put in place to assure accuracy. You can read about it if you care to do your homework. So much for the telephone game analogy. The bible we have today is accurate as to what was originally written. What you think about what was written is another matter, but you cannot dismiss the bible based upon doubts about what was written not being what the original writers intended to say. Period.

Most other ancient texts that no one seriously questions in the way you posited in your post don’t have anywhere near the manuscript and textual evidence to support them. And, the “oldest” of such manuscripts is often hundreds of years removed, not decades. And the numbers of manuscripts available for comparison brings a whole new meaning to the word paltry in comparison with the bible.

 

As to your comment regarding “picking and choosing” among the various writings that now comprise the bible. I’ll keep it short by encouraging you to read about how the canon of scripture came to be. In short, I’ll just say that the canon as we have it now was not “imposed” upon the bible, rather it is a reflection of what “was commonly already considered scripture” being finalized. This probably seems like a “non point” to you but if you study the subject, you’ll find that it is an important distinction.

 

You specifically cite Gnosticism to support your argument, but Gnosticism is a concept that predates the historical events of the New Testament, and was recognized as such when it began to creep into the early church. John’s first letter is, in fact, a rejection of Gnosticism and a warning to its readers to not let it create a syncretism and pervert the core message that had been delivered to them.

 

Now, I’m not arguing the merits of Gnostic thinking, I’m merely commenting upon the relevance of the Gnostic Gospels vis-à-vis the canon of scripture.

 

Finally, let me remind you that I’m not arguing with your implied argument about the “content” of the biblical message. It is fine and honest to look at it and decide that you don’t like what it says. That’s intellectually honest. To not consider its content based on “we can’t trust it to be an accurate representation of what was written” is nonsense, and dishonest (even if due to ignorance). To perpetuate that kind of ignorance is extremely unhelpful in an honest discussion of the subject.

 

I apologize to the OP, and to others whose eyes may have rolled back in their heads if they’ve bothered to read my whole response. Not usually a subject for this kind of discussion. I felt obliged to comment. There are good arguments to be made, laying legitimate charges against the perceived biblical world view. Some of those (e.g. the history of the church and some of the things done “in its name” over time and even today) have been well presented here. The reliability of scripture isn’t one of them.

 

[moshe_levy]

Scott, I must say, I'm impressed with your response and how thoroughly you laid out your case. I have done a fair share of reading on the subject, but do not consider myself an expert by any means. Re Gnostic what I have read lead me to believe that in fact they are as reliable a testimony as the gospels referenced in New Testament, and were just "left out" for political reasons (i.e., not buttressing the points of the gospels chosen, and in some cases contradicting them outright). This makes obvious political sense and is part of every talking point debate since time began, so I took it at face value. Perhaps that, in fact, is not correct.

 

In a few areas above you ask us (or maybe just me) to "do some homework." I'd ask you to kindly point us towards some books or articles where we can do just that. This subject is worthy of more study. And I thank you in advance if I pick up a thing or two in the process. Interesting post.

 

-MKL

[Selden]

I just finished reading Lost to the West : The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization. It's only 300 pages, which is light for this sort of work, and extremely readable, despite seemingly endless dynastic changes and some unusual names (Justinian II The Slit-Nosed; Constantine V The Dung-Named; Alexius V The Bushy-Eyebrowed). Given the time period covered, it deals with a lot of the history of pre-1000 Christianity, including the various schisms, reversals of doctrine, and interventions by emperors.

[Natche]

There are many people who are icons. Some are successful in their careers. Some are successful quietly. Others are flamboyant.

 

Here are my thoughts:

 

It is thought by some, that a lifestyle that is steeped in drugs and alcohol is NOT a good thing.

 

It is thought by some that a lifestyle committed to a "faith" or a "higher moral standard" CAN be a good thing.

 

While alive, most gave Whitney Houston a pass on her drug use. "After all, she's such a beautiful person and singer". And now in her death, ANGRY that any one should say that her drug useage was sad, or a matter of choice.

 

In contrast, when you have someone like (by example only) Tim Tebow who chooses to portray his faith, he is publicly villafied and scorned to his face... while still alive. No pass given. Where is the, "Hey, if that's his thing, I wish him success as a football player".

 

I know that not all people who pronounce "faith" are perfect, and indeed there have been, and will be, hippocrits.

 

But which do we long for? Do we personally long to be a sucessful singer drug addict? Or...would we wish for Whitney to be a good singer, and be strong in overcoming her addiction?

 

Would we wish to be a successful football player who has a faith? Would we wish that Tim Tebow be a good ball player and NOT fail in his faith?

 

----------

 

Friday night... I have a cold... and... was just thinkin'

 

 

I've been lurking on this thread for a couple days now and I can't help but notice how it's somehow morphed into a, "you can't prove God exists" thread. It seems the OP was really just trying to compare what seems to be a disconnect between our tolerance of two different types of behavior.

 

My take on the OP is this; we should give Whitney a pass as it is not for us to judge. At the same time, we can be sad for her that she has chosen/fallen into this trap (this assumes that most of us agree drug use is bad). We should also give Tim Tebow a pass if we don't agree with him, again, as it is not for us to judge. I believe, as a Christian, that we have no more right condemn Whitney than non-Christians have to condemn Tebow.

