Living on the other side of the world from most of you guys is a bit of a double edged sword... It gives me free time to make long well-considered responses, but every morning when I get up the conversation has always taken a bunch of unexpected turns!
...interesting things about the wand pictures...
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that clean-shaven and short-haired was the fashion of Roman gentlemen. And I read somewhere else that Jesus was often represented in the early church as being similar to Apollo (a golden haired magical youth). Heh, how's that for scholarly accuracy? "Er, I think I read somewhere..." :)
That IS very interesting that the representations are right beside each other. As you've probably noticed I'm not averse to making the odd wild guess, so maybe it's to do with dualism? I know that many of the gnostics and later groups who the church declared heretics (the Albigensians, the Cathars etc) believed that the world and matter itself was evil and that Jesus was a purely spiritual being who took on a fleshly disguise in order to save our souls from the prison of matter. They thought that having a body was repugnant to Jesus and he couldn't wait to get back to his true form, and that he was never truly human in any sense. Maybe the clean shaven dude is Jesus' true form and the bearded guy is his material form, and they are beside each other to illustrate that he was in disguise? What do you think?
----------complete subject change!----------------
I've been thinking about some of the stuff Grim and Kirth were saying, and I have to say that Grim's assessment of the "sombre happy ending" of Buddhism is pretty much how I feel too. I don't normally tell people this because they might think I'm some kind of nut but you guys might find it interesting so... the closest thing I have to a religion is Budo, the philosophy behind Japanese martial arts, which as Kirth will know is intimately tied to zen practice and confucianism.
I'd always had questions about catholicism and when I was 12 I started studying kenjutsu. My teacher taught me (among other things) zazen which I still practice sometimes, though I prefer the moving meditation of sword practice to seated contemplation. Anyway, pretty soon I had completely lost interest in religion and focussed all of my spiritual energy (for want of a better word) on martial arts. I was briefly interested in zen as a teenager but found that I only cared about the practices, not the philosophy or aims.
As I grew older I kept studying sword and then a year ago I started training in aikido with a respected teacher. He has inspired me to the knowledge (without actually saying a word) that Budo is a worthy substitute for religion, at least for me. He is 70 years old and is strong physically and mentally, and a man of discipline and principle. He seems like a much younger man and is quite capable of putting you on your arse with a turn of his wrist. I have learned from him the truth about myself: I am completely unconcerned with questions about gods, afterlives, karma, etc, and have been ever since kenjutsu gave me confidence as a 12 year old. I just didn't accept it until fairly recently. Practicing with my sword every day gives me a physical and spiritual discipline that I can always hone but never master. It gives a sort of purpose to my spiritual life, keeps me strong physically and mentally, and most of all keeps me calm.
Budo gives me a sense that I can deal with anything that life throws at me, and even with anything the afterlife throws at me. I feel completely confident that if I spend my life perfecting myself, treating myself and others with dignity and respect and quietly practicing Budo as a philosophy and a way of life, any god would be proud to have me in his afterlife, and if there are no gods and only a wheel of karma then next time I'll be closer to the end than this time. If the atheists are right and there is nothing (an eventuality I think would be not unexpected) then I'm cool with that too. I also feel that if none of those are the case and mevers is right, and I am damned for not flying the right flag then I'll just have to grin and bear it without complaint or worrying about whether or not it's "fair". That is what the way of the warrior is: You act with complete certainty and sincerity and if it's the wrong act then you are destroyed. I'm OK with that. That's my religion.
The point of all this is that Kirth mentioned Buddhism is like insurance. Obviously, so is Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. So is Budo. The feeling of calm and freedom it gives me to know that whatever happens I will either prevail or be destroyed is all the insurance I need.
Maybe the fundamental need that religion fills is not to give us an answer about what happens after we die and whether or not gods are real; I stopped caring about that the instant I picked up a sword for the first time as a boy. Maybe the purpose of it is to give us the feeling that no matter what happens we will get through it one way or another.
The closest thing I have to a religion is Budo, the philosophy behind Japanese martial arts, which as Kirth will know is intimately tied to zen practice and confucianism.
I'm forced to admit that I was a martial artist for many years before I studied Buddhism, and Zen in particular seemed like a natural extension of what I felt when I practiced the martial arts, once I finally encountered it.
It seems like people want to strip the Bible down to "accept Christ and be saved" when the gospel message seems to be "accept Christ and obey the commandments, and do these things, and don't do these things and be saved" It seems like a fair bit of what the Bible is about gets tossed out in the process.If your take is correct, I could accept (stomach?) it a lot better than the "join the club" view. It just makes sense that God wouldn't be so petty as to care for nothing at all except how many people sign his petition (or whatever).
This is also the view I was trying to promote, but obviously I was not clear enough.
All that matter is Following Jesus. Now following Jesus neccesarily involves living a life of obedience, the two go hand in hand. But following Jesus come FIRST, and THEN the good works follow, not the other way around. We are saved to do good works. Part of living out your new identity in Christ is to do good works.
Thanks Grimcleaver for making that much clearer than I did.
I'm honestly sorry to say that there seems no point in continuing our discussion, then. It's been civil enough, and I appreciate that a great deal, but it can apparently lead nowhere but in circles. You've stated an unwillingless to accept that I'm not some sort of degenerate subhuman, and I'm clearly not willing to convert to your viewpoint, so there you have it. For what it's worth, please accept my thanks for taking the time to reply, and to answer so carefully.
Yeah, we do seem to somewhat be going in circles, and I likewsie thankyou for the tone and manner you have conducted yourself in. My main goal was to try and explain what the Bible says about how and why we are saved, and to help people to understand that. It seems like people have understood it clearly, and I am not surprised that people find it offensive, it is.
But I am sorry you think I am calling you a degenerate subhuman. I am not doing that at all. I do not know you, but judging by your posts here, I would assume you are are quite a decent person. All I am saying is that you are wrong in not following God and serving Him.
Practicing with my sword every day gives me a physical and spiritual discipline that I can always hone but never master. It gives a sort of purpose to my spiritual life, keeps me strong physically and mentally, and most of all keeps me calm.
Thats what surfing does for me.
Cool I'm Zen
If I could make a stab at defining "supernatural" in a bit more helpful way it would probably be:
Events that are part of a higher organizational reality that we aren't familiar with or frequently exposed to that challenge our regularly assumed beliefs about the world.
Like particle physics?
Supernatural ideas like ghosts or UFO's don't point toward a strange non-world world where things exist beyond nature--they suggest facts so challenging to the day to day ideas of how the world operates that we would have to change basic assumptions in order to accomodate them.
As long as you accept that they can be proven or disproven by science, then we're on the same page.
It is in this sense that religious ideas are considered "supernatural". If God really did create the universe in six days and there really are angels and demons around, then we would have to seriously change a lot of our commonly accepted ideas about the world in order to accomodate all of that. Likewise if we are all shattered shard-avatars of Brahman--or if the continents are just seafoam stirred up by the warspear of a Kami being dipped into the ocean--or if the sun is actually a barque that a giant dragon tries to eat every night in a titanic battle.
These are all things that can be proven or disproven through empiricism and analysis. I believe in things that are sufficiently proven. You know why particle physics fits your definition of superstition above? Because the universe is freakin' amazing all by itself, we don't need to make up stories to make it more interesting (unless there's dice involved ;-) ).
I'm forced to admit that I was a martial artist for many years before I studied Buddhism, and Zen in particular seemed like a natural extension of what I felt when I practiced the martial arts, once I finally encountered it.
When I first heard about zen from my kendo teacher I bought some books about it, but as I said it only appealed to me to the extent that it made me a better martial artist. I learned though that many samurai approached zen the way I wanted to, as a method rather than a religion, and so do many modern bodoka. Maybe one day I will mature spiritually and actually become a buddhist the way you have, but I doubt it. I feel like I'm on my path now and it's up to me to make the most of it.
Funny, I often think the main reason I became so obsessed with self-defence and fighting was that the year before I started kendo (when I was 11) I was beaten up quite badly by half a dozen older kids for walking alone into "their" football field. I tried to fight them back but was overwhelmed. At the time I didn't connect the two, but now it seems so obvious why I became who I am. Since then I have been in several unfortunate situations where physical violence was involved and have always escaped unscathed.