[Couchrocket]

Scott, I must say, I'm impressed with your response and how thoroughly you laid out your case. I have done a fair share of reading on the subject, but do not consider myself an expert by any means. Re Gnostic what I have read lead me to believe that in fact they are as reliable a testimony as the gospels referenced in New Testament, and were just "left out" for political reasons (i.e., not buttressing the points of the gospels chosen, and in some cases contradicting them outright). This makes obvious political sense and is part of every talking point debate since time began, so I took it at face value. Perhaps that, in fact, is not correct.

 

In a few areas above you ask us (or maybe just me) to "do some homework." I'd ask you to kindly point us towards some books or articles where we can do just that. This subject is worthy of more study. And I thank you in advance if I pick up a thing or two in the process. Interesting post.

 

-MKL

 

Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you took my evaluation in the light in which I intended it. I tend to shy away from discussions that degenerate into ad hominem, and while being plain speaking on my views, try to avoid "going there" myself. Unfortunately, much of my library is packed in boxes at the moment and I don't recall specific titles to which I could make reference. I'd be surprised if some net surfing doesn't turn up a range of material and perspective on the subject of both textual analysis in general, and reliability of the bible vis the plethora of mss available etc., more specifically.

 

As for the Gnostic materials, I don't disagree with your conclusion that they, too, are "reliable" in terms of what "was actually written." I've not studied that with any thoroughness, and I'd not be surprised to find that the number of available mss is orders of magnitude less than the established canon. Nevertheless, as with the majority of ancient literature, I'd also not be surprised to find that they pass muster in terms of "as written" reliability. As far as the "left out for political reasons" goes, while my perspective on that most likely comes from the opposite direction from yours - I think that the sense of it you have is correct on the brute facts. They were left out intentionally. But, from my perspective (as alluded to in my previous post) they were left out not for political reasons but for doctrinal reasons. The early church and its leaders (eye witnesses to history and at least one claim of special revelation) understood the core message. And like any other world view, the new one was subject to the same sorts of threats that come from the accretion that can happen as the new view is cross culturally propagated. As mentioned, the established canon was very much "established" before it was codified. And Gnosticism was excluded for doctrinal reasons - not political ones. I don't want to be accused of "preaching" here, but the issue of Gnosticism serves well to illustrate what I mean. One of the tenants of the core message of Christianity is the full humanity and the full deity of Jesus of Nazareth as God's messiah. Whether that's true or not isn't "provable" as per your original post - but that's not why I bring it up. I bring it up because this understanding of the nature of the person of Jesus is central to the core biblical message. Put in exaggerated short-hand, the early church believed (as does biblical Christianity today) that both the humanity and divinity of Jesus are "make or break" issues. His humanity made his substitutionary death "real in space and time" and his divinity is what makes that sacrifice have power to reconcile over merely human self-sacrifice. What Gnosticism brought to the table "specifically" toward the end of the 1st century and onward (though its philosophical structure preexisted) was a concept that did not see Jesus-the-person as divine. It posited (in its most common form) that there was a sort of "higher knowledge" or "divine principle" that came to Jesus at some point in his life - and that we could "tap into" too. His characteristics were not innate, in other words. The early church clearly recognized the danger in this as it relates to the core message. (John's first letter uses language such as "come in the flesh" as a litmus test of orthodxy, for example.) As such it was a heresy. If you follow that logic it is easy to see that those who liked the idea were clearly divergent and were bringing something new to the message. Whether this is good or bad is not the point. The point is that the church knew its core message and went to lengths to protect it because they honestly believed that the "content" of the message was important to a proper understanding of how man is to be reconciled to God.

 

If find it interesting to watch programming on the various cable channels that present the various literature that was excluded from the canon as "something new and startling" and imbue it with a sense that "somebody has been hiding the football" from those stupid Christians and if they only knew about this material they'd be shocked! It might make good television, but it is very poor history. In fact, throughout the history of the Christianity there have been a handful of what I'll call "known perspectives" that diverge in a critical way from the core message of scripture - that have come in various flavors and guises - that have been examined and rejected when they didn't measure up to the core message. Still happens today. What I think we're talking about here really is a matter of perspective. I often find myself laughing out loud at some of the ridiculous presentations. If one puts on the critical thinking cap it is even more laughable. I often find that when passages from extrabiblical material are read on these programs, they are read in very "pastoral tones" with very "religious sounding" music playing in the background. Don't you find that funny? You should.

 

OK, just for the record, let me say that I'm not passing judgment on the "content" of these alternative perspectives that would make the core message of scripture become a syncretism that fundamentally changes the message(in this line of reasoning, I certainly could and would do so if my desired aim was polemic). That's a completely different subject. I think it is fine, for example, if someone wants to start a movement that is, in fact, a blend of gnostic thinking and some of the principles of Christianity. They just shouldn't call it Christianity. For example, a lot of what passes for New Age thought is just such a syncretism and I think that philosophically that is fine and dandy because it does not make a claim of being a "corrected" version of biblical Christianity. The point of this is just to put an alternative perspective on the non-canon writings and the reasons they were excluded. It wasn't some sort of political conspiracy, it was well reasoned adherence to the core message "as delivered" to the early church.