If you look at it that way, my life is a microcosm of the law of karma. Something happened to me (I suffered), I changed myself in reaction to it (to try to avoid it happening again), and now who I am as a result of that suffering creates new karma for me. If I had just let that beating go like a proper Buddhist instead of giving in to the desire to avoid losing I would be closer to satori.
But I can understand why the Hindus and the samurai were so fatalistic now. I feel like events have decided who I am and I can't be someone else, I have to live with my karma. One thing I'm not strong enough to do yet is let go of my fear and stop worrying about getting that beating.
I just wanted to say earlier (but got sidetracked) that I've learned alot in this discussion about myself and others. Thank you everyone :)
These are all things that can be proven or disproven through empiricism and analysis. I believe in things that are sufficiently proven. You know why particle physics fits your definition of superstition above? Because the universe is freakin' amazing all by itself, we don't need to make up stories to make it more interesting (unless there's dice involved ;-) ).
Totally. I don't think any supernatural phenomenon has a leg to stand on if it flies contrary to the facts. The trouble with most such phenomena is that they are hard to sample and test.
People believe in aliens and angels, and both would stand up to medical examination and scrutiny if we could just get a hold of one, but the trouble is that these rare higher realities just don't intersect with our daily lives often enough to allow us to go take samples. Thus is the problem with supernatural stuff. Some of it may be true, some of it may be false, but it comes around so unpredictably that it's hard to really pin it down and find out what it is and really apply hard rational study to it. It's fleeting and largely based on the testimony of whoever happened to be around at the time.
I was actually thinking of non-Neutonian physics in part when I wrote my definition. The trouble I had with it was that it seemed like the people who first explored it as a science were establishment scientists, that they came up with the theory before the phenomena associated with it were noted. There was a paradigm shift as a result of it, but it was internalized from the day it was born.
If, on the other hand, some random kid had gotten hit with a string fragment and mutated into a freak, and this was going on inexplicably in different parts of the world, stories might begin to circulate about "String Theory" to explain these flying bits of unknown matter that hit folks and make them mutate--that would be more true to the model (as well as goofy and impossible...it's an example so shoot me.) Suddenly you would have this unexamined and rare phenomena that challenge the conventions which are either supressed or examined and either debunked or the root of huge conceptual change.
Funny, I often think the main reason I became so obsessed with self-defence and fighting was that the year before I started kendo (when I was 11) I was beaten up quite badly by half a dozen older kids for walking alone into "their" football field. I tried to fight them back but was overwhelmed. At the time I didn't connect the two, but now it seems so obvious why I became who I am.
Interesting... I'm wondering if I didn't come out a bit differently, belief-wise, from you for the sole reason that I was beaten a bit more often and from a younger age; we moved a lot, and somehow I was always the youngest and smallest kid at the bus stop. At 13 I began studying with a local contractor who also happened to be a pupil of Grandmaster Joon Hwan Parks, and I spent far more time and effort on those studies than I ever did in school, though I was an honor student, mostly to keep people from cutting into my training time. The first time anyone pointed a gun at me, I felt no fear at all; I would either live or I wouldn't. So, in that respect, the idea of releasing my consciousness into the great void is no big deal.
Don't get me wrong from the above admissions; I'm no kind of a "tough guy" or anything like that; I've been a librarian and a schoolteacher, two of the most stereotypically "wimpy" jobs you could imagine. I just proceeded naturally from constant fear to a religion of non-attachment and nonviolence and, some might claim, "fatalism." I wonder now if those with similar experiences have followed similar paths? Maybe our beliefs are shaped solely by our experiences, and have nothing to do with anything beyond that?
Following Jesus neccesarily involves living a life of obedience, the two go hand in hand. Thanks Grimcleaver for making that much clearer than I did.
That makes a lot of sense to me, now. Thanks for your patience; I've been slow in understanding. My own path emphasizes that one comes to enlightenment through good deeds, not the other way around, so it's no wonder your explanation was so hard to grasp!
But I am sorry you think I am calling you a degenerate subhuman. I am not doing that at all.
I understand that now. Indeed, I might have overstated that slightly, but I'm easily paranoid by my the ease with which some so-called "religious" people assume that because those of other religions (or atheists) follow Satan, those non-believers are therefore fair game to be beat up (on a small scale), marginalized and deprived of rights (on a national scale), or outright made war upon for no other reason (on an international scale). Note that I accuse you of none of these things; your posts have always demonstrated patience and restraint.
Good game everybody.
*lines up with his team outside the dugout and marches toward the opposition ready for some high fives*
Interesting... I'm wondering if I didn't come out a bit differently, belief-wise, from you for the sole reason that I was beaten a bit more often and from a younger age; we moved a lot, and somehow I was always the youngest and smallest kid at the bus stop. At 13 I began studying with a local contractor who also happened to be a pupil of Grandmaster Joon Hwan Parks, and I spent far more time and effort on those studies than I ever did in school, though I was an honor student, mostly to keep people from cutting into my training time. The first time anyone pointed a gun at me, I felt no fear at all; I would either live or I wouldn't. So, in that respect, the idea of releasing my consciousness into the great void is no big deal.
Maybe so. Or maybe you just have a higher WIS than I do!
My experience was a great shock to me, though as a child I of course wasn't conscious that it changed me. I had met bullies before but never anyone larger and older than me who really wanted to hurt me for no reason at all. This incident, interestingly enough, happened a month after we moved to a new city. I was out exploring the neighbourhood after school. Like I said I'd been pushed before/bullied a little at school (isn't everyone?) but nothing compared to what happened. I found out later one of the six kids who beat me was 16(!), and two of the others were 14. They left me lying in the field not able to move and the neighbour's kid found me and ran to get my parents. It was just so senseless and totally beyond anything in my previous experience.
Don't get me wrong from the above admissions; I'm no kind of a "tough guy" or anything like that; I've been a librarian and a schoolteacher, two of the most stereotypically "wimpy" jobs you could imagine. I just proceeded naturally from constant fear to a religion of non-attachment and nonviolence and, some might claim, "fatalism." I wonder now if those with similar experiences have followed similar paths? Maybe our beliefs are shaped solely by our experiences, and have nothing to do with anything beyond that?
Heh, I'm a librarian now...
I'm no tough guy either, and being in Australia I've never been near a gun. Though I have had the feeling you described when faced with knives, bats and fists. I have just learned how to survive violence one way or another, and I think approaching life from a budo standpoint is effective and valuable to me.
As to our beliefs being shaped by our experiences, isn't that what the Buddha noticed about samsara? You are who your experiences make you, and the only way to escape that is to not be attached to them, and therefore yourself. A course I did on Indian Metaphysics at university (sorry to sound like a broken record!) made an interesting point about the Buddha: In the context of his time he was an amateur philosopher. He was a kshatriya, a member of the hereditary warrior caste, not a Brahmin, and was raised as a warrior not a philosopher. He had some minimal training in the concepts of karma and yogic meditation techniques, but other than that he was self-taught. That is why many of the deep philosophical questions that were asked of him by Brahmins were met with the response: "That's not important." He was practical and unstoppable in the pursuit of his goal and had not time for speculations and metaphysics. No doubt he was beaten savagely as a child many times as part of his kshatriya training. So maybe you're right. Non-attachment and the defeat of fear could be the result of physical trauma in childhood, even in Siddartha Gotama.
I understand that now. Indeed, I might have overstated that slightly, but I'm easily paranoid by my the ease with which some so-called "religious" people assume that because those of other religions (or atheists) follow Satan, those non-believers are therefore fair game to be beat up (on a small scale), marginalized and deprived of rights (on a national scale), or outright made war upon for no other reason (on an international scale). Note that I accuse you of none of these things; your posts have always demonstrated patience and restraint.
I don't think there are many things that make me more annoyed than when "Christians" act this way. The Bible call on us to love everyone, even our enemies.
Having read a little of your experience in this thread, I can definently see why you are a little paranoid that those who disagree with your beliefs will also attack you.
Thank you for your patience as well. It has been quite interesting reading the information about Buddhism on this thread.
Like most "Eastern" religions, I find it very hard to wrap my head around as it comes at reality from a totally different perspective from Christianity, and most in the west.
Now, with someone like Ghandi, I can definently respect that he did a lot of good things in his life, mostly for others. Seems to have been a very virtuous and moral man. However, I think his world view was wrong. Does that mean I believe he should be persecuted? Of course not. But I do want the freedom to be able to say I think he is wrong, and why, and likewise allow responses that disagree with my statements. Does that help?That's fine. Just be prepared to hear me say that you worship a false god and its beyond absurd that you would judge others based on that criteria.
And I am more than happy for you to do just that. I am confident of the truth of Christianity, and therefore it's ability to stand on the stage of world ideas.
Which conflicts with the earlier response regarding the person not exposed to the bible. If it matters who you serve and not what you do, I guess that person's screwed.
As I said earlier in the thread, I am not sure what happens to those who have never heard the gospel. What I do know, is that God will be Just, and Righteous when he judges everyone, and this leads me to suggest that people will be judged by what they do with what they have the opportunity to know. More than that would be even more speculation.
Some might also wonder as to those who aren't capable of "correctly" interpreting the bible. I'm not very smart - what happens if I read the bible myself (a laughable accomplishment given my 5th grade reading level) and determine that all that vengence stuff in the old testament is the true message of God. So, being the faithful Christian I am, I go out and start killing heretics. I'm flying the old Jesus flag, do I get off?
Judging by your posts, you seem to be very smart Sebastian :) But even reading at a fifth grade level is enough to read the Bible and see that Jesus is Lord.
All the vengeance stuff in the Old Testament IS part of the true message of God. I am really not sure how to answer your question as I am not really sure of the point you are asking.
Those who are truly following Jesus will be following the words of Jesus who said "If anyone should come after me, he must deny himself and take his cross up daily, and follow me." This is what matters. Are you following Jesus or not. If you are going around killing "heretics" it would suggest to me you aren't following Jesus. But then, it isn't my role to judge, that is up to God.
What I do know is that God is faithful and merciful and gracious, and will forgive those who humbly seek him. And he will forgive you of ALL your sins, regardless of how bad they are.
Me too. I feel as though we should be entirely intolerant of a backwards cult that has perpetuated itself for two milenia and interferes with our lives, our well-being, and our happiness. My children shouldn't have to be taught fairy tales, whether they are written by the Brothers Grimm or Luke, John, and all those good old boys. I shouldn't have to tolerate tax breaks being given to organizations that perpetuate these myths. I shouldn't have to tolerate money from these cults interfering with our political process, resulting in decisions effecting my life based on the best selling work of fiction of all time.
I agree. We go too far in tolerating falsehoods in our culture, and in tolerating irrational nonsense that has no place in the modern world.
But, I could be wrong. Not having a magical book and special supernatural best friend, I'm forced to admit my human frailty. But believe me, tolerance is a virtue, and it can be very difficult for me to remember that when I read your posts.
I think this makes my point I was wanting to make about tolerance perfectly. You should have the freedom, and the right to make such a post mocking claims that go to the very heart of who I see as a person. That is not intolerance. We can disagree without being intolerant.
But becasue we disagree, that doesn't give wither of us the right to peronally attack each other, or opress, or pesecute each other simply becasue we disagree.
I think what I was trying to say is that we should tolerate PEOPLE, but we don't neccesaily need to tolerate IDEAS. And it seems as if these days people have difficulty seperating the two.
I think what I was trying to say is that we should tolerate PEOPLE, but we don't neccesaily need to tolerate IDEAS.
The problem is when there are two irreconcilable sets of ideas, and the people that believe each do their utmost to stamp out the other ideas as "false." When this happens historically, inevitably there is strife between individuals (early history of Islam in India; Sunni/Shi'ite strife in Iraq currently, to name just two examples). Unfortunately, most people are not as civilized as yourself, and it's a slippery slope between defining a group of people as inherently wrong, to believing they are evil, and ultimately believing it's your holy mission to wipe them out (witness the bombing of abortion clinics by those who sincerely believe they are carrying out God's work).
If you are going around killing "heretics" it would suggest to me you aren't following Jesus. But then, it isn't my role to judge, that is up to God.
As I've pointed out, there are inevitably those who interpret things in exactly the opposite way. And they feel that becuase God as *already* judged the "heretics" (based on reading that God smote people who acted or believed similarly), well, then it's only God's will to smite those people again. At least one of the bombers I've alluded to above went so far as to explain that he wasn't usurping God's "smiting duties," but rather that God was doing it through him--an obvious nutcase, to be sure, but with a well-thought-out philosophy dervied from his interpretation of the Bible.
But even reading at a fifth grade level is enough to read the Bible and see that Jesus is Lord.
The only flaw I can see in your reasoning here is that many people read it at way beyond the 5th grade level, and they don't see that Jesus is Lord at all. As one of them, I can attest that it's not a "denial of obvious truth," but rather an embracing of what seems obviously true to that reader. Just as some can read the same Bible you do and come out with the clear message that it's their just and sworn duty to stamp out secularism, with violence if necessary, others read it and find it to be false. There are no "obvious" interpretations, except to each individual who reads it.
How did I forget Stalin?! He professed to love "the People" as well, and to have intolerance only for their ideas. His "re-indoctrination centers" are, I think, exactly what the "tough love" evangelicals would build if they controlled the U.S. Obviously you, Mevers, would not agree with those methods. But many view them as the inescapable end-point of a refusal to tolerate any conflicting ideas (America's own Senator McCarthy was headed that way himself).
|
I'm going to change gears here a little bit...
Last night I saw a special "interview" on stem cell research on PBS. I'm not looking for any kind of moral debate here -- but there were a few things that I found interesting.
From my limited understanding of what is going on, here is a miracle that happens again and again under a microscope that no one truly understands and yet everyone generally accepts. From what I saw last night, it looks to me like many of the top scientific minds that are working on it don't ever really feel as though they will ever be able to scientifically explain it. Here is a "mass of cells" that are identical in every way and at some point "magic" happens and the cells change to specific cell types -- some become blood, hair, skin, muscle, nerves, etc. -- and yet all these different cells came from identical cells. All that it looks like is happening with scientists is that they are working on manipulating that "magic" to force the cells to transform into very specific cells of their desire. But as near as I can tell, they are only able to modify the process a bit. They can't seem to really understand why it does it, they can only force it (at best) to go specific ways.
I'm not saying that this "proves" God's existence, but it does feel like a "miracle" that has been and will continue to be observable.
I'm not saying that this "proves" God's existence, but it does feel like a "miracle" that has been and will continue to be observable.
Not if all research on it is banned, as is the goal of many who believe that the cutting off of funding is insufficient.
I just wanted to say earlier (but got sidetracked) that I've learned alot in this discussion about myself and others. Thank you everyone :)I'll jump on this as well. At the very least, I have learned a whole lot more about about my own faith as well. Thank you all.
I'll add a third voice to that chorus, of course.
|
|
I really didn't have the psychotic killer in mind. More the "bad" guy who prays and reads his scriptures all the time and really tries to repent and the "more bad" guy who is saved, but drinks and smokes and sleeps around and cheats on his taxes but relies entirely on the miracle of grace to save him.
I think that this is where there will be many surprised people at judgement day. Attempting to use the "flag" analogy (which I hate by the way) -- The way I see it, everyone has the flag to begin with. The Bible says that Christ died for ALL, not just for the Christians, the Jews, or any other specific group. So everyone has the "Jesus flag" to begin with. It is very possible that many people don't realize this or forget, but it is theoretically there at any rate. Everybody makes a decision about what to do with this flag at some point in their lives (please don't bring up the "untouched peoples" argument yet -- if I get time next week I will address this). With your second guy who is "saved" but drinks and smokes etc., personally I don't see that he is flying the "Jesus flag". He may think that he is, but whatever he is flying, it ain't it. At some point in his life he lost it and instead of asking God to find it again, he tried to make his own. He is really missing the whole repentance thing and is just looking for "fire insurance".