 

[Couchrocket]

There are many people who are icons. Some are successful in their careers. Some are successful quietly. Others are flamboyant.

 

Here are my thoughts:

 

It is thought by some, that a lifestyle that is steeped in drugs and alcohol is NOT a good thing.

 

It is thought by some that a lifestyle committed to a "faith" or a "higher moral standard" CAN be a good thing.

 

While alive, most gave Whitney Houston a pass on her drug use. "After all, she's such a beautiful person and singer". And now in her death, ANGRY that any one should say that her drug useage was sad, or a matter of choice.

 

In contrast, when you have someone like (by example only) Tim Tebow who chooses to portray his faith, he is publicly villafied and scorned to his face... while still alive. No pass given. Where is the, "Hey, if that's his thing, I wish him success as a football player".

 

I know that not all people who pronounce "faith" are perfect, and indeed there have been, and will be, hippocrits.

 

But which do we long for? Do we personally long to be a sucessful singer drug addict? Or...would we wish for Whitney to be a good singer, and be strong in overcoming her addiction?

 

Would we wish to be a successful football player who has a faith? Would we wish that Tim Tebow be a good ball player and NOT fail in his faith?

 

----------

 

Friday night... I have a cold... and... was just thinkin'

 

 

I've been lurking on this thread for a couple days now and I can't help but notice how it's somehow morphed into a, "you can't prove God exists" thread. It seems the OP was really just trying to compare what seems to be a disconnect between our tolerance of two different types of behavior.

 

My take on the OP is this; we should give Whitney a pass as it is not for us to judge. At the same time, we can be sad for her that she has chosen/fallen into this trap (this assumes that most of us agree drug use is bad). We should also give Tim Tebow a pass if we don't agree with him, again, as it is not for us to judge. I believe, as a Christian, that we have no more right condemn Whitney than non-Christians have to condemn Tebow.

 

I agree. I think it demonstrates, though, the principle that theologian and philosopher Francis A. Schaeffer often verbalized. When it comes to issues/world views (it is world views after all that drive our conscious and unconscious evaluation of the original topic), that at the end of the day, "...there aren't many men in the room." Meaning, of course, that boiled down there are only a few fundamental options on the nature of reality. I tend to express that as the "time plus chance plus nothing" model, and a "an uncaused cause with personality" model. Gross simplifications no doubt, but worthwhile at a macro-macro level, I think. That's why a topic like this will often reduce itself to the underlying tension of polar opposite world views. And that's OK in my mind. The only thing I'd offer is to encourage you to substitute "condemn" in your statement with "evaluate." I agree that condemnation is pretty arrogant in both cases, but that an evaluation of both cases can be valid. The Tebow "issue" is more about the polarization of world views we find today (a reflection of a loss of consensus to a degree) and the resulting culture clash. I admire Tebow on the one hand, and can appreciate how he would irritate people on the other. I'll say this much, one of the great losses in our culture today as the consensus deteriorates is the concept of "tolerance" as it was once almost universally understood in our culture. Today PC demands on the one hand a kind of limitless pluralism while being completely intolerant of divergent views on the value of limitless pluralism. Odd. I think the original definition of tolerance as enumerated in the old saw, "I vehemently disagree with your view on this, but I'll defend your right to that view with my life" was a much wiser perspective.

[Dave McReynolds]

I'll say this much, one of the great losses in our culture today as the consensus deteriorates is the concept of "tolerance" as it was once almost universally understood in our culture.

 

Having grown up during the '50's, my perspective is that we've just substituted different forms of tolerance/intolerance for others.

 

Today, we're more apt to tolerate:

 

1. Racial differences

2. Cultural differences

3. Sexual differences

4. Less formal communication styles and more casual dress requirements in hierarchical structures

 

Today, we're less apt to tolerate:

 

1. Public religious displays

2. Compromise of core political or economic beliefs to achieve pragmatic objectives

3. Deviation from rules.

 

Or, to sum it up, we act more casually and accepting today than we did 50-60 years ago, but we have bound ourselves with a byzantine structure of rules and regulations that makes it more difficult to accomplish anything.

[ghaverkamp]

In actuality, the original premise was flawed.

 

No one was celebrating Whitney Houston for her problems. She was celebrated for her talents.

 

No one was castigating Tebow for his talents; more often than not, he was criticized for his lack thereof. He was castigated for what many considered overwrought religious pronouncements and borderline proselytizing.

 

If Whitney Houston was doing coke and getting drunk live on TV every Sunday, I imagine people would have been far more critical than anyone has been of Tebow.

[moshe_levy]

The point of this is just to put an alternative perspective on the non-canon writings and the reasons they were excluded. It wasn't some sort of political conspiracy, it was well reasoned adherence to the core message "as delivered" to the early church.

 

Scott, there is some wiggle room there re the argument of well reasoned adherence to message in that said message may clash with objective "truth" as was known at the time, or, at least, the (valid?) observations of others on the scene (sort of) as described in the Gnostic works. In other words, the injection of politics and related considerations. I'm not an expert, by any means. In your studies of the subject, have you any opinion on whether "the message" was to be so promoted in some historical cases (let's stick to the very earliest Church here)?

 

-MKL

[Whip]

Or, to sum it up, we act more casually and accepting today than we did 50-60 years ago, but we have bound ourselves with a byzantine structure of rules and regulations that makes it more difficult to accomplish anything.

 

 

No one has ever said it better.

 

[Huzband]

 

If Whitney Houston was doing coke and getting drunk live on TV every Sunday, I imagine people would have been far more critical than anyone has been of Tebow.

 

Oh, I dunno. No one seemed to mind when Dean Martin was doing it back in the sixties. Except for the coke thing.

[moshe_levy]

Or, to sum it up, we act more casually and accepting today than we did 50-60 years ago, but we have bound ourselves with a byzantine structure of rules and regulations that makes it more difficult to accomplish anything.

 

 

No one has ever said it better.

 

 

Now there's an interesting take. I dunno if I agree with it, though. From a purely social perspective, I would imagine a secular society has less rules and regulations than a religious one, wouldn't it? When I travel down south, I can't buy a drink in some states. I can here in New Jersey. I can't buy a Playboy. I can here in New Jersey. I can't shop on Sundays because the stores are closed. I can here in New Jersey. And so on...

 

Mind you I'm not defending New Jersey. I would NEVER do that. But it's generally speaking, a pretty secular "blue" state. So while we can debate whether we've gone farther with rules and regs over the past 50-60 years - and I can cite examples where we have gone too far, and others where we have not gone far enough - in the context of a discussion of religious vs. secular values, I would propose that in fact a secular society would be less restrictive, not more. As an extreme example, look at the social life of women in theocracies. Rules and regs? You betcha!

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

While I was mainly making a comparison over time, which I think is valid for both secular and non-secular states, I would challenge you to compare the rules & regs in NJ (or CA), with TX (mind you, I'm not defending TX. I would NEVER do that). It might be easier to get a joint or a drink in NJ or CA, but not to build a house or start a business or ride a motorcycle or pay taxes or carry a gun.

[Huzband]

Originally Posted By: Whip

Or, to sum it up, we act more casually and accepting today than we did 50-60 years ago, but we have bound ourselves with a byzantine structure of rules and regulations that makes it more difficult to accomplish anything.

 

 

No one has ever said it better.

 

Or worse. We, being the collective populace, do act more casually, but certainly not more accepting. Unless you fall into the liberal (mind set, not political) way of thinking. Meaning any & every thing is okay as long as you don't have a set of moral values. That's where the acceptance stops.

 

When I travel down south, I can't buy a drink in some states. I can here in New Jersey. I can't buy a Playboy. I can here in New Jersey. I can't shop on Sundays because the stores are closed. I can here in New Jersey. And so on..

 

Moshe, you paint "the south" with a mighty broad brush. Either your trips down here have been very limited, or you're just being cute. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

I was born & raised in Alabama. I grew up with blue laws, & as you will see here , they are not only less than exclusive to the south, they didn't originate here. Further, while blue laws may be prevalent in the south, they are not state wide, no matter the state. It's a states right issue, therefore it varies by county per state.

 

No charge for the education.

 

 

[Selden]

...As far as the "left out for political reasons" goes, while my perspective on that most likely comes from the opposite direction from yours - I think that the sense of it you have is correct on the brute facts. They were left out intentionally. But, from my perspective (as alluded to in my previous post) they were left out not for political reasons but for doctrinal reasons. The early church and its leaders (eye witnesses to history and at least one claim of special revelation) understood the core message. And like any other world view, the new one was subject to the same sorts of threats that come from the accretion that can happen as the new view is cross culturally propagated. As mentioned, the established canon was very much "established" before it was codified. And Gnosticism was excluded for doctrinal reasons - not political ones....

This has been a fascinating discussion, but I think you are postulating a greater separation between church and state than was actually the case. The two were inseparable, especially in the eastern parts of the Roman empire, where the core of Christian doctrine was hammered out over centuries.

 

This passage from Lost to the West relates to Arianism, not Gnosticism, but the political/theological issues are not dissimilar:

 

Announcing a great council, Constantine invited every bishop in the empire to attend, personally covering the cost of transportation and housing. When several hundred clerics had arrived at the Asian city of Nicaea, the emperor packed them into the main cathedral, and on May 20, 325, opened the proceedings with a dramatic plea for unity. Constantine wasn't particularly concerned with which side of the argument prevailed as long as there was a clear victor.... At first all went smoothly, but when it came time to write up a statement of belief, neither side seemed inclined to compromise, and the proceedings threatened to break down.