The Bible is fairly clear that you will know Christians by what they do. The Bible is also fairly clear that Christians are not Christians because of what they do.
It seems like people want to strip the Bible down to "accept Christ and be saved" when the gospel message seems to be "accept Christ and obey the commandments, and do these things, and don't do these things and be saved" It seems like a fair bit of what the Bible is about gets tossed out in the process.
A lot of the verses you gave are taken a bit out of context, but I understand the point that you are making. I feel that so much of the New Testament can be summed up in Ephesians 2:8-10. It basically says that God's grace can save us if we simply accept that gift. But it doesn't stop there. It says that because of the great gift we got, we should be continuing on the good work. So much else of the Bible, including many of the verses you gave give further definition as to what that means. While there do seem to be a lot of rules involved -- do this, don't do that, etc. -- more often than not these are things that people should be doing anyway. I see the gospel message as "accept Christ and be saved and now that you are saved by Christ, doesn't it make sense to be as Christ-like as possible?". If the person isn't being as "Christ-like as possible" then I question the "accept Christ" part.
I'm going to change gears here a little bit...
Last night I saw a special "interview" on stem cell research on PBS. I'm not looking for any kind of moral debate here -- but there were a few things that I found interesting.
From my limited understanding of what is going on, here is a miracle that happens again and again under a microscope that no one truly understands and yet everyone generally accepts. From what I saw last night, it looks to me like many of the top scientific minds that are working on it don't ever really feel as though they will ever be able to scientifically explain it. Here is a "mass of cells" that are identical in every way and at some point "magic" happens and the cells change to specific cell types -- some become blood, hair, skin, muscle, nerves, etc. -- and yet all these different cells came from identical cells. All that it looks like is happening with scientists is that they are working on manipulating that "magic" to force the cells to transform into very specific cells of their desire. But as near as I can tell, they are only able to modify the process a bit. They can't seem to really understand why it does it, they can only force it (at best) to go specific ways.
I'm not saying that this "proves" God's existence, but it does feel like a "miracle" that has been and will continue to be observable.
From what I udnerstand, there are special protiens that turn certain genes on or off depending on what the function of that cell is to be, which is determinded by its position in the embryo. I have no idea how this can be organized like that, or a great many other things that occur in the human body. I don't think even the scientists know. "Miracle" may be up for questioning, but it is a great mystery that shows that the more science explains, the more questions it leaves. (This is from the POV of someone who is greatly interested in science and puts great stock in its findings. It just seems that the more we know, the more we know how much we don't know.)
I'll add a third voice to that chorus, of course.I just wanted to say earlier (but got sidetracked) that I've learned alot in this discussion about myself and others. Thank you everyone :)I'll jump on this as well. At the very least, I have learned a whole lot more about about my own faith as well. Thank you all.
I also. I joined this thread mainly for the purpose of exploring my personal beliefs. It has been most helpful in this regard.
It just seems that the more we know, the more we know how much we don't know.
Which is far better than not knowing how much we don't know and not realizing that we don't know everything :)
People believe in aliens and angels, and both would stand up to medical examination and scrutiny if we could just get a hold of one, but the trouble is that these rare higher realities just don't intersect with our daily lives often enough to allow us to go take samples.
I think the prevelance of alien/angel encounters owes more to psychiatry than the paranormal. Indeed, I'd wager think these "higher realities" are internal rather than external; if they're omnipresent why are they detectable and if they're intermittent, where are they when their not here?
Thus is the problem with supernatural stuff. Some of it may be true, some of it may be false, but it comes around so unpredictably that it's hard to really pin it down and find out what it is and really apply hard rational study to it. It's fleeting and largely based on the testimony of whoever happened to be around at the time.
Yes, why is a scientist never around when these things happen? (Am I being socratic or sarcastic? I'm not sure anymore.)
I was actually thinking of non-Neutonian physics in part when I wrote my definition. The trouble I had with it was that it seemed like the people who first explored it as a science were establishment scientists, that they came up with the theory before the phenomena associated with it were noted. There was a paradigm shift as a result of it, but it was internalized from the day it was born.
Science is not a priori. The phenomena came before the theory. The theories were created to explain things Newtonian physics could not. As we discovered more of these "corner-cases" the theories (there are several) became more refined. We're still refining them and trying to integrate them. (But all this doesn't totally invalidate Newtonian physics; Einstein's gravity theory is more accurate in extreme conditions, but none of those conditions exist on earth, so unless you're a cosmologist, Newtonian physics is still you're best tool.)
It just seems that the more we know, the more we know how much we don't know.Which is far better than not knowing how much we don't know and not realizing that we don't know everything :)
In the immortal words of Donald "Ol' Rummy" Rumsfeld:
"There are known knowns- things we know we know. There are known unknowns- things we know we don't know. Finally, there are unknown unknowns- things we don't know we don't know."
In a later speech:
"Bin Laden is either alive and well, alive and unwell, or dead."
Finally, Mark Twain (later quoted by Al Gore) said:
"It ain't the things we don't know that hurt us. It's the things that we know for certain that just ain't so."
The point of all of my meandering is this:
Knowledge is relative. I don't know what that means, but it sounds important, so I'm going to roll with it.
The point of all of my meandering is this:
Knowledge is relative. I don't know what that means, but it sounds important, so I'm going to roll with it.
You may be wiser than you think--alien leader or not--Mr. Shiny. Please, never sell youself short again. Your "wisdom" actually is wise.
I think that this is where there will be many surprised people at judgement day. Attempting to use the "flag" analogy (which I hate by the way) -- The way I see it, everyone has the flag to begin with. The Bible says that Christ died for ALL, not just for the Christians, the Jews, or any other specific group. So everyone has the "Jesus flag" to begin with. It is very possible that many people don't realize this or forget, but it is theoretically there at any rate. Everybody makes a decision about what to do with this flag at some point in their lives (please don't bring up the "untouched peoples" argument yet -- if I get time next week I will address this). With your second guy who is "saved" but drinks and smokes etc., personally I don't see that he is flying the "Jesus flag". He may think that he is, but whatever he is flying, it ain't it. At some point in his life he lost it and instead of asking God to find it again, he tried to make his own. He is really missing the whole repentance thing and is just looking for "fire insurance".
Sorry you don't like the "flag" analogy. I admit that it is not really the best, it just grew out of my pirate analogy, (which incidentally came from a scripture seminar we did at the local public school). Feel free to change it if you like.
I am not sure if I agree with what you are saying here. Correct me if I am mistaken, but you seem to be implying that ALL are saved until they decide to opt out? But what about Romans 3:10-12?
As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
Which says that ALL have rejected God, and turned away from Him.
A lot of the verses you gave are taken a bit out of context, but I understand the point that you are making. I feel that so much of the New Testament can be summed up in Ephesians 2:8-10. It basically says that God's grace can save us if we simply accept that gift. But it doesn't stop there. It says that because of the great gift we got, we should be continuing on the good work. So much else of the Bible, including many of the verses you gave give further definition as to what that means. While there do seem to be a lot of rules involved -- do this, don't do that, etc. -- more often than not these are things that people should be doing anyway. I see the gospel message as "accept Christ and be saved and now that you are saved by Christ, doesn't it make sense to be as Christ-like as possible?". If the person isn't being as "Christ-like as possible" then I question the "accept Christ" part.
But here you are right 100%. It is like rescuing a person out of Septic Tank, and washing the sewerage and muck off them. It is plainly stupid for them to say thanks, and then turn around and jump back into the septic tank again.
We are saved from a life of sin to live holy and godly lives. Anything else is completely incompatible with our new life in Christ.
I just wanted to say earlier (but got sidetracked) that I've learned alot in this discussion about myself and others. Thank you everyone :)Yah. I might not post here, but this is some of the best reading I've had in a bit. Keep it up, guys!
I have posted only a little and I believe I can feel you Vattnisse. I think this is the board that I mostly visit.
What I would like to comment is that I see some of the gospels being mentioned here (all from the New Testament) and some other not to be mentioned. I understand that those others were not approved by Nicaea but I would like to ask and hear a comment about it, of why they were excluded as some of them come (perhaps?) from the students of Christ (one of them comes from Christ himself)?
Was there a rift among the Christians that should be mended or perhaps Christ was not actually crucified by the Jews or Romans but later from European power groups?
What I would like to comment is that I see some of the gospels being mentioned here (all from the New Testament) and some other not to be mentioned. I understand that those others were not approved by Nicaea but I would like to ask and hear a comment about it, of why they were excluded as some of them come (perhaps?) from the students of Christ (one of them comes from Christ himself)?
Was there a rift among the Christians that should be mended or perhaps Christ was not actually crucified by the Jews or Romans but later from European power groups?
OK, I have seen a few comments about the formation of the New Testament (NT) canon, and so I'll try to give a brief description of how it happened. But first a few points.
1. The church didn't "decide" the canon, but "approved" it (I think they are the technical terms). Basically the books in the NT are the word of God, becasue they are the word of God, not becasue of what some council said. The council merely agreed that they were so.
2. The purpose of the council at Nicea was not to put out an "approved" version of the Bible. They actually met to try and decide the truth of Jesus divinity.
3. Although I am reasonably up to speed on the whole issues, my reading of Church history is limited, and I am trusting what others (my pastors, good authors, lecturers etc) have told me.
4. I am NOT a historian (my background is engineering), nor am I claiming to be a historian, so I am out of my field so to speak. We have just started studying Church History these past couple of weeks, so ask me again in a few years, and I should be able to give you a better answer :)
OK, now on with the History lesson.
The books in the NT were written basically from 50 - 90 (or so) AD. Pauls letters were the first things written (from about 55 - 64 ish, when he was martyred). The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke / Acts)were written about 60 - 70, and Johns writings (Gospel, 1, 2 & 3 John, The revelation) were written towards the end of the century, revelation last, in about 90 AD or so (from exile on the island of Patmos). The other books were written across this time as well.
Very early on in the first century (we are talking 60s) Pauls letter were being collected into a corpus that were being copied and distributed to other churches for their reading. By the end of the century, these were joined by the gospels as well. So by the end of the 1st century, there was a core of 18 books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colosians, 1&2 Thessalonians, Titus, 1&2 Timothy and Philemon) that everyone (basically) accepted.
Over the next 200 years or so, mainly in response to heresy, the other 9 books (Hebrews, James, 1&2 Peter, 1,2&3 John, Jude and The Revelation) were likewise recognised. No admitedly, some, like 1 Peter and James (I think) were aproved widely and early, while others (especially Hebrews) took longer for widespread acceptance, but by the end of the fourth century, the canon as we know it was fixed in its current form.
This whole progress was very "organic," taking place simultaneously across the entire Christian church, and many areas developed strikingly similar lists of the canon basically independantly of each other. What the councils and Bishops did was not impose a list of accepted books on the church, but recognise the lists that had formed organically across the churches, and approve that they were right.
It is interesing that most of the NT (about 20 books or so) are quoted i nthe early Christian writers (1st and 2nd Century) as Scripture, while NONE of those books outside the canon are quoted with the same authority.
I hope that is helpful, and even though I reckon probabaly got some of the details wrong, I am confident the general process (The vibe if yo uwill) is as I outlined it above.
Ok I understand all that but I have an objection.
While nowadays it is certain that other students had also written books none of it made it into the NT and other books as you point so. If the words of the NT were proclaimed by the mouth of God Himself then I suppose that God spoke only to them and all the other students were forgotten. Did G~+ d!%ned them or what they herald wasn´t true? Can it be that some people did not like what the other men said? If man can be corrupted, can it be that what Nicea decide as true were part of the corruption of power. Even if there is a slight possibility of all this them imagine what is kept hidden and what it might reveal.
1. The church didn't "decide" the canon, but "approved" it (I think they are the technical terms). Basically the books in the NT are the word of God, becasue they are the word of God, not becasue of what some council said. The council merely agreed that they were so.
This gets to the root of why I don't understand a lot of Christianity. How is it that some people have secret knowledge of what God is thinking, whereas the rest of us don't? I've seen the Dead Sea Scrolls, and read the translations of some of the ones that weren't included in the Bible, and I saw no clear way to distinguish the "True Word of God" ones from the "false" ones (granted, I'm not a scholar, but I spoke with many such who also could answer only, "these ones are false because they weren't included," which sort of strikes me as circular reasoning). The only way around it is that somehow the Council was given special powers of discernment denied to the rest of us.
Likewise, when people explain that their faith is "obviously" the only true one, and that they know this because they read the Bible and the conclusion was inescapable, I always wonder why so many others like me have read the Bible and failed to receive this transcendent knowledge. If God really wanted everyone to serve Him and to be saved, wouldn't he have made it so that EVERYONE who reads the Bible comes to the same conclusion about Him, instead of just a handful? And for someone without the special knowledge: when others claim to have it, there's no way to discern which of them are telling the truth (if any) and which are lying.
|
|
Which says that ALL have rejected God, and turned away from Him.
What I said helps me get a handle on the whole babies dying (aborted or otherwise) problem as well as a few other things. Even what you said -- "have rejected" implies a decision that was made. While most of the time it might not be a conscious decision against God but rather God's nature and it seems (for better or worse) to be fairly hard coded in our nature to sin. I still think that what I said is fairly close -- everyone has the "flag" to begin with and everyone loses the "flag" at some point in their lives -- pretty much at the nebulous "age of accountability". Christians (in theory) are ones who went back to God and (rather sheepishly) say "remember that flag you gave me a while ago? I was wondering if you might help me find it again?" Again, it isn't the best analogy, but I think that it works.
I still think that what I said is fairly close -- everyone has the "flag" to begin with and everyone loses the "flag" at some point in their lives -- pretty much at the nebulous "age of accountability".
So you don't go for the whole "we're all damned because of Adam and Eve" argument? The idea of inheriting sin has always sort of bothered me.
|
|
This gets to the root of why I don't understand a lot of Christianity. How is it that some people have secret knowledge of what God is thinking, whereas the rest of us don't? I've seen the Dead Sea Scrolls, and read the translations of some of the ones that weren't included in the Bible, and I saw no clear way to distinguish the "True Word of God" ones from the "false" ones (granted, I'm not a scholar, but I spoke with many such who also could answer only, "these ones are false because they weren't included," which sort of strikes me as circular reasoning). The only way around it is that somehow the Council was given special powers of discernment denied to the rest of us.
As far as the dead sea scrolls -- I don't know a lot about it. As I understand it the additional scrolls include things like commentaries, paraphrases on the law, some songs, rules of conduct for the community, and some other somewhat related documents. As I understand it, the Old Testament canon was pretty well established well before Jesus got here. I believe that most (all?) of the Biblical texts found with the dead sea scrolls were of the Old Testament. And one of the biggest importances of the find had to do with comparing those texts to those we have today to see how little it changed.
As far as the history of how the New Testament canon was formed, I found this link --> here. For a "Christian propaganda" site, it really looks like it does a good job going over all the different processes and decisions that were made and it doesn't really say anything about "special powers".
Likewise, when people explain that their faith is "obviously" the only true one, and that they know this because they read the Bible and the conclusion was inescapable, I always wonder why so many others like me have read the Bible and failed to receive this transcendent knowledge. If God really wanted everyone to serve Him and to be saved, wouldn't he have made it so that EVERYONE who reads the Bible comes to the same conclusion about Him, instead of just a handful? And for someone without the special knowledge: when others claim to have it, there's no way to discern which of them are telling the truth (if any) and which are lying.
When you read the Bible, were you looking for a "conclusion"? I might be in the minority of Christians, but I don't feel that we should just assume that if someone is handed a Bible, then all answers will immediately become clear. Everything that I see in the Bible seems (to me) to point to Christianity being a relationship religion. People become Christians because of people. I don't think that the Bible is "obvious". (I remember talking about this before.) I don't feel that the Bible was meant to be "so that EVERYONE who reads the Bible..."