 

The main problem was that the proposed word used to describe Christ in Greek was homoiusios -- meaning "of like substance" with the Father. This was, of course, the Arian position that the two members of the trinity were similar but not equal, and the other bishops objected to it strenuously. Seeing that the Arians were clearly in the minority, Constantine turned against them and proposed a solution. Dropping an "i" he changed the word to homousios -- meaning "of one substance" with the Father. The Arians were upset with this ringing condemnation of their view, but with the emperor (and his soldiers) standing right there, they could hardly show their displeasure. The Arian bishops started to waver, and when Constantine assured them that equality with the Father could be interpreted in its "divine and mystical" sense, they bowed to the inevitable.... Arius was condemned, his books were burned, and Christian unity was restored....[pp.18-19]

 

The main problem was that a council -- even one as prestigious as Nicaea -- could establish doctrine, but it couldn't change the minds of the common men and women who made up the body of the church. Arius may have been branded a heretic by a group of bishops, but that did nothing to diminish his effectiveness as a speaker, and he found warm support throughout the East, where people continued to convert to his cause. His Egyptian congregation had been given a new bishop -- Athanasius, the fiery champion of the mainstream position -- but they continued to prefer Arius's sermons. If Constantine had stood firmly by the decisions of his own council of Nicaea, all would have been well. With strong leadership from the top, the Arian heresy would have withered away soon enough, but Constantine decided that public opinion had swung behind Arius, so he reversed his position, and condemned Athanasius. When the accused man came to Constantinople to plead his cause, the emperor was so impressed by his oratory that he reversed the ruling again and condemned Arius. By this time the citizens of Alexandria must have been suffering whiplash from wondering which of the two men was their bishop.

 

Things only got worse. Arius, doing his level best to ignore the fact that he had been deposed, started his own church, and an embarrassingly large number of Alexandrians soon supported him. Constantine responded by trying to tax them into obedience, announcing that any professed Arian would have much higher tax rates. This didn't seem to have much effect, and before long the Arian faction at court had talked the vacillating emperor into reversing himself once again. Athanasius, in what by now must have been a familiar drill, was deposed and sent into exile. [p.24]

This sort of thing went on for centuries, including the iconoclastic controversy, and variant wording of the Nicene Creed, which today exists in several slightly different versions (Greek, Latin, Armenian, Slavonic, etc.) To the outsider, these differences may seem "minor" (as in the single letter difference between homoiusios and homousios), but of such disagreements wars were born, and thousands killed.

 

Talk about topic drift! Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

[moshe_levy]

Danny, it not only varies by state, but by county! Bergen county in NJ where I grew up has blue laws for Sunday shopping. Here in central NJ, no such laws. I know whereof you speak and I do not mean to disparage the south where I was always treated well - just to point out some freedoms I enjoy here at home do not apply there. Dave is right in that some freedoms they have don't apply here. It is truly a mixed bag, but I'm pretty confident if you compare restrictions, you will see secular restrictions on an economic / environmental / safety nanny state type basis, whereas with relgion the restrictions are almost always social in nature. One "secular" hand of the state demands a hand into your wallet, while the other "religious" hand of the state demands intrusion into your bedroom and personal life. Many of us reject the idea of the latter more than the former, though there are obviously objections to both to be had, for sure!

 

We can argue about freedoms in Texas vs. CA and see that mixed bag emerge. But we cannot argue about freedoms in the USA vs., say, Iran. Or other theocracies, where the church and the state are one entity. Illustrating my point with extremes, I know, but it's a point that stands historically. I am not arguing that "anything goes" is the ideal - it is certainly not - merely stating that when religious edict is literally the law, it is often the most restrictive societal structures for average citizens to live in.**

 

**Caveat: Note for average citizens. The rulers in such societies, as usual, often enjoy wide latitude in governing themselves by the same laws they enforce upon everyone else. "Do as I say, not as I do!"

 

-MKL

[Rougarou]

I've lived all over the south and haven't seen the blue laws in effect in a few decades. From Florida to Virginia to Louisiana and all points in between, stores are open on Sundays with exception to many mom and pop operations and Chic-fil-A and those are choices, not laws.

 

Some towns, cities, counties vote to not sell booze before noon on Sundays, annoying, yes, but you can still buy the booze after noon. Some locations are completely dry, another annoyance, so you cross the town, city, county line to get it.

 

In Jersey, how hard is it for you hold a handgun in a store much less get one? In Jersey, how hard is it to pump your own fuel?

 

This isn't a better than type post, just showing that there are inconveniences in each section.

[Natche]

 

I agree. I think it demonstrates, though, the principle that theologian and philosopher Francis A. Schaeffer often verbalized. When it comes to issues/world views (it is world views after all that drive our conscious and unconscious evaluation of the original topic), that at the end of the day, "...there aren't many men in the room." Meaning, of course, that boiled down there are only a few fundamental options on the nature of reality. I tend to express that as the "time plus chance plus nothing" model, and a "an uncaused cause with personality" model. Gross simplifications no doubt, but worthwhile at a macro-macro level, I think. That's why a topic like this will often reduce itself to the underlying tension of polar opposite world views. And that's OK in my mind. The only thing I'd offer is to encourage you to substitute "condemn" in your statement with "evaluate." I agree that condemnation is pretty arrogant in both cases, but that an evaluation of both cases can be valid. The Tebow "issue" is more about the polarization of world views we find today (a reflection of a loss of consensus to a degree) and the resulting culture clash. I admire Tebow on the one hand, and can appreciate how he would irritate people on the other. I'll say this much, one of the great losses in our culture today as the consensus deteriorates is the concept of "tolerance" as it was once almost universally understood in our culture. Today PC demands on the one hand a kind of limitless pluralism while being completely intolerant of divergent views on the value of limitless pluralism. Odd. I think the original definition of tolerance as enumerated in the old saw, "I vehemently disagree with your view on this, but I'll defend your right to that view with my life" was a much wiser perspective.