As far as discernment -- It seems to me that most people talk about how "Christians" should behave whether they are Christian or not. Are the humble about it? (good) Do they claim to have all the answers? (bad) Do they put more emphasis on themselves (bad) or God/Jesus (good)? It's not really rocket science. More specifically, if you want to, read First John (towards the back of the Bible -- around 5 pages long). This does a fairly good job summing up what being a Christian means. Compare what that says with people who "claim to have it" and see if it matches up.
|
|
So you don't go for the whole "we're all damned because of Adam and Eve" argument? The idea of inheriting sin has always sort of bothered me.
The more I looked into it the "more I know what I don't know". There is a verse that says something like "because one man's sin entered the world..." This was something that Paul said in Romans. His point in much of Romans is to hammer to people that -- we are sinners, we are condemned, we are going to hell, no one is worthy, blah, blah, blah -- AND -- there is still hope through Christ, Christ died for everyone to be saved, salvation is found through Christ, blah, blah, blah. The thing is that Paul didn't have any knowledge of DNA and genetics and there wasn't any reason to think that the Adam/Eve story wasn't as written. The point is that for whatever reason -- all throughout history -- every single human being has sinned. Forget about pointing fingers and trying to find fault -- it doesn't matter. All that matters is that we all sin and because of that one time that we got PO'd at that guy that totally cut us off -- !$#$%%$^& -- we don't deserve to be saved, but Christ covered that for us.
I guess that I will go ahead and post the long post I have been writing about the origin of the world...
As far as the history of how the New Testament canon was formed, I found this link --> here. For a "Christian propaganda" site, it really looks like it does a good job going over all the different processes and decisions that were made and it doesn't really say anything about "special powers".
True. Unless I misunderstand it, the conclusion seems to be that the church argued over whether various things should be included or not, and eventually just accepted whatever they had at that point and said, "this is official because this is what we have; it obviously self-authenticated." Neat trick, that, but in accord with "I know my religion is the only true one because if it weren't, then I wouldn't have come to the belief that it is."
The point is that for whatever reason -- all throughout history -- every single human being has sinned. Forget about pointing fingers and trying to find fault -- it doesn't matter. All that matters is that we all sin and because of that one time that we got PO'd at that guy that totally cut us off -- !$#$%%$^& -- we don't deserve to be saved, but Christ covered that for us.
Yeah, I like your take on it a lot better than most of what I hear. Your argument makes sense: that it's irrelevant if we inherited it, because we do it anyway.
|
|
Ok -- Wow. I feel like I should say that again -- Wow.
So I have been doing some of my own research. If there is one thing that I have learned in the last week or three is that I have started to gain an understanding of how much I don't really know. The whole evolution/Genesis/origin of the earth/etc. has really sparked an interest in me to learn more and the more I learn, the more I learn that what I am finding out is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
The following that I am about to write is probably as much or more for the Christians as it is for the atheists and other peoples out there. I really felt blind-sided by so much of this and I feel that it is important for others to know what is going on.
First, I would really like to apologize. I would like to apologize especially to erian_7 and Lady Aurora as I feel that I really represented the scientific side of Christianity rather poorly. I am still learning how poor my science education has been. In the future, I will do my best to do my due diligence and get things as accurate as possible, and for things that I don't know, I will try and pose it as a question rather than a statement.
I am a Christian. That really isn't ever going to change. But that doesn't mean that I have to be stupid about it. My biggest goal throughout all of this is to try and figure out how it all fits together. I don't think that I am there yet, but I do feel that I am getting closer. While it might seem a little wrong to continually modify the scriptures to what science is telling us at the time, I feel that it should be expected and that there isn't anything wrong with that. At the time, there wasn't any reason to believe that the earth revolved around the sun, there wasn't any reason to believe that the earth was round and there wasn't any reason to believe that Genesis 1 (and other passages) shouldn't be taken at face value -- now there is. Regardless of what science has told us, however, it still doesn't change the overall message of what the Bible is telling us.
So what is the Bible telling us? After looking at a lot of stuff, it really feels to me that much of the point of the Old Testament is to give us insight into the nature of God. Actually, much of the New Testament can be looked at the same way. The thing is that I feel that much of the New Testament can be taken literally, while the more research that I do, I feel that much of the Old Testament should probably be looked at with an open mind and people should be able to accept that while some things might be "fact" (people's names, places, general time frame perhaps) other things have probably been modified or exaggerated to make a point.
Let's look at a few examples --
I had mentioned of the possibility of an "Adam gene" that might prove that the human race descended from pretty much a single "Adam". My wife especially has been able to keep in touch with many of her friends from college (thank you Al Gore for creating the internet -- j/k). Many of her friends are in a number of scientific fields. One of them happens to be in genetics. Boy was I wrong. There is a lot of information here -- a lot of it is a bit beyond me. Even though this person is a Christian, I trust what he is telling me -- if for no other reason than he isn't telling me things that I "should" be expecting to hear. But I am glad that I have heard it because it (the Bible) is really starting to make a lot more sense to me.
As was explained to me (and I am probably getting something wrong in this regurgitation), the genetic "base" from which our species came from had to come from a MINIMUM of around 10 to 20 incredibly well chosen people. This being "well chosen" for the diversity of genetic material with no duplication of certain genes -- pretty much unrealistic in nature. Realistically, the "base" would have more likely been well over 100 people. In either case, this is still more than one or two, so something seems a bit off about the Genesis story.
So what is the point of Genesis 1? There seems to be a fair amount of evidence that (especially the first chapter of Genesis) was written in a poetic form and probably was never intended to be taken as scientifically literal word for word. I really think that the Western world has especially "forgotten" this and have tried to make sense of it otherwise. Here is a pretty good example of how Genesis 1 can be understood poetically here. Here is a story that was passed down through many, many generations before it reached even Moses. They most likely needed to keep it rather simple for ease of understanding and for ease of telling. There are a number of studies on the specific Hebrew words that are used in Genesis 1. One word of interest to me is one of the Hebrew words for "create" -- "bara". As near as I can tell, this has some divine significance and pretty much means "to divinely create from nothing". This word for "create" was used three times in Genesis 1 -- when God created the universe, when God created life, and when God created man "in His image" (whatever that means). I feel that that is the point of Genesis 1 -- that everything that exists, exists because God put it there -- whether by evolution, "magic", or something else, it's there because it is what God intended. It also tells me that humans were meant to be something more than animals.
What about the Adam and Eve story? Before I get too much into the Adam and Eve story, let's jump ahead to an issue that I have had for many years. After the Adam and Eve story, you have the Cain and Abel story. Most people have heard this -- Abel sacrificed the best and first fruits of his labor and Cain didn't and God looked "favorably" on Abel and Cain was jealous and killed Abel. As punishment, God banished Cain. Cain doesn't like his punishment and says to God in verse 14 of Genesis 4 (NASB) -- "Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." I have always had a problem with this. Who else is supposed to even be on the entire planet? You had 4 people and that number is now reduced to 3. Who's going to kill him? Also, a little later on, Cain gets married (to who if no one else is around?) and builds himself a city. This all seems to tell me that there were a lot more people on the earth than just Adam and Eve. So how does this all fit if there were a lot of people on the earth at the time? There are probably a number of things that it could be. It could be strictly allegorical. Something along the lines that God gave man (plural man or mankind) free will and with some influence from Satan, man chose to turn away from God. Another "option" could be that there was a very real Adam and Eve. The "tree" was still probably allegorical as was Satan being a snake, but there actually was an Adam and Eve and God set them apart from the rest of the world somehow. With the Hebrew's/Jew's interest and importance placed on genealogy and birthrights, this actually fits rather well.
Ok, so that is quite a long post just to hand out what some of the things I have learned the past couple of weeks have been. Here is a quick rundown of what I have learned --
DNA/Genetic evidence has pretty much determined that the human race did not come from 1 or 2 people.
There is little to no reason why Christians should not accept evolution as scientists have defined it.
There is little to no reason why evolution can't be seen as God's ultimate "plan" or "design". Of course this doesn't "prove" that God exists, nor does science "disprove" it.
There is very little reason why people should take Genesis 1 as a literal or scientific outline of how creation happened.