 

After some thought, I'm not sure "condemn" or "evaluate" are necessarily the right words. Perhaps "judge" is more appropriate in the context of what I really meant. After all, when we make an evaluation, at some point we come to a conclusion of how we weigh in on a particular situation, resulting in a judgement, which I admit can be vastly different than a condemnation. Regardless, IMO, the end result is that we tend to elevate ourselves to a position above that which we disagree with and IMO, that is simply wrong. I use "we" collectively as I am no less culpable than anyone else. That is the flaw that I believe is inherent in the human form that I accept but nonetheless attempt to overcome.

[Natche]

Danny, it not only varies by state, but by county! Bergen county in NJ where I grew up has blue laws for Sunday shopping. Here in central NJ, no such laws. I know whereof you speak and I do not mean to disparage the south where I was always treated well - just to point out some freedoms I enjoy here at home do not apply there. Dave is right in that some freedoms they have don't apply here. It is truly a mixed bag, but I'm pretty confident if you compare restrictions, you will see secular restrictions on an economic / environmental / safety nanny state type basis, whereas with relgion the restrictions are almost always social in nature. One "secular" hand of the state demands a hand into your wallet, while the other "religious" hand of the state demands intrusion into your bedroom and personal life. Many of us reject the idea of the latter more than the former, though there are obviously objections to both to be had, for sure!

 

We can argue about freedoms in Texas vs. CA and see that mixed bag emerge. But we cannot argue about freedoms in the USA vs., say, Iran. Or other theocracies, where the church and the state are one entity. Illustrating my point with extremes, I know, but it's a point that stands historically. I am not arguing that "anything goes" is the ideal - it is certainly not - merely stating that when religious edict is literally the law, it is often the most restrictive societal structures for average citizens to live in.**

 

**Caveat: Note for average citizens. The rulers in such societies, as usual, often enjoy wide latitude in governing themselves by the same laws they enforce upon everyone else. "Do as I say, not as I do!"

 

-MKL

 

I grew up in NJ and we had blue laws in place until the early 70's in Central Jersey. I can remember going to Two Guys in Middletown on Sunday and they had the clothing areas roped off on Sunday but you could buy hard goods - TV's, records, etc. (I am dating myself ) In those days, what malls we had were closed.

[tallman]

 

And when I moved to Boston in the late '60's Blue Laws and discrimination against women was rampant.

Let's not hijack...

 

At least "in the South" one is more likely to hear please/thank you when going to buy booze on your way from church.

 

Scott,

Thanks for your thoughtful posts.

 

[beemerman2k]

At least "in the South" one is more likely to hear please/thank you when going to buy booze on your way from church.

 

This is a huge sore spot with me; I can't stand it that I go to purchase something and the clerk behaves as though they are doing me a favor rather than the other way around. No "please", no "thank you", no such common courtesy. Sometimes I call them on it.

 

I was at Targets recently and the young female clerk said, "$5, please".

 

I was shocked! I called my girls over and asked the clerk to repeat her words. Now she's shocked thinking she said something wrong! I explained to her how refreshing her approach to customer service is nowadays.

 

Scott,

Thanks for your thoughtful posts.

 

Absolutely! Brilliant minds on this forum for sure

[moshe_levy]

I fear my original point may be lost. In no way was I attacking the south. I have ridden through many southern states, perhaps even a majority of them. I have many great experiences going through there. And I can tell you war stories of ridiculous regulations in my blue state making my life hell, and the anithesis of southern freedom in some cases. My only point was to differentiate between the typical restrictions in a secular type society (economic / nanny state) vs. religious (social). It all comes down to what you're more comfy with, I guess.

 

-MKL

[hANNAbONE]

...gOODNESS, you folks still talkin'....wow-wuh

[Ken H.]

As an opener let me encourage you to look into the subject of textual criticism as it applies to ancient documents in general and therefore religious texts as part of that milieu.

I did also read it all Scott, and indeed it does (presuming your accuracy numbers (only 1%?)) make a case for the consistance of the Bible today vs. what was written some 2000+ years ago. In particular against James; ‘How do we know Jesus even existed?’ type queries.

 

Personally I’ve never questioned he existed. Or even that those that wrote the gospels truly believed what they saw. My question, well even stronger actually, my rejection is more at the core level of did what they thought they saw actually really happen? To me that’s where the whole argument of Christianity falls apart. E.g. why did he just cure one leper, why not them all? It’s back to the perfect God, perfect (uppercase) Son, perfect outcome paradox. Bottom line for me is Jesus was a heck of a good teacher on how we should lead our lives. One of a number of people thought recorded history with some darn good ideas. But nothing more.