Humans seem to be pretty well set apart from any other animals -- even apes. Whether this is because of "natural" evolution or because of some "divine" reason, I don't know, but it does seem fairly significant.
And ultimately, none of this has any kind of direct impact on the divinity of God or the message of salvation.
Do I have all the answers yet? No. Will I? Probably not, but I hope to continue to get closer.
|
|
Neat trick, that, but in accord with "I know my religion is the only true one because if it weren't, then I wouldn't have come to the belief that it is."
I don't know if it was so much a "trick" as a feeling of necessity to make "official" what they already believed with other beliefs coming into play. I don't think that how the Bible was formed is "proof" that the Bible is the only "true" one. That (for better or worse) ultimately comes from faith. Not really a good answer but I don't think that there is a way to "prove" it in either case.
There is little to no reason why Christians should not accept evolution as scientists have defined it.
There is little to no reason why evolution can't be seen as God's ultimate "plan" or "design". Of course this doesn't "prove" that God exists, nor does science "disprove" it.
Right on. Although some scientists who are also Christians believe that evolution is so nifty (for lack of a better word) that it must be evidence of God at work, but a God who works subtly, "behind the scenes," so to speak, rather than blatantly.
And ultimately, none of this has any kind of direct impact on the divinity of God or the message of salvation.
I agree with you completely here, of course. I see no reason at all why science and religion need to be hostile to one another, and every reason in the world why they should compliment each other. All it takes is the courage on the part of the religion to accept the usefulness and beauty of a metaphor, and the acceptance that there are many things that fall outside the realm of science--specifically, anything that is not falsifiable/testable. Of course, I'm a scientist and a Buddhist, so I suppose I'm already sort of biased in that regard!
Your post has made my day, though. I'm always happy when other people also come to see that the need for strife is easily circumvented.
|
|
Your post has made my day, though.
Thanks. I've been avoiding sending it because it felt a bit "preachy" but figured that most of this was just myself processing "out loud". I also felt that it was important to let other Christians know that the earth actually goes around the sun and that it is 'ok'.
I think the prevelance of alien/angel encounters owes more to psychiatry than the paranormal. Indeed, I'd wager think these "higher realities" are internal rather than external; if they're omnipresent why are they detectable and if they're intermittent, where are they when their not here?
I think it's important to add that I'm no big advocate of the paranormal. I think it's mostly hokum too. Nonetheless I think the 'philosophy of science/knowledge' discussion here is really interesting. Supernatural stuff just happens to be the subject of the moment.
That said:
I would choose intermittent. Where they depends on the phenomena in question. Don't mistake "higher realities" for some kind of ephemeral la-la land. All I mean is that they are seldom encountered, but real and observable phenomena (or they're fiction, which is possible too). A space ship comes to earth by who-knows-what means, stops off here and then leaves, presumably far off into space. You can't examine the ship because it's--y'know--way off in space. Same with most such phenomena. They remain paranormal because they are intermittent and thus hard to study. An angel delivers a message, then a window of light opens and they fly back to heaven. So there's a door--and presumably thus you could investigate heaven. Of course this requires us to understand how a portal to heaven works and get it to open...
Yes, why is a scientist never around when these things happen? (Am I being socratic or sarcastic? I'm not sure anymore.)
Well I'll go for socratic. More fun that way. I'd argue that there's two reasons for this. First, because there's a relatively small sample of folks with the right scientific background and ready to analyse and document such phenomena when they occur. Second, there's a real and abiding scientific community which requires a lot of expensive time and schooling to be admitted into. A genuine scientist who devoted his reputation to such studies would quickly lose it and be reduced to crank status. Scientists are understandably loathe to do this, and so certain phenomena go unstudied by the serious minds qualified to do so. This creates a vacuum into which less serious and qualified minds flow.
Science is not a priori. The phenomena came before the theory.
Here I'd challenge you. While most undiscovered science is not a priori--that stuff got discovered pretty early--like "hey there's tubeworms down in this volcanic ocean trench!" (Still good science, but pretty basic.) A lot of science is creative endeavor and speculation within the facts. Einstein was big into the idea of creative thinking as the birthplace of good science. You have a wild idea, you expose it to critical review and emmerging phenomena, and you have science. So yeah, some science comes from within the scientific community from birth to acceptance without any real initial observations. Science can be messy stuff and doesn't always follow the precise method.
...With your second guy who is "saved" but drinks and smokes etc., personally I don't see that he is flying the "Jesus flag". He may think that he is, but whatever he is flying, it ain't it. At some point in his life he lost it and instead of asking God to find it again, he tried to make his own.
I would take this as the biblical view. This seems to suggest that one can be saved and then "lose" his salvation through sin and refusal to repent. Granted this is a perspective shared more by Mormons and Catholics than Protestants. It's not a popular view generally amongst Protestants--who tend to see the relationship with Jesus as paramount and immutable. They would likely argue you can't become "unsaved" by later wickedness, that once saved, always saved. The "Doctrine of Eternal Security".
A lot of the verses you gave are taken a bit out of context, but I understand the point that you are making.
Sorry. I'm pretty sensitive of context and really did my best to try and select my quotes carefully--though it's always hard. Anyway I did toss out quite a few that I felt were out of context myself. Hopefully at least you got where I was coming from.
I feel that so much of the New Testament can be summed up in Ephesians 2:8-10. It basically says that God's grace can save us if we simply accept that gift. But it doesn't stop there. It says that because of the great gift we got, we should be continuing on the good work. So much else of the Bible, including many of the verses you gave give further definition as to what that means. While there do seem to be a lot of rules involved -- do this, don't do that, etc. -- more often than not these are things that people should be doing anyway. I see the gospel message as "accept Christ and be saved and now that you are saved by Christ, doesn't it make sense to be as Christ-like as possible?". If the person isn't being as "Christ-like as possible" then I question the "accept Christ" part.
This, on the other hand, is a much more typically Protestant view--and oddly seems directly the opposite of your above statement. Here, God's grace saves if only we accept the gift--and all the works are fine and good and we should do them, but really don't affect our salvation in the long run. It seems from this argument that the effect of good works is entirely diagnostic--that if the person isn't sufficiently "Christlike" then it raises suspicion as to whether he's actually accepted Christ in the first place.
The trouble here, as I see it, is that accepting Christ is binary. You do or you don't. Life isn't binary, and is filled with changing ideas, turns and culdisacs. There are times in life that one is particularly righteous and times that one is particularly wicked. To say that at a high point in someone's life that they have accepted Christ, and then that at a wretched low point that they never did seems like waffling--not to mention a tad judgemental.
With the poor guy I mentioned above--the "more bad" guy. Let's assume that in his early teen years he was really active in church, went to all the retreats and all the activities. In the ecstasy of his worship he one day sat with a group of friends out in the forest, read the scriptures and spent the whole evening there in prayer with tears down their faces accepting Christ in prayer and taking his sacrifice and miraculous gift upon themselves.
Fast forward twenty years and he's the guy I described. He's make about as serious an acceptance of Christ of any person ever, but now his life stinks. Is he still saved, assuming he made the commitment all those years ago as a different person? Or has he turned in his "flag" and is now bound for hell?
In response to the link in Moff's long post:
I'm not surprised that the majority of the creation myth is shown to be jsut expressive poetry. If anything, I'd be surprised to find that any of the bible was not intended to be poetic as well as informative. As such, metaphor would be a major part of this (hence the common "that's not meant to be literal" explination/"cop-out"). All major religions use poetry and metaphor in their teachings pretty homogenously.
Also, it makes sense that the ancient Jews would describe things in a way that made sense to them. I have to say that the Adam and Eve story makes more sense than others.
I know that this post is entirely useless if you followed the link and/or read Moff's post all the way through. I'm just brain-dumping.
I also felt that it was important to let other Christians know that the earth actually goes around the sun and that it is 'ok'.
I can't help but feel like that's a higher level of faith, one in which you can allow for scientific phenomena, because you're aware that the theory of evolution, etc. can all be correct without your faith being affected at all. Also, I'd guess you don't feel the need to proselytize as much; you're probably confident enough in your own religion that you don't need the agreement of everyone around you as a crutch (nor do you have to bolster it by copping the now-popular "I'm Christian and in your face and unapologetic and I dare you to fight me" attitude).
As someone who is a Christian and also holds a dual degree in biology & chemistry, I often feel frustrated by the assumption that science and "religion" (really not my favorite word - I much prefer faith) have to be mutually exclusive or even hostile to one another. I love science - it's fun and fascinating. I acknowledge that science is a bit of a paradox - organized and chaotic at the same time. Science likes to follow rules and be organized, logical, etc. But Science also is constantly changing, sometimes dramatically and in abruptly opposite directions, when basic assumptions & "evidence" that was previously so certain is now revealed to be flawed. That doesn't make science any less valid or appreciated in my view, though it does make me wonder about those who throw out scientific "facts" with such confidence. There aren't really many (if any) absolutes in science. That's where my God comes in. My God is all about absolutes and I like that I can rely on Him to be stable and true and right. He never changes. But my understanding of Him is constantly changing (the paradox of chaos invades!). I, a mere mortal, do not understand everything about God, or His Word, or how to interpret His Word, or how He works, or any of that stuff. I'm constantly in exploration phase and experimental phase. Constantly trying to understand and figure the whole thing out. I'm fairly confident that I understand the really important basics but there's a host of details that make my head spin. Just because I can't explain everything doesn't make God less real (at least not to *me*). That's the beauty of it.
Now in response to the whole Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel thing. I think I've already set myself up on this thread as a biblical literalist so I thought I'd share my thoughts on this matter, if anyone is interested...
I agree with your point about the "purpose" of Genesis 1 being that God created everything. I'm willing to entertain the idea that Genesis was written in poetic terms but not if that procludes the stories from "really happening". My interpretation of Genesis 1 can be compared to the opening credits of most movies. While the initial credits are rolling the screen often just shows vague shapes which gradually gain definition and meaning. Maybe the opening shot is a landscape with a city, zoom in to a neighborhood, zoom in closer to a certain location, zoom in closer still to a featured character going about a certain task. Could the movie just start with a close-up of the character's face without all the preamble? Sure. But audiences gain a better perspective with the initial wide angle shot that then focuses on the details of a particular story. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Okay. The end. Isn't that telling us all we need to know? Sure. But then God kinda zooms in and in the following verses explains in a little better detail how He went about creating each major part of the project. Verse 27 says, "So God created man in his own image ...male and female he created them." Wait a minute! The Bible is talking about men and women (plural as evidenced by the word 'them') before even mentioning anything about Adam (or Eve for that matter). For the rest of Chapter 1 and the beginning of Chapter 2, God is talking to the people (who, I guess, shall remain nameless) and other details of creation are provided (like how God rested, blah, blah, blah). Then in Chapter 2 we learn about Adam being formed from dust and the realization that a female of the species was necessary :) This seems rather confusing unless the reader understands that this is a "zoom in" moment. The story of Adam and Eve is about the first two humans God created as detailed separately from the Genesis 1:27 when He created all people (the number is not specified). So all one must understand is that obviously, at some point after Adam & Eve were evicted from the Garden of Eden, God created a bunch of other people. So why do we care about Adam & Eve when we know basically nothing about everyone else? For two reasons. One, because Adam & Eve were the very first humans and thus have an honored status (we honor "firsts" in our modern culture too)' amd two, because the Isrealites trace their heritage from Adam. So the dilemna of who was going to kill Cain if his parents were the only other humans in existance problem is solved. The DNA/genetic research procludes human beings being descended from a single human problem is solved as well. Maybe there were 20 humans created in the first "generation" (or whatever the minimum needs to be); maybe God made 100 perfect specimens, maybe 1,000 or a million. The scripture isn't disproven by scientific evidence - just the common assumptions in its interpretation.
Either way, the message of Genesis is still the same (whether one thinks that message is presented literally or metaphorically) - God is large and in charge; always has been; always will be!
I've already set myself up on this thread as a biblical literalist so I thought I'd share my thoughts on this matter, if anyone is interested...
If you're going with a literal 24-hour creation day, and that dust swirled to form mankind, I'll have to say Moff's view leaves a lot more room for scientific discovery. A young earth contradicts any number of complimentary geological observations, as I've mentioned previously--I do have a geology degree. Not "facts," but testable data, the results of which support other, unrelated, data which are testable by totally separate means. I spout this with such confidence because I've seen a lot of this evidence; the only way to reconcile it with a young earth is if, as I've already mentioned, the idea of a cruel "trickster God," is correct... but Moff's view, on the other hand, allows for an old earth and a true Genesis account both.
Biology-- Again, I'm approaching this from a geological standpoint, which is where my personal observations and experience count the most (note the emphasis on observation and experience, and not on personal dogma--that's, as I'm sure you'll attest--best kept separate). There are distinct, major changes in the fossil record over time. There are what we call "index fossils," remains of species that existed only over a limited time scale, but were abundant, widespread geographically, and easily preserved as fossils. Most of these do not occupy the same time frame. One flood cannot account for their various extinctions. Again, Moff's view gives one the knowledge needed from an Old Testament standpoint-- that God can grow angry and smite people that totally turn away from him. But Moff's view also does not contradict the fossil record, and therefore does not involve a God who maliciously rearranges the earth and/or all our observations of it simply in order to "test" us.
Do you accept that the Earth actually orbits the Sun? That contradicts the literal language as well, but not the "big picture." If you accept that, why not be open to the possibility of an older earth, and of evolution (through natural selection or divinely guided change, either way) as God's plan, as (incompletely) described in Genesis?
A young earth contradicts any number of complimentary geological observations, as I've mentioned previously--I do have a geology degree.
There are distinct, major changes in the fossil record over time. There are what we call "index fossils," remains of species that existed only over a limited time scale, but were abundant, widespread geographically, and easily preserved as fossils. Most of these do not occupy the same time frame. One flood cannot account for their various extinctions.
Do you accept that the Earth actually orbits the Sun? That contradicts the literal language as well, but not the "big picture."
Gee,I gotta say... I'm mildly offended by your tone, Kirth. I do believe in a (relatively) young earth but if you'd be so kind, I would like to press the pause button on that issue for just this moment.
I never said that the fossils are evidence of huge extinctions caused by/during the flood - nor does the Bible say that. I'm not really sure where/why that theory became automatically attached to me.And of course I believe the Earth actually orbits the Sun! I'd like you to point out the verse that plainly says otherwise. There's a HUGE difference between what the church (and by this, I mostly mean the Roman Catholic church) puts forth as the official dogma, which is actually just a select few's personal interpretations of scriptures; and what the Bible actually says. These "man laws" as I like to call them cause a huge host of problems not the least of which is confusing believers and nonbelievers alike and implying that the Bible is inaccurate/unreliable. I've never had anyone present me with anything that directly contradicts what is plainly written in the Bible and not just contradictory of the manner in which we interpret the Bible.
I don't know if God created everything is six literal 24-hour days or some other distinct time frame; nor does scripture say so. The scripture speaks of "morning" & "evening" and the ordinal "day" but it uses these terms even before God created the sun and moon, which is how we currently measure a day so I certainly believe that allows for a wide latitude of measurement interpretations. I mean how do you have morning & evening when there's no sun? But I believe God spoke of creation in terms of "day"s for a reason. I don't claim to know what the reason is but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that it indicates, in the very least, a distinct and relatively short period of time. Since later, in the Moseic Law, the Isrealites were to honor the "Sabbath" as a representation of how God rested on the seventh day - it's hard to imagine God taking millions of years to "rest". Could God have done it in six literal days? Absolutely. Could He also have chosen to take billions of years? Sure. Could the answer be somewhere in the middle? I personally think so but it's pointless to argue about because no one can truly claim to know. Now, I don't personally believe it took millions or billions of years but I have no beef with those who do. And if I were "proven" wrong that wouldn't compromise the Bible's veracity one bit, since my beliefs on this particular issue are based purely on my own interpretation since the Bible isn't clear on this subject - it doesn't say 24 hour days (which it could've if God wanted it to, of course; and avoid this whole argument).