 

ISFA what was taken out of the scriptures as we currently know them though, I think you’re giving those earlier church ‘editors’ a bit of a free pass. Laced with a bit of nativity that everyone in the church throughout its history has been motivated only by the desire to be ‘doctorial pure’ so to speak. That being said, not that anyone can blame them. When you’re trying to put together a theology, a case (for most anything for that matter), the normal tendency is to eliminate anything that runs counter to your position. But that in and of itself doesn’t make the leap to confirming ‘truth.’

 

[Couchrocket]

This has been a fascinating discussion, but I think you are postulating a greater separation between church and state than was actually the case. The two were inseparable, especially in the eastern parts of the Roman empire, where the core of Christian doctrine was hammered out over centuries.

 

Yes, undoubtedly true re separation of church and state. You're actually being "too kind" to my simplified view because there was ZERO separation of church and state as we know it today. My comments were in regard to primarily the first century church itself, and a "little bit" about the establishment of the canon in a formal way. These are core issues in my mind. They go toward what appear to be the main issues being discussed. There is no doubt that since about AD 350 and onward there has been ongoing debate about canon vis east vs west catholic (small c) churches. E.g. Apocrypha in or out? It is even broader than that when one pulls into the discussion the issue of primacy of scripture versus the primacy of the church and its leaders as the definition of "Christian" - but that's a HUGE subject in and of itself and not directly related to the question at hand as I see it. If anyone cares, I'm in the sola scriptura camp, and that admittedly drives me toward a 1st century understanding of canon based on principally "content" (doctrinal) of the core biblical message. One could argue that is a backward way to look at things, since what is in the canon could/would impact how one sees the "core message." But I think the balance of history is also important in our consideration and the earliest church leaders had a pretty good handle on the core message long before subsequent debates arose that centered around the primacy of scripture vs catholic (small c) concepts of the church arose. Hope that makes sense. In order to not have to do about 5 years of post-graduate work in church history and theology on the board here, I've been keeping it simple and sticking to the issues of "is what we have as written reliable vis what the original authors wrote" and (yet to be addressed based on James question) "what were the writers of the NT trying to say/do?"

 

I think it is fair to say, though, that the issue of separation of church and state vis the 1st and early 2nd century church is a "non-issue" in an important way. The very early church had no standing in the political arena other than being an irritant to both Jewish though (blasphemy!), and a thorn in Rome's side and subsequently a convenient scape-goat and entertainment for Rome's games. It was much later that "Big C" Christianity gained enough clout to become subsumed in the real politics of power. In my view, that was a bad thing for Christianity and led away from the core message in a way that produced all kinds of ugliness and usurpation of that message.

[Ken H.]

[..tend to express that as the "time plus chance plus nothing" model, and a "an uncaused cause with personality" model.

You’ve mentioned this a couple of times Scott, as an argument for the existence of a singular God, and earlier you said,

 

So, if I understand you, the nothing upon which the naturalist really stands is an infinite "something." Very interesting. I believe that your infinite "something" is in fact a possible cause for the genesis of our current state of observable space-time something. At least my view provides a possible foundation for the appearance of personality. The naturalist "nothing" i.e. (an infinite something) still clings to an a prioi assumption that his nothing-something is totally impersonal, albiet with no evidence to support that, while the evidence of personality all around us flies in the face of such an assertion. Somehow the logic of that position escapes me.

First I don’t think naturalist say, nothing is an infinite something, rather I think they say there is no such thing as “nothing.” The word has no meaning. It’s its own paradox. "Nothing" is absolute.

 

But that thin line/distinction aside, I think Cogito ergo sum is a valid subject to struggle with. But where I’m still stuck at is neither of the two core paths of belief re. 'where from' explain the existence of personality adequately. The logic of a god that existed before there was a something, i.e. existed in nothing, which by definition would include he himself not existing, escapes me.

 

Given both explanations fail miserably to explain Cogito ergo sum, I am forced to conclude that all we really know is that we really don’t know.

 

[pbharvey]

The logic of a god that existed before there was a something, i.e. existed in nothing, which by definition would include he himself not existing, escapes me.

 

Given both explanations fail miserably to explain Cogito ergo sum, I am forced to conclude that all we really know is that we really don’t know.

 

That's a common sticking point for a lot of folks. Here's how I view it. As I age and mature and gain more wisdom my logic changes. At one point in my life it was not illogical to me that Santa Claus brought me toys. I was perfectly happy believing it because it didn't violate anything I "knew", which wasn't much. Is it a safe, or at least logical, assumption that the knowledge we currently have about time, or space, or "the beginning" could be in the "I believe in Santa Claus" stage and at some point we will gain the knowledge to see things as they really are rather than as we perceive them to be?

The God factor is illogical to many largely because we try to measure "it" with what we know and we put our foot down and determine for ourselves that if we can't quantify it using what we "know" then, to us, its illogical.

 

The Bible addresses some of these mysteries in 1 Corinthians 13:

When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.

 

Faith is the bridge into that unknown area.

 

 

[Couchrocket]

[..tend to express that as the "time plus chance plus nothing" model, and a "an uncaused cause with personality" model.

You’ve mentioned this a couple of times Scott, as an argument for the existence of a singular God, and earlier you said,

 

So, if I understand you, the nothing upon which the naturalist really stands is an infinite "something." Very interesting. I believe that your infinite "something" is in fact a possible cause for the genesis of our current state of observable space-time something. At least my view provides a possible foundation for the appearance of personality. The naturalist "nothing" i.e. (an infinite something) still clings to an a prioi assumption that his nothing-something is totally impersonal, albiet with no evidence to support that, while the evidence of personality all around us flies in the face of such an assertion. Somehow the logic of that position escapes me.

First I don’t think naturalist say, nothing is an infinite something, rather I think they say there is no such thing as “nothing.” The word has no meaning. It’s its own paradox. "Nothing" is absolute.

 

But that thin line/distinction aside, I think Cogito ergo sum is a valid subject to struggle with. But where I’m still stuck at is neither of the two core paths of belief re. 'where from' explain the existence of personality adequately. The logic of a god that existed before there was a something, i.e. existed in nothing, which by definition would include he himself not existing, escapes me.

 

Given both explanations fail miserably to explain Cogito ergo sum, I am forced to conclude that all we really know is that we really don’t know.

 

Ken,

 

You've used a bit of circular reasoning here, but I think it actually well reflects your final sentence. As a philosopher (whose name slips my mind at the moment) once said, (paraphrase) "The real problem we have is that 'something' exists." And - much as I said to James - our not finding "personality" as something genuinely shocking and noteworthy is due in large part to the same sort of thing that makes fish think that water is rather unremarkable and unimportant. For naturalists to say that there has never been "nothing" is to really say that there is an infinite something. I mean that quite literally. And for that infinite something to produce "personality" is quite something! (pardon the really bad pun) So, I encourage you to not ultimately default to a "we really don't know" position as a sort of final word on the subject. What I would hope to see as we move forward scientifically is to not exclude from the range of possibility a real investigation into the nature of personality (consciousness + self-awareness + individuality in personality) and its relationship to physical reality just because it appears intangible at the moment. Perhaps our scientific tool kit is just not developed sufficiently. Certainly the "Observer effect" in quantum physics at least suggests the possibility that "awareness" / personality has an impact at the quantum level. I think that the world of "reality" is much larger than what the mere physical sciences have described "so far." And (try this one on for size - just for fun) if a mere "observer" has an impact on quantum level experiments, imagine what an impact a truly "infinte observer" might have on all of reality which rises from the quantum level?

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

our not finding "personality" as something genuinely shocking and noteworthy is due in large part to the same sort of thing that makes fish think that water is rather unremarkable and unimportant.

 

I think that the world of "reality" is much larger than what the mere physical sciences have described "so far."

 

The conceptual world of the mind absolutely has an effect on physical reality, and you don't have to go down to the quantum level of physics to notice it. We just tend to not notice it, as we are always swimming in the waters. But every time someone has a concept, whether it is a mental image of an alternate reality, an emotion such as love or hate, a reaction to music or art, or receives a communication from someone else, that concept causes a reaction in the physical world. The reaction may be as small as an increased heart rate, or as large as dropping an atomic bomb, but it is a change in the physical world that would not have occured absent the concept. This is not limited to humans, of course, as animals dream and scheme on their own levels, and then act on those dreams and schemes differently than they would act on different dreams and schemes.

 

These concepts have a physical manifestation in the electrical activity of the brain, but trying to decode the concepts from the electical activity would be a much more difficult task than trying to decode the operation of a bank by examining the components of the building in which it is located.

[Couchrocket]

The logic of a god that existed before there was a something, i.e. existed in nothing, which by definition would include he himself not existing, escapes me.

 

Given both explanations fail miserably to explain Cogito ergo sum, I am forced to conclude that all we really know is that we really don’t know.

 

That's a common sticking point for a lot of folks. Here's how I view it. As I age and mature and gain more wisdom my logic changes. At one point in my life it was not illogical to me that Santa Claus brought me toys. I was perfectly happy believing it because it didn't violate anything I "knew", which wasn't much. Is it a safe, or at least logical, assumption that the knowledge we currently have about time, or space, or "the beginning" could be in the "I believe in Santa Claus" stage and at some point we will gain the knowledge to see things as they really are rather than as we perceive them to be?

The God factor is illogical to many largely because we try to measure "it" with what we know and we put our foot down and determine for ourselves that if we can't quantify it using what we "know" then, to us, its illogical.

 

The Bible addresses some of these mysteries in 1 Corinthians 13:

When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.

 

Faith is the bridge into that unknown area.

 

 

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I'm biased!

 

But we need to be aware, and appreciate, that "internal evidence" isn't very satisfying and doesn't have much traction for those who hold the vessel that contains that evidence "suspect." That's why I tend to stick to making rational arguements for serious consideration of the reliability of "the vessel" itself, so that the content might then be considered on its merits. I've never thought that scripture demands a Kierkegaardian leap into "faith in faith." I think there is a rational approach that may ultimately lead to an "assurance of things not seen" as a reasonable proposition given the evidence.